The year is almost over, so it is time for nominations for the annual Kiwiblog Awards. The nomination categories are:

• 2014 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year
• 2014 Minor Party MP of the Year
• 2014 National MP of the Year
• 2014 Labour MP of the Year
• 2014 MP of the Year

Make your nominations in the comments (free free to say why) and next week I’ll start a vote based on the most popular nominations.

The winners in 2013 were Andrea Vance, Clint (Hey Clint), Shane Jones, and Bill English twice.

Stuff reports:

But figures issued under the Official Information Act show it is already becoming rarer for the courts to grant permanent name suppression.

Canterbury University media law expert Professor Ursula Cheer said her students had researched the figures this year. They found 880 people were granted permanent name suppression in 2009 – of whom 218 were convicted – and the figure dropped steadily each year, reaching 354 in 2012, including 132 convicted offenders.

That’s a pleasing trend.

I have less of an issue with name suppression for people not convicted, but permanent name suppression for someone convicted of a crime should be very rare.

The Local Government Commission announced:

The most significant reforms of a generation are proposed for councils in the Wellington region, under a draft proposal released by the Local Government Commission. Public submissions are now being sought, with a deadline of 2 March 2015.

A new unitary authority, the Greater Wellington Council, is proposed. It would take over the functions of the existing nine councils: Masterton District Council; Carterton District Council; South Wairarapa District Council; Upper Hutt City Council; Hutt City Council; Wellington City Council; Porirua City Council; Kapiti Coast District Council, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

The new council would have a shared decision-making structure. Power would be shared between the governing body (a mayor and 21 councillors) and 60 members of local boards. The mayor would be elected by voters of greater Wellington. Councillors and local board members would be elected from eight defined geographic areas.

The current nine Councils have nine mayors (incl WRC), 95 Councillors and 57 community board members.

The proposed structure would see eight local boards:

• Wairarapa (10 members)
• Upper Hutt (6)
• Lower Hutt (10)
• Kapiti Coast (9)
• Porirua-Tawa (7)
• Ohariu (6)
• Lampton (6)
• Rongotai (6)

The local boards would be more powerful than the ones in Auckland:

The Commission expects Wellington local boards to have greater power than Auckland local boards. This includes approving management plans for most local recreation, cultural, and sporting facilities,and a significant role in community development and promotion. For example, it includes local parks and reserves, recreational and community facilities, arts and cultural facilities and libraries. It also includes local community and cultural events, decisions about public spaces such as town centres and main streets, and grants to local groups. The Commission also expects local boards to have responsibility for local transport infrastructure, waste and recycling facilities, and local economic development initiatives

I think the proposed structure is a significant improvement over the status quo. However it will be bitterly opposed by some incumbent politicians and Mayors as they of course would lose their positions. If the proposal goes forward, it is likely there will be a referendum, and I don’t think there is a great desire for change – so it could well be lost. That is a pity though.

The Local Government Commission have no vested interest except what they think will best serve the residents of the region. They’ve look at all the pros and cons, and have recommended this model. My hope is the debate will be on those pros and cons.

Wellington does suffer from a lack of leadership. You have to get agreement from all nine Councils for things to happen.

The Dom Post editorial is in favour:

On balance, it’s a good call for Wellington to get the super-city treatment, as proposed by the Local Government Commission.

The inclusion of Wairarapa’s three councils, however, remains unconvincing, and should be reversed. …

But no-one should pretend that the boards will be some kind of boon for grass-roots democracy.

On the contrary, this is a move to concentrate decision-making powers for the region. The crucial funding and regulatory decisions will happen centrally. That’s the point of the exercise, and it’s why it is worthwhile.

The best reason for a merger is that it will give the city a louder, more consistent national voice. Wellington is treading water while Christchurch and Auckland, for different reasons, dominate central government attention.

