If you have had, or are planning, dealings with Llewellyn William Burchell or Joan Roslyn Burchell, you may wish to check out these sites:

• Archive of Fair Go stories, court reports and media stories.
• Another archive mainly of media stories including reference to over 200 offences he has been charged with, plus personal views
• And a third archive of court judgements

This is provided as a public service.

A reader has sent me details of speed testing on an iPhone4 in Dunedin, comparing networks.

The author also has a website, detailing the tests.

He notes these are not a general comparison of speeds between networks, but a comparison on the iPhone 4 only, in Dunedin. He did try six different locations there and his conclusion was that Telecom XT provides far greater speeds – but only in places where it works. In two places a good signal could not be located.

Russel Norman is horrified by the wishes of of the Chairman of the South Port in Bluff who wants to double dairy numbers in Southland.

The thought of a doubling of exports is appalling to the Greens. You see their official policy is not only to oppose any increase in dairy numbers, but they actually want to reduce the national dairy herd by 20%.

They don’t specify if they wish to simply shoot one in five cows, or give them toasters for not breeding so much.

Graeme Edgeler at Public Address has an excellent Q&A on STV. One or two blogs that purport to be specialist local body blogs have shown a dismal lack of knowledge on how STV works. They should also link to Graeme’s analysis. Some extracts:

But is it a good idea to rank everyone?

Yes.

But if I give someone I don’t like a rank, couldn’t this hurt the chances of candidates I like more?

No.

Your lower preferences cannot ever harm the election prospects of anyone you rank higher than them.

This is key. Don’t try and be strategic and working out who is most popular and hence I will rank them lower as they don’t need my vote etc. Just rank candidates in order of your true actual preference.

But what if I really don’t want to rank everyone?

You don’t have to. If there are a bunch of people whom you think are just as bad each other, or you know nothing about, your vote will still count. If the election comes down to race between people you haven’t ranked, you won’t help determine the result, but if you don’t mind which of them is elected, this shouldn’t bother you too much.

But if there’s someone I really really don’t want elected, I should rank everyone else above them

Yes.

This is again on the mark. If you have no opinions on a group of candidates you can leave them unranked. However if there is a candidate you definitely do not want to be elected, then you should rank all candidates and rank them bottom.

An informed vote is always a good idea.

Even for the District Health Board?

Okay, you got me. Health Board elections are stupid.

Yes they are. Please National get rid of them.

An interesting insight in The Press:

Jim is incredibly determined when it comes to chasing up issues for people. He can also be incredibly stubborn – on several occasions, he re-affirmed his (mistaken, in my opinion) belief that he could have been mayor and MP, had it not been for the earthquake.

Of course he could have been both. He could have done them both “standing on his head”  if I recall his quote correctly. And remain a party leader also.

But it looks like Jim may have lots of time to stand on his head – the latest Press poll has him at 20%, 16% behind Parker.

Fuck they are getting more desperate. The latest in the Dom Post:

Labour is set to ratchet up the debate over sales of land to foreign investors, with figures showing the equivalent of 122 rugby fields of Kiwi farmland are approved for sale to foreign investors each day.

I assume that a rugby field is around equal to a hectare. So NZ has around 27  million rugby fields to sell. Over a year (assuming working days) that is 30 hectares sold, or around 0.1% of total land.

Over a decade, that would be a massive 1% sold. Oh fuck, how the hell would we cope with only the remaining 99%?

Even worse, by the year 3000 all the land may be gone. Well, only if you ignore that those overseas purchasers also sell their land eventually – sometimes back to NZ owners.

And in the past five years, 219 of the 222 applications lodged for a foreign purchase have been approved.

“Let’s send a clear message: We welcome your investment, but there are some things we don’t want your investment in and land is one of those,” Labour leader Phil Goff said.

Past five years? Hmmn. Who was in Government for most of that time? In fact who was the Minister in charge of promoting foreign investment into New Zealand? One Phil Goff?

Is there anything he will not turn his back on, in a desperate bid for relevance? Does he actually have a single core belief?

