Jamie Gray at NZ Herald reports:

The chief executive of 2degrees, Eric Hertz, says there is plenty of growth left in the New Zealand market, despite the upstart mobile phone company passing the one million customer mark.

Hertz said New Zealand, despite having market penetration of 120 per cent, had not reached saturation for mobile phone devices.

“It’s no longer about the number of people in the country,” he said. “It’s really about the number of connections.”

I’m not a customer myself, but it is good to see 2 degrees do well. They’ve had a great impact on the market, offering cheaper deals and pushing prices down from Telecom and Vodafone.

It is worth reflecting that they probably wouldn’t have succeeded to the degree they have, if the Government had not regulated mobile termination rates.

Regulation is a last resort but sometimes a necessary evil – especially in areas where inter-connection is crucial. If incumbent telcos could demand new telcos have to pay say $2 a minute to call someone on their network, then no new competitor would ever get a single customer.

The lowering of artificially high mobile termination rates has been a great boon for competition.

The Dom Post reports:

Ever fancied having a slide in your home or office instead of those tiresome stairs?

Well, the Trade Me team in Wellington has decided that it would be the perfect way to spice up the daily grind.

They have installed a slide between the two floors of their new Wellington office, which staff began to move into on Monday.

Now that is cool. What a great idea.

It reminds me of my response when I worked in the PM’s Office to some survey about building improvements. I submitted that they should place a huge waterslide around the beehive stretching from the top floor all the way to the bottom, into the swimming pool. There would be entrances in from every level. I thought that would be a great boost for staff morale if you could waterslide from your office into the pool!

I blogged yesterday on the blog post by Duncan Garner reporting what senior Labour MPs had said about David Cunliffe.

Garner’s post seems to have sparked off a furious backlash against the Labour MPs thought to be behind it.

Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish blogs:

It’s a bit of a problem, though, when Cunliffe appears more closely ideologically aligned to the party’s activist base than the rest of caucus. How exactly do those bright sparks in caucus with their knives out for Cunliffe think the party’s base will treat such a brazen attack?

And what about those soft Labour voters who might conclude from all of this that their party is a dead loss?

Or maybe being in opposition is such fun that some within Labour’s caucus are keen to do it for another five years.

Irish Bill at The Standard said it is a step too far:

It looks like someone from within Labour’s top team* has decided to have a real nasty go at David Cunliffe via Duncan Garner. … 

I don’t know whether this is an attempt to blame someone else for the recent bad polling (and total strategic failure that’s generated it) or whether it’s an attempt to smear a potential competitor in a lead-up to a leadership challange, but it makes Labour look like a bunch of childish clowns.

My advice? Pull you’re f*cking head in and focus on providing Shearer with some decent strategy and support or we’ll see another three years of National because nobody wants to vote for people who behave like this.

*I think we can all guess who

I have no idea which senior Labour MPs were involved, but commenters at The Standard keep naming two MPs as likely suspects.

Chris Trotter says the caucus rivalries have turned toxic. He backgrounds:

The cynical calculation that persuaded Mr Cunliffe’s enemies to unite behind Mr Shearer in December 2011 has delivered a very paltry harvest. The public was prepared to give Labour’s new boss a fair go at growing into a credible Opposition leader, but their patience isn’t endless. Above all other things, a political leader must be a communicator – and Mr Shearer isn’t. Not surprisingly, the major public opinion polls are all now registering declining levels of public support for both Mr Shearer and his party.

The timing of the attack on Cunliffe just after the bad polls may be coincidence, or may not be.

If the polls continue to register the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the Shearer-led Labour Opposition, Mr Cunliffe’s enemies will do everything within their power to ensure that he is not elected as Mr Shearer’s replacement. They are terrified that the advent of Labour’s new Electoral College will encourage the party’s rank-and-file to not only assert their preference for a new leader, but also, by availing themselves of the new procedures for selecting candidates, for a wholesale sacking of the non-performers and time-servers who long ago ceased to advance Labour’s cause. It is to the cautious Grant Robertson that Mr Shearer’s erstwhile backers will turn, and the price of their support will be that the Opposition’s front-benchers (with the obvious exception of Mr Cunliffe and his allies) stay exactly where they are.

