John Moore is a progressive activist. In a guest blog at liberation he confronts the issue of leftwing xenophobia:

John Moore argues that leftwing opposition to the Chinese bid for the Crafar farms highlights how progressives in this country continue to frame their politics within a conservative economic-nationalist framework. Despite the protestations of leftists opposing the Shanghai Pengxin bid, the fact is that their nationalist rhetoric has nothing to do with progressive politics and everything to do with crude foreigner bashing.

Moore provides some history:

For example during the early part of the twentieth century the Federation of Labour, through its paper the Maoriland Worker, railed against Chinese immigration. …

Many from New Zealand’s contemporary left would acknowledge this history of racism and bigotry, but would argue that progressives in this country have now embraced diversity and tolerance over bigotry and xenophobia. However, such leftists’ continued adversity to immigration and support for little New Zealand nationalism points to continuity with the left’s racist past.

Moore looks at the Crafar issue:

Labour’s careful construction of a new nationalist synthesis amounted to the formation of a post-conservative form of patriotism that most of the left could now feel comfortable with. Whereas the New Left of the 60s and 70s often rejected any form of nationalism, many contemporary leftists now feel comfortable with this new form of ‘Kiwi’ identity. However, the problem with the acceptance of this form of ‘progressive’ patriotism is that it inevitably allows for forms of bigotry, racism and xenophobia to be accepted as legitimate when they are framed within this ‘liberal’ nationalist framework. Therefore, the recent left-wing opposition to the Crafar farm sales can be seen as being a kneejerk reaction of a left that has been schooled in this new form of ‘liberal’ chauvinism. 

Moore concludes:

The question the left should be asking itself is: How is ownership by local capitalists in anyway preferable to foreign capitalist ownership? Does New Zealand’s corporate elite have some special genetic or cultural trait that makes them more socially responsible and caring owners and mangers of local resources?  …

Clearly our local capitalists act no differently than economic elites anywhere in the world. Therefore, attacking foreign bids within a nationalist framework acts purely to support local capitalist of the likes of Michael Fay, who will cynically exploit nationalist sentiments to secure and foster their own corporate interests. 

I am sure Sir Michael thanks Labour for their advocacy (again) on his behalf.

Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman have announced:

Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman have approved the new recommendation of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to grant consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited to acquire the 16 Crafar farms.

“New Zealand has a transparent set of laws and regulations around overseas investment,” Mr Williamson says.

“Those rules recognise the benefits that appropriate overseas investment can bring, while providing a range of safeguards to protect New Zealanders’ interests. They are applied evenly to all applications, regardless of where they are from.

“We have sought to apply the law in accordance with the provisions of the Overseas Investment Act and the guidance of the High Court.

“We have carefully considered the OIO’s new recommendation. The OIO sought advice from Crown Law and independent legal advice from David Goddard QC. The Ministers also sought advice and clarification from Mr Goddard.

“We are satisfied that on even the most conservative approach this application meets the criteria set out in the Act and is consistent with the High Court’s judgment.”

In other words, it would probably have been illegal to decline the application.

Dr Coleman said the consent came with stringent conditions.

“These 27 conditions have been imposed to ensure Milk New Zealand’s investment delivers substantial and identifiable benefits to New Zealand,” Dr Coleman says.

The conditions require Milk New Zealand to invest $16 million into the farms and to protect and enhance heritage sites.

“The combined effect of the benefits being delivered to New Zealand as a result of this transaction is substantial.”

It is worth noting that any NZ buyer would not have any binding conditions on them at all. They could hock them all off as individual farms.

A copy of the OIO’s new recommendation is at: http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/oio-recommendation-crafar-farms-20120420.pdf

A copy of the OIO’s decision summary is at:  http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/decision-summary-201110035.pdf

I’m glad the Government has approved the sale. Not just because it was the law, but because China is a huge opportunity for New Zealand. The partnership between Landcorp and Shanghai Pengxin could lead to significant more opportunities in the future.

The latest inflation figures show up for me how silly Labour’s election policies were. Do you remember how they campaigned on removing GST off fruit and vegetables, because people can’t afford them?

Well in the last year the average cost of fruit and vegetables has dropped 6.6%.

Overall food prices have increased just 0.6% in the last year. That is good for especially low income families, as food makes up a larger proportion of their budget.