Labour sold NZ land at the rate of almost 300 rugby fields a working day – at three times the rate of sales under National.

So when exactly did Phil Goff decide this was wrong? When he was out there as Trade Minister encouraging foreign purchases of land?

Can he point to some memos he wrote as a Minister, pleading with his colleagues to clamp down on land sales?

Some 158,588 hectares was approved for sale – equivalent to about 591ha a week or 122 rugby fields every day since July 2005.

Of that 160,000 hectares Phil sold 130,000 of it, and National has sold just 30,000. Actually the land owners sold it, so talking about the Governments that approved it.

Also under Labour, Canadian pop star Shania Twain was allowed to buy 24,731 hectares of high country near Wanaka. Mr Goff admitted he was uncomfortable with the 2005 sale to Twain, although it had included many conditions and some sweeteners for the country

Really – prove it? Where are your memos and file notes, expressing your discomfort and arguing against it?

At the end of his column, John Armstrong states:

That change has been accompanied by a major attitude shift. Labour has distributed a flyer which seeks to deliberately trick people into thinking that National is responsible for the entire GST component of their bills.

Just as scurrilous is Labour’s bogus assurance that the $270 million cost (at least) of forgoing GST on fresh fruit and veges will be funded by the recent rise in excise duty on tobacco. That money is already accounted for in Government spending.

Goff is playing hard ball. He has little option. National beware. The old enemy is going to be a tougher and rougher election-year proposition than you might think.

This is a diplomatic way of saying Labour will not hesitate to lie and deceive – both over what National has done, and over how its promises can be paid for.

This will not come as a shock to National. They are well used to it. Remember the pamphlets authorised at the highest levels claiming National will sell state houses and evict the tenants? Pure lies.

I wonder if the Government should not amend the Electoral Act to make it riskier for Labour to try and use deliberate lies as a campaign strategy. S199A says:

Every person is guilty of a corrupt practice who, with the intention of influencing the vote of any elector, at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, or at any time on any of the 2 days immediately preceding polling day, publishes, distributes, broadcasts, or exhibits, or causes to be published, distributed, broadcast, or exhibited, in or in view of any public place a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.

Maybe have that apply for the final two weeks instead of final two days?

I’ve been saying since the beginning that the stoush over the Hobbit is not over wages,but about a union trying to force people who do not want to be in the union to join it.

The Herald reports:

MEAA national director Simon Whipp said actors could be let go with just one day’s notice, and there were concerns producers would not pay fees in standard union contracts, such as payments from DVD sales.

Sir Peter maintained the residuals on The Hobbit will be worth “very real money” to the Kiwi actors who are cast in the film.

“This is the first time ever NZ actors have had residuals, and we are proud that it’s being introduced on our movie. The level of residuals is better than a similar scheme in Canada, and is much the same as the UK residual scheme. It is not quite as much as the SAG rate.”

So the first ever time NZ actors will be paid residuals.

Sir Peter said fees New Zealand actors were paid favourably here compared to what they would receive overseas. An actor contracted to appear in a small supporting role would receive around NZ$5,000 per week, whereas the Screen Actor’s Guild of America’s published current minimum weekly rates for the same role is NZ$3,800, he said.

Gasp. $5,000 a week for a “small” role.  This is the reality of what is being offered, while some idiot is talking about how actors could be paid $1/day and forced to work 24 hours a day.

The New Zealand Actor’s Equity, who operate as an autonomous part of the MEAA, have since acknowledged the Commerce Act prevents a union-negotiated agreement with performers who are independent contractors, following advice from the Attorney General Christopher Finlayson.

“My knowledge of the producers is that they are people of goodwill. I am sure they would want to explore all lawful means by which these issues could be moved forward and resolved.” said NZ Actors’ Equity President Jennifer Ward-Lealand.

Well if there is goodwill, why not get the MEAA to call off the global boycott, which is explicitly linked to what they now acknowledge is an illegal demand?

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford says he should not have used his parliamentary email to endorse candidates in the local body elections and he is sorry.