 Mr Robertson would be most unwise to have any part in such a Faustian bargain. Labour must change or it will die. Not quickly and dramatically, but slowly and ignominiously, as the best among its ranks depart, and the worst cling on – for reasons of personal vanity, or from fear of a community they have given no reason to welcome them back – until, at last, the navigation lights of the good shipLabour are swallowed up in “the running straits of history”.

If Labour is to be saved, then its younger MPs must not resist but make common cause with Mr Cunliffe. This is the only alliance that holds out the slightest hope for a renewal of the party’s purpose and the rebirth of its fighting spirit. Mr Robertson and his friends have time on their side: they, unlike the political movement to which they have devoted their lives, can afford to wait.

The Labour Caucus has nothing to lose but Trevor Mallard.

It has an election to win.

 

Cunliffe and Robertson unite!

Stuff reports:

Schools have been told to disregard the advice of a primary teachers’ union and instead release controversial National Standards performance information.

Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem has written to all schools after some brushed off requests for the data with a pro-forma response provided by the New Zealand Educational Institute.

Dame Beverley said the advice NZEI had offered “conflicted” with that provided by the New Zealand School Trustees Association.

“In my view boards of trustees are entitled to rely on the advice conveyed by the NZSTA. However, boards that rely on the advice conveyed by the NZEI risk an adverse finding being made against them by an Ombudsman under the [law],” she said.

Schools that had acted, or were considering acting, “in accordance with the NZEI advice” should reconsider, she said.

Those that continued to refuse or extend release of information would face an investigation, which “may find that a board has acted unreasonably or contrary to the law”.

Schools are publicly funded and must obey the law around public entities – simple.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Labour’s MP for Mangere Su’a William Sio says he will be voting against the bill because there is widespread opposition within his electorate which has the highest population of Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, making up 58.8 per cent of voters.

Some ministers in Pacific churches were preaching against the bill and against Labour.

“This issue cuts deep into fundamental beliefs,” he told Radio New Zealand. “It will divide the community.”

Sio said the bill was causing unnecessary harm to Labour and should be withdrawn.

Even if Wall withdrew the bill, which she of course is not doing, then it is quite possible Kevin Hague’s similiar bill would be drawn, and just as many Labour MPs would vote for that bill, so I don’t think it would change anything.

Also the fact the PM is voting for it, may mean that any Pacific backlash is not against Labour. And sadly National polls do low in Mangere, that it has few votes to lose there!

There is a wider issue of whether the Pacific community really is against the bill. Some church leaders are, but I’d love to see some polling done of the Pacific community to ascertain what the majority opinion is.

The Telegraph reports:

The Liberal Democrats’ decision to oppose boundary changes is a major blow to David Cameron as this would have boosted his chances of re-election.

The Liberal Democrats have historically supported boundary changes. Mr Clegg has previously said it was important to fix the “broken scales of our democracy” by making the size of constituencies more equal.

However, the deputy Prime Minister said he took a “mature” decision to block a policy favoured by the Conservatives to make sure the Coalition is a fair and equal partnership.

That’s an appalling decision. Boundary reform should be supported because it is the right thing to do, not because the Conservatives want it and blocking it punishes them. How can the Lib Dems say they support a fairer electoral system, yet vote to maintain an electoral gerrymander?

At the moment, constituencies vary widely in size which gives Labour an electoral advantage.

Equalising the size of boundaries could have meant that the Conservatives would win between six and 20 more seats at the next election.

NZ has it right, where by law all boundaries must be of the same size within a 5% tolerance. It is wrong that those who live in one electorate have their vote count for more than in another. The average pop per electorate in the UK is:

• England 72,522
• Northern Ireland 67,387
• Scotland 66,807
• Wales 57,464

English voters are seriously disenfranchised – and worse they are the only ones totally governed by Westminster. MPs from Scotland and Wales vote on laws that affect England only.

