Martin Kay at Stuff reports:

Sir Peter Jackson today released a letter which he said proved the actors’ unions had already decided to blacklist The Hobbit before requesting a conversation with him.

The letter, from The International Federation of Actors, was sent to the US directors of production company 3 Foot 7 Ltd on August 17, warning that the federation had instructed its members no to act in the film until the producers had entered into bargaining with the union.

Sir Peter said that letter was the first time he had been made aware of the issue.

“It was the first time a meeting was ever requested and it was clear from the letter they had already voted to blacklist us, before even asking for one conversation with me,” he said.

“I am sick and tired of hearing [union NZ Actors] Equity say ‘All we ever wanted was a meeting’, because it’s disingenuous. They fail to add that from the outset, they had a gun to our head.”

“It just made me incredibly angry, I wondered how can a union behave like this? How could Simon Whipp [Australian union representative from the Media, Entertainment & Artists’ Alliance, or MEAA] initiate an international strike action against our film with no prior vote from the Kiwi membership?”

Sir Peter said he decided to release the letter after NZ Actors Equity circulated an email to its members yesterday saying all it sought was to “meet with the production and discuss the conditions under which performers would be engaged”.

“It amazes me that the executive officer of NZ Actor’s Equity can walk roughshod over our industry and the union itself fails to adhere to the most basic principles of democratic process,” he said.

“NZ Equity has given Simon Whipp absolute power and no one seems to care if he abuses it. He can threaten the livelihoods of thousands of Kiwis, jeopardise a huge financial investment to this country and he’s not held accountable. It’s unbelievable.”

So much for “We just wanted to talk”. What is also fascinating is there was no local vote in favour of a boycott it seems – Whipp instituted it presumably on his own authority, or the authority of his Australian overlords?

Sadly it looks like we will all pay the price for Mr Whipp’s actions, and end up having to give a greater subsidy to Warners. And there is absolutely no way at all that would have happened without the MEAA’s antics, as everything was set to start without disruption.

One could of course cut our nose off to spite our face, and refuse to do a sweetener to Warners. Part of me thinks we should, but really the price too pay would be far too high – we would not be losing one film, but an entire industry. I’d rather not having thousands more people unemployed and receiving welfare payments.

In a perfect world, the Government could just send MEAA a bill for the additional sweetener to Warners. They are the ones who incurred it.

This is very enjoyable. It’s pro-Obama, but done in the style of Gilbert and Sullivan.

So Matt McCarten is standing as a UNITE backed Indpendent for Mana. What does this mean for the by-election?

The only certainty is that it means it will be a lot more interesting and even exciting, and will have more media coverage of it. Beyond that, it depends on a few things.

Most would conclude it is a slap in the face for Phil Goff and Kriss Faafoi. Rather ironic to have the candidate who won thanks to the union block votes, to now face a candidate from another union.

Does it mean Labour could lose the seat? To be honest, at this stage no one knows. It is safe to say that Matt is unlikely to pick up many votes from Hekia, so that helps National and Hekia.

What we don’t know is whether he will get 500 votes or 5,000 votes. That may depend on what issues he campaigns on.

It is even possible this could help Faafoi and Labour. A battle on the left could get more left wing voters voting. And if Labour are tactically cunning, they could try and position themselves as the moderate party between National and McCarten.

So this announcement is a slap in the face for Labour, and no one in Labour will be happy with McCarten’s candidacy. But that does not mean this has suddenly become a three-horse race, or that it is suddenly a marginal seat. Mana is very tribal Labour and UNITE has fewer activists on the ground here than in Auckland.

As I said, the only guarantee is things will now be more exciting. I wasn’t planning to attend any of the Meet The Candidates meetings, but now I might just go along to see what stunts Matt gets up to with chicken suits and the like.

UPDATE: The Electoral Commission has announced eight candidates for Mana. They are:

Nice name for the Libertarianz candidate!