The region needs leadership that can lobby powerfully for it. It also needs a coherent vision for how it will remain energetic and attractive in the coming decades. That is a task better suited to one mayor and 21 councillors instead of the current tangle of local, often headbutting chiefs.

I’m quite relaxed on whether or not the Wairarapa councils are included. Many of the home owners there work or live in Wellington so there are strong connections, but if they want their own Council, I’m fine with the Wellingtion Region just including Wellington, Hutt, Porirua and Kapiti.

Stuff reports:

In an experiment similar to that of Super Size Me, in which US filmmaker Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days, George Prior, a 50-year-old Los Angeles father of two has documented weight and health changes after introducing 10 cans of Coca-Cola a day into his diet. 

Super Size Me was a con. Spurlock ate 5,000 calories of food a day. Of course he out on weight. A less biased experiment saw someone eat McDonalds every day for three months, and lose weight – as they kept to 2,000 calories a day.

Drinking 10 cans of Coke a day is an extra 1400 calories a day, so every six to seven days you will put on a kg of weight. This is not because Coke is inherently bad. Just that you should not drink 10 cans of it a day.

I like Eggs Benedict. If I ate Eggs Benedict ten times a day, I’d get very unwell. If I have it once a week, it is fine.

There is no good or bad food. It is all about moderation and variety. But experiments like this are about demonising a company because they’re a large corporate.

Mr Prior used a combination of Facebook and YouTube entries to show the transformation that resulted in a 10.5 kilogram increase in his weight and a body fat increase from 9 to 16 per cent.

If you drank 3.5 litres of orange juice a day, you’d have an even bigger weight gain as there are more calories in orange juice than coke. Sure Coke has sugar (which is why I only drink Coke Zero or Diet Coke) but it is the extra calories that would have the main impact.

Chris Christie has been touted as a potential strong contender for the presidency in the 2016 US elections for quite a while now. He has significant gubernatorial experience in New Jersey which could be important as having such high level executive experience in the US can be seen as a critical factor by the voters. Now New Jersey isn’t normally a GOP leaning state so Christie has had to work with Democrats, potentially a good marketing pitch with the voters in a currently bitterly partisan Washington DC.

Jennifer Rubin in her Right Turn blog at the Washington Post has assessed his chances.

Christie says of the Keystone XL pipeline, “Our leaders’ comments on this topic should not be marked by parochialism, but by principles.  And the principles should be enhancing the economic competitiveness of North America, treating allies with respect and fair consideration, and creating jobs, growth and opportunity for all.  Approving Keystone would actually drive down the price of oil and help consumers in all North American countries. It should be done today.  It is supported by majorities in both the House and the Senate.” Nothing flashy or new there. And that is telling.

If Christie is interested in running he will need to be prepared to talk about much more difficult and controversial matters. There is a danger here for him that he falls into the Hillary Clinton trap — relying on who he is rather than on what he wants to do for the country.

Rubin’s point is very valid, Christie has got to be more definite on his positions on key issues. So what are these issues?

Would he break the sequester limits to fund defense?
What sort of entitlement reform would he support? Would he raise the cap on earnings?
What is his game plan for defeating the Islamic State?
Does he have an Obamacare alternative?
On taxes, is he of the pro-growth only (i.e. lowering rates) school of reform or is he interested in pursuing middle-class tax relief with an expanded tax credit?
How strenuously does Christie want to fight Dodd-Frank, Obamacare and the rest of the Obama domestic policy residue?

Now of course these are policy issues that apply to all the GOP candidates but Christie will have to eventually start talking in specifics on these key issues. Rubin goes on to comment on why Christie wants to be the President and points out it is probably going to be a crowded field on the GOP side. So there are concerns that still remain.

So far most MSM coverage about Christie have focused on him personally — his demeanor and the bridge scandal. Conservative activists meanwhile worry he is too liberal. The bigger concern for his supporters should be that he does not as yet have a rationale for his presidency. When he is “on” he is one of the most compelling and amusing politicians on the national stage. His refusal to spout points and his delight in taking on liberal power brokers (teachers’ unions) are endearing. He needs to tell voters it is not all about him, but about what he can do for them.

