I’m pleased to announce that the Speaker of the House has accepted Kiwiblog as a full member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, under the rules of the press gallery.

This will allow Kiwiblog to report directly on the House, when it is in session – as well as on interesting select committees.

The criteria for membership is “exclusively or substantially involved in political and parliamentary news gathering”, which Kiwiblog clearly does.

Radio New Zealand has kindly agreed to give up some of their office space, in order to accommodate Kiwiblog into the gallery.

Kiwiblog would like to thank the chair and deputy chair of the press gallery (Claire Trevett and Katie Bradford respectively) for their support of Kiwiblog’s successful application to the Speaker.

The Age reports:

A major shift towards same-sex marriage is under way within the Liberal Party, with marriage equality advocates saying 11 Liberal MPs have privately switched to supporting a change since January.

Liberal MPs could discuss whether they should be granted a free vote on the issue as early as Tuesday, with Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm due to begin the parliamentary debate on his “freedom to marry” bill on Thursday.

The Liberal Democrats are a classical liberal party, with one Senator.

So far, only a small group of Liberal MPs, including frontbenchers Malcolm Turnbull, Simon Birmingham and Kelly O’Dwyer, have come out publicly in favour of same-sex marriage. 

But marriage equality advocates, who have been meeting with MPs over recent weeks, said there is now a significant change under way inside the party. 

“Since the beginning of the year, 11 Coalition MPs and senators have privately indicated to us they have switched to supporting marriage equality from being opposed or undecided,” Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome told Fairfax Media. 

It’s pretty inevitable. In the US, it is now legal in 36 states, representing 70% of the population.  In the last few years, it consistently wins at the ballot. Almost everyone under 40 is supportive of allowing same sex marriages.

The Mystery of Edwin Drood is one of the largest productions I have seen at Circa, with 34 members of the cast (and one dog!).

It is a globally successful musical that has won five Tony Awards, and had long runs at West End and Broadway.

The name of the play, and its basis, come from Charles Dickens. It was his final novel, and he died before he finished it. Playwright Rupert Holmes turned it into a musical with a twist – the audience decided how it ends.

It is what you could call a meta-show – a show within a show. The New Zealand cast play a music hall cast performing the Dickens play.

There are 11 principal parts, being:

• Chairman of the Music Hall Royale – Gavin Rutherford
• Edwin Drood, murder victim – Awhimai Fraser
• Rosa Bud, betrothed of Drood – Barbara Graham
• John Jasper, uncle of Drood with a crush on Bud – Jack Buchanan
• The Princess Puffer, opium den matron – Jude Gibson
• Rev Septimus Crisparkle – Lloyd Scott
• Neville Landless, a suitor for Bud – Ben Paterson
• Helena Landless, sister of Neville – Flora Lloyd
• Bazzard – Alan Palmer
• Durdles – Andy Gartrell
• The Deputy – Frankie Cur

I thought the entire cast performed very well. Barbara Graham has an exceptional singing voice and excelled. Awhimai Fraser also stood out with her performance as Edwin Drood. But all the principals performed both acting and singing well.

Also worth a mention was the 20 strong ensemble. They gave the performance a real cabaret feel, and many of them spent almost the whole performance on stage, responding to the events of the play.

The directing, music, set and lighting were all done very well, combining to create a very captivating production.

The audience participation is a highlight – ranging from the characters introducing themselves before the play starts, to voting on how the play ends, with members of the ensemble tallying up the votes from different parts of the audience.

You get to vote on how the mystery detective is, who the killer is, and which two characters should have a romantic ending. I won’t reveal who our audience voted but I will will reveal who I voted for – which was Helena to be the detective, Rosa to be the killer and the romantic couple to be Neville and Helena (heh).

I often get restless if a play goes on for more than 90 minutes or so. This production is 140 minutes long (with an interval), but not once did I feel it was dragging on. The plot advances at a brisk rate, and the songs are so enjoyable, time flies. You could tell the entire audience was loving the performance, and there was a huge ovation at the end.

Highly recommended for an entertaining evening out.

