The Business Committee of Parliament basically schedules the business of Parliament, within Standing Orders, and has delegated authority to make decisions on various House matters. Because of that, it operates on a consensus basis – ie pretty much all parties agree.

A few interesting decisions today:

• Agreed, That the time by which the Commerce Committee must report the Regulatory Standards Bill be extended from Thursday, 28 February 2013 to Friday, 28 February 2014. – this indicates ACT’s bill is not fit to progress, but they don’t want it dumped either – playing for time.
  
• Agreed, That Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith make a valedictory statement at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 13 February 2013. Will be worth tuning into to. Lockwood has been an MP since 1984.
• Agreed, That that the sitting on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 be extended from 9.00 am to 1.00 pm on Thursday, 18 April 2013 for consideration of business to be agreed at a future meeting of the Business Committee. Interesting that so much advance notice is being given. A long way from the days when the Opposition would only be told or urgency the day it occured.
• Agreed, That, after questions for oral answer on Thursday, 18 April 2013 a debate on Pacific issues will be held. Now, this is unusual. Not often Parliament has a debate on a specific topic not related to a bill. I wonder who put this up.

Also in case you ever wondered how they allocate the questions for oral answer, the current schedule is here. There is also a schedule for general debate speeches.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

I’m not surprised.

There are some good people in NZ First. I’m no fan of Winston but some of his MPs are trying to be productive Representatives in Parliament. I’m sure they are cringing at the thought of having to explain to their friends and families how they are part of a party where an MP can refer to Muslims coming from Wogistan and calls on anyone who is “or looks like” a Muslim being banned from air travel if they are a young male.

The list MP went to ground yesterday after his remarks were widely publicised and provoked controversy. NZ First leader Winston Peters has refused to sack him and says he doesn’t have to apologise.

They should be equally angry at Winston. He has made it impossible for them to distance themselves from the views expressed, as not even the bare minimum of an apology has been given. They have no defence against people saying they are part of a party that effectively allows MPs to label some New Zealanders as wogs and that wogs shouldn’t be allowed on our planes.

A NZ First source said its MPs were furious and believed Mr Prosser “acted like a stupid idiot”.

Did no one in NZ First think to vet the column before publication. It is common in pretty much every party for columns to be go through the Leader’s Office in advance. You can’t allow an MP to claim they are a journalist and an MP, and what they write as a journalist is exempt.

And if I was in NZ First, I’d also be annoyed that the Leader knew about the column for three weeks and did nothing.

In a later interview he stood by his views and went on to say that an Israeli airline that bans Muslims is one of the world’s safest carriers.

Incidentally this is wrong. They do not ban Muslims. And having travelled to Israel let me tell you the security there is far more rigorous than merely losing a pocket knife as happened to Prosser. It took me over an hour to clear security – and you know I don’t “look like a Muslim” so the references to Israel are quite wrong.

“We are a mature party, we don’t go round telling people off. After a rational discussion he has changed his mind,” Mr Peters said. “. . . We can’t take it any further than that. He’s had a chance to reflect . . . he admits it was unbalanced.”

Rational?

The comments have gained some attention overseas, being well covered by Australian news organisations and turning up further afield in such publications as the Singapore-based Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia, Dubai-based Gulf News, and the UK edition of the Huffington Post.

I doubt there is another country on Earth where a legislator has actually seriously called for a travel ban on anyone who “looks likes a Muslim”, and is young and male.

UPDATE: The spin doctors have now got to Prosser and after saying he stands by what he wrote yesterday, he today said on Nine to Noon he regrets his choice of words (yet defends the use of the word wog!) and that he should have called for a debate on profiling, not a travel ban. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and what he now says he should have written.

He’s also trying to distract by saying my release of the story was part of a National strategy to cover up some (unidentified) other issue. Maybe he means the Papal abdication?

As I tweeted this morning, no one in National knew of my blog post before I made it. The only person who knew would be my flatmate after I showed him the article last night. You see, I only purchased a copy of Investigate on Monday afternoon, read the column with disbelief, and wrote my post that night timing it for 10 am Tuesday. So the conspiracy theory is just a desperate attempt to divert attention.

UPDATE 2: A very personal blog post from a Kiwi Muslim on what Prosser said.

I am a Bengali New Zealander. I am also a feminist, a bookworm, a foodie and a cinephile. Some days I have good taste in music and some days I have bad taste in music. I love the beach but hate getting sand everywhere. I speak several languages. I still get upset at the thought that Dumbledore dies. When I lived in Auckland, I thought of West Auckland as home. Now that I live in Wellington, I think of Auckland as home, and of Wellington as “my city,” whatever that means. I bake decent brownies (oh the irony).

