It is no surprise that the Rt Hon David Carter has just been elected Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Labour put up Trevor Mallard as a candidate. Not sure that was the best way to try and get the Maori Party or Tau to vote for you 🙂

There were no proxy votes allowed for the election.

After the speeches of congratulation, Speaker Carter will go to Government House to present his credentials and the House adjourns until the week after next.

The vote was 62-52.

Truth reports:

Over the last couple of hours the usual suspects in our tired old media have cut and paste an article from Computerworld. In their efforts they report that Mega has received 150 copyright infringements since its launch. Mega have provided their flunkies at Stuff and the Herald the usual weasel words about how they are doing everything correctly and they have removed any files that are found to be infringing the law.

All good so far.

However, two points that need to be considered.

1. If Mega is fully encrypted (as an artifice to dodge the rules by the site owners maybe) how can anybody know what is in the supposed infringing files?

2. And by far the single most explosive point to this story is that Computerworld have provided further info that Stuff and the Herald chose to ignore.

If you visit www.mega-search.me you will see that the whole scheme is just like the old scheme. Mega is a file sharing service to allow you to upload data and share it. There are dozens of listings for copied and copyrighted material that are quite clearly illegal.

We are not suggesting that Kim Dotcom owns, runs, manages or even knows anything about the search site but I bet he will be trying very hard to get it closed as it clearly shows exactly what this latest business is. We note that the search utilises Mega’s logo extensively.

It will be interesting to see if further legal action eventuates on this.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Low uptake negates fears beneficiaries and daughters being pushed into free scheme, says minister’s office.

Only 35 women took up the Government’s offer of free long-term contraception for beneficiaries in the first five months – far short of the number expected.

Last July, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett announced the Government would pay for female beneficiaries and their daughters aged 16-19 to get long-term contraception such as an implant, intra-uterine device or the Depo Provera injection.

She set aside $1 million over four years for the policy – enough to fund thousands of grants covering doctors’ fees and contraceptive costs each year.

This is the policy that saw the disgusting cartoon that compared Paula Bennett to Josef Mengele. Shameful.

However, in its first five months from the end of July to the end of December only 35 women took it up.

Ms Bennett said she was not troubled by the low uptake.

“It’s going as I’d expected. We’re not promoting it so there hasn’t been significant uptake, but we’re looking at advertising it more so people are aware it’s available.”

It would be good for more people to be ware of it, so there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Claire Trevett at NZ herald reports:

The Hobsonville Land Company says claims its affordable homes will include a 300sq m four-bedroom stand-alone house for less than $485,000 are wrong – and the biggest it can offer for that price is a three-bedroom house less than half that size.

The Hobsonville Pt development was dragged into the debate over affordable housing in Parliament yesterday after Labour’s Annette King said the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment had provided information showing National’s affordable housing plan for Hobsonville Point included a four-bedroom house on 300sq m for less than $485,000.

However, Hobsonville Land Company chief executive Chris Aiken said the largest house in the under-$485,000 affordable homes project would be a three-bedroom stand-alone home of 135sq m.

“We certainly couldn’t do anything at Hobsonville Pt for any more than that without a pretty big subsidy.”

He said the affordable homes part of the development also included some 100sq m two-bedroom stand-alone houses for between $390,000 and $400,000 which were completed.

Labour’s credibility is plunging down the sink rapidly. First they finally admit that their $300,000 affordable homes may costs $550,000 in Auckland and now their claim that there are already four bedroom homes in Hobsonville for $485,000 has been shot down. It’s incredibly sloppy work. Labour could have verified their figures with the Hobsonville Land Company before rushing off to the media. This is a failure to do basic homework.

The Dom Post editorial:

 If saving Wanganui Collegiate is a priority for the cash-strapped Government, the education system must be in very fine health indeed.

At a time when schools across the country have to ask parents to help fund vital learning tools, National has found more than $3 million a year to prop up an institution that is not needed.

Falling rolls meant Wanganui Collegiate was expected to close at the end of last year, but it was thrown a lifeline when the Government agreed to let it integrate into the state system. …

Why would they do that you may wonder?

There is no denying the college has done a superb job in educating its pupils, with a 96 per cent pass rate for NCEA level 2 in 2011.

That’s one reason.

What Ms Parata failed to mention was that the school’s integration flew in the face of sound advice from the Education Ministry and Treasury.

