In my Herald column yesterday I asked if 2012 will be the year of the Greens?

Roy Morgan have their first poll since the election out.

They say it shows little change for the major parties:

• National 47%
• Labour 27.5%
• Greens 14.5%
• NZ First 5.0%
• Maori Party 1.5%
• Mana 1.0%
• ACT 0.5%
• United 0.5%

To me it shows how things remain close. Labour, Greens and NZ First combined are 47% – same as National.

However the right direction indicator has gone up from 49.5% to 60.5% and wrong direction down from 31% to 28%.

I’m in an area with very limited phone and Internet access, so I heard about the arrests yesterday, but couldn’t blog on them.

I’m reserving judgement on the issue, until details of the alleged offences are known more fully. I would make the point that to my mind there has always been a significant difference between someone who accesses a file-sharing site or torrent in order to (for example) see the latest episode of a TV show not available in NZ, and those who are commercially making money from infringing copyright, or assisting others to infringe.

Whether or not Dotcom and others have broken the law, will of course be a matter for the courts. It is worth noting that the NZ courts will not extradite unless the charges are for something that is also an offence under NZ law. So if for example there was an arrest warrant out for you because you took part in (adult consensual) oral sex in Utah, they would not extradite as thankfully oral sex is not illegal in NZ. Not sure if it still is illegal in Utah, to be honest – just using this as an example.

I’ve been saying for sometime that copyright issues will be a massive battle involving the Internet for the next decade or more.

In this case the US are not necessairly on the wrong side of the argument. I’m not saying their actions are justified either – it really depends on the details of the case. But few would argue that making money out of infringing other people’s copyright is a good thing (if that is what they have done). There is an argument they were just providing a service that “pirates” used. Again, will depend on what is revealed in court.

In other copyright news (and no I don’t think the timing is deliberately related), it looks like the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US Congress are dead. Senators have been dropping their co-sponsorship of PIPA as millions of Americans signed an online petitions and e-mailed their representatives on it.

Also of note is all the remaining Republican candidates for President have come out against the bills. So chalk this victory up to people power.

Imperator Fish blogs:

The Labour Party has admitted receiving a donation to its coffers from the National Party.

National Party President Peter Goodfellow confirmed the donation yesterday. He said it was a contribution towards the costs of running Labour’s blogsite Red Alert.

“They are doing great work, and we want that to continue,” said Mr Goodfellow.

Heh.

Mr Mallard said he was looking forward to getting heavily into blogging this year.

“We’ve all had some time off and are refreshed, and we’re ready to take the battle to David Farrar.

“We want to focus on the issues that are important to ordinary New Zealanders. Jobs, the economy, and David Farrar.”

I’ve never been an issue before! I have to say I did almost piss myself laughing at it. The irony is that by falsely claiming I was one of those trying to “censor” Red Alert, the end result has been more fuel for those who claim it should be shut down.

In Waikanae they have the Nga Manu nature reserve. I’d never been to it, and saw a good review, so decided to give it a visit.

$15 entry (Zealandia take note) and it’s a very pleasant 60 – 90 minute walk around. On a hot summer day, especially nice. If you’re into birds, or have kids, could be a good place to pop into. Kids are just $6 each and a family no more than $35.

Just after the entrance a large grassed area with a pond and lots of ducks.

A black swan being curious.

You can get a packet of duck food for $2 and the ducks are not shy. The literally surround you, and even walk over your feet if they think there is food nearby.

This is a kakariki, specifically a red-crowned parrot. I love how the green matches the grass.

A kaka.

Continue reading »

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

WHAT THEY GAVE
(2008 donation in brackets)
* Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union: $40,000 (2008: $60,000)
* Dairy Workers’ Union: $25,000 (2008: $12,000)
* Maritime Union: $18,500 (2008: none disclosed)
* Meat Workers’ Union: $18,000 (2008: $25,500)
* Service and Food Workers’ Union: $15,000 (2008: $20,000)
* FIRST Union (not affiliated): $4000 (2008: nil)

Donations of over $30,000 must be disclosed within 10 days of being made, but those over $15,000 but no greater than $30,000 do not have to be disclosed until the party does its annual return by 30 April 2012.

