The Press reports:

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says calling Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker a clown was “over the top” but reflects his frustration with the city council’s problems. …

In yesterday’s Christchurch Mail, Brownlee called Parker a “clown” over comments about possible rates rises in the city.

Parker told The Mail last week the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) Act allowed the Government to force the council to hike rates or sell off assets to fund the city’s recovery.

“Cera has the ability to say, `This is how you have to meet your costs, and can make us take measures such as raising rates or selling assets’,” the mayor said.

Treasury officials had made overtures to the council about a potential rates rise, Parker told The Mail.

Brownlee dismissed the remarks, saying the legislation did not allow the Government to make the council set a rate. “That’s an outrageous abdication of his responsibilities. The Cera Act specifically forbids that,” he told The Mail. 

Brownlee told The Press last night the clown remark was “probably over the top”, but was based on his frustration with Parker’s comments and the council’s problems. “We were going through a quite intense period of getting the council to recognise their responsibilities … I am sick and tired of the council running and telling people what we’re going to do.”

Ironically this will probably make Gerry more popular in Christchurch.

It seems clear the Mayor was incorrect in his comments. Having said that, the remark just adds fuel to an already difficult situation. Hopefully it won’t become a major issue.

I can’t cover all of them, but am trying to cover a few of the maiden speeches in Parliament. New NZ First MP Denis O’Rourke spoke primarily on Christchurch in his speech. He is (off memory) a former City Councillor.

He said:

Magnitude 6.3 for the February 2011 quake does not adequately describe it.

 In my home on the Port Hills, directly above the fault, I felt the indescribable force of vertical ground acceleration 2.2 times the force of gravity, the largest ever recorded anywhere in a populated area.

But it was the great rolling waves following the initial shock which threatened to turn my home onto its side. Luckily it came back to the vertical again.

 And on top of all that was the severity of the shaking for nearly a minute.

 I helped neighbours out of shattered homes, and I looked across at the cloud of white dust rising over the central city, a thousand feet high and four kilometres wide.

 Then came the exodus from the central city.

People abandoned their cars on unpassable roads covered in liquifaction, and were exhausted even before reaching the hill, often with cuts and bruises and tears streaming down terrified faces, searching for children at the local school, or rushing home to loved ones.

Those terrible experiences are now all in the past.

But the effects are not.

A vivid recalling of the earthquake. Those of us not there, can only imagine what it was like.

And we all want to know what will happen to the red zoned land.

As the thousands of houses are demolished, we must not be left with vast areas of dusty demolition deserts  to add to the problems we already face.

 I call upon the government to urgently establish and fund a plan to turn these areas into properly maintained grassed parklands which will enhance the environment of the city, while final decisions are made on how to deal with this land in the longer term.

What happens to the red zone is one of the big issues.

I call upon the government to quickly establish

a major urban renewal fund for central Christchurch,

–       provided over a period of years,

–       designed to assist the rebuild of both public and private structures,

–       for access by way of grants and concessionary loans,

–       by building owners and businesses,

–       and by the City Council for public space and transport enhancements.

Interestingly, I’m hearing a view from more and more in Christchurch that rebuilding the CBD might just not be practical, and possibly Christchurch would made better progress by becoming a decentralised city.

I call upon the government to re-establish a government backed insurer in New Zealand with a mission to provide cover for everybody who needs it. 

I suspect at this stage, Bill English is in physical pain at the fiscal implications. But it may well eventuate that the Government does have to take a role in insurance in Christchurch. I hope not though.

It is time for a new unitary authority for Christchurch to be established for election in 2013. 

I think unitary authorities have considerable merit.

The full speech is over the break for those interested.

Continue reading »

Stuff reports:

Police are “seriously considering” a permanent crackdown on speeding drivers by slashing the 10kmh tolerance they now allow.

The 10kmh tolerance allowed on the top speed limit of 100kmh has been cut to 4kmh over public holidays since 2010. The 4kmh tolerance is now being introduced for the rest of this month.

If the Police do go ahead with this, I expect to see some quality research showing how many crashes occur with drivers driving between 104 and 109 km/hr on open roads.