A reader asked me what the reader stats by country are. Google reports for the last month the following visits:

1. NZ 250,720 85.0%
2. Australia 13,366 4.5%
3. US 8,767 3.0%
4. UK 6,461 2.2%
5. Canada 1,749 0.6%
6. Japan 1.326 0.6%
7. Singapore 878 0.3%
8. Hong Kong 707 0.2%
9. Germany 683 0.2%
10. India 645 0.2%

Also at 0.1% or more are France, Netherlands, South Korea, China, Thailand, UAE, Ireland, Indonesia and Switzerland.

The Dom Post editorial:

For every state-house tenant who stays put despite having the means to move on, there is another person living in a caravan, a camping ground, substandard housing or a boarding house.

It is a simple equation, but one those who subscribe to the notion of a “state house for life” appear unable to grasp.

The consequence of indulging those who can provide for themselves is to shut out those who cannot. Housing New Zealand does not have enough homes to accommodate both groups. It should not try.

The only alternative would be to increase from 70,000 to 360,000 the number of houses owned by the state. And if anyone finds a spare $87 billion in capital for the Government, could they let Bill English know as I think he would be keen to have it.

An expectation has arisen that securing a state house is equivalent to being granted a house for life.

It is not an expectation that is contained in law, but a de facto understanding that is adhered to by Housing NZ staff. Tenants in good standing are allowed to stay for as long as they desire.

The policy applies equally to those who need state houses – the disabled, the mentally ill and the poor – and those who do not – the 5000 Housing NZ tenants who earn enough to pay full market rents and could just as easily rent privately.

That is foolish and unaffordable, and Housing Minister Phil Heatley is right to signal change, starting with reviewable, limited-term tenancies.

In the private sector, your tenancy can be terminated with 90 days notice. A five year fixed term is still a huge amount more stability, than you would get privately.

No-one wants to see the elderly shifted out of the neighbourhoods in which they have spent their lives, but it makes perfectly good sense to shift an elderly person or couple from the three or four-bedroom home in which they raised their children to a one or two-bedroom home down the street.

Especially as there is a family in need, waiting for that larger bedroom house.

The state housing provider should be judged on how adequately the most vulnerable are housed, not on how many homes it owns.

I agree, but sadly I am not sure Labour does.

If that means funding the building of new homes in Auckland and Wellington by selling homes in provincial areas, so be it. If that means reducing the oversupply of three-bedroom homes so it can build more one, two and five-bedroom properties, so be it.

And if it means transferring parts of its property portfolio to community organisations, as recommended by the advisory group, so be it.

Effectiveness, not ideology, should be the Government’s watchword.

Effectiveness not ideology? Now I am sure Labour won’t agree!

Chris Trotter writes:

How did a tiny union’s attempt to improve the lot of its members end up convulsing the entire nation?

Oh that is easy. The second they called for, and got, a global boycott of The Hobbit.

The left time after time after time ignore this rather salient point. They talk just about wanting to negotiate.

A global boycott of a film is the nuclear bomb of industrial negotiations. If you use it, then it causes massive damage.

What NZ Actors’ Equity tried to do here would scarcely have rated a mention in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland or Australia. Actors, film technicians, specialists of every kind in those countries negotiate with the big film studios all the time.

Again, Chris entirely misses the point. Negotiations are common – global boycotts are rare. And even worse, the global boycott was instituted based on a demand that was illegal for the producers to agree to.

Only recently, Irish film- makers successfully concluded an industry-wide collective agreement. Ireland, you’ll recall, was identified by Sir Peter Jackson’s people as one of the places to which location shooting for The Hobbit might be shifted.

Huh?

Why would you shift location filming to a country that already has an industry- wide collective agreement because workers in your own country were attempting to negotiate something very similar for themselves?

It doesn’t make sense.

It does make sense. Chris needs to talk to people in the industry – as I have.

Warners and he like are fairly relaxed about whether a country’s film industry is unionised or non-unionised. Under both these scenarios, they can calculate the cost of doing business.

What they don’t want to be anywhere near, is a country which is non unionised, and a union is trying to unionise the entire acting industry (despite miniscule membership), and wants to use your film as the vehicle for doing so.