Oh, yes, I am also a Muslim. …

Richard Prosser’s comments hurt because he’s saying I’m not a real New Zealander. I am an Other. I am suspect because I don’t, undoubtedly, look like his daughters. My little brother, now 20, studying a Bachelor of Commerce, with his terribly cheesy sense of humour and his kind, kind heart, who loves his sports and protein shakes but who I will partly always think of as that bossy toddler with chubby cheeks, is for no other reason than because Mr Prosser, from his position of power and privilege says so, not enough of a New Zealander. Because of only one thing, out of the many things that he is, because he is Muslim. Not enough of a New Zealander to deserve the minimum modicum of respect one would expect from an MP when talking about one of the citizens of this country, simply based on his faith, and, let’s be honest, the colour of his skin. Not enough of a New Zealander to get on his Western planes.

A very personal and moving post.

UPDATE3: The Radio NZ audio is embdedded below.

Sam Boyer at Stuff reports:

Drinking too much Coke helped kill mother of eight Natasha Harris, the coroner has found.

Harris drank up to 10 litres of Coke every day – equal to more than twice the recommended safe daily limit of caffeine and almost one kilogram of sugar.

She died aged 30, on February 25, 2010, from a cardiac arrest. Her partner, Christopher Hodgkinson, found her seated on the toilet, slumped against the wall and gasping for air.

Of course 10 litres of coke a day will kill you. So will 10 litres of water or orange juice probably.

10 litres of coke is over 4,000 calories a day – and that’s without any food!

Coca-Cola has argued that the huge quantities of Coke drunk daily by Harris day could not be proven to have contributed to her death.

But in findings released today, coroner David Crerar said Harris would not have died if it wasn’t for her dependence on Coke.

Coke have never said that drinking 10 litres of coke a day won’t harm you.  If you ate 10 kgs of lamb a day it wouldn’t be great for you – but lamb is not the problem.

What is sad is that no one got her help or intervened to stop her drinking 10 litres a day.

I note the Coroner said:

He recommended the Government consider imposing caffeine and sugar warnings on soft drinks, such as those already compulsory on energy drinks.

The Coroners want their recommendations to require an official Government inquiry and response. Not going to happen when they make so many daft recommendations. I don’t think we need a warning that you should not drink 10 litres of coke a day!

Joe Nunweek has blogged what is probably the most detailed critique of Seven Sharp. It’s a good read.

As I have blogged previously I have generally enjoyed the show. But there was one part this week that really made me groan. They had someone on for 5 to 10 minutes to give his view of how the entire banking system was a Ponzi scheme and that the Reserve Bank should just print more money or something (no it wasn’t Russel Norman – this guy made even Russel seem rational). Then at the end of the entirely unchallenged viewpoint:

“Now, we could have had any number of economists in to discuss the yin and the yang of what we’ve just seen, but we’d rather know what you think!”

Aaarrgh!

I’m all for viewer input and feedback but they are complementary for expert opinion – not a substitute for it. Especially in an area such as the financial and banking system. It was an appalling decision to not only refuse to have anyone to to put the other side of what the Social Credit type activist was claiming – but to actually boast of how they were not interested in having a well-informed discussion. If they had put on an economist on, then the viewer would have been in a better position to give feedback. Feedback is not a substitute for analysis.

To give credit to Greg Boyed, he did at least attempt to point out why the banking system is not a ponzi scheme.

Just published the monthly polling newsletter. The summary is:

January saw just two polls published – both Roy Morgan polls.

 The average of the public polls has National 14% ahead of Labour in January, 2% greater than in December. The seat projection is centre-right 57 seats, centre-left 61.

 Australia has divergent poll results with Roy Morgan having the Coalition 3% ahead and Newspoll 12% ahead. Newspoll also has Gillard’s approval rating dropping and Abbott’s rising.

 In the United States Barack Obama’s approval rating is at +10%, and the country direction is -22%. The generic congressional poll average has the Democrats 5% ahead of the Republicans.

 In the UK the Conservatives are 8% behind Labour, having gone up in the polls after announcing a future referendum on membership of the EU.

 In Canada the Conservatives are on 25%, NDP 30% and Liberals 22%.

 The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both.

 We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on Maori voters, Prince Charles, same sex marriage, euthanasia, housing affordability, The Hobbit, drink driving plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

The full  newsletter is only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Stuff reports:

Peters said this afternoon Prosser had made a mistake.