On an individual electorate level the Isle of Wight electorate has 110,900 electors and Na h-Eileanan has just 21,985. So their votes are five times more powerful than the Ise of Wight – absolutely undemocratic – yet supported by Labour and now the Lib Dems as it keeps the left in power.

Even within England there are regional differences. The North East has an MP per 68,511 people and the South West has an MP per 75,644.

By party the average Conservative MP represents 73,010 voters and the average Labour MP 69,441. Lib Dems 70,021 – so no surprise they oppose principled reform.

Stuff reports:

Iwi challenging Shanghai Pengxin’s purchase of the 16 Crafar farms say they will consider an appeal against the Court of Appeal decision if they believe their case has been overlooked, but they are still open to negotiating with the Chinese company to purchase two of the farms which are central to their case.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed legal challenges from a group led by Sir Michael Fay and two Maori trusts against the long-running attempt by Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin to buy the Crafar farms.

Good. They were trying to get the farms cheap by knocking out a company that was willing to offer more.

In its decision released this morning the Court of Appeal said Pengxin’s bosses had sufficient business experience and acumen to run the farming business and surpass the OIO’s requirements.

The Court said the Government’s conclusion that the investment would bring substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand had not been challenged.

I think the partnership between Landcorp and Shanghai Pengxin has huge potential for the future.

Autumn mirror reflections on a very blue Blue Lake. St Bathans, Central Otago, New Zealand. Photography by Todd Sisson.

Back into some classic South Island scenery this week, the oft-photographed Blue Lake in St Bathans.  This image was made using the very last of the sun’s rays while leading a private workshop.  I will be visiting here again this weekend as part of our final winter landscape photography workshop – can’t wait!

As always, this is available as a [free iPad wallpaper] Password = freewallpaper

Have a great week – almost over ‘the hump’…..

Cheers – Todd

[view image on our website] [blog]

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports at Stuff:

Children’s brains may be developing differently as a result of exposure to digital technology, with profound implications for the education system, says the prime minister’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman.

Sir Peter made the claim to Parliament’s science and education committee, which in May kicked off an unprecedented inquiry into “21st century learning and digital literacy”, examining in particular how schools may need to change in the wake of the Government’s $1.5 billion investment in ultrafast broadband.

The inquiry has pitched progressives, who want to see teachers quickly evolve into tech-savvy new-age knowledge brokers, against conservatives, who worry about the practicalities and believe there remains a big role for traditionally delivered classroom teaching.

There is of course a role for traditional delivery of teaching, but make no mistake we are on the cusp of a revolution.

“Anyone who has seen a two-year-old playing around with an iPad knows what I am talking about. The digital world is leading to different ways in which the brain develops, different environments in which we learn . . . and it does seem to be having impacts on cognitive, social and emotional development.” …

But what was evident was that the human race was going through a “radical change” in the way it communicated and achieved knowledge, he said.

“Whereas 20 years ago it was unequivocal [that] parents and teachers were the sources of information, now much information is obtained from the web or other digital media and the teacher’s role is becoming one of helping students interpret what is likely to be reliable or unreliable information.”

I think that is key – teachers are becoming guides, or should be.

The same football is being kicked around in different ways by many of the 90 submitters to the Parliamentary inquiry. Margot McKeegan, learning adviser for the Greater Christchurch Schools Network, which is promoting collaboration between 100 schools in the city, told the committee that she did not believe teachers should be registered unless they had demonstrated they were capable of working in an “e-learning environment”.

That is a real issue. A teacher who can not do e-learning will struggle in effectiveness.

ECONOMIC Development Minister Steven Joyce signalled the Government had a strong appetite for reform in a speech to InternetNZ NetHui in June.

E-education would be “quite disruptive” and would turn on its head the concept of teaching and learning, changing the dynamics between educators and pupils, he said. “For those that embrace it, it is something that is going to be wonderful for people to be part of.”

Yep, the potential is huge.  Two year olds using tablets, five year olds on laptops – digital natives.

