This show the projected drop in mail volumes to 2018.

And the drop in fast post volumes.

This reinforces for me why NZ Post’s contractual obligations in the Deed of Understanding have to be removed or at least reduced. If not, then NZ Post simply won’t be profitable – in fact it will need taxpayer injections of funds.

The projections are NZ First Post can remain profitable until 2015, but then it gets hairy unless changes are made, such as requiring six day a week delivery.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The Government also wants employers to be able to deduct the wages of workers who undertake partial strikes and the papers show new provisions which would allow them to be paid at less than the minimum wage.

Partial wages for partial strikes seems fair to me, just as you get no wages for a total strike.

If you don’t give employers the ability to do partial wages for a partial strike, then their likely response is to lock the employees out entirely – which I think is best avoided.

As someone who appreciates the impact of the Internet on society, I am always interested in those who helped make it happen. The Internet Hall of Fame inducts in some of those who have made major contributions.

They have three categories – pioneers, global connectors and innovators. For those interested here are the pioneers:

• Paul Baran – helped invent packet switching
• Vint Cerf – co-designer of TCP/IP protocols that the Internet runs on
• Danny Cohen –  first application of packet switching to real-time applications
• Steve Crocker – developed the protocols for the ARPANET
• Donald Davies – one of the inventors of packet switching computer networking
• Elizabeth Feinler –  pioneered and managed the ARPANET, and the Defense Data Network (DDN), network information centers
• Charles Herzfeld – director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the 1960s, oversaw the decision for the creation of ARPANET
• Robert Kahn – co-designer of TCP/IP protocols that the Internet runs on
• Peter Kirstein – started the first European ARPANET node with transatlantic IP connectivity
• Leonard Kleinrock – pioneered the mathematical theory of packet networks
• John Klensin – involved in the early procedural and definitional work for DNS administration and top-level domain definitions
• Jon Postel – contributed to TCP/IP, SMTP and DNS development. RFC Editor. Created and was IANA. Internet Society founder.
• Louis Pouzin – designed the CYCLADES computer network and its datagram packet switching network, from which TCP/IP was derived
• Lawrence Roberts – designed and managed the first packet network, the ARPANET

Their work collectively has changed the world dramatically.

Chekov in Hell opens in Circa Two with Anton Chekov in a hospital bed, clearly dying in 1904. A short time later, it is 2012 and a (great) niece of Chekov is informed that her uncle has woken up from a 100 year coma.

Victoria Abbott, as the niece Nicola, gave what I thought was a stunning performance. Her ability to do different accents was phenomenal, and she got the mannerisms spot on. She also has one of the most expressive faces I’ve seen, and could have you in stitches just by the way she pinched her eyes and lips together as the politically correct police officer was reassuring her that they are here to make her feel valued, as they update on the hunt for her uncle.

I did not expect the play to be laugh out loud funny, as it was. I thought it would be more quiet chuckle funny, but there were numerous scenes that had the audience loudly laughing. An example was the poor doctor trying to apologise for letting Chekov escape the hospital, while stressing it was not an official apology as that could open the hospital up to liability, but a non-official personal expression of regrets.

The play was written by Dan Reballato, an English playwright.  It shows how Chekov experiences  reality TV, feng shui, pole dancing, a Russian gangster, smartphones,  sex trafficking, celebrity chefs, British policing and very amusingly Twitter.  The characters are all English (or Russian) but they need no translation for a New Zealand audience.

Director Eleanor Bishop did an excellent job bringing the script to life. It was a very energetic production as characters do not just fade on and off stage, but almost pivot their way off, taking furniture with them. It is at times a very intense experience with the music and lights combining so that you almost share Chekov’s disorientation.

The cast of five all play around 11 characters each (except for the Chekov actor), which must be a huge challenge. This was I think Abbott’s first production at Circa (she only graduated in 2011), but equally worthy of mention was fellow “newbie” Simon Leary who acted with frenetic energy. Both of them are real talents, with a huge future I predict.

Nick Dunbar and Heather O’Connell also played multiple characters with ease, while Jason Whyte was convincing playing Chekov himself – and very much looked the part.

There were a couple of scenes which dragged on a bit for me, and could have been made tighter. But overall I found it a delightful satirical narrative about 21st century London.  Highly recommended.

UPDATE: For those interested, a much more in depth review by John Smythe at Theatreview.