Mr Twyford, Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesman, met Parliamentary Service officials today following an accusation from ACT leader Rodney Hide about improper use of parliamentary resources.

Mr Twyford sent emails – including one to endorse Auckland super city mayoralty candidate Len Brown.

“Parliamentary Services have told me that there is a case to answer and that it has been referred to the Speaker’s Office. This was a genuine mistake. I am now aware of the rules and I won’t be making this mistake again.

Telling people who to vote for, from a parliamentary account, is no mistake. Everyone knows the rules – you an not ask for money, members, or votes.

Even worse when it is the Spokesperson for Auckland Issues. While of course Labour back Len Brown (a Labour Party member), it is not a good look to have the Auckland spokesperson actively campaigning for and against candidates – as he will have to work with some of them after the election.

Oh my God. What sick little fuckers. The 10:10 campaign ha produced this campaign ad. They are campaigning for people to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010, and by every year thereafter.

Watch the video as the school kids get blown up, for not taking part in the campaign.

What an insight into the mentality of the zealots.

Hat Tip: Act on Campus

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR (off line) exposing another consequence of goofynomics:

Mr Goff’s policy would slash the price of American pomegranates, now selling at over $30/kg, New Zealand cranberries, selling at $25.30/kg, and Philippine figs selling at $2 each but would leave the price of low-fat milk, wholemeal bread and natural muesli untouched.

The ultimate in excess, fresh Alban truffles, currently selling for $6000/kg in Auckland, would fall by $800/kg under Mr Goff’s policy.  Good luck selling that one in West Auckland.

The residents of Epsom whose like French cusine, will be thanking Mr Goff for knocking $800/kg off the cost of their truffles.

But before they celebrate, I have to take issue with one aspect of Matthew’s claim. You see a truffle is a fungus, and is a fungus a vegetable?

I don’t know the answer for sure. But what I can guarantee is that when the answer is worth $800/kg, the court case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

And think if the Supreme Court rules that a truffle is not a vegetable, for GST purposes. Then presumably mushrooms will also be deemed not to be vegetables. And so all the supermarkets will have to remove mushrooms from their fruit and vegetables sections.

We may end up with our own version of the 1893 Nix v Heddon when the US Supreme Court had to rule on whether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable (it is a vegetable – well at least in the US).

I can see Labour’s GST policy attracting lots of votes from lawyers.

AP report:

A new study says laws that ban texting while driving don’t reduce wrecks and might actually increase risks.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s claim research arm released its findings Tuesday in Kansas City.

The insurance industry group compiled data from California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington immediately before and after driver texting was banned.

The study found the number of crashes actually increased in three of those states after the bans were implemented.

Institute spokesman Russ Rader says the increase might be the result of drivers trying to keep phones out of view while texting.

This is one reason I am sceptical of these laws. Do they actually reduce the number of people who do not use phones in cars?

No this is not a a joke. The Telegraph reports:

A space ambassador could be appointed by the United Nations to act as the first point of contact for aliens trying to communicate with Earth.

Good to see they are focused on the vital issues.

NZPA report:

Lincoln University says student associations are vital to campus life and it is condemning an ACT bill to make their membership voluntary. …

Lincoln University and its student association issued a joint statement today, condemning the bill.

This is no surprise, and we will see a number of universities come out and insist that compulsory membership must remain.

Why?

Well, simply because it makes life so much easier for the university. Rather than actually having to ever consult students on various issues, they can just talk to one person – the president of the compulsory student association, and claim that the studeny body has been consulted.

Vice-Chancellors view with horror the prospect of actually having to genuinely consult with students directly.

Association president Ivy Harper said it was shocking the MPs ignored the overwhelming number of submissions against the bill – nearly 5000 when less than 100 were in support.

This myth keeps getting repeated. Around 4,700 submissions were just names on a firm letter/petition. They were collected by staff and executive of compulsory associations. There were only around 300 genuine submissions. And polls in the past have shown that the majority of students do want voluntary membership. This will be extremely popular with the majority of students. It is only the privileged minority who are squealing with horror.