“We are of the opinion that it’s having a positive effect on the road toll. On that basis, we would be considering it very seriously.

“It will really be an evidence-based decision, it’s about an assessment of whether it saves lives.”

I hope it will be an evidence-based decision, rather than just “we are of the opinion”.

A police spokeswoman said crashes during holiday periods since the change was introduced had fallen 46 per cent.

A meaningless stat by itself, in terms of measuring the impact of the tolerance drop. How much has the crash rate fallen outside the holiday periods? Has the fall been greater during the holiday period? Has the decline in crashes been crashes with speed as a factor?

Automobile Association motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said: “We’re not convinced that 104kmh poses any significant risk on our best roads. 

Thank you Mr AA.

Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson said the move would unfairly target innocent motorists, while failing to cut the road toll. “It won’t make the slightest difference.”

A high toll over the latest Christmas period showed the lower speeding tolerance did not work, he said. “Heavy policing does not lower the road toll.”

I’m not saying it won’t make any difference. I’m saying the Police have not yet made a case. Mr Matthew-Wilson does have a point that in the most recent holiday period, there was a high toll despite the tolerance drop.

UPDATE: The Police have said the reduction of the tolerance is temporary, and will not become permanent. Good.

Stuff reports:

A RadioLive show hosted by the Prime Minister John Key prior to the election has been referred to the police for breaching the Broadcasting Act.

The Electoral Commission confirmed this morning that it had referred the broadcaster to police. …

NewstalkZB said it had obtained a copy of the report, which found the show violated the act. RadioLive could be fined up to $100,000 for the breach.

The BSA had earlier found the show was not an election programme and would not have breached standards even if it were.

It looks like Radio Live, rather than the PM, may be in the gun in a legal sense. But if the show is found in court to be a breach of the law, it will be politically embarrassing to the PM, no doubt.

I think it is safe to conclude there will not be a repeat show – or at least not during the regulated period anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the Police do. A show with Shane Jones in it was referred to them for investigation in 2008. I can’t recall what the outcome was in that case.

Danyl at Dim post blogs in response:

But the point here is that having a couple of children shouldn’t be a ‘bad personal choice’ for everyone not earning a high income. 

It’s not a couple of children. I don’t disagree that a couple of children shouldn’t be a bad personal choice. This was four children though. One from a previous relationship, and three from this one. I stand by my view that if your household income is $42,000 a year, then it is not a good time to have a fourth child.

This used to be a country in which a family could be comfortably supported on a single, average income.

$42,000 a year is below the average personal income (for a FT employee) and well below the average household income for a couple. And four children is twice as much as two children.

That’s because our median wages remain stagnant while our living costs continue to rise.

Untrue. Our median after tax wage has increased in real terms.

Choosing your family size to meet your budget is nothing new. It is what the vast majority of couples do. Many well off couples decide to say limit their family to two or three kids, as a third or fourth kid would be too expensive.

I have a lot of sympathy for families with children, who fall on hard times, say with one or both parents losing their job. That is why we have a multi-billion dollar welfare state with welfare benefits and Working for Families.

But if a family is already finding it tough to make ends meet, and chooses to have further children, then I have less sympathy.

Trevor Mallard blogged:

The National party are up to their old tricks – appointing people very close to them to positions in a way that is not appropriate.

Trevor’s view of appropriate is sacking Madeleine Setchell because her boyfriend took a job with John Key, and defaming Erin Leigh because she was a whistle blower.

First Sir Wira Gardiner. Very talented. Appointed by the previous government to do some tricky tasks.

I’m glad Trevor mentions that. A quick search reveals Labour appointed Wira to the following:

•  independent Board of Inquiry to consider the proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation, by Trevor Mallard
• interim chair of of Te Mangai Paho, by Parekura Horomia
• the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, by Parekura Horomia
• facilitate hui on seabed and foreshore, by Michael Cullen
• Crown facilitator for Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement, by Michael Cullen

But he is married to a Cabinet Minister. He should not be appointed by any Minister in the current government to paid employment. John Key and Bill English have appointed him to sell their asset sales process to Maori.

