The NZ Herald has a Digipol out this morning. I’ve blogged it on Curiablog.

It was taken from 17 April to 26 April half before and after massive publicity around the pony tail story.

The results must be very depressing for Labour. National increases slightly from December to 51%. Yes halfway through Year 7, and on 51%. Labour are below 30% on 28.7%.

There is little change from their last poll in December, except Peters is now just 2% behind Little as Preferred PM. Little has a lower level of support as Preferred PM than both Shearer and Cunliffe managed.

Overall National is 22% ahead on the party vote and Key is 51% ahead as Preferred PM.

This shows the average of all the public polls.

I don’t normally focus on provincial politics in Canada, but I’m following with interest the leadership election for the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario, as a mate of mine is a contender.

Unlike in NZ, Canadian parties are not restricted to choosing their leaders from their caucus, and have lengthy election contests where every member can vote. It is not uncommon for a leader to not be an MP when they get elected.

The Leader of the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario resigned in June 2014, after losing the provincial election. They got only 28 seats to 58 for the Liberals and 21 for the NDP. They lost nine seats despite being their third term in opposition.

The election will be on 9 May 2015 – almost 11 months later.

Every member of the party in Ontario gets a vote. The votes are weighted so each of the 107 ridings has equal weight. So signing up 5,000 members in one riding won’t help you much – you need to work on getting votes from the entire province.

The front-runner for the leadership has been Christine Elliott. She has been deputy leader since 2009 and has support of 19 of the 28 provincial MPs.

A total of five candidates went forward. Elliott, Vic Fedeli (shadow finance), Lisa MacLeod (shadow treasury), Monte McNaughton (shadow trade) and Patrick Brown.

Patrick is not a provincial MP, but a federal backbench MP. I’ve known him for over a dozen years, after we went to Sri Lanka together to do democracy training. We’re good mates, despite him nicknaming me Uncle Fester. I happened to be in Canada when their 2006 election was on, so helped him out a bit. He won his federal seat that year, off an incumbent Cabinet Minister.

He won the marginal seats by 1,500 votes in 2006. Then after two years increased it to 15,000 in 2008 and 21,000 in 2011.

Patrick is one of the most impressive retail politicians I’ve seen. He gets involved in every community event there is. He leads and champions fundraisers for local causes. He turns up to almost every meeting and forum. That’s how a seat goes from marginal to getting three times the votes of your opponent.

When I was there in 2006, Patrick was door knocking in -30 degree temperatures and snow every day. Volunteers who were only door knocking once or twice a week were wanting to stop after a couple of hours, but Patrick would always be the one saying let’s do one more block – despite being out every day.

When Patrick first announced his candidacy, he was seen as having no chance. He wasn’t even a provincial MP. He scored barely 5% in the opinion polls.

But Patrick got to work. He and his team started signing up members. Not 500 or 1,000, but around 30,000. He didn’t just sign them up in the areas that normally vote PC. He went to areas often hostile in the past. He worked with ethnic communities, and has been so good at pushing Canadian-Indian links, he’s a personal friend now of the Indian Prime Minister.

He couldn’t get as many endorsements from MPPs as Elliott, but he got endorsements from legendary ice hockey players. Brown organises an annual ice hockey charity event for his local area, and gets many stars along – and even takes part himself.

It’s now two weeks to go, and a poll has him now in the lead. Ahead 54 to 46. No guarantee he will win, but an amazing turn-around. If he wins, polls show they are slightly ahead of the Liberals, so he could become Premier at the next election. But one step at a time.

The lesson here, if Patrick does win, is sheer hard work and endless energy can make a difference.

Stuff reports:

Stripper-fuelled funerals have been outlawed by the Chinese government.

The crackdown comes after two recent cases of countryside Chinese funerals that featured exotic dancers.

The strippers were allegedly hired to attract larger crowds of mourners.

The Chinese have always been great innovators!

Stuff reports:

Being part of a National-led Government is not an option for the three Green Party MPs contesting the co-leadership.