This is not rocket science.

Unless the entire controversy has been manufactured; unless all that we have witnessed since September 28, when Sir Peter Jackson launched a very public broadside against the actors’ union, is a cleverly spun fiction. A tale replete with noble hero (Sir Peter) and evil villains (the unions) designed to exculpate its authors from any and all blame for taking The Hobbit offshore.

Chris ignores the obvious answer, which I supplied, and which he could get by talking to any producer. Instead he turns to conspiracy theories.

Also happy will be that permanent combination of anti-union interests. Thanks to The Hobbit controversy, the CTU’s “Fairness at Work” campaign lies dead in the water.

Not thanks to The Hobbit. Thanks to Helen Kelly who disastrously changed the focus from  Simon Whipp to the CTU. Bad enough she became the de facto spokesperson for the union, but she then personally insulted Peter Jackson.

I especially enjoyed the irony of Sir Richard Taylor’s Weta Workshops-organised “Save The Hobbit” rallies on – of all days – Labour Day.

The irony was wonderful but again Chris is wrong. They were not organised by Weta Workshop. They were organised by an Auckland actor – D Mark Harrison, on his own initiative.

The iPredict stock for whether The Hobbit moves off shore is now up to 30c, or 30%.

On Monday it was as low as 10%, and now it is steady on 30%. That is a pretty significant level of risk it will go. I’m going to be monitoring the stock closely over this week to see where it goes before a decision is officially announced – if any insiders are trading, then the stock price should beat the official announcement.

AAP reports:

An Australian man faces criminal charges after allegedly tattooing a 40cm-long penis onto his mate’s back.

Police have charged a 21-year-old man from Bundamba, near Ipswich in Queensland, with two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one offence relating to the public safety act. …

It depicts a 40cm-long image of a penis and a misspelled slogan implying the man is gay.

Police said the pair had a disagreement before the tattooing. …

“The victim wasn’t interested (in a tattoo) at first but he was talked into it and he said he wanted a Yin and Yang symbol with some dragons,” Det Malcolm told the Queensland Times on Tuesday.

“The bloke started doing the tattoo and there was another bloke standing there watching saying, ‘Mate, it’s looking really good.’

“He was told not to go out into the sun and not to show anyone for a few weeks.

“When he got home he showed it to the person he lives with and she said: ‘I dont think it’s the tattoo you were after’.”

I’m just trying to imagine the reaction when the flatmate told him exactly what was there 🙂

NZPA reports:

Crown prosecutor Russell Collins said the defendant and the victim were staying in a small cottage at a farm where his father worked.

The defendant, the victim and two other youths had been hunting on the farm with the 7.62mm semi-automatic.

The defendant was familiar with the weapon, said Mr Collins.

At 4.15pm the defendant, the victim and another youth were in the lounge of a cottage. The third person was playing on a PlayStation while the defendant sat behind the victim.

The firearm was under the table when the youths began discussing whether to go hunting again.

An argument began.

The victim called the defendant an arsehole.

“I’ll shoot you,” said the defendant.

The victim laughed and the defendant took the rifle from the table and loaded it with two bullets.

The victim told the defendant to get the gun out of the way.

The defendant swung the gun around towards the victim and told him he would no longer get cheeky.

The victim turned away and the firearm went off.

The father told his son and the other witness to tell police that the victim had the firearm and that it accidentally discharged as the accused tried to remove it from him, Mr Collins said.

I’m struggling with how this was reduced to manslaughter from murder. The article says:

The boy was originally charged with murder, but Justice Forrest Miller said an investigation by a police armourer could not exclude the possibility that the firearm was discharged accidentally.

Let us say that the discharge was accidental. But in the context of the defendant saying he would shoot him, loading the gun with bullets, threatening the victim with it, and then pointing it specifically towards the victim – does that really matter? The action of specifically putting bullets in the gun while saying I will shoot you, is very damning to my mind

The Herald reports:

Paul the Octopus, the tentacled tipster who fascinated football fans by correctly predicting results at this year’s World Cup, died Tuesday.