SUBMISSION OF DAVID FARRAR TO THE
INQUIRY INTO THE 2014 GENERAL ELECTION BY THE JUSTICE AND ELECTORAL SELECT COMMITTEE

About the Submitter

1. This submission is made by David Farrar in a personal capacity. I would like to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.

   Election Day and Advance Voting Restrictions

2. As advance voting has become more and more popular, a situation has developed where we do not have enough restrictions on electioneering during the advance voting period, and too many restrictions on E-Day.
3. 630,775 voters advance voted out of 2,416,479 – in excess of 25%. During that period there were stories about voters being handed party or candidate pamphlets as they enter polling places, or even having to go through a barrage of party activists.
4. I believe we should aim to have similar restrictions in place for the advance voting period, and E-Day. These should primarily be focused on having an advertisement free zone around polling places, and being illegal to pressure someone to vote a particular way.
5. This would see (compared to the status quo) a stricter regime for the advance voting period, and a more permissive regime for E-Day with the aim of the same regime for both periods. It is hard to justify on first principles why the period during which 74% vote should have a radically different regime to the period when 26% vote. I expect in future years this may approach 50/50.

   Infringement fines for minor breaches

6. As previously, I propose that the Electoral Commission be given the power to fine parties and candidates for minor breaches of the Electoral Act such as late returns. It is silly to require such breaches to be referred to the Police and take up court time if prosecuted. A fine power will increase compliance with the law

   Broadcasting Act

7. I repeat my previous submissions than the ban on political parties purchasing their own broadcasting time is outdated and an unjustified restriction of free speech. Worse, it means that different parties have different effective spending limits as a party allocated less broadcasting spend than another, is unable to close that gap.

   Donation Disclosure

8. I think the donations regime is generally working well, except for the fact most donations are only disclosed after an election. I propose that all donations over the disclosure threshold be disclosed to the Electoral Commission on a monthly basis, by the 20^th of the following month. Also during the final two months before an election, on a weekly basis.
9. Transparency around donations is far more effective and justified that restrictions on who can donate – such as the US has. However transparency works best if the public have knowledge of significant donors prior to an election. The current threshold of $30,000 for immediate disclosure is too high.

   Role of the Police

10. I have advocated for over nine years that the Police should be removed from their current role of prosecuting electoral breaches.
11. In 2005 their investigations of electoral law breaches was arguably incompetent. Extremely basic errors in law were made, where they ignored strict liability and confused the difference between spending limits and who can authorize and advertisement.
12. In both 2008, 2011 and 2014 they did not investigate alleged offences in a timely manner. Most complaints referred to them in 2011 just disappeared into a black hole and no action was taken. I do not blame them for prioritizing other crimes ahead of electoral offences, but it is wrong that there is no timely and effective enforcement of electoral law.
13. I propose that the Committee recommend to the Government that they agree in principle that the Police be removed as the enforcement agency for electoral law, and that they consult on the preferred replacement model.

Thank you for considering this submission. I would like to make an oral submission in support, and look forward to appearing.

David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Labour’s controversial power-pricing plan is in the firing line, with energy spokesman Stuart Nash urging the party to dump the “questionable” policy.

The party is reviewing its manifesto after last year’s crushing election defeat. Nash is working on a discussion paper which proposes that NZ Power be dropped in favour of promoting cheaper solar power.

The brainchild of ex-finance spokesman David Parker, NZ Power would see the creation of a new state agency to buy electricity wholesale and bring down prices. It was announced in tandem with the Greens two years ago.

But critics said it would damage the renewable energy sector – and Nash, who took on the energy portfolio in November, agrees. He also believes the market is competitive.

“It will be my very strong recommendation that we drop NZ Power,” he said. “There are very few people that think it is a policy that’s needed in 2015. Maybe 10 years ago there was a strong argument for it, but not now.

Stuart Nash is 100% correct. Labour’s power policy was hideous. It was a de facto abolition of competition between generators, and nationalisation through price setting. It scared off any sane business leader from supporting them, as the precedent it would have set was horrific.

It was a policy you’d expect from UK Labour in the 1970s – socialist.

