Yvette pointed this out:

Sharples or Brash “You once again bring the Maori people’s aspirations into contempt and ridicule. Your views are not only inaccurate and ill-founded, but are totally out of tune with middle New Zealand’s ideals and aspirations for our country.”

Harawira on Brash “Your attempts to boost Act in the polls by riding on the xenophobic fears of Joe Bloggs in the street will not work this time round.”

I thought that was a great contrast. The Maori Party believe the “average” New Zealander shares their aspirations for Maori, while the Mana Party believes the average New Zealander is racist.

I think that difference in world view goes to the heart of why Hone left the Maori Party.

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key should not accept “racist” Act Party ads and has questions to answer, the Green Party says.

ACT has sparked controversy running an ad featuring the Maori sovereignty flag headlined “Fed up with pandering to Maori Radicals?” It lists what ACT saw as National Party concessions to Maori. These ranged from the foreshore legislation to the spelling of Whanganui.

Green co-leader Russel Norman said Mr Key accepted ACT as a support partner.

“They’re his coalition partner, does he support the racist campaign they are running?” he told NZPA.

What stupidity from Norman. These are ads that ACT are running against National. Of course the PM doesn’t agree with them.  Only a moron would think he does. The ads are attacking him personally.

But ACT are allowed to campaign against National, just as Greens campaign against Labour. It is called being different parties.

Dene Mackenzie in the ODT reports:

BNZ economist Stephen Toplis wants the Government’s policy-makers to get a better understanding of the way the nation’s labour market is working.

“There’s a lot of wild and woolly stuff going on that is raising significant question marks over whether the necessary labour supply is available to meet New Zealand’s ongoing growth needs.” Policy-makers at both Treasury and the Reserve Bank would need a deep understanding of the labour market to set the ground rules, he said.

There had been a disproportionate rise in the nation’s youth unemployment rate for workers aged 15 to 19 years, which was now a “staggering” 27.5%, and the next age group – 20 to 24 years – had a rate of 13.5%.

Workers over 25 – who could be seen as a proxy for “skilled workers” – had a rate of just 4.6%, lower than the 6.3% peak level for that age group in 1998 and 8.5% in 1992.

On average, the youth unemployment rate had been 11.8 percentage points higher than the non-youth rate since 1986, but by March this year that difference had climbed to 21.9 percentage points.

So what happened? Labour and Greens got rid of youth rates, and National has not put them back.

Between the peak in youth employment at the end of 2007 and now there were 50,500 fewer workers in the 15-19 year age group, a fall of 31.6%, even though there had been an increase of 2400 in the total number of people employed.

“The oldies are on the march … it’s an oldies takeover.”

Youth rates were abolished in 2008, and there are now 50,000 less teenagers in work. This might be the worst case of putting ideology over pragmatism we have seen in terms of adverse consequences.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

The Maori Party has rejected a proposed deal by the newly-formed Mana Party not to stand against each other in the Maori electorates at this year’s general election. …

The issue was discussed by the Maori Party’s national council in Huntly at the weekend. It later issued a statement saying “no deal”.

President Pem Bird said there was a strong message from the party’s membership that it should remain loyal to the people of Tai Tokerau by continuing to build its presence in the electorate.

“We had a large contingent from Te Tai Tokerau with us at the hui… Our brothers and sisters of Te Tai Tokerau led us to an emphatic conclusion that we would not sacrifice their seat for what might be seen as political opportunism and expediency.

“Basically the message we received loud and clear, was no deal.”

A principled but naive decision. Labour’s chances of winning Te Tai Tonga and Tamaki Makauru off the Maori Party have to be improved if the Mana Party stands in those seats.

There is a risk that the Maori Party could be reduced to two seats after the election.

Labour says:

The Electoral Commission advised the Labour Party late yesterday that it believes the party breached the recently-amended Electoral Act over the party’s Stop Asset Sales Flyer, says Labour spokesperson Grant Robertson.

This is no surprise. It was an obvious election advertisement. It is important to realise that it would also have been deemed an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act and the pre-EFA Electoral Act.

