Amelia Wade in the Herald reports:

Parenting and internet safety groups have welcomed Facebook’s move to alter the site’s regulations to permit children under 13 to join.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told an education forum in the US that he wanted to allow 10 to 13-year-olds to use the social networking site as a “study tool”.

He assured that the company would take a lot of precautions to make sure younger kids were safe.

NetSafe chief executive Martin Cocker welcomed the move and said many children in that age bracket were already using the site.

“In a way, Facebook specifically acknowledging that those children are there is probably a good thing because that then means Facebook needs to think about the environment being suitable for children of that age.”

He said children under 13 were already using the site by using a fake birthdate. So when Facebook formally allowed them to make profiles they could set restrictions for pre-teens.

“It’s quite responsible of Facebook, really.”

 I agree it is a good idea. Millions of kids are already on Facebook. I know a seven year old who has her own Facebook page, and she has around 60 friends, all pretty much her own age.

Better to realise the reality and create a kids-friendly area for them, than pretend they are not there.

Don Brash has a good op ed in the SST responding to a guest column by a young essay writer.

The Greens have released their final party list after ranking by members. Their top 15 are:

1. Metiria Turei
2. Russel Norman
3. Kevin Hague
4. Catherine Delahunty
5. Kennedy Graham
6. Eugenie Sage (+1)
7. Gareth Hughes (-1)
8. David Clendon (+1)
9. Jan Logie (-1)
10. Steffan Browning (+6)
11. Denise Roche
12. Holly Walker (-2)
13. Julie Anne Genter (-1)
14. Mojo Mathers (-1)
15. James Shaw (-1)

The number in brackets is the movement from the draft list compiled by the hierarchy, which I blogged in April.

The big mover is Browning. He was No 12 on the list in 2008. The hierarchy put him down at no 16 which is highly unlikely to win, but the members put him up to no 10 where is highly likely to make him an MP.

The press release from Metiria Turei doesn’t mention Browning at all, despite him being the big mover. This suggests they are not too happy with his promotion – possibly he is seen as too old being in his late 50s.

There is a bit of history here. Browning is from Marlborough/Nelson and that branch has a history of using their members to push their locals up the list rankings. They did the same with Mike Ward.

It will be interesting to see how well the Greens do at the election. If Labour collapse they will be the beneficiary. On the other hand, the Mana Party may well be competing with the Greens for similiar voters.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

I can’t see how Labour can keep whistling in the dark over its dismal public support.

I don’t know how its leader, Phil Goff, can keep pretending he has a chance of winning in November.

Two polls this week showed the gap between National and Labour remaining at a yawning 20 per cent. When was the last time a government polled consistently so far ahead of its opposition?

Every poll these days seems to tell the same story: John Key and his party can rule alone. People like Key and trust him.

We have a prime minister whom two out of every three New Zealanders prefer.

That means even voters of other parties support him over their own leaders. Extraordinary but true.

That is a point few have cottoned on to. Even amongst Labour voters, the majority prefer Key over Goff to be PM.

No one, surely, believes that a Goff-led party has any show.

It is clear the whole Labour caucus is made up of a bunch of gutless wonders, resigned to coast along for the next six months and lose, rather than get a backbone and make the change.

Labour needs a new messenger if it has any chance.

Frankly, it’s a dereliction of duty for the current caucus to flag this election away. If it does then it doesn’t deserve any support from its core constituency.

It would have a better chance in November if it put the names of its current MPs on a wall and then have some kid throw a dart at it.

Whoever gets their name lanced by the dart gets the job.

That would be hilarious. There would be 41 MPs silently thinking “Please, please don’t land on my name” and two MPs praying “pick me, pick me”.

It’s a bit over the top but it’s a better strategy than the one Labour’s running now.

Matt shouldn’t give away his ideas for free.

On Friday Trevor Mallard got upset that Whale Oil had called him a cripple and challenged Whale to a bike race, saying Whale would be too chicken and if he accepted he would not have a chance.

Yesterday Whale accepted the challenge so long as he can get provided a bike and that there be a second sport of his choosing – preferably boxing or shooting.

