Stuff reported earlier this week:

Voters blame Labour more than National for the country’s current debt levels, according to a nationwide survey of Fairfax newspaper readers.

With the two main parties pointing the finger at each other, we asked more than 2000 of our readers who they blamed more.

Almost half of those in the survey saw it as effectively ”a plague on both their houses”, with 44 per cent blaming a combination of the Clark and Key governments.

But among those who singled out one or the other, 33 per cent saw Labour as being more at fault, while only 18 per cent blamed National more.

That is despite a huge blow-out in net core Crown debt since National took office, with a rise from $10 billion in 2008 to $50b now and forecasts it will top $70b by 2015.

However, in 2008 Treasury was forecasting a decade of deficits, though not at the level actually seen over the last few years. There was a record $18b deficit last year, which was hit by the cost of the earthquakes, and will be a likely $10b to $12b deficit in the current financial year.

The survey results are not a random sample, so should not be taken as gospel. However they do give me confidence that voters out there are smarter than assumed.

These finding have caused great howls of outrage from the normal Labour types, with graphs showing how debt fell until 2008 and rose afterwards. In their simple binary world, that means Labour was good on debt and National has been bad. They hope and pray the public are so stupid that they overlook the global financial crisis and associated world recession.

As most people will know the 2008 PREFU showed us that under Labour’s fiscal settings, New Zealand was facing a decade of deficits. But it was even worse than that. Just two months later the forecasts were for not a decade of deficits, but a permanent structural deficit that would never go away.

Now National responded to these forecasts by cancelling its planned 2010 and 2011 tax cuts, and a mixture of spending cuts and reductions in the future spending allowance. One can argue that Labour may have taken some action also to stop a structural deficit from being locked in, if they had won in 2008. But the problem for them is they opposed every single spending cut or even restraint that National did. So hence it is no wonder that the public don’t see them as credible.

It was only a few months before the 2011 election that Labour realised how badly they had misjudged the public mood, and stopped calling for massive new spending.

So as I said, the results of that survey are reassuring that many in the public can tell the difference between correlation and causation.

As widely predicted Shane Jones has said he made the decision he did, to stop Liu being executed in China. 3 News reports:

As a minister, Mr Jones signed off on Yong Ming Yan’s application to become a New Zealand citizen, despite officials telling him not to.

“I was told the execution of this man…that he would be executed…which is the reason the officials gave for him not wanting to go back to China.”

Mr Jones said declining it would have been like signing a death warrant.

Mr Jones says he was told that Mr Yan would be “jailed, executed and his organs harvested” if he was sent back to China.

Some questions on this claim:

1. Who was this official who told him this? It wasn’t by some chance Daniel Phillips was it, the brother of Shane Te Pou – the Labour fundraiser who got paid $5,000 to help get Liu citizenship
2. Does having citizenship in any way impact whether or not one can be extradited to China over the fraud charges laid against him?
3. If one truly believes you face execution and persecution in your home country, don’t you apply for asylum not citizenship?
4. But if one applied for asylum, wouldn’t that actually require some substantiation of the claims that he was Falun Gong and fearing for his life, with adjudication by an independent tribunal, rather than Ministerial discretion as with citizenship?
5. Has Jones or Liu or anyone at all ever produced a shred of evidence that he actually faced anything in China except a fraud trial?

   Some other questions:

6. Does anyone seriously think Liu would have been granted citizenship if he had not donated to various Labour MPs, who advocated so strongly on his behalf?
7. Is anyone else curious about why Liu paid Labour Party fundraiser Shane Te Pou $5,000 to fill in a citizenship form for him? That’s a lot of money for filling in a form.
8. Is the more likely explanation that he paid Te Pou the $5,000, so Te Pou could use his political influence to get him citizenship.
9. Is it a coincidence that Te Pou immediately introduced him to then Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker
10. Is it also a coincidence that a donation to Dover Samuels election campaign was made from an unknown Chinese entity using the address of Daniel Philips, who is Shane Te Pou’s brother and worked for Shane Jones

Mr Jones says he would be happy for any investigation to take place into his role in this matter.

Excellent. I repeat the call for a full independent inquiry into the Liu affair.  This should be an inquiry that has the ability to compel testimony from all parties involved, and obtain all relevant documents.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

Whatever the outcome of the citizenship-fraud trial taking place in Auckland, former associate immigration minister Shane Jones has some explaining to do. …

According to evidence presented to the High Court in Auckland last week, Mr Jones was told in 2008 that Yan was the subject of Interpol Red Notices based on arrest warrants issued in China and that the Internal Affairs Department did not know who he was because he had two passports, two names and two birth dates. Yet Mr Jones approved his application one day after receiving his file.

Mr Jones, now an Opposition front-bencher, has refused to comment on the matter while “it’s in front of the court”, other than to say he had “most certainly not” gone to China.

It is worth noting the outcome of the court case has little bearing on whether Jones acted properly. The court case is about whether Liu lied on his immigration forms. But the focus is on Jones is about why he approved the citizenship when the officials told him this guy has multiple identities, multiple passports, multiple dates of birth and an Interpol arrest warrant.

However, his leader, David Shearer, said yesterday he would not stand the list MP down after receiving assurances from Mr Jones, speaking to other MPs with knowledge of the case and reviewing information retained by Mr Jones. The Labour leader is attaching his reputation to that of Mr Jones in the same way that his predecessor fatefully attached his reputation to that of former Labour whip Darren Hughes when he chose not to stand him down while police investigated a complaint against him.

