Paige Hareb-Vimeo- Sportfunder from Bruce Gatward-Cook on Vimeo.

Taranaki girl Paige Hareb is one of the world’s best surfers. Also a gutsy boxer against Hayley Holt! Anyway being from NZ she is less well funded than many of her competitors and is trying to crowdsource her tour costs.

I’m hoping to raise $30,000 in 60 days with your help. I’m going to need this money to help pay for my 2013 World Tour airfares to and from Australia, Brazil, Europe, USA and possibly South Africa, plus my accommodation expenses in each place.

Depending on how much  you give me, I’ll give you something back in return to show my appreciation of your support 😉

– $10+ sponsors get a huge thanks from me and I’ll also sign you up to receive emails and updates from my 2013 travels and World Tour Campaign.

– $25+ sponsors get the above plus a digital copy of a signed surfing photo of me, with a message on it thanking you for your support!

– $50+ sponsors get all of the above plus a free (signed) Paige Hareb Canteen t-shirt with one of her favorite quotes “Winners never quit and quitters never win”. Note: A percentage of this goes to Canteen. (Including postage within NZ)

– $100+ sponsors get 3 t-shirts, plus all of the above as well! Note: A percentage of this also goes to Canteen. (Includes postage within NZ)

– $400+ sponsors get all of the above plus a ladies steamer size 10 wetsuit. I’ve only got two of these, so limited to the first two. (Includes postage within NZ)

– $1000+ sponsors will get 3 hours with me in person. This must take place in Taranaki or when I’m in your town (you’ll have to travel to me if our schedules don’t coincide). I’d love to go surfing with your kids, have lunch with your family, or sign autographs in at your shop etc. Anything within reason.

– $2000+ sponsors will get a full day’s surf coaching from yours truly. This must take place in Taranaki or when I’m in your town (you’ll have to travel to me if our schedules don’t coincide).

– $3000+ sponsors will be able to have their logo (sticker) placed on my surfboard for the 2013 Taranaki World Tour event to promote their cause, business, or brand. Size approximately A4, top and bottom of surfboard. Note: If for whatever reason the Taranaki event does not take place next year, you will be able to transfer this reward to another World Tour event of your choosing.

– $6000+ as above but for the entire Australasian leg of the tour (up to 4 competitions) likely to include Taranaki (NZ), Bells (Melbourne), Snappers (Gold Coast), and Manly (Sydney).

– $10000+ as above but for all of the 2013 Women’s World Tour events (up to 8 events in total). Great exposure for a global brand!

Everyone who supports me goes in to the draw to win one of my Mt Woodgee surfboards signed by me! To be drawn after the 60 days and only if I reach my goal.

Stay tuned on my Facebook and twitter accounts for updates and maybe more prizes along the way!

www.facebook.com/paige.hareb

www.twitter.com/paigehareb

Also a great comment by Alex Tarrant on Twitter:

BREAKING: Fuji Xerox approaches Green Party in early bid for printer procurement contract…

Heh. Also Victoria tweeted:

Brb, just getting a wheelbarrow to carry my notes to buy a loaf of bread!

Matt Nolan at TVHE blogs a very useful analysis of what the Greens have proposed (and Labour are semi-supporting):

 Russel Norman is completely misrepresenting QE by saying that the recent crisis is “evidence it isn’t inflationary”.  QE was put in place to fight the fact that policy was too tight overseas, and they were trying to fight deflation – in essence the fact that inflation stayed near the “target band” in these countries is evidence that QE is indeed inflationary as you would expect … just in the way they were intending.

Exactly. QE can be considered if you face deflation, and your official cash rate is as low as it can go. We are within our target band at 1% (which is what I think we should be aiming for) and the cash rate is 2.5%.

Remember how often Greens and Labour complain about increased costs such as electricity and food? Well this is a policy to increase their costs even more for families finding it hards to make ends meet.

Now you may believe we should fund the rebuild with a one-off tax – that’s fine, in that case get the government to put a tax in place directly (or to directly cut spending from other place).  However, taxation by stealth of this sort is likely to be worse in multiple ways:

1. We have betrayed RBNZ independence for virtually no reason … understandably a sneak tax by the RBNZ would make people less likely to believe them in the future about holding to their inflation mandate.  As a result, we run into the time-consistency issue in monetary policy again, and it will become more painful for economy when the RBNZ tries to commit to its inflation mandate again.
2. We have a relatively rough redistribution of resources due to this.  By putting in our sneak tax through QE, we transfer resources to those with assets, those doing the rebuild, and those who can easily adjust prices/wages – while hurting those on fixed income, and those who have saved.  It is an inflation tax – pure and simple – and as a result, it will initially transfer resources from those who can’t protect themselves (generally the poor) to those who can (generally the rich).  If we introduce the tax through fiscal policy instead we can sort out these distributional issues a little better.
3. A country that is willing to introduce QE as a clear fiscal transfer – when there is no monetary policy reason – will destroy its credibility with international lenders.  People will scoff at this, but such a policy will increase the level of “inflation insurance” lenders ask for – increasing the cost of credit in New Zealand.

That is a very good way to put it – the Greens have proposed an inflation tax – one that will hit fixed income households the hardest!

The Greens, and Ganesh Nana, are wrong in stating that the RBNZ has failed.  Distinctly and totally wrong.  Things like this:

”No system of monetary policy is perfect and New Zealand cannot remain the last devotee to a failed monetary theory while the rest of the world moves on,” Norman said.

Paint a complete and utter misrepresentation about the lessons from the Global Financial Crisis.  Our flexible inflation targeting framework saved us from a massive crisis at home – while the rest of the world fell apart.

Matt’s conclusions:

1. We don’t need QE in NZ, as we have enough monetary stimulus (and if not we can cut interest rates further).
2. What is being suggested isn’t even QE – its the monetization of government debt, effectively a inflation tax to pay for the rebuild in Canterbury.
3. It is unlikely that such a tax is the “best” way of raising the revenue to rebuild Christchurch – which should be the primary question.