Clothing costs increased only 0.1% over 12 months also.

Also do you recall all the stories about massive increases in electricity prices? Well over 12 months the average cost is up 1.8% only.

Inflation overall for the year was 1.6%. Still a bit higher than I would like it. I believe 1% is the appropriate level to aim for (mid-point of 0% to 2% range) but the Reserve Bank will be happy with 1.6% and interest rates should remain low for a while yet.

Well, missed last Friday because I was at Otago U talking about creatures scaly and stripey.  Today we have the return of the kotuku.

Click for larger, higher res image

Stuff reports:

The sister of a woman whose partner claimed she died because she drank too much Coca-Cola says she does not hold the company responsible.

However, the woman’s partner and mother-in-law say warning labels should be put on the drink.

An inquest for mother-of-eight Natasha Harris was held in Invercargill yesterday. Ms Harris died on February 25, 2010.

Otago-Southland coroner David Crerar did not make any preliminary findings after yesterday’s inquest, however pathologist Dan Mornin said he believed Ms Harris died of cardiac arrhythmia and it was likely she was suffering from hypokalemia (low potassium) along with caffeine toxicity, which could have contributed to her death.

When asked by Mr Crerar whether it was probable her consumption of Coca-Cola had caused the hypokalemia and arrhythmia, Dr Mornin said yes, along with poor nutrition and caffeine.

At the inquest, Ms Harris’ partner, Chris Hodgkinson, said his partner consumed between 4.5 and 8 litres of Coke a day for several years before her death, and he believed this had contributed to her death.

His mother, Vivien Hodgkinson said after the inquest that warning labels should be put on Coke products.

Why just on Coke? If you drank eight litres of anything a day (even water), I’d say you would not feel too good. How can you actually drink 8 litres a day?

Drinking up to eight litres of any liquid a day can kill you, regardless of how much sugar or caffeine it contains, a Wellington dietician says.

Foodsavvy’s Sarah Elliott said that when “extreme” amounts of fluid were consumed regularly, the body’s cells could rupture.

“Ten litres of fluid a day could kill you, no matter what it is.”

Exactly.

Specialists recommend that humans do not drink more than four litres of liquid a day. Natasha Harris’s daily intake of Coca-Cola would have given her up to a “shocking” 3424 calories and 864 grams (or 3 1/2 cups) of sugar, Mrs Elliott said.

It is very sad for anyone to die at a young age of 30. But blaming it on coke is silly.

I suspect Harris was morbidly obese. If you are needing to drink so much fluid, you probably have diabetes. And having had eight children doesn’t help either.

Stuff reports:

Confused Jetstar pilots forgot to lower the wheels and had to abort a landing in Singapore just 150 metres above the ground, after the captain became distracted by his mobile phone, an investigation has found.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau report on the May 27, 2010 incident on Flight JQ57, from Darwin to Singapore, reconstructed a scene of cockpit chaos.

The captain, of more than 13,000 hours flying experience, was distracted by incoming text messages on his phone, while the first officer, of more than 4000 hours experience, was probably fatigued, the report said.

So passengers get told phones must be turned off as they may interfere, but flight staff have their phones on – even during a landing. Is this usual?

Somewhere between 2500 feet and 2000 feet, the captain’s mobile phone started beeping with incoming text messages, and the captain twice did not respond to the co-pilot’s requests.

The co-pilot looked over and saw the captain “preoccupied with his mobile phone”, investigators said. The captain told investigators he was trying to unlock the phone to turn it off, after having forgotten to do so before take-off.

You do not need to unlock a phone to turn it off.

At 1000 feet, the co-pilot scanned the instruments and felt “something was not quite right” but could not spot what it was.

At this stage the captain still did not realise the landing gear had not been lowered, and neither pilot went through their landing checklist.

At 720 feet, a cockpit alert flashed and sounded to warn that the wheels still hadn’t been lowered.

At 650 feet, the captain moved the undercarriage lever “instinctively” but then a “too low” ground-warning alarm sounded as the plane sunk through 500 feet, indicating the landing gear was not fully extended and locked.

The co-pilot was confused by the captain’s action in lowering the wheels, as he was getting ready to do quite the opposite  to abort the landing and re-ascend to the skies, investigators said.

Neither spoke to each other about their intentions.

