The HoS reports:

Kiwi comedian Raybon Kan was under fire last night for linking the Holocaust to All Black sponsor adidas and Auckland’s Rugby World Cup travel woes.

Kan said online: “Maybe adidas should run Auckland public transport. Nice German company. They should know how to load thousands on to trains.”

Heh. It’s bad taste, but most jokes are – just to varying degrees.

Kan said he had not had any complaints. “You’re looking for offence that hasn’t happened. I invite those people to email me,” he said.

So the media have gone off trying to find someone offended.

New Zealand Jewish Council chairman Stephen Goodman said Kan belonged to a generation that had not dealt with the harsh realities of the Holocaust.

“But ignorance is not an excuse to trivialise what happened,” he said.

The Holocaust is the greatest evil of recent generations (and no this is not an invitation to debate that here – use general debate if you must). But I don’t think humour necessarily trivialises it. The target of Raybon’s humour is not Jews, the Holocaust or even Germans, but Adidas.

The Herald on Sunday will forward emails to Raybon Kan. Send your thoughts to: [email protected]

I’d encourage those who don’t think Raybon did anything wrong to also send their thoughts through.

Ireland has beaten Australia 15-6. That’s a massive upset victory.

We now have a second reason to love the Irish – on top of their wonderful accents!

Ireland were probably playing to a more fanatical home crowd than they normally get in Ireland itself! Would have been an amazing game to be at the ground for.

Yesterday

• NZ v Japan 83 – 7. A very reassuring game.

Today

• Argentina 43 v Romania 8
• South Africa v Fiji – no now. Bloody difficult to know who to cheer for. I’ve decided to support the Boks.
• Australia v Ireland – 8.30 pm

Tomorrow

• Wales v Samoa – 3.30 pm. Hoping Samoa do an upset.
• England v Georgia 6.00 pm. All behind Georgia.
• France vs Canada 8.30 pm. Can Canada do it again?

The Telegraph reports:

Brownyn Torrie reports at Stuff:

A decision on Transmission Gully will be made within months, nearly a century after an inland route was first suggested – but tolls are still likely to help fund it.

Environment Minister Nick Smith referred the roading proposal to an independent board of inquiry yesterday under new rules to fast-track projects of national significance.

Dr Smith said the swift process would avoid lengthy delays such as the 17 years it took Wellington’s inner-city bypass to gain approval.

There is still more reform to be done of the RMA, but thank goodness a major project can now be consented in a matter of months rather than years.

The board of inquiry, to be overseen by the Environmental Protection Authority, will decide within nine months whether the project can go ahead as planned.

Construction could start as early as 2015.

Great. Up until this Government, I thought I would never see it in my life-time.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said Transmission Gully would cost just under $1 billion and a toll to contribute to the cost was still likely.

I will happily pay a toll to use the road. All for user-pays.

1. We investigate the debacle last Friday on Auckland’s rail system. We go back two years and count down the series of failures that culminated in last Friday’s chaos.
2. Gerry Brownlee is live with Sean on his return from meeting the reinsurance industry in Monte Carlo and what the outlook is for insurance premiums.
3. Danielle Ross investigates the background to this week’s decision to build the national velodrome in Cambridge and asks whether the huge amount of money we have spent on sporting facilities will make any economic return.
4. Sean interviews the President of the Irish Rugby Union, John Hussey, on why so many Irish rugby supporters have followed their team to NZ for the World Cup.
5. The Sunday Edition Media Panel is Matt Nippert (NBR) and Dennis Shanahan (Political Editor, The Australian).

Saturday 17 /09/11 at 10.30, repeated on Sunday 18/09/11 at 8.30 am on TV3
0830 — TV3

The latest Roy Morgan poll (for the fortnight to 11 September) has National up 5% to 57% and Labour down 3.5% to 26%.

This 31% gap is the biggest in the history of the Roy Morgan poll. The closest was March 2009 when it was 30%.

71 days to go.