He has to show he has the depth of knowledge and experience to be the next President of the United States.

And about that temperament issue: Even if voters are confident he did not mislead the public on the bridge scandal and do not think he is a “bully,” Christie needs to be aware that the public is not so much angry as exhausted and despondent. They don’t think government works and they are tired of everyone yelling at each other. Voters want calm, competence and conviviality from elected leaders.

Personally I’m not currently convinced he’s the right candidate for the presidency. Also many in the GOP won’t forget easily how he praised Obama during the 2012 election campaign. It is also yet to be seen if he can pull the conservative Republicans along with him were he to be the nominee. McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 had the same problem.

You can vote at Massey University for your favourite quote of 2014. The finalists are:

• “I’m sorry for being a man.” – David Cunliffe’s unusual apology at Labour’s domestic violence policy launch at a Women’s Refuge forum.
• “We think it’s, um, pretty legal.” – Steven Joyce asked by reporters about the use of Eminen’s song for the National election campaign.
• “You work in news you puffed up little shit! …. When will you glove puppets of Cameron Slater just piss off?” – Internet Party press secretary Pam Corkery at a campaign event, when the media kept asking for an interview with Kim Dotcom.
• “It was all steam and no hangi.” – Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin Davis describing Internet-Mana. after it failed to deliver on the hype on election day.
• “He could probably survive shooting little kittens in his garden with a shotgun.” – Kim Dotcom on how little impact Dirty Politics had on Prime Minister John Key’s approval ratings.
• “I play politics like Fijians play rugby. My role is smashing your face into the ground.” – Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater after Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics was released.
• “I did not have textual relations with that blogger.” – Spoof of John Key’s initial denial that he had received texts from Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater. Tweeted by Lloyd Burr of Radio Live and also on the radio’s website.
• “It terrifies me how much of our economy is stuck inside a dairy cow.” – Comedian Te Radar talking to farmers at Fieldays.
• “Get past the breath-taking PR snow job.” – Former CERA communications adviser Tina Nixon describing the official investigation into accusations of sexual harassment by former chief executive Roger Sutton.
• “No more beersies for you.” – Tagline in this year’s Health Promotion Agency advertising campaign to reduce harmful alcohol consumption.

My favourite is the “I’m sorry for being a man” followed by Pam Corkery’s tirade.

Stuff reports:

A Venezuelan judge on Wednesday formally charged opposition leader Maria Corina Machado with conspiracy to kill President Nicolas Maduro and told her that she faces a maximum prison sentence of eight to 16 years if convicted.

My default position whenever an opposition leader is arrested, is to assume they are being framed by the Government.

Why would an opposition leader want to kill the President? It won’t make them President. It will make the Vice-President, the President, and probably ensure their party gets re-elected with a huge majority due to sympathy over the killing!

Six other prominent opposition figures were named in the complaint, which said the plot sought to “disturb the peace of the nation,” according to a statement issued by prosecutors. The investigation of the alleged conspiracy began in March when the country was convulsed by nationwide demonstrations against the Maduro government, protests that Machado encouraged and led.

So his her real crime is to lead protests against the leftist Government.

This year, Machado was banned from the National Assembly after the legislative body’s president, Diosdado Cabello, accused her of treason for supporting the nationwide student-led protests against rising crime and economic mismanagement.

So it is treason to support protesting students in the socialist paradise of Venezuela.

NBR reports:

The top director of the year according the New Zealand Shareholders Association is Joan Withers, the first woman to win the award.

She was chosen for the Beacon Award because of her outstanding governance skills, ability to lead others, high ethical standards and respect for rules, and avoidance of self-interest, chairman John Hawkins says.

Ms Withers, who is currently chairs both Mighty River Power and Auckland International Airport, tells NBR ONLINE she was “blown away and very humbled” to receive the award.