Good God. So both were trying to land the plane independent of each other. That is real mickey mouse territory.

My policy to never fly Jetstar only applies to their NZ domestic operations currently. On the basis of this report, I’m tempted to apply it globally.

This German safety video on forklift driving is a classic. We need safety videos like this here!

I thing politics has got to a farcical level when the Opposition complain about jobs moving from Australia to New Zealand. The SMH reports:

HUNDREDS of Australian jobs have been shifted to New Zealand as local producers try to avoid the impact of high wages, a soaring Australian dollar and restrictive labour laws.

Woolworths is the latest to transfer jobs across the Tasman. It transferred 40 contact centre jobs to Auckland this week. Imperial Tobacco has also announced it will move cigarette manufacturing from Sydney to New Zealand.

The companies are following in the footsteps of the food production industry, which has been shifting jobs out of Australia to take advantage of New Zealand’s lower wages.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Heinz Australia recently scrapped more than 300 jobs across three states in favour of its large plant in Hastings, New Zealand’s largest food processing and food producing centre.

The International Labour Organisation says Australian manufacturing workers earned more than $US35 an hour in 2008. In New Zealand the rate is under $US20 an hour.

Average weekly earnings for manufacturing workers in Australia are higher than those in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and the United States, says a study which put Australian earnings at more than $1000 a week, versus about $700 in NZ.

Now Labour for four years has gone on about jobs. It has said that the number one priority must be more jobs. If you try to discuss welfare reform, they say “what about the jobs”. No matter what the issue, they say “what about the jobs”.

So what do they say to jobs moving from Australia to New Zealand:

“Labour does not want New Zealand to become Australia’s Mexico, yet with lower value jobs such as making cigarettes that is exactly what is happening.

“Bill English has been misdirecting his energy on praising the advantages of low wages to attract Australian jobs rather than coming up with real ideas to grow the economy.

“There are record numbers of Kiwis leaving for Australia. They are not going so they can work in call centres or cigarette-making factories,” David Parker said.

This is just bullshit elitism, that must be unique to the Wellington beltway. Go out to a provincial town with high unemployment and tell them that a job in a call centre is not worth having, and they should remain on welfare.

Anyone who buys into this sort of bullshit is seriously out of touch with reality, and reflects more their elitist views.

They are also economically ignorant also. If you argue against Australian companies creating jobs in New Zealand because our wages are lower, you don’t understand the basics of supply and demand. Remember it is the market which broadly sets wages – not Goverments.

Now if you have more jobs created in New Zealand, it increases the supply of jobs. What does increasing the supply do? It pushes wages up. Just as when the supply of jobs diminishes, then wages drop or at least do not increase in real terms.

Next time Labour complains about unemployment, remember how they think some jobs are not worth having. They’d rather people be on welfare than working in call centres.

As for closing the wage gap with Australia. There is only one sustainable way to do that – greater productivity including labour productivity. The very thing that Labour is fighting against at the Ports of Auckland, where the union is striking rather than accepting a 10% pay increase in return for greater labour productivity.

Normally I wouldn’t highlight a comment by Phil U, but such lunacy deserves to be exposed. Yesterday he commented:

ed snack…9/11 was done by mossad/cheney..and some others..

(and shrub jnr knew it was going down…so they had him reading to school kids..

..while cheney sat in his bunker in the pentagon..monitoring/ensuring the clear passages of the planes into new york..

..just more rightwing murdering bastards..

Yes Mossad and Dick Cheney were behind the 9/11 attacks, right after they faked the moon landing and shot JFK. That is seriously deranged.

Stuff reports:

The Labour Party is calling on Prime Minister John Key “to come completely clean” with details of negotiations for the controversial Sky City convention centre.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce is negotiating with the Auckland-based casino to build a $350 million national convention centre in return for changes to the Gaming Act that would allow it to have hundreds more pokie machines.

Key admitted he approached Sky City and asked it to put up its best offer. But he said he had the same conversation with other bidders.

What this story and beatup doesn’t mention is there was no “admission” as if this was some secret the Government was hiding. John Key told the press gallery this in June 2011! Yes at his post-cabinet press conference. How do I know this? Well Felix Marwick of NewstalkZB tweeted it yesterday. He later tweeted why some may have forgotten it. If you want to know what is happening, follow Felix on Twitter. It is fine to have forgotten Key was open about it a year ago, but not okay to have stories appear the next day which do not mention this, and make it still appear it was some sort of secret.