Very funny. Radio Waatea reports:

Meanwhile, Labour Party leader Phil Goff says it’s time for a younger man to represent Tamaki Makaurau.

On the weekend Mr Goff launched Shane Jones’ campaign to take the Auckland-based Maori electorate from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.

He says voters are ready for someone fresh.

Yes voters are. Radio Waatea goes on to report:

I think it’s’ time for a younger man and a younger generation to come forward and I think Shane Jones is that man,”

Shane would agree, and not just for Tamaki Makarau

says Mr Goff, who was first elected to parliament 30 years ago.

Can you recall what you were doing in 1981? I was in Form 3/Year 9 and was a member of the stamp collecting club. Phil Goff was a Member of Parliament.

And if you can recall 1981, how about 1969? I don’t recall 1969 as I was two years old. However that was the year Phil Goff joined the Labour Party.

This looks potentially very good. Anyone know if any NZ broadcaster will be showing it?

Hat Tip: Red Alert

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

The woman who accused Labour MP Trevor Mallard and a top public servant of destroying her reputation has won an appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 2007, whistleblower Erin Leigh accused Mallard, then Environment Minister, of defamation.

This was after she raised questions about political interference and alleged former minister David Parker pushed for Clare Curran to be appointed to a communications role with the Ministry.

All three Labour members involved are currently sitting Members of Parliament.

At the time Mallard was asked an oral question on the matter in Parliament and spoke negatively about Leigh.

He told the House she had “repeated competence issues” and said Curran had been appointed to “fix up the mess”.

The Ministry’s then Deputy Secretary Lindsay Gow had been appointed to provide Mallard with written and oral briefings before he answered the question.

Unable to sue Mallard, who was protected by parliamentary privilege, Leigh subsequently sued Gow for defamation.

Gow contended that his written and oral communications to the minister were also covered by absolute privilege and that the claims should therefore be struck out.

But the High Court, Court of Appeal, and now Supreme Court ruled that it was a matter of qualified, not absolute, privilege.

It will be very interesting if this now proceeds to a substantive hearing. Maybe Trevor, David and Clare will have to give evidence?

My David Farrar on Politics column in the Herald is of course on the Rugby World Cup, as it has been the issue of the week.

From the House:

Amy Adams: What progress has been made on Environment Canterbury’s appalling record of resource consent processing, which saw it rated as the worst council in the country in the 2007-08 year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In that year Environment Canterbury processed only 29 percent of consents within the statutory time frames. The latest report shows that there has been a dramatic improvement. Within the last year 92 percent of resource consents have been processed on time. This improvement from 29 percent, when Labour was in Government, to 92 percent now is a real credit to the work of the commissioners and their staff. It is a relief for the thousands of homeowners, businesses, and farmers who have previously been held up by poor processes. With the rebuild of Canterbury it is particularly important that we have efficient resource consent processing, so that we can rebuild Canterbury.

Idiot/Savant blogs at No Right Turn:

Or, to put it another way, turning Canterbury into a dictatorship made the trains (or rather the RMA) run on time. A certain short Italian used the same “justification” for taking over Italy; it wasn’t acceptable then, and its not acceptable now. Government is not about efficiency; it is about control. And one thing is clear: the people of Canterbury now no longer control their regional council.

I disagree. The failures of Environment Canterbury were far more than the trains not running on time. A train operator is not required by law to have the trains run on time.

However Environment Canterbury were required by law to process consents within a statutory time-frame. They failed miserably. Not for one year or two years but for  a decade. Even after ten years they could not produce a water plan.

NZ is a nation of laws. The Government is bound by the law. So are Councils. If a Council year after year is so incompetent it can not meet statutory deadlines, then it is entirely appropriate that the Government sack it for incompetence. This has happened for various School Boards and even territorial authorities in the past.