Her rise to the top is motivating, especially since she started out in life with little privilege. Ms Withers left school at 16, with just School Certificate, before taking a job as a bank teller and later having a child. She worked her way up the bank, before moving into media, where she also climbed the ladder. She started university aged 36, getting up at 3am for two years while working fulltime to complete an MBA, before becoming chief executive of the Radio Network and Fairfax NZ.

That’s an inspiring story for young women, well in fact for anyone who wants to get ahead.

I don’t think Russel Norman did himself any favours yesterday for his shrill attacks on the Dominion Post and Trans-Tasman. I’ll cover what happened in detail, but let me start by saying that of course the Trans-Tasman MP ratings are subjective. They are the opinions of the three authors. A list from another three people would have different rankings. However Trans-Tasman are the only organisation that actually does a numerical rating for each MP, and has been doing so for over a decade. Hence it is news-worthy, and it is no surprise that media cover their publication.

Hey @oneforthedr why promote Trans Tasman far right assessment of MPs’ performance in Dompost?

— Russel Norman (@RusselNorman) December 3, 2014

So we have a party leader publicly berating a journalist because the journalist wrote a story on the ratings. Really? Isn’t this what a certain other party leader used to do in the 1970s? As for the smearing of Trans-Tasman as “far right” (a term used in Europe to describe neo-nazis), that’s idiotic. Certainly it is a business publication and like the NBR has an editorial tone that is pro-business. But it is no more “far right” than Radio NZ is “far left”. It is not a bad thing to have a diversity of views in the media – except for Russel who wants to silence those he disagrees with. I’ve been covering the Trans-Tasman ratings for almost a decade, and in my experience they tend to score Ministers higher than other MPs – regardless of who is in Government. Maybe that is because they see the job as harder. Helen Clark was the top rated MP when she was PM. In 2012 Russel Norman himself was rated the second top MP. Now I actually agree with Russel that some (not all) of his MPs got too low a rating this year. Catherine Delahunty deserved more than 2/10 and Julie-Anne Genter more than 4.5/10. There are lots of ratings different people will have different views on. You would expect a party leader to say he disagrees with the ratings for his MPs. But to smear the newsletter as “far right” and berate a Fairfax journalist for daring to do a story on it is a form of bullying. But he carried on:

For the record @greencatherine is doing a great job as an MP, that’s WHY TransTasman hate her @oneforthedr . Print that. — Russel Norman (@RusselNorman) December 3, 2014

Now he is hysterically claiming the newsletter “hates” his MP” because she is so effective, and is instructing the jouranlist to print his words. Rutherford notes:

To moan on social media about how we should print what a co-leader thinks about one of his lower ranked MPs. Nice try.

But it doesn’t end there. Norman retweets someone saying how much they “despise” Trans-Tasman and then calls Trans-Tasman sexist:

Hey @oneforthedr Your right wing friends at TransTasman who ‘ranked’ MPs don’t include a single woman. Is that why they ranked women so low?

— Russel Norman (@RusselNorman) December 4, 2014

It is a panel of three. As for being biased against women, Helen Clark often topped their ratings. Annette King was the highest ranked Labour MP this year. It is true that male MPs get a higher average rating, but the senior ranks of both major parties tend to have more men there than women, so it may just reflect that.

Yes some female Green MPs have got rankings which I think are unfairly low. But every year there are ratings where I disagree with Trans-Tasman. For several years Coromandel MP Scott Simpson got a 2/10 which was bizarrely low. I note this year they have doubled that. One year a (female) Minister got a rating which was probably around double what most people would have given her. Just because you disagree with their ratings doesn’t mean they are biased.