That advice pointed out that there were already more than 1400 unfilled places in secondary schools across the Whanganui-Rangitikei region, a figure that was expected to rise by 50 each year for the next decade.

Many who attend Collegiate are not even from the region.

Meanwhile, the more than $3m the Government will pay to keep it open is money that cannot go towards improving literacy and numeracy for the thousands of pupils who lack the basic skills needed for a good education.

It is also funding that could have gone towards the Government’s aim for 85 per cent of 18-year-olds to have NCEA level 2 or its equivalent by 2017.

This editorial gets a fail in basic literacy and numeracy.

If Wanganui Collegiate closes, then their pupils will all enrol in other schools, which will also cost the taxpayer $3 million. Trying to say that you would save this money if the school closed is absolutely misleading.

Kerry McBride at stuff reports:

The internet should be like a blank sheet of paper for people to write on, says the creator of the World Wide Web.

In Wellington for just one day, Sir Tim Berners-Lee told an audience of tech types last night that the web was at its best when as open as possible.

‘‘It should be like a sheet of paper – without attitude. It’s not concerned about what is written on it.’’

In 1989, the British computer scientist became the first person to create a link between a web page and a server via the internet, establishing the World Wide Web as it is known today.

The lecture, held at Te Papa, was part of a whirlwind tour that also included meetings with Prime Minister John Key, ministers and officials to discuss New Zealand’s approach to the digital environment.

While he would not divulge what discussions he had with the prime minister, he said all people should be able to use the internet without fear that companies or governments were spying, or data-mining.

‘‘We should be able to use the internet without worrying about whether there is someone looking over our shoulder.’’

Part of that included creating business models that allowed people to obtain music, movies and or even cat photos in any format they desired.

Earlier in the day we had a reception and powhiri for Sir Tim and the point was made that he invented the WWW without needing to get permisson from any person or any Government. That is the strength of the Internet.

‘There’s someone out there who next week is going to produce something you could never imagine. And that’s not about technology, that’s humanity.’’

Technology is just the tool. But a damn useful tool.

news.com.au reports:

THE issue of trust and economic management will emerge as the ultimate background areas in a super 10-month campaign that will leave no excuses for flimsy promises and plenty of time to trip, experts say.

And with both leaders painting the other as untrustworthy, voters should be prepared for the “liar” verses the “misogynist’.

Economic management, boats and the carbon tax will all feature heavily in the lead up to September 14, but political pundits say the overarching issue will be trust.

“The unpopularity of the two leaders will be the main talking point because most people will agree, both the leaders are very unpopular,” veteran election analyst Malcolm Mackerras said.

“I think it will be a nasty campaign.”

The broken carbon tax promise and inability to deliver a budget surplus was widely perceived to have left Labor’s reputation and economic policy in tatters, he said.

“They have established a general trust which the Labor party have failed to establish,” he said.

Sadly I think he is right, and it will be a pretty nasty campaign.

The Copyright Tribunal has delivered its first decision under the relatively new file-sharing law. The key aspects are:

• Infringement notices sent on 24 Nov 11, 19 Jun 12 and and 30 Jul 12.
• Cost of songs calculated at $6.57 for three songs. Rejected RIANZ submission that you should multiply costs of songs by average number of downloads.
• The costs to RIANZ of the three notices was $75 or $25 a notice. Determined that the account holder should pay 1/3 of the initial notice, 2/3 of second notice and 1005 of third notice so $50 of the $75 in total.
• Account holder to pay 100% of the $200 Tribunal fee
• A deterrent fee of $120 per infringement
• This makes a total fine of $616.57 – pretty expensive for three songs.

Future decisions are likely to reference this one. It is likely that $600 is close to the minimum an account holder will pay if found to have infringed – unless they make the case for mitigating circumstances such as demonstrating they took steps to stop people with access to the account from file-sharing.

The Herald reports:

David Bain has filed a High Court claim against Justice Minister Judith Collins seeking a judicial review of her actions since she received the Justice Binnie report last August.

The claim includes allegations Ms Collins has breached Mr Bain’s rights to natural justice and his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, acted in bad faith, abused her power, and acted in a biased, unreasonable and predetermined manner.

Mr Bain’s long time supporter Joe Karam said in a statement today that Ms Collins had stated she intended to recommend further options to Cabinet on Monday.

“In the circumstances, a request has been made to the Crown that any further action in relation to David’s claim be deferred pending the outcome of this judicial review,” Mr Karam said.