I support local government being required to obey the law. And I support the sacking of local government bodies when they fail year after year after year in meeting their legal obligations, or even coming close.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Former Greens MP Sue Bradford today confirmed she will stand for the Mana Party in the Auckland electorate of Waitakere against Social Development Minister and sitting National MP Paula Bennett.

That is great news for Paula, as Bradford will split the left vote with Carmel Sepuloni.

Meanwhile, Maori broadcaster Willie Jackson has decided not to stand for Mana in Tamaki Makaurau against Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.

And that is good news for Sharples. I think the risk of him losing was much greater if Jackson stood as Jackson would be competing with Sharples for votes.

He was also concerned he would split the vote in Tamaki Makaurau and enable Labour candidate Shane Jones to win the Maori seat.

And Willie knows Shane is the most right wing Maori MP in Parliament (after Jami-Lee Ross).

I blogged yesterday on how Labour’s policy appears to be keep National Standards, but rename them and don’t give the Government the data. I suspect their policy has not matched their rhetoric as they realise there are so many parents who really appreciate getting a plain language assessment of whether their child is achieving to the level needed to have adequate literacy and numeracy.

A reader has made a useful observation:

Mallard’s big attack has been on moderation. How do you know that school A is judging a child against say the Year 1 Nat Std in the same way as school B is judging a child against the Year 1 Nat Std.

If you accept that is a valid criticism (and Moroney has continued to run it) then Labour does nothing about it.

Labour has said they will “Determine the New Zealand Curriculum level a child is achieving.” But how do they know that two schools will make the same call without moderation. You’ll have to train and trust teachers – as National has suggested we do.

The Union’s support of Labour’s policy only shows that they don’t actually care about the issue of moderation – they just care who is fronting the policy.

So this confirms the moderation argument was always a red herring.

There is a National Standard in reading, writing and maths for each year – Years 1-8.

There are 8 curriculum levels covering children from ages 5 through to the end of high school.

That means there are approximately 4 curriculum levels covering children from Years 1-8.

It means the information is going to be meaningless. If you have a 5 year old child they will be judged against the curriculum level 1. They’ll continue to be judged against that when they’re ages 6 and 7 basically. That means for 2-3 years you’ll get bugger all meaningful information because you are being assessed against the same standard for 2-3 years.

So its national standards lite, with less meaningful standards. What a great triumph for parents and pupils.

Labour seem to almost be embarrassed by the policy. Only two Labour MPs have tweeted about it.  Their website has just a single page on it, there is no post on Red Alert about it and no questions in the House on national standards.

For those who want to follow them, this is the schedule of valedictories:

Tuesday 27 September

5:45pm            Sue Kedgley

Wednesday 28 September

5:30pm            Hon. Mita Ririnui

5:45pm            Keith Locke

Thursday 29 September

5:00pm            Dr Ashraf Choudhary

5:15pm            Hon. Heather Roy

5:30pm            Hon. Sir Roger Douglas

5:45pm            Hon. George Hawkins

Tuesday 4 October

5:15pm            Lynne Pillay

5:30pm            Hon. Pete Hodgson

5:45pm            Hon. Jim Anderton

Wednesday 5 October

5:00pm            Sandra Goudie

5:15pm            Hon. Georgina te Heuheu

5:30pm            Hon. Dr Wayne Mapp

5:45pm            Hon. Simon Power

Hat Tip: Homepaddock

I doubt I’ll attend in person for all of them, but hope to view them all on Sky.

iPredict says:

* Forecast National Party vote slips following World Cup wobbles
* Simon Bridges expected to increase majority in Tauranga while Gerry Brownlee’s majority in Ilam expected to fall
* Gap narrows in Tamaki-Makaurau
* Mana predicted to have just one MP
* Unemployment and growth figures worsen
* Fonterra payout forecasts up

Commentary:

World Cup wobbles appear to have had an effect on John Key’s Government, with National’s forecast party vote share down from 48.0% to 46.5% and the probability Mr Key will be re-elected down from 94% to 93%, this week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict, suggests. Labour’s Shane Jones is still expected to win Tamaki-Makaurau, although the gap to Maori Party Co-Leader Dr Pita Sharples has narrowed, while the Mana Party is now expected to only have one MP elected. In economics, short term forecasts for growth and unemployment have both worsened, while inflation and current account deficit forecasts remain largely unchanged. There has been an increase in Fonterra’s forecast payouts.