The unions here have disclosed early in response to inquiries by the Herald, which is commendable.

In total they gave $110,500 of donations above the disclosure threshold in 2011. In 2008 it was $117,500 so not a lot of change.

National’s donations over $30,000 have already been disclosed and commented upon. It will be interesting to see in early May who else donated above $15,000.

Also of interest is a new requirement (proposed by me, amongst others) that for the first time parties have to reveal the number of donations they received below the individual disclosure limit – in bands. This will give us a more holistic look at how parties are funded, and will also be out in May.

I highlighted Clare Curran saying “Farrar … is part of a group which is intent on censoring a prominent communication vehicle for the Labour Party” in a thread about NZ on Air. It seemed an obvious reference to NZ on Air being a communication vehicle for the Labour Party.

Now Clare has said she was referring to Red Alert:

Apologies for not being clearer. Labour’s Red Alert blog has been attacked by a number of anti Labour bloggers and commenters for a while. I was referring to this.

Farrar is part of this group.

Once again Clare is sadly wrong. She is infamous for having invented the Vast Right Wing and Non Labour Left Wing Conspiracy (VRWNLLWC), but now the conspiracy has expanded to include Labour activists!

Let’s look at who has publicly expressed doubts about Red Alert:

• Scott Yorke in August pondered if Red Alert is damaging Labour. Scott is a Labour Party member and activist.
• A senior Labour activist Patrick Leyland talks about the criticisms of Red Alert and how there needs to be better controls on it.
• Leftie Robert Winter is critical in this post.
• Zetetic at The Standard (the most Labour friendly blog out there) calls for Red Alert to be shut down or changed.
• Leftie Danyl Mc at Dim Post says it is mostly a train wreck.
• And Fairfax journalist Jon Hartevelt looks at its problems, but says tune it up instead of winding it up.

Painting this criticism as an organised conspiracy or group intent on depriving or “censoring” Labour of a communications channel, sums up all the problems Labour has. Rather than accept any of the criticism as valid, they see it as being done by enemies of Labour wanting to punish them.

And now here is the irony. I am not one of those who has been advocating Labour should close down Red Alert. In fact, quite the opposite.

For some reasons I get invited to talk on the Internet and politics on a regular basis. I’ve talked to classes at Victoria, Canterbury, Auckland and Massey universities. I’ve talked to rotary clubs, to legal publishers, to chambers of commerce and even the Business Roundtable on this area.

And you can ask anyone who was at any of those talks, what I said about Labour and Red Alert. They will tell you that I have consistently praised Labour for Red Alert, and think I think it is laudable that they are communicating in such a direct way.

Sure in the last year I have pointed out some of the SMOGs or Social Media Own Goals that have happened on Red Alert, but I always make the point that a political party has to accept there will be occasional own goals if you use this medium, and be tolerant of them – so long as people learn from their mistakes. I specifically say that overall I think Red Alert has overall been beneficial to Labour.

As I said, there have been hundreds of people at these talks, who can all back up that I have always spoken well of Labour for Red Alert, despite the occasional SMOG.

Those same attendees will also confirm that I regularly describe the National blog at nationalmps.co.nz as the greatest cure for insomnia ever invented. They are so mind numbingly boring, that I only subject my eyeballs to them around twice a year, as they start bleeding as I read about some organic carrot farm they have opened.

Of course to some degree this is a deliberate strategy by National. When in Government they want boredom, not excitement and controversy. What will be interesting is to see what National and Labour both do in the blogosphere, when they are in opposition and government respectively.

