The Independent reports:

France was shocked yesterday by an opinion poll which suggested that the far-right leader Marine Le Pen could win the first round of the presidential election next northern spring.

Although the poll was framed in a rather dubious way, and one out of three people gave no opinion, the outcome was a deep humiliation for President Nicolas Sarkozy and a stark warning to his bickering would-be centre-left rivals.

Le Pen has now doubled her opinion poll score in the space of four months – from 12 per cent to 23 per cent – revealing a deep anger with French politics-as-usual among voters of both the Right and the Left.

Le Pen is smarter than her father. She holds her own in political debates, and avoids the extreme positions of her father. She is anti free trade and generally left wing economically, but also rails against liberalism. She is anti-privatisation and anti-monetarist.

On the EU she wants it changed to a loose confederation, and advocates leaving the Euro.

In terms of immigration, her policy is to have a moratorium. She is anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and supports capital punishment for child kidnapping and/or the murder of children or the elderly.

I do not think she will be elected President of France, but there is a real possibility she will make it into the final round of voting. In fact the most likely person not to make the final round is President Sarkozy at the moment. But April 2012 is still a long way off.

The Dom Post editorial:

Tsar Gerry Brownlee has upset architectural historians by suggesting all but a handful of Christchurch’s old buildings should be demolished. He must go on upsetting them. …

Some have left the Canterbury region, others have hunkered down at home, but few, if any, will feel safe returning to work unless they know the buildings they are in can withstand an earthquake of the magnitude that devastated Christchurch two weeks ago.

They will be just as concerned by the quality of the buildings around them. Mr Brownlee was simply voicing the views of all who survived the quake when he said that if it was up to him he would have most of the city’s heritage buildings down “tomorrow”.

I wonder if all those decrying Gerry’s views, would do so if they were forced to work and live in those heritage buildings.

Like Wellington, Christchurch’s older buildings add to the character of the city.

However, the truth that cannot be overlooked is that people died on February 22 because buildings that should have been demolished after the September 4 earthquake were not demolished.

And this is something an inquiry should look into.

Heritage buildings were not the sole cause of loss of life, or even the biggest cause of it. The greatest number of deaths occurred in two reinforced concrete buildings  the Pyne Gould Corporation building completed in 1964 and the CTV building built in 1979.

However, in the wake of the tragedy Mr Brownlee, his ministerial colleagues and Christchurch city planners must do everything that can be done to make Christchurch a safe place to live and work.

Mr Brownlee has suggested that only iconic buildings such as Christ Church Cathedral, the Provincial Chambers, the Arts Centre and the Catholic Basilica should be retained and restored.

Undoubtedly there will be others among the city’s 1600 heritage buildings, 1000 of them in the CBD, that warrant preservation.

However, the bottom line is that unless their owners are able to quickly bring them up to the same safety standards as buildings constructed today  an expensive task  they should be knocked down.

Exactly. And I’m suspicious of 1,600 buildings all being listed as heritage.

Christchurch’s future is not as a shrine to 19th and 20th century architecture, but as a modern, low-rise example of what can be done today.

The 1931 Napier earthquake led to the construction of a unique city showcasing the art-deco style then in vogue.

Once the rubble has been cleared, Christchurch’s planners have the opportunity to create a modern city that reflects today’s thinking.

Mr Brownlee is right. Sentiment should not outweigh safety. Start planning for the new city.

Perhaps those who wish to save the heritage buildings could offer to buy them and pay for the upgrade to modern safety standards.

Wednesday at Back Benches starting 9.10 pm

• Carmel Sepuloni ( Lab)
• Louise Upston (Nat)
• Kevin Hague (Greens)

Topics include Oil prices, Welfare working group, Chch Heritage.

Also if you can make it early, there is a charity photo auction chaired by Chris Tremain from 6 pm. Proceeds for the earthquake and a chance to pick up some affordable art.

Come along next Wednesday, 9 March at 6pm to The Backbencher, opposite Parliament for a charity photo auction. We have a large number of photographic prints, in a wide range of styles up for grabs. There will be something for everyone, from photos of live gigs to landscapes to alternative and vintage photographic techniques. All proceeds will be going to Christchurch Earthquake charity funds. Support the people of Christchurch, and purchase something unique and interesting. All details can be found on the facebook event page http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191765294190401.

