Oh how the left howled cries of triumph. They said the Rena would crush National. No it was the credit downgrade. No it was John Key’s gesture in Parliament. No it was over-egging what Standard and Poors said.

And then today the Herald Digipoll reports National up 1.5% and Labour down 1.2%.

Mind you while a 23% gap is a good one, it is worth recalling that the important gap is CR-CL which is closer. It still only takes a 5% swing and then a Labour/Green/Winston/Hone coalition becomes a possibility.

“Campaign 2011” starts on Sunday at 8.30 pm on Sky News.

Barry Soper moderates a minor party leader’s debate with:

• ACT Leader Don Brash
• United Future Leader Peter Dunne
• Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia
• Mana Party Leader Hone Harawira
• Green co-leader Russel Norman

The panel asking questions is Chris Trotter, myself and television reporter Ngahuia Wade.

National have updated their figure for the extra net debt under Labour’s policies and it is now up to $16b over the next four years. They have also launched the www.oweourfuture.co.nz website so people can keep track of the growing debt from their promises.

Labour’s line that Taito Philip Field was only guilty of being a hard working MP trying to help his constituents has had another setback, with the Supreme Court dismissing his appeal. The Herald reports:

The judges said in their finding there must be a “de minimis defence” available for people such as MPs whereby gifts of token value – such as a rugby jersey – were acceptable.

However, the services Field had received were worth about $50,000, and that could not be considered de minimis.

“While we are satisfied that the acceptance of gifts which are de minimis should not be considered corrupt … the acceptance of other benefits in connection with official actions is rightly regarded as corrupt irrespective of whether there was an antecedent promise or bargain,” they said.

“In the present circumstances, given the substantial nature of the benefits, no such defence was tenable.”

The reason I keep banging on about Field is because Labour to this day have never ever said that his behaviour was corrupt. Even after the Ingram Report came out, the party leadership defended him. Even after the verdict their only comment was they acknowledged the verdict. Their actions stood in total contrast to how ACT dealt with Donna Awatere-Huata (whose offending wasn’t even in her capacity as an MP).

But unless Field pops up as a member of a future Workplace Commission, this is probably the last post on him as he should now fade from view.

I love this video looking at how the All Black haka was done in 1973 and today. The 1973 recital wouldn’t even scare Little Miss Muffet, to put it bluntly.

DIA announced last week:

From tomorrow (20 October) unsolicited commercial faxes will count as spam.

The schedule of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 has been amended to remove ‘facsimiles’ from the list of exempt electronic messages. This means that an individual or company may no longer send a commercial fax, with a New Zealand link, to a recipient that has not consented to receiving the message.

Internal Affairs, which regulates the Act, has received many inquiries from people receiving unsolicited commercial faxes, since the Act came into force in 2007, but could take no action because faxes were excluded.

I had a hand in the formulation of the anti-spam law. The reason faxes were not included at the time was because the cost of sending them was deemed significant enough to mean that no regulation was needed.

It costs an advertiser actual money to direct mail you, to letterbox drop you or (in the past) to phone/fax you.  The cost of the marketing provided an incentive to only send marketing messages if they made enough money to cover the cost. Hence why you only get 20 or so items of junk mail a week, instead of 2,000.

E-mail though had different economic properties. It cost basically nothing to send, and the recipient effectively pays for it (in time and money). Hence why pretty much every country in the OECD has anti-spam laws. It’s a version of theft.

With more and more telecommunications being done over the Internet, I think it is the right call to include faxes. With VOIP and the like the marginal cost of fax spam is so low that there is little economic deterrent.

NBR reports:

A small group of ‘occupy’ protestors crowded the doors of the Citbank building in the Auckland CBD this morning. The tower houses the US consulate, and a Postshop with a Kiwibank. …

NBR asked a spokesman for the group if it had any specific demand for the NZ or US government. The spokesman replied the protest was a show of solidarity with the Wall Street occupation.

So that is no demands then.

One protestor expressed concern about what he called a “Zionist conspiracy” and the influence of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Oh yes. Damn Jewish bankers.It’s all their fault. Personally I blame the 1% who don’t pay their fair share of taxes, such as the UNITE union!

Talking of blaming Jews though, I did piss myself laughing at this line from William Shatner during the Comedy Central Roast of Charlie Sheen:

“I know another famous guy who was nice to whores and kept 12 losers around, and he also got crucified by Jews! And people worship that guy!