“We have got a regulatory framework – the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority – which is out there looking at predatory behaviour, and also with a strong mandate to foster competition . . . you could argue that the level of competition necessary to drive prices down is coming in.”

The authority recently noted there were 27 retailers in the market, with the bigger firms – Mighty River, Meridian, Genesis and Contact – losing share.

Energy prices fell by 0.6 per cent in the last year.

I want policies that promote better competition, not policies that abolish competition and have the state set the price for wholesale power.

Labour dumping this policy will help make them an acceptable competent alternative Government. Persisting with it will harm them.

Had a very interesting meeting with Amos Hausner (and his wife) on Friday.  He is in New Zealand to give a series of public lectures.

His father, Gideon Hausner, was Attorney-General of Israel from 1960 to 1963, and was the chief prosecutor in the trial of Adolf Eichmann for crimes against humanity.

The trial received televised global coverage – and this was in the early 1960s.

Eichmann had said in 1945 “I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction” which gives you some sense of the character of the man.

The judges concluded that Eichmann was not just following orders, but was a key perpetrator of the genocide who believed in the Nazi cause. He was sentenced to death on the 15th of December 1961. After his appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on 29 May 1961, and a plea to the President of Israel for clemency was rejected, he was executed just after midnight 31 May 1962.

Amos told me that his father was in fact an opponent of the death penalty. He was one of the more liberal members of the Knesset, and there was a degree of irony that a death penalty opponent would prosecute the only case in Israel’s history which saw the death penalty sought and sentenced.

The ODT editorial:

There is no beating about this particular bush. New Zealand’s organ donor rates are appalling. That means people die unnecessarily when they miss out on organ replacement.

That means the quality of life of many suffers when it need not. That means this country is burdened with heavy and unwarranted financial costs.

The rate of 8.1 per million is among the lowest in the world, half of Australia’s, just above a third of the United States’ and less than a quarter of Spain’s, the world leader at 35.1 per million.

The status quo is not acceptable. We need to make changes.

Successive governments have recognised the problem, and funding for New Zealand’s organ donation service has increased more than 700% to almost $2 million a year. The impact of this seems to have been negligible. Just throwing more money about is not initiating significant change.

Decisive attitude changes are required. Although about 52% of us say yes on our driver licences to being a donor, it appears this can account for little.

Amid the trauma of death and patients on life support, it seems we are so sensitive to the family’s grief that the matter of organ donation is not sufficiently or appropriately pursued.

I think it traumatises the families more by asking them to make the decision. It would be easier for them to be told that the patient has made a binding decision, and their wishes will be implemented.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: What policy measures has the Government announced that will help to distribute dividends from the growing economy to New Zealand families and children?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “there’s a message from Northland” for the Government; if so, will the Government take that message seriously?
3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he submit an emissions reduction target to the UN by the 31 March deadline; and does he stand by his statement that New Zealand’s net emissions are projected to increase 48 percent in the next decade?
4. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: What are the construction start and end dates for each of the 10 bridges the Government has announced it will upgrade in Northland?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing:How many families is the Government budgeting to benefit from the new HomeStart programme and how will prospective homeowners be able to find out their eligibility?
6. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister for the Environment: Does he still believe that affordable housing, natural hazards, infrastructure development, economic growth, jobs and exports needed recognition in the Resource Management Act 1991?
7. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister for ACC: What changes to ACC levies come into effect on 1 April, and what impact will these changes have on New Zealand businesses and families?
8. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when he says of the people of Northland: “They want more. They want to go faster”; if so, does he believe that this view on economic growth is unique to the people of Northland?
9. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Can he rule out exploration for oil and gas in the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary?
10. Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Prime Minister regarding Government proposals to amend sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that “there’s just no question that you’ve got to rip up what we’ve got now”?
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Northland by-election?
12. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from the export markets initiatives in the Business Growth Agenda?

National: Four patsies on helping families, HomeStart, ACC levies and small business.

Labour: Four questions on Northland (x3) and the RMA

Greens: Two questions on climate change and oil & gas exploration

NZ First: One question on Northland

ACT: One question on RMA

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

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) – committee stage continued

The Bill amends the Immigration Act 2009 to ensure the immigration system operates more effectively by addressing gaps identified in the compliance regime; responding to opportunities provided by new technology; and introducing measures to address the exploitation of migrant workers.