He said Mr Bain had “anguished” over the prospect of returning to court and did so only reluctantly.

It’s a delaying tactic, which is ironic as they have complained about the delays.

Ms Collins said the compensation application fell outside Cabinet guidelines and was entirely at Cabinet’s discretion.

“I have taken steps to ensure the process is fair and proper throughout.

“Put simply, it would be unacceptable for Cabinet to base its decision for compensation on an unsafe and flawed report. That would not have resulted in justice for anyone, let alone Mr Bain.”

She said Mr Bain’s request for the Government to put the compensation application on hold while a judicial review went ahead would only result in a further delay.

Ms Collins would not comment further while the matter was before the Courts.

I would be amazed if the judicial review gets anywhere. The Bain claim for compensation in fact falls outside the Cabinet guidelines. Bain and Karam have asked for Cabinet to use their discretion to give him compensation even though he doesn’t qualify outside the guidelines. It would be highly unusual for the courts to injunct a Minister from reporting an issue to Cabinet involving a discretionary decision.

The Cabinet could in fact have just said “No, you do not qualify – go away”.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogged:

At the moment several African governments are progressing virulently homophobic legislation. There’s Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill, which would impose the death penalty for homosexuality and require reporting of homosexuals to the government. And in Nigeria there’s similar, though less brutal, legislation, which would (among other things) outlaw LGBT support groups.

Today Labour’s Charles Chauvel tried to move a motion expressing Parliament’s condemnation of this bigotry:

National vetoed it. 

I think this tells us exactly where National stands on gay rights. They’ll send John Key along to the Big Gay Out, but at their core they’re simply bigots, no different from Family First or the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Idiot/Savant goes feral and sanctimonious so often, I’m not even surprised anymore. I doubt anyone takes his denunciations too seriously but in case they do, I thought I’d point out how Parliament operates.

A motion by a individual MP is basically never scheduled for debate or voting on. To have an MP’s motion considered, you need to seek permission of the House, and it takes just one individual MP to object to leave being granted. So if you want your motion voted on, then there is a process in place to ascertain in advance that the Government is happy for it to be put (so long as without debate). Basically you discuss it with your party’s whips, they discuss it with the Government whips, and they check with the Leader of the House. This process is widely known and is there precisely so opposition MPs can get non-controversial motions considered. The Government has actually been very accommodating of the rights of the minority through things such as negotiating extended sittings rather than forcing urgency on the House.

Now if we look at the draft Hansard for today, it says:

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate about Cyclone Evan.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I move, That this House express its acknowledgment and support to the peoples and Governments of Samoa and Fiji after Cyclone Evan wreaked havoc on these islands just before Christmas last year, and in particular convey its condolences and sympathies to Samoa’s head of State, His Highness Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi, Prime Minister the Hon Tuila’epa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi, members of Samoa’s legislative assembly, and the people of Samoa for the loss of five lives, and to the families of the 10 people still missing when floodwaters drove through settlements in the Apia township, dragging people, homes, vehicles, and personal property out to sea and destroying power, water, and other infrastructure, including food crops, and note that for many families it is the first-time experience of losing literally everything, and acknowledge the resilient response of families, people’s organisations, and Governments in both the islands and in New Zealand to aid families and friends in need.

Motion agreed to.

[Continuation line: Chauvel motion]

POINTS OF ORDER

Motion Without Notice—

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 4 in my name, without debate.

POINTS OF ORDER

Motion Without Notice—

 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.

So Sio had no one object to his motion, but Chauvel did have an objection. Why? It’s simple. Sio followed the process and did his homework by letting the whips know in advance. Chauvel did not. If Chauvel had done the courtesy of letting the whips know in advance he was going to seek leave, then almost certainly he would have got it I suspect. So I/S should direct his rant towards MPs who grandstand rather than follow the process.

People may not be aware but if an MP seeks leave, the whips have only around two seconds to object. You don’t have time to read the motion and decide after a minute’s contemplation. This is why it is well known amongst MPs that you inform the whips in advance of your desire to put it to a vote, and the whips check with the Leader of the House.

I find it appalling that I/S uses the failure of an Opposition MP to follow the process, to label the Government as bigots. It’s pathetic.