I love this speech by Tony Ryall to the PSA:

The tone of this conference here in Wellington will no doubt stand in stark contrast to that of the Irish public sector union only a few months ago.

In what has been described as a firebrand speech, the union chief demanded his members accept a four year strike ban, a pay freeze following pay cuts, massive redundancies and rationalisations – all of which were agreed with the Irish government earlier in the year.

What is more remarkable is the acceptance by his members and others in the public sector that the global financial crisis and its impact on the Celtic Tiger required such austerity….that is acceptance from the unions other than the secondary teachers union.

After undertaking months of industrial action including marching in the streets, that secondary teachers union there last week decided to finally accept the facts of recession and is joining the wider public sector pay restraint.

Wonderful swipe at the PPTA by implication there. How long is it going to take the PPTA to realise they are not getting free laptop for every teacher?

And then Tony continues:

The United Kingdom is facing the largest peacetime deficit in their history. Public servants earning more than $40,000 are facing a two year wage freeze, and performance-related pay for civil servants will be cut by 2/3rds.

Just last week the Governor of the Bank of England urged unions to accept public sector reforms and job cuts by warning that anything short of tackling the UK’s Budget deficit would “fail the next generation.”

In Italy the Government passed an austerity package of around $50 billion of saving which includes a freeze on public sector wages.

In Ireland the Government has cut public service salaries – including doctors, nurses, and teachers – by up to 15%.

Greece‘s socialist government has frozen public sector wages and pensions for the next three years.

In Hungary they plan to cut the cost of public servants pay by 15% and freeze government spending.

The Portugese government has put a hiring freeze on its civil service, along with a 5% wage cut for top earners in the public sector.

Germany has the strongest economy in Europe.  But the Germans plan  to reduce the number of their federal public servants by 15,000 – or 5% – and cut their salaries by 2.5%.

Canada has frozen wages in the public service for the next two to three years.

Compared to what’s happened internationally, New Zealand’s response has been fair, moderate and pragmatic.

And then Tony goes on to praise the PSA:

I would like to acknowledge the Public Service Association for the constructive and responsible part you have played in employment negotiations to date. You are professional yet determined.

You have sought settlements for your members that recognise the tough financial times we are all in.

While hard fought, those settlements have been responsible, realistic and fair to both parties…often between one and two percent. You’ve also been innovative in your approach to addressing productivity improvement.

Which is another message to the PPTA they are not getting 4%.

NZPA report:

Sir Peter Jackson offered to go to an actors’ union meeting last night called over the Hobbit dispute, but was turned down.

Spada had attempted to meet with the MEAA to discuss actors’ terms and conditions for over 18 months, without success, he said.

The Hobbit’s producers – including Sir Peter – contacted the MEAA and NZ Actors Equity yesterday morning with an offer to attend the Wellington meeting in the hope of finding a solution to the dispute.

After sending several requests asking for a response, the producers were finally told “no” shortly before the meeting started.

“It is pity we were not given the chance to have a discussion with the actors, who are the party most affected by the MEAA’s actions,” Sir Peter said.

God forbid that the actors attending the meeting hear his point of view.

Oh well, when we no longer have a NZ film industry, I hope all the actors can get jobs working in cafes or something, so they don’t have to go on the dole.

On budget  Day I blogged:

The tax rate changes from 1 October 2010 are:

• Up to $14K – tax rate goes from 12.5% to 10.5%
• $14K to $48K – tax rate goes from 21.0% to 17.5%
• $48K to $70K – tax rate goes from 33.0% to 30.0%
• $70K+ – tax rate goes from 38.0% to 33.0%

Workers earning around the average full-time wage ($40K to $48k) will, over 18 months, have had their top marginal tax rate go from 33% to 17.5% – almost halved.

Two thirds of the “cost” of tax cuts goes to reducing bottom two rates and 73% of income earners will have a top tax rate of 17.5%. You keep 82.5% of every extra hour you work.

And the reduction at each income bracket:

As I commented at the time, the reductions are pretty even, as a percentage of existing tax paid.