We are intending to make a catalog available by the weekend, as well for those who are unable to be there, we are willing to accept absentee bids. Those who are interested in either of these can contact me by email on [email protected].

John Key announces:

Prime Minister John Key today welcomed the announcement that the Queen has approved the appointment of Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae to succeed Sir Anand Satyanand as Governor-General of New Zealand.

If I have it right he will be “His Excellency, the Right Honourable Lieutenant General Sir Jeremiah (Jerry) Mateparae, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Realm of New Zealand”.

The announcement from Buckingham Palace details Mateparae’s background:

His current appointment is Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), which he took up on 7 February 2011. Prior to joining GCSB, he had a 38 year career with the New Zealand Defence Force, which culminated in his appointment as Chief of Defence Force in the rank of Lieutenant General from 1 May 2006 until 24 January 2011. General Mateparae was the first officer of Maori descent to hold the rank and appointment.

He enlisted into the Regular Force of the New Zealand Army in June 1972. After three years service as a soldier, he graduated in 1976 from the Officer Cadet School at Portsea into the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. He served in both battalions of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment and with the New Zealand Special Air Service. He commanded a regionally-based combined force Truce Monitoring Group on the island of Bougainville during OPERATION BELISI in 1998. He also completed a 12-month tour of duty with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation as the Chief Observer in southern Lebanon from May 1994 to May 1995. Subsequently, as the New Zealand Army’s Land Commander he was New Zealand’s Joint Commander for New Zealand forces in East Timor (December 1999 to July 2001). He was Chief of Army from 1 May 2002 until 30 April 2006.

He might be the first spy head to be appointed Governor-General, but I suspect he is also the only former SAS member to be appointed also. He’s gone from the Chief of the Defence Force to the only “military” job above that!

The Republican Movement have made the point:

The Republican Movement acknowledges the nomination of Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae as Governor-General by Prime Minister John Key today. Lt. Gen. Mateparae is a well known and respected New Zealander. He topped a poll in October last year of 1,435 New Zealanders conducted by the Republican Movement to find New Zealand’s next Governor-General.

“Yet, his appointment was made in secret and lacked democratic oversight” said Lewis Holden, chair of the Republican Movement.

New Zealand needs a proper elected head of state, not an appointee of the Prime Minister.

While the choice is a very good one, I have to agree that the Head of Government should not effectively unilaterally decide who is the effective Head of State. At a minimum it should be a parliamentary vote.

Of interest is what Lewis said about Mateparae having topped the poll that Republican Movement ran for who should be the next head of state. The poll results are here:

1. Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae 34%
2. Ray Avery 16%
3. Sir Peter Leitch 12%
4. Jim Bolger 8%
5. Sir Don McKinnon 7%

I think he’s a very good choice. I’ve met him a couple of times at social functions (well if you can call a funeral wake a social function) and he’s very down to earth. He’s excelled at pretty much everything he has done in life, so I have no doubt he will be an excellent Governor-General.

Bronwyn Torrie at the Dom Post writes:

Porirua’s mayor is pleading for the Government to ring-fence cash for Transmission Gully to prevent the money being redirected to rebuilding Christchurch.

Wellington roading projects could be in jeopardy as the Government looks to shuffle about $15 billion toward Christchurch.

The prospect has prompted Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett to plead for the “economically critical” billion-dollar motorway project to be ring-fenced.

I’ve been an advocate for Transmission Gully for 20 years or so. I was incredibly happy when Steven Joyce put an end to decades of dithering and announced funding for Transmission Gully.

However I have to disagree with Mayor Leggett. Wellingtonians, as well as Aucklanders, have to be prepared to have some of our infrastructure spending delayed. rebuilding Christchurch must be the priority.

Now this is not to say that Transmission Gully should be removed as a road of national significance – merely that if it is necessary to delay it, then so be it.

Instead, he says the “sacrificial lamb” should be the Petone-to-Granada link road, expected to cost $250 million and ease pressure on Ngauranga Gorge.

Not sure it will be a choice of one or the other. Both may need to be delayed.

Stuff reports:

Petrol prices rose sharply overnight amid warnings it could top $2.50 a litre within weeks if action is not taken to intervene in the oil markets.