Cam Slater at Truth writes more extensively on the saga of the priest:

Notwithstanding that my sources in Fiji say that although it is probably true that Father Barr was spoken to harshly by the Prime Minister, this was not the reason for cancelling his permit. Father Barr is an Australian in Fiji on a religious permit which allows him to work for the church and in certain other activities. It does not however allow him to engage in politics, something he appears to have forgotten recently with political statements concerning the minimum wage and certain decrees such as the Essential Industries Decree.

The final straw appears to have been met when Father Barr appeared in a photo supposedly supporting the formation of a trade union political party. These actions clearly breached the terms of his permit and the government is felt it was entitled to cancel his permit. He is not a permanent resident of Fiji and nor is he a citizen of Fiji.

After 32 years in country he still maintained his Australian citizenship and passport. Accordingly he is a foreign resident who was engaging in and participating in local political process. We wouldn’t tolerate this in New Zealand and we certainly do not appreciate churches, with their tax free status meddling in politics in the first place.

Actually our churches do meddle in politics all the time. I actually don’t know that churches should have tax free status. If they have a charitable arm like Presbyterian Support Services, then that should be tax free, but can’t see why a religious organisation should be charitable in its own right.

The Fijian government has now reversed its decision and Father Barr is free to remain in Fiji for the duration of his permit on the understanding he will abide strictly by the terms and not engage in political activity. He isn’t a citizen after all and further he is a clergyman. Most countries around the world eschew the involvement in politics of the church. Father Barr apparently agreed to abide by the conditions of his work permit and will now stay.

I’m glad the Government reversed their decision. Although the deportation decision was legal, that doesn’t mean it was desirable. There is a chilling effect if writing a letter to the editor gives you a personal phone call from the head of government abusing you, and then deportation. The challenge for Fiji going forward is to not consider dissenting views as a bad thing, but as a good thing. And yes politics is for permanent residents and citizens, but after living in a country for 32 years I think you can regard someone as more than a foreigner.

I want Fiji to have non-racial free and fair elections. They are making some steps towards that, and as they do the NZ Government should relax their sanctions. But what worries me is that the Commodore seems to have a view that his view is the only one that counts and anyone who says anything unpalatable becomes an enemy – whether they be the independent head of the constitutional review group or the priest in question (who had been a supporter of his).  Dissent is not treason. In some cases it is in fact patriotic.

The Dom Post reports:

Wellington mum Tracy Merson has been forced to abandon her studies just short of a master’s degree – for a possible career as a psychologist – after new student allowance legislation whipped the financial rug out from under her.

As far as I know you don’t need a masters to be a psychologist? Who not start the career with the bachelors and then gain your masters?

Because she is on a domestic purposes benefit, she does not qualify for student loan living costs, and the $172.50 maximum a week would not be enough to support her daughters, aged 12 and 13.

I do wish the story would make clear what the figure refers to. Most would take that as being the DPB is only $172.50 a week . The DPB pays $33.01 a week gross or $293.58 a week net. On top of that you get $157 WFF family tax credit so that is around $450 a week in the hand. There may be accommodation supplement on top of that and it is unclear if one can also get $172.50 student loan on top of all that also.

This is not to say it is challenging to be a post-grad student, especially as a sole parent. But we need to have clear facts on what the financial situation is, to accurately judge the adequacy of policy settings.

UPDATE: I’m told you now need a Masters to practice. It used to be a BA Applied was sufficient, but obviously times change.

3 News reports:

A defiant independent MP Brendan Horan arrived back at Parliament today, vowing to fight for more transparency around MPs’ pay rises. …

He even wants to run for re-election come 2014.

“I am here to stay,” he says.

Mr Horan may even start his own party.

“I’m keeping all my options open in that regard.”

Maybe he should call any party the Transparency & Accountability Bloc Party, or the TAB Party?

Mr Horan’s also planning to campaign for more transparency for MPs’ pay rises, after an increase was announced just before Christmas.

“It’s not what the average Kiwi wants to hear when you’ve got thousands of people losing their jobs and being made redundant,” says Mr Horan.

He’ll try and amend a bill that’s already before Parliament, so the public know what MPs’ pay increases are before each election.

On that issue, he is on the right side. Chris Hipkins has also said he supports such a change. Hopefully it may happen. The salaries and allowances should be set prior to each election for the entire term.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers. 2.00pm – 3.00pm.