Say no to the Green’s inflation tax.

Oh you must watch the video also, H/T Whale.

John Clarke as hilarious as always. He is also factually correct in this case.

Peter Cresswell blogs on the recent Libertarianz/Liberty conference:

So Project ACT and Project Libertarianz are both failures.   And if success is measured by achieving measurable goals, then failure has unfortunately been the only thing about which the single-issue Legalise Cannabis Party has to boast.  And that’s despite virtually every MP in the New Zealand parliament happy to confess they’ve inhaled.  I think economic and social liberals from all parties—classical liberals, if you like—can learn from all our failures.  Project Act and Project Libertarianz are failures for opposite reasons.  ACT abandoned principle in favour of populism, and ended up losing both. Libz embraced principle over populism, and while we’ve succeeded in putting some of those principles on the public stage, it’s not as much as we’d hoped from 17 years of trying.  

I think ACT’s failure hasn’t been so much about populism, but a number of factors including infighting. PC quotes Deborah Coddington:

the Libz narrow dogma — total free market, wholesale selling of state assets including having all schools and hospitals run by private enterprise, the right to carry guns, and complete freedom to take whatever drugs you like so long as you accept the consequences — have scared the bejesus out of people. … Cliches are usually true,” she says. “as in there’s only one way to eat an elephant: one bite at a time. So when you say you want freedom, you can only achieve it one step at a time. Don’t terrify people who’ve been enchained for 30 years. It’s like stripping them naked, when you should be persuading them they can just remove their overcoat. It will take time for some to be convinced they don’t need to hold Nanny’s hand.

Deborah is quite right. I worry more about getting policies that push NZ in the right direction, than purity of argument. Don’t get me wrong – in terms of personal belief and debate, I can be very purist. But as John Key said, you don’t start with a blank slate of paper in politics.  If I was designing a society from scratch, I’d have it firmly on libertarian principles. But I don’t think NZ is ever going to be a libertarian state, and trying to make it one is futile.

Lindsay Perigo’s speech is here, which has some fascinating observations on his time as a press secretary to ACT.

PC suggests that the new liberal grouping should pick a maximum of five memorable parties to promote, rather than just try and make the case for a libertarian state. I agree with him, and wish them success  I may even help out! He says the criteria for the five policies should be:

1. Select those policies that clearly demonstrate our principles;
2. Select those policies for which we estimate there are already 100,000 people in the country who agree with us; and
3. Select those policies for which those 100,000 will vote for us instead of anyone else.
4. Reject policies too closely associated with past failure.
5. Accept those policies that promote the benevolence and sense of life of freedom.

Sounds good to me. Maybe add on a criteria that they should be easy to understand, and the benefits should also be easily understood. He lists some possible policies. I thought I’d share my thoughts on them:

Small Consents Tribunals – accept RMA but insist that Small Consents Tribunals are set up, something like Small Claims Tribunals, to deal with projects under $300,000 on the basis of a Codification of Common Law. At one very easy stroke you make more low-cost housing much more affordable for many more people.

Love it. Could be very popular.

Iwi then Kiwi – accept ToW, insist only that all property involved (which, let’s face it, is the only way we’re going to see any real privatisation this decade) is individualised and transferrable. And call it what it is. Privatisation. At one simple stroke you have the biggest political power bloc in the country, the Browntable, behind privatisation.

I like the idea of all settlements being devolved to the individual. I suggest Iwi leaders will be less keen. The argument against will be up to members of each Iwi to determine what they devolve to members and tramples on their property rights. But an interesting possibility.

Balanced Budget

Yes please. Call it the Greece policy – to avoid us ever doing a Greece. Require a balanced budget over a three year term, with an exception only in an emergency.

Legalise cannabis

I think this could be good, but I’d widen it to being whole different approach with soft drugs – a health, not criminal, approach that will save money and stop criminalizing users.

Voluntary euthanasia

A good issue, but not sure many votes in it, and may have happened by 2014. People have views on this issue, but few would vote for it. Also public know it is a conscience vote, not something you can get in a coalition agreement.

Abolish Search & Surveillance Act, 2012

Silly idea. What do you replace it with?

Abolish Maori seats

I think other forces will be on that issue, and again there is little chance of getting that agreed to by other parties.

Enterprise Zone for Christchurch

Excellent idea. Might be not that big an issue by 2014 though.

Affordable Cities

I don’t know what that means. If it means affordable housing by opening land up, then could be good.

40/15 tax: $40k income tax free threshold, 15% GST

This has been clarified to actually be a $15,000 tax-free threshold, 15% flat tax above that, 15% GST and 15% company tax (the last two declining over time).

All for tax cuts, but not credible when books in deficit. Save it for a later election. Need to reduce spending first or we end up like the US with a massive deficit.

A Very Special Carbon Tax: linked to temperature rise in troposphere at equator

I quite like this idea, but no way will Parliament scrap the ETS – too many businesses have made major decisions based on it.

Eco UnTaxes

Needs a name Joe Average can understand, but I like the concept – and may appeal to greenie libertarians

Putting Property Rights in the Bill of Rights.

I agree with this, but few votes in it.

Replace zoning with “Coming to the Nuisance”

Also not a bad idea, but not one that will win hearts and minds. So, not necessarily in order, what would be my five:

1. Small Consents Tribunal
2. Balanced Budget
3. Legalise Cannabis/Abandon War on Soft Drugs
4. Enterprise Zone for Christchurch
5. Eco UnTaxes

How about readers? What policies would you like to see a liberal party champion. Ideally ones that can attract 100,000 voters and that are achievable (ie a National-led or Labour-led Government could possibly agree to).

