iPredict have launched a range of stocks on who will be the next Breakfast host. As of this morning the favourites are:

1. Tm Wilson 35%
2. Oliver Driver 17%
3. Tamati Coffey 11%
4. Sean Plunket 10%
5. Greg Boyed 9%
6. Mike Hosking 8%
7. Paul Holmes 7%
8. Jack Tame 6%
9. Jeremy Wells 6%
10. Dominic Harvey 5%
11. Matty McLean 2%
12. Peter Williams 1%
13. Mark Sainsbury 1%

If you think anyone is over or under priced, then make some money if you are right and buy or sell some stock!

One of the several introduced birds to NZ is the chaffinch. The male has a distinctive blue-gray hood and russet saddle.

Looks like a fine Spring day here in Auckland, so I think I’ll be grabbing some cameras and heading off. After a decent coffee of course 🙂

Hope everyone else has a pleasant Friday also.

Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced:

Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins announced that Justice Wilson today resigned as a judge of the Supreme Court.

This is a good outcome. Personally I’m slightly disappointed that I won’t get to observe and report on a judicial conduct panel, as what is effectively an impeachment trial of a supreme court justice would be a once in a lifetime event.

But the judiciary is spared the spectacle of what would have been a very messy public (effectively) trial, and a very costly one.

The terms on which the Judge has resigned are:

• His existing entitlements, which include untaken sabbatical leave and retiring leave. The exact amount has not yet been calculated.

• One year’s salary, of $410,000, which will be taxable.

• The Crown will pay Justice Wilson’s solicitor-client costs which to date have been calculated at $475,000.

The costs of Justice Wilson must be paid by the Government, by statute – s27(1) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 states:

The Judge’s reasonable costs of representation in respect of the inquiry must be met by the office of the Commissioner.

So that is the law as passed by the last Labour Government.

The one year’s salary will grate with a few people, but the reality is that it saves the taxpayer a lot of money. You see if Justice Wilson did not resign, he would remain getting his salary on full pay – plus all his further legal expenses would also be a debt to the taxpayer. The real loser in this deal is probably Colin Carruthers QC, who has ably represented Justice Wilson!

The High Court said that the JCC had to reconsider whether to recommend a JCP for Justice Wilson. Then after that the Government would have to appoint one all over again. Then there would be scheduling of it, and preliminary arguments, and then effectively the trial itself. Plus the possibility Justice Wilson may seek more judicial reviews.

And finally the JCP would have to come to a decision make a recommendation to Parliament, and Parliament decide whether to remove him.

I think it is impossible that this could occur within six months. It could indeed stretch out to a year.

So during those 6 – 12 months Justice Wilson would be receiving his full salary anyway.

On top of that we would be paying for his legal costs. If he has spent $475,000 so far – before it even gets to trial, I would be surprised if his costs would not come to at least that much again.

Also add on that the JCC was assisted by a former Australian Chief Justice – his costs would be considerable.

The Counsel assisting the JCP was to be a former Australian state solicitor-general – his costs would be in the hundreds of thousands.

And then add on the costs of Crown Law and the Ministry of Justice.

This is a ballpark guestimate, but I would say that if no deal was done to have Justice Wilson resign, then he would have still ended up with close to a year’s salary and the legal costs to the taxpayer would be quite easily a further million dollars or more on top of that.

So I have no problems at all with the agreement negotiated.

And while my sympathy for Justice Wilson is limited as he largely has his own intransigence to blame, it is worth noting he is barred for life from ever appearing in court again as a lawyer. He was formerly a top civil litigator, so his ability to earn money in future is seriously diminished.

It is a sad end to what was a highly regarded career as a lawyer and potentially as a Judge. His lack of full disclosure as a Court of Appeal Judge was IMO not a hanging offence. But his grudging co-operation with his own colleagues on the Supreme Court was what did him in. He embarrassed them, and he he substituted his own opinion as to what he thinks they need to know, for letting them decide that for themselves.

The Herald has the statements from Peter Jackson and the CTU here.

I was going to fisk the CTU statement, but Russell Brown has done it far better than I could. And yes, that is not a typo.

I do want to first touch on one aspect, quoting the CTU:

Facts on Hobbit

Helen Kelly, CTU President, said today that it is important that some facts about the union stance on the Hobbit are placed before the public.

• The union is seeking basic terms and conditions such as hours, breaks, overtime payments etc.