Paul had reached the octopus old age of 2 years and died in his tank on Tuesday morning in an aquarium in the western German city of Oberhausen, spokeswoman Ariane Vieregge said.

Paul seemed to be in good shape when he was checked late Monday, but he did not make it through the night.

I guess his chances of getting to predict two world cups were not great. I wonder what animal will predict the rugby world cup correctly next year?

This debate should be lots of fun:

If you wish to attend, you can RSVP on Facebook, or by putting VC Debate in the subject line of an e-mail to Vic Uni.

I’ve almost lost track of the fake statements made by Trevor on Red Alert. Most I ignore, but this one is worth exposing.

Trevor blogged:

John Key said he helped arrange the meeting between Julia Gillard and Phil Goff.

Nonsense.

Arranged through Labour Party contacts. Some of us have known her since before she was a Minister.

Now one should always be careful when Trevor does supply a reference and a quote. Unlike Trevor, we will go to a reliable source – NZPA. Their report says:

Mr Key said he was relaxed about it.

“I mean he rang me on Sunday to tell me he was going. Normally the leader of the Opposition has to write and I certainly did that when I was the leader of the Opposition, but I also saw John Howard when I was leader of the Opposition and he was prime minister so look, at the end of the day, I’m fine with it. I’ll be seeing Julia Gillard in Vietnam in the weekend.”

Mr Key said he offered the assistance of New Zealand diplomats in Australia and would have offered further support if Mr Goff had written to him earlier.

So Key in no way claimed he he helped arrange it. He offered assistance – as one would hope he would.

“I for one don’t think Phil Goff is going to go to Australia and bag New Zealand. He’s been a long standing foreign minister, he’s a long-standing politician, so I don’t think we should be too bent out of shape about it. I’m not.”

Which is a nice change from a former PM who used to rant about treason when Opposition MPs met overseas leaders, and said things she disagreed with.

Asked if it was appropriate for the Australian administration to see the Labour leader before the Prime Minister Mr Key said it was up to them.

“I don’t care about it either way, I’ll see her at the end of the week.”

He disagreed he had been outmanouevred.

My God if Labour are trying to talk this up as some sort of tactical victory, they really are desperate. Opposition Leaders have more flexible schedules than PMs. Still, it beats talking about the latest polls.

I’m quick to point out stories where I think there is something wrong with them, and generally can be quite critical of aspects of our media.

I am not always so quick to point out great examples of journalism, and I should – as we do still have good stories being broken by good journalists.

The journalist who wins my inaugural Journalist of the Month award is Matt Nippert from NBR. His investigations and reports into South Canterbury Finance have been superb – so good even the SFO seems to have acted on them.

The latest NBR story had me stunned – about how Allan Hubbard signed other people’s name on official documents. Now he had power of attorney for them, but instead of signing his name and stating he was acting for them, he signed their name.

And of course the story about the retired freezing worker who owned the Hilton or Hyatt. So good, you’d almost think it was made up – but it wasn’t.

Many Wellingtonians saw these signs over Labour Weekend. I thought how nice it is that the Police are so proud about meeting their diversity targets 🙂

For the first time, 538 are forecasting that the Republicans will pick up more than 50 seats in the mid terms next week.

That is only the mid point of their forecasts. One thing which makes them a good site is they give probabilities for different scenarios. They say there is still a 20% chance the Republicans will win fewer than 39 seats and the Democrats retain a majority.

However there is also a 30% chance the Republicans win 60 or more seats – beating the 54 seat pick-up of 1994.

15 Democrat-held seats are forecast to be at least 90% likely to go Republican, and 1 Republican-held seat to go Democrat for a net gain of 14.

A further 10 seats are forecast to be at least 80% likely to go Republican, and 1 the other way, for a cumulative net gain of 23.

At 70% you add on another another 14 seats for a cumulative gain of 37. And another 9 at over 60% for a cumulative gain of 46. So for the Democrats to keep the majority, at least seven seats deemed 60% or more likely to fall, have to be retained.