And this takes into account the likely impact on prices with the GST increase.

When Americans for Tax Reform asked me if I would like to catch up with their President, Grover Norquist, in Sydney for half an hour to talk about US politics, I didn’t hesitate to say “hell yes”. Grover is one of the most influential and connected people on the right of politics in the US, and arguably the most powerful lobbyist in the “vast right wing conspiracy”.

We ended up actually chatting for an hour and a half, and I got some fascinating insights into how things are being positioned there. The chat was on the record, so I can blog some of the insights. I’ll try and categorise them:

US House

This is the key target for the 2010 mid terms. Not the Senate, not the Governorships but retaking the House. With that you get the Speakership and the ability to influence (downwards) spending and tax plans. Many of the House candidates have signed a no tax hikes pledge.

They need 39 seats to take the majority. Currently the number of net pick ups could be in the 50s, so it is looking relatively probable.

US Senate

The Republicans have 41 seats at the moment. There are around five seats they are highly likely to pick up, and another five that they could pick up. Gaining 51 would get the majority and control of the agenda.

However as 60 votes are needed for a cloture motion, gaining the majority is not as important as in the House.

The big challenge at the moment is that with only 41 seats, the Republicans have to hold all 41 Senators to prevent something going to the vote. That makes life very hard for the Senators in more liberal states such as Maine.

If the Republicans get to even 46 seats, that gives them a lot more flexibility to allow Senators in marginal states to vote more in line with their state’s wishes, enhancing their chances of re-election.

Now 51 would be nice to get, but that is not the real target. The target is 61 seats by 2014. Is this impossible? Not at all – look at the makeup of the seats coming up.

In 2010 around 40 seats are up for election – around 20 held by Republicans and 20 by Democrats. This means in 2012 and 2014there will be approx 30 seats up for election each time – and 20/30 will be Democrat holds and only 10/30 Republican holds.

Also remember that 2006 was the swing against Bush mid terms, when previously Republican states went Democrat. They will all be up in 2012.

So they are planning a long-term game, where they can end up not only in the majority, but with a super-majority that can force votes.

Governorships

They are looking to pick up quite a few states. Around 25 states have implemented their proposal to list basically all Government expenditure in an online searchable database. Several candidates who are leading in the polls have pledged to do this also, so eventually they hope it will cover almost all states and then the federal government.

I’d like to see such a policy back home – for central and local government. Have all payments over say $1,000 listed on the Internet and let a nation of armchair auditors get to work scrutinizing what their taxes are spent on.

Sarah Palin

Grover shares my view that she will probably not stand for President in 2012. She is making more money and doing very well in her current role as a commentator and power figure.

We talked about whether she has become a de facto leader of the Tea Party. The best way to describe it is that she is not a leader in an organizational sense but she is the endorser-in-chief. If she endorses a candidate in a race, then it focuses massive attention and potential energy and activists on that candidate.  Now it doesn’t mean they automatically go on to win their primary – some of her endorsements have lost. What it comes down to is whether the endorsed candidate is ready and capable of using her endorsement to gain activists and supporters.

The Tea Party

This is still very much a grassroots movement. There is no national hierarchy or structure. In fact Norquist said it is better to think of it as a brand – such as Reagan Republicans or Goldwater Conservatives. What they represent is in fact the fifth wave of “entrants” into the Republican party – others were the Goldwater conseratives, the Pat Robertson religious right etc etc. These are the fiscal conservatives.

Also worth noting that many Tea Party people are not registered republicans, but independents.

So thinking of the Tea Party as a symbol of identification or brand, rather than a formal party or organisation is a good thing to remember.

We talked about the tension between whether one should go for the more moderate electable candidates, or the more “fiscally pure” candidates who may end up not winning the seat in the general election.

ATR do their own endorsements and they do not always match those of the “tea party”. In several seats unreliable incumbents have lost to challengers, and the challenger is looking likely to win the seat in November. So that has been very successful. Delaware stands out as the obvious example where the Republicans are now very unlikely to win the race, after Mike Castle was defeated for the nomination.

