Phil Heatley outlined on Q+A some quite radical changes to Housing NZ, but they are changes that would help those most in need – and in fact are long overdue changes necessary to make the model of state housing reinstituted by Labour workable.

Some on the left will try and whip up hysterical opposition to them, but people should be aware the group that recommended them includes the Auckland City Mission Diane Robertson and Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army. And also to her credit Sue Bradford, who was a panelist, seemed quite supportive. So I suggest people resist knee-jerk reactions.

National introduced market rentals in the 1990s. This was highly controversial and unpopular, ans was reversed by Labour who campaigned on a change back. I don’t want to defend the market rentals but explain why they were done.

The idea behind market rentals was that an income based accommodation supplement was a fairer way to assist low income people into housing. It could take into account your exact level of income, the average rental price in your area etc and most of all applied to every New Zealander on a low income.

The idea was that if two families lived next door to each other on identical incomes and identical family sizes and in identical houses, they would both get the same level of support. Up until then the person in the state house got huge assistance, and the person in private accommodation got very little. Unless the number of state houses was so large as to cover every low income New Zealander, then some families unfairly were getting much better assistance than others. And in fact (as this report shows) it was not always the family with the greatest need who was in the state house.

However the market rentals policy was hugely unpopular, for a number of reasons. One reason was the Government failed to sell it well. People thought it was about increasing rental payments from poor families, and there was almost no focus on the fact that the Government would be helping many more low income families than previously.

It also had the problem in that it created a large number of people (around 300,000) who were modest “winners” and a smaller number of people (around 70,000) who were quite large “losers”, and those who are disadvantaged by a policy change will fight against it, while those advantaged by it not so much.

To be fair there were also some unforeseen consequences also, such as private sector landlords pushing prices up, due to state houses doing the same. That was genuinely undesirable, and possible one reason National has not returned to that policy even though it is clearly less discriminatory.

So we’re left with Labour’s policy which is that if you live in a state house, you get a much higher subsidy from the taxpayer – the SHAG calculates it as worth $8,000 a year compared to $4,000 a year from the Accommodation Supplement. There are a limited number of state houses, and one can not change the number of houses in stock dramatically or quickly. So you want those state houses to go those most in need. But I have always said to do that you need to evict people from their state houses if a more needy family is on the waiting list, and you also need to move tenants from larger to smaller homes as their kids leave home.

The SHAG has recommended pretty much exactly that, but in a gentle way. Their recommendations are what you need to make Labour’s policy better for low income families. It means the greatest assistance goes to those with the greatest need.

SHAG’s report is here. Here are extracts from Q+A:

PHIL HEATLEY – Housing Minister.
Well, that’s certainly a recommendation in the report is that any new tenants coming on from now on would be under the understanding that they may just have the house for three years, five years or 10 years, and then we review that tenancy. So the tenancy wouldn’t necessarily end in that time, but we’d review the tenancy and see if their circumstances have changed.

This seems very sensible. Exiting tenants entered under a policy where their expectation is they can remain in the house for life so long as they are good tenants. I like the idea in future that you set at the beginning an expectation of review at a certain date. If their circumstances have improved and there are much needier families on the waiting list, then logically one would allocate to the family with the greater need.

MR HEATLEY So what would happen is& Well, a good example actually is someone’s in a state house – you know, they’ve had it for 10 years. When they first moved in, they had three kids, they were married, it was a four-bedroom. Now they’re alone or there’s just two of them. They just need one bedroom.

This is one of the real problems. The kids have left and now tenants are in a house with lots of spare rooms, while a family on the waiting list with three kids can’t get a house.

Some people will say the answer is just to build more state houses, but there is no way the state housing stock will increase from 70,000 to over 300,000 (the numbers on the accom supplement).

GUYON OK, the other big mismatch you’ve got is the type of houses that you’ve actually got. You’ve got far too many two- and three-bedroom houses. You’ve got a lot of people rattling around in houses that are too big for them. I think that you said there were 2700 houses with spare bedrooms, and about a similar number with crowded bedrooms. Are you going to have to engage in a large-scale selling and buying programme, in terms of selling houses you don’t need and buying ones that are fit for purpose?