At 50% you add 8 more on to take the total to 54. That is not a 50% chance of winning 54 net seats but 54 net seats which have a 50% or greater chance of swapping hands.

If in the final week, it gets even better for the Republicans, how big could the landslide get? Those above 40% are seven seats taking it to 61, a further six above 30% to 67 and a further 9 over 20% to 76. The remaining seats are not thought to be contestable.

This is the first time 538 has forecast House as well as Senate races. It will be interested to see how well they do. I’ll take another look at their model on election eve.

The Dom Post editorial:

That facility – jointly owned by Greater Wellington and Manawatu-Whanganui regional councils – revealed this month that a study it commissioned from economic forecaster Berl shows it contributes close to $2 billion a year to the regional economy.

Of that $2b, the report says, half comes from core port operations or the part of the business that, in 2009-10, included 46 cruise ships tying up alongside 450,000 tonnes of logs for export, the importing of 15,000 vehicles and the handling of the equivalent of 100,000 containers. That side of the business is steady.

I’d like the port to move. Not only is a terrible eyesore compared to the rest of the waterfront, but the land it is on would be terrific for cafes, bars, apartments and even maybe a hotel. Plus of course more public space also.

The port could move to Petone/Seaview which is already an industrial area. It would provide more jobs in the Hutt, and in Wellington.

The rest of the $2b comes from CentrePort’s incursion into property development, a strategy for growth the owners have presumably sanctioned but one that carries real risk, especially in volatile times.

It also surely carries political risk: how does Wellington City Council feel about a supposedly complementary local body attracting commercial tenants – until recently, reasonably happy in the capital’s Golden Mile – to its 70 hectares of waterfront?

More fundamentally, is property development a proper business for a ratepayer-owned company? Isn’t it generally so speculative a business that it is best left to entrepreneurs, who put their own – and their banks’ – cash at risk?

I’d have the port company concentrate on port operations in Petone, and have the existing Wellington land managed by the existing waterfront agency.

Britton Brown at the Dom Post reports:

An MP on patrol with police spent almost 40 minutes trying to keep a shot camper alive, then stayed through the night to support the woman’s distraught partner.

Louise Upston, National MP for Taupo, was with police in Turangi on Friday night to see at first hand the harm caused by alcohol when they were called to the shooting of Lower Hutt teacher Rosemary Ives, 25, about 11pm.

Ms Ives was standing next to her partner, Adam Hyndman, brushing her teeth at the Kaimanawa campsite south of Turangi when she was killed. A 25-year-old Hamilton hunter has been charged with careless use of a firearm in relation to her death.

Mrs Upston said that, when she arrived with police, they found Mr Hyndman giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation while a female camper did chest compressions.

Mrs Upston took over the compressions so the other woman could rest, sharing the work until paramedics arrived about 40 minutes later.

“You don’t think, `Will I or won’t I?’, you just get in there and do what needs to be done,” she said. “You become desperate, basically. All of us wanted to do our absolute best to pull [Ms Ives] through. Unfortunately, her injuries were substantial and what we did do was probably never going to be enough.”

She kept thinking about how Mr Hyndman must be feeling, staying by his side after Ms Ives was confirmed dead. She remained with him at Taupo police station until 8am.

About 20 years ago she witnessed her mother’s death while her brother tried CPR, which helped her relate to Mr Hyndman.

“He was devastated … they had just gone to clean their teeth. They’d gone a couple of metres into the bush so you wouldn’t spit out in the area you are going to be sleeping in.”

As an MP, out on patrol with the Police (a quite common occurrence as Police like MPs seeing first hand what they have to cope with), you’re probably thinking the worst you will see is some drunk teens – instead you end up in the middle of this tragic shooting.

Everyone who knows Rosemary Ives will be in mourning, but you do have to feel extra sympathy for Adam Hyndman – to see your girlfriend shot down in front of you must be horrifying, let alone working so hard and for so long to try and keep her alive.

The Greenhouse Policy Coalition have published a fact sheet on the ETS. Specifically they compare it with the European ETS and the ETS proposed for Australia.