An interesting blog post at Amused Cynicism

on why politicians don’t get the Internet. To be fair this is less of an issue in New Zealand. We have a fair few MPs who do get the Internet, but this is far from universal. Some quotes:

Politicians sometimes say (and do) things that internet users think are both clueless and immoral. Why is this? Politicians want people to vote for them, so they don’t deliberately come across as stupid and nasty. Furthermore, they know the internet is important to the economy, and don’t deliberately want to sabotage it.

So why do politicians so often say things that give off the wrong tone? I think there are three systemic reasons for this:

• They are not digital natives
• They don’t understand the technology
• The way the internet works doesn’t fit in with their worldview

Talking on the issue of potential disconnection for copyright infringement:

And that’s why the threat to disconnect internet users is seen as so bad, so disproportionate: it’s banning people from talking to their friends, from socialising, from being part of the communities which have meaning in their lives and through which their lives have meaning. If someone wants to take away my internet, they threaten to take away a large part of my identity. I’ll fight them to the end, and because there are millions of people like me, and we’re growing stronger every day, we’ll win.

The US is demanding termination for copyright infringement allegations in the TPP negotiations. The Government so far is saying no to this, which is good. If they change their position at some stage, there will be considerable political risk in doing so. As the post says, Internet natives take disconnection as the state trying to take away their identity, and will fight it all the way. I would not want to be a Government that is on the wrong side of that issue.

Then on the issue of world-view:

Everyone attempts to understand the world through the filter of the categories they understand. What if the nature of the internet doesn’t fit in with someone’s pre-defined categories? Then they will struggle to understand it. So, what is the nature of the internet?

Firstly, No-one owns it, though different people own bits of it. The internet isn’t a thing, it’s a protocol — to be precise, the tcp/ip suite of protocols — an agreement that certain patterns of bits mean certain things, and because everyone keeps that agreement, the internet works.

Secondly, everyone can use it, so once you’re connected to it, you’re connected to all of it and can use all of it.

Thirdly, anyone can improve it. Tim Berners-Lee didn’t need to get anyone’s permission to create and deploy the world wide web. Nor did Bram Cohen need anyone’s permission to create BitTorrent.

How does this fit in with how politicians see the world? Well:

• No-one owns it: governments are defined by what they control.
• Everyone can use it: in government, making laws means imposing restrictions on people.
• Anyone can improve it: Business and government cherish authorized roles. It’s the job of only certain people to do certain things, to make the right changes.

As I said things are not too bad in New Zealand. But we should not be complacent.

The Herald reported last week:

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the fact Mr Key was open to a potential coalition with someone who had such a belief only showed how desperate National was.

This was a reference to Colin Craig’s comments on how promiscuous young NZ women are.

However listen to this recording sent to me by Matthew Flannagan of (then) NZ First MP Pita Paraone at a Family First forum in 2007. He refers to the Durex survey (it was released just before the forum) and that it showed how promiscuous young New Zealanders are.

So for Winston to be huffing and puffing about National being desperate if they associate with someone like Colin Craig – well he should look closer to home.

Incidentally Colin Craig presented his views much better on Q+A this morning. Well worth a watch.

NZ First Promiscuity Pita Paraone (1)

Jon Morgan at Stuff has a long feature on the Talleys and Affco dispute. One extract:

As Talley’s influence increased so did anti-union activity, according to Meatworkers organiser Roger Middlemass. “It was like a cold front arriving.”

He accuses Affco of a string of anti-union acts, including encouraging workers not to sign with the union and of banning the union from posting notices, including its financial statements, in plants.

“It is Dickensian,” he says. “This is not even last century stuff, it’s the century before.”

One example, he says, is the inclusion in the disputed contract of a clause that talks of making union members redundant on the grounds of irreconcilable differences between them and the employer, or them and other workers, or when “the interests of the employer would be best served by terminating the union member’s employment, not withstanding that the union member has not been guilty of any conduct or omission that would justify dismissal on the grounds of misconduct or poor performance”.

“It means that the employer can just say it’s in my interest that you don’t work for me any more. And you can’t take it to court because you’ve not been dismissed, you’ve been made redundant,” Middlemass says. “The word draconian isn’t strong enough to describe this.”

Affco operations manager Rowan Ogg says this clause is “reasonably standard” and that he has it in his employment contract.