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government has actively supported the filming of the Hobbit movies in New Zealand because of the enormous economic benefits they are bringing to the country, including the creation of around 3,000 jobs”?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements made in his prime ministerial speeches and in his Address in Reply speeches?
3. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What will be the focus of the Government’s economic programme in 2013?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I am keen to see New Zealanders to be able to afford to buy a home”, given that the home ownership rate has continued to decline under his watch and home buying is becoming less affordable?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that anticipated Core Crown Revenue for the period 2012-2016 decreased by $13.2 billion between the October 2011 PREFU and the December 2012 HYEFU; if so, why has the Government lost $13.2 billion in projected revenue in little over a year?
6. COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting the number of people being trained in apprenticeships?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty”?
8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Why didn’t he mention climate change yesterday when he outlined his Government’s priorities for the year in his statement to Parliament?
9. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Following his decision to appoint a new Minister of Housing, what new policies, if any, does he expect his new Minister to implement to address the growing housing affordability issues in New Zealand?
10. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What progress has been made in the repair of homes in Canterbury by the EQR Repair Programme?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of State Services: What were the factors that contributed to the strained relations that resulted in the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education?
12. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Corrections: What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?

Today Labour is asking five questions, The Greens have two questions, and New Zealand First have one question. Labour is asking about whether the Prime Minister stands by his statements, twice. Labour is also asking about a loss in projected tax revenue, housing affordability and the resignation of the Secretary of Education, Lesley Longstone. The Greens are asking about housing affordability and climate change. NZ First is asking about job creation by the film, “The Hobbit”.

Patsy of the day goes to  Jacqui Dean for Question 12 : What steps is the Government taking to improve prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?

Government Bills 3.00pm -6-00pm and 7.30pm until 10.00pm. 

1. Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill – Third Reading

2. Patents Bill – Third Reading

3. Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters)  Amendment Bill – First Reading

The Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill was read a first time in December 2012 by Bill English. The purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate financial matters relating to the 2011/12 financial year.

The Patents Bill was read a first time in May 2009 by Simon Power. Craig Foss is now the Minister in charge of the bill. This Bill is designed to replace the Patents Act 1953 and update the New Zealand patent regime to ensure that it continues to provide an appropriate balance between providing adequate incentives for innovation and technology transfer while ensuring that the interests of the public and the interests of Maori in their traditional knowledge are protected.

The Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters)  Amendment Bill is being read a first time by Nathan Guy. This bill implements the Government’s decisions on the regulation of foreign charter vessels following allegations of mistreatment and underpayment of foreign crews.

Stuff reports:

The United States has warned the tiny Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda not to retaliate against US restrictions on internet gambling by suspending copyrights or patents, a move that would authorise the “theft” of intellectual property like movies and music.

“The United States has urged Antigua to consider solutions that would benefit its broader economy. However, Antigua has repeatedly stymied these negotiations with certain unrealistic demands,” Nkenge Harmon, a spokeswoman for the US Trade Representative’s office, said.

The strong statement came after Antigua said it would suspend US copyrights and patents, an unusual form of retaliation, unless the United States took its demands for compensation more seriously in a ruling Antigua won at the World Trade Organisation.

“The economy of Antigua and Barbuda has been devastated by the United States government’s long campaign to prevent American consumers from gambling on-line with offshore gaming operators,” Antigua’s Finance Minister Harold Lovell said in a statement.

“We once again ask … the United States of America to act in accordance with the WTO’s decisions in this matter.”

Antigua, a former British colony with few natural resources, has knocked heads with the United States since the late 1990s, when it began building an Internet gambling industry to replace jobs in its declining tourist industry.

The gambling sector at its height employed more than 4000 people and was worth more than US$3.4 billion to the country’s economy, but it has shrunk to less than 500 people because of US restrictions, the Antiguan government says.

The United States said it never intended as part of its WTO commitments to allow foreign companies to offer online gambling services. In 2007, it began a formal WTO procedure to withdraw the gambling concession and reached a compensation package with all WTO members, except Antigua.

Antigua argued in a case first brought to the WTO in 2003 that US laws barring the placing of bets across states lines by electronic means violated global trade rules.

It won a partial victory in 2005 when the WTO ruled a US law allowing only domestic companies to provide online horse-race gambling services discriminated against foreign companies.

When the United States failed to change the law, the WTO in 2007 gave Antigua the right to retaliate by waiving intellectual property rights protections on some US$21 million worth of US goods annually, which was far less than the US$3.44 billion the island country requested.

