Photo from The Press.

I wonder how much Air New Zealand paid for the advertising!

A song for Christchurch. Nice.

Ryan Malone blogs on the MMP referendum:

Is the MMP referendum shaping up to be a big fat non-event?

Electoral reform was a big deal back in the early 90s when the two referenda were held. The protagonists argued their case in the media and waged extensive advertising campaigns. It was an old school fight, with threats and personal insults. Those were the days.

With the indicative 2011 referendum fast approaching, we’re yet to see anything remotely close to those lofty heights. Why?

One explanation is that people just don’t care. For some, this is no doubt true. They couldn’t give a toss one way or the other. But this is too simple (and boring) an explanation.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the anti-MMP campaign just hasn’t turned up to the fight. As an objective observer with no connection to either camp, in my view the pro-MMP group (fronted by Sandra Grey) has made all the running in terms of media and advertising, while the anti-MMP group (fronted by Jordan Williams) is badly lagging. To give but one example, in the Wairarapa (where I live), the pro-MMP group has been running a weekly column in the local newspapers for some time. There is a prominent sign on State Highway 2 urging people to retain MMP. And from the anti-MMP group? Nothing as far as I can see. Not a peep.

There is a significant mismatch of resources, combined with a near total lack of coverage by the media.

The Vote for Change group is the only group I know of advocating for change. Those lined up to advocate for MMP are:

1. Greens
2. CTU
3. NZDWU
4. SFWU
5. NZEI
6. NZNO
7. NDU
8. Campaign for MMP
9. NZ Aged Care Assn
10. Labour
11. RMTU
12. MUNZ

No business group has lined up to register, and no political party that supports change. So the only voice for change is a one small incorporated society against eight unions, two political parties, one lobby group and the dedicated Campaign for MMP.

Now this wouldn’t be so much of an issue, if the media were doing full or half page stories on the five electoral systems, and the pros and cons of each. But they are not. And the broadcasters have done nothing much to date as far as I can see.

This referendum is probably the last one for 50+ years on the  basic electoral system. It will be a shame if it is a decision by default, rather than informed choice.

Why has National decided to keep to the sidelines in the referendum? Probably for the same reason, business groups have. They know that opponents of change will often play the man, not the ball, and call them undemocratic and power mad etc.

My hope is that coverage of the referendum will improve in the days ahead. But I suspect it is too late. After the RWC, most attention in the next five weeks will be on the election rather than the referendum. I think the debates and the media coverage should have started around January of this year.

A nice profile of Wellington in the New York Times:

IT was a Saturday night in Wellington, New Zealand, and the denizens of Cuba Street were proving that the ’80s aren’t dead. A performance group decked out in unitards, Lycra G-strings, leg warmers and fluorescent wigs was dancing almost in rhythm to tunes like “Pour Some Sugar on Me” and “Like a Virgin,” occasionally inspiring the crowd to join in. Farther down Cuba Street, clutches of the young and restless spilled out along the pedestrian mall on their way from bar to restaurant to cafe, many ending up at nightspots like the Matterhorn to catch the latest hot D.J. from Ireland or Ethiopia. In the middle of the mall, one of the city’s signature landmarks, the Bucket Fountain, dropped water from one bucket to another and onto passers-by, causing them to shriek and jump into one another’s arms to dodge the spray.  …

Back on Cuba Street while the dance troupe was still shaking those leg warmers, we struck up a conversation with a truck driver who paints and a construction worker who makes films. (In the less-modest United States, they’d be a painter who drives a truck and a filmmaker who works construction.) Both avowed that Wellington was by far the most avant-garde city in all of New Zealand, and to prove it, they decided to find us the kind of cool bar that could be found only here.

First, they tried Havana Bar off a side street in two connected colorful, Cuban-style shacks, but despite its lively atmosphere and available tables our friends immediately pronounced it “dead.” We finally ended up at a place called Mighty Mighty, where the band was playing psychobilly rock. We perused the drinks menu, which was hidden in a vintage record sleeve, and observed the wildly decked-out patrons, some dressed in afro wigs and others in lederhosen.

My wife and I looked at each other, and then at our impromptu guides, their point well and truly made: Wellington is cool. We get it now.

It is indeed the coolest little capital city in the world.

In terms of other capitals, I do love Washington DC. Canberra is probably the most boring. London is cool also.

No matches until Wednesday but some great games yesterday.

