I believe there is a need for a classical liberal party in Parliament, committed to upholding both economic and social rights of individuals. I also believe such a party can appeal to a reasonable proportion of voters.

ACT to some degree has been that party. However it was always a mixture of conservatism and liberalism (as National is), and I have my doubts if their brand can recover from the accumulated damage over the years.

The Libertarianz have a conference in Auckland on Saturday 6 October called:

Liberty Conference 2012 – Towards a True Liberal Bloc in Parliament

The conference is:

The 2012 conference will be different from those of the past. It’s not just for Libertarianz members — it’s a symposium for all people who believe we need a new political party in Parliament presenting small-government answers to the issues of today; a party which consistently advocates liberal solutions to problems such as our current economic malaise as well as taking a small-government approach to what individuals do in their private lives.

 

We will be confronting the urgent need for a new liberal party at both the national and local body level. Ever since local government was granted Power of General Incompetence in 2002, we have seen an explosion in its spending and power. In Auckland the C&R City Vision duopoly has run amok, overseeing year after year of enormous increases in rates and spending. There is room in local councils across the country for a party that really protects ratepayers’ wallets, property and liberties.

 

This year’s conference is shaping up to be historic. We have fantastic speakers lining up to have their say on the design of a new, united, truly liberal force in New Zealand politics.

 

Whether you be libertarian, liberal, a cannabis law reform advocate or disillusioned with the formerly semi-liberal ACT, you should help write New Zealand political history by attending this year!

The Press reported:

Canterbury University law students are promising to fight plans to restructure the law faculty.

In what many are calling a sudden change of governance at its School of Law, the university is absorbing that operation into the College of Business and Economics, and the law library will permanently relocate to another site on campus.

The structural change means the School of Law is now part of the college and will be represented on the university’s senior management team by the college’s pro-vice-chancellor.

There will still be a dean of law.

In an email to students last night, LAWSOC president Seamus Woods and vice-president Rachel Walsh said the society was told about the change earlier in the year.

”Before we had a chance to respond or consult students, we were advised it had been taken off the table. That was the last we had heard until Monday,” they said. …

LAWSOC was told in a meeting with vice-chancellor Rod Carr last night that the move was “probably” final.

I can’t comment on the merits of the decision (but will say that the law is about more than just business and seems an awkward fit), but the apparent lack of meaningful consultation with affected students is troubling.

I’ve been hearing stories from other campuses also, about universities not consulting students on major issues.

We live in the Internet age, where every student is online. The university knows the e-mail address of every student impacted by a particular decision on a course, faculty or even building. They should have developed or be developing an online consultation tool that allows students to have a say on decisions that impact them – especially as they fund a fair proportion of the university from their fees.

Student consultation should be in the DNA of a university.

One of the things which annoys me is when stories are made more sensational by combining two things together.

An example would be say there were 50 people killed and 8,000 people assaulted, and a story says “In the last year 8,050 people were killed or assaulted by criminals.

We get this in this Press story. The headline was:

Taxpayers fork out $550,000 for bash

Now journalists do not write the headlines. Sub-editors do. I saw the headline and my blood pressure rose. $500,000 on a function to launch the Christchurch blueprint would be an outrage.

The first para was:

A launch party and promotional material for the central Christchurch blueprint cost taxpayers more than $500,000.

Now do you see the issue. There is a big difference between the launch party and the actual costs of promotional material for the plan. The launch party should be modest, but considering the importance of the plan of course you are going to spend money on making sure people in Christchurch can access it and know what is proposed.

The lavish event held in July to launch the Christchurch Central Development Unit’s vision for the city included free beer, sparkling wine and canapes.

Lavish means extravagant. Now maybe it was. How much of the $500,000 was spent on it.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) said yesterday that the $549,989 bill for the event included signage, an interactive 3D computer view of the blueprint, print material, information videos, the website, 3D modelling and animation, catering and technical support.

I don’t think 3d modelling of the plan is really related to whether a function is lavish.