The Government will next year begin rolling out the Network for Learning, a $300 million to $400 million “closed” network running over the ultrafast broadband network that will provide secure access to online resources and internet access for schools on centrally-negotiated terms.

The initiative appears to have attracted widespread support, including from the PPTA, which said it was a “reasonable compromise” in tackling the problem that the education system had become “devolved and divided”.

I’m going to be very interested in the details of this, as they are developed. The concept sounds good, but what exactly it will be is not quite clear.

Albany High School turned heads in the information technology industry when it opened in 2009 by eschewing Microsoft software and deciding to use only free open-source software, for example.

That meant the school could then encourage pupils to bring their computers to school, freeing up their own resources to buy computers for those who could not afford them, Mr Osborne said. “Proprietary” software, on the other hand, could not be installed on students’ computers without breaching suppliers’ licensing conditions, he said.

Yep.

Mr Osborne said only Albany High School and two other schools had adopted “creative commons” licensing policies that allowed teachers to share online resources they had developed with other schools, without having first to seek the approval of their boards. Other schools had “all rights reserved on teaching and learning resources”.

Creative commons is perfect for educational resources.  There is so much out there.

Anna Leask at NZ Herald reports:

Twenty-three people were convicted of murders committed while free on bail over a five-year period, say Ministry of Justice figures obtained by the Herald.

A further 21 were convicted of “homicide-related” offences committed while on bail.

These included manslaughter, attempted murder and driving causing death.

So 44 people were killed by criminals out on bail, over just five years. Tragic and preventable deaths.

Someone out on bail often is at their most dangerous. They know they are likely to go to jail when their case gets to court, and any crimes they commit during the bail period will not necessarily result in a longer sentence. Hence we have a perverse incentive.

Labour changed the law to make bail easier. That was reversed by National, but I think there is still more to be done.

People are innocent until convicted, but when they already have a criminal record, we can’t allow them to kill 44 people while awaiting trial. I wonder how many of those 44 deaths on bail were done by someone who already had criminal convictions? I suspect almost all or all.

The Bail Amendment Bill aims to change bail laws to improve public safety. One of its changes would reverse the burden of proof for serious violent and sexual offenders.

This means defendants would have to prove to the court that they would not be a threat to public safety if released on bail.

Under the present law, the police must show why defendants should remain locked up.

44 preventable deaths. We can do better.

Between 2006 and 2010, 69,087 people were convicted of at least one offence committed while on bail.

Of those, 7146 were convicted of acts intended to cause injury – mainly assault – 1132 of abduction, kidnapping, false imprisonment, harassment, nuisance or threatening behaviour, and 763 of sexual assaults or offending.

Also far too high.

I wonder what the stats are for people not given bail, who get found innocent – ie spend time in jail they shouldn’t have? Anyone know?

Amy Adams announced:

Companies that do not comply with marine consent rules in the Exclusive Economic Zone could face fines of up to $10 million under proposed changes to a Bill that provides better protection for New Zealand’s marine environment, Environment Minister Amy Adams has announced. …

The key changes the Government proposes to make are:

• Amend the purpose of the Bill to incorporate the concept of sustainable management to reflect the Resource Management Act
• Increase the maximum penalty for companies that breach marine consents from $600,000 to $10 million
• Clarify that a transitional period for planned petroleum activities will cover the 2013/14 drilling season; and
• Provide a maximum statutory timeframe of six months for a marine consent process.

Lifting the maximum fine would send a strong message that New Zealanders value their oceans.

“At this new level, I consider the penalty would be high enough to provide significant incentive to comply with the regime when operating in the EEZ,” Ms Adams says.

I’m pleased with these changes. I think there is significant economic opportunity to be had from our exclusive economic zone – recall it is an economic zone. Some want to ban all economic activity in it.

$600,000 was too low for a maximum fine. The higher maximum fine will provide greater incentives for companies to minimise risks of environmental damage. That is a win-win – we get more economic activity in the zone, with  less risk.