So if Clare really was referring to Red Alert, not NZ on Air, she got it absolutely wrong. The vast majority of the criticism of Red Alert is coming from the left, and I am one of the few people who has praised it in dozens of forums up and down New Zealand.

My view on Red Alert is that Labour should of course continue with it. I’d like all parties and MPs blogging. I do think for their sake they should look at how to reduce the number of own goals, but note you will never eliminate them entirely as blogging is not a medium you can control. My suggestion would be to have perhaps a couple of the less excitable MPs act as a sounding board and have them just eyeball posts before they get published, so they can point out that the way something is worded may lead to misinterpretation etc.

At the end a blog is just a tool. You don’t stop using a tool because you have some troubles with it. You just get better at using it.

The Maritime Union have said their strikes and industrial action is because they are against casualisation at Ports of Auckland. Labour have also said this is what they are concerned about.

However Cactus Kate blogs:

The problem with MUNZ’s, Fenton’s and the left’s argument about casualisation is that right now MUNZ is pursuing a case against POAL in the Employment Court to prevent the Port offering permanent jobs to “lashers”.

This is not a joke. They are AGAINST casuals getting permanent jobs.

You may think so, but not when the Union bullies (mainly old, white crusty’s like the charming couple we met yesterday on this blog) have the top jobs and like to take the overtime at their much higher rates rather than allow the lower paid workers to get permanent jobs.

The Herald reports:

Health bosses want the Auckland Council to ban smoking in all public outdoor areas in the city in a bid to stop children picking up the habit.

The proposed ban would include the city centre, parks, playgrounds, sports grounds, stadiums, parts of beaches, council-controlled land such as around the Auckland Museum and art gallery, and events supported by the council, such as Pasifika.

Why not just go the whole hog and have summary executions of people caught smoking? That would be far more effective in encouraging children not to smoke.

One drawback of an execution policy is that Auckland could suffer significant population loss. So to ameliorate the effects, perhaps adopt the Roman decimation policy – just kill 1 in 10 smokers?

Clare Curran blogs at Red Alert and contrasts two statements from me:

My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.

and

”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.

While Clare obviously disagrees, I don’t regard my views as inconsistent. I don’t think the Government should censor the Internet and I also don’t think the Government (through NZ on Air) should be getting involved in election campaigns. I want the Government to butt out of using its huge resources to tell us who we should vote for.

I have no problem with “advocacy” documentaries. But if the taxpayer funds them, then of course it is sensible to have NZ on Air able to say “Avoid the four weeks before the election as we do not want NZ on Air to be seen as getting involved in an election”.

Think if NZ on Air had funded a documentary on how power prices almost doubled under Labour and how they reaped in $3 billion of dividends from state owned power companies so they could bribe the electorate with KiwiSaver subsidies, and a TV broadcaster showed it the Thursday night before the election? I can only imagine the howls of outrage, and the calls for the NZ on Air Board to be sacked.

Clare’s summary was:

So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.

That was no evidence-based documentary. It got basic facts wrong. It was partisan advocacy.

Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign.

I agree politicians should not get a say on when material is shown. Last thing I want. But the NZ on Air Board is independent from the Government, and if they fund a programme, it is not outrageous that they can say don’t broadcast this show we have funded three days before the election, as that calls into question our neutrality.

Now as many have pointed out, one of the board members is a National Party office holder. He is also a very experienced broadcaster himself with over 20 years experience.  One can have a legitimate view that no one with political affiliations should be appointed to the NZ on Air Board. If Labour wish to promise they will never appoint someone with Labour links to NZ on Air, then I would hope National would agree to do the same.

But regardless, the NZ on Air Board is more than one person. The Board is:

• Neil Walter – Chair  (former MFAT Secretary)
• Nicole Hoey
• Michael Glading
• Stephen McElrea
• Caren Rangi
• Ross McRobie

Yes Stephen has “political baggage”, but that doesn’t mean the Board as a whole is in anyway political. Worth remembering that they are the ones who actually approved the funding for the documentary.