Cactus Kate has also jumped in, and offered $1,000 prize money. It goes to Labour if Trevor wins and ACT if whale wins. Kate also challenged me to match her grand.

I’m not overly keen to donate to ACT or Labour, but have agreed to donate $1,000 to charity based on who wins.

My $1,000 donation is dependent on Whale and Trevor actually agreeing to details of the competition (such as whether it is one sport or two) and actually competing. No donation if one defaults and it doesn’t happen. I’d also insist on them agreeing on an independent Judge to determine the winner.

If Whale wins I will donate $1,000 to the Mental Health Foundation.

If Trevor wins I will donate $1,000 to the Crippled Children Society, now known as CCS.

The SST writes on the pro-SM campaign:

David Farrar, National’s pollster and a well-known right-wing blogger and columnist, is providing strategic advice.

I never knew that three or four phone calls totalling probably 30 minutes over six months makes me a strategic advisor. I should stick it on my CV and send someone an invoice!

There is a second longer story on the campaign here.

Whale Oil blogs:

Trevor Mal­lard has issued a chal­lenge. As is usual for the crip­ple he has picked the one sport he is good at it (if you can all it a sport) and he has also picked on the wrong per­son for a challenge.

So Trevor, I accept your chal­lenge

Excellent, and this will give Trevor a real incentive to get back in shape.

Firstly, I need a bike, not just any bike the same bike you use. We have to race using exactly the same equip­ment. It is only fair. The only dif­fer­ence will be the rid­ers. A Crip­ple vs a Whale.

Sec­ondly, the race will be on August 15 and I pick 60kms for the dis­tance, if you are going to go, go big.

I suspect there will be a large media contingent following the race.

Thirdly, since you picked a sport that you excel at, it is only fair that there be a counter-challenge and I choose box­ing. You men­tioned your “fear” of my exces­sive bulk. I cur­rently weigh 105kg. You stated in the com­ments on Red Alert that if I got train­ing then I would lose 30kg and you’re are prob­a­bly right, there­fore there should be no rea­son other than your cow­ardice for reject­ing a box­ing match 8 weeks after our cycle race.

I understand that the boxing match will be pay per view, and that all proceeds from the match would go towards helping the recovery in Christchurch.

John Banks has been confirmed by ACT as their candidate in Epsom. On the latest public poll, ACT would have two MPs if John wins Epsom – hmself and Don Brash. However they have six months topick up further support.

The focus will be now go on whom National will select.

An interesting new initiative from Labour. To have one of their MPs go onto the Trade Me message boards and diss your own social media campaign.

NZPA report:

The next census will be held in March 2013.

The Government and Statistics NZ had considered holding the census in March 2012, but agreed the time period would be too short to ensure accurate planning.

Mr Williamson said there were benefits in holding the census in 2013, including being able to revise the electoral boundaries and holding a Maori electoral option ahead of a 2014 general election.

It is a pity they couldn’t do it in 2012.

By having the census in March 2013, it means the boundary process won’t start until late 2013. They have to wait for the Maori option to be run first. If the boundary process starts late 2013, it means we won’t have final boundaries until the 1st half of 2014.

The boundary changes in 2014 could be quite significant.  Parties will probably not want to select candidates until the new boundaries are known. So it will mean electorate candidate selections will be delayed until 2014 also and will have to be rushed through in just a few months.

Fran O’Sullivan writes in the NZ Herald:

In his bones, Key will know that in the longer term the partial privatisation policy will prove very popular indeed, particularly if the sales are sweetened with a sprinkling of “popular capitalism”.

Australia’s Queensland Government – run by Labor’s Anna Bligh – did just this by offering incentives to mum and dad investors in a highly successful string of assets sales.

There were no brokers’ fees, a specified maximum price per share and a loyalty bonus to incentivise small shareholders to hold on to their shares, as well as a free parcel of shares for relevant workers; particularly with the float of Queensland Rail (now QR National) – the second largest IPO in Australia’s history.