“This is not a one-off cost for one night. The majority of material is still being used to promote the plan on an ongoing basis,” the spokesman said.

The event was defended by Cera chief executive Roger Sutton.

“We are trying to attract something between $5 billion and $10b of investment to Christchurch and I think we have to have a bit of razzle- dazzle for investors to take notice and come to our city,” he told Radio New Zealand.

So how much was for the actual function?

“It took place in the city council foyer. It is hardly like we hired out the Hilton.”

Not that lavish.

At the end of the day, I have no information on which I can make my own judgement as to whether the function was lavish. Sparking wine doesn’t make it lavish.

What would have been useful is a breakdown of the costs, with specific reference to how much was the food and drink bill. It may well be that the spending was on the high side. But I can’t tell from the story.

Terralink have announced:

A million dollar mobile mapping platform launching is set to capture the first complete and measurable 3D model of New Zealand’s streets.

The first technology of its kind in New Zealand, StreetCam3D features a high-density LiDAR (Light Detection & Ranging) scanner and high-resolution 360-degree cameras mounted on a four-wheel drive utility vehicle.

Brought to the New Zealand market by Wellington location intelligence firm Terralink International, StreetCam3D promises to deliver millions in productivity related benefits for business, as well as enhance safety both before and after disasters or emergencies.

Terralink International Managing Director Mike Donald says StreetCam3D will dramatically reduce the need for expensive, time consuming and often dangerous fieldwork on and around New Zealand’s 126,000 kilometers of state highways, local roads and city streets.

“Instead of sending staff into busy environments to undertake manual surveying or measurements, StreetCam3D can quickly provide precise measurements for entire road networks with a single drive-through at normal road speeds.”

StreetCam3D captures the position and detailed appearance of every object, up to 100 meters in any direction, with incredible pinpoint accuracy.

“It captures up to 1.33 million points of location data, in every direction, every second. This gives you a near perfect model of the street environment so you can undertake almost any analysis, measurement or planning, all without leaving your office,” Mr Donald says.

Because StreetCam3D is capturing high definition LiDAR, as well as high-resolution imagery, it allows users to accurately measure depth as well as height and width. It allows informed decision making about the condition of road surfaces, buildings, power lines or the encroachment of trees, all within an accuracy measured in millimeters.

“It’s going to unlock the benefits of spatial information for almost any organisation that operates on or around our streets, fundamentally changing the way many businesses and people work – from engineers to asset managers and urban planners,” Mr Donald says.

As a data geek, I find this pretty exciting. I just hope they have a larger server bank to hold all the data!

The Press reports:

Principals were reduced to tears as their jobs, schools and communities were put on the chopping block.

In an announcement marred by confusion, the Education Ministry said 13 Christchurch schools would close and 18 could merge. Five Aranui schools will also combine into an education “cluster”.

Teachers and pupils have huge emotional attachments to their schools, and I can well understand how upset people will be at these decisions. It is worth noting there are 216 schools in total in the Christchurch area.

However these closures are not happening because the Government just wants to save some money. To the contrary the Government has committed $1 billion of capital spending on schools and educational facilities in Christchurch. The closures and mergers are because there are 3,000 fewer students, and some existing schools are too damaged. These school closures are basically an after-shock of the earthquake.

Shirley Boys’ High School principal John Laurenson has dismissed a proposal to merge the school with Christchurch Boys’ High School as “absurd nonsense”.

Education Minister Hekia Parata yesterday announced a major overhaul of education in Christchurch. One idea was the proposed merger of the two schools. However, the ministry has since backtracked and now says it is waiting on geotechnical reports, which were unlikely to be ready until next year.

Laurenson said Christchurch Boys’ High School was simply not equipped to cope with the influx of students.

“We are not going to merge for the most practical reason. I have 1300 students in the school, I think Trevor McIntyre at Christchurch Boys’ will have something similar.”