• The union has always been prepared to agree those conditions as an industry standard rather than a collective agreement.

This is both false and misleading.

First of all the union is not just “seeking” basic terms and conditions. It arranged a global boycott of the film. This is the nuclear bomb when it comes to negotiations.

And like any nuclear bomb, you can’t lob one into battle, and then say afterwards “Oh we’ll try and pretend we never did that and promise not to do it again”. The damage is done the moment it has happened.

The studios want certainty even more than lower cost. It may actually end up in a country where most actors are covered by a union. That is preferable to NZ, because they actually have certainty.

But a union with only 86 or so members that arranges a global boycott of a film is the opposite of stability. It signals run, run away from these lunatics.

Secondly let me quote from the global boycott:

Resolved, that the International Federation of Actors urges each of its affiliates to adopt instructions to their members that no member of any FIA affiliate will agree to act in the theatrical film The Hobbit until such time as the producer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance for production in New Zealand providing for satisfactory terms and conditions for all performers employed on the productions

Now re-read what the CTU says:

The union has always been prepared to agree those conditions as an industry standard rather than a collective agreement.

What bullshit. The global boycott was explicitly got a collective agreement. This is not just spin or distortion – it is a total lie.

Now let me quote Russell Brown:

Instead, since its takeover by the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Equity has been so feckless that it failed to file reports for three years, until it was struck off the register of incorporated societies. New Zealand actors have a decent case for greater power and security in their industry. Their union – and the Australian union that was supposed to bring in a new era of professionalism – has failed them.

Eighteen months ago, Equity refused an offer from the Screen Production and Development Association (Spada) to renegotiate the “Pink Book” code of conduct which covers actors’ pay and conditions and has been untouched since the MEAA moved in. Its precondition for any talks with Spada was that the existing system, which does generally work, be scrapped and replaced with collective agreements.

This shows the lies told by the CTU up even more. Not only did MEAA not seek an update to the industry standard, they flat out refused to negotiate such a thing.

There were other things wrong with the union’s strategy, if it can be called that. The way the first meeting in Wellington was run was a disgrace – while anyone who turned up and called themselves a performer was allowed to vote in Auckland, the rules were changed in Wellington after the vote had begun to exclude non-Equity members. One actor trying to read a statement from Jackson (who had been refused permission to address the meeting) was shouted down and couldn’t fnish.

Most notably, statements from organiser Frances Walsh clearly indicated it was seeking to negotiate a national agreement via The Hobbit (why else talk about wanting to negotiate rules on nudity in a film which features no nudity?) and Robyn Malcolm managed to say in successive sentences to John Campbell that they wanted “a fair deal for New Zealand actors working on the Hobbit”, but an agreement that was “not Hobbit-specific”. I’ve explained before why it would have been unethical for Jackson to put himself in that position.

And this is the real game – to try and force all NZ productions to pay the same as The Hobbit.

By the time they’d settled for far less – and finally agreed to talk to Spada without showstopping preconditions — the damage had largely been done. Yes, if Ireland gets the gig, it will be because of its more-generous-than-the-others tax breaks. But the film was going to be made in New Zealand. The door for other countries was opened when MEAA executive Simon Whipp authorised the SAG member alert that brought the production to a halt by banning actors from working on it.

If Warners thinks the industrial relations environment in New Zealand has become too risky and unpredictable, it has some cause for thinking so.

Again, it is not about the lowest cost – it really is about stability. Remember there are two films to be produced – they don’t want to finish one, and then have an unstable union call another boycott or strike to ratchet up demands on the second film.

Some people have a conspiracy theory that it is all about the tax credit, and that this issue is just an excuse. They should consider how much money has already been spent by Jackson and Weta preparing for filing it here – Hobbiton re-established etc.

But it was telling that the CTU’s Helen Kelly said on Nightline last night that the Equity meeting had been called for members to discuss “what they wanted in terms of terms and conditions”.

You’re saying that after all this — you still don’t know what you want?

Amazing.

It’s also generally not a good sign for a union leader, as Kelly did, to refer to the 1000-plus working people who met and marched in Wellington last night, most of them members of their own guilds and unions, as being in a “lynch mob” mood.

So Helen managed to insult hundreds of union members.

None of the other screen guilds have spoken in support of Equity, and they have privately assured both Spada and the government that they are on the side of the producers in this case.