MR HEATLEY That’s correct. In fact, we’ve got two types of mismatch, as you describe. The first one is that we’ve too many three-bedroom houses – in fact, 10,000 too many – and we haven’t got enough one-bedroom houses for very small families – obviously people living on their own – and certainly not enough four- or five-bedroom houses. So what we’re going to do is send a very clear signal that we want to realign all that, so we’re going to need to dispose of all our three-bedroom houses and buy smaller and larger ones.

No doubt some will call this privatisation! This does show the difficulties with the current policy – it is very hard to match the demand with supply.

GUYON Will the numbers stay essentially the same at roughly 70,000? Or will you increase it or decrease it?

MR HEATLEY What we’ve said quite clearly, and we certainly said to the people that drew up the report for us, is that we’re committed to state housing, we’re committed to Housing New Zealand&

GUYON On what numbers?

MR HEATLEY  &we’re committed to income-related rents.

GUYON Yeah, we’ll talk about that in a second. What numbers?

MR HEATLEY In terms of numbers of state houses, what we’ve said is we want to house more people in social housing. We want it to be a combination of state housing and combination of houses provided by others in the community-housing sector. So we are going to move away from counting the number of state houses we own or manage. …

GUYON That’s fascinating. So at the moment, there’s a ministerial directive that says you have to own just over 70,000 state houses by the middle of next year.

MR HEATLEY Um, no, the ministerial directive that’s happened over a number of decades under National and Labour, and it’s continued as they’ve gone in and out of government, is to increase the number of state houses.

GUYON OK, but roughly it’s 70,000.

MR HEATLEY That’s correct. And we’re saying&

GUYON So you’re abandoning that target? You’re abandoning any target or minimum number of houses that you need to own?

MR HEATLEY Yes, what we’re doing&

GUYON That’s a massive change.

MR HEATLEY It is, but what we’re saying now is that we want to increase the number of people housed, and we want to increase the amount of social housing in New Zealand, but we can’t do it alone. The government’s in no position to keep buying state houses the way we have been, so we’re going to slow down and probably stop and go to the community-housing sector, who have put up their hand, and they say this in their report, and say, ‘Look, we want to get into housing the most vulnerable.’ In fact, many housing organisations are specialist in their area – disabled, mentally ill, elderly.  ‘And we actually need capital, cash or houses for you as the government to inject into us to grow.’ And we’re prepared to look at that.

This is quite an important exchange. Shifting the focus from whether HSNZ has 70,000 or 70,500 or 71,000 state houses to a focus on how many people are in social housing, which includes the Salvation Army, some local authorities etc.

MR HEATLEY Well, no. What the panel says& And, you know, we had someone on the panel from Auckland City Mission, someone from the Salvation Army, someone from the New Zealand Housing Foundation. They’ve come back and they’ve said, ‘No, what we would like you to do is transfer a whole lot of housing stock or cash or land into our community-housing organisations, which are not-for-profit organisations&’

GUYON On that sort of level? 20%?

MR HEATLEY They’re suggesting moving very fast. If the ministers make a decision, we’re going to have to consider our tenants, not upsetting people’s lives. But the important thing I’d like to pick up on is this is not privatisation. This would mean a state house was transferred to a not-for-profit community-housing organisation who would have to retain the house. They couldn’t sell it, otherwise it would have to come back to us. And they would have to house the most vulnerable. They couldn’t just get, you know, anyone in that house.

As I said at the beginning, the members of SHAG who recommended this include reps from City Mission, Salvation Army etc. I think they have done an excellent job at analysing the problems with the current policy and proposing some changes which will provide better assistance to those most in need.

The death of Rosemary Ives, whom a hunter mistook for a deer, is tragic and heartbreaking – but it is not an accident.

If the hunter had been legally hunting, and was in the middle of the bush where deer out number humans, and Miss Ives had been wearing a fake pair of antlers then maybe you can call it an accident.

But when you are hunting at night illegally, and firing at the first thing you can see from a moving car, then that is negligence, not an accident.

The police have charged the hunter with careless use of a firearm causing death.I hope this is a holding charge, and they consider manslaughter. Unless there is more to the story than reported (always possible) the behaviour involved was reckless.

Sympathies to the family and friend of Rosemary Ives.

Had a brilliant day today. Myself and a couple of friends did a nice two hour commute to rural Wairarapa this morning. Went to Busted Blonde’s 10 hectare section near Mauriceville.