The Herald editorial:

The Government’s proposal to close courts and shift registries to nearby towns is another welcome sign that crime is on the wane. One of the most intractable policy challenges for the state is starting to pay a dividend. …

Now the Courts Minister has moved to meet the reduced demand on the courts by cutting the total number of court houses and reducing others’ opening hours. Towns such as Warkworth and, on the West Coast, Whataroa, will lose their seldom-used courts and those needing their services will be required to front at North Shore or Greymouth. Whataroa had just 11 hours of sitting time last year. As well as streamlining the costs of low-use courts, the Government will move some functions online with a goal of cutting 90,000 hours of effort between court and police staff. Courts Minister Chester Borrows also talks of defendants being able to deal with the court from their lawyers’ officers by Skype. In a damp economy the need for innovative ways of saving taxpayer dollars is all the greater.

Labour has opposed every cost reduction for the last four years, including this one.

They want to keep courthouses open even when there is not enough crime. I guess their policy is to increase crime, so that no courthouses need close.

Rodney Hide writes in NBR:

You win the contract to clean the local hospital. You succeed because you are good at your job and have a good crew.

The previous contractor was slack and expensive. The hospital gives him one month’s notice. It’s a good result for you. And a good result for the hospital.

But then Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act kicks in. Part 6A enables the existing cleaners to transfer your business. The purpose of this provision is to protect “vulnerable workers”.

Part 6A defines the vulnerable workers by the work they do and where they do it. Essentially, it covers industries such as cleaning and food and laundry services. The real protection is to existing contractors.

Indeed, the previous contractor told the hospital it was no use dropping him in your favour because Part 6A means nothing much would change. It would be the same crew on the same wages and conditions doing the same job. 

Part 6A locks in existing workers and sloppy work practice. It doesn’t protect “vulnerable workers”.

It protects slack businesses and poorly trained and managed workers. It’s anti-competitive. It drives up the cost of cleaning and laundry services including for government, which is the major country’s buyer. 

I regard it as horrific that a winning contractor has to keep on the staff of the losing contractor, and the same terms and conditions. It destroys their ability to be more innovative and flexible.

National rightly slammed the Labour government for introducing Part 6A in 2006. But National in government has done nothing.

There has been a required statutory review of Part 6A in 2009. But then nothing. The minister is still sitting on the result.

The evidence is clear. Part 6A can’t be amended. It should be repealed.

I agree. No employer should be forced to employ staff from a competitor. It also destorys any incentive for staff to perform well for their employer, if they know that even if their employer loses the contract they are guaranteed jobs with the next employer.

Stuff reports:

Sir Ngatata Love’s partner was paid more than $170,000 to resolve a property dispute for the Wellington City Council, which was unaware she was also being paid by developers planning to build on the land.

Documents released under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act show the council engaged Lorraine Skiffington to secure a sale and purchase of 2 Lambton Quay.

The site of the former Cecil Hotel was acquired by the Government during World War II to house US troops, but the Edmonds family fought a protracted legal battle against the Crown and the council to win it back in 2005 and 2006.

Council chief executive Garry Poole told The Dominion Post the council was left in a weak position on land needed for the capital’s transport system, with owners who had refused to negotiate with it.

Sir Ngatata, the Tenths Trust chairman, approached Mr Poole in May 2007, believing he could use his good relationship with the Edmonds “as a means of ending the stalemate”.

He proposed Ms Skiffington be engaged as a lead negotiator to strike a deal between the Edmonds family and the council, which would cover her costs, at $350 an hour.

Mr Poole said the council believed she worked as a lawyer for the Wellington Tenths Trust.

Over the following six months she filed three invoices totalling $154,350 plus GST.

The invoices show the council was charged for dozens of meetings between Ms Skiffington and members of the Tenths Trust, as well as property developers, who at the same time were paying her to progress plans to build an office tower on the Lambton Quay site.

That’s a win-win – for Ms Skiffington.

He proposed Ms Skiffington be engaged as a lead negotiator to strike a deal between the Edmonds family and the council, which would cover her costs, at $350 an hour.

Mr Poole said the council believed she worked as a lawyer for the Wellington Tenths Trust.

Over the following six months she filed three invoices totalling $154,350 plus GST.

$350 an hour is around what lawyers cost. But that suggests 441 hours of work on the negotiations – for one site. That is 11 weeks out of 26 spent on nothing but that one negotiation.

The invoices show the council was charged for dozens of meetings between Ms Skiffington and members of the Tenths Trust, as well as property developers, who at the same time were paying her to progress plans to build an office tower on the Lambton Quay site.

If the same meeting was charged at the same rate to both clients (we do not know if this is the case), then there could be issues.

Documents released by the council show Mr Poole had reservations about invoices Ms Skiffington sent him detailing the work she was charging for, with no certainty of how long the negotiations would take.

Twice he wrote directly to Sir Ngatata requesting an estimate of what the total cost of the negotiations would be.

“I have approved the Skiffington invoice without this cost estimate but it is clear this still needs to happen so that both parties can assess our respective commitments as we go forward,” Mr Poole wrote.

So it was an open-ended commitment.

Last week Mr Poole said that at the time the deal was struck he was unaware Sir Ngatata and Ms Skiffington were in a personal relationship but it would not have stopped him hiring her.

But it should have been disclosed as it was material.

He was also unaware that Ms Skiffington had a $3 million consultancy deal with a group funded by Auckland property developers Redwood and financiers Equinox. This included paying her to progress plans for an office tower on the Lambton Quay site.

“I did not know that was happening. We did not know that,” Mr Poole told The Dominion Post.

It appears Ms Skiffington’s arrangement with the council on the Lambton Quay site was also unknown to developers.

“It’s news to me,” Equinox partner Kerry Knight told The Dominion Post on Friday.

And that should have been disclosed also. I have no idea about the legality of this (I note the SFO are investigating) and am not suggesting it is illegal. But I do believe that non-disclosure to be unethical.