Of course some demand no risk at all. But I think most New Zealanders like having jobs.

David Shearer in a speech to Grey Power said:

Last year before the election, I was chatting to a guy in my electorate who had just got home from work. In the middle of the conversation, he stopped and pointed across the road to his neighbour.

He said: “see that guy over there, he’s on a sickness benefit, yet he’s up there painting the roof of his house. That’s not bloody fair. Do you guys support him?”

From what he told me, he was right, it wasn’t bloody fair, and I said so. I have little tolerance for people who don’t pull their weight.

Almost sounds like a speech from a National MP. How often do Labour MPs talk about welfare fraud?

The irony is that Labour has opposed almost all the changes by the Government to tighten up on benefit fraud, such as more stringent work testing!

Stuff reports:

As Aleppo shudders under a barrage of shellfire, the desertion of Syria’s PM marks one of the most high-profile defections from President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Syria’s prime minister began planning his break from the regime two months ago when Bashar Assad offered him the post and an ultimatum: Take the job or die.

The full scope of Riad Hijab’s carefully executed flight to the rebel side – described by an aide who escaped with him to Jordan – reverberated Monday through Syria’s leadership.

Hijab became the highest-ranking government official to defect, emboldening the opposition and raising fresh questions about the regime’s ability to survive the civil war.

If Assad is eventually toppled, and jailed (or killed), it will send out a very strong signal to Middle East regimes that if your citizens demand democracy, responding by killing them will end badly for you. Qaddafi found this out also.

From Facebook. An actual scan from three NSW Daily Telegraph. Poor Aussies.

For those interested we are now third on the weighted medals per capita table behind Jamaica and Slovenia.

3 News political editor Duncan Garner blogs:

The majority of Labour politicians clearly dislike David Cunliffe. With a passion. And with a serious degree of what now looks like hatred and mistrust.

That’s become so very clear to me this year – but even clearer since I released our 3 News poll on Sunday night.

I suggested David Shearer might be rolled before the next election if he couldn’t get his numbers up. And while not many in Labour denied that – they all said Cunliffe won’t replace him. Over their dead bodies.

This reflects that the anyone but Cunliffe faction in Labour is very real, and in fact a majority of the caucus.

In fact, Labour MPs have openly joked with me that Cunliffe, who is away on a lengthy family holiday overseas, should stay there.

Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible. How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.

This is from his own colleagues. I don’t think Cunliffe is lazy incidentially.

Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with Cunliffe.

That hasn’t worked apparently – my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.

According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.

I suspect doing speeches on what Labour needs to do, and urging activists to lobby their leader doesn’t help.

I have no problem personally with Cunliffe. We have always got on. I couldn’t really understand why they didn’t opt for him. I do now.

He is not just disliked – he is actively campaigned against. He’s probably hanging around to see if Shearer fails – and he’ll have another go.

But perhaps he doesn’t realise just how many of his colleagues are blocking his progress.

I can’t see him being the leader of this party. Ever. You need friends in the Labour Party caucus to survive. Cunliffe can count his on one hand with ease – he may even have fingers left dangling.

If I was him I’d look for a new career. It’s clear there is an impenetrable roadblock between him and his aim of being party leader.

And they all sit in the same room as he does. This hatred has largely stayed out of the mass media to date. But this is a story worth telling. This is not a collision course for Cunliffe. He and the caucus have already collided – and it’s a big pile up.

The real question is – does he know how bad it is? And what will he do next?

I actually rate Cunliffe’s ability. He did some very good things as a Minister, and is seriously smart. But his relationship with his collegaues has always been tense. They gave him the silent T nickname within a year of him becoming an MP, and things have obviously got worse.

He has a staunch following in the party. Any move to demote or push him out would get resistance. A decision by him not to stand in 2014 would also be a vote of no confidence in Labour. It is difficult to see a way forward for Labour on this issue.