They are the real victims. I’ll be minorly affected in that the NZ economy will take a dive, and that means more debt to be serviced by us as taxpayers. But the 1000s of people who will end up out of work are the ones I really feel for. It’s one thing to lose your job when it is semi-inevitable – in a fading industry etc. But to work in what was a growing healthy industry with a bright future, and to lose your job because of the actions of a few dozen individuals would really piss you off.

Even if the film can be hauled back here – and that’s the state of play – this will have badly damaged relations in the industry. And if the film really is lost, it will damage a lot more than that – the trade union movement included.

This is the part puzzling me. Putting aside ideological differences I have always regarded Helen Kelly as a pretty smart operator, and someone who does try to do the right thing.

But her involvement with this dispute has been disastrous.

Almost everyone involved with this fracas has said that MEAA’s Simon Whipp is the problem – the NZ Actors involved are lightweights. So Whipp is the Aussie bad boy that everyone was blaming (and fairly).

But what Helen has done is change the focus of anger from being the head of an aussie union, to the head of the CTU. She is associating all NZ unions with Simon Whipp’s campaign, and as loath as I am to give advice to the NZ union movement on how to protect their reputation, I have to say that this is a spectacularly bad thing.

The CTU has put out a press release which is factually incorrect and made themselves the target. Why on Earth did they not just assist behind the scenes (where they have done some good I hear), rather than become the de facto spokesperson for the MEAA?

How will the CTU have credibility about protecting Kiwi jobs, if the movies do go overseas?

Oh, and finally, on a related note – I’ve heard nothing on this matter from the temporary and future Labour Party Leaders – surely some journalist has asked Phil Goff and Andrew Little if they support the CTU’s defence of the global boycott against the Hobbit?

Youth Rates

Sir Roger makes an excellent point. Young inexperienced first time job seekers are being priced out of the market. Sure no one wants to stay on $10/hour for long, but hell if it will get you your first job, it is worth so much more than that as you then get actual work experience.

I started work at 12 as a paper boy and occassional dairy assistant. At 14 I was working every day after school. There is no way I would have got those jobs if they had to pay me full adult wages.

The massive increase in youth unemployment is partly because of young people being priced out of the market. And sadly, Labour wants to make it even worse – they want to make it impossible for any young job seeker to take a job for under $15 an hour.

Went to The Birthday Boy at Circa on Tuesday evening.

I wasn’t sure whether I would like it. It was billed as “What happens to long-term friends when life takes them in completely different directions?” which didn’t seem like a source of great comedy. And one of the five cast was Geraldine Brophy whom I have an irrational antipathy towards because of the character she used to play on Shortland Street. Yes I know there is a difference between an actor and their part, but hey I did say the antipathy was irrational!

As it turned out, I greatly enjoyed the play. There was plenty of humour, and a nice twist to the story at the end.

The two couples are Stuart & Elizabeth and David and Kathy. They are best mates until David and Kathy have children – an emo type brooding artist and then twins who are nicknamed the two horseman of the apocalypse due to their antics such as pouring oil into a swimming pool and setting it on fire so they can ride their bikes down the slide into it.

Kathy writes children’s tales about a dog. Her career blossoms and she is rarely home, leaving David to care for the kids. He grows increasingly resentful of the dog character and this plays itself out hilariously later in the play. He copes badly at being a near solo Dad with three difficult kids, and envies Stuart who is care free and much the same guy at 50 as he was at 21.

By contrast Stuart and Elizabeth are loving life and doing well. Stuart is the wise cracking joker who provides much of the great humour in the play. His foil is Stuart’s mother who takes everything he says literally, and she also provides many smiles.

Stuart loves being a slightly irresponsible god parent to the kids as he fills them up with energy, and then the parents have to cope with them.

You would think there is not a lot of humour at seeing two friends drift apart, and a marriage fall apart – but in fact the smiles came often.

The play is two and a half hours long, and while normally I find that challenging, it worked well with this production as there was a natural progression of birthdays to get through from age 40 to 65.

The final scene has some surprises in it, and provides some nice food for thought.

Overall it was a very well produced and enjoyable play that kept you in laughter but also made you think about the pros and cons of having children. An ideal play for couples to go and see, but not exclusively. In the audience on Tuesday there were a lot of young women there also, and they seemed to like it as much as anyone else.

The NZ Herald editorial:

A call by district health boards for the Government to review the right of health workers to strike is, therefore, most timely. They made it clear yesterday that they have had enough of patient safety being compromised.