The fourth candidate, Vernon Tava – the only contender who is not an MP – says the Greens cannot afford to be “sitting on the sidelines” and wants to see the party at the centre of every government.

Tava along with Green MPs Kevin Hague, Gareth Hughes and James Shaw are bidding for the co-leader title after Russel Norman announced in January that he would be standing down at the party’s annual meeting at the end of May, citing family reasons. 

So unless Tava wins, the Greens are saying they Labour can continue to take them for granted, as they have nowhere else to go.

Shaw acknowledged at Sunday’s co-leadership debate the power shift in Parliament since NZ First leader Winston Peters won the Northland by-election.

“The Green Party must grow otherwise the next Government will be decided by Winston Peters,” he said.

“We can not continue with status quo – it’s a path that leads to stagnation or decline.”

But what is the change? They’re all (but Tava) saying that that they Labour can safely isolate them and do a deal with Winston locking them out.

Their stance is the same as Russel Norman’s stance – the status quo. By saying they can only work with Labour, they lose the ablity to pick up centrist voters. The only substantive votes they can pick up are from Labour voters.

And if they couldn’t get more than 10% when Labour got its worse election result in almost 100 years, what makes them think they can get more next time, by adopting the same positioning?

From there, talking points only seemed to get stranger as Hague took his five minutes of air time to talk about heading to space.

“Together we’re building a rocketship to go to the moon,” he told Green supporters.

“I know how to get to the moon. Trust me now, put on your space suits.”

His astronomy-themed speech did not stop there.

When all four candidates were asked to choose someone – other than themselves, who they would like to win the co-leadership, Hague refused to pick a fellow contender and instead said he would like Neil Armstrong, an American astronaut and the first person to walk on the moon, to take it.

Well they often seem to be on another planet.

NZ has the 4th lowest energy security risk in the developed world. The top 10 are:

1. Norway
2. Mexico
3. Denmark
4. NZ
5. UK
6. US
7. Canada
8. France
9. Germany
10. Australia

Useful having so much renewable energy.

You have radical Islamist clerics in the UK preaching hatred against the UK, the West and support for ISIL and Al Qaeda.  Yet Ed Miliband has decided the speech that needs to be stomped on is so called Islamophobia.

Muslim news reports:

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.

And:

Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.

God knows what disability hate crime is.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received about lower than expected inflation in New Zealand?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “There’s always a risk with third-term Governments that they get arrogant. There’s always a risk that they veer off into a space they haven’t been, and start surprising their supporters”?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made that will ensure young New Zealanders get the right resources and investment they need for educational success?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Has he ever described achieving a surplus in this year as an “artificial target”; if not, why not?
6. DARROCH BALL to the Minister for Social Development:Does she stand by her statement “The latest benefit figures show a further year-on-year decline as the New Zealand economy improves and welfare reforms continue to support families”?
7. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on the Western Corridor, which is part of its Roads of National Significance programme for Christchurch?
8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the Government has effectively left nothing “undone” to tackle sky-rocketing house prices in Auckland?
9. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Women: Does she consider it her job to advocate for all New Zealand women?
10. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister of Conservation: Is she at all concerned about the health and safety of paua divers and other recreational water users around Stewart Island in relation to shark cage diving permits?
11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Customs: How is the Government making criminals pay for better drug screening at the border?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Trade: Will he now release the Government’s objectives and the latest offer it has tabled in respect of each chapter and each annex of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?

National: Four patsies on inflation, education, Christchurch roads and drug screening at borders

Labour: Four questions on arrogance, surplus, house prices and the TPP

Greens: Two questions on does PM stand by all his statements and advocacy by Minister for Women

NZ First: Two questions on welfare and paua divers

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – committee stage

This bill confirms and validates unappropriated expenditure and validates excess net asset holdings for the 2013/14 financial year.

• Introduced: December 2014
• 1st reading: February 2015, passed unanimously
• 2nd reading March 2015, passed 61 to 54 with Labour, Greens and NZ First against

This bill is has a nine hour debate at committee stage, with two hours on the annual accounts and an hour each on seven portfolio areas.