To be fair to Shearer, the allegations were known about before the 2008 election. It was Helen Clark who should have done a stand down. I’m not sure a stand down is needed. What has been needed for the last three and a half years is a clear plausible explanation for why Jones granted citizenship, apart from he did it to keep his good mate Dover Samuels happy. And if Jones can not give a convincing reason (and by convincing I mean being able to point to some proof that Liu was not dodgy – rather than merely taking Liu’s word for it) for giving citizenship to such a dodgy character, than Shearer should rule Jones out of any future Ministerial role.

It is a risky strategy that leaves Mr Shearer open to charges of hypocrisy given that he has called for ACT MP John Banks to be stood down from his ministerial duties while allegations about his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign are investigated.

Mr Shearer says Mr Jones followed due process. That sounds impressive, but simply means Mr Jones considered the material associated with the case before exercising his authority as minister.

It does not explain why the then minister ignored the concerns of officials who met twice with him about the application.

I’m glad the Dom Post has seen through the spin about process. And yes it is hypocrisy.

The case must now be allowed to run its course. But, once it is completed, there is clearly a need for a full inquiry reviewing Mr Jones’ actions, the material put before him by officials and the involvement of other members of Parliament. Yan’s application for citizenship was supported by letters from National’s Pansy Wong and Labour’s Dover Samuels and Chris Carter.

New Zealanders rightly take pride in this country’s reputation for propriety. Anything that threatens that reputation should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

We definitely need a full inquiry into this. The problem is that if the National Government establishes an inquiry into the actions of a Labour Minister, it looks hopelessly partisan no matter how credible a person is appointed.

But if David Shearer was to come out and agree to an independent inquiry, and agree on the terms of reference with the Prime Minister – then that would be a great sign of bipartisanship – and would allow the true facts to be established.

The whole case is very murky. The person who helped Liu apply for citizenship was a fundraiser for the Labour Party. His brother worked for Shane Jones. Liu had donated to at least three MPs (two Labour, one National) and may held fundraisers at his restaurant which may have raised tens of thousands of dollars. And not only was the citizenship granted despite the official advice, a Labour MP arranged a special citizenship ceremony in the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room at Parliament just a few days later.

The perception is that Shane Jones sold citizenship. Now maybe he did not. Maybe the fact that he was a donor to Labour MPs was not a factor. Maybe the fact that his very good friend Dover Samuels lobbied him intensely did not impact his decision to grant citizenship to Dover’s friend and donor. But Jones argument that he made his decision on humanitarian grounds is pitifully weak. That might be a reason to grant permanent residency, but not citizenship. One can live in NZ all your life as a permanent resident, without being a citizen.

Also note that there has not been a shred of proof that Liu was associated with the Falun Gong. What there is proof of is an arrest warrant for fraud charges.

UPDATE: John Armstrong’s column is “A nasty smell that needs cleaning“. He concludes:

That Shearer is understood to still be keeping his options open in terms of calling in some independent body like the Auditor-General to conduct an inquiry into the approval of Yan’s citizenship suggests the Labour leader realises he is not on terribly strong ground in not standing Jones down, if only temporarily.

There should be an independent inquiry. The inquiry needs to interview all the people involved – the officials, the MPs who advocated, Shane Te Pou and his brother Daniel who worked for Jones. David Cunliffe also as Minister of Immigration who also didn’t act on official advice. The inquiry should also ask the Chinese authorities to document the nature of the fraud allegations that Liu was charged with.

Armstrong’s column is a good read, but I would note that he has missed what I think is a critical point in comparing the Banks case to the Jones case. Banks when advocating for Dotcom was a private citizen and not in power. Samuels was a Government MP and Jones was the actual decision maker. And Banks advocacy was turned down, despite the officials making no recommendation. While Samuels advocacy on behalf of his donor was successful, despite the officials strongly advising against.

I missed this last week.  You can see all of Tom Scott’s cartoons here. Superb.

Danya Levy reports:

Prime Minister John Key says the Government will address alleged abuse on foreign fishing vessels despite the South Korean government sending a delegation to New Zealand to investigate the claims.

Last year all 32 Indonesian crew on the Korean Oyang 75 walked off the fishing vessel alleging sexual and physical abuse.

A New Zealand joint ministerial inquiry earlier this year found Korean fishing charters were damaging New Zealand’s international reputation.

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea launched an investigation into the alleged abuse and visited New Zealand to investigate.

It said last week there was a “possibility” a Korean crew member on Oyang 75 sexually abused six Indonesians.

The Prime Minister’s office this morning confirmed a delegation of South Korean investigators would be visiting New Zealand.

Key said there would be a resolution to problems aboard foreign fishing vessels “irrelevant of what the Koreans do”.

“The Government’s going to address the issue,” he told Radio Live.

There had been problems with foreign fishing charters for “a very long time”.

“We want to ensure people who operate in the New Zealand environment whether it’s on the sea or on the land, abide by our laws.”

A welcome pledge. It has been obvious that the agreements the (mainly Korean) FCVs sign up to is not enforced.

The scale of the abuses that occur on some of the FCVs is horrific. We’re talking near slavery and rape.

Stuff reports:

Emily Longley’s father hopes Elliot Turner, the “evil” man found guilty of murdering the New Zealand teen, will suffer every day in prison.

Overnight, a British jury returned their verdict – the obsessed 20-year-old strangled Emily, 17, in his bedroom at the family home in Queenswood Avenue, Bournemouth, on May 7 last year.

Turner mouthed the word “f***” after the jury foreman gave the verdict following nine hours of deliberations, British paper the Mirror News reported. He will tomorrow learn the minimum length of his life sentence.

May he never be released. Turner reminded me strongly of Clayton Weatherston – a strongly narcissistic individual who saw women as possessions.

Turner’s parents, Leigh, 54, and Anita Turner, 51, were also found guilty of perverting the course of justice after trying to cover up the crime, the Bournemouth Echo reported.

Turner and his parents denied the allegations in a four-week long trial, although Turner had already pleaded guilty to a charge of perverting the course of justice.