As usual, Trevor is lying. Wira was selected and appointed by Treasury, not by Cabinet or Ministers.

If you claim that is a conflict, then you are also saying Peter Davis should not have been employed in the health sector.

Labour got Madeleine Setchell sacked because of whom her partner was. Thankfully National does not do the same.

I was an active supporter of the NZ civil unions legislation, and am also a supporter of gay marriage. I think it is also inevitable within a generation or less.

AP report at Stuff:

A US federal appeals court has declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the US Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the US Constitution when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

I think this is a bad decision. While I disagree with their decision, the people of California voted in a referendum to ban same-sex marriage through a state constitutional amendment.

The way to legalise gay marriage should be winning a future vote on the issue, not having three Judges over-turn a referendum.

The argument of course is that gay marriage is a constitutional right, under the Bill of Rights. I don’t agree. I think it is something that should be legal, and should be allowed. But I do not think it is a constitutional right, just as I don’t think abortion is either.

Again – don’t get me wrong. I support laws which make abortion safe and legal. But these should be determined by legislatures or voters – not a handful of judges.

One reason for this is that you have massive ongoing resentment, when judges determine things, rather than the people. Take for example giving women the vote. This was done by way of constitutional amendment. The result is that no one alive in the US seriously disputes that women shouldn’t have the vote.

But if the Supreme Court had not waited for the law to be changed, and had by themselves declared women have a right to vote (and of course they do), that decision would probably be as contentious today, as Roe v Wade is.

I do support the courts being able to strike down laws which conflict with basic human rights. But I think this is a power that should be used rarely and when there is almost no other option. Otherwise one should try and achieve change through the democratic process of electing Parliaments and referenda.

We’ve shown in NZ you can do it that way.  Several states in the US have allowed gay marriage through the democratic process. That is how the issue should be resolved in California, not by the courts.

As it happens, the issue will now head to the Supreme Court of the US. I pick a reversal by at least 6-3.

David Cunliffe blogged:

$4.28 is less than I paid for the latte I just drank.

That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.

After rent, power, petrol and bugger all else.

Cactus helps with the budgeting:

1. Two cars of $160 a week. Beggars belief as to what cars they bought/financed.
2. Child support for SOCK of $132 a fortnight. So Craig can’t afford his first child. How on earth did Carla think this would end up?
3. Credit card debt. Go figure. Who gave them a credit card?
4. Petrol of $120 a week. So $280 a week is being spent on cars?
5. Wear shoes til they have a hole in them? Seen my shoe collection? I think most people do this. Even I resole. Especially if they are my favourites.
6. An old couch? So what most student flats have them and at 29 yo she’s not much past that.

She also notes:

The conclusion is that inequality is created by bad personal choices. No one forced these two to have three children of their own in addition to a SOCK. They didn’t accidentally have three children. The only thing the taxpayer should be paying for is Craig to have the snip.

Am I picking on Craig and Carla? Yes. But only because they have been silly enough to be used for this story. They are not the only family living like this. Will this be a permanent or temporary state for these people? Hard to tell. They have chosen to make life as difficult as possible for themselves that is for sure.

No one is forced to keep on having children. Of course there are situations, where even the best of planning fails, but this is the exception, not the rule.

The Government has just announce that the annual adjustment to the minimum wage will see it go from $13.00 an hour to $13.50 an hour. This is a 3.8% increase, and works out to $1,000 a year for a FT person on the minimum wage.

Since 2009, it has gone up a cumulative 12.5% over three years.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

In my blog at Stuff I say:

But how significant would this law change be, in terms of labour costs? On average it will result in two extra days of paid holidays every seven years. Over seven years there are around 1600 paid workdays, so the increase in labour cost is 2/1600 or 0.12 per cent. 

This is a pretty modest increase in labour costs. It is about 1/16th the cost of having a 2 per cent employer contribution to KiwiSaver.

