A friend left a part bottle of coke in my fridge. I didn’t look closely at the label and gulped it down, thinking it was my normal Diet Coke. Yuck – it was Vanilla Coke. It is foul stuff. I don’t understand how people can drink it.

In my final blog post at Stuff I chronicle the rise and fall of Nick Smith.

If anyone wants to go the The Abba Show, at the State Opera House tonight, I have a spare ticket.

The person I was going with, has just had a baby.

The next person I invited had to pull out as she has a sore neck from a sex injury. No I don’t know details beyond that.

The third person invited has just been admitted to hospital.

The fourth person is in Napier.

The fifth person had something on.

The sixth person invited is in Hamilton.

I’m not fussed about going solo – but it does seem a waste of a ticket, so if you want to go, e-mail me. It is at 8 pm tonight at State Opera House.

In my column at the NZ Herald I look at the various parliamentary scandals and resignations over the years, from the Moyle affair in 1977 to the Nick Smith resignation. I even grade each out of 10 for seriousness. For those wondering the top ranked were:

• Taito Philip Field – 10/10
• Cave Creek – 10/10 (not a scandal in the normal sense, but impt to include)
• Deputy PM Duncan Macintyre and the Marginal Loans Board affair – 8/10
• Tuariki Delamere over immigration conflicts – 8/10
• The Peters/Glenn undisclosed donation and lobbying on Glenn’s behalf – 8/10
• The Richard Worth affair – 8/10

The bottom ranked at 1/10 was David Parker over alleged false company records.

Labour voted that Winston Peters did nothing wrong when he consistently lobbied on behalf his then friend Owen Glenn to be made Honorary Consul to Monaco, without revealing that Glenn had paid $100,000 of Winston’s legal costs.

Yet Labour now say that Nick Smith writing a letter on behalf of a friend testifying to her health before an accident, is terrible, and there must be an inquiry.

Don’t get me wrong. My position all along is that Nick Smith was wrong to write that letter. And doing so on letterhead even worse.

But let’s just remember the huge hypocrisy of Labour and Winston here. Winston actively lobbied and pressured MFAT and Helen Clark of behalf of Owen Glenn, in his role as Foreign Affairs Minister. And never disclosing that Glenn’s ties to him. This all went to Privileges Committee, and despite a abundance of evidence, Labour voted against the Privileges Committee report. This act of tolerance of corruption was so sickening not even Labour poodle Jim Anderton could bring himself to vote against – he abstained.

And we won’t even mention their months of defence of Taito Philip Field, claiming all he was guilty of was working too hard for his constituents.

Again this is not a defence of Nick Smith. This is just pointing out the hypocrisy from Labour and Winston. Maybe someone could ask some of the Labour MPs who voted against the Privileges Committee report why it is bad for the ACC Minister to write a reference for a friend for ACC, yet fine for the Foreign Affairs Minister to lobby for a diplomatic position on behalf of a friend who paid $100,000 of his legal bills.

Stuff reports:

Google’s Chrome web browser overtook Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) to become market leader globally for the first time last Sunday, web analytics firm StatCounter said on Wednesday.

“While it is only one day, this is a milestone,” said Aodhan Cullen, StatCounter’s chief executive.

“At weekends, when people are free to choose what browser to use, many of them are selecting Chrome in preference to IE.”

On March 18, Chrome was used for 32.7 per cent of all browsing, while Explorer had 32.5 per cent share. When people returned to their offices on Monday, the IE share rose to 35 per cent and Chrome’s share slipped to 30 per cent.

“Whether Chrome can take the lead in the browser wars in the long term remains to be seen, however the trend towards Chrome usage at weekends is undeniable,” Cullen said.

On a monthly basis, Chrome’s market share has surged to 31 per cent so far in March from 17 per cent a year ago, while Explorer has slipped to 35 per cent from 45 per cent a year earlier.

Heh I remember when Netscape Navigator was the market leader. But IE soon overtook it after being launched (mainly because new Windows PCs would come with it already on) and not even Firefox even overtook it.

I migrated a few months ago from Firefox to Chrome, and am loving it. Didn’t think I would like having the browser bar also being the search engine, but you know it works great. Features such as pre-load results make quite a speed difference also.

A sad story in court here, reported by Stuff:

Simon Hugh Bell is convinced Marlborough Sounds victim Olivia Hope is alive and living in Blenheim.

He is so convinced that he is accused of tracking down the address of the woman he believes is Olivia from her licence plate, spying on her family, taking her photograph, handing out leaflets about her around Blenheim, and writing to members of Parliament.