His parents were bailed for sentence at a date to be fixed but were told they were likely to face jail. The pair were convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of perverting.

While parents are not responsible for the sins of their children, in this case I think they do bear some responsibility (beyond covering it up). The fact they covered up the crime suggests they lacked any moral compass, and failed to impart it to their son.

Friends said the pair had a volatile relationship, with Turner telling his girlfriend he was going to kill her on multiple occasions. Turner admitted to saying that 10 to 15 times, but told the court he didn’t mean it “literally”.

If your partner threatens to kill you even once – then time to bail out.

Stuff reports:

Social networking giant Facebook looks set to let children under 13 use its site legally, which could attract millions of new users.

The move has been praised by a social media expert who said it would provide new opportunities for businesses looking to engage with a younger audience.

“From that point of view that’s good for us and good for our clients,” Eight80 Social Media director Adam Smith said.

Good God. Well that’s one company I’d never use. Anyone advocating 10 years olds as a business audience.

However, he said it was likely Facebook would put restrictions on what advertising younger users were exposed to. A senior Facebook employee in Britain admitted many under-13s were already using the site.

Head of policy Simon Milner told the Sunday Times there was “reputable evidence” of children under 13 lying about their age to get on to Facebook, some with their parents’ permission or help.

“We have a strict under-13 rule because of legal issues in America, and we apply the same rule all over the world. But a lot of parents are happy their kids are on it,” the Facebook employee said.

Last year’s annual Auckland University schools census, which collects data from more than 20,000 students, showed about 60 per cent of 12-year-olds, 40 per cent of 11-year-olds and about a quarter of 10-year-olds had a Facebook page.

Yep they are on already, by lying about their age. So much better to let them join by stating their true age, and ring-fencing them in a kids area.

Mike O’Donnell writes in Stuff:

Interestingly, the amount you need to invest into duck shooting kit has dropped markedly over the last 20 years.  

When I first went duck shooting as a schoolboy in Timaru 25 years ago, a box of cartridges cost $25 (equivalent to $78 in 2012) and decoys were $35 apiece.  Today you can buy a box of 12 gauge shells for $14 and a dozen decoys for $90.

A key contributor to these reduced costs is parallel importing.  

This allows retailers and other parties to source goods directly from licensed overseas sources, rather than dealing with local licensees. In doing so, it delivers competition between sources of the same or similar goods, and real benefits to consumers.

Back in 1998, the Copyright Act 1994 was amended so that copyrighted goods lawfully made overseas could be imported into New Zealand without the consent of local copyright owners.  

This practice of parallel importing lowered the cost of a huge range of consumer goods, from Levi’s through to L’Oreal.

Parallel importing allows people who have legally purchased goods in one country to resell them in another. That means that one can buy goods at a fair market price, rather than at a monopoly price set for just one country.

Ironically parallel importing will likely be a victim of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), a multilateral free trade agreement which aims to liberalise the economies of the Asia-Pacific region including New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam.   

And this is the irony. I am a big supporter of free trade and agreements which reduce barriers to trade. But the US demands for the intellectual property chapter are mainly about putting up barriers to trade, not reducing them. A free trade agreement should not be about protectionism, but about allowing willing buyers and sellers to trade more easily.

However, the benefits for trade which flow out of the TPP are accompanied by a whole set of obligations for intellectual property in New Zealand, including parallel importing.  As a result, it’s likely local rights holders would be able to prevent parallel imports (and, consequently, increase the margin that consumers pay).

The implications are far broader than just cheaper jeans and shampoo.  

According to leaked documents from the American TPP negotiation team, the United States is demanding a huge raft of changes to intellectual property law in New Zealand.  

This would see fundamental copyright changes in Godzone, including the return of the repealed Section 92A of the Copyright Act (guilt on accusation),  the removal of ”fair dealing” for accidental copying (like when your browser hits copyrighted material), and a requirement for ISPs to give up customers’ details when they receive a allegation from a rights holder.

After the pain and energy that the local internet and intellectual property industry has gone through to end up with a copyright regime that does a pretty good job of balancing rights with internet pragmatism, this would be a serious slap in the face.  

Some of what the US is asking for would even make caching potentially illegal.

It appears our officials realise this and are providing solid pushback thus far.  

Other leaked documents suggest Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials have told the Americans that we wish to stick right where we are and not enter into any additional obligations around copyright.

And my hope is that the Government stays firm on this, and doesn’t allow the US to force changes to our intellectual property laws, to suit a couple of US industries whose business model is outdated. Our laws should be based on what New Zealanders determine is the correct balance between producers and users.

Stuff reports:

A Waimate councillor is calling for cannabis decriminalisation for the good of her community.

Sandy Mulqueen has formed a lobby group and has made a submission in the council’s long term plan outlining a project to decriminalise marijuana for personal and medicinal use. …

She believes the project will benefit Waimate.

Her proposal has not impressed Mayor John Coles who says she should take the matter up with central government.

“She’s come to the wrong place; I will leave it with my council.”

The group plans to compose an information brochure to go to every Waimate resident aged over 16, with reasons for, and details of the project, and a voting form.

“Completion of this project will have a positive effect on the well being of our community and better reflect the wishes of the people in Waimate and the wider community; thus it fulfils council’s core purposes under the Local Government Act,” she says.

This is proof positive why we need to tighten the focus of local government. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Waimate District Council.

As it happens, I also support a change to our drug laws – along the lines recommended by the Law Commission. However that doesn’t mean I want local Councils getting involved and lobbying on the issue. Cr Mulqueen should focus on roads, rates and infrastructure.