The chief medical officers of all 20 boards have written to the Health Minister, Tony Ryall, urging him to make disputes over pay or conditions in the health system subject to compulsory arbitration, as is the case with other public safety workforces, such as the police.

The freedom to withdraw labour should never be eliminated lightly. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of the present strike, there is good reason to believe the time has come for compulsory independent arbitration in the sector.

Hospitals provide an essential service. They are the only port of call for the ill. There is no alternative supplier of their services. As it is, sick people must wait impotently as disputes wind their way to a conclusion.

What I find interesting with the current compulsory arbitration for the Police is that the arbitrator can  not choose a compromise. He or she must choose the employer offering or choose the union request.

So what does this do? It encourages reasonableness. The more extravagant or unfair your demands/offer and the less chance there is of it being selected. So you often get the two parties quite close to each other.

During the junior doctors’ strike of 2008, the Medical Council suggested the time to move to compulsory arbitration had come. Unsurprisingly, a Labour Government was unmoved.

Now, the push by district health boards has substantially raised the ante. So, too, has health workers’ increasing penchant for industrial action. If the Government acts, as it should, there will surely be no complaints from the public.

I think there is a case for considering hospitals an essential service akin to the Police.

The Herald reports:

Weta Workshop’s boss Sir Richard Taylor last night said the New Zealand film industry was “at some level of peril”.

He said a $670 million US-backed production of Tolkien classic The Hobbit could be produced elsewhere if a union boycott of the project was not lifted.

“We are deeply concerned it may [go overseas].

“Our industry is being put in a very dire place by very few people who have nothing to do with the film industry in New Zealand.”

It is worth remembering that MEAA represents only around 80 actors in NZ – less than 5% of the total acting workforce.

Up to 1500 workers marched from Weta’s Miramar studios into central Wellington to picket an Actors’ Equity meeting being held at St John’s Hall.

Their jobs are at direct risk. This Australian union doesn’t care about how many people may end up out of work.

The Equity meeting – which was to discuss unrelated matters – was cancelled after union bosses learned the march was on its way.

Equity spokeswoman Frances Walsh said the union had “no choice” but to call off the meeting “because we are not going to expose our performers to harm”.

What? Did she think Sir Richard was leading a lynch mob that would burn the church hall down? Or did they just not want to talk to all those people whose jobs are at risk?

The Dom Post reports that things look grim:

The Hobbit seems set to be taken offshore, with the film’s producers due in New Zealand to begin preparations next week.

Sir Peter Jackson and the producers have been in a standoff with actors unions who have boycotted the Lord of the Rings prequels as they have agitated for a collective agreement.

There has been speculation that production could be taken overseas. Other countries had offered a one-off deal that is double New Zealand’s 15 per cent tax rebate for films.

Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh said last night the lifting of the actors union’s blacklist “does nothing to help the film stay in New Zealand”.

“The damage inflicted on our film industry by [the actors unions] is long since done.”

The move has undermined Warner Brothers confidence in the industry “and they are now, quite rightly, very concerned about the security of their $500m investment”.

“Next week Warners are coming down to New Zealand to make arrangements to move the production offshore. It appears we cannot make films in our own country even when substantial financing is available.”

And remember it is not the fault of the unions:

Ms Kelly said union members would not be at fault if The Hobbit moved overseas. Instead, it was Warner Brothers seeking to gain greater tax breaks and lower wages.

Sure. Nothing to do with us at all. Helen sounds like the Vietnam commander – we had to destroy the village in order to to save it.

But Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly said the crowd was “in a lynch-mob mood thanks to Richard Taylor, who has obviously wound them up like springs” and actors had to call the meeting off. “It was too dangerous.”

That nasty awful Sir Richard Taylor. How dare he organise a protest march. The CTU condemns people who organise protest marches and make fiery speeches to them. Such marches should be illegal – unless organised by the CTU of course.

I’ll make a prediction. If The Hobbit moves overseas, there will be another protest march. Not with 1,500 people in it, but 15,000 or more. And if you think you have seen anger already, you’ve seen nothing yet.

People should be angry when their jobs are at risk. NZ Actors should be angry that they will lose the chance to earn $5,000/week. Wellingtonians should be angry that a decade of investment into building a film industry here may all be wasted.

At Backbenchers last night there was a discussion on lifting the retirement age from 65 to 67. They asked one table how many years off retirement they are. One girl said 46 years so I guess she was 19. Then they asked the more elderly gentleman how many years from retirement he was, and he responded that as he was 89 I guess I am already retired.