I suspect Cunliffe hopes that if Shearer fails, he will become leader. However my understanding is the unions are committed to keeping in place Shearer for now, so their preferred candidate of Little can become the leader after Shearer. Little would pick up almost all of the 20% union vote under Labour’s proposed new rules. That means Robertson would need to win the caucus and members votes by a 3:1 majority to compensate and that is a hard call.

Despite that I still favour Robertson as the likely next leader.

I blogged last week on a report by Antony Watts which found the increase in US surface temperature in the last 20 years was less than previously reported. It was all about appropriate adjustments to station data.

The Washington Post blogger Jason Samwnow blogs:

The blogosphere has quickly pointed out two problems with Watts’ estimates:

1) Independent satellite data – which Watts posts on his blog each month and has stood behind – indicate a warming over the U.S. closer to NOAA’s estimate. This point was raised by ClimateAudit blogger Steven McIntyre: “Over the continental US, the UAH satellite record shows a trend of 0.29 deg C/decade (TLT) from 1979-2008,” McIntyre said.

Interestingly, McIntyre is listed as a co-author of the Watts paper but begins a blog post expressing “puzzlement at Anthony’s [Watts’press release] announcement”and qualifies his involvement as “very last minute and limited”. And he admits to not having “parsed” parts of the Watts study.

2) Watts’ failure to make certain adjustments to the raw data, as NOAA has done, is a serious flaw knowledgeable bloggers say. Specifically, Watts did not apply a time of observation bias correction according to Howard Universitychemistry professor Josh Halpern, who blogs under the pseudonym Eli Rabett. McIntyre also addressed this problem: “There is a confounding interaction with TOBS [time of observation] that needs to be allowed for, as has been quickly and correctly pointed out.”

Also the listed co-author has blogged:

People have quite reasonably asked about my connection with the surface stations article, given my puzzlement at Anthony’s announcement last week. Anthony described my last-minute involvement here.

As readers are probably aware, I haven’t taken much issue with temperature data other than pressing the field to be more transparent. The satellite data seems quite convincing to me over the past 30 years and bounds the potential impact of contamination of surface stations, a point made in a CA post on Berkeley last fall here. Prior to the satellite period, station histories are “proxies” of varying quality. Over the continental US, the UAH satellite record shows a trend of 0.29 deg C/decade (TLT) from 1979-2008, significantly higher than their GLB land trend of 0.173 deg C/decade. Over land, amplification is negligible.

The satellite data is generally seen as accurate, and supports the records that show around 0.3 degree warming a decade. It is worth noting that even if you think Watts is right that it is lower at 0.15 – what is not disputed that temperatures are increasing. It is also very basic uncontested science that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have a warming effect. What is contested is how large and fast that warming will be.

Colmar Brunton have kindly published the demographic breakdown of their May poll on same sex marriage. Overall New Zealanders were 2:1 in favour with 63% supporting and 31% against. But the demographic breakdowns are fascinating:

• Amongst under 35s, it is over 4:1 in favour or 76% to 18%
• Even amongst 35 to 54 year olds, 66% are in favour
• This suggests that combined, around 70% of people aged under 55 are in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. This is why I believe it is absolutely inevitable
• Women support same sex marriage by around 2.5:1 or 69% to 26% – and women are key swing voters
• The more someone earns, the more likely they are to support same sex marriage – those earning $70,000 or more are almost 2.5:1 in favour
• Those who identify with a religion are split evenly on the issue, while those who do not are around 3.5:1 in favour being 75% to 21%
• Rural and small town respondents are in favour by 59% to 33% – just slightly less than the overall average of 63% to 31%.

Very fascinating results. They do not provide the breakdown for combined gender and age but looking at this I’d estimate that women aged under 55 are around 80% in favour. No demographic is strongly against with those aged over 55 being only 48% opposed – a plurality margin of just 2%.

I was on Mt Ruapehu over a decade ago when it erupted. We had just finished skiing and were in the carpark and started taking photos of the lahars flowing from the crater and the mushroom cloud emerging like a bomb had gone off.

After a few minutes of photo taking, someone suggested wouldn’t it be a better idea to take the photos of the eruption after we got off the mountain, and we quickly concurred and headed down the mountain road.