• Australia 32 v Italy 6
• Ireland 22 v USA 10
• South Africa 17 v Wales 16

The US are only the 18th ranked team in the world, and I thought they played a great game. Credit to Ireland for the win though.

And oh we were all Welsh last night. They came so close. James Hook almost won it for them.

An interesting 2004 essay on income inequality, sent in by a reader. Worth taking time to read the whole thing. Some extracts:

When people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it best tend to be far better than everyone else. There’s a huge gap between Leonardo and second-rate contemporaries like Borgognone. You see the same gap between Raymond Chandler and the average writer of detective novels. A top-ranked professional chess player could play ten thousand games against an ordinary club player without losing once.

Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very specialized skill. But for some reason we treat this skill differently. No one complains when a few people surpass all the rest at playing chess or writing novels, but when a few people make more money than the rest, we get editorials saying this is wrong.

Also we only treat it as wrong when people earn their wealth through business.  We celebrate someone who gains a million dollars through Lotto, but denounce the CEO paid a million dollar salary.

It may seem unlikely in principle that one individual could really generate so much more wealth than another. The key to this mystery is to revisit that question, are they really worth 100 of us? Would a basketball team trade one of their players for 100 random people? What would Apple’s next product look like if you replaced Steve Jobs with a committee of 100 random people? [6] These things don’t scale linearly. Perhaps the CEO or the professional athlete has only ten times (whatever that means) the skill and determination of an ordinary person. But it makes all the difference that it’s concentrated in one individual.

Rob Fyfe is a local example of a CEO who is easily worth more than a million dollars a year to Air New Zealand. Ralph Norris was another.

I remember very vividly when in 1985 improved technology made it possible for me to buy a computer of my own. Within months I was using it to make money as a freelance programmer. A few years before, I couldn’t have done this. A few years before, there was no such thing as a freelance programmer. But Apple created wealth, in the form of powerful, inexpensive computers, and programmers immediately set to work using it to create more.

As this example suggests, the rate at which technology increases our productive capacity is probably polynomial, rather than linear. So we should expect to see ever-increasing variation in individual productivity as time goes on. Will that increase the gap between rich and the poor? Depends which gap you mean.

Technology should increase the gap in income, but it seems to decrease other gaps. A hundred years ago, the rich led a different kind of life from ordinary people. They lived in houses full of servants, wore elaborately uncomfortable clothes, and travelled about in carriages drawn by teams of horses which themselves required their own houses and servants. Now, thanks to technology, the rich live more like the average person.

Would you rather have people with the incomes of 100 years ago, even if they were more equal?

 One often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would increase the income gap between rich and poor. As if it were an axiom that this would be bad. It might be true that increased variation in income would be bad, but I don’t see how we can say it’s axiomatic.

Indeed, it may even be false, in industrial democracies. In a society of serfs and warlords, certainly, variation in income is a sign of an underlying problem. But serfdom is not the only cause of variation in income. A 747 pilot doesn’t make 40 times as much as a checkout clerk because he is a warlord who somehow holds her in thrall. His skills are simply much more valuable.

I’d like to propose an alternative idea: that in a modern society, increasing variation in income is a sign of health. Technology seems to increase the variation in productivity at faster than linear rates. If we don’t see corresponding variation in income, there are three possible explanations: (a) that technical innovation has stopped, (b) that the people who would create the most wealth aren’t doing it, or (c) that they aren’t getting paid for it.

We should be very careful with what we wish for.

Certain lobby groups and MPs would have you believe that since the alcohol purchase age was lowered in 1999, many more young people are drinking alcohol.

But an Auckland University study of 9,000 high school students has found the following changes from 2001 to 2007:

• Students who have never drunk alcohol increased from 18% to 28%
• Students who do not currently drink alcohol increased from 30% to 39%
• Of students who currently drink alcohol, those who have not had a drink in the last four weeks went from 22% to 24%
• Of students who drink alcohol, the proportion saying friends gave it to them dropped from 62% to 53%
• Those asked for ID when purchasing rose from 44% to 61%
• Those who were a passenger with a driver who has had over two drinks dropped from 29% to 24%

So remind me again why MPs are lining up like lemmings to increase the purchase age to 20?

The survey does show some negative increases, such as the proportion who binge drink, but that reinforces why the approach should be to target problem drinkers, not criminalise every 18 and 19 year old in the country.