Darien Fenton blogs:

Last night I attended the 101st anniversary of the Republic of China (Taiwan) anniversary, along with other parliamentary colleagues, Rajen Prasad, Hon Peter Dunne and National MP Jami-lee Ross. Peter Goodfellow, National Party President was there, and Paul Hutchinson attended, but had to leave early.

This was one of those occasions when we were there as invited guests to help celebrate the community’s pride in their country’s history and their place in New Zealand. When MPs attend these kind of events, we are welcomed as an important part of the celebration. As guests, our job is to respond appropriately and join in with the spirit of the occasion.

Speakers from all sides of the political spectrum spoke respectfully. There were no party politics, just an acknowledgement of the friendship and links between our countries, the contribution of the Taiwanese community in New Zealand and the celebration of their 101st special birthday.

But one person got it wrong. Colin Craig, Conservative Leader was also an invited guest.

He chose to use his speech to try to draw links between the Conservative party’s “family values” and Taiwan. For example,  (he said)  Taiwan has lower divorce rates than New Zealand.  And then he launched into a political speech about the marriage equality bill.

Maybe he thought he was onto a vote winner. But he caused embarrassment to his hosts and other guests.

And he showed appalling judgement.

I heard about this from almost every MP that was there – from three different parties. They all said Craig showed awful judgement in thinking a national day celebration is a forum for partisan speeches.

Some people think I am against a conservative type party in Parliament. I am not. I recognise there is a segment of the population that are socially conservative and economically wet, and they should be represented in Parliament.

My objection isn’t to there being a Conservative Party (or a NZ First Party). It is to their respective leaders. I actually wish Colin Craig would stop doing so many pratfalls. But if keeps saying idiotic things like being gay is a choice, and embarrassing himself at functions, then he’s going to have a tough time of it.

Stuff reports:

Environment Canterbury (ECan) commissioners warned the Government that Christchurch’s earthquake recovery should not be used as an excuse to suspend democracy, documents reveal.

Last month, Local Government Minister David Carter and Environment Minister Amy Adams said ECan elections would not be held until 2016, despite a Government promise to hold regional council elections next year.

Instead, a ministerial review of ECan’s governance arrangements will be held in 2014.

Government-appointed commissioners have been in charge of the regional council since democratically elected councillors were sacked early in 2010.

This went against a recommendation at the end of July by the Internal Affairs Department and the Environment Ministry to establish a transitional body made up of elected councillors and government-appointed members, which would be subject to ministerial review by 2017.

At the time, Carter said one of the main reasons the commissioners’ terms were extended was because the Government did not want to disrupt the progress the commissioners had made.

“We weren’t prepared to put that progress [in jeopardy].”

However, in an April letter to Carter, released to The Press under the Official Information Act, ECan chairwoman Dame Margaret Bazley backed the mixed model. She wrote the proposal for a mixed-model was based on the commissioners’ experiences, learning and observations.

As I have said previously I think the Government has made the wrong decision here. When not even the Commissioners have said a totally appointed Council should continue, then why is the Government persisting? It’s wrong in principle and it’s wring politically.

The Government should agree to amend the bill so that there are elections n 2013 for ECan.

It recommended a mixed-governance model of six to eight elected member plus four to six Government-appointed members as the “most appropriate solution”.

A majority of elected is appropriate.

I thought this madness died with Social Credit, but Greens (and Labour may not be far behind) have said that they want the NZ Reserve Bank to effectively start printing money. They think that NZ printing more money is a good way to increase the relative value of the US dollar. We might as well start burning our savings.

Make no mistake, what they are calling for is the value of everyone’s savings to be reduce, as inflation takes off. You know all how they say wages are too low for low income workers? Well they want the cost of food, goods and services like electricity to increase faster than they have been.

There are basically two sorts of countries that print money. Those that are bankrupt, and those whose economies are so stalled that the central bank cash rate is as low as it can go.  In the US it is 0.25%. NZ is at 2.5% so a fair way away from that.

Russel Norman claimed:

Secondly, when you look overseas at the use of quantitative easing – because all of our major— most of our major trading partners are using it

This is simply wrong. The US and the the Eurozone and Japan have done it (and sort of the UK)  – again because they are almost bankrupt or their central rate can not be lowered anymore. But they are not our major trading partners.

Our exports for the year to June 2012 came to $46.7b. Exports to the Eurozone were $2.9b, UK $1.4b, Japan $3.4b and US $4.1b. That is a mere $11.8b out of $46.7b – under one quarter. Australia is almost a bigger export market than those four combined.

And let me tell you if we started printing money, and Australia was not, watch the outpour to Australia get far far worse.

Some policies put forward are just silly, or ineffective, or wasteful. Some are very very bad and dangerous. This is one of them. The idea of printing money to grow the economy has never worked long-term. It gives you a short-term sugar rush at best. It puts up the price of pretty much all goods and services as inflation grows.

It is actually to our advantage long-term that the US and Eurozone are printing money. Proposing to follow them voluntarily is the worst thing NZ could do.

John Tamihere on Q+A:

PAUL Yeah, but we’re now 2012, as I say. I mean, do you think David Shearer’s got to really reshuffle that front bench? I mean, you can’t honestly look at that front bench and think they’re performing well as an Opposition.

MR TAMIHERE That’s true, but he’s also got to look to 2014 for the list. 

PAUL It’s critical, because this week – you take this week. Bad week for the government. Should have been. More Dotcom coming left, right and centre at the Prime Minister.

 MR TAMIHERE You’ve got me. There’s no doubt—

 PAUL Wilkinson’s reversal on Mike Tyson.

 MR TAMIHERE Front bench is not firing.

 PAUL No.

 MR TAMIHERE Across the whole line, whether it’s health, welfare or education, and those are the biggies.  …

I’m surprised Tamihere named specific portfolios where he claimed Labour front benchers are not firing. That will not endear him to Maryan Street, Jacinda Ardern and Nanaia Mahuta.