A litre of 91 octane now costs to $2.16 overnight, up five cents from yesterday while a litre of premium sits at $2.22. Prices are three cents shy of 2008’s record high prices.

Visiting oil economist Phil Verleger, a former director of energy policy to former United States president Jimmy Carter, warned that the loss of Libyan oil production, because of its uniqueness, could see Brent Crude rise to between US$140 ($190) and US$150 a barrel by next month unless action is taken.

This, he understands, would see the pump price of New Zealand petrol climb by 40 cents a litre.

Hopefully the Libya situation will resolve itself before too long.

You do notice the extra cost at the pump, and it is significant. This will push the CPI up.

If prices do reach $2.50 and stay there for a while, it will be interesting to see how this affects car manufacturers and investment in alternate fuel technologies.  The higher petrol goes, the better the investment alternatives start to become.

NZPA report:

Tens of thousands are expected at a national memorial service next Friday to mark the “terrible loss of life” in the Christchurch earthquake, with Cantabrians to get the day off to attend.

Prime Minister John Key this afternoon announced the service would be held at North Hagley Park in Christchurch on March 18. …

The Government would introduce legislation to make the date a one-off provincial public holiday in Canterbury so local people could attend if they wished.

Mr Key said Cabinet had considered a nationwide public holiday, but decided a provincial holiday better reflected what was needed.

I think a nationwide public holiday would have been un-necessary, even though many NZers will want to watch the service, they’ll do so in their workplaces. I like having it as a holiday in Canterbury though.

Labour leader Phil Goff said he had spoken with Mr Key about the proposed memorial service.

“I believe it’s totally appropriate to have a commemoration of the very large number of people who have lost their lives. This is an awful event and it’s one that we must treat with respect and we must acknowledge,” Mr Goff said.

“I’m not persuaded, however, that a day’s holiday is the best way of doing that.

“I’ve talked to people in Christchurch and they’ve said ‘we’ve got a huge job ahead of us, we’ll be flat out, how’s it going to help us if the rest of the country’s having a day off?’ and I think that that is right.”

The hypocrisy is staggering. First of all Goff is wrong – the rest of the country isn’t having a day off. Only people in Canterbury.

But it is the Labour Party that has been demanding for some months that the Government urgently amend the Holidays Act so people get an extra two day’s holiday this year because Waitangi Day is on a weekend and we have the 1 in 90 year occurence (next happens in 2095) of Easter Monday falling on ANZAC Day.

So Labour after spending months demanding two extra days holiday for the entire country this year, now are against having a provincial holiday to mourn our biggest ever natural disaster.

Do they even think about the word consistency?

Hat Tip: Whale

Ohariu MP Peter Dunne did a good public service by getting the WCC to release a list of buildings that may not fully comply with modern earthquake standards (note some may now comply, so don’t make hasty decisions based on this info – ask landlords for more info).

Luke Howlison has put those buildings onto a map, which makes it very easy to use.

The 2011 Ngaio School Gala will be held at Ngaio School on Sunday 13 March from 11.00am until 2.00pm.

At a special meeting held on Tuesday 1 March, The Ngaio School PTA agreed to donate 75% of the Ngaio School 2011 Gala profits to a Christchurch Primary School/s.

So if you are in Wellington on Sunday, and want to help the devastated schools in Christchurch – come along to the Ngaio School Gala. Last year it raised around $60,000.

The closest guess from blog readers was robcarr on 547 – who also was the first to guess. Lucia Maria was just one further off on 540.

This is the first year that the total has fallen, since 2005. In 2005 it fell by only one – in 2011 we fell by 37 – true proof of the double dip recession.

On Breakfast this morning:

Corin: On the cost, 15 billion dollars now Treasury is saying, and 1.5% of GDP, does that make a cut in the official cash rate, some help for monetary policy, pretty much essential this week?

John: Well that’s a matter for the Reserve Bank Governor, and it’s for him to decide and him alone to decide what happens on Thursday …

And that’s where ideally the sentence should stop. But the transcript continues:

but certainly the markets have factored in a likely cut in the official cash rate, and you’ve gotta say lower interest rates probably help the country, but that ultimately is a matter for the Governor

That is a subjective view that lower interest rates help the country. They don’t help long-term if they lead to excessive inflation.

