Stuff reports:

 Mr Shearer admits Labour does not have “a smoking gun”, but says that “at the same time Key can’t prove that he didn’t know.”

What a stupid statement. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to prove they didn’t know something. I call on David Shearer to prove he didn’t know about John Smith jaywalking in Auckland three years ago.

Sad to see David Shearer go down the Phil Goff route.

Fran O’Sullivan notes:

 David Shearer has scored a glorious own goal – the caucus knives will be sharpening.

You don’t make accusations of this nature based on rumour.

Stuff reports:

Mr Harawira said: “I parked my car in front of a truck and shone my light up high on the woman on the roof. I stayed in my car. They broke into my car and smashed at least one window and arrested me.”

That is Hone’s version. The Police:

Officers had managed to clear all the vehicles to allow the passage of the truck and trailer unit, except for one vehicle which was driven and occupied by Mr Harawira.

“Repeated attempts were made to converse with Mr Harawira who refused to acknowledge police directions and remained locked in his vehicle.

“The house removal driver advised he could not remove his truck and trailer without the removal of Mr Harawira’s vehicle. After exhaustive attempts to converse with Mr Harawira, including written requests placed on his windscreen, the decision was made to enter the vehicle and this was done with the use of an automotive glass entry devise borrowed from the tow company, shortly after midnight.”

So Hone thinks he is above the law.

Meanwhile, Housing NZ yesterday hit out at protesters, saying its tenants were feeling pressured to take part in protest action.

“Since the project was announced, we have been receiving regular calls from affected tenants to say they are feeling pressured to participate in protest action, which has been largely organised and run by people who are not impacted by the redevelopment,” the general manager of asset development, Sean Bignell, said.

The professional protesters such as Hone are bullying the actual local residents. They should stand up to the bullies.

The timing of this is even more strange than Obama winning it.  Don’t get me wrong – the EU has been a good success at stopping wars in Europe.  Mind you, I think WWII was the bigger factor.

But why give it to the EU now, in the middle of their economic meltdown? It looks like a sick joke, or a sympathy award.

Stuff reports:

Telecom is asking internet users who dumped Telecom as their internet provider but continued to use their Xtra addresses for email to either stump up at least $20 a month or have their email addresses cancelled and their emails deleted.

Spokeswoman Jo Jalfon would not say how many people were in that situation, but said a letter had gone out to a “small percentage of customers” advising them of the policy.

One Auckland couple who dropped Telecom in favour of Vodafone in 2007, but who have been using their Xtra email address ever since, have complained to the Commerce Commission.

They’ve been using Xtra’s servers for free for five years, and think they have a case??

What a sense of entitlement.

They believed the change was unfair, as well as a personal inconvenience, as Telecom had said email would remain free when it outsourced the running of Xtra to Yahoo in 2007.

Jalfon said that meant email would be free only to paying customers.

if you want an Xtra e-mail account, you should be an Xtra customer.

Stuff reports:

1. “Auckland A” was developed by the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency to rival “Absolutely Positively Wellington.”  It was dumped in 2008 in favour of “Big Little City”.

2. “Of course you Canterbury”.  The 90s slogan was ditched long ago but it made a comeback recently as the catchcry for the earthquake-devastated city.

 3. “Dunedin, it’s all right here”.  Letter writers said this gave the impression “It’s OK here, I guess.” The city re-branded as “I am Dunedin”, but many called the slogan stupid and, in 2010, it was also dumped.

4. Hamilton had several goes at it. There was “Hamilton, where it’s happening”, “Hamilton, more than you expect’, and “Hamilton, City of the Future”.

5. “Foxton the Fox Town”. Eventually the town stopped seeing the the funny side of its foxy monniker and in 2005 took down the welcome sign bearing the slogan.

6. Wairoa: “New Zealand the way it used to be”. Seriously, everything closes at 4pm in Wairoa.

7 Dannevirke: “Take a liking to a Viking”. The slogan was criticised by some of the town’s councillors as too being raunchy.