The Herald on Sunday reports:

Multi-millionaire Owen Glenn has hinted his political aspirations toward becoming an independent MP are very much alive.

In a speech at the BNZ Business Conference this week, Glenn, 72, said he would consider a move into politics if a coalition between National or Labour with NZ First was on the cards for the next election.

“Where will that leave us as a country?” Glenn said. “Maybe someone else has to run on the basis of the current MMP rules … Why not me?”

Owen Glenn is right that that a coalition that involves NZ First is unlikely to be very stable, or good for NZ.

Entrepreneur Tenby Powell, who attended the business conference, said everyone in the room applauded Glenn: “He thinks we should all be standing up and saying what is on our mind as opposed to kow-towing to some of the institutions and bureaucracies and the people who are adding no value.

“He said we could do things differently and that he has some ideas and maybe he should take them forward as an independent candidate.”

University of Auckland professor of politics Barry Gustafson said he was doubtful Glenn could win a seat as an independent MP. “I would be surprised if he could do it because in many ways he has baggage coming in from supporting Labour and NZ First and the hoo-ha over that.”

If successful, however, Glenn would be the first person in about 80 years to enter politics as an independent MP.

I think it is unlkely an Indpendent MP would get elected.

For my 2c I think Glenn could do more good by promoting good policies for NZ, and funding badly needed institutions such as a NZ version of factcheck.org,

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

As David Shearer prepares to dust off Labour’s front bench, David Cunliffe plots his dust up with Mr Shearer.  Here’s a report card for the last 10 months:

David Shearer, Leader – 5/10
Hapless and ever-less-confident media performer, except on TV3 comedy shows.  Failed to build cohesive team.  Caught inventing stories about painters.  Lost control of his own office, now staffed by Grant Robertson loyalists.  Faces leadership challenge before Christmas.  Only KPI, though, is becoming prime minister.  If he holds on as leader, recent polls suggest that’s what he’ll be in two years.  Five points for that alone.

Grant Robertson, Deputy Leader, Environment – 3/10
Allowed Tim Groser to defang the ETS without political cost, making Labour cheerleader Rod Oram the lone campaigner against the changes.  Has provided no public support for his leader, fuelling destabilising leadership speculation.  Points for achieving more control over the party apparatus than Helen Clark in her prime.

David Parker, Finance
7/10
His plans to intervene in currency markets to drive up the Australian and US dollars are nuts, but are at least bold and have people talking, even if he will ultimately lose the intellectual debate.  Needs to package his ideas more coherently and learn to distil difficult concepts into fewer words.

Jacinda Ardern, Welfare
1/10
Failed utterly to confront Paula Bennett’s welfare reforms, despite the beneficiaries burdened with new obligations being a key Labour voting bloc.  Wins a point for leadership on gay adoption, targeting her Grey Lynn constituency.

David Cunliffe, Economic Development
4/10
Should be sacked for disloyalty.  Gives cliché-ridden think-speeches, with excruciatingly laboured analogies.  Panders to Labour’s left by advocating 19th century mercantilism, which he can’t possibly believe.  However, he’s the only Labour MP whose speeches anyone bothers to read and can articulate complex ideas.

Clayton Cosgrove, SOEs
6/10
Like Lianne Dalziel, manages to get under Gerry Brownlee’s skin occasionally, but can’t take any credit for Mr Key’s difficulties with the SOE floats.  Is meant to be Labour’s attack dog but has been over-shadowed by the Greens’ Russel Norman.  If he wants to be the tough guy, needs to fix the first name.

Shane Jones, On Gardening Leave
0/10
So much hype, for so many years.  So little to show for it.  Pro-business attitudes not a good fit with his party. Walking advertisement for political mercy killing.

Nanaia Mahuta, Education
0/10
Has done nothing.  Will be sacked.  Mr Shearer should demonstrate importance of education to Labour by taking portfolio himself, a la Peter Fraser and David Lange.

Maryan Street, Health
1/10
Wins a point for promoting euthanasia law reform, but voters probably expect potential health ministers to focus more on curing people than killing them.

Su’a William Sio, Employment
0/10
Unemployment is touching 7%.   High profile job losses at Solid Energy, Tiwai Point and Kawerau.  Ever heard of William Sio?

The Herald reports:

The bitter and negative 2012 American presidential election has left few political reputations intact.

Republican challenger Mitt Romney has run a staggering, gaffe-prone campaign, while President Barack Obama is battling a listless economy and a disenchanted Democratic base.

But, through all the attacks ads, missteps and heated controversies, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have emerged with their reputations and status not only intact but greatly enhanced. In a remarkable development, and 12 years since they vacated the White House, the Clintons have rarely seemed more influential or more relevant.

Rather than slipping away into obscurity, Bill Clinton is hitting the campaign trail hard for Obama after his stirring performance at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, overshadowed the President.

During the first debate the words that would most often send the worms upwards were “small businesses”, “jobs” and “Bill Clinton”.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is trotting the globe as America’s top diplomat amid feverish speculation that, whichever of Obama or Romney wins on Tuesday, November 6, she will again run for the White House in 2016. That could make her the first female US President and conceivably extend Clintonian domination of US politics to 2024.

I think she will, if Obama wins. Maybe even if he does not.

Stuff reports:

A Rotary Club has distanced themselves from a political activist who claimed the country was headed toward an “apartheid Aotearoa” by cancelling his speech.

John Ansell was set to give a speech at the Rotary Club of Remuera’s meeting on Monday as part of his Treatygate/Colourblind State campaign.

Ansell has claimed the Treaty of Waitangi was an exercise in “mass brainwashing with false history” by the successive New Zealand governments.

Ansell’s campaign was aimed at exposing the “Treatygate fraudsters and for the government to create a colourblind state”. …

Rotary Club of Remuera president John Burrows said the organisation was firmly “non-political” and media hype had seen the club “ambushed” into providing a platform for Ansell.