A round of applause for him, as people impressed that at 89 years old you’re coming to the pub, having a beer and watching Backbenchers.

At the end of the night he came up to me when he left and said how much he enjoys the blog, and reads it pretty much every day. Pretty thrilled to get such cool feedback, and meet what may be KB’s oldest reader.

It got me wondering. Who is the oldest and the youngest reader of Kiwiblog? If you are over 89 or under 18 feel free to state your age – either in comments – or if you are shy, by e-mail.

The NBR reports:

The Serious Fraud Office served the notice on NBR yesterday, demanding documents and audio tapes relating to the paper’s investigation of South Canterbury Finance’s dealings over Auckland’s Hyatt Regency Hotel. The deadline for delivery was 9am today.

The Serious Fraud Act Section 5 notice requires NBR editor-in-chief Nevil Gibson to hand over all written and audio notes relating to Mr Nippert’s investigation of the Hyatt Regency, specifically the NBR exclusive story of how one-time meatworker Peter Symes came to own the hotel.

The NBR story by Nippert may be what led the SFO to focus on SCF. It was an excellent story about how the Hyatt in Auckland was officially owned by a retried freezing worker.

The SFO has incredible powers to demand documents. They were given them to use against the bad guys doing the fraud, not against the good guys who helped expose the alleged fraud.

A polite request to NBR for information would be more productive than a section 5 notice.

So far NBR has decided to risk adverse legal consequences:

The National Business Review is in a standoff with the Serious Fraud Office after the SFO this morning refused an invitation by NBR publisher Barry Colman to attend a meeting with the paper.

The SFO instead warned that NBR had been in breach of its statutory obligations under the Serious Fraud Office Act since 9 am today.

The SFO has demanded editorial files relating to NBR’s investigation into the collapse of the South Canterbury Finance group of companies and yesterday threatened its journalists with jail and fines for non-coperation.

The NBR called for the meeting to seek reassurances that its co-operation with the SFO would not lead to further fishing trips for information that could compromise the paper’s confidential sources.

It does look like the info demanded will eventually be provided:

The SFO’s request related to already published material that the paper has no objection to supplying as no confidential sources were violated.

But NBR is seeking an assurance from the Serious Fraud Office that it will not invoke its draconian powers of document seizure in return for NBR’s co-operation into the SFO’s investigations in the South Canterbury Finance collapse.

Mr Colman said today the initial information sought by the SFO had already been published and its release would not violate the confidentiality of any NBR sources.

So NBR are saying yeah we can give you that info but we don’t want to be seen to assenting to further info which will compromise sources.

Mr Colman said today the SFO’s blatant intimidation was appalling and counterproductive.

“We are not the enemies of the SFO. We want the bad guys investigated as well,” he said.

“However, no news service is going to be able to get crucial information from its sources or whistleblowers if they face public exposure. We have taken legal advice and been told the act is so draconian that it is impossible for us to refuse to co-operate without risking serious penalty.

“We have decided to hand over the material they are asking for today because it doesn’t compromise any of the sources of Matt Nippert, the reporter who carried out the investigation.

Good on NBR for not rolling over without protest. If Barry does end up in jail, I’ll smuggle in an iPad to him!

The VSM issue has got some students angry. They’re not angry about VSM. They support VSM. They’re angry that their names and e-mail addresses have been forged to send letters to MPs asking them to vote against VSM.

How?

Meet the Orwellian titled “Save our Services” site. I suspect it really should be “Save our Salaries”.

The first thing to note about the site is that it is anonymous. Nowhere on the site (that I could locate) was a page telling us who set it up. You are asked to join a mailing list and don’t even know a mailing list of whom.

The registrant for the domain is a Caleb Tutty. He is a Labour Party activist who used to work for Judith Tizard and is on the national executive of Young Labour.

I have no idea if Caleb has been paid to do this site for NZUSA, if he is doing it for the Labour Party or it is his own initiative. That is because nowhere on the site (unless I missed it) is there any “About Us” statement.

Anyway on the SOS site, you can use it to send a message to all 58 National MPs, and some other MPs I think.

Most sites of this nature will send a confirmation e-mail to the supplied e-mail address, and you have to click on a link to confirm the message and have it sent out under your name. This stops people forging an e-mail address they do not control.

But this site does not verify e-mail addresses. You can stick any name and e-mail address in there, and it will send a message on without verification.