A mistake? It was a column! He wrote it. He says he stands by what he said. How can you claim it is a mistake!

He said he knew about the article three weeks ago, and told Prosser it wasn’t acceptable to present only one side of the argument.

“I’ve told him he cannot have a view that doesn’t have the balance in the other side of the argument.”

You think the lack of balance was the issue Winston? Not calling people wogs and saying people who look like wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes? The issue wasn’t balance. Columns are not meant to be balanced. They are meant though not to be racist.

Prosser wrote the column as a journalist, not as a NZ First MP, and the views expressed were not those of the party, Peters said.

Are you serious? He wrote it as a journalist, not as an MP? That’s your excuse for doing nothing.

He said a press statement was imminent from Prosser – but the MP had said he stood by his comments.

Barry Soper reported that Prosser had said he stands  by his comments.

Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser is technically Muslim (as he married a Muslim). If he was a bit younger, then according to Prosser he should be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Many interesting, outraged and humourous comments on Twitter under the Wogistan hashtag.

Jess Mutch from One News has tweeted:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

I would have thought that was an easy call for a Labour leader. But I guess he doesn’t want to upset a future coalition with Winston.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says there is an ‘element of truth’ in the column and he has not asked Mr Prosser to apologise.

Incredible.

The PM has said:

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Prosser’s comments were “an example of the depth of thinking coming out of New Zealand First”.

“It’s an appalling thing to say. It was premeditated. It was written in an opinion piece. It’s clearly what New Zealand First think of other New Zealanders but it’s a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

And others:

Asked whether the NZ First MP should have kept his comments to himself, Mr Harawira said: “It’s best that they’re actually expressed openly because when people hold views as extreme as that it’s best that we hear them.”

I agree. It’s good to know that at least one NZ First MP things wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes.

Act Party leader John Banks said the comments were “crazy” and “bizarre”.

“What can you say? I believe in good in all people, all races, all people.”

Asked whether there was a place for such extreme views in Parliament, Mr Banks said: “That is going to be tested by this member.”

United Future leader Peter Dunne also criticised the remarks on Twitter.

“It all reveals an ugly racist seam lurks just below the skin of too many people here – very uncomfortable,” he wrote.

We often call things racist too often. But in this case it is hard not to conclude it is racism when he writes of Wogistan and banning from travel anyone who “looks Muslim”.

Imagine how stable a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government would be!

UPDATE: Listen to Richard Prosser on radio here. Some quotes:

• it isn’t anything derogatory particularly
• I certainly think it is appropriate for me to be making those comments
• This is what we are here for – we are here to represent

Here to represent people who don’t like wogs.

Andrew Stone at the NZ Herald:

A leading human rights lawyer yesterday hit out at a decision banning a West Papua independence activist from speaking at Parliament.

Jennifer Robinson, a member of Julian Assange’s defence team, is in New Zealand briefly with Benny Wenda, a leader of the self-determination campaign for West Papua, which is under Indonesian control.

Is the right not to be raped not a human right? Is it a human right to flee justice rather than fight rape charges in court?

Not sure how you can be called a leading human rights lawyer, when you argue against alleged victims of rape being given a chance to have their case heard in court.

Note I am not saying Assange is guilty of rape. I am saying that he is not above the law, and should fight his case in court. It’s paranoid nonsense to suggest two hard core left-wing anti-US activist Swedish women are part of a plot to get him to the United States.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00 PM -3.00PM

Hamish Rutherford reports at Stuff:

Maurice Williamson is under pressure to stand down as Building and Construction Minister, because of his role as a director of a company associated with collapsed construction group Mainzeal.

Associated with! Sounds bad. Did Maurice make Mainzeal collapse? No the company is what is known as a supplier!

The National MP for Pakuranga is a director on Holyoake Industries, an air conditioning specialist which had worked on a number of projects with Mainzeal, which collapsed into receivership last week.

Yes. Companies work together on building sites. Plumbers and electricians work together. Architects and builders. Still yet to see what the issue is.

Labour Party deputy leader Grant Robertson said it was inappropriate for Williamson to hold the building portfolio while he was potentially making decisions concerning Mainzeal.

”He [Williamson] is the director of a company which has had a long and deep relationship with Mainzeal,” with projects the two companies had worked together on including the Supreme Court,” Robertson said.

”Our concern is that if he is making decisions about the future of Mainzeal, that may well have an effect on Holyoake industries.”

This is really desperate stuff. The Minister is not making decisions on the future of Mainzeal. The receivership is a matter for directors, shareholders and staff.