Assuming it has been correctly reported, then I have to say the union has a very reasonable case here.  An irreconciliable differences clause is not reasonably standard. The only place I knew which has them is Parliament, because it is impossible for an MPs office to function if the MP doesn’t have total trust in their staffer/s. But this clause probably wouldn’t even stand up in court, which is why there is always a payout of three or more months with it, if triggered. And often, another job found for the staffer with another MP.

That clause basically does ask meat workers to surrender their employment rights, and allow AFFCO to fire them for no substantive reason. Now I’m in favour of trial periods where you can do that as it is always a risk how a new employee works out. But I would not sign a contract like that if I worked at AFFCO.

If reported correctly, the clause also seems confused. Positions are made redundant, not people. You can not have a clause saying you are made redundant if we decide we do not like you.

I am no fan of the tactics of the Meatworkers Union. But that does not mean that they are wrong in refusing to sign the proposed contract. I would not sign a contract like that if I was a meat worker.

Fran O’Sullivan writes in the Weekend Herald:

John Key has made a strategic decision to burn some political capital and front-foot major Government decisions as he tries to wrest control of the national agenda. It’s a strategy that is bearing fruit.

Finally, the PM is putting a stamp on his Government as he lifts its tempo and gets some serious purchase on major issues.

So far Key is making reasonable headway as he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Cabinet ministers while they unveil pre-Budget announcements on hot issues, such as Paula Bennett’s on welfare reform. …

The Government is very determined to do more than just manage the finances, but also to take hard decisions which will boost economic growth and hence jobs.

It is easy to underplay the impact of the Prime Minister’s cheery influence in keeping New Zealand business sufficiently confident in his Government’s management of the NZ economy so the vast majority of firms stay focused on the medium-term prospects and don’t simply shut up shop and move to Australia.

Political journalists and Beltway denizens don’t see much of this side of Key as, outside of the general election campaign, few venture forth on a consistent basis to watch the PM intersecting with the business community.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have heard from reasonably politically agnostic business people how impressive the PM is when talking on economic issues at business forums.

The PM’s decision to front-foot the mini-scandals – instead of relying on his press minders to trot out the spin – is also a change from default mode.

He didn’t need the SkyCity convention centre wrangle, or the ACC and John Banks mini-scandals. But Key has more than held his own on television programmes such as Campbell Live or on Radio NZ’s Morning Report against critical news presenters trying to expose chinks in his political spin.

I can’t recall a time when a PM was being interview one on one so often.

Amusing product reviews on Amazon.

Tensions on the Labour front bench have just got even worse.

David Cunliffe’s speech on an economic direction for Labour did not go down well with many of his colleagues. The Nation reported today that Cunliffe was told in the following caucus meeting that his speech was stupid and foolish. I think it was neither of those – rather very calculated. But many MPs got up to criticise Cunliffe for his speech, including David Shearer.

The Nation invited David Cunliffe on this morning to talk about his views on economic development, and the problems he identified with current and previous policies. He was happy to do so, but Shearer’s office banned him from going on.

Now this is a very rare thing. Certainly some Ministers will sometimes not accept an interview request, but Opposition MPs pretty much never turn down such opportunities. We now have a situation where Labour’s Economic Development spokesperson has been gagged from speaking publicly on economic development and related issues. This is not the sign of a happy camp, and indicates how tense things must be.

The Nation even promised that they would not ask any questions at all about leadership. It would be an interview only on economic issues. But even that was enough for Shearer’s office to gag Cunliffe and ban him from being interviewed.

Shearer’s leadership is safe (for this year anyway), but the marginalisation of Cunliffe will go down badly with the many party activists who recognise Cunliffe’s talents and praised his speech.

NZ Herald politics quiz is here.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald:

The Labour Party is considering a major change in the way it elects its leader to allow party members to force a handover of power through a no-confidence vote, or to block an attempt by caucus to roll the leader.

The group set up to review the Labour Party after its poor election result has recommended party members vote on the leader. At present only MPs elect the leader.

Party president Moira Coatsworth said it was “a significant shift” for the party.

“At the moment, because it is a caucus decision, caucus at any time can walk in and have a vote. So this would decide on mechanisms for triggering [a leadership vote.]”

New Zealand and Australia were the only Westminster countries in which the equivalent of the Labour Party did not allow members to vote on the leader. 

It is unclear to what extent it is recommended that Labour members get a say on the party leadership, but this looks to be a step in the right direction.