“To simply say that Shirley closes and suddenly Christchurch Boys’ High School is equipped to double in size is absurd. They don’t have the land, they don’t have the infrastructure. It’s nonsense.”

Laurenson attended a meeting yesterday held by the ministry and said a summary sheet released by them was “grossly misleading”.

“It appeared to tell the community that Shirley Boys’ High School was going to close and be merged with Christchurch Boys’ High School.”

Laurenson said he was “very cross” with yesterday’s events. The announcement had only managed to “deeply hurt my community and my people”.

“That simple misinformation that came out has been quite devastating.

“What has happened is an example of NCEA Level One not achieved – the information that went out is misleading and it’s been picked up by media people and suddenly it’s viral. We’re now telling the community ‘relax all is well and the ministry is busy retracting a vague statement’.”

Laurenson said the ministry’s media person had spoken with him and other principals and accepted it had been misleading.

There really is no excuse for a mistake of this magnitude.  The communications material which went should should have been double and triple checked to ensure it was crystal clear. What was always going to be a difficult and upsetting announcement became a mini-fiasco. The document that went out should not just have had a sentence on each school. There should have been a detailed report on each school documenting exactly what was planned for that school and why. And the summary document should have been checked to make sure it was consistent with that.

I’m pretty liberal on issues to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, customary rights, common law rights, historical settlements. I’ve said I accept some Iwi have some rights around some water.

However I will never accept this view:

King Tuheitia said Maori had always owned the water.

Sorry, no you do not. You get certain rights from having moved here 600 years or so before the rest of us, but you do not get to claim ownership of all the water in New Zealand. We do not live in a country where the first wave of immigrants get all the rights, and the second wave get no rights over essential resources such as water.

The power to manage and control water and allocate water rights should rest with Maori, rather than the regional councils, he said.

This would make all non-Maori an inferior class of citizen.

If those who attended the hui wish to assert they own all the water in New Zealand, and that Maori should have total control of water management and allocation, they of course have that right. But they are risking a huge backlash that will dry up the considerable good will that exists in this country and allows settlements such as Tuhoe to have broad political support.

It would be relatively easy to get 300,000 signatures on a CIR on the topic “Should Maori own, manage and allocate water rights in New Zealand”. It would be an ugly divisive campaign, and set race relations back considerably. But it would get a record turnout, and a record no vote.

Now not all those who attended the Hui share the view of King Tuheitia that Maori own all the water in New Zealand, and should manage, control and allocate water rights. Ngai Tahi saud:

Ngai Tahu chairman Mark Solomon said Maori all agreed on a collaborative approach toward settling water issues.

“From a Ngai Tahu perspective we don’t believe the asset sales will affect the rights and interests of Maori from reaching an agreement.”

The issue of whether or not asset sales impact any water rights that Maori do have, is one the courts will decide, so I’m not too worried about that particular issue.

The issue that worries me is having the Maori King assert ownership of all water in New Zealand. I do not believe that view can be left unchecked. I hope media ask Labour’s Maori MPs if they agree with that view. Ask the Greens also – in fact all Maori MPs in Parliament.

I also do not think that would be the view of the majority of Maori living in New Zealand.

The Manufacturing Crisis.
1. Jenee Tibshraeny reports from Kawerau — once the Government’s manufacturing showpiece now the country’s welfare capital on the latest redundancies at the paper mill.
2. Natasha Smith reports from Whangarei on the bright future facing one of the country’s super yacht builders — part of the marine industry, now our biggest manufacturing industry.
3. Kawerau Mayor Malcolm Campbell is with Rachel.
4. EPMU National Secretary also with Rachel
5. Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce is with Rachel.
6. The Media Panel is Bill Ralston and NewstalkZB’s Susan Wood. (Brian is still lost in Italy).

Broadcast on TV 3, Saturday – 9.30 am, repeated on Sunday at 8 am with the Media Panel

New America Media reports:

 Supporters of Proposition 36 are optimistic that changing attitudes toward prison reform, coupled with economic considerations, will have Californians voting in favor of tempering their state’s controversial repeat offender law, known as “Three Strikes and You’re Out,” in the upcoming November election.