Norquist said that Castle lost because he was unwilling to modify any of his positions, to reassure activists he was worth electing. If he had been willing to do that, he would have won easily. He compares it to McCain. McCain beat off a challenger because he moved more towards the Republican base on issues such as cap and trade.

2012

The challenge for the Republicans is that a generic Republican candidate would beat Obama according to the polls, but once you start naming names Obama leads. Norquist says though that the primary campaign season can and will change this, as candidates become more nationally known.

Romney is the front runner for now. As I said previously Palin not expected to run. Huckabee may stand again also.

Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is a solid contender. He was McCain’s choice for VP before they went for Palin. Texas Governor Rick Perry has solid conservative backing also.

Newt Gingrich would like to be President and would like to run, but may struggle for some support as having led the Republican to victory in 1994, he failed to reduce government spending much. Grover made the point that it is useful to Newt’s broadcasting career to remain a presidential contender, and he won’t pull out early if he does.

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is very popular and would be very acceptable. He is young so his time may be in the future but Norquist says having him on the ticket as Vice-President would be a smart move.

Haley Barbour of Mississipi is another “acceptable” candidate. He is a former RNC Chair and lobbyist, so may struggle for public appeal outside his state. Norquist said that he would be an ideal Chief of Staff to the President, which is an interesting possibility. Barbour, incidentally, is good mates with former National Party President John Slater, through their shared involvement with the IDU. So we might have a useful link to the White House of Barbour ended up in that role.

Another potential contender is Meg Whitman, if she wins the California Governorship. If you start with 10% of the electoral vote in your rocket, you have to be a contender.

Chris Christie is another possibility. A very popular Governor.

A Whitman/Jindal ticket could be very electorally popular. Far too early to speculate really, but it could happen.

Talking US politics,  Obama has just had Chief of Staff resign, to stand for Mayor of Chicago. I’m not sure many people would go from running the US Government to running Chicago, but I guess the perks are better in Chicago 🙂

The SST reports:

Left wing union leader Matt McCarten has performed a triple flip flop over endorsing a candidate for Auckland Council’s Albany ward.

McCarten formed the website supercitypicks.co.nz to help voters select a left-leaning Auckland Council in the upcoming local body elections. …

But yesterday McCarten withdrew his support for Williams entirely.

“Originally I thought progressives should support Andrew Williams. But my leftist and even centrist mates gave me a biff on two fronts,” McCarten wrote.

“That he’s made his city a laughing stock and  he’s totally self absorbed and even his own allies have deserted him. The other reason is that he knows he had no chance to win as mayor and is deliberately drawing votes away from the only other candidate Len Brown who can beat John Banks.

“Privately he claims to support Brown, yet is helping Banks by not telling voters his real position. On that basis he’s a fraud and shouldn’t be supported by progressives.”

McCarten said Slater was “the only other candidate I know in that ward with any chance of winning”. He said the blogger was right of politics but “has a social conscience, does volunteer work and has a good brain”.

Yep that’s right, Matt McCarten did endorse Whale Oil for Council. And he called Andrew Williams a fraud.

One can only imagine the howls of outrage and anguish on the left. Matt’s own UNITE staff probably threatened to picket him. And so he flipped again:

However less than 24 hours later McCarten had withdrawn his support for Slater and replaced it with a new endorsement. “My progressive advisors tell me I should be supporting John Kirikiri as the best of the rest”.

Position No 3.

But, when Stuff called McCarten today to ask why he was making constant changes to his Albany ward endorsements he said he would be removing his tick for Kirikiri and reinstating Williams as the preferred contender.

“I hadn’t done my homework but I have now read all of the candidates’ policies and have decided Williams is the man for the job.”

He said Williams had been “an embarrassment with his behaviour” but had the best policies “and policies are how we should judge the candidates”.

I disagree with Matt. Policies are important. But so is judgement, temperment, and rationality.

Following his removal from McCarten’s endorsement list Williams let rip on Facebook about the well-known union leader.