Grant Robertson says there is no suggestion Labour has breached the use of Parliamentary resources or taxpayer funding, but the Commission is concerned that the words “authorised by” were not included in an explicit promoter statement.

A red herring. The Electoral Commission is concerned with the Electoral Act, not parliamentary funding. It is correct that up until 26 August the ad can be funded out of Labour’s parliamentary budget, but that is not the issue.

“Labour had taken the view that the flyer was not an election advertisement under the Act, in part because it had received prior authorization from the Parliamentary Service for its publication”, Grant Robertson said.

I’m sorry but this is just bullshit, and it is the same bullshit Labour have pushed since 2005. In 2005 Labour justified their over-spending by claiming they thought the law meant if it was taxpayer funded it was not an election advertisement. They were wrong then, and they were wrong now. But this is not a mistake, made in ignorance. They have been told dozens of times this is not the law. They had MPs sit on the select committee that considered the law. The Electoral Commission has stated in big bold letters multiple times that something may be an election advertisement even if taxpayer funded.

So this is not an accidental breach of the law. This is a continuation of six years of arrogance that they are above the law. Look the breach is a minor one, but the principle is an important one.

The new law even allows a party to get an opinion from the Electoral Commission on whether a particular advertisement is an election advertisement and needs authorisation. This is a free service. Labour chose not to get an opinion and chose to break the law.

This is why the Police should finally do something they have never ever done before – and prosecute Labour for one of the electoral law breaches. It is a minor breach and it should be a fine only, but how on earth can you expect others to obey the law when Labour consistently get away with breaking it.

David Fisher at the Hos reports:

The marketing guru behind the Iwi/Kiwi billboards and the new Act Party adverts has attacked “white cowards” for not standing up against the “Maorification” of the country.

Act Party creative director John Ansell said Maori were taking advantage of New Zealand’s fear of appearing racist and he wanted the Act Party to speak out.

I agree with John that one should be able to say you think the Maori seats are a bad idea, and not be called racist. But likewise one should be able to say all teachers should know basic te reo, and also not be called racist.

He said: “These guys (Maori) have gone from the stone age to the space age in 150 years and haven’t said thanks. That’s the nature of the thing. In Maori world, if one tribe conquers another you eat the guys eyeballs. The Brits were pretty civilised by that standard.”

And Germany 70 years ago was trying to exterminate entire races. Not quite sure the relevance.

But last night, Brash distanced himself from Ansell’s “extreme statements”.

“I don’t want to associate myself with those kind of views at all,” he said.

Asked if Ansell would continue as an employee, Brash said a decision on that would be made today and “may already have been made”.

Sounds like it has been made indeed.

Brash and Ansell were supposed to be sharing a stage in Palmerston North yesterday but the creative director pulled out citing problems with the party.

Ansell said “white cowards” were scared to “tell the truth about this Maori issue”.

“If you don’t agree with the Maori radical perspective you’re branded a racist.”

Again, that is wrong, but so is calling people racist for saying teachers should have to learn te reo. Personally I think emotive terms such as racist should generally be reserved for those who clearly are – such as the National Front.

Ansell said Boscawen had interfered with the creative direction of the adverts because “John wants to be popular” and the polarising line was likely to attract the label “racist”.

“When push comes to shove I can’t do my job the way I want to do it. If you’ve got a creative director then the creative director should direct the creative. Not the fundraiser. Not the deputy. I’ve asked them to work out who decides these things.”

My experience with political parties are that politicians are very loath to surrender creative control of the campaign to staff, as it is the party’s brand and the politician’s brands that get associated with the advertisements – not the staff’s.

Ansell said Act should be polarising debate with 20 per cent of the public having the potential to vote for the party.

“It’s a men’s party. I can’t get them to agree to that but it’s a party for men and women who think like men.

I’d be fascinated to hear why ACT is not a party for women who think like women.

This week’s Herald Politics quiz is here.

Got 8/10 in 50 seconds.

MaoriRadicals

So what do people think of the advertisement? I would have thought ACT would be focusing more on Labour’s proposed capital gains tax, but eaach to their own.

Jessica Tasman-Jones at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has indicated he supports looking at the legislation surrounding euthanasia.