Once we got out of Wellington the weather was brilliant. Nothing like a good road trip with some mates on a fine day.

Thought we would be out there for just a couple of hours, but ended up spending five hours drinking and chatting in the sun, in a superb rural retreat.  Lots of good conversation, and a superb lunch which included whitebait fritters and venison. Yum.

Reflected on the drive back how lucky we are to be in a country with such great scenery. Am determined the next time we head to the Wairarapa to stay overnight so we can explore the many great backroads.

Two Jews are walking down the road when a stunningly attractive woman walks past them. They both turn their heads to look at her walking away from then and the first Jew says to the other Jew “Man, I’d love to lend her one”

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

Barbara Boxer became infamous for insisting a General call her Senator not Ma’am. This ad plays it up wonderfully.

If The Hobbit moves overseas, there will be a massive loss of jobs in NZ. The 2,500 for the Hobbit itself is only the start. All the other productions will stop coming here, and I imagine Weta would have a limited future.

But add onto that the lost tourism jobs and earnings. 1 in 10 tourists say the LOTR connection was a factor in choosing to come here. If Middle Earth moves to Ireland, we will lose much of that tourism.

The Herald on Sunday reports on the rallies you can go along to, to show your support for the film staying here. These are not anti-anyone rallies, but pro-Hobbit in NZ rallies.

12.30pm-2pm Monday

• Auckland: Queen Elizabeth II Square (opposite Britomart)
• Wellington: Civic Square
• Christchurch: Cathedral Square
• Hamilton: Garden Place
• Matamata: The Gollum statue
• Queenstown: The Village Green

I’m certainly attending the Wellington one. If you plan to attend, you can join the event on Facebook.

The HOS also covers the latest:

President of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Helen Kelly told the Herald on Sunday she was not sorry for the dispute as it began as a simple request to negotiate conditions.

“I personally regret calling Peter Jackson a brat. That was not helpful,” said Kelly. “I shouldn’t have said that, because he is not a brat. He is clearly deeply hurt … and it’s not my style to usually get so personal.”

However, she believed most New Zealanders supported the right to collectively bargain.

God this Orewellian double-speak is getting annoying.A global boycott is not a simple request to negotiate. It is the last resort in such a negotiation – it is where you say we would rather this film never gets made at all, because the conditions on it are so bad. The irony being that the conditions are the best ever offered to NZ actors.

And secondly those actors who are members of the MEAA could always try and negotiate a collective contract on behalf of those members only.  What they were not allowed to do is negotiate on behalf of all the non members, and force them into becoming union members.

Back at the Armageddon Expo, Stargate Atlantis actor Torri Higginson told the crowd it would be “insane” if The Hobbit was not filmed in New Zealand. “If anyone knows him [Peter Jackson] tell him I’ll work for free,” said Higginson. “F*** the unions.”

I suspect many actors would work for free on the film. But Jackson will not only be paying good weekly rates, he is the first Producer to offer residuals to NZ actors. How the fuck the CTU ever decided to make him public enemy number one I don’t know.

The Herald on Sunday has launched its drink driving campaign. It is primarily focused on persuading individual NZers to pledge two drinks max, with the objective of a law change less prominent.

I have no problems with people pledging not to drive after a certain amount of alcohol. I would note that a flat limit which takes no account of time period seems rather simplistic. Sometimes I may go to the Backbencher at 6 pm and stay on for Backbenches, and after that head into town until 2 am. Over those eight hours I might have four standard drinks (and a lot of non alcohol drinks and food), but would be well under 0.05 BAC.

I do take issue with one part of their story:

Science, too, is on our side. Last year, 129 people died on New Zealand roads as a result of alcohol-related crashes. Many – the transport ministry projects 150-33 lives a year – could be saved if the drink-drive limit was lowered from 80mg to 50mg.

I presume the 150 is a type, and it is meant to be 15-33. I point out again what the official stats tell us:

The only data we have at the moment is the stats on blood alcohol level amongst deceased drivers. They show over the last five years that 18 deceased drivers had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

But that number is misleading as it includes those aged under 20, for whom it is already illegal to drive with a BAC over 0.03. That knocks it down to 12. That is 12 out of 1,168 deceased drivers or 1% of the total.