How fascinating. At the Greens website:

Sign up for email notifications about when political blogs mention our MPs names and Green issues! These timely notifications will enable you to respond quickly enough to be among the first commenters, ensuring high visibility for our views and perspectives.

Personally I find this close to astro-turfing, that fake activism which appears to be grass-roots but is centrally arranged.

I welcome commenters of all persuasions and we have many Green voters comment here, such as Toad. but I’d rather not have people who don’t normally contribute rush over just to post comments about how great the Greens are or the like. I prefer people to response because they have read something they want to comment on – not because Green HQ has notified them do go and post supportive comments.

UPDATE: A reader has sent me this (since deleted) showing Labour trying to do much the same in 2009 with the Trade Me forums.

I, George Nepia is on at Circa for another six days until 16 September.

Now if you don’t know who George Nepia is you’re probably not one of those watching the Rugby World Cup. Nepia played for NZ is both rugby union and league. He is most remembered for playing all 32 games on the 1924 of the UK, and the All Blacks winning all 32 games, leading to their nickname of “The Invincibles”.

They beat Ireland 6-0, Wales 19-0, England 17-11 and France 30-6. Nepia was aged only 19, and his auto-biography on which the play is based revealed his doubts on the boat over whether he could live up to such legends as the Brownlie brothers.

He did. Some called him the first global superstar of rugby. Some say he remains the best fullback in history. The South African Rugby Union made him a Vice-President for life in in Wales just before his death, he got a a standing ovation from 30,000 Welsh in Swansea.

The play was written by Hone Kouka and Jarod Rawiri played Nepia. He was an inspired choice, both with a certain physical resemblance, but also with his ability to capture the emotions of Nepia.

Rawiri plays both the older Nepia (in fact technically the dead Nepia) and the younger Nepia. He takes you through not just the rugby tour but the story of his life.

Director Jason Te Kare turned the script into a moving play. The story flowed nicely, and the play was almost too short at just 75 minutes.

This won’t be a play for everyone. It’s not a comedy or a thriller. If you have never heard of George Nepia, then it might not be something that works for you. But if you have heard of the invincible George Nepia, and want to see a good portrayal of the man behind the rugby player, then you’ve got six days left to do so.

I doubt there will ever be another day I can recall as graphically as 9/11. My birthday was the previous night (I was born on 11 September, but in NZ of course the attacks happened on 12 September NZST) so I had just been asleep for a couple of hours when a friend from the UK texted me telling me to switch on the TV as a plane has flown into the World Trade Centre.

I switched on CNN and spent three hours transfixed watching the towers get hit and then eventually collapse. To the end of my days, I will recall those awful scenes of human beings on the upper levels of the twin towers jumping to a quick death rather than face a certain slower death.

Within an hour it seemed half of New Zealand was awake – or at least half of my friends. We were texting and talking to each other in disbelief, and even then with some anger about who had done this.

Around 5 am I headed into work at Parliament. Most of the day we did nothing but watch the televisions. Around 7 am though I had an idea. I went to our NZPA/Reuters feed. Normally I set it to NZ Politics, but swapped it over to International General. This covers stories from anywhere in the world which may be of interest to New Zealanders.

I scrolled back five hours looking for the very first story on the attacks, and found it. A one sentence story that just reported a plane had how one of the WTC towers. A couple more bland stories followed and then the all important story reporting a second plane had hit the WTC, turning it from a possible accident to a certain attack. I read every story of those first few hours, as each new detail unfolded with horror.

So much has been written about the attacks, and how the world changed that day (and it did). But my thoughts remain of the 3,000 souls who perished. They were not part of any war. They were not in a war zone. They were just you and me – people at work, plus of course the brave fire fighters and police officers who died trying to rescue others.

And such a terrible blow at New York itself. You see New York is not really an American city, it is a global city. We have three global cities – New York, London and Hong Kong. They may be physically part of the US, UK and China but they are global hub cities, with workers from scores and scores of different countries.

I recall the inevitable black humour that emerged within hours. Maps showing a lake where Afghanistan used to be.  I also recall Yasser Arafat donating blood to help the American Red Cross out, Australia declaring under the ANZUS Treaty that they stand ready to help the US strike back, as was NATO under the NATO Treaty.

At the time the US was not engaged in any significant overseas wars. And it is long forgotten, but Bush had been an isolationist President. He was actually sceptical of US even getting involved in former Yugoslavia. I worry that tomorrow’s students will regard 9/11 as a response to Iraq and Afghanistan, when in reality it was the other way around.