But this isn’t so much about the rankings, but Norman’s behaviour. In the last two weeks we’ve had:

• Norman lambasting a journalist for writing a story he didn’t like and demanding he print his views on his own MPs
• Norman smearing a media newsletter as “far right”
• Norman barging past the PM doing a media stand up and shrieking “Resign” at him
• Norman using the 2014 post election review conference to effectively blame the SIS for the left losing the 2011 election

I should’t give free advice, but I think such behaviour is a big turn off. It’s an ugly look. He could have made a case for the Trans-Tasman ratings being too harsh on some of his MPs, without doing it as an attack on the media.

The Herald reports:

Former Act leader John Banks and Auckland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett are contenders to challenge Len Brown for the Auckland mayoralty in 2016.

I don’t think Len Brown will stand again. Many on the left say Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse will stand as the left’s candidate.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for the 120 (currently) MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 5.3 (+0.6 from 2013, which is a big increase, probably influenced by retiring MPs)

Average Ratings per Party

1. Maori 6.5 (+1.3)
2. National 5.8 (+0.7)
3. Labour 5.1 (+0.5)
4. United Future 5.0 (+1.0)
5. Green 4.3 (-0.1)
6. NZ First 4.1 (+0.8)

Of the four main parties, their average rankings in order are National, Labour, Greens, NZ First

Top MPs

1. John Key 9.5 (+0.5)
2. Bill English 9.0 (nc)
3. Steven Joyce 8.0 (+0.5)
   Chris Finlayson 8.0 (+0.5)

Bottom MPs

1. Catherine Delahunty 2.0 (-1.0)
   Richard Prosser 2.0 (+0.5)
2. Steffan Browning 2.5 (-0.5)
   Rino Tirikatene 2.5 (-0.5)

Top Labour MPs

1. Annette King 7.5 (+0.5)
2. Andrew Little 7.0 (+2.5)
3. Grant Robertson 6.5 (+0.5)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Winston Peters 7.5 (+0.5)
2. Russel Norman 7.0 (nc)
3. Te Ururoa Flavell 6.5 (+0.5)
   Kevin Hague 6.5 (+0.5)

Biggest Increases

1. Andrew Little +2.5
   Maggie Barry +2.5
2. Hekia Parata +2.0
   Alfred Ngaro +2.0
   Megan Woods +2.0
   David Shearer +2.0
   Scott Simpson +2.0

Biggest Decreases

1. Judith Collins -2.5
2. David Cunliffe -1.5

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.3 (nc)
2. Cabinet 6.9 (+0.2)
3. National frontbench 7.7 (+0.3)
4. Labour frontbench 6.0 (+0.2)
5. National backbench 4.7 (+0.7)

All groups improved their ratings this year except Ministers (but Cabinet went up). The biggest improvement was the National backbench, due to rejuvenation. New MPs will be rated next year.

Worth noting that as always, I of course disagree with some of the ratings. They are the opinions of the three authors at Trans-Tasman.

The Dom Post reports:

A $200 million war chest is being planned to fund Wellington’s big-ticket wish list over the next 10 years.

The stash of cash forms a key prong in mayor Celia Wade-Brown’s draft Long-Term Plan proposal, which she will present to councillors at a committee meeting next week.

The money – targeted for projects including the airport runway extension, a film museum and a new concert venue – would see an average rates increase of 3.9 per cent over the 10 years of the plan, compared with a 3.1 per cent rise if a status quo approach was taken instead.

Those increases would be “front loaded”, the mayor said – meaning ratepayers will feel the pinch immediately, with rises of about 4.5 per cent in each of the next three years.

Inflation is running at around 1%. A series of rates increases at four times the inflation rate is a Council with a spending problem.

Stuff reports:

More than $2 billion is thought to be lost to gambling annually in New Zealand, but the number engaged in regular gambling has dropped off.

In 2012, researchers from AUT University and the National Research Bureau conducted the largest gambling survey since 1999, with 6251 adults taking part. The results have just been made public.

“The most notable finding was a substantial drop in the number of people who gamble weekly or more.