On this case I agree with the PM, but the difference is I am not the PM. By making those comments, we have a possible headline that if Bollard does not lower interest rates that the “PM thinks Governor is not helping New Zealand”.

I’m a bit of a purist. I beleive there are only four people in New Zealand who should not express a view on what the Reserve Bank Governor should do – that is the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Shadow Finance Minister. They are all his current or future effective bosses, and any comments from them puts pressure on the Governor – even if unintended.

Also politically commenting is not wise. If the Governor happens to do what you say, then there is a suspicion he was pressured to do so. If the Governor does not do what you say, then the media will paint it as a row.

The bottom line is that while the public like having a Prime Minister who will answer questions on almost every issue and subject – potential changes to the official cash rate should be one you don’t answer except to say :”It is a matter for the Governor”

Appeared this morning before the Justice & Electoral Committee (well technically Sub-Committee A of the said Committee) to speak to my submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill which is below. I’ve appeared so often before that Committee, that I’ve now been labelled a groupie 🙂

Had around 15 minutes, and thought it was a good discussion. The MPs engaged well and are obviously over the many issues in the bill. Everyone agrees we want less harm from alcohol. The trick is isolating the measures that will do that, and not have consequences which may lead to more harm. Plus also not overly penalising responsible drinkers.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE JUSTICE & ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ALCOHOL REFORM BILL 

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
   
   Executive Summary
   
2. The Government’s alcohol reform bill is an improvement on the status quo. However in some areas it does not go far enough, and in other areas it unfairly penalizes all New Zealanders, rather than more precisely targeting drinkers that cause harm to themselves or others.
3. In this submission I have mainly focused on the areas where I think change is desirable, rather than list every clause I agree with.

   A drinking age
   

4. I believe that .the culture of youth drinking will not change unless we have a drinking age, as well as a purchase age. This may not be popular, but I believe it is necessary.
5. At present it is totally legal for an adult (any adult) to supply a bottle of vodka to a 13 year old. It is only illegal to purchase it with the intent of supply, but it is not illegal to supply it. And intent is very difficult to prove.
6. The proposed new requirements around supply of alcohol to minors are a good step in the right direction, and are arguably one of the most important parts of the bill. However I do not think they go far enough.
7. I think parents need to be given assistance and tools in dealing with youth alcohol issues, and a drinking age is one way to do this. It allows parents to say “No it’s illegal to drink at your age”.
8. Some will argue a drinking age is ineffective and can’t be policed. But by that argument we would not have a legal age for sex either. The idea isn’t to arrest lots of parents and young people for under-age drinking – but to send a clear message about appropriate ages. A comparison could be made to the age at which children can be legally left alone – 14. Now parents do not get arrested because they pop down to the dairy for 30 minutes while leaving a 12 year old at home. But it does mean most parents know that you generally should not leave under 14 year olds unsupervised.
9. The ages I would propose for a drinking age are:
   1. 14 with parental supervision
   2. 16 with parental approval and adult supervision
   3. 18 otherwise
10. Effectively this would say that no one under the age of 14 should be drinking alcohol at all, that 14 and 15 year olds can only drink with their parents (a wine with dinner type scenario) and that 16 and 17 year olds can only drink with parental permission and adult supervision (a birthday party supervised by other parents etc)
11. A breach of the drinking age law should be an offence for the young person involved, as well as for whomever may have supplied the alcohol.
12. It could be worth considering that only certain types of alcohol (ie not spirits) be legal at the younger ages.

    The purchase age
    

13. A drinking age will be far more effective in changing the culture of youth drinking than criminalizing 18 and 19 year olds for drinking.
14. I am aware the purchase age will come to a conscience vote at committee of the whole stage, regardless of decisions by this select committee, so I don’t plan to spend too many words on this issue.
15. A purchase age of 20 is impossible to justify as a principled position. At 18 one can even be elected to Parliament or a local Council. I note the future MP for Botany was elected to the Manukau City Council at 18 and the Mayor of Porirua was elected to his Council at the age of 19. This bill would give 18 and 19 year old Councillors a major say in local alcohol policies, but make it illegal to purchase a bottle of wine.
16. The proposed 18/20 split age is better than a 20/20 age, but will seriously undermine the move to make it unacceptable to supply alcohol to under 18 year olds. This is because it will be legal for a 20 year old to supply alcohol to an 18 year old but not to a 17 year old. We want a law which says it is unacceptable to supply alcohol to anyone underage.