8. Ashburton: “Whatever it Takes” … to do what, you might ask?

9. Porirua: “P-town”. Porirua unveiled an image makeover earlier this year, with mayor Nick Leggett saying ‘Lets call us ‘P-Town’.  Let’s just say, not Porirua’s proudest moment.

10. “Right Up My Hutt Valley”. Need we say more?

Right Up My Hutt Valley is a clear winner.

I actually thought the Canterbury and Dunedin ones were fine.

Hamilton, City of the Future, is the funniest for unintentionally being sarcastic.

The ODT reports:

A man who assaulted a woman with intent to rape her at Jubilee Park told police he did it because he could not get a “missus”.

It was his intention to find a female at the park and rape her, the man said.

Before the Dunedin District Court yesterday, Shaun Kahu Leonard (29), labourer, admitted assaulting the woman with intent to rape her, on September 24.

In custody by consent, Leonard did not seek bail.

Judge Paul Kellar, of Christchurch, gave him a “three strikes” warning and remanded him for sentence on November 27.

It seems pretty clear to me, that with a viewpoint that it is fine to rape women, if you don’t have a missus, that  he should not be at large.

It is unfortunate that three strikes laws were not here earlier. He was convicted of rape in 2005. His non-parole period was only four years nine months.

I laugh at what his defence counsel said at the time:

However, his client was remorseful and had a growing awareness of what he had done to his victim

Very remorseful and aware. He goes hunting for victims to rape as he doesn’t have a missus.

If three strikes had been in place earlier, then he would get a second strike for this, and not be eligible for parole. The maximum term is ten years for attempted rap,e so will be interesting to see what he gets.

And if he raped for a third strike (which I have to say seems likely), he would get 20 years with no parole.

David Fisher writes at NZ Herald:

Trustees seeking a fresh mandate from shareholders in the publicly owned $2 billion Vector power company moved the payment date of the $320 dividend closer to the day voting papers were sent out.

Trust chairman William Cairns explained the problem was caused by the trust deed, which required trustees to pay shareholders inside a specific timeframe.

He said it would take a court decision to change the deed.

“To change the trust deed is a lot of expense.”

It has now emerged the trust went to the High Court at Auckland in 2010 and won the right to pay the dividend at any stage of the financial year.

The rule change meant it could have been paid after the election this month. It was paid on September 26, and voting papers were mailed on October 10.

I don’t have an issue with the timing of any payments. Of course politicians will want to pay a dividend before an election, not afterwards. Personally I’d abolish the AECT and hand the shares direct to its beneficiaries and remove the politicians from the picture.

But while not having an issue with the timing, it is a bad look to claim you have little discretion with the timing, and it transpires that in fact you went to court to specifically get flexibility.

The Auckland Energy Consumer Trust owns 75 per cent of power lines company Vector on behalf of 300,000 shareholders.

The five trustees get $340,000 a year in fees. Those acting as directors get about $160,000 each.

That is an average of $70,000 per trustee which seems rather high I have to say for what is a trustee role. The $160,000 for a director of a major commercial company is about right.

As I said, someone should put together a ticket for the AECT that will vow to transfer all their shares to the trust beneficiaries. I suspect they’d win a majority.

The line charge share of the power bill from Vector for the average residential customers has risen from $550 in 2008 to $602 this year.

That’s actually a very modest increase. We’re talking 9.5% over six years which is 1.6% a year on average.

Today’s “jobs” conference organised by Labour Party affiliate member EPMU was of course a media stunt. I did however expect they would have pre-arranged something of substance to merge from it, but instead it is just another stunt – an inquiry by Labour, Greens and NZ First into the manufacturing sector. This inquiry will of course shock horror conclude that their policies to increase prices and inflation are what NZ needs.

I’m glad Labour, Greens and NZ First are all working together to support a policy of printing more money.

The Dom Post editorial:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s White Paper on vulnerable children includes steps that, properly implemented and resourced, will help ensure better reporting and information sharing by state and non-governmental agencies dealing with kids at risk.