“Popular support has always been high for reforming Three Strikes,” says Prop. 36 advocate Geri Silva, director and co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes. “People realize that sending someone to prison for life for stealing a donut is absurd.” 

Backers of Prop.36 had no trouble gathering the 504,760 signatures required by law to get their measure on the state ballot – about 800,000 people signed the petition — and a recent statewide survey conducted by Pepperdine University’s policy school shows 78.1 percent of likely voters supporting it. …

Proposition 184 imposed a mandatory 25 years to life prison sentence for anyone in the state convicted of a third felony, including non-violent offenses like drug possession and theft. 

Today, twenty-six other states have similar sentencing laws on the books, but California’s Three Strikes law is widely considered one of the most severe.  …

Proposition 36 would amend Three Strikes by imposing a 25 years to life sentence only if the third conviction is for a serious or violent felony.

The mandatory 25 to life sentence would still be invoked, however, for any third felony conviction if the individual also has a previous conviction for murder, rape or child molestation. 

Under Prop.36, those with two strikes would be sentenced to twice the usual time for their third conviction for a non-serious felony, in lieu of the life sentence. Some 3,000 California inmates currently serving a 25 to life term for non-serious or nonviolent third strikes would become eligible to petition judges for re-sentencing, if the measure is approved.

Proposition 36 would bring the California law closer to the NZ one. In NZ you only get a strike for serious violent or sexual offences, and the third strike is only for life without parole if you kill someone. Otherwise it is the maximum sentence without parole.

I think the NZ three strikes law is well balanced, and may become a model. It is a pity Labour wants to repeal it.

Proposition 36 is backed by three DAs, a law professor and a police chief and the California Democratic Party. It is opposed by  the president of the California State Sheriff’s Association,  the president of the California District Attorneys Association, the president of Crime Victims United of California, the president of the California Peace (Police) Officers Association, and the California Republican Party.

The vote is on 6 November 2012.

White Cloud is on at Bats Theatre until Sat 22 September. It consists of around a dozen songs by Tim Finn, blended in with stories and observations from two actions. It was sort of like a narrated mini-concert.

It is all about NZ identity, and the stories and songs are ones you can relate to, and bring back memories of childhood. One of them summed up our lack of clear cultural identity amusingly with the line “If you don’t know what you are, you’re probably a Pakeha”. Australians, Americans, Brits, French, Germans etc all have such clear cultural identities. New Zealanders tend to almost define ourselves as whom we are not – we’re not British, we’re not Australian, we’re not American etc.

The two actors who narrated the performance were Dena Kennedy and Stephen Lovatt. Fans of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby may recall Kennedy as the social studies and history teacher. Both Lovatt and Kennedy did a good job of weaving a narrative around the songs and relating it to the audience. They were engaging and interesting.

A five piece band performed the Finn music. The standout performer was Lisa Crawley. Crawley performed spectacularly well on the vocals, and was very agile on the keyboard. I’d happily pay just to see her perform alone. She enjoyed performing, and it showed.

The brass and percussion players were excellent also, and had a huge variety of instruments they utilized. The main male vocalist was more patchy. The first song saw a real contrast between him and Crawley which I found discordant. After that though, he improved and the remaining songs went well.

It was a simple and effective set, with six semi-transparent screens hanging down which old photos and videos were displayed on, as a subtle background to the performance. It’s directed by one of my favourite directors Simon Bennett – who co-founded Bats.

The performance started at 9 pm, and goes for around 70 minutes. If you’re a fan of good NZ music, you should enjoy the production.

The Dom Post has a story on it, and John Smythe at Theatreview does a much more detailed review of it.

Trans-Tasman this week said:

Given the jockeying for the Speaker’s role inside National, why not offer the post to the man who has got a burning desire to preside over the House, deputy Speaker Ross Robertson? At one stroke, it could strengthen the coalition’s majority. After all, there’s a precedent, when Jim Bolger enticed Labour’s Peter Tapsell to take the Speaker’s chair back in 1993. On the other hand, it might be seen as just a tad too Machiavellian…….