The key thing here is that Antigua won in the WTO. It is hugely disappointing that the US broke the commitments it agreed to, when it joined the WTO. Australia lost the NZ case on apples access, and they have done the right thing and now allowed access. The US should have accepted the WTO ruling. By choosing not to, they owe Antigua compensation.

If the US wants countries to sign trade agreements with them, especially ones with intellectual property requirements in them, then they need to show that they will honour the commitments they agree to. Otherwise there isn’t much incentive for other countries to conclude an agreement.

Sail Rock at dawn. Cathedral Cove, Coromandel Peninsula. New Zealand Landscape photography by Todd Sisson.

Well it transpires that when I go on holiday, I go on holiday….. hence my absenteeism from Kiwiblog for the past couple of weeks.

Sarah & I have once again hit the beaches of Northland hard, this time with our kids, Jack & Indi in tow.  Neither of us have ventured further north of Auckland for over 15 years, so we have found the sub-tropical pleasures of the region quite intoxicating – maybe that was just the effects of the (non shifting air) seabreezes 😉

I will feed you some of our images from this trip over the coming weeks.

Have a great week.

Free Wallpaper Download

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

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] 

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

More prisons will be turned into working prisons where all prisoners will be placed in a 40-hour week programme of work and rehabilitation, Prime Minister John Key said in his statement to Parliament today, the first sitting day of the year.

It is part of the Government’s goal of reducing reoffending by 25 per cent by 2017.

“The Government will increase employment opportunities for prisoners by establishing more of our prisons as working prisons, where all prisoners will be engaged in a structured 40-hour week of employment and rehabilitation activities,” he said. …

Of the country’s 19 prisons, only one at present is deemed a working prison, Rolleston.

Seems like an excellent initiative to me. Hopefully they won’t stop at three prisons. It would be impractical to do at the maximum security prisons, but I think having a regular work routine will help prisoners reintegrate back into society once their term is up.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he is expecting an acrimonious start to the political year – and the gloves are already off over the election of Parliament’s new Speaker.

Labour has indicated it will not support National’s nomination of Primary Industries Minister David Carter as Speaker when Lockwood Smith vacates the chair this week.

The Speaker’s role is always contested and this year’s nomination has seen more jostling than usual with Carter said to be a reluctant nomination, while National backbencher Tau Henare has been angling for the job over the opposition of his colleagues.

Henare stirred the pot further this morning after being asked how Carter would go in the role.

His response was “who?”, before adding: “S … that’ll start the year off well.”

Labour leader David Shearer said the Government had not consulted Labour over the nomination.

“Until that happens the gloves in a sense are off,” he said.

Shearer said the issue was about the functioning of parliament and Labour wanted to be taken seriously over who should be the referee – Key was not respecting the convention of consulting the Opposition.

Key said Labour had already made its feelings about Carter’s nomination clear. He expected the vote to be split but that was not unusual.

“I’ve seen it before in my time in Parliament,” the prime minister said.

In 2004 National rejected the nomination of Labour candidate Margaret Wilson.

The Greens and NZ First have also said they will not be voting for Carter, but what will be more interesting is whom they nominate or vote for as an alternative.

The last contested election for Speaker was in March 2005. Three candidates declared their nominations – Margaret Wilson, Clem Simich and Ken Shirley. They got 64, 37 and 5 votes respectively.

Meanwhile Claire Trevett interviews David Carter on his plans in the role:

National’s David Carter admits it will be “a big ask” to be non-partisan as Speaker but says it was a critical part of being the Speaker and he would give it all he had. …

Asked if he could be non-partisan, he acknowledged that was a challenge for all Speakers.

“In all honesty, having been a very political and active player for 18 years in this place, the transition I have to make if I’m elected as Speaker is to be completely without bias. That is a big ask but I will do it to the best of my endeavours.”

He said it was the mark of a good Speaker to be apolitical. …

Mr Carter said today he was looking forward to the job.

“It’s a great honour – a great challenge. I don’t expect it’s going to be an easy time in the House, but I’m really looking forward to it, if I am successful on Thursday.”

Lockwood got mauled a fair bit in his early days by Mallard and Cullen. I imagine it will be much the same for Carter. What will be more interesting is how things go around three months down the track, as things settle down.