It proposes mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse in all but name. Agencies working with children will be required by law to have policies on identifying and reporting possible abuse and neglect and professionals will have a clear responsibility to act.

The White Paper also proposes a central database of vulnerable children to give professionals working with them a comprehensive picture of their lives. Doctors, teachers, social workers, police and other agencies will have access to the database and be able to enter information. Details from a new child abuse line to take and triage calls from the public will also be fed into the database if concerns are found to warrant further attention.

The database will also include information on adults who have abused or neglected children, allowing those accessing it to see whether a child they are concerned about is in contact with someone who poses a danger to them.

Such a database is long overdue. There have been too many examples of one agency or professional having contact with a child in danger, but not acting to protect them.

There’s many worthwhile initiatives in the white paper, but I think this is the most important.

Too often the early abuse is not detected or acted upon until it is too late.

The Law Society has published its submission on Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill and the SOP by Charles Chauvel. They almost brutally dissect both of them. Their summary is:

• There is likely to be a drop in participation in the political process
• The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)1 tries to separate “organisations” in a way that is unprincipled and illogical
• The SOP exemptions for “constituents” do not recognise MMP, and contain other illogicalities
• There is no demonstrated justification for the erosion of the internationally recognised doctrine of legal privilege
• International reports and codes indicate this is a highly complex area not amenable to legislation by slogan

Legislation by slogan is a term that may catch on for it.

They give an example of how wide the bill is:

It also has to be recognised that lobbying can be entirely altruistic, for example, fireworks safety or youth suicide advocates. Some may be paid directly to lobby, others may do so as part of wider paid employment, and some may do so without payment. In some cases it may be difficult to tell. Clause 6(2) of the Bill is probably so broad that it would catch a Professor of Mental Health who lobbied on a matter such as the application of funding for youth suicide prevention.

They state:

Unfortunately, the Bill is little more than ‘legislation by slogan’. It is unsupported by any cost-benefit analysis or effective linking of the solution to the alleged problem, and lacks rigour in its drafting. The Supplementary Order Paper that is before the Committee makes the Bill worse on all three counts. 

And this is the SOP from the Shadow Attorney-General. They specifically say:

The Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Mr Charles Chauvel does not improve the Bill. The SOP proposes three main changes to the Bill. …  Two of the amendments are palpably wrong, and the third may be an improvement but needs analysis and context.

And on the exemption for MPs talking to their constituents:

The term “constituent” is not used in the Electoral Act 1993.

It can be taken to mean something other than “individual”. It may mean “any elector”, but that
could be too broad. It also seems odd to exclude persons who are too young to vote, or those who are otherwise not (yet) qualified (for example, refugees). Presumably “constituent” cannot include firms or organisations, but what about their office holders? 

If it means “elector in relation to the electorate of the Member” then very capricious outcomes are possible. To take Mr Chauvel’s own position, he is a list MP. So, an elector in Ohariu could lobby the Honourable Peter Dunne as the electorate MP but could not lobby Mr Chauvel, even if they would prefer to deal with Mr Chauvel.

Now that is an own goal.

Their recommendation:

The Law Society strongly recommends that the Law Commission be given the opportunity to provide a comprehensive analysis of the appropriateness of lobbying disclosure regulation and the serious issues it poses, before any legislation is progressed in New Zealand.

Their clause by clause analysis is also worth a read:

Clause 6 requires individuals to register before engaging in lobbying activity. This is a strict liability offence (cl 19(2)), so those who lobby without realising that their activity is lobbying will be criminalised.

And the Greens claim to be a party that supports free speech! They were the only party to vote against repealing the odious Electoral Finance Act also.

David Shearer is sadly descending into the Trevor Mallard rulebook, and making things up. Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Earlier today Labour claimed a tape existed of Key giving speech to staff in cafeteria at the Government Communications Security Bureau’s Wellington headquarters in which he made a quip about Dotcom.