Anyway the most interesting part of Clare’s post is not what she said in the post, but later on in the comments when someone asked why she was blogging on this issue. She said:

His comments on Radio NZ this morning with regard to censoring the broadcast media contradicts his comments on his blog with regard to the internet. I pointed that out. Hypocrisy is important to point out when one is a political commentator in the public eye as Farrar is, and when he is part of a group which is intent on censoring a prominent communication vehicle for the Labour Party.

Well that is a fascinating view of what NZ on Air is for. Truly truly fascinating.

Incidentally Andrew Geddis at Pundit also is critical of what he has amusingly named the Farrar Rule. I won’t respond in detail to Andrew as I have a plane to catch, but he does mention how the Electoral Commission rejected complaints about the documentary.

It is worth pointing out that no matter what the substance of the TV programme was, it is exempt from being considered an election advertisement by virtues of S3A(2)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Act which exempts “the editorial content of a radio or television programme”. It may have issues under the Broadcasting Act however.

My holiday in Africa was so exhausting (getting up at 5 am daily) that I needed another holiday to recover from it! I’ve been up at Waikanae Beach with my whanau and friends. We’ve got a great place for 10 days. It has five bedrooms and three bathrooms, and the sloped roof has windows so pretty much all day sun.

This is the view from the back lawn. At high tide, you are around 10 metres from the water. A great view of Kapiti Island. There’s something very relaxing about being able to hear and see the sea from your living room.

I was a bit surprised initially to see a sail whizz past at high speed, until I investigated and saw they were on land, not sea.

The water here is seriously nice. Great waves and warm water. I’ve gone in a few times. Kapiti is only an hour north of Wellington but by not being Cook Strait, the water is heaps warmer. The temperature is a few degrees higher also, often.

We’ve dined outside pretty much every day, and even had the BBQ fired up. Did fish and chips one night which was great – something “right” about fish and chips by the beach.

Waikanae Beach is very long, so good for long walks to burn off lunch. One day we decided to walk to the cafe down the road, along the beach. We over-shot it by around 1.5 kms which was very funny. Not so funny was walking back along the road (we didn’t want to miss it again). Bare feet on hot melting tar is a painful mixture.

Sadly it has not been all relaxation, as have had quite a lot of work to do and reports to write for various clients. But working on the laptop up here with a view of Kapiti, sure beats being in an office in Wellington.

A great place to have a week off for Wellingtonians, so to speak. And usefully if for some reason you do have to head home, you can be there in just 45 minutes (30 minutes if doing a Lundy).

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour is slashing its parliamentary staff numbers, after its poor election result sliced an estimated $700,000 off its funding.

As part of the cost-cutting the number of press secretaries working for the 34 MPs has been cut from five to three; one fewer than the press team that works exclusively for Prime Minister John Key.

There will also be likely job losses in other areas, but these are yet to be finalised, as Labour looks for savings to cover what is understood to be a 20 per cent fall in funding from $3.5m before the election to about $2.8m now.

My sympathies go out to those who lose their jobs. One of the things I hated about working at Parliament was seeing some good friends lose their jobs after elections or leadership changes.

I’ve run the numbers through Excel to calculate funding changes. Each party gets funded a certain amount for its leaders office and research unit. This is based on how many MPs you have, and how many are not Ministers. I call this the central funding.

Also each MP gets individual funding depending on if they are an electorate MP, List MP, or their electorate is over a certain size. The current funding is:

• Leadership – $100,000/party and $64,320/MP
• Party/Research – $22,000/MP not in the Executive
• MP – $105,192/seat over 20k sq kms or if Maori seat over 10k sq kms
• MP – $64,260/other electorate seats
• MP – $40,932/List MP

In theory the MPs funding is for them to spend, but in reality the party leadership can also direct how that is spent, and it can all be pooled together. So for example Trevor Mallard can exceed his $64,260 if the Labour Leadership agree to cover it, but vice versa if Trevor spends say $20,000 under his budget then that Labour Leadership can spend it on say policy brochures or staff.