One of the memes being pushed by Labour and the Greens is that the 2010 tax package wasn’t revenue neutral. They assert this because tax revenues are lower than was projected. The problem with their arguments is that tax revenues often differ from what was projected, and there is no way of knowing how much is because of changing economic projections, how much is impacted by a policy change and even how much is just because the forecasts are imprecise.

As an example. Let’s say you forecast GST to be $12.5b at 12.5% and you increase GST to $15% and hence forecast GST will bring in $15b. That extra $2.5b of income is distributed back as income tax cuts. But let’s say once GST goes to 15%, the revenue only goes to $14b. Now Labour and the Greens are saying that $1b less is due to the policy change, and hence the tax switch was not fiscally neutral. They argue that it is purely because of the rise in GST that people spent less, and hence less GST was paid. But the drop in GST might just be because of lower economic growth, or a drop off in consumer confidence etc.

To give you an idea of how dramatically forecasts change over time, I’ve collated the forecasts from the last nine fiscal updates. They tell quite a story. Let’s start with total tax revenue.

The last two columns are best to focus on, as we get a full history. This is the total tax take projected for last financial year and the current one.

Back in the 2008 budget Dr Cullen projected $62.1b in tax revenue for 2011/12. Then by the PREFU it had dropped to $61.2b. It further dropped to $58.3b in the DEFU, which takes accounts of National’s election tax cuts. However those changes were compensated by expenditure reductions – mainly KiwiSaver.

A huge drop occurred between 2008 DEFU and the 2009 budget, with tax revenues dropping $4.3b! Now bare in mind it was in the 2009 budget National cancelled its planned tax cuts for April 2010 and April 2011, so it would have been an even bigger drop without that. This change was pretty much all due to the global financial crisis and recession.

By year end forecasts got more positive, going up to $56.6b, and then the tax switch in the 2010 budget projected it to go to $57.4b. However then forecasts dropped again, dropping to $56.7b and then $54.7b.

Now Labour and Greens say that the difference between 2010 Budget and the latest forecasts is all due to the tax switch. But as one can see over time the wider economy is a far bigger factor in tax projections. Recall how in 2009 tax revenues forecast dropped $4.3b even though National cancelled tax cuts.

Now let’s look just at GST.

This shows projected GST revenues only. Note how they from 2008 to 2009 they went from $13.5b down to $11.3b. Then they were projected in 2010 to go up to $15.8b with the increase to 15%. Just six months later Treasury revised that down to $14.0b, but then this year revised up to $15.0b.  This is still lower than originally forecast in 2010, but again no greater than other variances from year to year.

So when Labour and Greens say the tax switch cost $2b, they are making it up. What they are saying is that there has been $2b less tax revenue than projected. But if the tax switch had never happened it is quite possible the drop in tax revenue would have been the same or even greater.

And for the paranoid out there, this is all my research, taken from going through the last nine fiscal updates. No one suggested it to me, helped me with it, or even knew about it. I did it because I got sick of the uncontested claims about the impact of the tax switch.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has revived calls to raise the pension age and is calling on National to support the policy.

In a speech due to be delivered today, Shearer said the existing pension age of 65 was unsustainable and the Government should be “straight up” with people about that fact.

“Labour will be straight – the status quo is unsustainable. we need a genuine cross-party solution that ensures a fair outcome for everyone, especially those who need to retire earlier and as we move to a gradual rise in retirement age.”

Labour campaigned on raising the retirement age at the last election but National says it is affordable in its current form and won’t follow suit.

It has accused Labour of needing to raise the retirement age to pay for unaffordable promises.

Prime Minister John Key has pledged to resign rather than tinker with the age of eligibility for the pension or the current level of entitlements.

Being a cynical person I suspect Labour’s stance on this is primarily because they want to force Key to break his promise. But regardless of their motivation, good policy is good policy and Shearer is right that the current scheme is unsustainable.

I also welcome the call for a cross-party solution. This “solution” though should not just look at the retirement age, but also issues such as indexing, income and asset testing and the like. Our current scheme is the most generous in the world as it has no means testing of any sort, and is linked to the median wage. Ideally a cross-party group would take a first principles approach, and say “What sot of public superannuation scheme should be operating in 30 years time that is fair and affordable”.

Now any changes to superannuation would not take effect for 15+ years so as to not disadvantage those near retirement, who have made decisions based on current policies.  That means that changing superannuation policy will have no impact on the short to medium term goal of getting out of deficit and into a cycle of sustainable surpluses. However it can make a significant difference long-term.

The first step should be an agreement between all parliamentary parties that the existing scheme shall remain in place for all those who will retire before 2025, so were born before 1960. Even John Key should be able to agree to that without breaking his pledge. Sure it implies a different regime post 2025, but that is different to actually agreeing on any change.

If one could get all the parties to agree on ring-fencing the pre-2025 retireees, then a multi-party group could be formed on the basis they won’t agree on post-2025 superannuation, but instead devise a model that all parties say is fair – and put it to a public referendum. That way it is the public deciding, not the Government.

The Southland Times editorial:

Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little would have us see their machinations to avoid being served court papers as indicative of their sheer scorn for the allegation that they defamed ACC Minister Judith Collins.

But they’re being unwise.

Whatever the merits of the case itself, legal process itself does require respect. And it’s not getting it from this pair.

On top of which, they don’t necessarily emerge as being on the high ground, at all.

Whatever their rhetoric, and it has been loudly and jovially dismissive, the methodology of dodging legal papers requires actions that are liable to look like skulking and hiding.

It’s hardly a good look for men proclaiming they have nothing to fear.

I don’t think they realise how bad it looks to the average member of the public.

This being the case, and given that Mr Little has plans to film any attempt to serve him and post it online, unofficial Nat advisers have already been suggesting that the best thing Ms Collins could do would be to hire the most petite and unthreatening woman available to serve the papers.