Probably worth me blogging my thoughts on the “deal”. First let’s talk the general. Is this “selling” laws, which has never been done before. No – of course not. Do you recall Michael Cullen agreeing to special tax write offs for the movie industry so they would invest here? This is the normal job of Government – to try and get businesses investing in New Zealand. When Nokia was looking to invest here, they were offered all sorts of inducements.

Now on the specific, some say that increasing the number of pokies at Sky City will increase gambling related harm. Let us accept that. Let us even accept all gambling has some associated harm with it. But New Zealand does not ban gambling. If we did, there would be no money for the Lotteries Board and the thousands of organisations they fund, no money for the racing industry, reduced money for NZ sports teams, and a lot fewer jobs and tax paid in New Zealand.

So when it comes to this deal, surely the appropriate measure isn’t will there be some increased harm from gambling, but how significant will that harm be, and how does that measure against the gains for New Zealand from having an international convention centre.

An ICC means that Auckland can host major world congresses. These to to be of professional disciplines, and the delegates tend to be wealthy. Many will tour New Zealand while they are here.

An earlier Stuff story reported:

TIA has long been advocating for a national convention centre.

It was highlighted as a top priority in the 2008 Tourism Industry Election Manifesto and reiterated in the run-up to last year’s Parliamentary elections as a top priority for government action.

It was estimated a national convention centre would boost New Zealand’s economy by more than $90 million a year, Mr Thompson said.

The estimate is an extra 100,000 visitor nights a year.

And on the jobs front:

•  Around 1,000 trades job during the construction of the $350 million building
• Around 900 800 permanent jobs (according to Heart of the City)

For my 2c I want to see the final deal, and the estimated gains and harms before casting judgement on it. But to be blunt if 900 800 families gain a working parent due to these extra jobs, that is a very big gain.

Fiona Rotherham at Stuff reports:

Chinese investors have shown encouraging interest towards the Auckland Council’s planned $10.8 billion worth of infrastructure projects and other trade and investment opportunities, Auckland Mayor Len Brown says. …

But the council has also been touting for early stage interest in three of its own major projects: the inner city rail link that central government has rejected funding for; a second harbour crossing; and for the new Innovation precinct in the Wynard Quarter on Auckland’s waterfront. …

China, as our second largest trading partner, was one of the few countries with significant capital to invest offshore and was particularly interested in tourism investment, Brown said.

The first project off the block will be the $2.4b inner city rail loop and Brown favours a PPP (public/private/partnership) deal over borrowing, issuing infrastructure bonds, or raising rates and taxes in order to fund it.

An excellent idea. I look froward to the local Labour MPs supporting an innovative PPP such as this.

The Electoral Commission is holding hearings for its review of MMP. They are in Wellington on Monday 23 and Tuesday 24 April. Each submitter has 15 minutes.

On Monday at the Ministry of Justice Tribunals- Room 1, Level 1, 86-90 Customhouse Quay, some of the possibly interesting submissions are:

• National 9.15 am
• Labour 9.30 am
• United Future 10.00 am
• Campaign for MMP 10.15 am
• Me 11.15 am
• Graeme Edgeler 11.30 am
• NZ First 12.15 am
• Voters for Change 2.00 pm

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The public wants legal aid reform, but lawyers are not in favour, a new survey shows.

What a surprise. Lawyers are not in favour of getting less money.

A survey, commissioned by the Justice Ministry, shows almost half of the public (47 per cent) believe the current regime does not offer value for money. …

However, a parallel poll surveying legal aid practitioners, showed ”high levels of disagreement with the reforms and dissatisfaction with the way changes have been implemented”.

Respondents disagreed most with the introduction of fixed fees – 72 per cent were against the move. Lawyers will be paid a set rate based on the seriousness of their client’s charges. Previously they were paid an hourly rate and earlier this year the Criminal Bar Association filed papers in the High Court seeking a judicial review.

Which failed if I recall.

There are arguments for and against the reforms. The fact legal aid recipients are not in favour, is hardly novel.

I enjoy Morgan Godfery’s blog as he gives a good perspective on the world of Maori politics. Most of his posts are thoughtful and interesting.