Some MPs have an auto-reply go to those who e-mail them. So various unsuspecting students have received an auto-reply thanking them for their e-mail – and they have said “But I never sent an e-mail”.

This is a basic security failure and it means that MPs who receive these e-mails have no way of knowing if they really are from genuine students against VSM, or if some flunkie is just loading random names and e-mail addresses into the website.

How pissed off would you be as a student. Bad enough student associations are taking $150 off you against your will. Even worse that they spend it fighting against a law change that will give you freedom of association. And just to rub it in, your name and e-mail address get forged and used on a website to try and stop you getting a choice about whether to join or not.

The VSM bill should pass its second reading tonight. After that just two more steps towards freedom for 200,000+ students.

The Dom Post editorial pulls no punches:

Editorial: Get back to work, greedy teachers

That headline is so good, it belongs on a blog 🙂

Secondary teachers’ union head Kate Gainsford wants today’s strike to be seen as being all about a Government that does not value teachers or education, and that is mucking her members about.

There is a good reason she is doing that.

Clothing its extravagant wage demands in the beguiling rhetoric of selfless dedication to the cause of education is the PPTA’s only chance of making them acceptable to the public.

If the union were to get real it means it would lose the argument.

To win, it would have to demonstrate why, in straitened economic times when the Government is borrowing to cover costs, its members should get a 4 per cent pay rise after receiving 4 per cent in each of the previous three years.

It would need to convince the public why its members should be treated differently from nurses and police – and the bulk of the rest of the New Zealand workforce, which has had minimal or no pay rises.

The difficulty for the PPTA is that most NZers understand that in the aftermath of the recession, almost no-one is getting big pay increases – and also that we are borrowing $240 million a week just to help pay for their current salaries.

It would mean telling them that there is something deeply wrong with a system where, according to Education Ministry figures, the average pay, with allowances, for a secondary teacher – not including principals – is $71,110, and where, of the 12,300 fulltime secondary teachers on the teacher salary payroll, 65 per cent earn between $60,000 and $80,000, and another 19 per cent earn more than $80,000, including 150 who earn more than $100,000.

Goodness, 65% of secondary teachers are officially rich pricks (defined as someone earning more than $60,000 – the level the rich prick envy tax used to come in at).

However, even there the union is on shaky ground. Its stance would have more credibility were it to acknowledge that fixing what is wrong with the education system involves more than just fattening the wallets of all teachers in the system, increasing employer KiwiSaver contributions, providing flu injections and laptops, and delivering slightly smaller class sizes.

It means recognising that the quality of the teacher has more impact on student performance than class sizes, the background of the pupil or the school where the teaching takes place.

If the union was genuine, it would call off the strikes and work with the Government to devise a pay system that provides pay rises for the best, rather than seeking rewards for all, regardless of merit.

What an excellent editorial.

I think the top 15% or so of teachers – around 2,000 of them, should be on $100,000. Bot the bottom 15% should be on under $50,000 so they have an incentive to pursue other careers.

The Herald reported:

Men are more likely to rate technology as a necessity of life than women, a recent survey suggests.

I read this, and my first thought was no that is not right. Sure e-mail and web is important, but I’d rather go without them than without women.

But then I realised that what they meant should be expressed as:

Men are more likely than women to rate technology as a necessity of life, a recent survey suggests.

The importance of order in a sentence!

Elizabeth Binning at the Herald reports:

Angry students say they will be left with a “lifetime of debt” following Auckland University’s decision to raise its fees by 6.3 per cent next year.

A lifetime? Really?

The increase, which was approved at a meeting this week, means some domestic students will have to pay up to $1600 extra in fees, in addition to $660 in student services fees and building levies.

If fees have gone up 6.3% then how can cflunkan some students be paying $1,600 more unless their annual fees were already $25,000 a year?

Most degrees are priced at just under $5,000 a year. So a 6% increase is an extra $300 a year. For a three year degree, that is an extra $900 of debt.

The median income for a graduate is $1,055 a week, so they will be paying off the loan at around $105 a week.

So in fact this “lifetime of debt” means an extra two months paying off the student loan!

And in case the student association flunkies try and claim they mean the total level of debt, not just the additional debt, I quote from the student loans annual report:

The median repayment time for those who left study in 2006 and remained in New Zealand was three years 11 months

Maybe they mean a lifetime of debt if humans were rats and only had a life expectancy of four years!