This is very useful as in 2011, our ETS will be up for review. Labour and the Greens both say that our ETS is far too weak, and far greater costs should be imposed on businesses and consumers. So it is very useful to be able to compare it with the European scheme especially. First they not the different profiles:

New Zealand’s emissions (2008 figures) primarily come from agricultural gases (46.6%) and energy (45.3%) while the EU’s emissions are largely from energy (79.1%), with agriculture just 9.6%. There are few internationally recognised mitigation options currently available for agricultural emissions, while renewable energy generation is a proven industry.

That is a key aspect – 47% agriculture compared with 10% for Europe.

New Zealand generates much more electricity from renewable sources – 73% in 2009, with a 90 percent target for 2025, as against a European target of 20% of total energy coming from renewables by 2020 (15% in the UK). Europe therefore has much more scope than New Zealand for increasing renewable generation.

This is also key background. Europe can fairly easily reduce emissions by replacing non-renewable power plants with renewable ones. We already have four times the proportion of renewable energy.

The combination of these two factors means it is much harder (ie expensive) for NZ to reduce emissions.

Emissions coverage

The EU: Covers 43% of emissions, rising to 50% from 2013. There are no plans to cover methane from farm animals or agricultural nitrous oxide from fertilisers or global warming synthetic gases like sulphur hexafluoride.

New Zealand: From 1 January 2015 the NZETS will cover nearly all emissions, including all six gases identified by the United Nations.

So 100% coverage vs 50%. This means that even if one left agricultural gases out such as methane, we would still be covering more than the Europe scheme.

Sector coverage

The EU: Combustion and most industrial sectors are currently covered, with aviation due to enter in 2012. From 2013, petrochemicals, aluminium and ammonia will be included. Agriculture will not be covered.

New Zealand: Virtually the entire economy will be covered by 2015. Currently, the scheme covers forestry, industrial processes (includes iron and steel, aluminium, cement, glass and gold), stationary energy (includes coal, natural gas and refining petroleum) and liquid fossil fuels.

If no other country in the word is including agriculture by 2011, then the logical thing to do in the review is to suspend its inclusion into the scheme.

Allocation of free emission units

The EU: Historically, free units have been allocated to many companies at levels well above 100% of their emissions. Average allocation across EU countries in 2009 varied between 92% and 152%. Allocation also covers more sectors than in New Zealand. The scheme will feature more auctioning of units (ie companies having to pay for them) from 2013, with a sinking cap, but 100% allocation is still on the cards for significantly trade-exposed sectors, including those the NZETS covers.

New Zealand: Trade-exposed companies are to be allocated units at a 60% or 90% level on an intensity basis, ie emissions relative to output.

So again NZ is “more pure” than Europe.

Phasing out of allocation

The EU: The number of units allocated to companies will be cut by 1.74% each year from 2013.

New Zealand: Unit allocation will be cut by 1.3% each year from 2013.

The phase out rate is one of the few areas where Europe is moving faster. But considering the lack of movement from the US and China and India, this is fairly prudent.

Carbon pricing

The EU: Has no price caps, but from 2013 member states will be allowed to influence carbon prices by bringing forward auctioning of units within the overall cap.

New Zealand: Has an optional price cap for carbon until the end of 2012, set at $25 per unit (one unit = one tonne of CO₂-e), with companies until then required to surrender one unit for every two tonnes of emissions, an effective halving of the $25 price.

This is the major difference. It halves the cost for businesses (and consumers) by way of effectively a subsidy from the taxpayer.  Unless a change is made this will end in 2013.

Now of course some say there should be no ETS at all, but that is as likely as NZ implementing a flat tax. The real debate next year will be over what changes are made to the ETS – the National Government will review the ETS and decide on some changes. Labour and the Greens will also draw up policy on what changes they want. It will be very interesting to compare the policies after the review is done.