Stuff reports:

Courts are increasingly keeping the identities of alleged sexual offenders secret, even as the overall numbers of those granted name suppression declines.

Figures from the Ministry of Justice released under the Official Information Act show it has become harder for criminals to keep their names secret, with the number of permanent name suppression orders granted falling from 882 in 2009 to 329 in 2014.

Of the 329 people granted permanent name suppression in 2014, 185 were convicted of the offence they were charged with.

Suppression provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 came into force in March 2012 – and the number of suppression orders has dropped since then.

A drop from 882 to 329 is large and significant. This is a good thing.

The only category in which the number of suppression orders rose was in the offence group of sexual assault and related offences.

In 2009, 78 people were granted permanent name suppression in the case of a sex crime, with 45 of those convicted.

But last year, 109 people were granted permanent suppression, 71 of whom were convicted.

That may be due to protecting the identity of the victims.

However better to suppress the details of the relationship between the criminal and the victims, than the name of the criminal.

This photo was taken using a Nikon D4 digital camera from the International Space Station.

Hat Tip: Business Insider and Mark Textor

It is hard to think of a bigger proven disaster, than that of the Australian Labor Party’s boats policy. People will recall how John Howard’s hardline on asylum seekers arriving by boat with hated by the liberal left in Australia. They demanded an end to it, and when Labor won in 2007, they scrapped it.

You can see above what happened. The scrapping of Howard’s policy saw an exponential growth of people trying to arrive by boat. Not a 100% increase or even 1,000% increase but a 10,000% increase. Before they did a u-turn in 2013, the number had grown from around 10 people a month to 4,000.

But that was not the worst impact of Labor’s policy. It was the death toll. Their policy change may have been well intentioned, but it incentivised desperate people to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers to try and get them into Australia onto unsafe boats. The so called humane policy turned out to be a lethal policy.

When say two or three civilians die in an overseas war zone, some are quick to say the Government is responsible for their deaths. Well what do you can it when a Government policy led to almost 1,200 human beings being killed. And not a quick death, but probably an awful panic stricken event as their boats sink in the middle of an ocean, and they slowly drown or freeze.

Sometimes correlation is not causation, but in this case it clearly is. Note that since the change of Government, there has not been a single drowning at sea, and the level of asylum seekers arriving by boats has fallen by a massive 99%.

Greg Sheridan in The Australian noted:

While Australia will still be one of the most generous societies in the world to refugees, they will arrive in an orderly and lawful manner and be chosen by Australian authorities.

Australia has the highest refugee quota per capita in the world.

The Abbott government will neither confirm nor deny the numbers, but in the past four weeks some five boats have been turned around or towed back towards Indonesia.

Operational secrecy has been central to the success so far.

Operationally, turning boats back is even more effective than transferring people to Manus or Nauru.

The arrival of people in Manus and Nauru often still triggers final payment for the people-smugglers, who continue to tell their customers that people housed on those islands will eventually get to Australia.

Failed illegal arrivals who return to Indonesia, on the other hand, demand their money back and tell everyone they know that the mission was a flop. Even if the boat is sound and the crew competent, they are met by the Australian navy and kept out of Australia.

And so the people smugglers are out of work, and you don’t get hundreds drowning out at sea.

Meanwhile, Australia continues to have, per capita, the largest permanent refugee resettlement program in the world. But these refugees are not self-selected nor chosen by illegal people-smugglers – they are all genuine refugees, and none of them drowns on the way here.

Exactly.

It is a salient reminder that good intentions are not enough. Bad policy can lead to people dying. Promoting biofuels for example led to mass starvations as third world nations changed their land from food production to biofuels. And taking a soft approach on boat arrivals led to an exponential increase in boats, and hundreds drowning at sea.

“The best scheme of finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest.”

– Jean-Baptiste Say

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

Stuff reports:

Young pregnant teens don’t have the mental maturity to understand the implications of an abortion, new research suggests.  

Parents should be involved in the abortion decision, rather than giving all girls, no matter what their age, the right to consent, Otago University masters law student Michael Morrison said.