I’m an employer myself, but I’m in favour of this bill. As an employer I budget for 11 public holidays a year anyway when working out my staff costs, and I suspect most employers do the same. This law change would give certainty to both employers and employees, and the impact on labour costs is very modest.

You can comment over at Stuff, as well as here. I also cover in what future years the bill would actually impact.

Oral Questions 2 pm – 3 pm

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday, in answer to Oral Question No 2, that his Government is selling assets because “New Zealanders want less debt, more productive assets, and an economy that is going to function, not a load more debt”?
2. PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in implementing its economic growth agenda?
3. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment?
4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What, according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit, was the average total shareholder return of Genesis, Meridian, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now?
5. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday in relation to the grounding of the Rena that “the statute sets down very clearly that I as Minister for the Environment should not be encouraging or discouraging a proper, independent decision by Environment Bay of Plenty as to whether they should or should not take a prosecution”?
7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers?
9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How many written comments were received on the draft Recovery Plan for the Christchurch CBD and is it his intention to consider them all before making a decision on the draft Recovery Plan for the CBD, in accordance with the process set out on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s website?
10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants?
11. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to the appointment of the Prime Minister’s electorate chairman Stephen McElrea to the NZ On Air board that “if you look at the vast array of appointments we make, I think the balance is about right”?
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: Will she rule out implementing Treasury’s advice to increase class sizes in schools?

Address in Reply Debate 3 pm – 6 pm 

Includes NZ First MP maiden speeches

Government Bills 7.30 pm – 10 pm

1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill Third reading
2. Road User Charges Bill Third reading
3. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill Interrupted debate on second reading
4. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill First reading
5. Consumer Law Reform Bill First reading

Again nothing terribly exciting. However No 6 on the order paper is the second reading of the Search and Surveillance Bill, which has lots to get excited about. I doubt they will get to it until next week though.

I’ll generally list the next five bills on the order paper. This does not indicate that I think they will get through five bills per day. That would be quite rare. However they did get through three bills yesterday, and part-way through a fourth.

Thanks to the Whips Office for a schedule of maiden speeches. Generally maiden and valedictory speeches are amongst the best in Parliament as you get to hear what motivates MPs, and their backgrounds. One can tune into them on Parliament TV.

The schedule at present is:

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Tracey Martin 4.30 pm
Andrew Williams 4.45 pm
Richard Prosser 5.00 pm
Brendan Horan 5.15 pm
Denis O’Rourke 5.30 pm
Asenati Lole-Taylor 5.45 pm

Thursday, 9 February 2011

Mike Sabin 5.45 pm

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Labour Party members (David Clark, Andrew Little, Rino Tirikatene, Megan Woods) from 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Green Party members (Steffan Browning, Julie Anne Genter, Jan Logie, Mojo Mathers, Denise Roche, Eugenie Sage, Holly Walker) from 4.15 pm to 6.00 pm

Thursday, 16 February 2012

National Party members (Maggie Barry, Ian McKelvie, Mark Mitchell, Simon O’Connor, Scott Simpson, Jian Yang) from 4.00 pm

The Herald reports:

A mother who bottle-feeds her son says she has been repeatedly harassed by other mothers in public – and is now embarrassed to go to the supermarket for his formula.

Kate Rhodes, 24, of Manukau, says she has been told off, harassed and accused of being a bad mother while bottle-feeding her 6-month-old son, Dylan.

“It’s ridiculous how much grief people get just for having a bottle. Two weeks ago I was at the mall in the food court and my son started to cry.

“I gave him a bottle and a lady came up to me and said it’s a really bad look and it’s not a good way to represent New Zealand parents.

“I was just like, ‘are you serious?’. I told her to eff off.”

Well done Kate Rhodes.

My views on this issue are probably about as valid as on home birthing, but Eleanor Black at Pundit has summed it up very well:

Good grief. Piri Weepu is shown bottle-feeding his six-month-old daughter Taylor on an anti-smoking ad, and somehow this image of nurturing and positive fathering is construed as an attack on breastfeeding. As my nearly-three-year-old would say, “What?!”