Susie Nordqvist in the Herald reports:

New Zealand has one of the lowest goods and services tax rates in the OECD, despite households being charged at a higher rate than before.

Tax accountants KPMG said even at 15 per cent New Zealand has the fourth lowest GST rate in the OECD and contrary to global rates, corporate tax rates were trending down. …

KPMG New Zealand’s GST partner Peter Scott said unlike any other country in the world, the recent increase in GST was matched by personal tax rate reductions.

But didn’t Labour say the reason they want to exempt fruit and veges was because our GST is one of the highest in the world? That wasn’t a populist porkie was it?

Claire Trevett at the Herald reports:

Asked about the issue on his way into Parliament yesterday, Mr Harawira refused to answer any questions asked in English and spoke only in te reo before walking away.

He earlier told Radio Waatea that if the Government agreed to Act’s request then the Maori Party should walk away from the coalition.

“I don’t see why we should sit back and let a little fat redneck like Rodney Hide put in an amendment at the last minute.”

Two ironies here.

The first is that Rodney is fitter than Hone I would say, and would probably kick his arse in a swimming race.

The second is that I am pretty sure that Rodney doesn’t care what the skin colour is of any girls who want to date his son. So Hone calling someone else a redneck is ironic.

But as Michael Laws had to apologise for calling the GG fat, will Hone be made to apologise for his comments?

If the Maori Party does pull support, it could mean the current 2004 act would stay in place. Mr Key has previously said he would not make any changes if there was not a reasonable level of consensus and the Labour Party has not yet decided whether to support it further.

Would be rather embarrassing for the Maori Party if the status quo ends up remaining.

Mr Harawira has urged Maori to make submissions opposing the bill, saying it stops short of ownership for Maori and the threshold for customary title is too high, meaning most hapu would get nothing.

Most hapu will not get customary title indeed – because that is what the Court of Appeal found. The test was for uninterrupted exclusive use. The Court of Appeal never said the foreshore belongs to all Maori.

Labour has no realistic chance of forming a Government after 2011 election, unless it is with Maori Party support. The chances of Labour and Greens alone having more seats than National, Maori, United and ACT is remote. However with the Maori Party they have a fighting chance.

So what do they do. The Herald reports:

Labour MP Shane Jones will try to topple Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples in next year’s election by challenging for his Tamaki Makaurau seat.

Mr Jones has confirmed to the Herald he will seek the nomination to stand for Labour in the Maori electorate, which has been Dr Sharples’ stronghold since the Maori Party entered Parliament in 2005.

His challenge will end an apparent tacit agreement by Labour not to stand strong candidates against the two Maori Party co-leaders, who rely on their electorate seats rather than the party vote to be in Parliament.

It will at the least cause Dr Sharples some discomfort in the seat where half the voters gave their party vote to Labour last election.

Mr Jones has taken a no-holds-barred approach to the Maori Party, and especially its leaders, since it became a support partner for National.

Although the Maori Party has consistently expressed willingness to work with either of the major parties in government, Mr Jones said it had become “listless and torpid” with National. He believed it was time for a “more aspirational voice in Maori politics”.

A total strategic blunder that dooms Phil Goff.

In the medium to long term the Maori Party will be mainly in coalition with the Labour Party. But instead of treating them as potential allies, they keep treating them like shit – as they also did to the Greens for many years. This means that their chances of going with Labour in 2011, if they hold balance of power, is significantly diminished.

Got one wrong. But only took 27 seconds. Quiz here.

Sent out yesterday the polling newsletter for September 2010. It includes both Roy Morgan polls and the TVNZ poll. Doesn’t include the TV3 poll as that was taken mainly in October.

The newsletter is only distributed by e-mail – people can subscribe at this page. The summary for this month is:

September saw three political polls – an One News, and two from Roy Morgan.

The average of the public polls has National 17% ahead of Labour and able to govern alone.

Australia has mixed polls for the Government.

In the United States Barack Obama has a net approval rating of -5%, and the latest projections are for the Republicans to win 48 seats in the House (gaining control), go from 41 to 48 seats in the Senate and hold 28 of the 50 Governorships.

In the UK the Conservatives are on 42%, Labour 38% and Lib Dems 12%. The Lib Dems continue to lose support.

In Canada the Conservatives have a 5% lead.