And in my final look at a Gallup poll, it is the issue of guns. They tested the nine proposals put forward by Obama and found each one had majority support – in some cases overwhelming. In order they are:

1. Require criminal background checks for all gun sales 91%
2. More spending on youth mental health 82%
3. Increase training for Police etc on responding to armed attacks 79%
4. Increase penalties for buying a gun for someone not authorised to own one 75%
5. $4 billion on 15,000 more police officers 70%
6. $30 million to help schools develop response plans 69%
7. Ban armour-piercing bullets except for military and police 67%
8. Reinstate and strengthen assault weapon ban 60%
9. Limit sale of ammo mags to 10 rounds or less 54%

Only the first one and the last three are really about gun controls or restrictions. The background checks has huge support. The last three majority support but some significant opposition – 30% or more.

So does this indicate Obama will get it through Congress? Not a lot. Why? Because they do not ask how strongly people feel on an issue. Let’s say 60% are in favour and 30% against. But what will impact politicians is will those 60% in favour change their vote based on how they vote on this issue and will the 30% against change their vote?

And the reality is that those pro gun control feel pretty strongly on it, but are unlikely to vote for a Representative or Senator just because they voted for gun control. However those anti gun control regard it as a deeply personal issue where it is their rights being taken away. They will never vote for you if you vote against them on it.

The same logic applied in NZ on nuclear ships visit. It was possible to get a 50/50 split on the desirability of allowing nuclear powered (not not armed) US ships to visit. However repealing the ban would not gain you a single extra vote while for 5% to 7% of the population (mainly women) it would shift their vote. So a passionate minority can trump a majority.

Also of interest is the partisan split, on the nine issues. The per cent agreement from Democrats and Republicans on each is:

1. Require criminal background checks for all gun sales 97% and 92%
2. More spending on youth mental health 93% and 67%
3. Increase training for Police etc on responding to armed attacks 87% and 71%
4. Increase penalties for buying a gun for someone not authorised to own one 81% and 75%
5. $4 billion on 15,000 more police officers 81% and 63%
6. $30 million to help schools develop response plans 81% and 61%
7. Ban armour-piercing bullets except for military and police 80% and 49%
8. Reinstate and strengthen assault weapon ban 80% and 56%
9. Limit sale of ammo mags to 10 rounds or less 74% and 39%

So of the nine issues, Republicans only really oppose the last one around size of mags.

Also of interest is given a choice of priorities, 65% of Americans said the focus should be on school security and mental health system and 30% on gun laws. So they support the measures but don’t think gun law reform is the priority.

No this isn’t a post on Graham Capill. It is back on the issue of cats. A reader e-mailed to say:

If Gareth Morgan had done anything sensible, like say putting “removing apex predators” in scholar.google.com, he would have found that it is well understood that removing a species such as cats (apex predator) from an ecosystem causes an explosion of smaller predators (meso predators).   In NZ that would be all the Mustelidae (Weasals, Stoats, Ferrets) and Rats.  It would also lead to an explosion in the numbers of mice who compete for food and possibly an increase in Hedgehogs (who also predate our birds).   Here’s an example of what he might have found http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01347.x/full   He could also have talked to some actual NZ ecologists, but hey.

Sci Blogs have had some good balanced posts on this also.

The NZ Herald editorial:

The reaction of motor industry lobbyists suggests the Government’s changes to the warrant of fitness system are as radical as they are ill-considered. Far from it. The new rules are the least extreme of the options that were considered, and remain more stringent than those in many comparable countries. They also represent a reasonable balance between safety, the prime consideration, and cost savings. In sum, the Government has acted appropriately in responding to the great improvements in vehicle safety since six-monthly inspections were introduced in the 1930s.

It is a good point that the rules actually remain more stringent than most countries.

Change, however, is necessary. There is no reason New Zealand motorists should have to endure more frequent warrant of fitness checks than their counterparts overseas. Once, in the days of high import costs, this country’s car fleet was noticeably aged and, therefore, more prone to defects that could result in serious accidents. But two things have happened. First, our fleet now bears a far greater resemblance to those overseas in terms of age. Second, cars have become far more reliable. Frequent inspections are not a panacea. The number of accidents linked to vehicle faults here is the same as in other countries at about 2.5 per cent – or 0.5 per cent where they are the only cause. Liquor and speed are far greater factors.

This is the key point. Our problems are that NZ roads are generally pretty crappy and people driving too fast for the conditions. The accident rate due to car defects is extremely low.