Mike Tyson almost fell out of his seat at that one.

A comment in the PREFU about our relative trade with China and the US got me curious, so I downloaded the export data from Stats NZ. This is purely how much we export to each country. The years are June years.

• In 1990 we exported 12 times as much to the US than China – $1.9b v $0.16b
• In 2000 we exported 5 times as much to the US than China – $3.7b v $0.77b
• In 2008 we exported twice as much to the US than China – $$4.0b v $2.1b
• In 2011 we exported 7/10ths as much to the US than – $3.9b v $5.6b
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to the US has increased only 5% (and these are nominal dollars)
• From 2000 to 2011 the level of exports to China have increased 635%
• Since the FTA was signed in 2008, exports to China have increased a massive 170% in just three years
• In actual dollar terms, that is $3.6b more exports to China in 2011 than 2008
• Comparing three year periods, 2009-11 saw $13.1b of exports compared to $5.7b the previous three years

I suggest people ask candidates of parties that opposed the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement, why? The Foreign Minister in the last Government campaigned against it. The Greens voted against it.

I regard the China/FTA as the best achievement of the 5th Labour Government, and a probably the best legacy from both Clark and Goff who should be very proud of making it happen. If we had not had that extra $13b of exports in the last three years, we’d be a lot worse off.

Answers tomorrow at 7 am

In my column at the Herald, I cover Labour’s Savings Policy. Some extracts:

New Zealand has the most generous public superannuation scheme in the world. …

So Labour have opened the doors for a national debate on both the age of eligibility and on means testing NZ Superannuation. They deserve praise for such a bold step. Our current scheme is too generous and unsustainable. …

Labour’s policy overall has a mixture of good and bad. I think it is an improvement over the status quo, and their willingness to advocate the age change gives them greater credibility. It’s a bold start to the campaign to tell New Zealanders that our taxpayer funded superannuation scheme is too generous. It almost reminds me of the Phil Goff of old, and yes that is a compliment.

I find it amusing that even when I praise Phil Goff, some nutters attack me for being too partisan.

The Independent reports:

For technology watchers there is at least one scoop in the book: Apple’s product developers are working on their first television set.

The “integrated” device, Jobs claimed, would revolutionise the TV market the way the iPod changed music.

“It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices … It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.”

I want one!

Especially with fibre being laid out to the home, there is a huge future in an iTV. I see several key features of it:

1. Can operate as a normal TV
2. Has  enhanced PVR or Tivo capacity – can record genres, or shows with certain actors etc
3. Can access the Internet and can play any movie or TV show legally available, so you can watch Episodes 1 – 10 of say MASH if you wish to, or last night’s episode of Coro that you missed and forgot to record.
4. Is fully workable from a remote control, and/or another device such as your iPad.
5. Does video-conferencing on steroids. You can do say a six way video conference in 10 seconds by pushing six buttons on your remote.
6. Can read all your songs on your iPod and automatically play the video version of them

The future is bright!

In my latest blog at Stuff I foment a small amount of mischief by musing whether Labour’s stealing of ACT’s policies means an ACT/Labour Government is now more or less likely than a National/Green Government 🙂

Nikki Preston in the Herald reports:

Waikato iwi are urging the Waikato Regional Council to introduce two Maori seats in time for the 2013 local government elections.

But the regional council has mixed views on Maori representation and a lively debate is expected at tomorrow’s council meeting.

I’m not a fan of race based seats. The parliamentary seats are a historical reality, but that is no reason to expand them into local government. While well intentioned, they can only end up with greater division.

My preference would be to consider giving Iwi which fall within a region’s boundaries, certain rights. I’ll detail what they may be some other day.

Maori are 20 per cent of the population of the Waikato region, and since the council was set up in 1989 there have been no Maori representatives elected.

I can understand why that leads some to say the seats are needed, but one vital stat is missing. How many Maori candidates have there been? Can anyone answer that question?

I suspect we will hear from a lot of unions today. Amazingly not a single union commented on Labour’s superannuation policy yesterday, despite their decades of opposition to compulsory superannuation and raising the age of eligibility.

But National has just released their employment relations policy, and I think the unions will rediscover their voices. The policy takes a number of good steps in the right direction, and is in total contrast to Labour’s desire to return to the 1970s.