An awesome sight, seeing nature let loose.

Stuff reports:

Volcanic activity at Mt Tongariro could continue for weeks, months or even years after Tongariro rumbled to life after being dormant for more than 100 years last night.

Last night’s eruption was a total surprise, so “we have to expect the unexpected”, GNS volcanologist Michael Rosenberg said.

The mountain erupted at 11.50pm, sending ash across roads and prompting a potential threat warning for central North Island regions.

The eruption threw rocks and spewed ash from the Te Mari craters, near Ketetahi hot springs, on the northern side of the mountain, GNS Science said.

Flights have been affected and some roads closed.

There were five reported eruptions from the Te Mari craters between 1855 and 1897 but they had been dormant until now, the GeoNet website said.

Heh, how long until someone claims this is a sign that God is against same sex marriage 🙂

Good that no one was injured or killed. It will be interesting to see how long the activity lasts for.

Wellington Regional Council is doing a survey of public transport fares in Wellington, which is a good thing. The survey is here.

Less good is that you do the survey, and then it critiques your answers, asks you if you want to reconsider, before you submit them!

My answers were:

1. Fare structure should be point to point as well as zonal. Point to point charges you on actual distance.
2. We should keep the 14 zones, rather than have larger more expensive zones.
3. Public transport fares should cost the same per km no matter how far you travel
4. There should be higher fares at peak times, double off peak fares

They commented:

A fare system based on your responses would not be simple & easy to understand, and may encourage more people to use public transport.

The fare system would reflect the costs of providing different public transport services, and may encourage economic efficiency e.g. by reducing external costs such as congestion.

The fare system would not be easy to implement and administer, but would support efficient network design, operations and asset utilisation.

The fare system may improve access to public transport for people who do not have access to a motor vehicle, or cannot walk or cycle for most of their trips.

I’m pretty happy with those trade offs.

You have to listen to this interview on bFM to believe it. David Shearer tries and justifies Labour’s proposal to exempt unions from the lobbying transparency bill. An extract:

“It is more of what I was just saying before umm ethan is that, you know I get you know trade unions or say salvation army or whatever they are standing up for rights of you know workers or rights of the poor or whatever, or whatever it is likely to be. Umm I don’t look to gain have had any sort of, I don’t look to have any material gain from that as a, as a as an MP–but there is what the the idea was is to try and capture the you know the various sort of business and corporate interests that might you know in a sense be trying to do sort of what you know they do offshore (not sure happens here?) is to buy buy politicans off”

Is the leader of the Labour Party really saying he has nothing to gain from unions, when they are both major funders of Labour, but also now get 20% of the vote on who is the Labour Leader? Unions get a major say in Labour candidate selections also. Yet Shearer says they should be specifically exempt from lobbying transparency requirements!

Again, I recommend people listen to the whole interview – it is far from clear and concise!

The world premiere of West End Girls at Circa on Saturday night, was a superb production. There’s so much to love about the show, it is hard to know where to start.

The play is based on the book by Barbara Tate, who worked in the late 1940s as an innocent 21 year old in a pub, and then ended up as the maid to one of the regulars – a Soho prostitute called Mae.  The play sounded so good that I had so many people wanting to attend with me, to require two extra tickets, as Glee Girl, DC Girl and Stats Girl all wanted to attend. By coincidence all three had their hair done earlier that day, and were a matching set of a redhead, a blonde and a brunette. They all raved about the show also.

Barbara Tate went on to become one of the leading artists in the UK. It was only in her 80s that she published her memoirs of her time working for Mae. Tate had a harsh childhood abandoned by her mother, almost killed by her father as a child, and brought up by a harsh unloving grandmother. Until she meets Mae, she has never really known love or even friendship, and an unlikely friendship begins.

Photo by Stephen A’Court.

Jessica Robinson plays Mae and, as expected, delivers her normal great performance. The part was made for her.