    Excise Duty/Minimum Prices
    

17. I support the level of excise duty being set as a level which will cover the external costs of alcohol consumption.
18. There is credible research that the current level of excise duty does cover the external costs. There has been other research done which has concluded that the level of excise duty is not high enough. However that research has been shown to be totally flawed, containing the most basic errors such as counting private costs as external costs, yet not counting private benefits. The Government and Parliament should be very wary of decision making on such flawed research.
19. The current excise regime is not consistent by strength of alcohol. Wine has a much lower excise for its volume of alcohol than other products, for example.
20. I believe there is merit looking at either revising the excise tax to be less discriminatory or a minimum price scheme based on alcohol volume.

    Local Alcohol Policies
    

21. I generally support the ability of local communities to set alcohol policies for their area. What is appropriate for Cannons Creek may not be appropriate for Courtney Place.

    RTDs
    

22. The Government has announced a policy intention of limiting RTDs to 5% strength and 1.5 standard drinks. This is not directly in the bill, but provision has been made to enable the Government to regulate this at a later date.
23. As a market research company, my company (Curia) was engaged by Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd to do quantitative and qualitative research on this issue, including the likely impact of any change. This research has been cited in their submission on the bill.
24. Based on this research, and also research in Australia, I have no doubt that a law change to restrict RTDs to 5% strength would in fact lead to more alcohol induced harm, rather than less. Around half of RTD drinkers buy 6% to 8% RTDs, and if these were legislated out of the market, many of them would then purchase spirits instead so they can self-mix drinks.
25. The Law Commission itself warned of the dangers of targeting just one sort of alcohol, due to substitution issues. I would urge the Government and Parliament to take heed of the Law Commission advice on this issue.

Again, in summary, I would urge the committee to apply a filter to all proposed measures, measuring how effective it will be in reducing harmful drinking, and how much it will impact people undertaking non harmful drinking. We want measures that maximize the former and minimize the latter.

As always, funny not nasty. Enjoy.

A good guest post by Darel Hall on the University of Canterbury website. Darel blogs:

This year’s Christchurch students will be known as the special ones.  They will endure more, give more, and change student society more than any group of students for a generation.

Not every student will return to the University of Canterbury or the other tertiary institutions in and around Christchurch.  Some will need to be somewhere else this year. And perhaps a few parents will want their children to be elsewhere for a while.  How I would react is a question I have thought about a lot as I have two girls, a way off university age yet.  They come first, so if there were a question about their ability to cope or of reasonable safety, I would have some difficulty with them returning to Canterbury.

We thought the 2010 students were marvellous, and they were.  They mucked in and dealt with constrained exam times with equanimity.  They felt a justified pride in this.  And their example created the impetus for this year’s group.  Many of the 2010 group, of course, are part of the 2011 group; many of the 2010 students are the 2011 student leaders.

This year, 2011, will be harder.  This year’s students face a whole year blighted by a poor academic start to the year, reduced services, fear of aftershocks – and for some it is a cumulative process before the fear comes – and a broken city. …

And so the 2011 cohort can be the special ones.  They will grow and mature more in one year than some people do in a decade.  They will suffer short term adversity and gain forever for it.  They will really know what matters and what doesn’t because they will experience it firsthand.  That experience will be present in their academic studies and their future work lives.  They will never be naked because that knowledge will be a cloak they wear their whole lives, a cloak that can not be removed.

University education, tertiary education, education full stop should transform people.  The special ones will live it.  It is the worst of times but I am looking forward to what the special ones will create out of it.

Perhaps it is hyperbole, perhaps it is wishful thinking, perhaps not, but I believe that the 2011 students may just change student society for a generation.  Their sacrifice and contribution can create an example that students throughout New Zealand will want to emulate.  Their younger siblings in secondary and primary education will be proud of them.  These future student cohorts will have to decide what they do with the example they are left with; they will not have the option of just ignoring it.   That is why I suggest this group of students will be known as the special ones.

What a great post.

An interesting WSJ article:

In a Europe plagued by debt crises, one country has no budget deficit at all and is currently returning to surplus. This same country is consistently among Europe’s fastest growing economies, with GDP growth set to hit 4% this year.