First of all there is a partial victory on the issue of the minimum wage for teenagers, which has resulted in such massively high youth unemployment.

There will be a “Starting-Out Wage” set at 80% of the adult minimum wage. At present the current law has this also, but it only applies for the first 200 hours of employment, which can be as little as five weeks. National is extending this to:

1. 16 and 17 year olds for their first six months with an employer
2. 18 and 19 year olds if they have been on a benefit for more than six months prior, for their first six months of employment
3. 16 to 19 year olds doing at least 40 credits of industry training a year (was 60)

This doesn’t go as far as I would go, which would be to simply not have the minimum wage law apply to those aged under 18 (rather than under 16), but it should give young job seekers a better opportunity to get their first job, and gain that all important experience.

National is also making it easier for employees to request flexible working arrangements:

Many workplaces already have flexible working arrangements, either formally or informally. But at the moment, the formal request mechanism applies only to those with caring responsibilities.

National will extend the right to request flexible working hours to all workers, and raise the profile of flexible working arrangements. We want to see more workers and employers benefiting from flexible working arrangements.

And also they wind back some compulsory lite unionism:

Remove the requirement that non-union members are employed under a collective agreement for their first 30-days.

The current law effectively forces you to join the union, and means you can only withdraw and go on an individual contract after 30 days. National allows an employee to decide for themselves from day one whether or not they wish to join a union.

Apply partial pay reductions for partial strikes or situations of low-level industrial action.

Currently, employees can engage in partial strike action, such as refusing to answer email or do any paper work, while continuing to receive full pay.

Partial pay for partial work.

I am really pleased to see some movement on the issue of pay rates for teenagers with no work experience who need a first job. Our youth unemployment rate is far too high.

Labour’s interfaith policy is mainly harmless platitudes such as:

Labour will commit to building harmonious relationships between communities of different faiths as intrinsic to ensuring strong, healthy and safe communities of understanding and tolerance in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Hard to disagree with that!

I did appreciate the irony that the policy sites approvingly the ratification of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, considering Labour in Government refused to ratify it!

But one section grates with me:

Labour will work collaboratively across all government sectors to ensure that New Zealand’s diverse cultures and communities of faiths will be protected from racism, discrimination, prejudice and injustices.

First of all Labour conflates race with religion. You can not be racist against a religion. You do not choose your race but you do choose your religion. One can have a negative view of a particular religion, and this does not make you racist. Labour’s policy suggests that people who do not like certain religions are racists.

And by the same measure, it is totally valid to have negative views on a religion. I am allowed to mock Scientologists, and think anyone who is a Scientologist is either a gullible fool or a con-artist. There is a push at the UN for it to be an offence to mock or denigrate a religion. We should resist such moves strongly.

Talking of racism though, maybe Labour can do something about it a bit closer to home. The Maritime Union is an affiliate member of the Labour Party, pays members subs to Labour, and gets votes on policy and selections. With that in mind this Stuff article reveals:

Mr McKean was an executive member of the Auckland branch of the Maritime Union of New Zealand at the time of the incident.

In a column submitted to the September 2011 edition of the union magazine Mr McKean talked about recent sackings and redundancies, and concerns about previous managers as well as the employment of workers from ”one of the island nations”, by which he meant Tuvalu, the court said. 

Mr McKean also wrote about a ”quieter more subservient workforce” which would not question the ”ruling class”, which the court said appeared to be aimed squarely at his workmates from Tuvalu.

The column was the subject of 11 complaints from other staff members and was variously called offensive, disgusting, racially divisive and insulting.  The court found there was a likely negative effect on other members of the port workforce if Mr McKean was reinstated.

The full court report on McKean is interesting. This is more of what he wrote:

They’ve packed up their Nazi uniforms and Darth Vader outfits with the bumhole bits cut out of them, their cat of nine tails and their other toys for self flagellation and trundled off to their rubber walled dens where the mistresses know how to despoil, correct and require the naughtiness out of them for the time being.

That was him referring to his former managers.