Not machiavellian, just totally ineffective.

Trans-Tasman should know that the Speaker has had a deliberative vote since around 1996, when MMP came in. The party the Speaker comes from has no impact on the Government’s majority in the House.

NZ Herald reports:

The tradition of throwing lollies and squirting water at the crowd has been banished from Christmas parades under health and safety rules enforced by Auckland Council.

Oh Good God. Of course there is some small risk of harm, but let’s use common sense. Has any harm ever actually occured, or is likely to?

There is a big difference between mitigating risk and trying to eliminate it.

Santa Parade rules
* No throwing lollies or gifts to children. Handing them to children is okay.
* No wetting people, with pistols, bombs and cannon.
* Drive floats at walking pace only.
* No passengers under 5 years old.
* No gymnasts doing cartwheels among animal droppings.

Okay that last rule is probably pretty sensible!

The Dom Post editorial:

Observing the wailing and teeth-gnashing that has accompanied the latest welfare reforms, a visitor could be forgiven for assuming the Government is hellbent on introducing Dickensian-era workhouses to New Zealand.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The new sanctions unveiled by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett are not an attempt to deny assistance to the children of beneficiaries, but to ensure they get it.

Exactly. Making sure they get taxpayer funded user-free ECE, making sure they attend school, making sure they do their free Wellchild checks is hardly bad for the kids.

Every child deserves a decent upbringing and the opportunity to develop to his or her full potential. Simply handing money to bad parents is no guarantee that their children will be fed, clothed or loved.

The wider Kahui clan was reportedly receiving more than $2000 a week in benefits when 3-month-old twins Chris and Cru suffered the injuries that caused their deaths. There is no reason to believe that more money would have made a difference. Similarly, four adult beneficiaries were living in the Rotorua home in which 3-year-old Nia Glassie was mortally injured. Would larger state payouts have prevented her from being stuffed in a tumble dryer, beaten and hung from a clothesline?

The left are convinced that more money is the solution to everything. It isn’t. Labour and Greens are about to vote for a bill to extend the $60 a week in-work tax credit from working parents to parents on benefits, in the belief this will cure child poverty.

Child poverty is defined as being in a household that earns less than 60% or 50% of the median income. So if the median income drops, this will actually be celebrated as bringing kids out of poverty!!!

The problem in both cases was not the level of state support, but values. A small section of society has so lost touch with the notion of right and wrong that it does not even recognise the obligation to take care of its own.

The minister’s reforms are an attempt to fix the problem by using benefit payments to remind those tempted to neglect or abuse their offspring that with rights come obligations. By any standard, the new “social obligations”, which will take effect next July, are measured, moderate and compassionate. Beneficiaries will not be penalised for failing to use services that do not exist in their areas and, before any sanctions are imposed, they will be given three opportunities to comply with the new regime. Furthermore, the minister is promising the speedy restoration of entitlements once failing parents do the right thing.

The best policies tend to use both carrot and stick. The carrot should be that these services are free, and they are good for the child and family. The sick is sadly necessary for some families.

Instead of condemning the new measures, Labour, the Greens, Plunket and beneficiary advocate groups should be applauding Mrs Bennett for having the courage to tackle a problem that decades of well-intentioned but ineffective policy-making have failed to remedy.

What I would find interesting is a clear statement from Labour on whether they will repeal the requirement?