“In the present survey only 22 per cent of adults took part this often, compared to the 40 per cent in 1999 and 48 per cent in 1991, ” lead researcher Professor Max Abbott said.

So the number who regularly gamble is actually declining, not increasing. Useful to recall when we hear from taxpayer funded lobby groups demanding the Government give them more money to deal with problem gambling.

2014 Final Election Results

Embedded above is my analysis of the 2014 election results by region, area and electorate. It has taken a while as the 2011 election results had to be recalculated on the 2014 boundaries to allow direct comparisons.

Pattrick Smellie at Stuff writes:

When the canon of lost causes is examined in the future, somewhere near the top of the list for Wellington will be the local airport’s weird campaign for a longer runway. …

Despite a lot of local booster-ism to the contrary, the value of direct connections to Asia and North America from this country’s third largest city is very difficult to discern, unless you happen to be an airport shareholder. …

The most comprehensive assessment of the runway extension’s prospects was produced earlier this year, after a suspiciously long gestation period, by accounting firm EY.

The airport trumpeted the result as showing “the direct economic benefit to the Wellington region, between 2020 and 2060, will be up to $684m in today’s dollars”. 

That’s not just a rubber number. It’s meaningless.  If such flimsy analysis were produced as a business case for the Infratil board, it would either be laughed out of the room or there would be no Infratil in very short order.

Broken down into actual flight numbers, the EY report says this: a runway extension might be worth between two and five long haul flights a day in 46 years’ time.  Say what!?

If the shareholders of the airport company want to invest $300 million into the airport extension, they should go for it.

There is an arguable case for a modest contribution from the City Council on the basis of increased economic activity in Wellington.

There is no real case for a contribution from the Government, as I can’t see an extension leading to extra flights to NZ – just that some will come direct to Wellington instead of Auckland and Christchurch.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has said Australia needs to consider nuclear power in the future, and unlike NZ this has led to a rational discussion rather than hysteria!

The SMH reports:

Calls for fresh talks about nuclear power have had a warmer response than expected, with economists and even a Labor MP taking up Julie Bishop’s offer for a “sensible debate” about all potential energy sources.

The foreign minister, who will depart for Lima, Peru, for fresh United Nations climate talks in days, said it is an “obvious conclusion” that to bring down emissions Australia had to embrace nuclear energy.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said on Sunday that although nuclear power was not Coalition policy, he was supportive of a debate but any shift would require bipartisan support.

Economist Ross Garnaut told Fairfax Media that Ms Bishop’s suggestion that Australia should look at all sources of low emissions energy on their merits was a welcome one because avoiding dangerous climate change would require contributions from many sources.

“To arbitrarily limit the sources of low-emissions energy that we are prepared to consider may be to increase the cost of avoiding dangerous climate change and therefore to reduce the chances of our meeting the objectives that have been agreed by the international community,” he said. …

The Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan said she’d been anti-uranium mining until her “conversion” in 2010.  She said while she didn’t think nuclear would ever be necessary in Australia, she was keen to see uranium mining expand in her home state of Western Australia.

“Nuclear has nowhere near the risks of spewing coal into the atmosphere,” she said. 

Good to see Australia starting to have a discussion on this. If you are worried about climate change, you should not dismiss nuclear power as an alternative to coal.

The Ministry of Education has done something very well – a clear easy to comprehend brochure on charter school funding that dispels the myths put out by opponents.

Some key facts:

• Charter school funding is $14.1 million vs state school funding of $5,570 million
• There are five charter schools and 2,438 state schools
• State schools have the Ministry pay for property and insurance costs on their behalf, while charter schools pay themselves, so to compare funding you have to allow for this
• A decile 3 primary state school gets $8,235 per student and a decile 3 primary charter school gets $7,588 once you remove insurance and property costs
• A decile 3 secondary state school gets $9,594 per student and a decile 3 secondary charter school gets $8,452 once you remove insurance and property costs

I encourage people to circulate the pamphlet linked above.