Labour and Green MPs have generally never worked in business. This allows them to claim any MP with any business interest is somehow conflicted. In their ideal world I guess no MP would have any business background.

Let us look at this issue. Grant Robertson is saying that it is possible that Maurice Williamson may make a decision on Mainzeal and that this theoretical decision could possibly have an effect on Holyoake and hence the Minister must resign his portfolio.

Are you serious?

In a statement Williamson said he had instructed officials that he would ”not receive papers on and would withdraw from discussions about heating and ventilation” because of his association with Holyoake Industries.

”I will continue to deal with issues related to Mainzeal, where that does not conflict with my declared personal interest.”

As is appropriate. But to claim that he can’t deal with any issue re Mainzeal because he is involved with a company that has done some work with Mainzeal is just ridiculous. It’s like saying if you are involved in a trucking business you can’t deal with any issues around supermarkets because they get their food delivered by truck.

A spokesman for prime minister John Key declined to comment other than to say it was ”not a story”.

Or shouldn’t be.

I would make the general point that I do think it is best for Ministers not to have outside directorships – for a number of reasons. But if you have them, you declare them and recuse yourself on issues affecting them – as Maurice has done. Calling for his resignation on the basis of he may make a decision on Mainzeal that may affect Holyoake is just silly politics.

UPDATE: This has just fizzled even more. PM has confirmed in the House that Holyoake is not a contractor or sub-contractor to Mainzeal. Basically they once worked on a couple of building sites together!

A few thoughts:

• Isn’t it amusing that when Helen Clark agreed to take some boat people who were seeking asylum in Australia she was lauded by the entire left for her humanitarian gesture yet when John Key agrees to do much the same, but annually, he is condemned by the exact same people. And yes, the Tampa refugees were treated as part of the quota also.
• How can one criticize this deal for encouraging queue-jumping yet also advocate that Australia should resume onshore processing which has been shown to massively encourage boat voyages and queue jumping.
• Personally I think there is a legitimate criticism that this deal may encourage queue-jumping, but probably not significantly enough to actually lead to a group of people deciding to make a boat voyage they otherwise would not have.
• There is a surprising lack of sophistication in understanding our relationship with Australia is not purely a transactional one. The decision by the NZ Government helps Julia Gillard (and any successor)  in what is arguably her most difficult domestic issue. That will not be forgotten.
• The notion that Australia bullied NZ into this is ridiculous. In fact as reported it was a NZ initiative
• What is surprising is the lack of focus on a centre-right NZ PM helping out a centre-left Australian PM. It’s a nice example of not letting domestic politics interfere with having a strong relationship.
• I’m surprised also no one has cottoned on to Gillard making an unprecedented early announcement of the election date, almost certainly being because Key the same thing in 2011.
• Personally I think taking in refugees is one of the better things a country can do, so long as they are able to integrate well into their new country and that the level is sustainable. Note that Australia takes in 20,000 to our 750. I’d like that to increase at some stage in the future when our economy is stronger. But I think it is best increased through the UNHCR process, not through increasing the number in the bilateral agreement with Australia
• You have to love Labour’s strong clear policy on this issue. They are outraged of course, but when asked what they would do, the answer is “Shearer said if elected, Labour would discuss the policy with Australia.” – you can’t make this stuff up.

Sue Neales at The Australian reports:

LAST year, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates gave $US10 million to British scientists to crack a problem he hoped might help solve the looming world food crisis.

Unusually, this time the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was met with howls of outrage from left-leaning politicians and environmental groups that previously had welcomed its efforts to eradicate malaria and alleviate global poverty and hunger.

The reason? The Gates Foundation had dared to suggest that if British scientists could transfer the genes that give some root bacteria the ability to produce nitrogen from soil and air into wheat, corn or rice plants, it might help feed the nine billion people who will inhabit the planet by 2050.

How evil. They want to feed the planet.

Success would potentially allow wheat, rice, corn and other global food staples to be grown in even the poorest soils of Africa, Asia and South America without the need for costly fertilisers, greatly expanding world food production.

The potential is enormous.

Greenpeace Australia’s sustainable agriculture adviser Richard Widows immediately called the donation misplaced. He accused the Gates Foundation of feeding not the world but the profits of its biggest biotech and chemical conglomerates.

One can have a company make a profit, and help feed the poor. But the real sin is that the use of science conflicts with the near religious devotion some people have against science such as genetics.

“It’s the precautionary principle: that where the results of a new technology are still unknown, or where there is a lack of scientific knowledge or consensus regarding its safety, it’s smarter not to use it,” Greenpeace exhorts.