The 54-year-old is now on trial in Wellington District Court, accused of criminally harassing the woman. He has pleaded not guilty. …

The Crown said Bell was a Scott Watson campaigner, who even wrote to the Hope family and went to the police to say he had found her. He wanted Watson freed, saying he was innocent.

The woman told the court people would come up to her in public or go to her husband’s work and say they had received a leaflet claiming that she was Olivia.

The court was told Bell claimed to have sent or handed out leaflets to 99 per cent of Blenheim. One began: “Dear Gerald and Jan Hope, your daughter is living in Blenheim.” It was signed by Bell.

The woman said it shattered her sense of safety and was such a callous thing to do to the Hope family. “It felt like it was a constant deluge with people bringing it up the whole time.”

Bell is obviously nuts (in a pejorative rather than legal sense). How awful for the Hope family to have to endure this, as well as the unfortunate young woman concerned.

Not that many trials for criminal harassment. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Well, it’s kind of been a while* but here’s something domestic- a kotuku (white heron) from NZ (Okarito)

Click for larger, higher res image

The merit of being able to photograph white herons in NZ rather than Australia (the species is widespread, NZ is the kind of southern limit) is of course, the absence of crocodiles 🙂

.

.

.
(* Because of the aggravating factor of being harassed by a deranged, erotomaniac stalker I kind of needed a break from the web and have been avoided a lot of internet engagement for a few months)

By John Stringer. Answers tomorrow at 7 am

Transtasman reports:

John Key likes to find different ways to end his post-cabinet press conference so he doesn’t always have to say “that’s it then” and he was inspired recently when the final question was about fracking, the oil exploration technique which upsets the Greens so much. After answering it he collected his papers and departed with the quip “time to frack off, then”

Heh, he must be a closest Battlestar Galactica fan. I actually giggle everytime an MP gets up in the House and talks about fracking.

For those interested, the use of the term “frack” was not unique to the reimagined BSG series, but was used in the original series, as you can see above.

Guest Post by Peter Freedman:

When I became a journalist the first thing I was taught was that names were news. Many people don’t mind what you say about them so long as you spell their names properly.

I was also taught facts were sacred. The old adage was: “When in doubt, leave out. Better still, find out.”

I was also taught there are at least two sides to every story and nothing is quite as it seems.

This story is literally true:

I have visited a brothel only once in my life. The girls were so impressed with me that they gave ME money. When I left they all invited me back, offering their services at a discount.”

So is this story:

I have shared a bed with journalist Jane Clifton, politician Annette King and singer Millie Small”   If you remember Millie, then you ARE getting old.

Now for the truth.

I was conducting a collection for the Daffodil Day. Me and an old mate Gwyll Williams were given the Waiwhetu industrial area. Nestled snugly down an alleyway is the establishment known as The Quarry Inn.

I suggested going in, but Gwyll demurred, reckoning his wife would kill him if she found out. So I went alone.

I explained myself to the bloodshot eye at the door and was let in. There, all the girls, gorgeous creatures lounging around in various stages of undress,  donated, the only one who wouldn’t was the owner.

As I left several of the girls asked me to come back again.

One gave me a sly wink.

“Give ya a discount,” she grinned.

I and a few others shared a bed with the lovely Jane in the St George Hotel in Wellington. We were attending a union conference. All we did was drink and pass around an illegal substance.

I interviewed Annette after she won a seat in Parliament. The small beachside bach was full of rowdy Labourites and the only place we could go for some quietness was a poky bedroom.

Millie Small was visiting Napier for a concert. She got the flu, but still agreed to an interview and photographs. I perched on the bed while asking her questions. Lovely girl, a real trooper.

Nothing is ever quite what it seems. Question everything and never believe anything you read or are told. Not even this.

I think Millie Small now qualifies for a super gold card 🙂

The Electoral Commission has released the party spending returns for the 2011 election. I have done a table of them, and the votes they got and hence the cost per vote.

The Conservatives spent a massive $31.71 per vote. They actually spent more money than Labour, yet still only got 2.7%. This is proof once again that the impact of money on elections is quite modest.

ACT spent 79% of what the Greens did, yet got just 10% of their vote.  Also Social Credit spent a large $20.23 per vote.

Of the two big parties, Labour spent more per vote – $2.91 vs $2.19 for National.

The ALCP were the most cost effective getting a vote for every 34c, followed by NZ First who spent $1.06 per vote.

Note that this is just what the party spent on their party vote campaign. I’ll also do an analysis at some stage which includes the taxpayer funded broadcasting allocation.