I can think of a couple of Auckland Young Nats who would be perfect!

Not that the documents really need to be thrust into the hands of the person being sued.

If the courts can be persuaded that someone is trying to avoid the process – and seldom would a more easy call be made in that regard than this case – the papers can simply be taped to their front door.

And Trevor and Andrew have guaranteed a court would agree. Another own goal.

The place to win an issue like this is in court.

They should welcome the chance to produce their proof. I mean surely they would have done a retraction, if they had no proof at all?

Stuff reports:

Maori have been labelled as thieves, bludgers and liars in entries posted on an online dictionary, which a new petition is calling to have removed.

The petition urges urbandictionary.com to remove the derogatory comments, some which date back as far as 2005 and which more than 1000 people have supported.

The posts linked Maori to theft, exploitation and a low intelligence.

“Maori have been trying to seek revenge on the white man by selling him crappy tinny’s, taking his shoes, and generally stealing everything that isn’t nailed down,” one post reads.

One said Maori were the “dumbest people in New Zealand” and another post said they were “the tough people of New Zealand who smash up Pakeha folk”.

About 40 people have signed the petition, which reads: “The Urban Dictionary is a good reference of colloquial slang, but it is also a melting pot of ignorance….They are not definitions, they are racist views and should be labeled correctly.”

The petition urges the site to remove six posts. There are 32 posts on the word ‘Maori’ and many are positive, and are in response to the negative posts.

The complained about definition is here. I’m not sure the petition will achieve anything though. Wikipedia says about the UD:

Publish racial and sexual slurs but reject racist and sexist entries. Entries can document prejudice and slurs but not endorse it.

I’m not sure of the difference between a racial slur and a racist entry. It is arguable UD should have rejected some of the entries, but now they have:

Individual entries cannot be edited by the registered users en masse.

Definitions already in the dictionary can be voted thumbs “up” or “down” by any site visitor.

Once a definition is included in the dictionary, editors may review it and remove it if it is against the guidelines. However, those definitions which have proven popular by voting cannot be removed, and an editor may only recommend removal of five definitions per 24-hour period.

My suggestion would be to vote down the definitions that you don’t like, and vote up the useful factual ones.

I’d point out that it is not only the Maori entry that has racial slurs associated with it. The Pakeha definition includes:

Europeans who travelled to Aotearoa by boat, brought muskets, tobacco, alcohol, diseases, pigs, sodomy and blankets. 

Traded or stole land from the Maori people, brought over guns and cannons and declared war on a land who’s combat was with sticks and stones yet got their asses kicked by so-called savages and had to settle their defeat with a treaty where the Maori people were duped when the Pakeha translated it into English. 

Most Pakeha will say most of their best friends are Maori as a cop out to their racist comments, also Pakeha have a general dis-like for Pacific Islanders, due to physical intimidation and their own wish for superiority.

And even better:

The Europeans that call New Zealand home. 

After deciding England was full of enough rapists and the country was too shitty, they came to New Zealand. 

Loaded with booze, drugs, dirty woman, homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists and tobacco they ventured throughout New Zealand, growing tobacco, getting drunk, rapeing children and built a government that is synonymous of Pakeha, built on lies, greed and thieft which they justify because they are Pakeha.

So maybe the solution is simply just not to believe everything you read on Urban Dictionary. It is pretty easy to work out which definitions are fairly factual and which are rants.

Andrea Vance profiles Tony Ryall:

He is now “a safe pair of hands” in Cabinet and John Key has charged him with another formidable challenge: guiding through the sale of state assets.

“I’ve never seen a politician last as long in the health portfolio with so little money and stay out of trouble,” Dr Smith says of his old university friend.

Very true.

Mr Ryall harvested an extensive network of contacts as shadow health spokesman and immediately set about reducing waiting times in emergency departments. He even paid secret visits to waiting rooms.

The chairman of the national district health board chief executive group, Kevin Snee, says Mr Ryall has reduced deficits and waiting lists, boosted the number of non-emergency operations and forced district health boards to be more efficient.

“It’s provided better-quality care and allowed it to be better managed and better run.

“I think he’s made a big difference in the last three years.”

Doctors and nurses now play more of a role in decisions, Dr Snee says.

“He’s been very clear about including doctors and nurses in the leadership and development of a service. As a doctor who became a chief executive, obviously I think that is very important.”

Opposition MPs should take note. Ryall saw his job as more than just attacking the Government in the House. He worked the sector relentlessly so that when he become Minister he had clear ideas on what to do to make the health system better.

New Zealand Nurses Organisation chief executive Geoff Annals says measures, such as authorising nurses to prescribe medicine, show “respect for the place of nursing”.

So some good praise, but also challenges ahead:

However, the goodwill is waning. Mr Powell says Mr Ryall has addressed four annual conferences. At the first, he “went down very well” and was well received at the next two, but in November “there was rebellion in the ranks and he was heckled”.

Mr Powell says there is a serious shortage of specialists and the Government is in denial.

The “discernible shift” among members is partly a result of Mr Ryall’s “insistence that there were now 800 extra hospital doctors since he became minister”.

Doctors are flocking to Australia, where first-year specialists earn $200,000. The annual base salary of those on the highest step in New Zealand is $206,000. There is also “growing resentment” that health professionals are expected to do more with less, he says.

Yet one specialist in Southland is on around $800,000!

Once Thursday’s Budget is unveiled, attention will shift to the public float of shares in Mighty River Power. It’s a job Mr Ryall has done before, presiding over the sale of stakes in Contact Energy and Auckland International Airport in the late 1990s.

“The public floating of shares in the state companies got a very bad name in the Rogernomics era,” Dr Smith says.

“But … he battled and won the argument with Treasury that you could do mum and dad share floats that would still get a fair price for the Government and proved it to be successful.”