The prudent thing to do if you hear a claim like this, is to substantiate it. You file an Official Information Act request for the tape (or at least confirming the existence of it) or as an MP you can file a written question. Then when you get the answer, you trumpet it.

But just making stuff up, and trumpeting it in a press release, is risking being the Boy who cried wold.

Fletcher said “exhaustive enquries” at the GCSB have revealed no video tape.

And Shearer doesn’t even realise

Labour leader David Shearer had called on the GCSB or Key to confirm if the recording existed.

“There is one way to clear this up. The Prime Minister should give the green light to the agency to release any and all unclassified material about the visit and John Key’s comments to staff,” he said.

Does Shearer not even know the law? The PM is not needed to give a green light. The Official Information Act applies to the GCSB. They are listed in Schedule 1. Unless the material is classified, or otherwise meets a criteria for non-release, the GCSB is required by law to release the material. Also the Ombudsman can investigate and request and decision.

Newstalk ZB also has an interesting story on where Labour may be getting their information from.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

A campaign against warrant of fitness changes fronted by motor racing star Greg Murphy is under attack from the AA, which says it is about profit rather than safety.

The Government is considering whether to change the frequency of warrant checks from six-monthly to annually for cars up to 12 years old.

The Motor Trade Association has launched a highly visible campaign against the plan, fronted by Murphy, a four-time Bathurst 1000 winner. He urges people to lobby the Government against the plan.

Automobile Association spokesman Mark Stockdale said that could be seen as “scaremongering” and was influenced by motor trade commercial interests.

The Motor Trade Association members include hundreds of garages offering warrant checks, and the organisation owns Vehicle Testing NZ, the largest warrant provider.

“Clearly they have a vested interest in the status quo, so they’re more concerned about their bottom line than they are about road safety,” Mr Stockdale said.

Absolutely.

The maths is simple. We have four million cars in NZ. Let’s assume 75% are over five years old (prob more than that). So three million cars. If WOF checks go from six months to annually and cost $45 then that is $135 million less revenue for the MTA and its members.

That is $135 million saved by motorists.

The AA said more than half of all accidents blamed on car defects were caused by worn tyres, and in 40 per cent of fatal accidents involving car faults, the vehicle had no warrant. The AA was “likely” to support the Government’s plans.

“There’s no evidence whatsoever . . . that frequency of inspection has any bearing on vehicle safety.”

Some countries have no mandated inspection period. Others range from one to two years generally. Six months is very uncommon.

Motor trade spokesman Ian Stronach insisted its interest was safety.

Yeah, right.

One can argue for monthly inspections, based on safety. The question for Government is do six monthly inspections make a noticeable difference to the safety of vehicles compared to 12 monthly ones. Based on my experience, I’d say no. Most six monthly checks find no issues at all.

If the MTA wanted to persuade people, they’d be better to drop the silly scare campaign, and produce some hard data. How many cars at each WOF check get a clean bill of health, and how many have issues to be fixed – and what are those issues.

Stuff reports:

Labour’s Phil Goff has attacked a big pay rise for the head of the Foreign Affairs ministry as a blatant double standard at a time when many diplomats are losing their jobs.

Figures on state sector chief executives’ pay released today showed Mfat boss John Allen’s salary last year was the highest among chief executives, with a pay rise of $40,000 taking his package between $620,000 and $629,999.

I have no problem with Govt CEOs getting paid market rates, and getting pay rises when they perform well.

But the MFAT restructuring led by the CEO has been somewhat of a clusterfuck, and for the SSC to give the CEO that presided over it a 7% or so payrise is going to go down badly with many. John Allen was an excellent CEO of NZ Post, and may well be doing many things well at MFAT – but the restructuring was a critical piece of work, and there was a near complete failure to get institutional support for it.

This is like the vexed issue of private sector CEOs pay. I don’t think most people are against CEOs getting huge salaries – so long as they and their companies are doing well. Few people ever would have claimed that Rob Fyfe didn’t add value to Air NZ well in excess of a million dollars. Steve Jobs was once valued by the market as being worth several billion to Apple, as that is how far their share price fell on news of his cancer.