12 over five years is 2.4 a year. The number of dead drivers is over half the number of total dead on the roads, so I would say 4 – 5 people a year would be “saved” by a law change – that is if assuming those drivers would not have driven if the law changed.

As I said yesterday, I am willing to be persuaded that a change is desirable – but to do that we need to collect better data and not have nonsense claims about 33 lives a year, hen only 1.4 deceased drivers a year test between 0.05 and 0.08.

While I think the two drink max limit is a bit simplistic, I understand the need for simplisticity in mass media campaigns. If the HoS campaign helps reduce the road toll voluntarily – then good on them. I suspect though that it will mainly affect the low risk drivers, and have little impact on the recividist drunk drivers who cause so much of the damage.

Actually, that would be an interesting stat – and one I am do not know of. How many of those drivers who die in fatal car crashes have a conviction for driving over the limit?

This ad was produced by Citizens Against Government Waste. The chinese language with english sub-titles makes it very effective, as you really tune into it.

Also they mention no politician by name, yet you know whom it is effectively blaming.

The CAGW also produce an annual “Congressional Pig Book” which details all the pork-barrel spending.

No transcript yet but a really fascinating interview with Hone Harawira on The Nation on Tv3. Hone sometimes often gives an impression that he mouths off without thinking, but the interview showed that a lot of what he does is more calculated. He talks about his role being to push the limits, and how the MP needs to differentiate itself from National rather than abandon them.

He also showed some political deftness at not giving straight answers (at one point Duncan had to remind him that it is his role to ask the questions), but he did make one thing very clear. He said that if Pita Sharples retires as co-leader, then he has recommended that Te Ururoa Flavell become the new co-leader. Flavell is gaining a growing reputation as an effective MP, and I agree he is the natural successor to Sharples.

Harawira also showed some quite good insight into how a leader needs to be diplomatic and able to compromise, and that those are not his skills.

This was shown by him talking about his comments on how he would be uncomfortable with his daughters dating Pakeha, and he went on to say that one of them is dating a Maori boy at the moment, and how he doesn’t approve of that. I don’t recall the exact words but Duncan asked him if he thought his daughter’s boyfriend was no good, and Hone replied “Yeah that’s right”. Can’t imagine his daughter will be thrilled to have Dad diss the boyfriend on TV!

For  those who missed it today, would be worth watching it tomorrow.

I received this message on Facebook:

This weekend the Herald on Sunday are launching a major campaign to persuade the Government to lower the drink driving limit from 0.08mg to 0.05mg (of alcohol per 100 ml of blood), the same as Australia, Japan and most of Europe.

Drink driving has devastated the lives of many Kiwis at the hands of drink drivers and they are looking for Kiwis to sign up to a pledge of “two drinks max”.

The aim is to gather thousands of signatures to add weight to their message to Government that the blood/alcohol limit needs to be lowered before more lives are wrecked.

The Herald on Sunday have asked to interview people who are passionate about the cause. If you are interested, please drop me a note via Facebook with your contact details that I may pass onto reporter xxxxxx xxxxxxxx or contact her directly as follows:

I was somewhat amused to also get a call from an HoS staffer today asking if I would join the list of prominent NZers who are endorsing their campaign. I remarked that they must not have read my blog posts on the issue, because in fact I have been somewhat vocal about the lack of evidence for there to be a change.

I am not adamantly against a change. If the research stacks up, then a change from 0.08 to 0.05 might well be justifiable. But we are lacking even the most basic data. The Government has said it is changing the law so this data can be collected, and that is a good thing – then a decision can be made on evidence, not emotion.

The two pieces of data I want are:

1. How many deaths and injuries are caused by drivers who currently legally drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
2. How many people drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08

With that data we can work out the costs and benefits of a law change – how many NZers currently drive safely at 0.05 to 0.08 and how many cause accidents at that level.

The only data we have at the moment is the stats on blood alcohol level amongst deceased drivers. They show over the last five years that 18 deceased drivers had a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.

But that number is misleading as it includes those aged under 20, for whom it is already illegal to drive with a BAC over 0.03. That knocks it down to 12. That is 12 out of 1,168 deceased drivers or 1% of the total.