• Introduced: October 2013
• 1st reading: November 2013, passed 11-7 with NZ First against and Mana abstaining
• Select Committee report: May 2014, supported with amendments with Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: February 2015, passed 61-59 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party against

A large SOP has been proposed by the Minister.

The debate has no time limit but is likely to be at least three hours.

Animal Welfare Amendment Bill – committee stage

The Bill amends the Animal Welfare Act 1999 to implement Government decisions resulting from the 2011–12 review to improve the enforceability, clarity, and transparency of New Zealand’s animal welfare system.

• Introduced: May 2013
• 1st reading: August 2013, passed without dissent
• Select Committee report: June 2014, supported with amendments with Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: November 2014, passed 107-14 with Greens against

There are eight SOPs from Green MP Mojo Mathers and one from Labour MP Trevor Mallard.

The debate has no time limit but is likely to be at least three hours.

Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill – committee stage

The bill increases the penalties for producing, trading, or possessing child pornography.

• Introduced: May 2013
• 1st reading: November 2013, passed without dissent
• Select Committee report: April 2014, supported unanimously with no amendments
• 2nd reading: February 2015, passed without dissent

The debate has no time limit but as it is not opposed, should not take much time. There is an SOP from the Minister to consider.

Stuff reports:

Australia wicketkeeper Brad Haddin has justified his sledging of the Black Caps in the Cricket World Cup final because they had made him “uncomfortable” with their “nice” attitudes earlier in the tournament.

Haddin was speaking to Sydney radio station Triple M on Monday, as the all-night victory celebrations rolled on from their seven-wicket hiding of New Zealand the night before.

Haddin was under fire because of repeated chatter and “sending off” of New Zealand batsmen Martin Guptill and Grant Elliott. But the hard-nosed gloveman didn’t back away from that, declaring: “You know what? They deserved it.”

Haddin suggested the pleasant attitude of the Black Caps during Australia’s pool match in Auckland, which the Kiwis won, had hardened his attitude towards Brendon McCullum’s team if there was to be a rematch in the playoffs.

“They were that nice to us in New Zealand and we were that uncomfortable,” Haddin told the radio station in an interview that was reported in Australian media by News.com.

“I said in the team meeting: ‘I can’t stand for this anymore, we’re going at them as hard as we can.'”

“It was that uncomfortable,” Haddin said.

“All they were was that nice to us for seven days.

“I said, ‘I’m not playing cricket like this. If we get another crack at these guys in the final I’m letting everything [out].'”

What a dick.

I’ve got no problem with some sledging, but to justify it on the basis that New Zealanders were too nice to them when they were over here is very dickish.

AOL reports:

Aaron Shultz, an Australian health campaigner, is calling for plain packaging featuring health warnings for junk food. He has posted a picture on Facebook of what he believes the packaging could look like – dropping the branding in favour of a picture reminding people of the price they could pay for a junk food habit.

Shultz is a health campaigner, who runs an organisation called Game Changer. It has a broader aim: to halt the promotion of alcohol, junk food and gambling through sport. He argues that by associating sport with these unhealthy brands, it normalises junk food, and contributes to the growing obesity problem in Australia.

Why not just have the Government decide what food is acceptable to buy?

The expansion of plain packaging beyond tobacco products has been something that analysts have talked about since plain packets were first proposed. An Adam Smith Institute report by Christopher Snowdon recently claimed: “The extension of plain packaging to other products is not just possible, it is highly likely.” He added: “What happens to tobacco today tends to happen to other ‘unhealthy’ products tomorrow.” He cited sin taxes, advertising bans and health warnings as proof that “we can be confident that the temperance lobby and the diet police will fight for it to happen with plain packaging.” Snowdon is a pro-smoking author and journalist, so the idea of extending plain packaging brings him concern, but it will cheer health campaigners.

This is indeed the problem. One can have a view that due to its nature, tobacco should have all these additional regulations. But the problem is these campaigners then try to expand these regulations to everything else they disagree with. It never just stops at tobacco.