 People did not like Telecom and NZ Rail being sold off entirely to large foreign corporates. But the floats of Auckland Airport and Contact Energy to local investors were actually relatively uncontroversial at the time.

But on this side of the Tasman, Labour leader Phil Goff – who was an integral member of the David Lange Cabinet that privatised many state assets – is hell bent on re-erecting Fortress NZ.

What I dislike about Goff is that he reneges on policies he previously promoted when he believes he can score a naked political advantage.

Hence at the 2005 election he blithely stood by while a fellow Cabinet minister made untrue allegations that the United States was writing New Zealand’s policy even though he knew full well that an American slagged off as a National “bagman” had partially under-written a New Zealand lobbying programme in the US capital.

The same bagman who has been our most generous donor to the arts. What shameful treatment.

So when Goff gets all pumped up and red-faced and hyperbolic, Key only has to dip into the recent history books to underscore the Labour leader’s hypocrisy.

In fact, the partial asset sales will provide an investment home for KiwiSaver providers, the NZ Superannuation Fund, iwi and retail investors. They will also release capital for the Government to reinvest in much needed new infrastructure and to help get the budget back into the black.

Labour is going into an election campaign which they say they want to fight on asset sales, yet their leader was once the most enthusiastic advocate for. Do they really think they will get much resonance?

John Armstrong writes in the Herald:

To watch John Key have Parliament eating out of his hand is to catch glimpses of Helen Clark in her heyday and, dare one say it, even David Lange in his. Just glimpses, mind you.

He’s not shy of using sarcasm, though it has less impact than Clark’s acid rain.

He falls well short of replicating what was her brooding and intimidating authority. While he has learned much from observing Clark, her style is not really his.

Still, there is good reason for placing him alongside such exalted company.

During one question time this month, Phil Goff asked Key what responsibility he took as Prime Minister for the forecast deficit ballooning out from the original estimate of $2.4 billion to a whopping $16 billion.

For once, Key’s guard dropped. The House got some rare, undiluted passion from the prime minister.

Yes, he took full responsibility. He took full responsibility for helping the people of Christchurch.

He took full responsibility for preserving social programmes that helped people get through the economic recession.

And he took full responsibility for keeping unemployment low, unlike in other countries hit by the global downturn.

What was apparent was that Key had instantly and effortlessly shifted up a gear – one rarely witnessed in public and which left Goff trailing like flotsam in his wake.

Labour should be afraid, very afraid. Behind Key’s affable facade lurks a politician as utterly single-minded, focused and merciless as Clark was and Lange wasn’t.

While many in Labour still seem to think he is some fluffy smile and wave lightweight. And then they wonder where all the flotsam came from.

Trevor Mallard blogs:

It has become clear over the last couple of weeks that only Kelvin Davis can beat Hone Harawira. The Maori Party want him out of parliament even more than we do. That might explain their choice of a low profile candidate yesterday. As the Herald said :-

…. old party launched Solomon Tipene’s bid to win the Te Tai Tokerau byelection.

The great-grandfather was the surprise pick for the Maori Party, which also interviewed lawyer Mere Mangu and actor Waihoroi Shortland, tipped by many in the north as the frontrunner.

I agree with Trevor and the Herald that the selection of Tipene is a surprise and the other two candidates were much higher profile. It may well be that the Maori Party are being tactical here.

So if you don’t want John Hart Minto to become an MP on the coat tails of Hone Harawira, you need to back Kelvin Davis to win. Even if you do not live in the electorate, you can make a donation to help Kelvin in his campaign. The details are:

Kiwibank Account  No 38 9009 0235341 01

New Zealand Labour Party – Te Tai Tokerau LEC

Just make sure you mark it as a donation in the reference field for Internet Banking, so you don’t accidentially become a Labour Party member 🙂

The Labour Party Campaign Manager has come up with a genius way for Labour to win the election.

Trevor has challenged Whale Oil to a cycle race.

Now Whale does not have a cycle, and isn’t going to buy one just for Trevor, but I understand he does like the idea of a sporting challenge between him and Trevor. He has proposed two sports, and is willing to let Trevor choose his preferred one – shooting or boxing.