”That’s because I think, while it’s a sensitive issue that you would have to make sure was properly covered, I think there have also been some tragic cases where we have seen people before the courts where they have [assisted in euthanasia] at the will of the person they have ended their lives for,” he told the Family First forum in Auckland today.

Secretary of Voluntary Euthanasia New Zealand Pat Hubbard said Key’s comments were ”extraordinarily good news” for the ”death with dignity” group.

You certainly do need strong safeguards, if you legalise euthanasia. But it is the right thing to do. People should be able to decide to end their lives, if they are rational and they have little or no quality of life. Hence those who assist, should not be made into criminals for doing so.

My God. I almost missed Friday.

1. Went to bed just before midnight Thursday
2. Woke up and looked outside. Puzzled that it appeared to be dark
3. Opened curtains and again puzzled that it is dark as it doesn’t feel like 6 am
4. Check alarm clock and it says 9.30. I can’t work out how it can be dark at 930. I suspect flatmate has played a joke and changed my clock time.
5. Grab ipad and it also says 930. Start to wonder about solar eclipses
6. Turn on 24 hour clock for ipad, and then realise that it is 9.30 pm not 9.30 am.
7. Wonder if I have ever slept for 22 hours before, without alcohol being involved
8. Conclude working rather than sleeping on return flights from London was a bad idea
9. Now wondering how on earth I can fall asleep in two hours or so, to get back to a normal sleeping pattern.

One of the benefits if having a new flatmate is you get to see new TV shows. I’ve just watched for the first time the Chawner family, who feature as the laziest and fattest family in the UK, and Lorraine Kelly’s efforts to change their lives.

Having now watched one episode, all I can say is I no longer support universal suffrage.

I’ve blogged at Stuff on how much money might be raised by a capital gains tax on investment property only.

This is on tonight. I’ve set the My Sky.

I’ve been a happy customer of Powershop for several years. I’ve recruited dozens of customers for them, and even swapped my business over a year or so ago.

I’ve saved a lot of money with them as they have no fixed fees – you just pay for the power you use. I have also reduced my energy use as the pricing and usage has been more transparent.

But I am for the first time unhappy. The cost of power to my work premises has shot up around 30% to around 33c/unit. In May it was 25c/unit.

I know that prices go up in winter – that is part of the model. But never did I think it would hit 33c/unit which is outraegously high.

Interestingly the charge for my domestic power has not gone up – they are at 25c still. Normally the domestic and commercial rates have been very close to each other – within 1c/unit or so. I don’t see what has happened that would push commercial rates up 30% in two months except price gouging.

I did e-mail Powershop about this, and just got the standard reply:

Please be aware that our pricing fluctuates through the year and as such winter is the highest for the year and we drop to Summer which is our lowest pricing for the year.

I’ve been with Powershop for some time. The differences between summer and winter in past years has been a few cents only. For example July 2010 was 23c and Dec 2010 was 21c.

I still think I am getting a good deal with my residential account. But I don’t regard a 30% increase in my commercial account as justified. I also don’t see why there should be such a difference between their commercial and residential rates. The two buildings (for me) are located next door to each other.

If the prices remains so high for the commercial premises, I’ll be looking around.

Hamish Rutherford at the Dom Post reports:

iPredict, the futures dealer owned by Victoria University is revising its fees structure following threats of a user exodus.

Last month iPredict announced a new structure to help cover its costs. The company admitted the fees would penalise small traders, with costs of at least $30 a year.

While iPredict has thousands of traders registered, and expects a pickup in the run up to this year’s election, only around 100 traders have more than $500 in the market at present.

Users with less than $100 in their accounts, believed to represent most iPredict traders, would quickly see their investment eroded under the proposals.

The announcement resulted in hundreds of complaints on its website, with even some of iPredict’s largest users threatening to quit the site because of the resulting fall in liquidity which the fee structure might cause.

This afternoon iPredict has announced that its board had decided to ditch a monthly $2.50 fee, as well as a $2.50 sign up fee.

There is no doubt iPredict had to change its fee structure. Their only fee had been a 2% withdrawal fee which meant traders like myself who have never withdrawn funds, have never paid a cent to iPredict.