Now a lot of research has shown that it is drivers below the age of 25 who cause the most crashes. We used to have different testing requirements for below and over 25 year olds. I would be pretty comfortable with having the current limits for under 20s extend to under 25s.

So I then ask how many drivers aged over 25 were killed with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08? Just seven? Around 1.4 drivers a year.

Now if we get better data, then I could be persuaded of the desirability of change.  What we need is for blood alcohol samples to be collected from all drivers involved in a fatal accident, and also record how many others died in those crashes. Ideally we would also differentiate those cases where a driver may be over 0.05 but is not at fault – ie they get rammed side on by another driver.

We should constantly look at ways to reduce the road toll, but they should be based on good research which includes looking at what inconvenience or damage is done to current law abiding drivers. Unless you take a balanced approach, then you end up with an end point where say no car is physically able to go at over 30 km/hr. This would reduce the road toll by around 95% – but would greatly reduce the benefits most NZers get from motor vehicles.

Fleggaard is a retailer in Germany that sells cheap stuff to Danes. Their commercials have become legendary amongst Danes and the one above has been subbed by some the best commercial ever made!

NSFW but very amusing.

And just to be even handed, this one may appeal more to female readers.

A nice story from Christchurch. First Ngaire Button has been elected Deputy Mayor:

Christchurch City councillor Ngaire Button has no illusions about the hard task ahead of her after being elected deputy mayor.

Button beat fellow councillor Chrissie Williams to the role by 10 votes to four yesterday at the first meeting of the newly elected council. …

Button won the vote after a personal and passionate speech to councillors, holding her nephew, Jayden Hitchens, on her hip for most of it.

She spoke of her years as a solo mother raising five daughters and how she disappointed her father when she told him she was pregnant at the age of 17.

“My dad said to me I have ruined my life … He was so disappointed in the life choices I had made.”

However, she was determined to rebuild and succeed.

“I struggled on the domestic purposes benefit and raised them while I studied law.”

Raising five daughters as a solo mum, while also studying law is damn impressive.

And the daughters seem to have turned out okay. This is Ngaire and her daughter Anna:

For as The Press reports:

Anna, 18, has been given her first taste of local government politics by being voted on to that ward’s community board.

Also impressive to win an election at so young an age.

From the Herald political diary:

Political correctness is still alive and well in the Labour Party. In a remit relating to Labour’s prisons policy, the word “inmates” was changed to the more anonymous “people”.

Was it because mates implies males?

Brian Edwards blogs:

In the Campbell Live poll 90% of respondents thought Actors Equity was to blame for the Hobbit fiasco and 10% thought the film company was to blame. Even given the statistical unreliability of this sort of poll, that’s a resounding and deserved indictment of the appalling PR of Actors Equity, the CTU and in particular CTU president Helen Kelly. I have seldom seen groups so out of touch with public sentiment or so incapable of getting across the message they wanted to convey.

Danyl blogs at the Dim Post about the next CTU media campaign:

CTU launches charm offensive, desecrates grave of Sir Edmund Hillary

In the wake of sharp public criticism over its handling of contract negotiations around The Hobbit the Council of Trade Unions has launched a public relations campaign aimed at rehabilitating the organisation’s image. CTU President Helen Kelly has promised New Zealanders they will be ‘wowed’ by a series of industrial strikes planned to disrupt the rugby world cup next year and has violated the grave of revered mountain climber Sir Edmund Hillary during a live press conference.

Heh this is of course Danyl’s normal satire. However he hits a bit close to the bone. Numerous Auckland industrial agreements have been timed to expire just before the Rugby World Cup. watch this space!

‘This shows the public that the union movement is about more than being a voice for working people, conducting fair and equitable negotiations between equal parties and destroying the capital owning parasites like Hillary and Jackson, and also Hayley Westenra who has it coming to her,’ Helen Kelly announced while digging, pausing to pose for cameras and spit on the grave.

‘Like most Kiwis we have nothing but contempt for Hillary and his achievements,’ Kelly said hitching up her skirt and squatting on Sir Edmund’s skeleton while onlookers and supporters cheered and sang We Shall not be Moved. ‘This sends a signal to the public that we share their values.’ …

‘Although Hillary did support the labour movement for many decades let us not forget that he also lived in Remuera,’ Kelly added, spray-painting a picture of a penis on the tombstone. ‘Fairness! Respect! Solidarity!’