That country is Sweden. For many years, foreign policy-makers have pointed to Sweden as a positive model to follow, making Swedes like me proud. Too often, though, foreigners have drawn the wrong lessons from Sweden’s success. For instance, whenever I give a lecture, anywhere in Europe, about economic reform, I always get the following response: “But you come from Sweden, which is socialist and successful—why should we launch free-market policies ?”

The simple truth is that Sweden is not socialist. According to the World Values Survey and other similar studies, Sweden combines one of the highest degrees of individualism in the world, solid trust in well-functioning institutions, and a high degree of social cohesion. Among the 160 countries studied in the Index of Economic Freedom, Sweden ranks 21st, and is one of the few countries that increased its economic freedoms during the financial crisis.

I’m probably one of the guilty ones who has traditionally associated Sweden with socialism, or social democratism (whatever they call it now).

It’s true that Sweden wasn’t always so free. But Sweden’s socialism lasted only for a couple of decades, roughly during the 1970s and 1980s. And as it happens, these decades mark the only break in the modern Swedish success story. …

Only in 1950 did Sweden’s tax burden rise to 20% of GDP, though that remained comparatively low.

But Socialism was fashionable in post-War Europe and Sweden was not immune. The 1970s were a decade of radical government intervention in society and in markets, during which Sweden doubled its overall tax burden, socialized a slew of industries, re-regulated its markets, expanded its public systems, and shuttered its borders. In 1970, Sweden had the world’s fourth-highest GDP per capita. By 1990, it had fallen 13 positions. In those 20 years, real wages in Sweden increased by only one percentage point.

Sounds a bit like a country I know.

By the late 1980s, though, Sweden had started de-regulating its markets once again, decreased its marginal tax rates, and opted for a sound-money, low-inflation policy. In the early 1990s, the pace quickened, and most markets except for labor and housing were liberalized. The state sold its shares in a number of companies, granted independence to its central bank, and introduced school vouchers that improved choice and competition in education. Stockholm slashed public pensions and introduced private retirement schemes, keeping the system demographically sustainable.

These decisive economic liberalizations, and not socialism, are what laid the foundations for Sweden’s success over the last 15 years. After the reforms of the early 1990s, Swedes’ real wages increased by roughly 35% in a decade.

Definitely sounding familiar.

The path to reform has, however, come only in waves. After the intense overhauls of the early 1990s, the pace slowed somewhat and it wasn’t until a center-right government returned to power in 2006 that free-market reforms picked up again. That center-right coalition, led by my own Moderate Party, was re-elected last year, after beating our leftist opposition by almost seven percentage points. The leftists’ campaign promise? To roll back economic reforms.

Even smarting from the financial crisis, Swedes turned the leftists down. Over the last four years, they have seen their borders opened for more labor migration, they have seen still more state-owned companies sold, and have seen their public authorities shrink in number. Stockholm has also cut property taxes and abolished the wealth tax, and instituted a new system of income-tax credits that lets working people with average incomes keep what amounts to an extra month of wages, after taxes, per year. Today, the state’s total tax take comes to 45% of GDP, from 56% ten years ago.

And best of all:

Stockholm has also introduced a law that empowers Swedes to chose their providers for health care and other public services. This has led to a robust surge in entrepreneurship within the health-care sector, where more competition is bound to improve services.

Who’s up for a study tour to Sweden?

iPredict has a range of stocks on who will be the Justice Minister after the election. The prices and hence probabilities are:

1. Judith Collins 45%
2. Chris Finlayson 20.95
3. Simon Bridges 8.3%
4. Other Labour MP 5.7%
5. Chester Borrows 5.4%
6. Kate Wilkinson 2.7%
7. Amy Adams 2.7%
8. Charles Chauvel 2.7%
9. Other Nat MP 1.7%
10. Other MP 0.1%
11. Winston Peters 0.0%

The Minister of Justice is normally a lawyer, but not always – Tony Ryall was Justice Minister and is not a lawyer. It is unusual to have one Minister as both Justice and Attorney-General also.

I think the market is right in saying it is not likely Winston Peters will be Justice Minister. The reason for this is that portfolio is far far too much hard work.