Iraq is highly debatable, but few would dispute that the US couldn’t allow this attack on their homeland to pass without those responsible being held accountable. International law clearly allows you to strike back after you have been attacked. The notion that all the US could do was send polite letters to the Taliban asking for those responsible to be extradited was farcical. The US did of course ask the Taliban to hand over those responsible, but they refused.

But despite that I recall how the Greens organised a protest march for later that week. Not to protest the slaughter of 3,000 civilians. But to protest against the United States responding. I was outraged and angered. In my mind they were the latter day Neville Chamberlains. but worse than that, the timing was so appalling. The death toll was still rising daily, and these people were marching against the United States, not against the terrorists. They were marching on Parliament and I was determined that a message go out that not all Kiwis hated the US. So I managed to arrange a US flag. Not a normal size one, but the largest one my “supplier” could locate – off memory it was 60 feet long. When the protest arrived at Parliament we unfurled the flag from our balcony. It was so huge it needed half a dozen of us.

Sadly it only got to stay up for a few minutes as some tosser from (off memory) Marian Hobbs’ office complained to the Speaker, and he sent security to make us take it down.

Anyway 10 years on, and the world has changed forever. Apart from anything else, air travel will never be the same again. Osama bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda much weakened. Somewhat remarkably they have not managed another successful attack inside America again.

I often wonder what would have happened if 9/11 had not occurred. Bush may have stayed an isolationist and who knows how this may ave affected his presidency. He may have ended up a one term President, or he may have ended up a less controversial two term President.

But it is too easy to focus on the big global aspects of 9/11. Today my thoughts and memories are on the 2,977 who died in the attacks (excluding the hijackers) and their families. Special thoughts to the 100 or so nine year olds who were born after their fathers died in 9/11.

The other strong memory is the brave passengers and crew of United Flight 93. They knew their actions would probably lead to their deaths. Logically they knew they would probably die anyway, but it still takes courage to rush armed hijackers – not to save your life, but to save others. Thanks to them, the plane did not reach Washington DC.

Horribly, it might not have made DC anyway. Two F16s had been ordered to intercept it. But they did not have time to arm the jets, so if it were not for the passengers, the F16s would have had to ram the 757 which would have have been a terrible (yet necessary) act.

Adam Dudding interviews John Key at length. Some interesting aspects:

The most recent film John Key enjoyed was The King’s Speech, in which a renegade Australian speech therapist saves King George VI’s bacon by nursing him through his stammer.

There was a time when the prime minster thought about trying to change his own speech – with all its mashed consonants and absent syllables. He isn’t quite sure why he garbles his words, but suspects it has something to do with being raised by an Austrian.

“My mother had an incredibly strong accent – although I couldn’t hear it – and she was the main person there, so I’ll have learnt to speak English from her.” It could also be because he’s rushing to get his words out.

But despite the media jabs, in the end he decided it wasn’t worth trying to change how he talks.

Good. Keep it real.

“If you’re dealing with tragedy you learn very quickly that you don’t actually confirm someone has died or that the number of deaths are a certain number, till you’re absolutely sure that number’s right.”

Such as February 22 in Christchurch. “I didn’t lightly say ‘We’ve lost at least 65 people’ on that night,” says Key. The number came from the police, “but I also knew that if it was terribly, terribly wrong – if it was, say, 10 people – I thought, well, I’ll have to go as prime minister.”

You what? It seems after Key had announced that death toll and was heading for bed, officials came back and “they said, ‘Oh, we’re not quite sure exactly now’.

“I remember waking up and thinking, if it’s 10 [people] in the morning, I’ll resign. Just because you can’t mislead the country.”

It would be a horrible thing to contemplate – not the resignation, but that you may have given a death toll which was massively over-stated.

“In the 24-7 blitzkrieg of the media, eventually they’ll tire of every politician, and I’m not unique in that regard. So the things they like about me, I think you have to accept, over time they won’t like so much about me.

“It’s easy to form a view that every time a journalist writes something bad about you it’s because they’re just against you, and they’re just a puppet for the opposition. You can build up these fiefdoms and prejudices.”

These are the defence mechanisms a politician develops as his government collects “a few barnacles and scars”. But the risk of building those is “you’re not actually honest with yourself about whether you’re right or wrong”.

So Key has a once-only policy. “I only watch something once or read something once.” Reading the nice stuff three times, or avoiding the nasty stuff completely, is against the rules.