Black sumarises how the anti-smoking ad was altered after complaints to remove the two seconds of Weepu bottle-feeding his daughter, and then notes:

First the obvious problems with the argument that this two seconds of bottle-feeding is an attack on breastfeeding. How do we know by simply looking at the image that Weepu is not giving his baby expressed mother’s milk? How do we know that his partner — like many women — didn’t try very hard to make breastfeeding work but found she couldn’t? Why would anyone see the image of a father helping with the baby care, feeding his child and nurturing her, and not think, “How lovely” instead of “How outrageous”?

98% of people did think how lovely.

And why do we parents have to put up with another scolding from well-meaning bossyboots in the health sector? Come on — give us some credit for being able to distinguish between something we see on TV and the practices we choose to employ in our own homes, for being able to assess the available information and make an informed decision that works for us and our families. We are not imbeciles, despite what you all seem to think. This coddling gets tiresome.

Absolutely.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Millions of taxpayer dollars have been handed out to organise family reunions, it has been alleged.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said this afternoon that about $6 million of tax-payer cash had been “squandered” on a Whanau Ora programme that funded “family reunions”.

“Whanau Ora is a waste of tax-payer’s money. It’s going to be a disaster for Maoridom. It’s a pet idea of the Maori Party and John Key is selling out on separatist policies,” Peters said.

He said an official Whanau Ora report showed more than 200 applications for the scheme – known as “Whanau Integration, Innovation and Engagement funding” – had been accepted.

The report says the fund is “available to support whanau, who, among other things, want to strengthen whanau ties”.

Peter’s hyperbole is as usual nearing hysterical and overblown. But underneath the hyperbole, he may have a valid issue.

I have no problem with the concept of Whanua Ora, and think it has the potential to improve outcomes for disadvantaged families.

But as with all Government spending, I would not be at all surprised if some of the programmes funded are of marginal benefit or value, and should be scrapped.  And having Winston put the blowtorch on them is not necessarily a bad thing.

It would be unwise to jump to conclusions on the basis of allegations from Winston alone, otherwise we’d still be looking for the Cook Strait ferry that scraped the bottom, or the mystery fleet of WINZ BMWs. But I suspect in this case that some of the activities funded by the Whanau Integration, Innovation and Engagement fund are deserving of further scrutiny.

Worth noting this Dom Post article gives more details of the case cited:

However, Mrs Turia said the Rutene whanau plan included advancing education, employment, health, and cultural identity outcomes.

“The mechanism for this process of transformation was six hui,” Mrs Turia said. “I don’t know of any whanau that would have six ‘family reunions’ in one year. That is just ridiculous.”

Government spending on Whanau Ora would be more effective at empowering families to take control of their situations, and lead to savings when ongoing state support was no longer needed, she said.

“Families working together to improve their health, education and abilities to contribute to their communities are also role modelling for future generations.”

As I said, the aims are good. Whether the desired outcomes eventuate may be another matter.

Stuff reports:

Timaru District Council is offering a $1000 reward in a bid to catch the culprit who vandalised a statue of Scottish bard Robbie Burns at the weekend.

It should be obvious that Bart Simpson did it.

Just returned from a dinner at MariLuca Ristoro. Until the change of owners, it was previously Maria Pia’s – one of Wellington’s best restaurants.

The occasion was a farewell dinner with Auckland Girl who is returning to Auckland.

I was interested to see whether MariLuca could keep up the excellent food and service that was a trademark of Maria Pia’s.

For the wine, we went with a bottle of Gavi  D.o.c.g. Duca di Aleramo 2010 Piemonte. At $42 a bottle it was very reasonable priced and a very good match to the pasta. So good, we had a second bottle. Very helpful that the wine list suggested foods it would match.

My entree was the Grigliata Impanata di Pesce, which was grilled prawn, squid, scallops and mussels in herbed bread crumbs. It was very tasty, and I had no complaints. 7.5/10. Auckland Girl had cockles, which were also delicious.