The total funding per party (including MPs funding) is:

• National $7,166,76o (was $6,957,704)
• Labour $5,103,512 (was 6,061,724)
• Greens $1,881,016 (was $1,245,268)
• NZ First $1,118,016
• Maori $504,965 (was $724,260)
• Mana $291,512
• ACT $186,260 (was $630,948)
• United Future $186,260 (was $186,260)
• Total $16,438,812 (was $16,056,744)

That’s a $950,000 drop for Labour, which does hurt. Greens gain $650,000 and NZ First gains $1.1m.

The average funding per MP can be interesting:

1. Mana $291,512
2. ACT/United $186,260
3. Maori $168,321
4. Labour 150,103
5. NZ First $139,752
6. Greens $134,395
7. National $121,471

National is lower as there is no leadership funding for MPs who are Ministers. Mana does very nicely thank you very much.

Note that while political staff are hired out of the funding, each MP is also entitled to two (list) or three (electorate) executive assistants to work in their parliamentary and out of parliament offices.

A few people are discussing whether Red Alert should be closed down. Just in case it is, I’ll respond now to a blog from Trevor Mallard on the Crafar farms:

And to make it clear, it is my view that there is no reason whatsoever to sell these farms offshore. To anyone.

That’s an interesting view, but that is like me having a view on who Sam Morgan should have sold Trade Me to. Labour do not own the Crafar farms. The Government does not own them. The taxpayers do not own them.

The reason the farms may be sold offshore is because someone offshore offered the owners more money for them.

Landcorp could probably hock off a couple of its non core farms and then buy Them all using its very strong balance sheet to raise debt finance for the balance.

Yes they could. And all they have to do is offer more money than any other bidder. Nice and simple, and that way the owners do not end up out of pocket, just so politicians feel better.

The Overseas Investment Act has criteria on which a sale to non-residents should or should not be approved. The Crafar farms are a small fraction of the farm land sold to non-residents and approved under the last Labour Government. One can have a sensible debate about amending the criteria, but a poling of banning all sales is just appealing to xenophobia and racism. I can guarantee you if it was an Australian farmer bidding for the farms, we’d be rolling out the welcome mat.

NewstalkZB reports:

A ‘please explain’ letter has been sent to the chief executive of the Christchurch City Council by a group of his own councillors.

The letter to Tony Marryatt, over the move to relocate the council’s after hours call centre to Palmerston North, was leaked to media yesterday.

I don’t have a problem with out-sourcing generally.

But to have the Christchurch City Council outsource to Palmerston North at the same time as they are urging businesses not to leave Christchurch?

That’s a new level of stupidity.

There seems to be some real problems there. The CEO reappointment process, the CEO salary increase and justification, the attempt to charge quake victims for burial in the special memorial site, and now this.

UPDATE: Not as bad as it first seemed. The original story referred to 18 staff losing their jobs. In fact it seems only one FTE job will be lost. 18 is the total number of staff in the Orion call centre. Six are losing their jobs, but their hours only total 40 hours a week. The decision is still questionable, but one FTE is very different to 18 staff losing jobs.

Phil O’Reilly writes in the Herald:

As we start 2012, we have an opportunity to earn new wealth and control how it is earned and spent.

New Zealand has come out of the global economic crisis with strengthened markets for our traditional soft commodities, dairy and other foodstuffs, and with more market opportunities for sophisticated manufactured goods.

As before, our prospects depend on how well we do business and exploit those opportunities. But there are also new opportunities emerging. Because of new global economic needs and technologies, our hard commodities – minerals and petroleum – offer outstanding rewards.

And if you are going to whine about people moving to Australia, and the need for more jobs in NZ, then don’t adopt an economic policy of leave it all in the ground.