The current “clumsy” legislation that allows teens to chose to have an abortion without their parent’s permission is outdated and should be repealed, he said.

 “We’re relying on an ancient piece of legislation.”

Morrison’s law and ethics essay, which argues this case, has won second place in an international academic writing competition.

The paper has been published in the latest edition of the Asian Bioethics Review.

In New Zealand children aged under 16 generally need their parent’s permission to undergo medical procedures, except when it comes to abortions.

This legislation means girls can consent to an abortion as long as they are sexually mature.

The abortion law came into effect in 1977 before experts had a full understanding of how a young person’s brain works, Morrison said.

However, he said international experts now agree a teenager’s brain only develops the ability understand a decision between the ages of 14 and 17.

About 50 girls aged between 11 and 14 have an abortion each year. There are also 2000 abortions in the age group 15 to 19.

Morrison said for the young girls who don’t tell their parents, they may not understand the long-term implications of their decision. 

“The child is trying to process a very significant procedure alone.”

Parents should be involved in the decision, something research has also shown most young people would want, he said.

“Children really do want their parents involved.”

The current law was developed with good intentions to protect children, but Morrison said it goes too far.

“It is incredibly clumsy and it is not based on our current knowledge on when children have the capacity to consent.”

A test case in the English courts found a child should have the right consent when they have the ability to understand the implications, which varies between teens.

A difficult issue. My views are:

• Regardless of age, the final decision has to rest with the pregnant girl. She should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will.
• However if they are aged under 16, parents should be involved. I don’t think a parent can be doing their job if their under-wage daughter is having to make this decision, without their knowledge.
• There will be some circumstances where it will be in the best interests of the pregnant girl to not have their parents informed – if they are likely to be abusive, or there may be incest etc.
• Overall I favour doctors being required to inform parents if someone aged under 16 wishes to have an abortion, but with the ability for a family court judge to give waivers. Ultimately though the wishes of the pregnant girl should prevail over their parents, if they don’t agree.

The 2015 World Happiness Report is out and again NZ ranks near the top.

The top 10 are:

1. Switzerland
2. Iceland
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Canada
6. Finland
7. Netherlands
8. Sweden
9. New Zealand
10. Australia

The Press reports:

A $156-million Christchurch cycleway plan is under attack from two economists, who say the city council could buy new cars for every convert to cycling for the same amount of money.

University of Canterbury finance professor Glenn Boyle and PhD student James Hill have analysed the Christchurch City Council’s business case for the major cycleways programme and say it is “excessively optimistic”.

Boyle said the 18,000 increase in cycling trips expected as a result of the new cycleway network roughly translated into an additional 9000 people cycling. For $156m, the council could buy all those people brand new Suzuki Altos. 

That’s still cheaper than the rail proposal a few years ago in Wellington that cost over $100 million and would have reduced peak time cars by only 90 a day. In that case, you could have got each person a helicopter!

“Every Christchurch household is faced with an average bill of at least $1100 in present value terms for facilities that are predicted to only attract a relatively small number of cyclists, will result in more cyclist accidents and deaths, have at best zero impact on congestion, and yield highly uncertain health benefits,” the pair said.

The cost of building Christchurch’s proposed major cycleway network has jumped in price from an original estimate of $69m to $156m but a business case presented by the council earlier this year claimed every dollar invested would give a $5 to $8 return. 

Boyle and Hill studied the assumptions those figures were based on and have concluded the likely return was almost certainly less than $2 and probably less than $1.

I’m a fan of cycleways,but they need to make economic sense. The 120% or so increase in costs obviously makes it a less economic proposition.

“It’s estimated that the cycleway network will save more than $300m in travel time for vehicle commuters due to lower traffic congestion. But this figure turns out to be based on average savings of just six seconds per trip, which realistically, has an economic value of zero. It takes no account of the time costs imposed on motorists by the priority given to cycleway commuters at some intersections so the true time savings are certainly less than six seconds and probably negative,” the pair said.

Fair point.