Chris Hipkins tried to whip up outrage that Premier House was being renovated at a cost of $275,000. I think he was trying to portray John Key as demanding he live in luxury at the taxpayers expense.

This has come somewhat undone today as it has been revealed that to save money, second hand curtains were used – the cast offs from Government House.

In my weekly nzherald.co.nz column I look at Labour’s lack of discipline when it comes to message:

So in the space of one week, Labour has been talking about stopping borrowing, middle income families, the minimum wage, an R&D tax credit, the Emissions Trading Scheme and asset sales. They seem to be like a drunk farmer with a shotgun – firing everywhere hoping something hits.

The full column, plus comments, is at herald.co.nz.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

National backbencher Paul Quinn has apologised for remarking “there is a real issue with young ladies getting drunk” during a debate about rape.

The list MP defended his comments by saying he misunderstood the question because of background noise.

And he was forced to issue an apology on Twitter after a storm of negative feedback on the micro-blogging network.

He posted: “Sorry I did not hear what she had said. So my answer was totally out of context and I know that short skirts are not provocation.”

It is very very noisy in the pub at Backbenches.  Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Greens co-leader Russel Norman, who was sitting next to Mr Quinn, said the National MP had turned to him and told him he had been unable to hear the presentation properly.

“He seemed genuine,” he said

I think Russel’s comments make it very clear that Paul did not hear the context to the question.

In terms of the substance, I always find it useful to differenitiate between blame and safety. In terms of blame, the victim is never to blame for being raped. Nothing justifies rape = ever.

The Lady Garden blogs:

For the record, I could give a dude a blowjob in a bar bathroom, and if he then forced himself on me, it wouldn’t be my fault. Get it?

I agree entirely.

To use a well known example, if Mike Tyson invites you back to his hotel room at 2 am, and then has sex with you against his will, you are not to blame, he is. And in this case he was convicted of rape as he should have been.

However if a female friend of mine told me that Mike Tyson has asked her back to his hotel room at 2 am, my advice would be not to go – or at least not to go alone, as you might not be safe.

Likewise if you get invited to a party at the Mongrel Mob fortress, again my advice would be not to go. If you did go, and got raped, it would be entirely the responsibility of the Mongrel Mob rapists, but as we do not live in a perfect world, reducing risk is often a sensible thing to do.

This is not just about rape. If I was wearing a $20,000 Rolex and had $50,000 of cash on me, and attended said Mongrel Mob party, then there is an increased risk I’ll get beaten up and robbed. I would be the victim, and 100% not to blame. The muggers would be to blame. However I’d probably conclude not to attend any more Mongrel Mob parties with Rolexes.

It is NEVER a rape-victim’s fault that they were attacked. The responsibility lies with the criminal, and the criminal alone. Clothes, behaviour, what they’ve had to drink, their sexual past, proclivities, and promises are no fucking excuse, and don’t come into it at all.

I agree. They are no excuse, and all the blame lies with the criminal. It is atrocious that some men can’t accept this, and commit rape. It is a hideous crime.

However, and I say this with genuine concern, one does have to accept we don’t live in a perfect crime free world. And it is worth taking steps to minimise the probability of crime. No I don’t mean dressing like nuns and being a teetotaller. I do mean however being aware that if you get pissed, you may not be as able to prevent a crime occuring. So if you are getting pissed, maybe make sure you have a more sober friend with you.

Whn going home after a night out, consider the relative dangers of walking home vis a taxi. There are some suburbs that would not be particularly safe for either men or women to be going through at 3 am. if you get mugged or raped, of course you are not to blame because you took a short cut through (for example) Cannons Creek. But knowing we do not live in a crime free society, it might be a good idea not to do so.

It would be nice if we could leave our front doors unlocked and the car keys in our cars, without them being stolen. And if they are stolen, the thief is to blame. But generally I wouldn’t recommend people leave their car keys in their ignition.