Our democratic system allows all New Zealanders to have a say over the development of our resources, most of which are owned by the Crown (that is, all of us), and we have a process by which we can tell the Crown what we want.

The process is the review of the Crown Minerals Act being undertaken on behalf of the Crown by the Ministry of Economic Development. …

We should take this opportunity seriously. We should respond not just to the questions in the review but also put forward our views on the big economic questions:

* Which resources, how much and when, should we access?

* Which offer most opportunity to grow high-tech industries with high-skill, high-paid jobs?

* What level of royalties and taxes should be paid by enterprises wishing to access our resources?

* How much transparency should we demand from those enterprises?

* How can we best use the income earned?

* How can we have world-best safety standards?

* How can we ensure the environment is left the same or better afterwards?

These are not vague, feel-good questions – they require information and specific answers. To answer, we can look at other mining countries.

The Greens answer seems to be to say no to any additional mining or drilling. I hope Labour considers a more sophisticated approach.

We shouldn’t look to third-world countries with poor environments and poor law enforcement – countries with the “resource curse”, where over-reliance on natural resources blocks the development of other industries.

We should look at first-world countries where resources play a part in balanced economic growth, creating industries and employment – such as Norway, Australia and Canada.

None of these countries has a perfect record, of course. For example, we would want to avoid poor practice in how local communities are treated. We would want to ensure all New Zealanders reap the benefit.

Norway shows us how much people can benefit from responsible resource use. Norway’s oil revenues play a major part in supporting high-quality health, education and welfare services and infrastructure.

Similarly, our own resources could do an enormous amount to pay for more generous public healthcare, better care for the aged, more teachers, better social services, improved roads, rail infrastructure and so on.

Absolutely. Closing the gap with Australia and ensuring NZers maintain a decent standard of living has no silver bullet to it. It’s doing lots of small to medium things such as improving ports profitability, and growing the minerals sector.

Tim Donoghue reports at the Dom Post:

Public ill-will towards Wellington City Council’s “spy car” has led to four councillors calling for it to be abandoned.

Councillors John Morrison, Bryan Pepperell, Paul Eagle and Simon Marsh said yesterday there had been so much aggravation surrounding the vehicle that it was time for it to go.

Three other councillors – Jo Coughlan, Justin Lester and Leonie Gill – said they wanted to see the vehicle’s continued operation subjected to an extensive review by councillors.

There’s been numerous stories about the spy car in recent days, including how it snapped a photo of a motorist who pulled over to let it pass.

Mr Morrison described the spy car operation as nothing more than revenue collection. “It runs against the basic Kiwi mentality of people getting a fair go.

“This is clipboard, whistleblowing, white-coat bureaucratic stuff. This bureaucratic behaviour has brought the council into disrespect.”

Too right. Never thought I’d be on the same side of an issue as Bryan Pepperell, but I am on this one.

Former Wellington resident Ann Reeves is taking the council to court next month to contest the $60 ticket she received after being photographed by the spy car on broken yellow lines. She had pulled over to allow the spy car to pass her in a narrow street.

On December 8 last year, elderly Karori resident Donald Massam stopped briefly on yellow lines to drop off Judith, his wife of 52 years, for an urgent dental appointment on The Terrace at the bottom of Bolton St. He was sent a ticket for $60.

Mr Massam said he would be taking the council to court if his fine was not waived.

“If there was a parking warden in the area I could have explained why I had to stop. This is not a fair go. This involved an elderly person and an urgent medical matter,” he said.

It is that lack of discretion which is the issue.

Ms Wade-Brown said the safety of drivers and pedestrians was the most important issue in the suburbs and the city centre.

“The dash cam car is a useful part of enforcement. We must be vigilant that the focus is on safety and enabling legitimate use of on- street parks.

“Some drivers believe that parking on double-yellow lines is OK for a few minutes but a crash can happen in only a moment.”