However the proposed monthly flat fee would have been unfair to smaller traders.

“Our traders have suggested that the flat rate fees would deter small account holders who are important for market liquidity, so the board decided to eliminate those fees,” iPredict chief executive Matt Burgess said.

Instead of the monthly fees, iPredict will push ahead with a transaction fee of $0.0035 per share traded, capped at $5 a month, as well as a credit card fee on deposits, and a 2 per cent fee on all profits withdrawn from the site.

“The new fees structure is a better fit with how traders use iPredict, it encourages liquidity, and we anticipate the new structure will raise around the same revenue as the alternative,” Mr Burgess said.

A third of a cent fee per share traded seems fair to me, and I think the monthly cap could even be a bit higher.

The fees charged by iPredict compare favourably to equity trading, with most brokers charging at least $30 per trade for NZX and ASX listed securities, as well as requiring significant documentation.

Ouch.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Moving to a 10-year census could make trans-Tasman comparisons tricky and create problems for historians, a populations expert says.

Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson said yesterday that the Government was considering pushing out the five-year census, after this year’s was delayed because of Canterbury’s earthquakes.

But Waikato University’s professor of population economics Jacques Poot said the shift would put data out of whack with Australia, which also collected information every five years. “New Zealand has a history that we have a census every five years and we do this in the same year as Australia.

“It has huge benefits for cross-country comparisons as well as for historians to look at long-term trends. We’ve been doing this since the late 19th century.

I think it would be regrettable to move from every five years to every ten years for the census.

A huge number of decisions are made on the data we get from the census, and in my experience the data gets stale fairly rapidly. For example if you even compare the sub-national population projections after five years with the results of the next census, you’ll see significant deviations from the projections.

Kiwiblog will be off air this Sunday between 6 am and midday approx. The server it is on is being cleaned and moved.

Whale Oil quotes Newstalk ZB:

“It’s given an advi­sory opin­ion a “Stop Asset Sales” flyer is a party adver­tise­ment and doesn’t sat­isfy statu­tory require­ments for a pro­moter state­ment  …  Although the flyer does con­tain Phil Goff’s name and Par­lia­ment Build­ings as his address, the Com­mis­sion advises that doesn’t sat­isfy statu­tory require­ments … The Com­mis­sion is con­sid­er­ing whether this is seri­ous enough to report to police.”

Labour have a long history of breaking and ignoring electoral law, back to 2005 when they deliberately over-spent by $400,000 despite multiple warnings.

Even a defence of honest different opinion is not much of a defence, as the new law allows a party or MP to take a proposed advertisement to the Electoral Commission to get an advisory opinion on whether it constitutes an advertisement and complies with the law.

All Labour had to do was to take their draft advertisement to the Electoral Commission, before printing them, to check they comply. They chose not to do so until after they printed them.

Revenue Minister Peter Dunne says:

Foreign scammers might have over-stepped the mark with the latest target of their tax refund email scams, says Revenue Minister Peter Dunne.

Mr Dunne and members of his staff received emails today telling them they had tax refunds waiting for them and only had to click on the given link and fill out a claim form to get them.

I’ve had a few of those myself. At the moment I seem to be getting a lot of Paypal ones.

“Inland Revenue would never send you a hyperlink in an email. Delete the email from your inbox and trash folders,” Mr Dunne said.

He said it was notoriously difficult to track down those behind such scam emails and websites.

“So it is likely either Nigerian scammers or Labour trying to add to its email databases.”

Heh.

The NZ Herald reports:

The board of the Employers and Manufacturers Association has fired the organisation’s embattled chief executive Alasdair Thompson.

It is interesting that they have actually sacked him, rather than manage to negotiate an exit.

Board chair Graham Mountfort said the decision came because of Mr Thompson’s conduct in interviews on June 23, when he suggested women’s periods affected their workplace productivity and started a fiery confrontation with a TV3 reporter.

I think that is an important thing to note. It would have been harsh to sack Thompson for his initial comments on radio. Many people have stuffed up in a live radio interview. It was the subsequent TV interviews which showed a fatal lack of judgement.