But what annoys people is when a company is not performing, and the CEO gets a big pay increase and bonuses.

The figures, released by the State Services Commission also showed shamed former head of the Department of Building and Housing (DBH) Katrina Bach was paid out $81,105 in entitlements when she left the job earlier this year.

This one is a non-issue though. If someone is owed annual leave, they of course get it paid out when they leave. Surely there is no suggestion that the Government should break the law and not pay someone their legal entitlements.

Overall, the average increase in base salary for chief executives was 2.7 per cent. That compared with movement in average base salary across all public service staff of 3 per cent, Rennie said. …

One fifth of state sector bosses took an effective pay cut with either no change to their pay or a reduction.

2.7% overall is pretty modest. The only real issue is the big increase for MFAT CEO.

A different kind of lurker- this is one of our largest tunnelweb spiders.  Typically these arachnids are nocturnal and do not venture far from native bush.Hence this pic is taken at night.  This particular species Hexatheles hochstetteri is one of our heaviest spiders, and was also one of the first to be described (scientifically) in the 1800s.

Click for larger, higher res image

While in general, they’re nocturnal and cryptic, occasionally one will wander into someone’s house.

Last time I was in Canberra, was the day Kevin Rudd got rolled. Sadly it doesn’t look like either Gillard or Abbott will get rolled while I’m here, but the day before I got here the Speaker of the House resigned. The final straw was court documents revealing texts such as:

 “Brough is a cunt,” Mr Slipper said in a text on October 10 last year. Soon after, he said: ”Funny how we say that a person is a cunt when many guys like cunts.”

About five minutes later Mr Slipper began what the Opposition has called “‘vile anatomical references”. Referring to women’s private parts, he said: ”They look like mussell (sic) removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat. Salty Cunts in brine.”

Personally I love mussels and scallops 🙂

Anyway not the worse thing ever said, but in the context of this being to a young male staffer he kept hitting on, it was inevitable he went.

Slipper won a motion of no confidence against him by one vote, but as Labor were defending him the House, the independent MPs had gone to him and told him he must resign. He did. This meant that Labor looked like they were defending the indefensible.

Gillard used the debate to launch a ferocious attack on Tony Abbott as a sexist and misogynist. The attack has become a viral hit internationally, but let me tell you that actually in Australia I’m not sure it went down so well. The newspapers are full of stories casting scorn on it, It certainly appealed hugely to Labor’s own supporters but for many it was seen as playing the victim card.

Abbott did not help things by using the phrase “Government dying of shame” which was unwise considering what Alan Jones said about Gillard’s father. But it has also just come out that a comedian at a Labor/union fundraiser made very disgusting remarks about Abbott’s female chief of staff Peta Credlin. Gillard had left when it was made, but several Ministers remained. It rather undermines their attempts to make Abbott look sexist – rather it just shows how personally denigrating Australian politics is – in all parties.

Stuff reports:

In an embarrassment for Democrats, the creators of Big Bird ask the Obama campaign to scrap an anti-Romney ad featuring the popular TV children’s character.

Obama’s team had used Big Bird to attack Romney for vowing during the debate to cut funding for public television, but is now considering the request to pull the ad.

I think the Democrats are nuts for focusing on Big Bird. The US has a deficit in the hundreds of billions, and they are dying in a ditch over funding for a TV show that is in fact so commercially successful, it would do fine without a subsidy.

However, his supporters have grown increasingly distraught in recent days as Obama has largely stayed out of the public eye after his lackluster debate performance.

‘‘I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before,’’ pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Daily Beast.

The polls have just got very tight. Huff Post reports

It is worth noting that the electoral college is what counts, not the popular vote. But of course they are linked. Will be a fascinating four weeks.

A reader took this photo from the train into Wellington from Wairarapa this morning. Lovely. Wish I was there.