If one applied the precautionary principle the way Greenpeace does, we’d still think the world was flat as no one would have sailed too far in case they go off the edge.

It was this attitude towards GM crops that prompted two Greenpeace activists in July 2011 to climb over a fence at CSIRO’s plant research centre in Canberra and whipper-snip an entire trial plot of pioneering new wheat varieties bred using genetic engineering techniques.

The destroyed wheat plants had been genetically enhanced using a naturally occurring barley gene to modify starch and fibre levels and enhance nutritional value and human bowel health.

By accident, some genetic changes had also produced a wheat variety that has since taken the agricultural world by storm, promising growth and grain production 30 per cent higher than normal yields.

This is what they are trying to stop!

But while such anti-GM rhetoric was commonplace in the 1990s when the use of novel gene technology by the scientific community exploded, there are signs its ferocity is waning. Early this month, a British environmentalist, Mark Lynas, one of the first leaders of the anti-GM movement in the mid-90s, regretfully admitted to a farming conference in England that he had been wrong.

How long will we have to wait to hear the same here? I won’t hold my breath.

Lynas, a leading author on climate change issues, said he had slowly realised it was inconsistent with his reliance on evidence-based science and scientific knowledge to argue that climate change is a reality while simultaneously leading an inherently “anti-science” movement that demonised genetic modification of crops.

A point I often make. You can’t claim to be on the side of science for climate change and demonise science when it comes to fracking and GM.

Lynas told the conference this month that GM crops such as cotton, corn, soybeans and canola growing in the Americas and Australia had resulted in less pesticide and chemical use, reduced the costs of inputs to farmers, cut water usage and boosted food production.

And with three trillion meals containing food derived from GM-bred plants in 29 countries eaten in the past 15 years without one substantiated case of harm, Lynas is now certain it is safe.

Those who still cry out about the precautionary principle are just putting religious belief ahead of science.

I blogged yesterday about the Greenpeace report that claimed all these economic benefits of New Zealand becoming 100% renewable and carbon free energy, and somehow was taken seriously despite not even calculating the costs of what they propose.

Someone said that there is no need for them to calculate the costs as they are environmental organisation, not an economic organisation. Now that would be true if their report was solely about the environmental benefits of implementing their policies. But this report is all about the economic benefits of their proposed policies. And to ignore costs when talking economic policies is just nuts. It’s like doing a report on the health system and ignoring the mortality rate.

Peter McCaffrey facebooked a good analogy:

In other news, my highly technical report which I’ve commissioned tells me that if the government provided every single New Zealander with their own personal satellite we could have the best Internet access in the world.

I have made a deliberate choice not to research the costs of such a program because the aim of the report is to spark a discussion rather than getting too bogged down in the numbers.

I’d like my own satellite and using Greenpeace logic it would be great for the economy if we all had own own satellites. Think of all the jobs it would create.

Now personally I am a fan of renewable energy and think it is a major part of our future. In fact it is a major part of our present also. But there is a difference between direction and absolutism. Now we do have some ideas of what the costs of the policies proposed might be, from the Greens’ own website:

Nikki Kaye: What advice has the Minister received on the statement by those who are promoting a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 that a 100 percent renewable electricity supply is easily achievable by 2020?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that that would require, first, the writing-off of $4.5 billion of thermal generation assets. It would also require $11 billion for the replacement capacity of 2,500 megawatts, and $2 billion for additional renewable peaking stations needed to ensure security of supply in a dry year. This amounts to a total capital cost of $17.5 billion, excluding the additional transmission investment that would be required, and this would amount to a 30 percent increase in the power price for all consumers. Going 100 percent renewable would also require the equivalent of another seven Clyde Dams to be built by 2020. I do not describe $17.5 billion, a 30 percent power price increase, and seven Clyde Dams as being easy.

So just this aspect would cost $17.5 billion, increase power prices by 30% and require seven new Clyde Dams in the next seven years!

That will require those printing presses to really be working overtime.

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has a column in Investigate Magazine. In his latest column he refers to certain people as coming from “Wogistan” and also declares that no young male who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or is from a Muslim country should be able to fly on a Western airline.

It is worth realising that these are not comments made off the cuff in an interview. A New Zealand Member of Parliament sat down and wrote a column that refers to Wogistan and calls for basically dark-skinned people (how else do you interpret look like a Muslim) not to be allowed to fly.

36,000 New Zealanders are Muslims. A New Zealand MP has said they should be banned from flying or Air New Zealand if they are male and aged 19 to 35. I’m sorry, but that is appalling.