Then some are not. Yesterday he blogged:

Prominent protesters are accusing the Police of brutality. The protesters, which include John Minto and Joe Carolan, were protesting the eviction of state house tenants in Glen Innes. Apparently Minto was beaten and female protesters were handled violently with one woman entering a seizure as a result of the Police’s heavy hands.  Of course, this is exactly what the Police do with protest, especially the blue nappied babies they recruit for South Auckland. 

That part is okay, as a point of view. Personally I would not rush into judgement off one party’s version of events. The IPCA can investigate any complaint of Police “brutality”.

They’re desperate for recruits so they, more often than not, recruit brain-dead males fresh from failing to gain university entrance or any meaningful academic qualification. I’ve always said, you become a cop if you’re too dumb to do law and too soft to join the military. 

This is just plain insulting and stupid, especially of a professions where six officers get assaulted every day, one of them seriously. The average officer will probably get assaulted a dozen times in their career. Some get killed or stabbed doing their duty of protecting New Zealanders.

It is very easy for a university student to sneer at Police as being thick. I’ve known a few cops (and dated one), and that has not been my experience.

If people comment on this thread, don’t just abuse Morgan. Say why you think he is wrong (or right).

A guest post by Peter Freedman:

Australia is full of quirks and oddities. There’s the Queensland time thing for a start.

Then there’s Western Australia. Fiercely parochial and aware it is spearheading the mining boom that keeps the Australian economy moving.

WA groupies have, from time to time, perhaps seriously, but probably not, advocated seceding from Australia to set up its own republic.

And now the Westies have thrown a huge spoke into the wheel of Australian media regulation, with Seven West, the state’s huge media magnate, withdrawing from the Australian Press Council. This follows the Finkelstein Report, which advocated a state-funded media regulator with real teeth.

Most watchers of the media here reckon the Finkelstein model will not eventuate. Smart operators like Jonathan Holmes, host of the ABC Monday night Media Watch, predicted that the newspapers would react by beefing up the largely toothless and under funded self-regulator, the Australian Press Council.

Holmes could not resist a smirk of satisfaction tonight that the three main contributors to the APC – News Ltd, Fairfax and the media union MEAA – had agreed to double the budget of the council from a measly $800,000 a year to $1.6 million in 2012-2013. It also revealed plans to require publisher members to give four years’ notice of intent to leave the council – a response to Finkelstein’s point that newspapers could walk away from the APC at any time.

Too late, though. West Seven had already gone, announcing vague proposals to set up what it quaintly describes as “an independent complaints resolution authority”. Independent from the APC, certainly, but hardly independent from West Seven.

West Seven owns, amongst other things, Channel Seven, Pacific Magazines, the state’s major newspaper, the West Australian, and nearly 40 local and community newspapers.

Its decision to break away has some media watchers speculating that Finkelstein’s Grand Plan (hysterically opposed, of course by virtually all newspaper outlets) may not be dead after all.

There will now be three media regulators in Australia: West’s “independent” outfit, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (dealing with TV, radio and the internet) and the APC.

There is just a possibility the Labor government may have the guts to decide three is two too many and breathe life back into Finkelstein. I sure hope so.

I don’t. The Finkelstein report vastly over-reaches and would introduce significant Government control of speech on the Internet.

Te Ahumairangi Hill

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in California and beyond

Started on Wadestown Road at the dog exercise area, as there is parking there.

It’s a pretty steep climb up the hill. You climb around 120 metres over a 500 meter walk, so that is a pretty tiring climb. As you go up you’ll see four or five intersections, but ignore them as they will just take you back down. Keep going until you hit the actual Northern Walkway.

Once you are up there, then fairly easy going along the Northern Walkway. Just before the end there is a steep path down and then you pass behind Premier House before you can come down either on St Marys Road or Grant Road.

Once down on the road, then a small hike back up Wadestown Road to where the car is!

A nice scenic sub-hour walk for a lunch break.

This is fairly unusual. An opinion column from an editor, which is not an editorial. That is because it is a personal reflection on the Beast of Blenheim by Dominion Post editor Bernadette Courtney, who covered his trial as a junior reporter.