He doesn’t just not want Pacific Islanders, but also no blondes. He said:

present a prime opportunity to seed in a quieter more subservient workforce. No complaints, no questioning of the ruling class, just job done, rail [sic] hail or sunshine and then the ability to insidiously wind down the work practices, dismantle the costs of doing business, push the health and safety envelope and give no thought to their work life balances. If at all possible one of the island nations would serve admirably. A steady selection process until we’d hit critical mass and then the assimilation. It would be important to have a Pacifica manager in a position of influence for harmonisation and the ability to collect where necessary affidavits to collar the odd malcontent. Introduce company sports teams that pitch to the interest of the worker demographic and have an attractive and intelligent female organiser and preferably make her a blonde. We would the [sic] need an insider who had a close working relationship with the fellows and who wouldn’t mind stealing collective agreement benefits. Allow him to slither amongst the flock and sow seeds of dissent and promise him all the earthly riches for himself and his family for his unbridled treason. Remind me again – how did old Judas Iscariot end up?

He has all the makings of a future Labour MP I’d say!

A guest post by John Stringer. John is indirectly responsible for my parliamentary involvement as I was hired on a four month temporary contract to replace him in 1996. I left eight years later!

The Parson’s Nose
A Conservative Column that ain’t Chicken.

Electoral Hedgehogs and CCCP (NZ).

The October registering of the new Conservative Party of New Zealand 50 days out from the 2011 general election is neither conservative nor new.

Colin Craig’s Conservative Party, forming the unfortunate acronym CCCP (Russian for USSR), is radical rather than conservative, because the party proposes to contest the sixth MMP election with less than six weeks to go.

It is not new, because in 1996 the then Right-of-Centre party – founded by disgruntled National MP and now Eastern European Ross Meurant joined by disgruntled National MP and anti-pornography campaigner Trevor Rogers – rebranded itself as the New Zealand Conservative Party. Ironically, this was in response to then Prime Minister Jim’s Bolger’s sacking of Meurant as Undersecretary for Agriculture due to a conflict-of-interest involving a CCCP-owned bank registered in Vanuatu.

Colin Craig’s NZ foray is an extension of the rise of politicised conservatism in America. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and the Tea Party movement are all significant political players in the 2012 GOP runoff for the 45th President of the United States against arch liberal Barack Obama.

CCCP NZ is the latest Christian/conservative hedgehog on the electoral super highway. Christians were among the earliest newbies to organise for the first MMP election in 1996.

Christian Heritage (later – bemusingly – “Christian Heritage Graham Capill Party,” its leader now a convicted paedophile freshly out on bail) were among the first, working as a political party/cum lobby group from 1989 under FPP. Their particular brand of narrow Dutch Reform conservatism based on Reformed Church theology and perhaps cloistered around a narrow segment of Dutch society from our mother namesake Zeeland, was joined by National MP Graeme Lee who formed the “United Party,” later re-branded “Christian Democrats” (after the successful German MMP party), a more New Zealand-friendly model. These two were forced into a shotgun marriage by Christian leaders as the “Christian Coalition” that fought a credible first MMP campaign but missed the 5% threshold.

Earlier, Peter Dunne, a de facto National MP in Ohariu-Belmont where the Nats refrained from standing, formed his “Future NZ” party later stealing Lee’s old name “United New Zealand Party.” Ironically, the failed Christian Democrats then adopted Dunne’s cast-off “Future NZ Party.”

Perhaps to avoid further confusion, the two fused in 2000 as the “United Future NZ Party,” later “United Party.” In 2003 ‘Bishop’ Brian Tamaki founded the political wing of his church franchise “Destiny New Zealand,” Christian Heritage wasted away, and United birthed two stillborns: Kiwi Party and Family Party.

But if constant renaming is symptomatic of political minnows trying to expand themselves like electoral puffer fish, their vote results are somewhat deflating. The best chance a dedicated conservative political party has had in NZ was the Christian Coalition campaign in 1996, achieving upward of 9% poll results on the East Coast of the North Island and more votes than the Maori seats combined. But there it has climaxed, and NZ conservative politics collapsed like a CCCP wall in Berlin.

John Stringer is an ex-Anglican pastor from Christchurch, has spent 25 years in NZ politics including a stint with the Conservative Party, London, and lost his home, business, car and job in the 22/2 earthquake.

There has been a varied history of “Christian” parties trying to get into Parliament. As John says, the CCCP is around the ninth to try.