The business case for the cycleways programme had been prepared by consultants QTP, in accordance with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s economic appraisal manual. It had been peer reviewed and accepted by NZTA for the council’s funding assistance requests.

“As much as people want these facilities and there is an obligation on the council to provide options for people to get around, we must also ensure we make wise investments,” Clearwater said.

University of Canterbury geography professor Simon Kingham said he had read Boyle and Hill’s research and believed they had gone into it determined to pick holes in the business case.

The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) in the council’s business case was entirely consistent with other studies around the world,while Boyle’s BCR figure was totally inconsistent, he said.

I don’t think it is a bad think to have someone pick holes in a business case. We should welcome that. And rather than dismiss the criticism, a point by point analysis would be better.

Fascinating to read about Bruce Jenner’s transformation from male to female, having publicly come out as transsexual.

Some people may have stereotypes about transsexuals, thinking it is a choice, and/or that it is like being gay. But for those who feel they were born into the wrong gender, it is a very challenging experience.

Jenner falls well outside what some may see as the (false) stereotype – an effeminate man. Jenner won the decathlon gold medal in the 1976 Olympics. I recall that, and how he was seen by many as the most complete athlete of his era.

His 1976 gold medal set a world record of 8,616 points. The decathlon consists of 10 events – 100 metres sprint, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 metres sprint, 110 metres hurdle, discus throw, pole vault, javelin throw and then 1,500 metres race.

Stuff reports:

Jenner, who confirmed he identifies as a conservative Christian republican, told Sawyer he “always wanted to be a woman who kicked butt” but would like to be considered “asexual”. The thrice married athlete also pointed out the differences between sexual desire and gender saying he’s never “been with a man”.

Two things worth reflecting on. He doesn’t have much choice as to his gender identity, but he does have a choice with faith. Also being transsexual doesn’t mean he is gay and is attracted to men.

CNN reports:

Whole streets and squares in the capital of more than 1 million people were covered in rubble. Stunned residents stared at temples that were once part of their daily lives and now were reduced to nothing.

The death toll of 1,832 is expected to rise as the full extent of the damage is assessed.

The loss of life reported so far “is really based on the information we have from the main cities,” Lex Kassenberg, Nepal country director for CARE International, told CNN. “But if you look at the spread of the earthquake a lot of the rural areas have been hit as well. The information we received from the field is that 80% of the houses in these rural areas have been destroyed.”

Having been to Nepal just a year ago, this natural disaster hits me emotionally more than some others. The loss of life  already very high, but I suspect it will go well beyond this.

Kathmandu has more world heritage sites than any other city in the world, and at least one of them has been destroyed. Not as important as the loss of life, but still a heavy blow in its own right.

You can donate to the Nepalese Red Cross through the NZ Red Cross here.

The NY Times reports:

The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

Correlation is not causation, but what you may still have here is foreign governments thinking this is a way you could thank the Clintons for favourable US decisions.

The book will be very interesting. I don’t think anything can stop her winning the nomination, but this could hurt her in the general election. Americans seem to accept their politicians being on the take for US companies, but may be less tolerant if they think you are on the take for foreign governments,

Stuff reports:

An Aboriginal sovereignty campaigner says he is frustrated he was “hassled” by customs officers when he tried to enter Australia on an Aboriginal passport.

Callum Clayton-Dixon, who is the chairperson of the Aboriginal Provisional Government, said he was questioned for around 30 minutes on Friday evening when he arrived at the Brisbane International Airport from a trip to New Zealand.

He told ABC Radio he presented his Aboriginal passport but was told this was not a valid travel document.

What an idiot. You present a fake document that you KNOW will not be accepted and you then whine that you were hassled over it.

Clayton-Dixon said he would continue to use the passport on future trips.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I bet you he did not use it entering NZ, as he simply won’t get in.

The Herald reported:

By PricewaterhouseCoopers’ projection, the biggest sectors of the “sharing economy” – including transportation and travel companies like Uber, Zipcar and Airbnb – could be pulling in as much as $335 billion in global revenue by 2025.