Interesting that no party spent up to their limit. National spent up to 88% of their limit, the Conservatives up to 79% and Labour 64%.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Will he agree to the requests of former Minister Hon Dr. Nick Smith and others for an inquiry about the Minister’s role in the ACC case of Bronwyn Pullar and surrounding issues; if not, why not?
2. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about the economy’s performance?
3. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he have confidence in the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?
4. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister for Economic Development:How is the Government helping New Zealand technology companies access the capital and expertise they need to grow?
5. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government’s offer to insured residential homeowners, whose properties had been red-zoned by the Government, is “incredibly fair”; if so, why?
6. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Social Development: How is the Government providing beneficiaries opportunities for work in Canterbury?
7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with Treasury that increasing class sizes will assist educational outcomes for students; if so, why?
8. HONE HARAWIRA to the Attorney-General: What is the likely total cost of the “Urewera Four” case to the Crown, from the start of surveillance of suspects to the close of the trial on Tuesday, including all of the different government departments that were involved?
9. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Defence: What reports has he received on recent upgrades to Royal New Zealand Air Force capabilities?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: What was so vastly different in the contents of the first and second letters from Hon Dr. Nick Smith to ACC regarding Bronwyn Pullar that finally made him decide to accept Dr Smith’s resignation?
11. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister of Revenue: Given the evidence presented by IRD officials in their briefing for the incoming Minister that significant tax reforms enacted since 2008 have reduced the tax to GDP ratio and that “about 2.5 percentage points of this decline is attributable to policy changes” does he agree with the Minister of Finance that the Government’s tax changes have been “broadly fiscally neutral”; if so, why?
12. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What support has the Government provided in restoring sporting facilities in Christchurch since the Canterbury earthquakes?

Today there are five questions from National, four questions from Labour, one from the Greens, one from Mana and one from NZ First.

Patsy of the day goes to Q12 – What support has the Government provided in restoring sporting facilities in Christchurch since the Canterbury earthquakes?

Labour are asking about the ACC issue, MFAT restructuring, CERA, and tax cuts

Greens are on class sizes, NZ First also on ACC, and Mana on the Urewera 4 case.

Government Bills 4.00 pm – 6.00 pm 

1. Search and Surveillance Bill – third reading
2. Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill – committee stage
3. Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill – committee stage
4. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill – committee stage
5. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – first reading

The Search and Surveillance Bill was introduced in July 2009 and aims to implement the Government’s decisions on the legislative reform of search and surveillance powers”, based on the Law Commission’s report, “Search and Surveillance Powers”. It amends 69 different Acts and was supported at first reading by all parties except the Green Party.

The select committee did an interim report in August 2010 and a final report in November 2010. There was considerable opposition to the bill as originally drafted, such as by Tech Liberty.  Significant changes were made by the select committee with the Greens noting “They generally restrict search and surveillance powers more than the original bill, and improve accountability provisions”.  However they still oppose the bill, especially the provisions for Examination and Production Orders. Labour also opposes those two provisions.

At second reading Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori and Mana voted against. An SoP was considered at committee stage and supported by Labour, but they are still voting against the bill as a whole – mainly because the SFO is not included (they want the SFO powers reduced to the same as other agencies). NZ First appear to be voting against also.

The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill was introduced in December 2010 and aims to replace the land valuation basis for setting rents for pastoral leases with a property-earning-capacity basis for setting rents for pastoral leases. It was supported at first reading by National, Greens, ACT, Maori and United and opposed by Labour.  Labour opposed the bill at select committee saying it “severely compromises the property rights of the land owner, the Crown, to negotiate a fair return on the full value of the land”.

The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill was introduced in November 2010 and seeks to enable the Crown to recover the costs of aviation security, biosecurity, and customs traveller processing from the operators of international airports. It passed first reading on a voice vote and the same for the second reading.

The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill was introduced in October 2010 and seeks to ensure that an offence  committed against a Police officer or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty is taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. It was supported by all parties bar the Maori Party at first reading, and passed second reading on a voice vote. The Government has indicated they will support a Labour amendment to include other emergency service operators in the bill.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) was introduced in November 2011 and seeks to also implement the Building Act reviews decisions, including more comprehensive consumer protection measures and clarifying exemptions from building consent requirements.

As I am a sad git with no life, I sometimes read the list of papers presented to Parliament for fun. Yes I do need to get out more often. Does an Abba concert tomorrow count? Though not.