Radio NZ reports:

The future of the organisation claiming to represent 400,000 tertiary students, the Union of Students Associations, is looking shaky.

Of course no one organisation can represent 400,000 students with vastly different views.

The union has existed since 1929, but students’ associations at four of the eight universities have left it, removing tens of thousands of dollars in membership fees and puncturing its mandate to speak for students.

Now, it has just 10 members among the various polytechnic and university student associations.

Those who have gone include the Canterbury and Waikato university associations, which quit several years ago, while those at Victoria and Otago are in the process of leaving having given notice late last year.

President of the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association Rick Zwaan said it left because the union was not the strong, credible national body it should be.

“For a number of years NZUSA we deemed hadn’t really been filling that capacity. So we wanted to get on and put our resources towards campaigns and things like that that we were already working on that would make a real difference for students. So we figured out that $45,000 was an awful lot of money to be spending on an organisation that we didn’t have a whole lot of faith in.”

Rick Zwaan said the door was not shut. If the union improves, the Victoria association will work with it on specific issues.

The challenge for NZUSA is to concentrate on core issues in the tertiary sector such as fees, allowances, course quality etc. They are issues that almost all students agree on (lower, higher, better).

But a couple of years ago they were actively involved in Labour/Green petitions against electricity sector partial asset sales. God knows why.

I’d like NZUSA to survive and be a credible active voice for student associations. But they have to justify their cost to their members,

So how much extra money will Winston personally get, and his parliamentary party get for winning Northland, and bringing in an extra List MP. It’s quite a bit.

• Winston – $1,360 extra salary per year
• Barbara Stewart (NZF Whip) – $1,360 extra salary per year
• NZ First Parliamentary Party:
  • $64,320 extra leadership funding
  • $22,000 extra party funding
  • $3,804 extra relief funding
  • $354,832 extra MP funding
  • $444,956 total additional taxpayer funding

Not a bad outcome for Winston. I’m sure of course all that extra funding will be used to work tirelessly on behalf of the people of Northland.

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

– Milton Friedman

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.

The Maxim Institute has published a very readable 13 page paper on how best to measure poverty in NZ.

They make several recommendations:

1. Poverty should be defined as a situation where: a person or family lacks the material resources to meet their minimal needs as recognised by most New Zealanders.
2. Regularly publish a poverty and deprivation dashboard including income measures, deprivation and outcome indicators. 
3. Use consensual budget standards to better identify what most New Zealanders think is a minimal acceptable standard of living and potentially derive an income threshold from this process.
4. Use clustering statistical techniques to target, tailor and evaluate policy by identifying people and families with different combinations of risk factors
5. There should be some legislative requirement that the measures and indicators above are regularly published.
6. A poverty-specific legislative framework should not be implemented.
7. Extend the Better Public Service targets / Results for New Zealanders framework to include reasonable, time-specific targets aimed at reducing poverty.

I strongly support the first three recommendations. Poverty should be defined based on need, not based on comparative income standards.

I also think the recommendation to have a BPS target for reducing poverty is a bold one, but worth doing.

The Herald reports:

The Privy Council has recommended that Teina Pora not be retried for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett.

The parties in New Zealand were notified this morning.

Crown and defence had filed submissions last week on whether Mr Pora should be tried for a third time of the 1992 crimes.

Parties received a draft order on Monday morning recommending Mr Pora not be retried.

I’d say the chance of a retrial is near zero. Kudos to those who have fought to right this wrong.

The Press reports:

A cultural clash over scattering of human ashes has left Christchurch City Council split and a new bylaw in limbo.

Despite months of deliberations, councillors still cannot agree whether the Draft 2014 Parks and Reserves Bylaw should include a provision allowing human ashes to be interred or scattered in parks and reserves.

Local Maori are against the practice for cultural reasons, but a council hearings panel decided it was unwilling to impose any blanket restrictions on the scattering of human ashes without first doing wider public consultation.

The panel brought a report to Thursday’s council meeting that recommended the council pass the bylaw with the omission of the clauses relating to the scattering of ashes.