The Herald editorial:

 Young people are particularly vulnerable to unemployment in times like the present. When the world economy is beset by problems and business everywhere is wary of taking on more commitments, older people cling to the jobs they have and vacancies are taken by applicants with a solid work record. …

The youth rate will be available for all 16- and 17-year-olds for their first six months with a new employer, but for 18- and 19-year-olds it will apply only to those who are coming off a benefit after more than six months, or are taking a recognised industry training course.

The legal minimum hourly rate for trainees of any age is already 80 per cent of the adult minimum. The youth rate, to be introduced in April, could reduce the present incentive for school leavers to take a job at the minimum adult rate rather than start a training course.

But mainly the rate is aimed at youth who are least likely to gain employment on the open market and less likely to seek some formal training. The youth rate will give them something to offer that might offset the record, maturity and reliability of their older competitors for the job.

If a temporary saving for employers can get the unskilled young taken on, they will get a chance to show their aptitude and know that after six months they have a right to a rise. It is a sensible step, approved at last year’s election. Let’s hope it works.

It is a sensible step. There is well documented evidence that the abolition of youth rates in 2007 led to a significant increase in youth unemployment. This is no surprise.

David Fisher in the HoS reports:

Voters deciding who will handle their shares in a $2 billion electricity asset were paid $320 by sitting trustees just weeks before they sent out ballot papers seeking re-election.

The payment notice went out two weeks ago with the line: “The power is in your hands.” It carried the names of the five candidates standing for re-election to the board.

Present trust chairman William Cairns said the timing was not the fault of the trustees and instead relied on receiving money from Vector.

“All we can do is, through our channels, to ask Vector to pay the dividend a little bit earlier.”

Once the money had been received, he said the deed which established the trust forced the payment to be made in a specific time frame. …

The five incumbent trustees are all standing on a Communities and Residents ticket. They are opposed by five linked to the Green Party and Labour under the banner Your Power Team.

Accountant and management consultant David Shand said the trust had become a “gravy train”. He said the dividend should not be paid right before the election and questioned the large advertising campaign which went with it.

First of all. I think as with general elections there should be a period of no advertising (except that paid for by candidates).

But in general terms how is the Trust sending out dividends just before the trust election, any different to what Labour did in 2008 by having tax cuts come in just a few weeks before the 2008 election?

Or Labour announcing interest free student loans just before the 2005 election?

So I agree the Trust itself should not advertise just before the election. But overall the story sounds like Labour and Greens just trying to get a free hit in.

Former Reserve Bank Chief Economist David Mayes writes in the Herald:

Printing money is usually a last resort that seriously troubled countries use to stave off collapse, and not some mysterious trick that other nations have conjured up to achieve quick riches.

I never though a so called serious political party would advocate it, since Social Credit were killed off.

New Zealand has definitely not run out of opportunities to use conventional monetary and fiscal policy if it feels the economy faces a lack of demand. So why move to the unconventional now?

Quantitative easing is used when short-run nominal interest rates have been lowered to zero and it is still necessary to expand the economy.

And our cash rate is 2.5%

Quantitative easing is used when short-run nominal interest rates have been lowered to zero and it is still necessary to expand the economy. If the central bank then buys longer dated bonds or other financial securities (including commercial paper or mortgages from the private sector), it may continue stimulating the economy.

Evidence from a symposium being published by The Economic Journal suggests that this is achieving a little in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Euro area.

The problem is that it only works well if people fear major inflation and rush out to buy before prices rise. Once growth re-establishes again, the central bank sells all assets and mops up the extra money before inflation gets out of hand. That of course explains why it doesn’t really work. If inflation is going to be headed off, then why buy now? Hence the weak effect.

Thus quantitative easing needs to be on a massive scale if it is to work.

And this is what worries me. The Greens proposed printing $8 billion of money to stimulate the economy. Now what would they and Labour do, if that doesn’t work? Would they say it was a silly idea, or would they say the problem is they did not print enough money? They’ll then be printing another $10b, another $20b etc.