That’s a massive number (PwC puts it today at about $15 billion), and it reflects, according to a market analysis the company published this week, some fundamental shifts in consumer behaviour. “Access is the new ownership,” and such.

I’m already a big fan of Uber. Yet to use Airbnb, but intend to the next time I want to find a place to stay in the Wairarapa.

PwC does point out one trend in the report that’s a little more revelatory: We’re witnessing the rise of companies predicated on trust among strangers at the same time as general trust in society is actually falling. Only 29 per cent of consumers PwC surveyed said they trust people more today than they did in the past. And 62 per cent said they trust brands less today.

Yes, but while you may not trust individual people, you trust the wisdom of the masses.

Many years ago I used to decide which movies to go to on the basis of if the Listener film reviewer hated them, they were likely to be very enjoyable. I didn’t trust their reviews as we had different tastes.

But the reviews of 100 or so professional reviewers (accumulated on Rotten Tomatoes) I do tend to trust, like I may trust the ratings from 100,000 people on IMDB.

Here is PwC’s smart answer: “If trust in individuals and institutions is waning or at best holding steady, faith in the aggregate is growing.”

In other words, I don’t trust you, Random Guy Giving Me a Ride Home, but I do trust the 4.9-star average rating of all the people who’ve been in your car before. Maybe I don’t have all that much trust in one woman renting her home on Airbnb, but I do trust the aggregated input of the 24 people who’ve given her high marks.

Exactly.

A statement from former Defence Minister Max Bradford:

“Comments by Labour MP Phil Goff that the incoming Clark government in 2000 simply followed a decision by the outgoing National government in 1999 to purchase 102 LAV III armed personnel carriers (APC) is, at best, trifling with the truth” said Max Bradford, National’s Defence Minister in 1997-1999.

Mr Goff’s comments were made in response to criticism that the Labour government’s decision to commit over $750m to purchase the LAVs was foolhardy, given that only 11 have seen deployment since their purchase in 2002 (see RNZ report (1) below).

“In 1998, the National government made a decision to purchase only 35 LAVs, which was seen as sufficient at the time. The purchase included a number of LAVs as maintenance and recovery vehicles, so there were fewer than 35 available for combat purposes” said Mr Bradford.

“Although National decided in principle to 102 vehicles at the time, we had serious doubts that 102 were ever to be needed, hence the decision to buy only 35 as replacements for the M113 APCs. There was a serious need for other defence force equipment replacements ahead of the full LAV purchase. These included:

• a third frigate for the Navy, which never proceeded and only now are the implications being felt
• new helicopters to replace the 15 or so Iroquois, eventually replaced by 6 NH90s
• replacements for the A4 Skyhawks: the Clark government scrapped the air combat wing, to help pay for the 102 LAVs
• replacements for the then-aging Hercules, which only now is being considered
• replacement of the then VIP transport aircraft with 2 Boeing 757s

“When the Clark government announced the decision to buy 102 LAVs, there was considerable criticism at the time. Indeed, the purchase process was the subject of an Auditor-General Office thorough review and report to Parliament. The Auditor-General found serious shortcomings in Labour’s decision on the LAVs. Now Labour’s chickens coming home to roost”

“I am disappointed that Mr Goff should seek to shift the blame for a stupid Labour government decision in 2000 to proceed with the purchase of 102 LAVs, as the responsibility rests solely with the Clark government, not National. Certain very senior officers in the Army at the time have to share the responsibility for poor advice and a poor decision. We should be thankful that the problems within the hierarchy of the NZDF at the time have now been fixed and I trust the public can now rely on the integrity of the Defence Force to give the appropriate advice to the government today in a difficult international environment.”

“Today’s geopolitical landscape certainly isn’t the “incredibly benign strategic environment” that Helen Clark confidently stated in 2000 should apply to defence procurement decisions, so we must get the very best defence advice nowadays” concluded Mr Bradford.

Useful to have the other side of the story. Amazing only 11 LAVs have been deployed out of 105.

I recall at the time that people calculated it would take six months to a year to transport them all to another country, so it was obvious far too many were purchased.