Ahead of Monday’s meeting, Burrows today said Ansell had “stepped over the mark” after issuing his own invitation to members of the public and promoting his talk at the club as a “state launch”.

“There is no way that the Rotary Club of Remuera endorses John Ansell’s views, or that it ever wanted to give him a platform to launch his political aspirations,” said Burrows.

“We might invite him to talk to us in the future. As business and thought leaders Rotarians like to be informed. But he will be just one of a variety of people, including politicians, which we invite to share their ideas.

Personally I don’t think an invitation to speak in an endorsement. No one things Orewa Rotary Club endorsed what all their speakers have said. If I was Re,uera Rotary Club I would have kept John on, and just invited Hone Harawira to be their next guest speaker – nice and balanced.

John has blogged:

Now I need to turn this setback into an opportunity.

Who among you knows of another venue where we could hold Monday evening’s meeting?

From the interest I’ve had, it would pay to err on the big side.

I’ll keep you informed if and when I find a new venue.

Since flights and accommodation are booked, I might as well head to Auckland tomorrow as planned, and return Tuesday.

Will it still happen? If it does, I suspect even greater media interest now.

1. Does saying yes to Hobbits also mean we surrender our sovereignty under the Trans Pacific Partnership — NZCTU President, Helen Kelly; NZ – US Council director, Stephen Jacobi; Professor Jane Kelsey and representatives from the film production industry debate this issue.
2. An investigation into the troubled state of the University of Canterbury.
3. The University’s Vice Chancellor is live with Rachel.
4. Brian Edwards is finally back from Italy! So he’s back on the Media Panel — this week, with Susan Wood.

Broadcast on TV 3, Saturday 9.30 am, repeated on Sunday at 8 am

Some nice NZ photos to guide you into the weekend, from Richard Hume.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
LOBBYING DISCLOSURE BILL TO THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SELECT COMMITTEE

 About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
2. I frequently communicate with MPs and staff on political, policy and legislative issues. The views expressed are always my own, yet under this legislation in some circumstances I would face large fines unless I I filed a return listing every tweet, e-mail, text message, oral conversation I have with an MP or staff member or a political issue. This would even apply to if an MP asks me for my view on an issue in passing at say a social function or Koru Club.
3. I chair the Policy Advisory Group of InternetNZ, and get paid a small fee ($1,000 a month) for chairing the group, and working with staff on Internet policy issues. Under the proposed legislation, this would make me a paid lobbyist. I do not regard myself as that, as I only advocate for what I personally believe in, and am not paid to advocate the views of InternetNZ. However the definition in the proposed law would define me as a paid lobbyist.

Background to Bill

4. This bill seems to be based on a genuine desire to avoid lobbying practices of the type seen overseas, primarily in the United States. I share that desire.
5. It is important to understand how massively different lobbying in the United States is, compared to New Zealand. In the US lobbying often consists of lobby groups meeting individual representatives and offering them large sums of moneys to help finance their primary or general election campaigns if they vote the desired way on issues. Such funding may often be indirect such as via Political Action Committees or PACs.
6. Lobbying in New Zealand does not work that way, and due to our laws and culture basically can’t work that way. First of all, political parties tend to vote as a bloc on all but conscience issues. Decisions are taken collectively by a caucus or Cabinet. In the US a political party is more a label, than a formal organization. There is almost no method to impose discipline or expel wayward members. Hence lobbying is about influencing individual members and helping them win elections – the one way they can be “disciplined”.
7. In New Zealand we have very good transparency requirements around MPs, parties, and money. The Electoral Act requires disclosure of any donation over $1,500 to a candidate of $15,000 to a party. The Register of MPs Pecuniary Interests requires disclosure of any gifts over $500. The Cabinet Manual has similar requirements. Ministers and their staffs disclose under the OIA ridiculously trivial gifts such as tickets to sporting games. So we already have excellent (not perfect) laws and policies in place when it comes to politicians and money.
8. I also have to say I have never heard of US-style lobbying when an organization or individual has tried to persuade an MP to vote a certain way, because of money which will flow to them. All the lobbying I have ever observed is based on advocacy around what is good for New Zealand, good for a particular affected organization, will a policy actually achieve it aims etc.
9. So I think we should be very clear that the legal and political framework that exists in New Zealand is critically different to the United States, and this is unlikely to change.

Transparency

10. Transparency generally is a very good thing in politics. This is why we have the Official Information Act. That is why Parliament meets in open to make laws. We have seen useful extra transparency such as televised sittings of Parliament, online listings of submissions to select committees, disclosure of MPs expenses and the like.
11. But it is obviously transparency has its limits. Otherwise we would require every MP to have a webcam attached to them that broadcasts video and audio of all their activities. This might make for a very enjoyable reality TV show, but would not be a very good system of Government.
12. Beyond the Official Information Act, there is no obligation for disclosure of what is discussed at caucus meetings, at cabinet meetings, at select committee meetings when considering legislation amendments, of meetings between MPs and staff, of meetings of political party governing bodies and policy committees, of cross-party parliamentary meetings, of the business committee of Parliament etc etc. These are all very important and powerful forums and discussions.
13. Transparency is focused on the actual decisions taken by MPs and parties, whom the public holds accountable for them. They are judged by voters based on how they vote, not whom they met with.
14. As the Attorney-General has pointed out the proposed law, as currently worded, would massively discourage people from communicating with MPs on political issues – with a risk of large fines if they do. I generally believe we want to encourage more people to communicate with MPs on political issues, not discourage them.
15. I also note that such legislation often has unforeseen consequences. The history of electoral finance legislation in the United States is that the more regulations they impose (and the US is much more heavily regulated than NZ), the more it deters “Joe Average” from involvement, but those determined to be involved just fund loopholes such as PACs.
16. I believe the bill, in its current form, would be extremely detrimental to New Zealand democracy.