That would mean the status quo would continue to apply and people would be able to scatter or bury ashes in any public place, apart from the Botanic Gardens, until the council had time to consider the matter further.

Good. So long as it is done in a way that doesn’t interfere with other users of parks (ie don’t sprinkle ashes in the middle of someone’s picnic), people should be at liberty to let cremated loved ones be scattered in a park.

Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT), the company that acts on behalf of six runanga within Christchurch, had formally submitted the council should ban the scattering of ashes in parks and reserves.

In subsequent talks with the council, it acknowledged it was not practicable but said, as a minimum, the practice should be restricted to identified locations within council-controlled parks and reserves and people encouraged to bury ashes rather than scatter them to the wind.

If members of the six runanga don’t wish to scatter ashes, then they shouldn’t. But their religious beliefs should not be imposed on others.

Andrew Turner and the other People’s Choice councillors said they were unprepared to allow the status quo to continue when MKT had raised such significant cultural concerns about human ashes being scattered in parks.

“I’m not happy for this bylaw to be approved with this significant matter still unresolved,” Turner said.

“To approve the bylaw and then signal we are looking to change it quite soon … is quite absurd.”

As the hearings panel had already been instructed once to go back and reconsider the bylaw as it related to the scattering of ashes, there was no point asking it to revisit the matter again, Turner said.

The best option was to refer it to the full council for a decision.

The Council should follow the advice of the panel, and not impose the religious beliefs of some residents on all residents. The harm it causes to those who can’t farewell their loved ones in they way they wish is much greater than any perceived harm by those who disagree with the practice.

A very good column by Martin van Beynen:

While there can be no disputing that only a minority of Muslims believe in taking their beliefs to extremes, an intrinsic part of Islamic teaching justifies the death of opponents, non-believers or believers in other religions.

And a large minority of Muslims support the death penalty for apostates. I estimate around 32%.

An ancient text can be used to justify a variety of lethal behaviour as the history of Christianity has shown but, as some commentators have pointed out, you don’t get the feeling the Islamic world is moving away from fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran.

There are almost no people in Christianity demanding that there be an empire run on old testament law.

There are a fair amount in Islam wanting an empire run on a fundamentalist 7th century version of Islamic law.

As British columnist Rod Liddle pointed out recently in the Sunday Times, it is only in Islamic countries that people risk being put to death for blasphemy or apostasy (renouncing Islam).

“It is not just Muslim extremists who want to punish people for apostasy and blasphemy; it is the view of the mainstream Islamic world,” he writes.

And this is the challenge – not just the jihadists, but the laws in many Islamic countries.

An interesting feature on the Radio NZ website:

There are a couple of words people often use, not fully appreciating how they might be interpreted. Our staff are advised to avoid them altogether.

Fulsome

This word is frequently used by those who think it means full, or absolute, not realising that it can actually mean insincere or exaggerated. So a fulsome apology can be interpreted as a totally insincere one!

The same sort of thing applies to enormity

Our advice to staff is also to avoid enormity. It is often said by those who use it to mean big, and do not appreciate that it can actually mean evil or wicked.

If you mean the large size of something, we would suggest saying largeness, enormousness, or hugeness, rather than enormity when you may risk being misinterpreted.

The following groups of words are easily and often confused. While they may sound similar, they have different meanings:

Floundering and foundering

To flounder is to struggle or have difficulty; to founder is to sink or fail.

Alternate and alternative

Alternate and alternative are also often confused. Alternate means happening or following in turns, as in alternate days; alternative means available in place of something else.

Appraise and apprise:

When you estimate the value of something, you appraise it; when you inform people of something, you apprise them of it.

Reticent and reluctant

We regard reticent as meaning unwilling to speak, or being silent. Staff are advised not to use reticent when reluctant, meaning disinclined to do something, is more appropriate.

Restaurateur

Staff are instructed that a person who owns or runs a restaurant is a restaurateur. There is no “n” in the word and it is pronounced rest-(uh)-ruh-TER [IPA: ˌrestərəˈtɜː]

The years

For the years gone by, for example, 2008, 2009, it is our policy to say two-thousand-and-eight, two-thousand-and-nine etc… From 2010 and beyond, we say twenty-ten, twenty-eleven, twenty-fifteen, twenty-twenty etc.