My main was the Pappardelle  con Anatra, which was with braised duck sauce. It was quite simply magnificent. The pasta was home crafted, and the duck was exquisite. A 9/10 easily.  Auckland Girl chose the gnocchi, which was also lovely.

My dessert (which I normally skip, but was a special occasion) was the gelato. Hard to get a bad gelato, and this one certainly wasn’t. AG went for the tiramisu, and from the sound of her groans of satisfaction, it was also very good. 8/10 for the desserts.

After dessert we had a port and a cognac. The service during the night was excellent and classy. The waitress (from Argentina) knew all the essentials such as how to properly pour wine, and was very friendly, but professional. The owner topped off the night by offering us a couple of lemoncellos on the house. I give the service a 9/10 also.

The overall bill was around $200, which for four excellent courses and two bottles of wine is very reasonable. A definite recommendation to those who want a classy night out, without paying the earth.

During the dinner, AG and I had fun playing Sherlock Holmes and trying to work out the backgrounds of all the other diners based on observation only. Our conclusions were:

1. A table of two older men, and an older woman. Conclusion was a businesswoman out with her husband a a business colleague.
2. A table of a young man dressed casually, a blond young woman in business dress and older woman. After considering they were a couple we decided they were brother and sister as they had no body language between them. Also he was dressed too casually for a date, and she had relatively little makeup on. The older woman was their mother, whom we suspect was from out of town, and this was her treat for them. Out detective skills were proven correct when at the end we heard her refer to them as her offspring.
3. A man and woman in their 40s. Had one course only. Conclusion was a local Thorndon couple and this is their regular.
4. Two men and two women, with one of each in their 40s and 50s. The men we decided worked together, and were out with their respective wives.
5. A young asian woman and a slightly older ginga. She gave him a card. Our conclusion is she is a law student and he is probably her tutor and boyfriend.
6. A man and woman in their late 30s. She was wearing an orange dress. Based on the dress we decided they were from Lower Hutt. They took 30 minutes to decide what to order, so were obviously not locals. Obviously a special dinner out, so I think it was an anniversary dinner treat for them.

We also discussed what people would probably guess we are, if they were doing the guesswork on us, we had done on them. We figured their guess on us would be a couple who had met over the Internet and were on their first date 🙂

Anyway, back to the restaurant, definitely has kept up the good standards of its predecessor, and a restaurant worth returning to.

Two brand new MPs had their bills drawn from the ballot today. Good fortune for both of them.

Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor had the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, which is embedded below.

Joint Family Homes Repeal Private Member’s Bill

The bill was previously in the name of Rangitata MP Jo Goodhew. As she is now a Minister, she can’t sponsor it. The bill looks to be uncontroversial. Stuff notes:

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill will abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission had recommended scrapping the old law which ”afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because the law was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

”The Matrimonial (Property) Act made it very clear spouses and partners have the ability to get joint ownership of things.”

Dunedin North MP David Clark also had selected the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill, which was previously in the name of Grant Robertson.

I don’t have a copy of the bill yet, but it proposes that if ANZAC Day and Waitangi Day fall on a weekend, they be Mondayised.

I don’t think it is a particularly important issue, and it was ridicolous when people called for an urgent law change last year because both days were at weekends. However as I noted at the time, I’m not against a change and think the bill should be supported, even though it does impose some small extra costs on businesses.

The additional wage cost is around 0.11%, so not huge. In return for some certainity around the number of days off, I think it is worthwhile.

UPDATE: The bill (when it was in the name of Grant Robertson) is on the web here. The key clause is:

 if either of the public holidays … falls on a Saturday or Sunday and the day would otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on that day … and (if) the day would not otherwise be a working day for the employee, the public holiday must be treated as falling on the following Monday

That is sensible, so it does not disadvantage those who do work on weekends.

No surprise that JFK was a rooter, but this latest revelation makes Bill Clinton look a prude by comparison!

The Daily Mail reports:

Extracts from her memoir have detailed how she was shocked when on her fifth day as a White House press aide he led her away from co-workers who were having cocktails down the hall to his wife’s bedroom where they had sex for the first time.

Her fifth day? Clinton didn’t do anything with Monica until around four months in.