We also carry details of poll in New Zealand on firearms, land sales to foreigners, the ACT leadership, 90 day probation periods, climate change and the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

As Labour retreats to 1970s protectionism, Gareth Morgan points out the consequences:

If foreigners can’t use New Zealand dollars to buy New Zealand assets why would they be willing to hold New Zealand dollars? …

Foreigners who sell us the imports we covet don’t really want to be paid in our quaint currency. So a pass-the- parcel process occurs until some foreigner is found who will either extend us credit (by holding our Reserve Bank’s IOUs) or buys one of our assets, thus giving us the foreign currency to buy those imports we crave.

So what happens when you try and stop foreign investment?

Ban foreigners from buying our assets, though, and there certainly will be a sharp shock to the system.

If foreigners can’t use New Zealand dollars to buy New Zealand assets why would they be willing to hold New Zealand dollars?

Those dollars would become like debentures in just another New Zealand finance company, in quick time worth much less than their face value – in effect the kiwi would cease to have any asset backing. It would fall and that would deter further lending from overseas. …

A prohibition of land and business sales to foreigners would be one solution – it would drive down the currency and scare off foreign lenders and investors. Argentina is currently banning greater exports of its beef despite huge international prices, simply because they want to eat it themselves and at cheap prices.

I can’t imagine how that might do anything but damage the supply of Argentine beef but it shows these sorts of whacky interventions are not unheard of. Ban land sales to foreigners but expect lower incomes as a result.

Lower incomes and even lower purchasing power as a falling dollar will push up the prices of many goods.

I have a financial interest in a dairy farm and processing factory in Brazil. For that economy such foreign investment brings growth and jobs – and milk it would otherwise have to import.

It sees also a technology transfer from New Zealand to another country – the real worth after all in our dairy industry lies in the decades of intellectual capital, productivity and technology that we have been silly enough to roll up into our per hectare land price. The benefit to New Zealand from that activity is significant as well – an inflow of profits we wouldn’t otherwise have.

If instead I’d invested in dairying in New Zealand I would simply have pushed land prices up and, I’m reasonably sure, have made less money. So it’s being argued by the xenophobes that a win-win for New Zealand and Brazil is worse than if I’d spent my money developing a farm up the slopes of the Southern Alps.

Get real. Foreign investment is how countries develop.

Remember that every transaction needs a willing seller and a willing buyer. If you ban sellers from being able to sell to the highest bidder, you are reducing the value of farms to their current farmers. The PM has also pointed out that this may push the value of the farm below the equity in it – ie banks will be more likely to bankrupt struggling farmers under Labour’s policy.

Andrea Vance in the Dom Post reports:

National MP Tau Henare is refusing to apologise for calling a teenage select committee submitter “a liar”.

James Sleep, 18, convener of the the Council of Trade Unions youth sector, gave evidence to the transport and industrial relations committee on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill last month.

He said the list MP used “bullyboy tactics” by interrupting his submission and accusing him of lying about his evidence in “a bit of a tirade”.

“I was telling the story about how a worker had been sacked under the 90-day trial … We have several cases … and in my written submission I had talked about another story and he just went off his head really.

“He interrupted and said: ‘You are just a liar, you are bullshitting.’ I went on and he stopped [me] again: ‘You’re just lying, you are misleading us.”‘

I guess clashing with Tau at a select committee is safer than jumping in front of John Hayes’ car!

Mr Sleep said he expected Mr Henare to say sorry. “The letter did not contain an apology to the thousands of young union members I was representing, nor have we – the CTU youth sector – received a personal apology direct from Tau Henare.”

I wonder how many younger union members are aware that James represents them!

Mr Henare said he would not apologise. “Why would I apologise for a little turkey who got found out lying? He was reading out a submission and I was following it and in two parts … it was a completely different story.

“He’ll get over it and if he doesn’t, well, then, too bad … He’ll learn from his experience.”

He added: “Conway and his henchmen weren’t even there, so how could they complain?”

Labour MP Carol Beaumont, who sits on the committee, said she was concerned about how Mr Sleep was treated.

“Leaping into accusing somebody of lying and in quite an aggressive manner, I don’t think is appropriate.”

Mr Henare responded: “Quite frankly, who cares what Carol Beaumont says.”

Oh Tau. Always the diplomat.

Anyway I have a way to resolve this. Presumably there is a recording of the “story” James told to the select committee. Labour should release the recording and James should arrange for the subject of the story to come forward and confirm it is a true story. That way he will prove that he was telling the truth. It will also allow the employer to give their side of the story.