My position is pretty simple. China, India and the US are essential to any meaningful reduction in emissions. Unless those three countries have announced concrete plans to reduce emissions, then there is little point in NZ self-flagellating itself by having the purest ETS in the world. Having no ETS and no emissions reduction target at all is not politically viable as doing nothing would invite trade and reputation repercussions. We need to be doing enough so that we are not seen as the problem, but not so much that we end up exporting jobs to other countries.

Tapu Misa writes in the Herald:

So multiculturalism has “failed, absolutely failed”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It is dead, declared another German politician. Did I hear “I told you so” from the xenophobes who claimed all along that multiculturalism was doomed to failure?

The crowing may be a little premature. The trouble with multiculturalism is that it seems to mean different things to different people.

In many parts of Europe, it has failed. In some countries it has been a disaster. Yet in other countries it has worked well – the US is an excellent example of that. As is NZ.

For Merkel, “multikulti” is the idea that “we are living side by side, and are happy about it”. (Which implies, I think, that multicultural nirvana was meant to happen naturally.)

For others, multiculturalism is that ill-defined policy which holds that a single country can accommodate new and disparate cultures peacefully and equitably, even when certain aspects of those cultures clash fundamentally with its own cherished traditions and values.

The former seems an increasingly distant liberal fantasy, and the latter a recipe for resentment and discord.

I agree with Tapu Misa. I think a blending or integration of cultures is a good thing, but if the cultures fundamentally clash on core values, then you get the problem – resentment and discord.

Disenchantment with multiculturalism isn’t new. In 2006, the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told immigrants they should “conform … or don’t come here”.

Conform isn’t the word I would use. But there does have to be a general acceptance of the way of life of the country you move to. For example, if the sight of females in bikinis terribly upsets you, then don’t move to Bondi Beach – or Australia generally.

There is a key difference between integration and assimilation. The former is about adopting or not resisting the core values of a country. The latter implies to me abandoning your previous culture entirely.

Blair said that the July 2005 suicide bombings in London, carried out by British Muslims, had thrown the concept of a multicultural Britain into “sharp relief”. While multiculturalism should be celebrated, it had to be accompanied by a duty to share “essential values – belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage”. “Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain Britain,” Blair said.

“So conform to it, or don’t come here. We don’t want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means.”

Tolerance is almost the most important aspect. And that includes tolerance of those who do not share your religious beliefs – and in fact even criticise them.

I was chatting at the rally yesterday to a Jewish friend (who gently scolded me for the joke I blogged a couple of days ago, before admitting it was very funny) and talked about Sarah Silverman. Silverman is a Jewish comedian, probably best known for her hilarious “I f**ked Matt Damon” video to her boyfriend. In her TV series she has offended almost all religions by not just having sex with God, but dumping him afterwards. A reporter asked her if she would ever play a part where she had sex with Mohammed. Her reply was no she would not, as she did not wish to be killed. A very sad reflection on the world we live in.

Anyone who wants to kill someone because they are disrespectful to your religion fails my tolerance test. In fact even wanting to change the law, so it is illegal to disrespect your religion, fails my tolerance test.

Where does that leave us? I’d like to think our version of the multicultural society is just as respectful of difference, and inclusive, without being overweeningly deferential.

What does being a New Zealander mean? We’re still working it out. But if a shared sense of identity and citizenship is a sign of multicultural health, then we can take heart.

NZ I think has managed the challenge pretty damn well. But this may have been by as much good luck as good management. I do think our immigration system needs a “tolerance” test and also we need to make sure prospective immigrants are well informed on what are the “essential values” of New Zealanders, and that as aspiring NZers, they share them.

The Herald reports on this ODT story:

Hamish Chang has revenge on his mind, after returning home to his student flat in Dunedin to find his every worldly possession tightly wrapped in tinfoil.

The prank was sprung by Mr Chang’s flatmates when he arrived home on Sunday to his George St flat from a week in Christchurch and pushed open the door to his bedroom.

Inside was the gleaming, shiny handiwork that had taken his five flatmates – and another friend – more than a week, 600m of foil and 30 hours of labour to complete.