Subsequent to the desecration Kelly and senior union delegates burned a huge pile of five dollar notes, which bear Sir Edmund’s image. According to a statement released by the union the bonfire was unrelated to the Hillary protest and is customary practise at CTU events.

This is again one of the ironies. Sir Peter Jackson could have made so much more money if he had moved to Hollywood. But it was is desire to create jobs for New Zealanders that has seen him remain here.

Also Lee at MWT highlights this comment made on the Dim Post:

“What kind of country do we live in if union bosses can’t meet at Matterhorn to decide the future of 22,000 people’s jobs over a few $42 Mains and some cocktails, without being harangued by smelly jobless proles?”

Actually I quite liked that Simon Whipp who featured in the video. I’m thinking he’d make a great candidate for Parliament – he should seek selection for a safe seat somewhere.

The Herald reports:

Most parents of secondary students believe the Government should agree to at least some of their teachers’ claims for a 4 per cent pay rise and smaller class sizes, according to a Weekend Herald readers’ poll.

But a majority still disagree with the teachers’ strike action.

A Nielsen Consumer Research non-scientific survey, conducted online for the Weekend Herald, asked nearly 400 parents of high school-aged children whether they agreed with the decision to strike.

More than half of the parents from the APN reader panel (comprising readers of the Weekend Herald, NZ Herald, Herald on Sunday, nzherald.co.nz, Listener, NZ Woman’s Weekly and APN regional papers) said they “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with the rolling strikes, which will continue for the rest of the term.

I hope the Herald keep the story as a template for how they report online panel surveys. The online panels are a valid way to get some idea of opinion on an issue, but they should not be reported as “poll findings”. All too often I see results from online panels reported as if they were scientific random selection polls.

What I like in the story is that the Herald has called it a readers poll in the lead paragraph, giving early indication it is not a random poll.

Then they specifically call it a non-scientific survey, tell us it was conducted online and how many parents they asked.

Later on they also tell us who makes up the panel.

Overall a really good example of how to correctly report on the results of an online panel.

The Herald reports:

A former police officer and MP says he was pressured by the police commissioner of the day to change important evidence to the Crewe Royal Commission to suit the police case.

The moment I read this paragraph I worked out who the person is, and my first instinct is not to place any reliance on what he says.

Ross Meurant told the Weekend Herald that on the morning he gave evidence to the 1980 commission, Police Commissioner Bob Walton tried to persuade him he had not thoroughly searched the Crewes’ garden. …

Mr Meurant said the duty inspector, Phil Keber, saw him come out of the meeting.

“Phil said to me, ‘Geez, you’re white, Meurant, what happened there?’ and when I told him, he was as disgusted as me.”

Mr Keber told the Weekend Herald he had no recollection of the matter Mr Meurant describes. Mr Walton and Mr Wilkinson have died.

People can come to their own conclusions.

The Dom Post reports:

New Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown has nominated Ian McKinnon to be her deputy for the next three years.

This is a very good call in two respects.

The first is that Ian has been a good Deputy Mayor, and will continue to do so.

The second is that it should lead to a more harmonious Council. If Celia played favourites with who is nominated for Deputy Mayor and Committee Chairs, then she would have a grumpy minority.

So a good start.

My home phone goes off at 1230 am this morning. I stumble out of bed and answer it as it will either be something really important or the drunk Hungarian girl who called from Strasbourg earlier that day.

It is neither. It is someone called Rev Jones calling about my e-mail. He does not have great English and I am half asleep so it takes me a while to comprehend. I don’t know what e-mail he is talking about, and say so. He repeats his name and I say I really don’t recall an e-mail and anyway it is past midnight so can this wait until tomorrow.

He remains insistent, and finally he says something about the $5  million money transfer. It slowly dawns on me he is a (probably) Nigerian scamster. Hell – I didn’t know they were now calling random people to try and con them.

I politely but firmly tell him that I have never e-mailed him and that he is either mistaken or someone else contacted him. I tell him I am going to hang up now and being unfailingly polite I even say I regret if there has been any confusion.