Winston prefers portfolios with glamour, but where officials do all the work. He’s already done Treasurer and Foreign Minister. So what, I ponder, could Phil Goff offer him in a Labour-Greens-Winston-Hone Government if they get the numbers for it?

There is really only one portfolio left that fits Winston’s criteria. Attorney-General!! Winston will be in charge of the judiciary and the SFO.

An interesting Environment Court case starts today in Auckland. Joel Cayford has blogged a background to it here and further updates are on his blog.

He has written to Len Brown saying:

I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.

This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.

Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?

The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.

Now I’m not personally across the science enough to assess what sort of risk is involved. And this is exactly why we have an Environment Court. But it does seem this is potentially a rather major issue, and one worth of scrutiny.

Rachel Grunwell in the HoS reports:

A leading Auckland school is installing state-of-the-art software that will allow it to pinpoint its best-performing teachers – and show up those responsible for poorly performing pupils.

Macleans College, a decile-10 state school in Howick which often scoops top scholarships and has a reputation for high-achieving students, hopes to install a programme called EdReflect.

It will record and analyse student results, allowing the school to learn which teachers have taught students that got the best – and worst – results.

My first reaction to reading this, was that I am sure the teacher unions will hate it, and possibly call on the Government to ban it.

Post Primary Teachers’ Association president Robin Duff said the technology could be a good thing if it was used to improve teaching. But the teacher union head was “fairly alarmed” about the concept and feared it could be used “punitively” among “an armoury of sacking devices”.

God forbid a teacher be sacked merely because their students don’t actualy learn.

The Herald on Sunday reports:

Prices of day-to-day food, groceries and accommodation are rising at almost their fastest rate in the past 20 years, according to an in-depth Herald on Sunday investigation.

Food prices did increase a lot in January 2011. But that does not mean the HoS claims are accurate, and secondly you need to be very careful to jump to conclusions when prices have been fairly stable for 11 months and have only increased since Christmas.

But wage levels aren’t keeping pace – meaning daily life is as expensive as it’s ever been.

A slogan direct from the Labour Party – but wrong. After tax wages have increased for someone on the average wage either 12% or 16% (off memory. You buy food from your after tax income not your before tax gross wage.

Prices for apples, carrots, mushrooms and potatoes have gone through the roof in the past 12 months, rising 50 per cent or more.

Really. Well the official Food Price Index records prices for all of those items. This is done by the neutral Stats NZ, and isn’t influenced by cheery picking stores.

From January 2010 to January 2011 (Feb food prices are due out Friday), the price for 1 kg of apples has gone up 3% only. For carrots it is 26%, mushrooms 4% and potatoes 35%.

So none of thse have gone up 50%, and for two of the four items, the increase is a magnitude less than claimed by the HoS.

Now let’s not minimise that carrots and potatoes have still increased a lot, and this will be a stretch for some budgets. But this is the nature of having a global market for food.

Lamb and fish have also gone up more than 10 per cent, as have cheese, milk and fruit juice.

According to the food price index, the increases are lamb 6%, fish 0%, cheese 17%, milk 9% and fruit juice -1%.

Now maybe the February Food Price Index will come up with results that back the HoS story, but I’m going to wait to rely on the official figures. I also wonder why the HoS did its own survey when they get a free survey done for them every month by Stats NZ – that is robust and reliable.

Yet statistics reveal wages and salaries increased only 1.7 per cent last year.

Again, you pay for your food out of your after tax income, not the nominal gross wage you get.

• Total votes dropped from 30,919 in 2008 to 14,888 (+ specials) in 2011.
• National/Ross won 17 of the 20 polling places
• His best place was Howick, where Ross got over 68%
• The worst place was Clover Park where Ross got 4.7% only, and Wood got 90.4%
• Ross got over 60% in 10 of the 20 places, and over 50% in 15 of the 20 places
• In Meadowlands, Paul Young of New Citizen got his best result with 16.7% – pipping Michael Wood on 15.8% to third place

Incidentially this is the first by-election in at least 30 years where the seat was held by the Government, with no significant decline in the share of the vote.

Taranaki-King Country, Selwyn, Tamaki, Timaru, East Coast Bays, Rangitikei all had the Government come bloody close to losing the seat, or actually losing the seat. The last by-election for a Government-held seat which saw the vote share not change much was probably Pahiatua in 1977.