Of course it may create tension, if implemented, as it seems most party members backed Cunliffe for Leader, while the caucus backed Shearer. So would Cunliffe’s supporters be able to trigger a leadership vote against the wishes of caucus? It will be interesting to see the detailed proposal.

What will also be interesting if whether unions will get a block vote for the leadership. This could give them even more power within the party.

The Press reports:

“I want to be the minister, not the mayor.”

With that sentence, Christchurch East Labour MP Lianne Dalziel wants to lay to rest one of the city’s most persistent rumours since the February 2011 earthquake.

Dalziel, Labour’s earthquake recovery spokeswoman, said there were several reasons why she was not interested in standing for the mayoralty late next year.

One was that she had Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee’s job in her sights if Labour was able to govern after the 2014 general election.

This seems to be confirmation that Dalziel will stand for a 9th term as an MP. This doesn’t help Labour with their rejuvenation, but if they do get to win Government it would be appropriate for Dalziel to become the CERA Minister as it would be karma. I think she would discover how incredibly difficult it is to do the job and please everyone. It is very easy to scratch every itch, and far more difficult to actually make the hard decisions.

Of course by 2014, most of the hard decisions will have been made.

In Wellington however, it is looking more likely Annette King will stand for Mayor, as she has now said she is actively considering it.

This opens up a Rongotai by-election in 2013, if so. If Labour loses the seat to the Greens it will be a big blow to them.

This is so hideous it makes the Supreme Court Building seem pleasant. It is Terrace House in Wanganui, ironically now home to the Wanganui School of Design. How is that for karma!

How could anyone have thought concrete diagonal bars over the windows was a good idea?

Arstechnica reports:

You know those FBI warning messages that appear at the beginning of DVDs and Blu-ray discs? They’re getting an upgrade—and they’re multiplying.

The US government yesterday rolled out not one but two copyright notices, one to “warn” and one to “educate.” Six major movie studios will begin using the new notices this week. …

The second notice shows the logo for the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, which involves 20 different US government agencies. It features one extremely angry eagle who would probably pluck your eyeballs from your sockets if he could get those talons near you. “Piracy is not a victimless crime,” says the notice. “For more information on how digital theft harms the economy, please visit www.iprcenter.gov.”

Oh God. There are few things more frustrating than sitting through those inane notices on the legal DVDs you have purchased. All they do is encourage you to acquire versions without the stupid notices – ie torrented files. They are the most counter-productive messages I know if, and now they are doubling them in length!

The Herald reported:

An unlikely partnership has formed to fight the Government’s partial asset sales, with Grey Power and the New Zealand University Students Association launching a petition aimed at getting a referendum on the issue. …

Association Vice-President Arena Williams said it was her generation that would have to mop up the consequences of the sales and they deserved a say on it.

This is unbelievable. NZUSA (actually now the NZ Union of Student Associations) has no mandate on this issue. It is not an issue that student have a common view on. It is not an issue in any way to do with tertiary education. This just reinforces that all too often, NZUSA is the student wing of the Labour Party.

I understand that NZUSA did not even consult its member student associations on this issue of supporting the referendum. Both VUWSA and MAWSA Presidents have said that if they had been asked, they would have said that the issue is out of scope for NZUSA.

If I was a member of a students association that was a member of NZUSA, I’d be demanding to know why NZUSA is throwing away any chance it has of being seen as a professional advocacy body for students.

UPDATE: I understand LUSA is also aghast that NZUSA has decided to campaign on the issue of asset sales.

Murray Gibb, the CEO of Water New Zealand, writes in the Dom Post:

So where are the opportunities for improved efficiency and effectiveness in the Wellington region? Water New Zealand’s interest is in water services.

Water and transport services consume half of total local government expenditure.

At present all nine local bodies are involved in supplying water services to the area from Masterton and Kapiti south to, and including, Wellington.

Masterton, Carterton, South Wairarapa and Kapiti all run their own water services. Greater Wellington regional council supplies bulk water to Upper and Lower Hutt, Wellington and Porirua. Wellington and Lower Hutt retain ownership of their water infrastructure, but own a separate company, Capacity, that manages it.

Capacity also contracts to manage water services for Upper Hutt, which retains ownership of its water infrastructure. Porirua runs its own retail supply and wastewater plant. Capacity buys waste water services from Porirua for its Wellington serviced customers from Johnsonville north.

Each has its own plan and own projects within its own boundaries, often with little or no joint planning.

There is no co-ordinated or strategic approach across the water catchments in the wider Wellington region.