Continue reading »

Over at Stuff in my “By the numbers” blog I look at the lack of volatility in the polls currently compared to the previous 12 years. Lots of graphs from a presentation I did this morning.

The ETS Review Panel reported back today. It’s a fair read at 98 pages.

The panel was chaired by David Caygill, who was Labour Party Deputy Leader to Helen Clark. Another members was David Russell, the former head of the Consumer’s Institute. Their mandate was to look at the ETS, to look at what has been happening globally, and to recommend changes to it. And no before you ask, their mandate wasn’t to look at the science.

The ETS was passed into law by Labour in 2008 and it was amended by National in 2009. The major event since then was the collapse of the Copenhagen talks and the growing probability that there will be no binding post-2012 Kyoto type agreement.

The dates sectors have or will enter the ETS is currently:

• Jan 2008 – forestry
• Jul 2010 – liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy, industrial processes
• Jan 2013 – waste, synthetic greenhouse gas sectors
• Jan 2015 – agriculture

At present there is a 2:1 subsidy so that a business can buy two carbon credits for the price of one. This was a temporary measure to reduce the immediate impact on petrol prices and power prices. The panel recommends that this phase out by 2015. This would mean petrol would rise over four years by around 3c/litre and power would go up around 3% over the next four years (beyond any other price increases), Note that AFAIK Labour’s policy is to stop the subsidy immediately which would have those price increases occur all at once next year.

There is also a price cap carbon credits of $25. The price cap gives price certainty to businesses and consumers but if set too low doesn’t provide enough of an incentive to reduce emissions. They recommend the cap increase by $5/year. That does not mean the market price will be that high. I think the current price is around NZ$19.

I thought the panel might advise that agriculture not enter in as scheduled in 2015, however they say it should still enter. Their reports says:

For agriculture, the Panel has noted submitters’ concerns that the sector lacks abatement options. However, based on evidence it has heard from stakeholders, the Panel believes the options available to the sector are sufficient to enable surrender obligations to begin in 2015, as currently legislated. Under the current allocation regime, the obligation on agriculture’s biological emissions will essentially be intensity based (emissions per unit of product), and the sector has shown an ability to decrease emissions intensity year‐on‐year. The ETS will increase incentives for emissions‐intensity improvements.

However they do recommend two changes for the agricultural sector:

The Panel strongly believes the point of obligation for agriculture should be at the farmer level, rather than the processor level as currently legislated, as this will ensure those who are best able to reduce their emissions are motivated to do so. The Panel supports the work of the Agricultural ETS Advisory Committee as it explores the practicality of doing this.

Makes sense to have the costs and incentives apply to individual farms, but very hard to manage in a practical sense.

Given that agriculture’s entry into the ETS will mean it will not be able to benefit from the one-for‐two obligation as it phases out, the Panel recommends the sector benefits from a one‐for-two obligation for the first two years after it enters the ETS (i.e. 2015 and 2016). This surrender obligation should then be phased out over the subsequent three years, consistent with those sectors already in the ETS.

This will give the agriculture sector more time to adjust to a carbon price and to take up abatement options. The Panel notes that, combined with free allocation of NZUs, the agriculture sector would face an obligation equivalent to only 5 per cent of biological emissions for the first two years after entering the ETS.

So basically soften the impact for the first five years.

I predict Labour and the Greens will decry the report as watering down the ETS and how we will be seen as evil polluters if we adopt the review’s recommendations.

And likewise I am sure ACT will campaign against agriculture even entering the ETS. There is some potential for ACT to gain votes with Don Nicolson campaigning on this issue.