The Constitutional Advisory Panel has published a discussion booklet. Some of the issues they are looking at are:

1. Should the size of Parliament be changed?
2. Should the term of Parliament be increased?
3. Should the election be a fixed or semi-fixed date?
4. How many electorates should we have?
5. Should the South Island requirement of 16 electorates remain?
6. Should the population tolerance for electorates remain 5% or increase to 10%?
7. Should we have electoral integrity or anti-party-hopping legislation?
8. Should the Maori seats be retained?
9. Should the Maori seats be entrenched?
10. Whether there are alternative or complementary ways to ensure Maori are represented in Parliament, to the Maori seats?
11. Should there be guaranteed Maori representation on local authorities?
12. Are there are more effective ways of ensuring Māori views are represented in local authority decision-making?
13. Should the Treaty of Waitangi be supreme law so laws can not be inconsistent with it?
14. Should the Bill of Rights Act be supreme law so other laws can not be inconsistent with it?
15. Should the Bill of Rights Act be superior law so other laws can not be inconsistent with it, unless Parliament explicitly resolves otherwise (a notwithstanding clause)
16. Should the Bill of Rights Act be broadened to include additional rights, such as property rights, social rights, cultural rights or environmental rights?
17. Should the Bill of Rights Act be entrenched?
18. Should we have a written constitution, with the judiciary able to strike down laws inconsistent with it?
19. Should we reintroduce a second legislative chamber or upper house?
20. Should we become a republic?

My views are:

1. The size of Parliament should be increased to 160.
2. The term of Parliament should be increased to four years.
3. The election should be a semi-fixed date of last Saturday in November unless no Government can govern with confidence.
4. The number of electorates should be 100, with 60 list MPs or alternatively be a ratio of 5:3
5. The South Island should have 25 electorates.
6. The population tolerance for electorates should be 10%.
7. We should not have electoral integrity or anti-party-hopping legislation.
8. The Maori seats should not be retained, but realise change should only occur with Maori agreement.
9. The Maori seats should not be entrenched.
10. The alternative to Maori seats should be a lower threshold for parties representing Maori interests, as recommended by the Royal Commission.
11. There should no guaranteed Maori representation on local authorities.
12. All local authorities should have non-voting representatives of local Iwi on them, who have the same support and access as Councillors. However voting rests with elected Councillors only.
13. The Treaty of Waitangi should not be supreme law unless there is a mechanism to amend it.
14. The Bill of Rights Act should not be supreme law.
15. The Bill of Rights Act should be superior law so other laws can not be inconsistent with it, unless Parliament explicitly resolves otherwise (a notwithstanding clause).
16. The Bill of Rights Act should be broadened to include property rights.
17. The Bill of Rights Act should be entrenched.
18. We should have a written constitution, with the judiciary able to strike down laws inconsistent with it.
19. We should not reintroduce reintroduce a second legislative chamber or upper house.
20. We should become a republic.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

The lifetime cost of current beneficiaries is more than $78 billion, a new report has found.

An actuarial valuation conducted as part of the Government’s welfare reforms shows the average total cost of all who had received a working-age benefit in the year to June 30, 2011 was $78.1b.

Of that, $17.8b came from those who started out on the DPB, $19.1b from those on an invalid’s benefit and $7.2b to those who were on a sickness benefit.

Just five per cent of the total cost, or $4b, was from those who started out on an unemployment benefit.

They’re some large figures, and do demonstrate why it it important to reduce the numbers of people long-term on welfare. Those on the dole tend to be for a short period of time. It is the other three major benefits which have the bigger impact.

But the fiscal cost is not the main reason we should try and reduce the number of people on long-term welfare. It is for the benefit of those actually on welfare. There are a small number of people who are genuinely incapable of ever being able to do any paid work – and they should get gold plated support.

But most people are capable of some work, even a few hours a week. Yes they’ll still need income support, but being in work benefits people not just financially, but physically, emotionally and mentally.

Sky TV has announced that Backbenches will return in 2013. It will be primarily funded by NZ on Air, part-funded by Sky, produced by TVNZ, broadcast live on Wednesday evenings by Prime TV and shown delayed on TVNZ Heartland channel.

A great collaborative effort, which should mean it is seen by far more people than was the case on TVNZ7.

Funding at this stage is for 20 one hour shows.