Oh, what tosh. Someone should OIA how many car crashes have occurred due to someone having pulled over to let someone get out. The safety argument is a red herring.

Anyone want to stand for Mayor in 2013? Send your CVs into me 🙂

The Herald reports:

NZ on Air wants to stop broadcasters screening documentaries on political issues in the lead-up to an election – a break from its usual hands-off approach which its chairman says is important for its reputation.

The broadcasting funding agency has obtained legal advice on whether it can include a condition for broadcasters “not to screen programmes discussing topics likely to be an election issue” before an election.

I don’t think taxpayer funding programmes should be interfering with the election, unless they are part of the normal news and current affairs of a channel.

Our electoral laws goes to great length to restrict the amount of money that can be spent in an election period. Parties are not even able to purchase television advertising time beyond that allocated to them.

The step was prompted by TV3 screening a child poverty documentary four days before the November election. NZ on Air had provided $105,400 for the Inside Child Poverty programme by Bryan Bruce.

Board chairman Neil Walter said yesterday NZ on Air did not shirk from funding controversial programmes, but had to safeguard its own reputation.

He said child poverty was a major election issue, and there was a risk the programme would influence voting.

More than a risk. The programme was factually incorrect and should have had an authorisation statement on it, as it was very partisan against National.

Now I’m not saying it should not have been funded. I have no issue with NZ on Air funding controversial programmes. But absolutely TV3 should not be shown such blatant propoganda a few days before an election, and if it is funded by the taxpayer, then fair enough to have a clause in there saying “You can screen this programme anytime in 152 out of 156 weeks, but just not during these four weeks.

“We are, on one hand, anxious to safeguard our reputation for political impartiality, and in our view that was put at risk by the decision to schedule that documentary just four days out from a general election. On the other hand, we are very careful not to interfere in the editorial content of programmes. Our legislation bars us from doing that.”

Media law barrister Stephen Price said a blanket clause preventing “election issues” was too broad and seemed heavy-handed.

“It’s much better if they just leave it up to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The broadcasters already have an obligation to be fair and balanced and they know they have to be on their toes close to an election.”

But they can only act on complaints after the event.

TV3 would not comment yesterday, although in the documents Mr Walter said the broadcaster had “expressed its regret for having put us into this situation and has assured us there will be no repeat of the problem”.

Good.

And my views would stand even if the programme was a history of the union movement, and was an hour long expose on how over 60 years unions have funded Labour, influenced their policy and control their candidate selections. That would be a good documentary – but not one to be funded by taxpayers to show in election week.

The Herald reports:

Despite the considerable union influence within his party and calls for him to offer support to Maritime Union members, new Labour leader David Shearer has kept quiet on the matter.

Yesterday Labour industrial relations spokeswoman Darien Fenton, who has been spotted on the picket line at the port, said her party was not taking sides in the dispute.

“We’ve been hoping that the parties will settle this, that they’ll find a way through this.”

You’ve been on the picket line, and now you’re saying you’re not taking sides? I think someone has squashed Darien.

Ms Fenton said Mr Shearer had been in regular touch with both sides, “and he’s in contact with me and we’re all discussing it regularly”.

“Our strong view at this point is it’s not helpful for politicians to get involved.”

Apart from being on the picket line?

I suspect that strong view is Mr Shearer’s.

Chris Trotter did an open letter to Shearer yesterday urging him to wade in:

Ultimately, isn’t it about answering the question: “Who is strong enough to stop the stone-throwers?” The men and women who formed the Labour Party in 1916 decided that the answer to that question was the State. If the State could be made to stop working for those who already exercised power, and began instead to work for those who were powerless, then a political party seeking to put an end to poverty, war and injustice would have a fighting chance.

Labour was formed to create a State that wasn’t neutral; a state that never stood on the side-lines when working people were being threatened and abused. Labour was about intervention: constant, massive, intelligent and creative intervention on behalf of the weak and against the strong.