“He should know better than to make such irresponsible statements about me a sitting mayor. I don’t even know the man, have never had a conversation with him, so it’s extraordinary that he would comment like that. But very telling that he initially endorsed that disturbed psycho nutter Cameron Slater then withdrew it.”

When Williams does rants like that, the term “disturbed psycho nutter” seems like a form of projection.

Phil Quinn blogs on why he thinks National will win Mana. On this occasion I can’t agree with him, as he overlook some key facts – and history. His arguments are:

1. Given the absence of Winnie Laban on the ballot, the party vote from the last election is the best indication of the respective standings of Labour and National in Mana;
2. And that the party vote margin favours Labour by only 2,500 votes or so;
   
3. And that the National Party candidate is a Mana-based list MP who carries an element of incumbency;
   
4. And that the PM is riding a wave of popularity, buoyed by a post-quake glow;
   
5. And that the turnout in a by-election will be lower than a General Election by many thousands;
   
6. And that low turnout is traditionally very bad news for Labour…

In effect he makes three arguments – that Mana without Laban is a marginal seat, that Hekia and the PM will attract votes, and that the turnout for theby-election will be low and bad for Labour.

Let’s take these one by one. Mana without Laban is not a marginal seat. This seat has never ever been held by National. It has been Labour since at least World War II.

Winnie is a nice competent MP who certainly did not lose Labour any votes. But she was not one of those “star” local MPs who attracts massive cross-party support like Nick Smith does, and Harry Duynhoven did. Her results are not much greater than Graeme Kelly achieved. In 1999 Kelly won the seat by 5,475 for example. In 2008 Laban only got 8.6% of National voters.

Yes Hekia is a strong candidate, and has profile as a List MP. However she is a List MP, and no List MP has won a by-election. People don’t like the thought that if they vote for the List MP, then it results in someone else (the next candidate on the party list) entering Parliament.

Yes the PM is popular. But this is a seat never lost by Labour, and there is no way they will evict Labour just because the PM handled the Christchurch earthquake well.

Finally turnout is normally lower, but this tends to work against the Government. Their supporters are not motivated to vote just so the Govt gets one more seat they don’t need. But Oppositions are highly motivated to retain a seat or bloody the Government.

Finally you should remember this – in scores and scores of by-elections held in the last 80 years, not once has a Government won a seat in a by-election off an Opposition. Not once.

The combination of it being a seat that Labur has never not held, and no Government in history having ever won any seat off an Opposition, I feel very safe in my conclusion that the seat is not marginal, or even much of a contest.

Yet to read the full discussion paper, but on the basis of the Herald report, the direction looks promising:

The paper strongly supported greater use of proactively releasing information, an idea that is gaining traction in the Open Labour NZ debate on a more transparent Government.

I have been pushing this issue for well over a year, and delighted to see the Law Commission of a similar view. The Internet age makes it practical and desirable for information to be released, even in the absence of a specific request. The problem with the status quo, is people often don’t know that a document exists, so they can’t request it.

Talking of Open Labour, they have now distilled 63 suggested actions for open government from their consultation. You can vote on them here.

I’d urge readers to vote, and vote in good faith, on what they would like to see as policy. You do need to register to vote, so if you get permission denied, go to the top right and register.

I blogged on Monday that the demands being made by the Australian MEAA are illegal. Russell Brown covers this issue and a lot more at Public Address.

Today the Herald reports that Crown Law has also advised that the MEAA demands are illegal.

So consider this – we face an international boycott which may destroy the NZ film industry, and the demands are illegal. Isn’t there a name for that?

Yesterday, Mr Finlayson said in a letter to the studios – which was also copied to Sir Peter and Ward-Lealand – that legal advice from the Crown Law Office confirmed the Commerce Act prevented The Hobbit’s producers “from entering into a union-negotiated agreement with performers who are independent contractors”. Section 30 of the act, which deals with price fixing, “effectively prohibits” such arrangements, he said.

I don’t think this is about wages and conditions – they can be negotiated. This is about trying to increase MEAA membership.