On paper Mr Ryall, a father of two, looks like a promising candidate for prime minister – but it’s a job he doesn’t seem to want.

He declined to be interviewed this week, for fear of outshining his colleagues ahead of the Budget.

Tony is a great Minister, but I think the eventual successor to John Key will not be someone who entered Parliament before Key did.

In recent years, Mr Ryall’s flamboyant shirt and tie combinations have raised eyebrows around Parliament.

Friends say the dapper stylings are driven by wife Kara, an interior designer turned housewife.

“Tony’s dress sense is partly a reaction against being characterised as a boring accountant. Second, if you knew his wife, Kara, she’s very classy and has significant influence in that area,” Dr Smith says.

I can recall the day which led to Tony getting more adventurous with his shirts and ties. It was the full day caucus meeting at Te Papa in 1999.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer says he has received assurances from Shane Jones that he followed due process in granting citizenship to Bill Liu, also known as Yong Min Yan, when he was associate immigration minister.

Umm, that is a red herring. The process is that the Minister gets a recommendation and makes a decision. Hard not to follow due process. The issue is why Jones granted the citizenship when officials had so strongly advocated against, pointing out the multiple identities and passports plus the criminal charges against Liu.

But while we are on due process, what part of due process is having a special ceremony in Parliament organised by a Labour MP just days after the decision was made – normal due process is you get a letter in the mail a few weeks later, and then go to the town hall in a group.

“Having looked at the material we have available, it appears that the process which Yong Min Yan (Bill Liu) was granted citizenship was considered and proper.”

He said Labour did not have access to departmental files, but was relying on information retained by Jones about the case.

Good God. That doesn’t even qualify as a whitewash.

Jones had denied any pecuniary association with Liu.

“He has received no money, gift or travel.”

“Shane is not a friend of Mr Liu. He believes he has met him on one or two occasions.”

No one has suggested Jones received money. The suggestion is that Labour did – on multiple occasions.

Shane Te Pou, a Labour party organiser, met businessman Yan in 2005 at a Labour Party fundraiser at Auckland’s Viaduct.

Te Pou told the High Court this morning that he took Yan on a trip to the Hawkes Bay to investigate exporting wine to China. …

When they returned to Auckland, Te Pou entered an arrangement to fill in Yan’s citizenship application.

Te Pou used to be known as Shane Phillips, and guess who his brother used to work for? Shane Jones.  Here’s what I blogged in 2008:

Tonight, TGIF Edition can also reveal that one of Yongming’s former associates in this country – Shane Phillips – was a Labour Party campaign manager, and his brother Daniel Phillips works in the office of Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones – the man who gave ‘Bill Liu’ citizenship against the recommendations of officials who’d investigated his background.

And:

A further $5,000 was given to Dover Samuels by the oddly-named ‘Tamaki ki te Paki Wu’, apparently residing at a house in Derrimore Heights in Manukau City.

So, according to the official documents, two separate Wu’s slipped a total of eight grand between them into the Dover Samuels campaign fund. But who was this mysterious Mr Tamaki Wu? A check of the Manukau address Dover had given for him provides an added twist to this story: it was registered not to Mr Wu but to Daniel Phillips – Dover’s former private secretary now working for Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones. So $5,000 had come to Dover from the address of a man whose brother was involved with Chinese
businessman ‘Yang Liu’ (real name Yan Yongming), yet the money was not in Daniel Phillips’ name, but a person or entity named Tamaki Wu.

So $8,000 was donated to Dover, from someone living at the address registered to a staff member in Shane Jones’ office.

It is obvious Shane Jones approved the citizenship because his very good mate Dover Samuels asked him to do so. Just as Damien O’Connor used to grant residency to almost anyone Taito Philip Field asked him to. Dover was a beneficiary of donations from Liu, as were other MPs. Was Jones aware of this? Was Jones aware that Liu’s restaurant had hosted fundraisers which can bring in tens of thousands of dollars, none of which gets disclosed as they count as coming from each individual who attended.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR ON THE
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (REMUNERATION AND SERVICES) 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.

Overall Bill

2. I submit in support of the bill proceeding. I think its provisions represent a welcome and overdue reform, especially in regard to having the Remuneration Authority take responsibility for most allowances and services, as well as salaries.

Timing of Salary Determinations

3. I propose that the bill be amended to legislate that the Remuneration Authority only review MPs salaries every third year, and publish their determination around three to six months before the scheduled election. The new determination should take effect for the term of the next Parliament.
4. I submit this, not because I think MPs are overpaid and should be paid less. Quite the opposite. I think it is important that MPs continue to receive appropriate remuneration. However the current system of annual increases creates a regular self-flagellation exercise as media and members of the public lash “greedy” MPs voting themselves a payrise (even though that is an inaccurate description of the process), and pressure is put on MPs to turn down the payrise, and/or donate it to charity.
5. The public will never like MPs getting payrises during their term of office. However they will accept that the salary for one term of Parliament will be higher than the previous three year term. In the days of high inflation, there may have been a case for annual payrises, but in today’s environment a three yearly adjustment should still not be too large an increase.
6. They key thing is that no MP gains a payrise during their term office. The salary level for an MP is set prior to the election at which they are elected, and stays for that term. So the public know when electing MPs what the remuneration for the job will be – and candidates will know what the salary is they are elected.
7. I would expect that the Remuneration Authority, if making a determination for a three year term, would take into account the fact it is for three years.
8. I think this proposal is a win-win. It gives greater certainty to MPs, removes the annual flagellation around payrises, and still ensures that MPs salaries are set at the appropriate level over time.
9. The formal amendment would be the addition of a Clause 9(5) which says “The Remuneration Authority will make a determination under Subsection (1) no later than 30 September in the year of a scheduled election, and the determination will remain in force for the duration of the next Parliament as detailed in Section 11.
10. It could be prudent to have a clause detailing what should occur if there is a snap or early election. In this case, one could either have no new determination, or authorize the Remuneration Authority to make a determination prior to polling day.