Anyway amongst the papers this week, was a response from an Elspeth Buchanan, which had been accepted by the Speaker. This is not widely known but if an MP says stuff about you in Parliament, well you can’t sue them as they have privilege, but you can apply to the Speaker to have a response incorporated into the official record. This is quite rare though, hence I was interested in what it was about, as I had never heard of Elspeth Buchanan. Her response said:

On Tuesday, 6 September 2011, Hon Pete Hodgson referred to me by name during the committee stage of the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. In his speech, Hon Pete Hodgson mentioned that I had commented on the bill when it was being considered by a select committee. His comments on my professional competence and my alleged opinions about the bill make me out to be both dishonest, as being in favour of sales of infringing and counterfeit products, and incompetent.

Mr Hodgson’s comments about me are incorrect and have considerable potential to damage my professional reputation. At no time have I advocated that there should be no restriction on the importation into New Zealand or sale in New Zealand of counterfeit or infringing goods. Rather, I have simply made submissions on the most effective way to restrain the importation or sale of infringing or counterfeit goods. Further, the derogatory comments made by Mr Hodgson as to my professional responsibilities and professional competence are wrong and completely without foundation.

This got me curious as to what Hodgson had said. While I have time for a lot of Labour MPs, I have to say Pete Hodgson was not one of them, as he was a chief muckraker. Normally though his target is other MPs.

Ms Buchanan’s firm of patent attorneys made a submission on the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. The submission is here. It seems fairly unremarkable. There is no record of what Ms Buchanan said at her oral submission, but it was obviously something that Hodgson didn’t like.

Now look at Hodgson’s speech during the committee stage of the House debate. He refers to Buchanan no less than nine times, everytime in a derogatory way, such as:

Let me tell members what patent attorney Elspeth Buchanan has to say about these matters. “Patent attorney Elspeth Buchanan”—the newspaper tells us breathlessly—“knows how hard it is to tell knock-offs from the real thing.” It then quotes her as saying this: “ ‘I’ve been judging trademark infringements for 40 years professionally,’ ”—so Elspeth Buchanan is in her later years—“ ‘and I often can’t tell between the genuine and the fake,’ she said.” That is a pity, because that is what she is paid for. It is a bit of a shame, but anyway, there we are. She said that she has devoted her entire life to telling one from the other and she cannot, so I just wish her a really happy retirement, I do. It is just a shame that she has spent her life not being able to do what she is being paid to do.

That is such a nasty characterisation of what she may have said. You have to wonder if she dated him one at high school, and dumped him, he seems so nasty about her. the jibes about her age, how she should retire and the implication of incompetence.

We think Elspeth Buchanan is wrong, with a capital “R”. We think that Elspeth Buchanan should stand in favour of action against counterfeiters and people who are cheats and liars and stuff like that. She is a lawyer! She went to a law school, and she is letting these cheats and liars off. It is a disgrace.

And that is even worse. No wonder the Speaker allowed a response.

I highlight this matter not just to take a swipe at Hodgson (that is just an added bonus). I highlight it because I think Hodgson’s behaviour is hugely against the public interest.

We want citizens to make submissions to select committees. Generally we have an excellent select committee process. I am one of those who often submits on bills, and appreciates it is a bit of a privilege (but also a right) to be able to address MP directly on issues of concern. I have to say too I have always appreciated the fact that generally MPs from other parties have engaged with me on the issues, and I have always felt I got a good hearing.

But if submitters think that merely by saying what they think to a select committee will end up with them being abused and slandered in the House of Representative, it will deter people from submitting. Look at what Hodgson said about Buchanan, and think about whether you would want to risk having comments like that made about you, as a consequence of exercising your right to make a submission? Especially, when Hodgson’s comments come up second highest in a Google NZ search on your name. Hugely damaging.

I am not suggesting that MPs should not comment on what submitters said, and why they disagree with them. But what Hodgson said, and the way he said it, was grossly abusive and unfair. It also confirms all my previous prejudices about him.

Fairfax reports:

Internal Affairs has teamed up with Microsoft to develop software to detect child sex abuse images.

The PhotoDNA software will be used during the forensic analysis of a seized computer, to identify known abuse images.

Internal Affairs minister Amy Adams said it was common for the ministry’s censorship compliance unit to review more than 100,000 images files on seized computers.

“This technology will make the process much faster. It will also allow a greater level of information sharing with our international partners as more systems come online that use this technology.

“New Zealand is one of the first countries in the world to have access to this technology, which gives investigators another valuable tool to help us in the fight against this problem.”

Generally I’m skeptical of technological “solutions” to child abuse images due to the problem with false positives. Filtering software for example sometimes block legitimate sites.

But this initiative is not like this. How PhotoDNA works is it uses a “fingerprint” of the images, which means only known objectionable images are flagged by automated PhotoDNA scans. More precisely, the basis for PhotoDNA is a technology called “robust hashing,” which calculates the particular characteristics of a given digital image — its digital fingerprint or “hash value” — to match it to other copies (and variations) of that same image.