Miss Alford said she saw President Kennedy for the final time at The Carlyle hotel in Manhattan on November 15, 1963, just a week before his assassination in Dallas.

At this point she was due to be married to her college sweetheart, Tony Fahnestock.

‘He took me in his arms for a long embrace and said, ‘I wish you were coming with me to Texas.’ And then he added, ‘I’ll call you when I get back.’ I was overcome with sudden sadness. ‘Remember, Mr President, I’m getting married.’

”I know that,’ he said, and shrugged. ‘But I’ll call you anyway.”

Obviously a committed Catholic, JFK was.

An excellent op ed by Steven Joyce in the Herald today:

Most of us agree that for New Zealand to be successful longer term, we need more and higher-paying jobs. Jobs provide the incomes that people use to help their families get ahead. Jobs give people the income to pay taxes for the health and education services we value, and well-paying jobs are what keep more of our people making their lives in this country – and that keeps families together.

So we largely agree on the what and the why, but often the consensus unravels a bit when we get to the how. This is a little surprising because in fact the how is not that hard.

Jobs of the long-term, sustainable kind depend on businesses that provide something that people value. That is, something unique, or something of quality at a lower price than their competitors.

There is no other effective way to create long-term sustainable jobs.

And in turn those businesses depend on six key things:

1. ideas and innovation to create the business (entrepreneurs and ideas people)
2. money to build the business (capital)
3. access to raw materials (resources)
4. skilled people to work in the business
5. the public infrastructure which the business depends on (power, broadband, transport) and, 
6. most importantly, customers who want to buy the product.

So if we want more jobs, then we need to look at how to provide more capital, have better access to resources, a more skilled workforce, and good public infrastructure.

We need an environment that is encouraging to entrepreneurs and ideas people. We need to ensure we make resources available for businesses to use. We need stronger and more internationally integrated capital markets that provide money for investment. We need to ensure our people have the right skills. And we need to remember that we have a small domestic market, so our businesses will need to access world markets a lot earlier than similar businesses in countries located in larger world populations.

That doesn’t mean handouts. It just means removing more of the roadblocks that stop people from doing things.

And that’s when the problems start to arrive. The people who say “we want jobs” but then in the next breath say “but you can’t do that … you can’t build that there … you can’t expand that … you can’t explore for that there … you can’t live here … you can’t invest in property here – you just can’t do that!”

And very quickly we start limiting our options. Through the 2000s, as a country, we progressively boxed ourselves in more and more to depend on fewer and fewer industries based on what the “can’ts” said. At the end of it the government of the day was pretty much down to talking only about two of the ingredients – skills training and subsidising entrepreneurs that don’t use resources (the so-called clean-tech sector) – as the bits the “can’ts” were most comfortable with. The rest was off the table.

That attitude made it much harder to pay our way in the world and, as a result, we went into recession before the rest of the world in early 2008.

I am hoping National in their second term will stand up to the “You can’t brigade” and give us more meaningful RMA reform amongst other things.

We live in a world increasingly without borders – at least not as our grandparents knew them. People these days can base their skills, their capital and their ideas just about anywhere. They don’t have to be in New Zealand.

So when we think about the “you can’ts” we need to think about the mobility of people and money. Each time we say “you can’t” carries a cost. That doesn’t mean we should always say “yes”, but we do need to carefully weigh up the consequences of saying no.

And we should learn to stop listening to people who in the one breath chant “more jobs, more jobs” and then in the next breath say “but don’t do that, or that, or that”.

Hear hear.

1. SIMON BRIDGES to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s priorities for the economy in its second term?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “National will deliver a strong, stable government – and build a stronger economy with less debt and more jobs”?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What steps, if any, has he taken to ensure that should the Government sell 49 percent of Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy, “New Zealand investors will be at the front of the queue for shareholding, and that there will be widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership”?
4. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the 2011 NCEA results?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for the Environment:What is the estimated total cost for the clean up after the grounding of the Rena?
7. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has been made on the Government’s Green Paper for vulnerable children?
8. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the decisions of all of his Ministers who were involved in the process for the sale of the Crafar farms?
9. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What is the purpose of the Government’s recently announced proposed changes to the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What has the Government publicly said in response to the attack by Syrian forces on its own citizens in Homs, and how does it see the crisis there being resolved?
11. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Has she read the Children’s Commissioner’s newsletter Children and poverty: moving beyond rhetoric?
12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received about SmartGate?