Now before anyone says this is just political correctness, and one should be able to talk about the fact almost all airline terrorism incidents have been done by young male Muslims – I agree.  I there there is an absolutely valid discussion to be held on issues such as the pros and cons of profiling, the costs of airline security, and the fact that so much terrorism is done in the name of Islam. In fact I have blogged on these issues several times.

But one can have that discussion without referring to Muslims implicitly as Wogs and without calling for Muslims to be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Some of the quotes from the article:

I will not stand by while their [his daughters’] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners, are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan …

I mean seriously – effectively calling people wogs. I actually like Richard Prosser and agree with him on a few issues, but this column is seriously offensive.

If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and about 35, and you’re a Muslim, or you look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West’s airline …

When he says looks like a Muslim, does he mean look like a wog? Because let’s face it any sensible wannabee terrorist could simply wear non-religious attire if they really wanted to blow up a plane. So I can only imagine “look like a Muslim” means if you look South East Asian or Persian or Arabic or Turkish etc? Never mind that they may in fact be Christian or Hindu or anything. If they look like a Muslim, we have a Member of Parliament saying you should not be able to travel on Western airlines?

Taking Richard literally, Air New Zealand should refuse to accept any passengers from Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia etc if they are a young male. This presumably includes all the students from those countries that are students at New Zealand universities.

If the belief systems of ancient history are so important to you, and the advances of the decadent West so abhorrent, go ride a camel instead?.

Now this comment was not directed at the extremists, but at anyone who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or comes from a Muslim country.

Now again, there is a very legitimate debate to be had about profiling, terrorism, extreme Islamists and the like. I’ve been attacked myself for writing on some of those issues.

But never in a hundred years would I refer to Wogistan and advocate that people be barred from flying based on their appearance or country of origin. And to have a Member of Parliament deliberately write that is staggering.

Labour and the Greens are desperate to form a Government with NZ First as they know it is near impossible without them. Will any Labour or Green MP come out and state what they think of their potential coalition partner writing about Wogistan? Winston wants to be Foreign Minister again. Does he stand by the views of his MP that young men from Malaysia and Indonesia should be banned from travelling on Western airlines?

A photo of the second page of the column is below.

Martin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:

The liquor industry must be shut out of alcohol policy-making and implementation, to prevent manufacturers from undermining efforts to reduce the harms of alcohol, says an international grouping of public health specialists.

I’ve observed there tend to be two types of public health lobbyists. The zealots tend to regard their work as a holy crusade and the industry they specialise in as the enemy. They get focused more on attacking the industry rather than the merits of specific initiatives.

Do not engage commercial or vested interest groups, or their representatives, in discussion on the development of alcohol policy.

yes the zealots think Governments should not even talk to or engage with businesses that will be impacted by Government decisions. They are saying the only people the Government should listen to are themselves. And you know what – I guarantee you they are all being funded by taxpayers so they can lobby Governments with their own money!

The authors of the statement of concern say voluntary codes were often violated and a complete ban on alcohol promotion was preferable.

Nice to have the agenda out there. This means no happy hours, no Tui billboards, no online Wine retailers, no sports sponsorships, no advertising etc.

Stuff reports:

Pope Benedict says in a historic announcement he no longer has the mental and physical strength to run the Roman Catholic Church and will become the first pontiff in 600 years to resign, leaving his inner circle “incredulous”.

Church officials tried to relay a climate of calm confidence in the running of a 2000-year-old institution but the decision could lead to one of the most uncertain and unstable periods in centuries for a Church besieged by scandal and defections.

The last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XI in 1378 and the last voluntary resignation was Pope Celestine V in 1294.

In a general sense I think it is a good think when leaders retire, rather than carry on until death – no matter how infirm. Pope Benedict may have helped set a useful precedent for the future.

I note with monarchies that today many monarchs will  live to be 100, which means that their children may not succeed to the throne until they are 70 years old – or older. A retirement age would be a sensible thing.

Resigning after just eight years may put some pressure on the College on Cardinals to elect a younger Pope.  No doubt in the following weeks speculation will focus on who his successor will be.

Anne Gibson at NZ Herald reports:

A Chinese migrant convicted over an Auckland kidnapping and $1 million ransom plot was allowed to work here after support from a former Associate Immigration Minister.

Wonder which one?

She presented a letter written by Labour MP Shane Jones in 2007 granting a special direction to enable her to have a one-year open work permit, despite her conviction.