Deductions for Absent MPs

11. I support the increase in the deduction for an MP absent without leave from the House.
12. The deduction is based on sitting days missed. It is worth noting that if the House is in urgency or an extended sitting, then multiple days may be counted as the one sitting day. This means an MP (for example) could attend on a Thursday yet skip a Friday and Saturday extended sitting, yet face no penalty. It may be wise to define a sitting day as any physical day the House of Representatives is sitting, rather than implicitly the definition used by Standing Orders.
13. I think the deduction could be increased from 0.2% per day missed as with only 96 scheduled sitting days, that means (after deducing the nine days which gain no deduction) that an MP who attended not a single sitting day would only be deducted 17.4% of their annual salary (if an ordinary MP).
14. I also think the nine “penalty free” days is too high, as this is only for MPs without leave, which is simple to obtain. I would submit a better threshold is three sitting days (one week) before deductions begin, and then deductions of 0.5% per sitting day. This means an MP who did not turn up to a single sitting day in 2012 would have 46.5% of their salary deducted, instead of 17.4%.

Frequency of Determinations for Services

15. Clause 29 states that determinations for travel and accommodation services under section 18 should be made once per term, in the first two years.
16. As with MPs salaries, I think it is more logical to have this determination made towards the end of the parliamentary term and apply for the following term. Again this removes the perceptions of MPs gaining some extra “advantage” during a term.
17. I propose Clause 29 be amended so that determinations are made in the final year of a term of Parliament, and that they apply for the next term of Parliament.
18. I support retaining 29(4) to allow for emergency amendments if necessary.

Official Information Act status

19. This bill entrenches the welcome increase in transparency introduced by the current Prime Minister and Speaker over spending by Parliament.
20. Some people have submitted in favour of going further, and bringing The Parliamentary Service under the Official Information Act.
21. I can understand the reluctance of some MPs for this to occur, as it could mean that attempts are made to access (for example) internal communications between MPs and staff discussing political strategy and the like. You could end up with each party OIA’ing the communications and documents of all the other parties in Parliament. Draft policy documents could be OIA’d, for example.
22. A pragmatic solution may be to agree to have the Official Information Act apply to The Parliamentary Service, but only for the purpose of financial documents. This would provide full scrutiny of parliamentary expenditure but protect political discussions and strategy.

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

A true Kiwi war hero has died, aged 93 in Dannevirke. I blogged about Phil Lamason in March:

At the weekend the film Lost Airmen of Buchenwald was on television. It told a fascinating little known story of 168 allied airmen who were illegally sent to a concentration camp in WWII, and how Acting Squadron Leader Phil Lamason kept them alive. Lamason is a kiwi, and amazingly is still alive aged 93.

The 168 airmen were sent to Buchenwald concentration camp, which was technically not an extermination camp, but still saw 55,000 people shot or worked to death.

Lamason as the senior officer assumed command of the airmen, and many of them say his leadership kept them alive. Lamason kept asking for them to be transferred to a POW camp, but this was denied. They were ordered to work as slave labour. Lamason refused to order the men to work, as allied soliders could not work for war production for the Nazis. He refused to back down even when threatened with summary execution by an SS officer.

Lamason managed to get word to the Luftwaffe, about the airmen being held at the concentration camp. He was hoping they would intervene, as they would not wish their captured airmen in the UK to be treated in the same way. Two Luftwaffe officers visited the camp pretending to inspect bomb damage, and talked to Lamason. They reported to Hermann Goering who ordered them transferred.

However before news of the transfer came through, they were ordered to be shot on 26 October. Only Lamarson knew this, but didn’t tell the others to keep morale high. Then the transfer came through on 19 October.  They were just one week away from execution. 166 of the airmen were transferred and survived.

It was a fascinating documentary and well worth watching. New Zealanders can be very proud of Mr Lamason, a true war hero.

I’m very glad I saw that documentary and learnt about Mr Lamason, when he was still alive. All New Zealanders should be proud of his courage and leadership. My thoughts go out to his family.

Tawatawa Reserve

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in Californiaand beyond

The first time I have done the Tawatawa Reserve loop track, and enjoyed it greatly. Some great southern views, with its location in Owhiro Bay.

It is a very diverse track. You start off on the flat in open plains. You then go up the hill, mainly on open tracks. However once you get up the hill, you end up walking through bush a fair bit.

A nice walk over to a reservoir, with some good views on the way. Then from the reservoir you join the City to Sea walkway for a bit and have a climb up no less than 145 steps! Nice views of Berhampore Golf Course and surrounds.

From there you then carry on uphill a bit more until you get to a lovely flat field at the top. Great views of Cook Strait from here. You are close to the area where the Wellington landfill used to be, before it swapped to the other side of Happy Valley Road. I can recall coming to this old landfill a few times as a kid with my Dad. Pleased to say now all grass area and no smell!

Also here is a pouwhenua placed there by the Tapu-te-Ranga Marae.

From here it is all downhill. On the way down you go through a pine forest, which adds to the diversity of experience from open plains, to hillside tracks, to bush trails, to steps, to flat fields and then the pine forest.

We got back to the car park in just under an hour. The official guide says 90 minutes. Only 3 kms in length, but the terrain is steep in places, which is good for burning up energy.

Definitely one I’m keen to do again. There are also some other walks in that area you can do.

Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:

Mr Shearer has been calling on Act leader John Banks to be relieved of his ministerial portfolios while police investigate whether he breached the Local Government Electoral Act by declaring donations to his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign from German billionaire Kim Dotcom as anonymous.