The other part of Labour’s policy is to make KiwiSaver compulsory and lift the employer contribution from 3% to 7%. This is dumb for two reasons.

First of all it removes all flexibility and choice for employees. They may wish to pay their mortgage off rather than pay into KiwiSaver. National’s policy opts then in, but allows them to opt out. Labour will remove any choice from the employee. They may wish to save to start their own business, but Labour knows best and will force them into a default KiwiSaver fund – one which incidentally has the fund fees chew up close to 50% of the income in the first few years.

The decision to lift the employer contribution to 7% flies in the face of their campaign for higher wages, and helping struggling families. Most Labour MPs have never been in business, but let me explain how things work. Employers factor in the total cost of labour when they make hiring and pricing decisions. For example in my business I don’t just work out my labour cost as someone’s hourly rate. I add on 8% for holiday pay, 2% for ACC levy, 2% for KiwiSaver costs. So if someone is on $25 an hour the cost to the employer is really $28.10. One might factor in public holidays and sick leave also.

Now if you lift the employer contribution to 7%, it will mean that pay rises in future will be smaller, because otherwise the total cost of labour gets inflationary. Anyone who thinks this won’t happen, is not an employer I suggest. So what Labour’s policy will mean is that over the next few years employees will earn up to 4% less than otherwise would be the case. No, not every employee, but on average. So this is in fact a policy to reduce wages.

The other impact of their policy will be on jobs. You put up the cost of labour, and there are less jobs. Well in this dimension anyway.

UPDATE: Labour admit their policy will lower wages:

We recognise that the 0.5 per cent annual increase in the employer contribution could be taken into account as part of wage negotiations.

So Labour are officially campaigning for lower wages.

For those who want a break from the election campaign, and are keen on technology in business, ITEX is on on Wednesday 23 November at Sky City. The programme looks superb, but the cost is significant, reflecting that.

Labour’s detailed policy is not online, but according to this Herald report, this may all be a smokes and mirrors policy. Why do I say that? Well the Herald reports:

Mr Goff said Labour recognised for some New Zealanders, to continue working beyond 65 such as those doing physically demanding work and would introduce a “Transition” payment at the same level as NZ Super which could be accessed between the age of 65 and 67.

Now my reading of this is that people aged 65 and 66 will be able to access the payment, which is at the same level as NZ Super. Sothat means they will be getting Superannuation from age 65, just under a different name.

There is a current benefit for those close to retirement, but it is far below the level of superannuation. A transition payment at the same level as NZ Super, is well NZ Super.

Maybe Labour is proposing that superannuation for 65 and 66 year olds be means tested – you only get it, if you are not working or earning below a certain level. If this is the case, then Don Brash will be endorsing their policy even further – means testing and a higher age. For if you are going to means test 65 and 66 year olds, why not 67 and 68 year olds also?

I  also look forward to the reaction from Andrew Little to this policy. Here is what Andrew said in 2010 about raising the age:

Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan’s proposal today to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 is unfair and won’t work, says New Zealand’s largest private sector union, the EPMU.

“In a low wage economy sch as New Zealand shifting more of the burden of superannuation funding onto working people doesn’t make sense,” says EPMU national secretary Andrew Little.

Will the New Plymouth candidate stand by his words?

Also David Cunliffe seems unconvinced:

Labour will keep Super as it is – will National?

Labour is committed to keeping both the current age of eligibility and entitlement level for New Zealand Superannuation, Opposition Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe said today.

“Labour is committed to retaining the age of eligibility at 65 and entitlement at 66% of the average wage,” David Cunliffe said.

That was in 2009.

I’m starting to think No Right Turn is right in his analysis:

its a cynical, calculated ploy to wedge National against their own base while driving voters to Winston, who is Labour’s only hope of government. Winston, of course, will veto any increase as the price of his support, so its an empty threat, purely for show, dishonest as well as evil.

They are desperate to get Winston back in.

UPDATE: Now seen Labour policy here. It confirms they will means test superannuation for 65 and 66 year olds.

The Dom Post has run an op ed from Bob McCoskrie responding to Deborah Russell. An extract:

Firstly, it is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year-old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. A child cannot marry her pet goldfish. A father cannot marry his daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage  the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

I never knew Bob had such a vivid imagination. Think of the great pro-marriage example it would set if the All Blacks all married each other – that would be real team bonding – secret handshakes and all.