I’m a big fan of places in the US where stores display calorie counts with their menus. I always look at them before deciding what to buy, and will often buy something different to my preference, once I know its calorie count.

However it seems I am a minority. Emily Oster at 538 writes:

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration announced sweeping rules that will require extensive calorie labeling nationwide. This includes on menus at chain restaurants, movie theaters, bakeries, coffee shops and vending machines. This change has been hailed by legislators and food-policy experts as a landmark in fighting obesity.

But will it work? The evidence I pulled together above isn’t conclusive. …

What does this mean for the success of the FDA labeling effort? It seems plausible that some subset of individuals at some restaurant locations will decrease their calorie intake. In fact, this seems almost certain. Every time I bring up calorie labeling with people I work with, someone will describe how the practice changed their behavior. One colleague realized that her habit of purchasing muffins rather than croissants to save calories was a waste — croissants have fewer calories than muffins.

On the other hand, if the idea is that these changes will drastically affect obesity in low-income populations eating at fast-food chains, the evidence doesn’t support this hope.

So it will be of benefit to some people like me, who are already motivated to think about the health impact of what I eat, but may have little impact on those most in need.

A supporter of calorie labeling will ask, “What is the downside?” Even if only a small fraction of people respond by decreasing their calories, there is no loss to those who did not change. So, why worry about it? This ignores the obvious cost to restaurants of calculating the calories in their products and of changing their menus. A grocery-store industry trade group estimated the cost of compliance with calorie-labeling rules could initially amount to $1 billion. The change also ignores the possible psychic costs to people.

Even if I am still going to eat a muffin after I learn that there are 520 calories in it, I may feel worse about doing so. If the actual impact of calorie labeling is to encourage only a few people to eat fewer calories but to make many more people feel worse about themselves, it seems less than obvious that it is a welfare-improving idea.

I’d like to see more stores in NZ do calorie labelling, but I don’t think there is a case for it to be mandatory – based on the evidence to date.

The Herald reports:

Spark New Zealand has warned that prices could rise following the announcement by the Commerce Commission of a proposed new wholesale rates that Chorus charges retail service providers, including Spark.

“Today’s announcement is unexpected and we are now facing costs approximately $60 million a year higher than we previously anticipated. These higher costs will affect all our fixed services, not just broadband services,” said managing director Simon Moutter.

I see no need for price increases. The price announced by the Commerce Commission is around $4 a month more than its earlier determination, but it is around $6 a month less than what had been the status quo.

Moutter said intense market competition meant the anticipated reduction in wholesale broadband charges (signalled by the Commerce Commission as far back as December 2012), had already flowed through into retail broadband prices.

“For instance, what you get in our basic $75 broadband plus home phone plan today would have cost you $105 three years ago. In that time, our wholesale costs have barely moved until the new charges came into effect yesterday.”

Comparing any plan today to what it would have cost a few years ago is not very insightful. 20 years ago a broadband plan with 100 GB data would probably cost $5,000 a month. Data is always dropping in price.

As a consumer I would have liked the Commerce Commission to set the price lower, but their job is to work out what is the proper price for a monopoly utility service based on the cost of providing it. They’ve done that job now, and we should respect their independence.

However it would be useful if they had made a decision on whether the price level is backdated. ISPs do need certainty.

Stuff reports:

Former National MP Tau Henare has appeared in court charged with breaching a name suppression order.

Henare appeared in the Waitakere District Court this morning charged with breach of suppression for allegedly naming a prominent New Zealander who was convicted of indecent assault.

The man was awarded permanent name suppression.

Outside court, Henare said New Zealand didn’t treat victims very well.

“I think the law’s an ass,” he said.

He did not enter a plea and was remanded on bail to reappear on December 16.

It is interesting that Stuff has named Tau, but the Herald has not. The Herald seems to think that naming Tau may get them in trouble, as people could then locate his social media message where he breached name suppression. I think that is being too sensitive.