So we have five patsies from National.  Labour have four questions – Shearer, Robertson, Parker and Ardern – their “top four”. Shearer focusing on the economy (sensible), Robertson on the Rena, Parker on the Crafar farms and Jacinda on child poverty. The crafar question likely to be the most vigorous.

The Greens have two questions – on SOE part-sales and Syria. God knows why they are wasting a question on Syria (it is an important issue, but our influence is zero on it).

The 12th question is NZ First and of course asked by Winston. His is the general do you have confidence in all your Ministers which can go anywhere. He may have an alleged scandal to drop, but more likely will focus on the Maori Party Ministers and National.

After question time, the address in reply debate continues for another 16 hours. If the House adjourns it, then the the top five bills on the order paper are:

1. National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill Committee stage
2. Road User Charges Bill Committee stage
3. Electronic Identity Verification Bill First reading
4. Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill Second reading
5. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill  First Reading

Nothing terribly exciting there off memory.

Good to see the media are backpedalling on the Waitangi Pub crawl in London story and giving more balance such as the Police actually praising the event and its organisers.

In the latest story at Stuff, they have comments from both John Key and Phil Goff. And if I was a lecturer in political communications, I would get my students to analyse this story. I think it is a good insight into how the way you say things can impact how you are perceived.

First what Goff said:

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff said nobody minded people having a good time but vomiting and defecating in public didn’t do much for New Zealand’s reputation in Europe.

“I’ve no problem if they’re crazy enough to take their shirts off and do a haka in the middle of the snow in London in February, fine.

“But I know that when I was living in London and you saw people on the tube that were vomiting and urinating you took offence at that.”

People at home wouldn’t like it is a group of English people behaved similarly here, he said. 

“By all means go have a good time but when it comes to behaving offensively in a public place, it’s not on for people to be damaging our reputation by behaving in our way.”

Goff comes across as automatically accepting there was really bad behaviour, twice goes on about vomiting, defecating and urinating and says we wouldn’t like people doing it here. Overall comes over as a bit of a killjoy.

Prime Minister John Key said he was not surprised New Zealanders in London took part in a rowdy Waitangi Day pub crawl, saying “celebrating is part of what they do” in the British capital.

“On one level it’s great people all over the world are celebrating Waitangi Day. We would hope they would not get out of control.”

Reports of bad behaviour should not be “over-egged”, he said.

“New Zealanders are well known for having a pretty good time when they are out in London. I’d encourage them to have good behaviour where they can.

Key admitted he too celebrated Waitangi Day when he lived in London by “having a couple of beers”.

“I kept my shirt on though.”

While in one sense Key and Goff are saying the same thing (have fun but do not go overboard), Key comes over far more positive (and dare I say it relaxed) and less killjoyish.

Now you might say who cares. But how the public perceive politicians does impact how they vote. They like politicians whom they can relate to, and whom they are “normal”.

The most powerful political image of last year, was (ironically) shown the day after the election, of John Key in bare feet outside his front door picking up the pizzas, as they wait for results. It was on the front page of one of the Sunday papers, and was an incredibly powerful image. It said four things to people:

• The Prime Minister relaxes in shorts and bare feet at home – just like most Kiwis do. Not in a suit.
• The Prime Minister orders pizza, just like many families do
• The PM actually goes out and pays/signs for it himself rather than sending someone else out
• Despite it being the day which might evict him from office, he is relaxing at home with his kids, eating pizza

Of course such stuff is not the only thing that impacts politics. Policies and performance do also. But the contrast between how Goff and Key came across, despite trying to say the same thing I thought was a good lesson in communications – how to do it, and how not to do it.