Ten minutes later the phone rings again. I ignore it. He phones back ten more times over the next half hour. Finally I go stick the fax machine in, hoping a loud buzzing will drive him off. Sadly, the fax is too smart for my own good and won’t pick up on a phone call. So instead I just take the phone off the hook.

Around half an hour later – close to 1.30 am now, and my mobile phone goes. I reach over for the phone (which I keep next to the bed in case Andrew Williams is texting) and I see the number is an international one, starting with +234.

I ponder briefly. It might be the Hungarian girl. She did call on my cellphone. But the timing is suspicious so I turn my cellphone off. I check on the iPad what country +234 is from, and what a surprise – it is Nigeria.

So far, he has not called back again. If he does I will just transfer him to the talking clock or something.

I feel a bit sorry for the little old ladies who fall for these scams. This guy was very very persistent. I also slightly regret that I did not try and have some fun with him – such as ask him to send me a photo of him holding up a sign saying “Nigeria is sad that Chris Carter is yet to visit us”. If the call had been during the day I might have been quick enough.

But I also reflect that someone out there must have forged an e-mail from me to this guy, giving him my home phone and mobile phone numbers. Unless it was one of my mates, this irritates me somewhat.

1. Go to watch my favourite programmes and find that the MySky decoder has had a record failure for the last day.
2. Reboot the decoder, and then it comes up with updating listings and freezes there
3. Reboot again and comes up with atmospheric conditions are interfering
4. Ring Sky
5. Sky tell me to reboot decoder – despite having already done it. No change
6. They then say that perhaps the frequency the decoder is on is wrong and give me the code to change it. Do so but no fix.
7. They then say they will send a technician out
8. The next day they call to say that there have been several calls from our apartment block so probably a fault with our building aerial.
9. Local company checks it out, and finds the power supply to the aerial has died. replaces it.
10. Everyone else in building gets Sky back but me.
11. Am stuck between sky saying it was a building fault and the body corporate saying it has now been fixed. Now been four days with no TV or Sky. Try rebooting decoder several more times.
12. Finally decide will have to pay out of own pocket for a technician and ring one up. He confirms that there is no fault at the building end.
13. I prepare to ring Sky again, but luckily mention to him that their previous advice had been to change the frequency. He rants about how they are morons and they should never ever advice customers to do that – there is one setting for commercial premises and one for residential and should never swap them.
14. Luckily he knows the code to change the frequency (or whatever its technical name was) and yes hey presto after four days I have television again.

The moral of the story is the next time Sky stops working, do not ring Sky for help!

More developments today. First the Dominion Post editorial:

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. The full stupidity of the Actors’ Equity members who arranged an international boycott of The Hobbit is now apparent.

They used the nuclear bomb option in industrial negotiations. And nuclear bombs always have fall out.

What makes New Zealand unique in terms of film-making is that it is where Sir Peter lives and where, despite the blandishments of Hollywood, he has chosen to build his empire.

A film set is not like a meatworks or an old-fashioned cotton mill where workers are interchangeable. It is a place where individuals have a chance to make a difference and to be rewarded for their talents.

Members of the Australian-based Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and its local offshoot, Actors’ Equity, who do not back themselves to shine are under no compulsion to offer their services to Sir Peter. If they prefer, they are at liberty to deliver one-person shows in empty provincial theatres. But they should not seek to deny others the opportunity to build film careers or to experience the excitement of working on a project that will be seen around the world.

I love the line about empty provincial theatres!

… the Government has no choice but to step in to try to repair the damage done by the actors’ union. It is not just the future of The Hobbit that is at stake, but the future of the industry that has grown up around Sir Peter. If that requires the Government to bump up the 15 per cent tax break already available to the producers of The Hobbit, Finance Minister Bill English should get out his chequebook.

The purity of the tax system be damned. The consequences of losing an industry that has revitalised Wellington do not bear thinking about.

Losing the film will lead to a massive loss of jobs, and the taxpayer will probably end up paying even more through lost tax income and higher welfare costs. Having said that, I would much prefer the tax break not be increased.

Some lunatics think that this was all manufactured so they could get a tax break. I’d really love to meet the evil geniuses that managed to infiltrate MEAA and get them to arrange a global boycott, just so that Warners can use it as an excuse to get a bigger tax break.

Perhaps the shortfall could be made up by cutting Creative New Zealand’s theatrical budget.