For instance, two utilities are planning to augment supplies independently of each other, and the regional council is looking to make its supplies more resilient in the event of an earthquake.

A great example of what is wrong with the status quo.

Sadly  many local body politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs than having a sensible discussion on what is the best structure of local government in the region, to serve our residents.

Great to see so many people attend the inaugural Political Polling Forum on Wednesday, and especially the questions from audience members. There were a number of excellent contributions.

For those who couldn’t make it, but are interested in political polls, a number of documents have been put up on the MRSNZ website. Three which may be of special interest are:

• Rob Salmond’s presentation
• Murray Campbell’s presentation
• The ESOMAR code/guide on opinion polls

The ESOMAR code is 39 pages long (and an excellent resource). One of the challenges going forward is if we can come up with a NZ version which is concise enough to be of practical value to media as well as research companies.

My column in the NZ Herald is on the potential coalition partners for National in 2014, with most focus on the Conservatives:

But then came Craig’s comments on National’s plans to provide free contraceptives to women on a benefit. He said young New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world and that a monogamous 70 year old woman shouldn’t pay for a young woman to sleep around.

Mr Craig’s effective labelling of young New Zealand women as sluts was bad enough, but the lack of any recognition that it takes two to tango, and no condemnation of young promiscuous men outraged women (and men) from across the political spectrum. Twitter, as usual, was a source of equal mixtures of outrage and humour as one man tweeted they he for one “welcomes our new promiscuous women overlords”.

John Key himself came out and dissed the comments by Mr Craig. The next day he declared he was not opposed to gay marriage – something we can assume the Conservative Party is vehemently against. So even if the Conservatives can make it into Parliament, any relationship with National is likely to be rather stressful.

In summary there are not a lot of good options for National in terms of post 2014 partners, just a variety of “less bad” options. 

Sigh!

I’ve previously covered the debate about whether the death star is a good investment from a fiscal point of view. Now the debate is about whether it is a good idea politically. The case against:

First, the Death Star is a bit misunderstood. It is primarily a tool of domestic politics rather than warfare, and should be compared to alternative means of suppressing the population of a galaxy. Second, as a weapon of war, it should be compared to alternative uses of scarce defense resources. Understood properly, the Death Star is not worth it. …

I see the Death Star (DS) as the Emperor’s solution to the dictator’s dilemma.  First, note that its construction precedes the Rebel Alliance; the plans are first developed by the Separatists in Episode 2 and, by the time it is completed, the Rebel Alliance has just won its “first victory.” While it may have some use as a deterrent against possible invaders, the DS is primarily a tool of domestic politics. Prior to its completion, the Emperor is compelled to keep the Imperial Senate around, presumably to maintain the semblance of popular consent. But the Senate imposes some inefficiency—meddling in military strategy, perhaps, or directing spending to some favored planets. Once the DS is operational, the Emperor can disband the Senate and, instead, empower Imperial governors to suppress the local population and extract revenue. 

So the Death Star was about allowing the Senate to be replaced by Governors.

But how can the Emperor guard against rebellion by one of these governors? Or revolt by a local planet’s population? The answer is simple: he can zip around in the baddest weapon in the galaxy, destroying his foes with the push of a button. No foe could fight back, and the DS is mobile enough to respond to multiple threats in short order.

Note that this scheme provides an easy answer to the question, “how can we afford a Death Star?” If the scheme works, the Death Star will pay for itself dozens of times in the additional tax revenue from fearful planets, and by the money not spent by the military putting down revolts with conventional weapons.

So seems a good idea, right?

But will it work?  Only if it induces cooperation through fear. Every planet blown up represents a tremendous loss of potential future revenue, so like nuclear weapons today, the actual use of the DS is a calamity. Moreover, like nuclear weapons, they only work as a deterrent if they are used judiciously. citizens throughout the galaxy must believe that failure to pay their taxes and comply with their Imperial masters will lead to detonation, but also that compliance will save them. The fact that the DS was used against Alderaan, however, would likely have had the opposite effect. Alderaan is “peaceful” and “has no weapons.” It was detonated because its teenage senator was secretly aiding the Rebel Alliance and waited too long to give up Dantoonie.  …

If the net effect of the DS is to make every person in the galaxy think their planet could be the next one arbitrarily destroyed, it actually mobilizes them to join the rebellion.

So use of the death star will not work, and indeed it did not.