So basically a human views the image once, and classifies it as a child abuse image, and then creates a hash value of it, so it can be easily detected in future. As I understand it, DIA will not use in its filtering but for when the seize a computer under warrant.

If the computer has 100,000 images on it, they will no longer has to review each one. They can run this software on it, and if it says it find 5,000 matches, then they’ll review those 5,000 only. It is possible there will be some other objectionable images in the other 95,000 – but for prosecution purposes they don’t need an exact count.

Some general info on PhotoDNA is here. As I said, while I am usually skeptical, a technological solution which doesn’t create false positives is a very good tool to be using.

The Herald reports:

One in 10 people who have taken a popular online test on our new give-way rules answered at least one question wrong – worrying the man who helped design it.

More than 120,000 people have visited the website GiveWay.co.nzand sat a simulation placing them behind the wheel of a Suzuki Grand Vitara in 14 real-life give-way scenarios around suburban Hamilton.

Waikato University road safety researcher Dr Robert Isler, who conceived the test with daughter Nadine Isler, said an analysis of 650 results from last week also found that people took on average five seconds to answer correctly – and 10 seconds to give the wrong answer.

If 90% of those taking the test are getting all 14 questions correct, I’d regard that as very satisfactory. I’d almost bet money that if you had people do a test on the current giveway rules, less than 90% would get all questions right.

In my experience, if someone is unsure of a giveway rule, they end up giving way when they do not need to. It can be a frustrating, but I don’t think you get a lot of collisions because someone mucked up the giveway rule.

The Herald reports:

Sea levels will rise up to 22 metres even if the worst scenarios for global warming are avoided, researchers say.

An international team of scientists, which included a New Zealander, found that a 2C increase in global temperature would still cause the world’s oceans to rise between 12m and 22m.

Two degrees is the recommended limit set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A bigger increase could lead to the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, some of the East Antarctic ice sheet and part of Greenland.

A 22m increase in sea level would dramatically transform New Zealand’s coastal boundaries, with low-lying areas like Auckland and Wellington’s harbours swamped by ocean currents.

But lead researcher Ken Miller said: “You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years.”

That last paragraph is key, and why this is just alarmist bullshit. Some people doubt temperatures are rising at all, But I do think there is a warming trend, of which greenhouse gas emissions are at least partially responsible. However even the IPCC say that the maximum rise in sea levels by 2100 is 59 cm. This is a 2007 projection. Since then some media have quoted extreme claims beyond that, but I prefer to put credence on the IPCC projections. The IPCC process is far from perfect, but they tend to produce reasonably sane figures.

The actual increase in sea levels is around 3 mm a year currently. This will pose challenges in the future, but the future will also bring more solutions. The hysterical nonsense about increases of 22 metres is forecasting perhaps in 5,000 years time. Anyone who thinks public policy today should be based on a forecast of what the climate might be in 5,000 years is nuts. Look at how the world has changed in just 100 years let alone hundreds or thousands. Hell in 1,000 years we may be living on Mars.

The Herald should be ashamed for saying that the projected increase could “dramatically transform” our coastal boundaries. A change over 1,000 years+ is not dramatic. It’s like saying the separation of Gondwana was dramatic

The Dom Post editorial:

Local authorities have only themselves to blame for the Government forcing them to live within their means.

During almost a decade in which rates rose at more than twice the level of inflation and the debt owed by New Zealand’s 78 local bodies grew fourfold, councils have shown a disturbing lack of appreciation of the circumstances faced by their communities.

Ratepayers are not a bottomless pit.

It will give control of council staff numbers and salaries to councillors, rather than chief executives, and require annual reports to include the number of staff in $10,000 salary bands, as state agencies do now.

That move follows the huge increase in council wage bills after changes to the Local Government Act in 2002, which widened the scope of local authorities.

When the changes were implemented, the total salary bill for all councils was $884 million. By 2010, it had grown to more than $1.6 billion, an increase of more than 80 per cent. In the eight years before the changes, the salary bill increased by a total of just 8.7 per cent.

That’s even faster growth than in the civil service. Labour certainly created jobs – but jobs funded by taxes and rates, rather than paying taxes and rates (in a net sense).

This test is 14 scenarios and uses actual video of being in a car. Done by Edrive. I got 14/14, so look safe from 25 March.

Rachael used to be a ministerial comms person but has regained her sanity and is doing a year of travelling. I’m very jealous.

Anyway she has started a travel blog at Today I ate a baguette, and I have to say I’m almost addicted – finding it very readable. If you like reading travel blogs, and laughing at the horror stories, feel free to subscribe and follow it.