I would have though kidnapping was a serious enough crime that the appropriate response would be deportation, not a work permit!

Mr Jones said he did not know Ms Shi nor did he remember writing the letter when he was Associate Immigration Minister.

Shane really needs to start keeping better file notes.

Simon Collins reports in NZ Herald:

Almost 750,000 Kiwis look set to be classed as the new working poor this week when the union movement fixes the value of a “living wage” needed to have a decent life here.

The rate, expected to be $18-$20 an hour, has been calculated by researchers at the Anglican Church’s Family Centre in Lower Hutt to be “the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life”.

This is not a living wage for workers. This is a living wage for people with kids. Now if the unions come out and endorse scrapping Working for Families, then there may be a case for their living wage.

But it is silly to claim a 16 year old guy living at home needs to be paid $19 an hour. Hell my first job was $1.99 per hour and even in my 20s I had a job which was only $9 an hour and another at $12 an hour.

The mistake all these campaigns make is to treat everyone as identical. Someone who is 45 years wold with 25 years of experience will and should get paid more than an inexperienced and unskilled 16 year old.

They are not asking for legislation, unlike the minimum wage of $13.50 an hour which is updated each year by law. A Cabinet decision on this year’s minimum is imminent.

As they are not asking for it to be legislated, I have no problem with the unions saying this is what we think people should be paid. But be aware this is not calculated on the basis of what you need to live on as a single person.  It also ignores entirely the fact those with children get significant welfare support through family tax credits, WFF and the like.

Now here is the one question that I doubt we’ll see reported today or tomorrow. How many fewer jobs would there be if every job in New Zealand was made at least $19 an hour?

The Herald has planned a series of articles all week, to promote the Living Wage campaign. Will a single one of their articles examine the cost? How much would it cost ratepayers? How much would it cost businesses? How many jobs would implementation of $19/hour see destroyed? Or will they just be a series of campaign-friendly articles?

Finally if you come from a party that thinks you can print money, and increasing wages doesn’t impact employment, then why stop at $19 an hour? why not $25? Why not $100?

Jason Krupp at Stuff reports:

Greenpeace New Zealand, which made headlines by illegally occupying oil drilling rigs, has opened a new front against the National-led Government – the economy.

Today, the environmental lobby group will make public a 30-page report, The Future is Here, outlining the economic gains within New Zealand’s reach if it begins transforming its oil-based economy to a green one. …

The think tank modelled what would happen if the country produced 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and was fully reliant on renewables for all its energy needs by 2050.

The headline figures suggest New Zealand could be oil free in 22 years, save $7 billion a year in oil imports by 2035, and create 27,000 jobs in the bio-energy sector. It would also reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 94 per cent on 2009 levels.

So what would this all cost?

Where the report stumbles is on the financial side, giving no detail on the level of investment required or the economic tradeoffs, making it impossible to judge if the transformation would be worthwhile or simply a pyrrhic environmental victory.

An economic report that doesn’t even detail the cost isn’t worth the recycled paper it is printed on.

Argent said this was a deliberate choice, with the aim of the report to spark a discussion rather than getting too bogged down in the numbers.

Oh yes, let’s avoid minor details such as cost. I mean you can just print more money – right?

Reuters reports at Stuff:

Cameron’s political future and historic legacy are on the line. He has pledged to contest the next British general election in 2015 and his own Conservative party would never forgive him if he presided over the break-up of a United Kingdom comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

On the contrary many Conservatives would love Scotland to leave the UK.

In 2010 The Conservatives got 1 seat out of 59 in Scotland. With Scotland they were 306 out of 650 – a minority. Without it they would be 305 out of 591 – a majority.

In October 1974 the Conservatives got 16 out of 71 in Scotland and Labour got 41. With Scotland Labour won on 319 out of 635. Without Scotland Labour would not have had a majority and the Conservatives may have been able to govern.

In February 1974 the Conservatives got 297 seats, Labour 301 out of 635. Without Scotland it would have been Conservatives 276, Labour 261 out of 564. The Conservatives would have been given first chance to govern.

In 1964 the Conservatives got 304 seats, Labour 317 out of 630. Without Scotland it would have been Conservatives 281, Labour 273 out of 559 and a Conservative Government.

Opinion polls suggest support for independence has stalled. The latest put it at 32 per cent and opposition at 47 per cent. But Cameron and politicians from other parties remain nervous.

If the economy was stronger, independence would have a better chance. But people want security when times are tough. Hence a change is unlikely.

Some Scottish friends have suggested to me the eventual shape of the UK will be as a Federation of four countries.