I was unaware of the double meaning of fulsome. Very interesting.

Trans-tasman reported:

.Wellington’s great and good (plus some others) gathered in the Wellington Club on Tuesday to say farewell to Barrie Saunders, an icon in the capital’s industry, whose extraordinary career extending over more than 45 years included stints as editor of the NBR, adviser to onetime Labour leader Bill Rowling, PR for the NZ Manufacturers Federation, North American director for the NZ Meat Board, and then for the last 20 years one of the senior partners in the Saunders Unsworth firm. Bill English paid tribute to Saunders’ skills, with the caveat he hoped never to hear again a Saunders trademark lecture on “dredging.” Saunders in recent years has been lobbying Govts on behalf of NZ port companies.

I was one of those (clearly an other) in attendance. Some excellent speeches from Barrie, his business partner Mark and Bill English. I especially enjoyed how their business has thrives for 21 years ro so and they’ve never had a vision statement, a mission (except to make money), a business plan and they have even managed to go up to five years at a trot without a board meeting!

The influence of Barrie Saunders on public policy has been profound – from his long ago days in Parliament, to his editorship of NBR, and through Saunders Unsworth.

Barrie is one of the politest, most considered people you can meet. He doesn’t mind disagreement – in fact he enjoys a good debate on policy. His success is not being a cunning flashy lobbyist. It is the strength of his arguments and knowledge of the facts.

I’ve enjoyed many a discussion with Barrie over the years on policy and politics. But I can also reveal another good side to him – as a travel advisor. Barrie has travelled to many of the places I have, such as the Galapagos – so was a great source of advice on what to see there. When I did my big US road trip a couple of years ago, he could recall his days travelling Route 66, and again a great source of advice.

Wellington public policy’s loss, will be golf’s gain.

The media are like Charlie Brown, when it comes to Winston Peters. No matter how many times Lucy grabs the ball away, they always give him the benefit of the doubt.

The Herald yesterday reported:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says NZ First may decide not to bring an extra MP into Parliament after his Northland byelection win because his party supports a smaller Parliament.

Mr Peters’ 4,000 vote win last night allows him to resign his list position, opening the way for someone else on NZ First’s list to enter Parliament.

Mr Peters said the party would “seriously consider” not taking on the extra MP.

“It may be we decide that we are for a much smaller Parliament, that we won’t take this option and that we will try and demonstrate that Parliament should be, as the Robertson petition said, no more than 100 people.”

Note the use of quote marks, which means a direct quote.

Then this morning in Stuff:

Northland’s new MP Winston Peters has confirmed he will resign from the NZ First list meaning his party will now gain an extra MP.

The change in the makeup of Parliament will make it harder for the Government to govern.

The NZ First leader, who convincingly wrested the northern stronghold from National by more than 4000 votes, told Radio NZ’s Morning Report that there was never a question that he would resign as a list MP.

“Of course I’ll resign, I don’t know why it was ever a material question,” he said.

I never had any doubt he would resign. And it is a useful reminder that you basically can’t believe anything he says.

Stuff reports:

Taxpayers are about to pump an extra $5 million a year into educating criminals.

Prisoner learning places will increase from about 900 last year to 1700 in 2015, and funding will rise to $7m a year for the next two years, up from $2m in 2013 and 2014.

So is this worth the investment?

Convicted killer John Barlow, who mentored several prisoners to study while he was in jail, is a passionate advocate for the importance of education for inmates, believing prisons need dedicated study units.

“Evidence over the last 50 years in the United States shows that people who attain degrees while in prison almost never return to prison,” he told The Dominion Post earlier this month. “That means no more victims, they can get a job and pay tax, and the state does not have to pay $100,000 a year to keep them in prison.”

If Mr Barlow is correct, then it seems a very good investment.

Data is from the Reserve Bank. Household wealth now exceeds $1 trillion for the first time. As you can see the level of household wealth decline in 2007 and 2008. It took until around 2011 to recover, but since 2011 has been growing strongly.