Defining a Lobbyist

17. The bill defines a lobbyist as someone who engages, for payment, on behalf of any individual or organization on any legislative, policy, funding or contractual issue with any MP or parliamentary staff member. This can include shareholders, directors, officers, contractors and staff.
18. Some have suggested that unions be exempted from definition as a lobbyist. I oppose that. It would be very uneven if only business groups lobbying on industrial relations issue had to register and disclose, but unions did not.
19. Some have said that such a regime should apply to professional lobbying firms only, of which NZ has around half a dozen to a dozen. However all that is likely to do is encourage people not to use those firms, even though it may lead to better outcomes if they do. Organisations would simply use their own staff more.
20. Others have said that the regime should apply only to businesses, as they are motivated by profit. So for example a mining company would have to disclose its lobbying activity, but Greenpeace would not have to. Again I think this is very unbalanced. NGOs can benefit just as much from political decisions as businesses. Staff for NGOs could have employment agreements where they get bonuses if they achieve certain outcomes. Some NGOs such as unions stand to gain millions of dollars from legislative changes that benefit them. Restricting the definition to companies would be unfair.
21. Such a restriction is also likely to lead to US style PACs. NGOs could be set up and funded to lobby for outcomes, to avoid having to register as lobbyists. Ironically this bill could then see more US style politics, not less.
22. If there is to be mandatory registration of lobbyists, then the definition must include NGOs, not just businesses.
23. However I would argue there is an alternative to mandatory registration, and that is a voluntary registration system, without fear of prosecutions and fines if you get it wrong.
24. It should be noted that we don’t really have a great current problem with transparency of who represents who. If a Telecom staff member meets with MPs, it is clear they are representing Telecom. Likewise when Greenpeace meets with MPs, you know they are Greenpeace. You do not need a register to tell you this. With professional lobbying firms, the argument is you may not know whom they represent when they advocate on an issue. In my experience no lobbying firm has ever advocated on an issue in their own right. They have always stated to MPs and staff which client they represent. Many list them on their website in fact.
25. So bearing in mind there is no defined current problem with practice, it seems overkill to go all the way to a mandatory registration system with large fines for non-compliance. I would advocate a halfway house.
26. I propose that as an alternative, a register of lobbyists be set up by the Office of the Speaker and/or the Clerk of the House. Allow organisations and individuals who self-identify as lobbyists to register on it. They could be asked to list their clients, the policy areas of interest to them, and any specific bills they are interested in. This list could be published on the parliamentary website. You could even give an asterisk to those with swipe cards!
27. As an individual who has a certain degree of experience in lobbying MPs, I would have no problem with going onto a register, both in areas where I do have a financial tie (Internet issues) and those where I have no financial interest (Keep It 18 campaign and Marriage Equality). What I don’t want though is to be risking prosecution and fines. As it happens, I tend to disclose prominently on my blog the issues I take an interest in, and groups I am involved in.
28. Some may say with no risk of prosecution and fines, such a register would be toothless. I disagree. I think the power of public pressure can be considerable. If prominent individuals or organisations did not register, the media and others could well highlight this to their disadvantage.
29. An organization that generally is not involved in the parliamentary process such as say the Red Cross shouldn’t feel a need to register just because they may chat about aid issues occasionally to their local MP. But a more political organization such as say Greenpeace would be expected. But rather than scare groups such as Red Cross off with risk of fines, just have an opt in self-recognition system. Have some trust in the public, the media, and even new media to expose any blatant cases of groups not registered who should be. This is preferable to trying to reach a definition of lobbyist that isn’t either unfairly exclusive or so inclusive it deters communications with MPs.

Defining Communications

30. Defining what counts as a lobbying communication is also very problematic,
31. The current definition of effectively all communications on a political or policy issues would cover tweets, e-mails, informal chats at functions, letters, formal meetings, phone calls, text messages.
32. Unlike some countries, our MPs engage all the time with many New Zealanders – including those who may be considered a “lobbyist”. This engagement is far more than sit down meetings in Parliament Buildings. MPs attend scores of meetings and functions where people talk to them on political issues
33. Speaking personally, I talk to and engage with a number of MPs (from many parties) many times a week. Often we chat socially Sometimes we discuss current events. Sometimes we discuss legislation and policy. The thought that I have to disclose every single discussion I have with MPs (let alone parliamentary staffers) on say Internet related issues (as I am technically a lobbyist for InternetNZ, as this bill is defined) is horrifying. It would be like working for one of those awful law firms where you have to account for every six minutes of your time.
34. You could restrict the law to be face to face meetings in Parliament only. But then you’ll provide incentives for those not wanting their every discussion with an MP disclosed to avoid face to face meetings and use other mediums.
35. How do you draw a line where an e-mailed communication is counted as lobbying, but a tweet is not? I think it is mission impossible.
36. I note that Ministers are already obliged to release their ministerial diaries under the OIA, if requested. We already have transparency with Ministers. They can be asked written or oral questions about whom they meet with or talk to, as well as the OIA.
37. If there is a desire for greater transparency around meetings with opposition MPs and backbench MPs, then that could be achieved by having them release their diaries also by extending the OIA to Parliamentary Service. That nature of diaries is it will tend to capture planned scheduled meetings, but not ad hoc conversations.
38. The media can also of course ask MPs about any meetings they have had, and there are political consequences related to refusal to answer.

Summary

39. I propose that it should not be an offence to communicate with MPs if you are an unregistered “lobbyist”. That is too grievous a restriction on freedom of speech.
40. I propose that the Select Committee recommend that the Speaker and Office of the Clark establish a Register of Lobbyists, as detailed above. It could be given some formality through Standing Orders if necessary.
41. I propose that the requirement for reporting all communications between lobbyists and MPs be dropped as unworkable.
42. As an alternative I propose that MPs diaries be made official information under the Official Information Act, as is the case for Ministers. Note this would still allow deletion of sensitive information as defined under the OIA.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission also, and look forward to appearing.