A reader writes in:

I thought I’d share my experience with minimum wage, or lack of.

Earlier last year I hired a fresh graduate student – she was at the time my first hire for the new company. Her starting salary was less than 20k, an amount that would be tough (but manageable) to live off. It may seem rough considering Singapore is one of the more expensive cities in the world but she lives with her parents. I was simply unwilling/unable to pay any higher as I was starting a business however she was happy to get a job and to prove herself.

She has since proved her worth and has been a relief to my workload enabling me to focus on getting new business. Her first salary increase was after six months, she got 25%. Her second review is coming up shortly, it marks one year since she started and she is being raised to double her starting salary. Not bad for someone just one year out of uni.

 Another example – I recently hired a virtual assistant through Odesk. It was a take it or leave it proposition, I thought it could be helpful but not essential. 

There were a lot of offers from $1 an hour through to $40 an hour.

One applicant I liked, from the Philippines, offered to do the work for $3.50 which I felt was ridiculously low and unfair. I spoke to her several times on Skype and I raised my point to which she had this to say.

“Sir, if I work at local company I maybe get $1 an hour, these are long and hard jobs and I have young children. If I do this job I get more money but I can stay at home to care for my children at the same time.”

She then pointed out that many Filipinos leave their families and move overseas to work as maids and are extremely happy when they get jobs paying $400 SGD a month and here I was offering a job that paid more for her to stay at home with her family.

Long story short I hired her and she has been amazing. She is also loving her diverse role and the new skills she is learning – I have her doing anything I can think of from building databases, researching assignments, uploading for websites through to basic accounts and emailing for me.

And yes, I did ask her to stop calling me Sir.

 I realise these examples are not applicable to NZ directly however they do highlight two situations where a minimum wage would been worse off for both me and the employees. 

The minimum wage is one of those classic trade-offs. It is good for those in low paid jobs, who get more income. But it can be bad for those seeking a job. If you have a minimum wage, the challenge is setting it at a level that doesn’t drive too many people out of jobs.

Whale blogs:

Then I was emailed by a reader who heard Katie Bradford-Crozier talking to Justin duFresne this morning on NewstalkZB. She said that int he leadership vote there were 10 abstentions.

This confirms what I have heard too from my Labour sources. Ten abstentions. 

Ten from a caucus of 34…nearly a third of the caucus abstained from voting. The actual percentage is 29% of David Shearer’s caucus refused to vote for him.

If correct, this means only 24 MPs voted for Shearer and the survival threshold was 21 MPs. Far from over-whelming.

Everyone in Labour knows Grant Robertson will become the next Leader. The only question is when.

Will Tanner writes:

Sweden’s financial crisis struck in 1991: the product of a now familiar cocktail of housing bubble, credit crunch and anti-competitive regulation. High taxes and productivity decline foretold years of low or negative growth: GDP fell by 4 per cent between 1990 and 1993.

So what did they do?

Swedish reformers used this fiscal crisis to radically reform the state. A centre-right coalition opened up the universal welfare state to choice and competition, using private companies and people power to improve quality and efficiency. State funding for education was reformed to follow the pupil, rather than the service, meaning that schools had to compete for custom for the first time. In healthcare, the private sector was invited to set up hospitals, GP clinics and even ambulances.

Sounds excellent. What happened?

Competition has delivered better services. At Kunskapsskolan, a private free school chain, children take greater responsibility for their own learning; setting their own goals, class schedules and recording progress online. The 10,000 pupils taught in its 33 schools consistently outperform the national average. Private healthcare companies have helped the Swedish healthcare system keep up with rapid change. St Göran hospital in Stockholm has been outsourced to a private company, Capio. Since 1999, St Göran has grown its market share, improved clinical care and patient satisfaction, and saved millions.

Oh that will send shudders to some. A private hospital with growing market share. I’m more interested in the improved clinical care and patient satisfaction.

One of the most important achievements in Sweden has been bringing workers on side. While outsourcing is still controversial, once-obstructionist unions have been persuaded that competition drives up wages and improves working conditions for members. They now largely support the reforms. In 2001, a major report by the powerful Municipal Workers’ Union went so far as to say that “competition between the various providers can promote and promulgate improvements in both productivity and quality”.

Sigh – what I would give for some Swedish unions.

As a result, Sweden now enjoys budget surpluses of up to 3 per cent of GDP a year. Meanwhile, since public sector reform improves economic performance by raising productivity, the Swedish economy continues to grow. 

That is my idea of the Scandinavian dream. Well that, plus Princess Madeleine.