Bernadette writes:

Parole Board members say Wilson is “likely to commit a specified sexual offence” and remains “threatening and intimidating”. Now his imminent release has become a test case, with Justice Minister Judith Collins trying to rush through new legislation to keep the Beast of Blenheim in prison indefinitely.

I back this legislation. Stewart Murray Wilson must never be released.

Why. We read on:

In 1995, I was a Dominion reporter assigned to cover Wilson’s case. Over a year I attended court hearings, spent time with his many victims, visited Wilson in prison twice and got to know his in-laws. …

During his depositions hearing, Wilson tried to pass me notes. I felt so uncomfortable that I moved seats.

The three-week hearings in Blenheim were gruelling. The court heard testimony after testimony, some from victims behind screens barely audible, they were so beaten, ashamed and destroyed. Others were so angry.

I have covered many horrific stories in my almost 30-year career as a journalist here and in Britain, but none that has affected me as much. It sounds silly but I couldn’t touch whitebait for a few years because it constantly reminded me of Wilson, a whitebaiter.

In pre-social media and internet days, my colleagues back at the office were often speechless as I recounted down the phone the details of each day’s court hearing. 

And these are people used to reporting on crime.

I have seen up close the damage this sick man has done to his own family and the many victims who were scattered across the country and wider; he picked up two young Danish hitchhikers and raped them. Both had to be flown back to New Zealand for the trial.

The women I interviewed were broken. Some had had mental breakdowns, one had become a drug addict, one was a bag of bones.

Wilson has shown no remorse, no appetite to seek proper help while in prison and still, authorities believe, is a danger.

My brush with Wilson was brief. I’m no expert on the mind of a monster. But every time Wilson comes up for parole anger stirs inside me. There will be those who argue that he has served his time and should be released.

The Government is looking at how to keep him behind bars. Ms Collins has got it right. Wilson’s crimes were so abhorrent that we should support the move.

The proposed civil detention orders are a necessary evil. I’d rather we didn’t need them, but we do. Allowing Wilson out with the near certainty he will rape or abuse is just not an option.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Prisoners will get less regular parole hearings under changes announced by the Government.

Justice Minister Judith Collins and acting Corrections Minister Chester Borrows this morning announced the maximum gap between parole hearings for offenders would be extended from one to two years.

The maximum postponement period for offenders serving indeterminate sentences, and determinate sentences of 10 or more years, would also be extended from three to five years.

The changes would mean offenders with little chance of release would get fewer ”unnecessary parole hearings”, Collins said.

I think this is a humane thing to do. Victims and their families get retraumatised when they get notified of parole hearings and have to decide whether to submit, actually appear and/or will the offender get released.

Now these are maximum, not minimum, intervals. Those with a realistic chance of parole will still get their hearings, but there are a fair few prisoners for whom it is clear they are not going to get parole, and going through the formality of a hearing and submissions is needless torment for the victims and their family.

Stuff reports:

But in a speech to the Employers Chamber of Commerce in Wellington this afternoon, Dalziel lashed out at both the Government and the council.

Everyone but Lianne is incompetent it seems.

“Without a layer of governance between the Minister and the recovery authority we have decisions being made by Cabinet, implemented by bureaucrats and undermining the last remaining democratic institution in Christchurch – our city council.”

So Labour’s policy is that there should be a Board for CERA? So the Minister appoints a Board that appoints a CEO, and all decisions go from staff to the CEO to the Board to the Minister. Yes, that will speed things up.

The council itself had not responded properly to the shock of the earthquake either, she said. …

However, the mistakes of the council had been compounded by the Government’s response of “imposing a growing bureaucracy” which “must not replace the core functions that belong to the council – the only body that can offer democratic participation in decision-making”.

It is a strange argument that local government is democratic, but central government is not.

“The solutions to all the problems we face in Christchurch can be found in strengthening the council so that it can perform its proper function in collaboration with the citizens of Christchurch, not to usurp its role with a government department without any practical knowledge and experience of urban planning and design.”

So now the policy is to “strengthen” the Council. Can anyone explain to me, what exactly is meant by that?

Just being angry about everything isn’t a substitute for rational policy and analysis.

The new unit is seconding experienced staff from the Council. Unless one is proposing that the City Council be given the powers of compulsory land acquisition, it has to be done by CERA.