David Farrar

UK researchers have studied the shape of drinking glasses. Their conclusion is:

Our data indicate that the shape of a drinking glass influences the rate of drinking of an alcoholic beverage, but not a non-alcoholic beverage. Specifically, alcoholic beverages were consumed more slowly from a straight glass than a curved glass when a full glass was presented.

Naturally we need to be protected from ourselves, so they recommend legislators look at regulating drinking glasses. First they complain:

Other restrictions on availability, such as increased drinking age, reduced hours and days when alcohol may be purchased, and reduced number, density and type of alcohol outlet, have also been shown to reduce consumption levels [1]. Unfortunately, despite evidence for the effectiveness of these alcohol control measures and apparent public support for implementation targeted controls [7], most governments have been unwilling to adopt many or all of them [8].

That’s because not all alcohol consumption is bad.

Anyway they come up with a new regulatory idea:

There may be other potentially modifiable factors which may influence alcohol consumption and drinking rate. These might  include marketing signals (i.e., branding), and vehicles for these signals such as the glasses from which beverages are consumed.

So they’re effectively saying Governments could regulate the design of glasses, banning curved glasses as people drink more quickly from them!

What we’re seeing over time is all the measures that have been implemented or proposed for tobacco, getting extended to alcohol and then fast food.

The Herald reports:

More than a billion people now log into Facebook each month to check up on old friends, tag photos of new ones and post about politics, religion, cats or what their kids are doing.

That’s double the 500 million it hit in July 2010 what now seems like a lifetime but was a little more than two years ago. August 2008 marked another big juncture, 100 million users.

The latest milestone also amounts to nearly half of the world’s roughly 2.5 billion internet users, as measured by the International Telecommunications Union.

I’d say 95% of my friends are on Facebook. It is interesting how Facebook has changed over time. It used to be mainly about the apps, but now is really all about the status updates.

Judge Richard Posner has blogged:

I am concerned that both patent and copyright protection, though particularly the former, may be excessive.

To evaluate optimal patent protection for an invention, one has to consider both the cost of inventing and the cost of copying; the higher the ratio of the former to the latter, the greater the optimal patent protection for the inventor. The ratio is very high for pharmaceutical drugs. The cost of inventing a new drug, a cost that includes the extensive testing required for the drug to be approved for sale, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, yet for most drugs the cost of copying—or producing an identical substitute—is very low. And so the ratio of the first to the second cost is very high, making it hard for the inventor to recover his costs without patent protection (and for the additional reasons that the present value of the revenue from sale of the drug is depressed because of the length of time it takes to get approval, and that the effective patent term is truncated because the patent is granted, and the period patent protection begins to run, when the patent is granted rather than, years later, when the drug can begin to be sold).

Pharmaceutical drugs are the poster child for patent protection. Few other products have the characteristics that make patent protection indispensable to the pharmaceutical industry.

I think Judge Posner articulates well why patents are so necessary in areas such as pharmaceutical. Without them, we would have far fewer drugs and vaccines.

The problem of excessive patent protection is at present best illustrated by the software industry. This is a progressive, dynamic industry rife with invention. But the conditions that make patent protection essential in the pharmaceutical industry are absent. Nowadays most software innovation is incremental, created by teams of software engineers at modest cost, and also ephemeral—most software inventions are quickly superseded. Software innovation tends to be piecemeal—not entire devices, but components, so that a software device (a cellphone, a tablet, a laptop, etc.) may have tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of separate components (bits of software code or bits of hardware), each one arguably patentable. The result is huge patent thickets, creating rich opportunities for trying to hamstring competitors by suing for infringement—and also for infringing, and then challenging the validity of the patent when the patentee sues you. 

Just as patents encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, there is a growing belief they stifle innovation in the software space. Hence why NZ has, in theory, decided not to allow software patents.

The Government has proposed a legislative wording which is effectively:

A computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this Act … to the extent that a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such

Labour MP Clare Curran has proposed an amendment, supported by many NZ technology groups, being:

A computer program is not an invention for the purposes of this Act … ]but] does not prevent an invention that makes use of an embedded computer program from being patentable

Guy Burgess has blogged that an opinion by Andrew Brown QC has stated:

 the Government amendment, now incorporated into the Bill following the second reading, will effectively allow the patentability of computer programs except where these have no technical effect e.g. algorithms, schemes or plans

Andrew Brown is one of the leading intellectual property lawyers in NZ, if not the leading one, so his opinions carry considerable weight. His full analysis is here. It is worth noting that overall, he thinks the “as such provision” presents a workable set of criteria and signposts.

Personally I think the issue is not just a workable definition, but also whether you want software patentable at all. My view is that amendment by Clare Curran is superior as it clearly says software is not patentable, however protects inventions that have software embedded within them.

National no doubt has to vote in line with the Government decision. However United Future, ACT and the Maori Party do not. I hope they take the time to get to grips with this issue – which is an important one for many NZ technology firms, and that they back the Curran amendment. It is, in my opinion, closest to what the Select Committee unanimously recommended.

Claire Trevett writes:

If you want someone to argue against former Labour MP John Tamihere making it back into Parliament, look elsewhere.

For if Planet Key has its own idylls in rolling greens and toilet-free climes, on Planet Media, utopia would be Tau Henare as the Speaker and John Tamihere back on the Labour benches.

And Hone as a Minister!

Labour is a different party from the one he left in 2005, and its leadership is more tolerant, both of Tamihere’s own political position and his character type.

The renaissance of Damien O’Connor despite his talk of gaggles of gays and self-serving unionists is evidence of that. But the left still holds great sway – and politically, Tamihere foxtrots on the margins of Genghis Khan’s beliefs.

I think Shearer would like Tamihere back, but not so sure he could use his limited influence to win him selection or even a winnable list place.