But he said last night the questions around Mr Jones’ involvement in the Yan case were not as serious as those around Mr Banks donations from Dotcom.

The strength of the evidence against Mr Jones was “very arguable”.

Mr Jones has declined to comment on the matter.

Shearer’s comments defy comprehension, and reinforce that this is just “gotcha” politics rather than anything serious.

Let’s look at what the two cases have in common. Dotcom was a request to buy a house. Yan was to gain NZ citizenship. Both donated to politicians campaigns, and had politicians advocate on their behalf.

But in the case of Banks, he was neither MP nor Mayor when he advocated – and most importantly he was not the decision maker.

But in the case of Jones, we was the actual Minister who made the decision to grant citizenship. He did it against the advice of officials. He knew of the allegations that Liu was a wanted criminal, with multiple identities. Yet he still gave citizenship, and had a special ceremony in the Labour Caucus Room for it, attended no doubt by some of the MPs Liu had financially supported.

While in the Dotcom case, officials made no recommendation, yet it was still turned down.

So for Shearer to claim the questions around Jones are “not as serious” as those around Banks is a position not grounded in reality.

Also at least Banks has fronted up and answered questions (albeit not that well) on his issue. However Jones has spent years refusing to answer the question of why he granted citizenship against the advice of officials – except the obvious one that it was to keep his colleagues happy, who had been receipients of largesse from Liu.

Shearer’s comments on the Liu case mean we can pretty much ignore him in future on issues of ethics.

UPDATE: The original stories on this back in 2008 said that the room in Parliament used for the special citizenship ceremony was the Labour Caucus Room. I am informed that Mr Samuels says it was in fact the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room (which needs an MP to book it). The ceremony was two days after the approval, in contrast to the normal process where it takes weeks.

I also understand that Jones says he granted citizenship because he was told Liu could be executed upon his return. This is crap though, as Liu had permanent residency anyway. Also if someone really fears for their life, they seek asylum. He was wanted in China on fraud charges, and simply didn’t want to face them. There isn’t a single shred of proof that he feared for his life because he was associated with the Falun Gong, as he now alleges. What there is proof of is that he lied on immigration documents, had multiple passports and multiple identities and was wanted by Interpol.

The Herald reported:

John Key has defended a decision to cancel sales of affordable housing in an Auckland development, saying low interest rates are making it easier for first-time buyers and people on low incomes to afford their own homes.

So how much of an impact do lower interest rates make? Quite a lot as you will see. The caution is that interest rates vary over the life of a mortgage, but they have been low for some time now.

The average house prices at present in NZ are $397,905 nationwide, $443,070 in Wellington and $523,518 in Auckland. Now if we assume a 10% deposit and a 20 year term mortgage, what does 5% mortgage rates mean compared to 8%.

• NZ – $632 a month lower mortgage payments, saving $151,684 over 20 years
• Wellington – $704 a month lower mortgage payments, saving $168,901 over 20 years
• Auckland – $832 a month lower mortgage payments, saving $199,569 over 20 years

Alternatively if one kept the repayments the same, then the savings are even greater:

• NZ – mortgage paid off six years earlier, saving $222,199
• Wellington – mortgage paid off six years earlier, saving $247,424
• Auckland – mortgage paid off six years earlier, saving $292,383

So if you have a mortgage for 90% of the median house value in Auckland, a 1% reduction in interest rates gives you around $60 a week more in the hand.

Anthony Hubbard writes in the SST:

Of course, no government could go on a spree. Even a Green-led administration would be doing austerity.

Oh wait is that a pig flying over-head.

The parties of the left have opposed pretty much every spending cut or restraint of the last four years. They have done little except to call for more spending and more taxation. To have Hubbard declare a Green-led administration would also do austerity flies in the face of not just four years of press releases from them, but even their own policy statements.  Here’s just a few of their massive spending policies:

• Increase schools operations grant by 10%
• Maximum class sizes no greater than 20
• Increased teacher-child ratios in early childhood services
• More funding for Maori language
• Support pay parity for early childhood, primary and secondary educators
• Write off student loan debt on a year for year basis if they stay in NZ
• Establishing a universal student allowance
• Cap and then progressively reduce student fees
• Increase Community Organisations Grants Scheme (COGS) funding to $34m per annum
• Establish a special fund of $150 million to mitigate the impact of ending pub pokie grants to community and voluntary sector organizations
• Support TVNZ’s channel one becoming a commercial free, New Zealand focussed channel
• Increase acquisition and building of state housing units by at least 3000 units a year for the next 3 years.
• Provide funding to third sector housing organisations for a minimum of 1000 units a year for the next 3 years
• A Universal Child Benefit of $18.40 per week per child for the first child, $13.00 for subsequent children
• Protect all benefit levels by linking rates to a fixed percentage of the average wage (like superannuation).
• Remove discrimination from tax credit regimes such as the In Work Payment component of Working for Families.
• Increase funding to promote health and prevent illness and injury to 10% of the health budget.
• Introduce a free annual wellness check for all New Zealanders.
• Extend the healthcare subsidies available to superannuitants to cover people on sickness and invalid’s benefits.
• Provide free fruit to all primary schools.
• Significantly increase funding for the aged and disability care sector.
• Abolish asset testing for residential care.
• Increase New Zealand’s ODA budget to 0.7% of GNI by 2015
• Publicly funded mediation services for civil proceedings.
• Legal aid available for community organisations in matters of public interest

Any economist want to estimate the cost of just those pledges? I reckon around $10b a year.

And Mr Hubbard would have us believe the Greens are into austerity!

It is worth reflecting that as Labour are polling so badly, any future left-wing Giovernment would be around one third Greens, which means they would realistically expect around a third of their policies to be implemented.