Now again, I am in no way saying that women should not go out, should not drink alcohol, should not wear what they like, just to minimise the chance of rape.  All I’m trying to say is there are some evil bastards out there, and to use some common sense when out on the town – to look after each other.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Social media will play a big part in the election campaign this year, but MPs and their supporters are being warned not to send messages using Twitter on election day. …

The commission would be making use of social media to promote the election, but would also be monitoring it to ensure people were following the law.

Electioneering on election day is an offence under the Electoral Act, with fines of up to $20,000.

“Tweeting, like any form of communication with the public where you are seeking to influence, is a breach of the act [if done on election day],” Mr Peden said.

Action would be taken against people caught sending tweets aimed at influencing voters on election day.

It is no surprise that the same rules apply to Twitter, as to any other medium.  The rules are in s127 of the Electoral Act, specifically s217(1)(g)(i) and (iv).

at any time on polling day before the close of the poll exhibits in or in view of any public place, or publishes, or distributes, or broadcasts
(i) any statement advising or intended or likely to influence any elector as to the candidate or party for whom the elector should or should not vote; or
(iv) any party name, emblem, slogan, or logo; or

So even mentioning the name of a party on Twitter on election day could be a breach. I doubt action would be taken unless it was in the context of the election.

Of course not everyone on Twitter uses their real name, or has contact details, so any enforcement action could prove problematic.

Bernard Carpinter at Stuff reports:

Three Hastings schoolboys rescued a 12-year-old girl by threatening to attack two men who were trying to drag her away.

“The other boys told them that if they didn’t go away right now they would get a hiding,” Hastings Boys’ High School pupil Liam Mataira, 15, said yesterday, describing the rescue he had made with friends Ben Hayllar and Tama McKenzie.

“We just jumped in front and pulled her away. The men were over six feet tall. I was taller than them, but they were quite stocky.

“They just started swearing. They looked like they had been taking drugs – they were all twitchy and stuff.

“It happened fast. They could have retaliated and attacked us, but we had to do something to get that girl away before something happened.” …

Ben, also 15, said the men had used language indicating that they were affiliated to the Mongrel Mob, but he had not felt scared.

“They towered over me but I just felt an adrenaline thing. It all happened at once. I told them to go away and leave her alone.”

I got such a warm glow when reading this story. Liam, Ben and Tama should be very proud of themselves, as should their parents.

Above is the front page of Stuff today. I’ve not read either story at this point, but I’m guessing one of them is wrong!

Just had a lengthy phone call from some scammers. They are so peristent I can see why a lot of people fall for them.

I answered the phone and as Asian woman checked my name and then told me my computer was infected with junk files and that I needed to remove them as it was affecting my computer’s performance.

At this stage I worked out they were scammers as of course there is no way anyone but my own ISP would know about my computer, and Vodafone isn’t in the business of phoning customers proactively. In fact getting through to their helpdesk can be challenge enough.

She claimed to be from “Windows”. I explained that my PC was very secure. She insisted there were files on there I did not know about. I said that if there were, I had a firm I used for such problems.

As I was not co-operating, she put me onto her supervisor, who was a male Asian. He repeated the dross. I asked for his name and who he works for and a phone number. He said he could not be phoned but he works for Microsoft New Zealand. I said that I happen to know Microsoft NZ’s chief legal counsel and that if he gives me his name and phone number I can verify it. He gave a phone number which started with 0200. I pointed out this is not a NZ phone number, and he then said they actually work for Microsoft Asia, and look after New Zealand.

By chance one of my best friends has been the PR Manager for Microsoft Asia for the last few years, so I mentioned this and again asked for his name and address. He then said actually they are based in NZ with Microsoft NZ at the Viaduct.

I played with them a bit longer, and then said I think they are scammers and will phone the Police and hung up.

I’m not sure exactly what they were going to get me to do, but it was either install some software so they could look for the “junk files” and gain control of the PC, or sell me some solution, or both.

I was lucky that I knew enough that I could tell it was a scam, but sadly a lot of people won’t and will fall for it. It would be nice if the Police could track them down, but I suspect they are not NZ based and used Skype or something to call in.

Any others had this experience?