It’s time to bid farewell to the white sands and the Pohutukawa blossoms, Mr Shearer, and come on down to the Auckland wharves. It’s time to cast aside the gathered cloaks of a spurious and culpable “neutrality” and place yourself and your party between the stone-throwers and their victims. It’s time to end the silence.

Hollywood may have bitten off more than they can chew.

The studios got their lackeys in Congress to put forward a bill called SOPA – Stop Online Piracy Act.

Rather than target those actually infringing on copyright – it targets anyone who links to sites that allegedly infringe – including search engines such as Google. It basically wants Google and others to act as filters on behalf of Hollywood – a law China could be proud of.

The ramifications are massive. Someone might post a comment on Kiwiblog mentioning the name of a site which tells you where some good torrent sites are. Bang – Kiwiblog is out of the search engines.

But it gets worse than that. Under SOPA, ISPs (US ones anyway) could be forced to block access to sites. Just like in Syria and Libya. A summary of views against from Wikipedia:

On TIME‘s Techland blog, Jerry Brito wrote, “Imagine if the U.K. created a blacklist of American newspapers that its courts found violated celebrities’ privacy? Or what if France blocked American sites it believed contained hate speech?”^[21] Similarly, the Center for Democracy and Technology warned, “If SOPA and PIPA are enacted, the US government must be prepared for other governments to follow suit, in service to whatever social policies they believe are important—whether restricting hate speech, insults to public officials, or political dissent.”^[22]

Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard University professor of constitutional law, released an open letter on the web stating that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”

My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet. If people access illegal material on the Internet then they should be held liable in a court for that. If people commit crimes on the Internet, then they should be arrested for that. And yes if people infringe copyright on the Internet, they should be liable under the law. But to have laws giving the power to require all ISPs in a country to block particular sites is a practice that should remain the norm in China, not the US and definitely not NZ.

Amusingly the MPAA has actually cited China in their advocacy, with the MPAA Chairman having said that as Google has figured out how to block sites when China requests it, it can’t be that big an issue.

Anyway the backlash has begun and could be huge. Wikipedia is closing down later today for 24 hours as part of a black out protest. I can just imagine the millions of pissed off Americans who will be e-mailing their complaints into Congress.

Think if Google did the same? Maybe even for just three hours the search engines all turned off and displayed a protest page?

The MPAA and RIAA are used to being the biggest players in the game. I think they are about to find out they’re not.

The owners of the Malt House along with well known beer writer Neil Miller opened up a new pub in Wellington last year. I promised I would do a review of it, and last week had a friend in town back from the US, so we all arranged to meet at the Fork & Brewer on Bond Street.

The Fork & Brewer is on Bond Street. The location used to be home to Syn & Hell Pizza, the Ruby Lounge and the Loaded Hog before that. I also recall it being the Bond Street Inn. You go up the stairs to be greeted with …

At present these are decorative, but in the near future they will in fact start to brew their own labels in-house.

On the good Wellington days, you can sit outside on the balcony and look down on all the worker ants scurrying up and down Victoria and Bond Streets.

I love their bar. The interior is quite large, and the bar forms a barrel almost the entire 360 degrees. The decor is cool with all the gadgets displayed on the wall, but what is most excellent is the 43 different beers they have on tap – almost all New Zealand independent and craft beers.

This is a bar made for beer lovers, owned by beer lovers. You can see their full range of beers here.

The food is great – much better than normal pub or bar fare. Not just my view, but also the Dine Out reviewers. I can only rave about the chicken wings – they are delicious, and you get a huge number too.

In keeping with their love of beer, they have matched beers to each menu item, as you can see above. You can see their menu here.

And as the final temptation to turn the Fork & Brewer into my mobile office, they have a power hot-point at every booth, so you can plug your laptop in.

All up, a highly recommended venue for drink and food. I plan to go there often.