Not a bad policy. I’m a bit different. I rarely read the nasty stuff about me, unless it is from someone I have some respect for.

“No one believed me, but I was absolutely convinced that on election night 2008, if Peters held the balance of power, I was going to ring Clark and say `it’s all yours’. Because I knew I might be able to put together a government – vaguely – but it would never last. He’s never lasted. Every prime minster has sacked him in the end – it’s just dysfunctional.”

Worth remembering the likely alternate Government is Labour/Greens/NZ First/Mana.

I’m going to do a RWC post every day, so those interested can discuss and dissect outside of General Debate.

Results from 10 September:

• France 47 – Japan 21
• Scotland 34 – Romania 24
• England 13 – Argentina 9
• Fiji 49 – Namibia 25

For me the highlight was Romania playing so well, and coming so close to an upset. Would have loved to have seen Argentina win also.

Today’s Matches:

• 3.30 pm – Australia v Italy
• 6.00 pm – Ireland v USA
• 8.30 pm – South Africa v Wales

Today we are all Welsh Italians!

Would also love to see USA win – not because Ireland is a threat, but for obvious sentimental reasons.

The NZ Herald reports on the Pacific Forum:

McCully has been up to his elbows in the detail of organisation, making Helen Clarks’ micro-management style look like neglect.

Heh that is such a great quote. Mind you Murray will like the previous sentence:

The diplomatic corps has been wildly complimentary about the forum. “Spectacular” one described it yesterday – both in terms of organisation and diplomatic opportunities.

MFAT will be relieved. A happy McCully is a relatively benign McCully.

Normally 41-10 is a good result, but the three previous times NZ played Tonga the average margin was 74 points, not 31. To be fair Tonga has got better over the years, and are now ranked No 12 in the world.

There are four matches on today:

1. Scotland v Romania 1.00 pm
2. Fiji v Namibia 3.30 pm
3. France v Japan 6.00 pm
4. Argentina v England 8.30 pm

Scotland is ranked no 7 and Romania no 17, so I’m picking Scotland.

Likewise I’d call Fiji to beat Namibia. Mind you if I was at the game, I’d cheer for Namibia.

I doubt anyone expects Japan to beat France (in fact you can’t , but hell if they do we’ll allow them to hunt all the whales they want 🙂

The big clash should be Argentina v England. They should put the Falklands up as the prize 🙂

From the Wall Street Journal.

These are not of course all Obama’s fault. But it shows the challenge he will face with re-election. At present his best advantage is the comparative weakness of the Republican contenders.

Magnificent, simply magnificent. It blew me away. World class beyond doubt.

I loved it all, but was especially intrigued by the women doing a haka as it is such a rare sight.

The Pacific and the World Cup
1. Narelle Suisted’s report on the Pacific Forum including exclusive interviews with the Foreign Minister of the Solomon Islands, Nauru and the Palestinian and Luxembourg delegations —Why does the Pacific matter and what next for Fiji.
2. Sean Plunket is with Foreign Minister Murray McCully on the Pacific and New Zealand then the Minister transforms himself into Rugby World Cup Minister and we talk about the only thing everyone else is talking about and what’s really in it for NZ.
3. The Sunday Edition Media Panel is Spiro Zavos (ex Muldoon biographer, journalist on The Dominion, The Sydney Morning Herald and author of Awa Press’s “How to Watch Rugby”) and Dave Robie from AUT’s Pacific Media Centre.

Screening on 10/09/11 – 1030  and 11/09/11 – 0830 – TV3

I’ve done a brief guest post on Roger Kerr’s blog on the youth minimum wage.

It is inexplicable that National has continued with what can only be called the failed experiment of applying the adult minimum wage to unskilled inexperienced 16 year olds who want to gain some work experience.

For those interested, below are the two reports from the pro-Hubbard camp, arguing he was treated unfairly.

Continue reading »

In my Stuff blog, I look at the cost and costs of alcohol. An extract:

Another key area of controversy is advertising. Some advocate that alcohol advertising and sponsorship should be totally banned. This would mean that Tui billboards would be illegal, and that Brancott Estate would no longer be able to sponsor the World of Wearable Arts show in Wellington. The Government has said it will not ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship, but this decision may change depending on the makeup of Parliament after the election. Do you think an advertising ban would result in young people not drinking, and if so would be worthwhile? Or do you think banning Tui billboards is a step too far?

The full blog is at Stuff, and you can comment there.