Is that on top of the $44,000 I already want to cut?

John Drinnan at the Herald looks at the media handling of it and notes:

To challenge a national icon you would think you would lay on a bit of charm – or just show some respect.

Kelly said: “There are still New Zealanders out there who believe that people have a right to negotiate.”

Maybe the handling of the Hobbit dispute will win the MEAA and CTU an activist award at the next Socialist International prizegiving.

But in this country they have turned a lot of people off.

Helen Kelly calling Sir Peter Jackson a spoilt brat was incredibly stupid. Peter Jackson has created more jobs for New Zealanders than possibly any other person. Once upon a time the CTU said they cared about jobs.

Tom Cardy in the Dom Post has the latest updates:

A furious Sir Peter Jackson will “fight as hard as he can” to keep The Hobbit in New Zealand – but is already listing key Kiwi staff to take if the two-part film goes overseas.

And the director hit back at Council of Trade Union president Helen Kelly’s claims that he had set up the actors’ union to take the blame if the US$500 million (NZ$667m) movie is lost.

“I couldn’t believe it. It was the first time I really got very angry.”

Asked if it was fingers crossed that The Hobbit would remain, Jackson said: “I don’t know what to cross any more. I’ve just got to get some sleep. I haven’t had much sleep in the past few days.”

It was unlikely he would be able to take more than 150 Kiwi crew – compared with a minimum of 2500 he could employ here – but did not yet “have the heart” to choose who.

Sir Peter is an unlikely target for the CTU to try and make out as the super villain. Almost everyone who has worked for him raves about him, and I would speculate that he probably routinely votes Labour/Greens.  He is not some uncaring distant Rupert Murdock type. So he is speaking very honestly when he says it would be heart-breaking to choose just 5% of people to take overseas.

I understand from those a bit closer to the action that he is personally very hurt by what has happened, as he has spent so much of his life creating jobs and getting better pay for NZ workers. He could have become far far richer by moving to Hollywood.

Ms Kelly cited a belief Warner had already decided to move the films for bigger tax incentives and lower wages, and Jackson – a “spoilt brat” – was trying to set the union up to blame.

Yes Sir Peter masterminded the MEAA into an international boycott to move the film overseas, despite having already spent tens of millions on preparing for the films to be shot in NZ.

With all respect Helen Kelly’s belief should be given as much weight as the beliefs of Scientologists.

Jackson described her as clueless. “Why do people like Helen Kelly have to be driven by rhetoric and playing some kind of role where she’s always got to be the victim and everyone else is to blame?

“She has tried every possible conspiracy theory. I’m expecting to be told I was on the grassy knoll in Dallas any moment now.”

Can he prove he was not?

Outrageous Fortune star and Actors’ Equity committee member Robyn Malcolm said yesterday she could not believe a request for a discussion around conditions was enough to derail the project. “We’re not even the coffee budget. Nobody wants Cate Blanchett’s salary …”

Oh you silly person you. You did not “request” a discussion. You initiated a global boycott. Do you not know the difference? It is rather huge.

Incidentally how many people were aware that the taxpayers have sunk over $48 million into keeping Ms Malcolm and others employed on Outraegous Fortune?

I’m a fan of the show, but I prefer them to do what Shortland Street does – become self sufficient after the initial years.

Remember those stories about lynch mobs and needing Police escorts. Well this video shows the lovely Simon Whipp in action, refusing to even talk politely to a questioner – definitely a violent lynch mob.

And finally the Young Nats ask about why the Wellington Mayor is missing in action. It is incredible that the new Mayor of Wellington has not been out to the media saying how crucial it is that the Hobbit be filmed here, and demanding that any obstacles to it be removed. The only person who has been even quieter than Celia has been Phil Goff.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s largest education union says te reo Maori should be compulsory in all schools to ensure it’s kept alive.

After the release of a Waitangi Tribunal report calling for urgent action to turn around a decline in te reo, the New Zealand Educational Institute said it was everyone’s responsibility to ensure the language survived.

Yeah, this is definitely so important it must be compulsory. Now of course we hear from teachers there is already too much curriculum to teach in too few hours, so another subject will have to be dropped to make way.

How about maths? I think counting is way over-rated and who needs to know how to multiply 12×12 when you have Excel anyway.