As I said when Backbenches finished on TVNZ7, I’ve been a big fan of the show. However there are some format changes they should consider to make it better when it relaunches.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reported:

New Zealand has brushed aside a US offer of cooperation over the establishment of a reserve which would protect the Antarctic Toothfish in the Ross Sea and submitted its own more conservative proposal.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully this afternoon announced New Zealand will submit a proposal for a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Ross Sea.

The proposal would be submitted tomorrow which is the deadline set by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the 25 nation group which manages fishing and conservation in Antartic waters.

“If successful, this will be the largest MPA anywhere in the world – nine times the size of New Zealand”, Mr McCully said in a statement.

New Zealand had discussed the feasibility of a join proposal with the United States, “but each country will offer a separate proposal for CCAMLR’s consideration,” he said.

Some protection for the Ross Sea is better than no protection, but it is disappointing we are not supporting the entire Ross Sea having the same protection as Antarctica itself has.

I am very pro-fishing – both in an economic sense, and also because I love seafood. But there are two areas where I think fishing should not happen.

The first is when a species is endangered or falling below a sustainable level. I’ve got no problems with hunting whales, so long as the population is large enough. Fishing should be sustainable.

The second area where fishing should not happen, is in marine reserves. Just as we have some parts of our land which we leave untouched as nature designed them there are areas of our oceans where we should do the same. And the world has enough oceans for us to have plenty of space to fish in.

Antarctica is a stunning example of a pristine environment, where human activity is minimal and pretty much solely scientific. I think it is the most amazing area on the planet, and will refuse to die until I have actually got down to the continent myself. The various countries that signed the Antarctic Treaty were visionary in setting aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve.

However the treaty only applies to the land, and not the surrounding Ross Sea, This body of water also has huge scientific value, and it should be one of those areas on the planet where fishing is not allowed.

I saw a film called The Last Ocean at the recent NZ Film Festival*. It makes a strong case for protecting the entire Ross Sea, to preserve the most pristine marine ecosystem on Earth.

Claire Trevett reports in the Herald:

Marine expert Sylvia Earle says New Zealand needs to step up and seek as much protection for the oceans of the Antarctic as it gives to the land area.

Dr Earle, feted for her ocean exploration by the White House and named Time’s Hero for the Planet, is backing the Antarctic Ocean Alliance’s call for a marine reserve in the Ross Sea to halt fishing of krill and the Antarctic toothfish by New Zealand and other countries.

“You’d think every nation would say ‘wait we must protect this. It’s valuable to us, to our knowledge to our future.’

“Yet they are taking wildlife out of this very special part of the Antarctic waters that belong to everyone – they don’t just belong to New Zealand or Australia or the US or Russia.”

This week, the Government rejected a USA proposal for a marine reserve which would have offered greater protection than New Zealand wanted for the Antarctic toothfish in the Ross Sea.

The US has no fishing interests in the Ross Sea, but New Zealand companies take a large proportion of the annual Ross Sea toothfish catch – last year they landed 730 tonnes with an export value of $20 million.

The Herald understands the joint proposal was thwarted in Cabinet by ministers Gerry Brownlee, David Carter and Steven Joyce on the grounds it was not consistent with the Government’s economic growth objectives.

I think this is a regrettable decision. There are many other areas where companies can fish. I support having the Ross Sea given the same protection as Antarctica itself.

*The film is a good watch. I especially recall it as I was sitting next to a Herald journalist and as the lights when out I whispered to her in very bad taste and said “Is this when the Joker appears?”. I then realised there was a more apt Batman villain, and said “Or will it be The Penguin?”. At that exact point in time the film stated with a shot of a penguin on ice. Said journalist and myself started to piss ourselves with laughter, as other film goers were staring at us wondering how the hell we could find an image of a penguin so funny. I suspect she won’t sit next to me in any more films!

Stuff reports:

Speaker Lockwood Smith has suggested politicians get together and discuss the idea of having a “prime minister’s question time”. Labour MPs were up in arms yesterday after one of their questions to Prime Minister John Key was transferred to Education Minister Hekia Parata during question time.