However for me Victoria Abbott as Barbara was the stand out performance. She managed to capture perfectly this shy naive girl, who got caught up in a world she knew nothing about. Abbott played a very different character in Chekov equally well, and this confirms my view that she is one of the future stars of NZ theatre.

The other five actors play multiple roles – 60 in total I believe. Gavin Rutherford’s main role is as Tony, Mae’s lover and boss. Rutherford also busks the West End Girls song (by Pet Shop Boys) on a ukulele, very skillfully.

The whole music and sound effects for the play was brilliant. As Mae got through 150 customers in 36 hours, the supporting cast used various devices to make the sounds on pants going up and down, and condoms being pulled off, and it was a frantic musical cacophony that was comically wonderful.

The play is based on Tate’s memoirs, and was adopted for the stage by Ken Duncum and directed by David O’Donnell. Overall they did a great job of telling the story over two hours.

The first half is on the wonderful blossoming friendship between the 21 year old the naive virgin and the “queen of Soho” prostitute. In the second half, things get more dramatic as tensions arise as Mae goes downhill.

I think this play got everything right – it was a delight to watch and great fun. Wellington is its world premiere – I am confident it will end up being produced in many more cities. Definitely one worth seeing before it closes on 1 September.

John Smythe at Theatreview has reviewed it also, equally positively.

An advertisement showing why it would be wrong to raise the purchase age, ny Keep It 18.

The release says:

Keep It 18 has released a video highlighting how ridiculous it will be if MPs vote to increase the purchase age for alcohol from 18 to 20.

The video, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9K1-OY6Zs, shows a 19 year old couple getting married, and then at the reception the happy couple having to drink chocolate milk for the wedding toast.  

“It is ridiculous that MPs could vote for a law which says a 19 year old is not mature enough to buy a bottle of wine from a supermarket, yet is old enough to get married” said Sean Topham, Spokesperson for the Keep It 18 campaign. “Our video shows how ludicrous such a situation would be”.

“The proposed increase in the purchase age will actually encourage greater supply of alcohol to those who can’t purchase it for themselves – contradicting one of the primary aims of the bill, which is to reduce supply to minors.”

“It is a myth that youth drinking has increased since the purchase age was lowered to 18. In fact, the prevalence rate of under 18s who drink has dropped 40% in the last five years, according to ALAC’s annual alcohol monitor surveys. The Auckland University’s Adolescent Health Research Group survey of 10,000 secondary school students in 2000 and 2007 also found that the prevalence rate of youth drinkers has dropped significantly since 2000.

“The number of young people caught drink driving has also dramatically dropped, by 50% from 2007 to 2009 and a further 50% in the last year.”

“This shows there is no sound reason to discriminate against 18 and 19 year olds and treat them as minors. We urge MPs to vote for sensible measures to reduce harm caused by alcohol, and to resist the populist temptation to scape-goat 18 and 19 year olds.” concluded Sean Topham.

Also a good read is this op ed in the ODT by ACT on Campus President Hayden Fitzgerald:

Thirty years ago, a four-pack of New Zealand-made beer for $20 would have been unsaleable.

Who would have chosen such poor value over a swap-a-crate of draught beer or a cask of wine?

Today, such boutique offerings are not unusual.

If the products people purchase are any indication of where our drinking culture is headed, the role of alcohol advertising has been misunderstood.

The volume of alcohol sold per capita has actually decreased since the 1989 reforms.

For a start, alcohol advertisers do not necessarily want consumers to drink more alcohol.

What they really want is to increase their own profits.

It is this dynamic which explains why the amount drunk per capita has declined, the amount of advertising has increased, and the sophistication of alcohol offerings has grown during the past 30 years.

Yep.

It is no coincidence drinking culture has become more sophisticated while advertising has been liberalised.

How do you introduce a classier European equivalent to the New Zealand market if you cannot sing its praises to the punters?

What local brewer or vintner will respond by innovating if they are not able to tell consumers what they have done?

Alcohol advertising restrictions will make it that much harder for the boutique start-ups to enter the market.

Those who remain will find the profits are back at the lowest common denominators of price and volume.

A good warning.