No matter how big or small, hardly a single item of Mr Chang’s property had escaped the tinfoil treatment – from the walls and ceiling to his desk, bed and pillows, and even the individual pins holding up the posters on his walls.

That is true dedication to a prank. In my days at Otago we just uses newspaper, but thinking about it, tin foil is easier and looks better!

A reader managed to locate the You Tube. Worth a watch.

Well this was the best Labour Day rally I have been to. No angry people with angry placards. No scores of paid organisers busing in thousands of people during a paid. Just thousands of Kiwis coming into town and giving up a couple of hours on a public holiday to celebrate the NZ film industry and send a clear message that regardless of what has happened, Kiwis wants The Hobbit filmed in NZ.

This was my favourite placard – Gollum wanting his precious home saved.

I’m sure I should know this person is. She didn’t speak, but she sung beautifully.

First speaker up was Wellington Mayor, Celia Wade-Brown. Celia got a good reception and applause, but the cheers for the next speaker were almost deafening.

Sir Richard Taylor was as modest as usual, but the star of the show. He spoke with passion about what they do, and why they want The Hobbit to stay here. He also read out a letter from Peter Jackson who expressed similar sentiments. Jackson also, in his letter, warned that we do not want to become a state of Australia, and that the NZ film industry should work together with its own guilds, rather than bring in outsiders who care nothing for the NZ film industry. This got loud cheers.

This young lady was one of the highlights. She is a young film-maker who came here from the US, and just raved about how wonderful it is here, and that she owes so much to NZ.

The casting director for The Hobbit also spoke and told some lovely stories of how they had to delay filming one scene for a week because all the Elves in Otago had exams, and another delay was when the warriors could not make any battles as it was muster week. She said in the US she’s get screamed at by the producer but here Jackson just smiled and said he was glad the elves would be less stressed etc.

There were heaps of kids there, and you could see them engrossed as one guy from Weta spoke about how at the age of three he wanted to be involved in movies and especially a Spielberg. He talked about how Richard Taylor hired him and kept trusting him and giving him more and more jobs and how his last job was as head of design for the Tintin movie, produced by Spielberg – his message was in NZ, your dreams can come true.

All the speakers got across that the NZ style of is quite critical to the sucess of our industry – the relaxed style, the willing to work to get the job done, the team-work, the passion, and the flexibility. I reflected how different this approach was to the inflexibility that MEAA seem to want. Note this was just my interpretation – no one actually mentioned MEAA.

The kids let go of their balloons at the end after Richard Taylor spoke again. He told a wonderful story of how he was helping fit armour to a rider of Rohan, and he looked up to notice she was a fairly elderly lady. They were filming in Twizel. They got talking and she mentioned how sadly her horse yesterday had twisted a leg. Taylor asked her if she was going to be a foot solider then, and she replied that no – she went up the high country yesterday, roped herself a new horse, broke it in overnight – so she could stay play her part as an extra. He says that is his favourite memory of the filming.

As I said it was a lovely occasion, and hopefully Warners will see the coverage on the news tonight, and it may help just a little bit with their decision.

I’ve reflected before on the economic damage that would occur, if NZ lost The Hobbit. But after that rally, I’ve actually decided the job losses and economic losses would not be the biggest price we pay. I think we would lose a certain amount of our collective self-esteem or soul as a nation. All those stories about how much better the Kiwi film-making industry is that in Hollywood etc would become just legends from the past, rather than tales of our future.

Hopefully the back-down from the MEAA did not occur too late, for the film to remain here. And even more importantly, perhaps some lessons will be learnt about not resorting to global boycotts unless you can justify it.

Congratulations to the organisers of the rally.

The Herald reports:

Arthur Allan Thomas will petition the Prime Minister to reopen the investigation into the Crewe murders.

“It’s going to the Prime Minister. The police are just cover-uppers and the Prime Minister is the only man who can do something about it.”

No the Prime Minister can not re-open a Police investigation. Only the Police can. If the PM could re-open a Police investigation, then he would have re-opened the one into Labour’s electoral over-spending in 2005.

The PM also can not close down an SFO investigation.