Green MP Steffan Browning blogs:

As a Member of Parliament, I cannot condone illegal activity, but as a participant in the Scion GE tree and Plant & Food Research GE brassica hearings, I know why activists can feel the need to overstep the badly managed processes and take the law into their own hands.

If that’s not an implicit endorsement, I don’t know what is.

The Greens – the party campaigning against science.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

A TelstraClear customer may be the first to be hauled in front of the Copyright Tribunal and fined for internet piracy under the controversial “three strikes” copyright regime that came into effect in September.

TelstraClear spokesman Gary Bowering said it issued a third and final “enforcement” notice to a customer on Thursday for allegedly pirating music, after being instructed to do so by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand.

Bowering said TelstraClear could not comment further as the matter was now out of its hands.

The alleged pirate will have until Thursday week to dispute the enforcement notice.

If they fail to do so, or if Rianz rejects their challenge, the association will then have 35 days in which to decide whether to ask the Copyright Tribunal to take action.

The tribunal can impose a fine of up to $15,000 for serious, flagrant offences under the law, which was designed to discourage people from pirating music and movies using file-sharing services.

However, the Government signalled in a Cabinet paper last year that in some cases it might be sufficient punishment for offenders to reimburse rights holders for the $275 in fees they will have had to incur bringing a case to the tribunal. It has no powers to cut off people’s internet access.

I actually hope it does go to the tribunal, so we can actually see how significant the alleged infringing was, and get some idea of what the Copyright Tribunal considers proof, and a legitimate defence if one is offered. It is possible no defence will be offered. We will also learn what level of fines will probably be applied in future for similar cases.

Unlike Rianz, the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft (NZfact), which is owned by the United States Motion Picture Association and represents movie studios, has decided against asking internet providers to issue infringement notices to customers on behalf of its members.

That is because of the $25 fee they must pay internet providers to issue each notice. There is an additional $200 fee to bring a case before the tribunal.

Those fees are now being reviewed by the Economic Development Ministry. NZfact chief executive Tony Eaton said they should be done away with.

Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Paul Brislen said it was “vitally important” people lobbied the ministry not to reduce the fees.

With all respect MPAA are being absolutely greedy here, and their greed should not be rewarded.

Already they have the taxpayers paying for the vast majority of the costs of the Copyright Tribunal. On top of this they have ISPs subsidising around 50% of every infringement notice, charging only $25 of an estimated $45 cost.

But the greedy MPAA thinks that they should pay nothing and the ISPs (who are innocent conduits) should pay everything. If the Government should go along with this reasoning, then it would be a disaster. The MPAA could spam ISPs with tens of thousands of alleged infringements.

The MPAA claims that piracy costs them billions of dollars, yet they are too stingy to pay a $25 fee to partially cover the ISP costs. Well if they think that is rational, good on them.

In fact what I suspect is that the MPAA has refused to file any infringements to try and pressure the Government into scrapping or reducing the fee. If the Government maintains the fee at its current level, then I suspect they will start using the system which has been set up for *their* benefit as the RIAA has.

Stuff has the list published by Entertainment Weekly. Amazing Fran from The Nanny did not make the list. The list is:

1. Ellis, Smash
2. Kim Bauer, 24
3. Nikki, Lost
4. Janice, Friends
5. Sam McKinney, Diff’rent Strokes
6. Oliver Trask, The O.C.
7. Kimmy Gillber, Full House
8. Arnold Horshack, Welcome Back Kotter
9. Lutz, 30 Rock
10. Will Schuester, Glee
11. April Kepner, Grey’s Anatomy
12. Susan Mayer-Delfino, Desperate Housewives
13. Screech, Saved By The Bell
14. Henry Mills, Once Upon a Time
15. Dawn, Buffy
16. Dr Peter Benton, ER
17. Janice Soprano, The Sopranos
18. Meg, Supernatural
19. Georgia Sparks, Gossip Girl
20. Kennedy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

My definition of any annoying character is one you hope they will kill off. Only agree with some of that list.

Janice from Friends was actually a fun character because she was so annoying.

Kimmy from Full House definitely qualifies. God that was a long time ago.

Please please someone kill Susan on Desperate Housewives. Bring back Lois Lane.

Dawn on Buffy had you cheering for the vampires.

Georgia on Gossip Girl is evil, not annoying, and I like evil characters!