Dr Smith said MPs could consider the British example, which is a half-hour question time for the prime minister once a week, at noon.

I think this is a good idea. The UK version is a great exercise in accountability. They key difference with normal question time, is the primary questions are not submitted in advance and the supplementary questions can be basically on anything.

While obviously it has benefits for the Opposition, I think it also benefits the PM. It is a great test of their ability to be over all the major issues and think on their feet. I actually think the current PM would handle such a question time very well.

If there is a change of Government after the next election, it would also be a formidable test for David Shearer!

Stuff reports:

NZ Post has introduced a new service that allows Kiwi shoppers to have purchases from United States online stores delivered to a US address and then to New Zealand.

YouShop enables purchases from American online stores that won’t deliver to New Zealand or that impose high shipping charges.

It mirrors similar services offered by overseas-owned shopping forwarders, such as Prezoom backed by US courier I-Parcel, which launched a service last week to help New Zealanders buy online from US merchants.

YouShop charges NZ$23 to send a 500-gram package from its US address to a customer’s home, while Prezoom charges $19.50, but NZ Post hopes to capitalise on its locally known brand. A message on its website reads: “Know your parcel is in good hands by using New Zealand Post.”

A useful service. I do recall similar ones though. There was a company that provided a US address for people to use for a small fee, and you could choose yourself to package items together and then dispatch them home in one go.

What we really need, is for Kiwibank to provide US credit cards so we can pay for geo-blocked content. So stupid to block your customers from being able to pay for your product.

Some interesting history on the Parliament website:

New Zealanders are used to having open access to sittings of the House of Representatives. The House’s rules do allow it to exclude non-members from sittings, but this power is used very rarely. During World War II the public were excluded from 18 secret sessions.

 The need for secret sessions became clear soon after the outbreak of war in September 1939, when Opposition members began to raise confidential war matters in the House. The Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, also felt restricted in his ability to keep the House fully aware of developments. Although the House’s use of secret sessions was not without controversy, it allowed members to discuss military matters, such as troop movements, without the risk of sensitive information being passed on to the enemy.

 The first secret session was held on 5 June 1940 after considerable planning by Fraser in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, Sidney Holland. The session began with a non-debatable motion by the Prime Minister calling for the removal of all strangers, at which point the galleries were cleared, members of the press and Hansard staff withdrew, and broadcasting was discontinued. The doors were locked, guards posted, and the roof patrolled regularly for eavesdroppers. It was decided that officials closely engaged with the war effort could attend the sitting, as could members of the Legislative Council. This procedure was followed for all the other secret sessions.

I can’t imagine a situation today where Parliament would meet in secret. Besides, even if they kicked everyone out, there would probably be MPs tweeting it on Twitter!

Below is the file on the Banks investigation, released by the Police under the OIA. What is interesting is that the donations appear to be a thank you for Banks previous offer to advocate residency on behalf of Dotcom.

The highlight is the statement by Kim Dotcom that when Banks met his wife Mona, Banks said “Your wife is the most beautiful women I have ever seen”. Dotcom comments that he was surprised by this comment. Not because his wife isn’t beautiful, but because Mrs Banks was present!

Docs for Disclosure

The video is of interviews with delegates at the DNC convention. Only around half the people approached said they disagreed with banning corporate profits!

Posing as an anti-business crusader, Peter Schiff found a number of DNC delegates and attendees who support explicitly outlawing profitability. We deliberately avoided speaking with the occupy protestors camping outside in tents to get a more “mainstream” Democratic perspective!

It would be fascinating to see what results one would get posing the same question at the CTU Conference or the Labour or Greens conferences.

Hat Tip: Not PC

This is a great emotional tribute to the NZ Army soldiers serving abroad who have been killed, by rapper Konflikt. A must watch and listen.

Konflikt is a Wellington rapper, 22-year-old Lower Hutt computer student Jarad Westrupp.