Incidentally both Trevor Mallard and myself have pledged $100 to Tau’s costs, if he needs them 🙂

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett writes in the Dom Post:

Having nine councils and countless government agencies pulling in different directions, I’m not surprised it took seven decades to get Transmission Gully started.

While we wouldn’t want to live anywhere else, people I talk to in Porirua and throughout the region share my concern that Wellington is lagging behind. We can be stronger as a region by working together.

Tomorrow, the Local Government Commission will reveal its plans for the region, which I hope include the creation of one unitary council to cover Wellington City, Porirua, the Hutt Valley and the Kapiti Coast. It’s been 25 years since the last shakeup of local government in Wellington.

My hope is the commission offers people a clear choice: do we keep plugging away with nine separate councils and 321 operative plans, or do we unite behind a single council to tackle big regional challenges alongside local boards that ensure democracy at the community level?

We know we don’t need a super-city. We’re only one third the size of Auckland. But the way we do things now is not making the most of our strengths so as to insulate ourselves against our weaknesses.

At the moment, local councils are either too small to fund and manage the major infrastructure projects or too unwieldy to deliver local services. We don’t need to choose between local democracy and effective regional decision-making. We need to give local people more tools and resources to shape their communities, while tackling major challenges like water, public transport and economic development at a regional level.

For Wellington to live up to its awesome potential as a place to live, work and raise a family, we need to do a better job of aligning resources and capability to the public policy challenges we face.

There’s reason to believe the status quo is letting us down.

I agree the status quo is flawed. Like Nick, I think one Council for the Region, and local boards for each community would be a better model.

Stuff reports:

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom says he will be “Hillary’s worst nightmare” as he revealed plans for a US version of the Internet Party.

Dotcom, who is fighting extradition to the US where he is wanted on piracy charges took to Twitter today to announce the new political movement.

“The Internet Party is coming to the United States in 2015. Stay tuned for our celebrity founders from the music, film and Internet industry,” Dotcom posted.

Well the major impact of the Internet Party and Dotcom on the NZ election was to get the man he hates, John Key, re-elected Prime Minister with an increased number of MPs. So on that basis, Dotcom campaigning against Hillary Clinton, should secure her the presidency.

Minutes later he clarified that his role in the party would be limited.

“The Internet Party US will be well funded and run by American citizens. I will help with Public Relations ;-)”.

I think he should do a speaking tour in the US, to help them.

Stuff reports:

The SIS should only be allowed to spy on citizens without a warrant for up 24 hours, and only if suspects are thought to be engaged in terrorism, a committee has found. 

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has reported back on anti-terrorist legislation the Government is trying to push through under urgency.

It has made a number of recommendations to water the original bill down, including paring the proposed 48-hour period to spy without a warrant back to 24 hours. 

If the SIS does undertake spying without a warrant, then the Committee has also recommended the Director of the SIS give a copy of the warrant, as soon as it’s obtained, to spy watchdog the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. 

If the SIS doesn’t obtain a warrant for surveillance and the information it’s collected has to be destroyed, then the director should also alert the Inspector-General. 

“This would allow an examination of each warrantless case that was not followed by a visual surveillance warrant or an intelligence warrant,” the committee said in its report. 

A sunset clause, which was due to expire in April 2018, should be brought forward a year so the laws would expire within the life of the current Government. 

The SIS would have to report publicly every six months, rather than every year, and in more detail, on the use of its new powers.

Many of the changes were brought about through consultation with Labour. 

I submitted on this bill, basically against the emergency surveillance provisions.

There was good interaction with National and Labour MPs. David Shearer and Phil Goff especially were very engaged on this issue, and talking about possible changes which are included above. They seemed absolutely convinced there was a need for an emergency surveillance power, but wanted to make it as limited as possible.

A National MP helpfully pointed out to me after my submission, that I was incorrect on a detail – there is an existing provision for emergency surveillance for agencies such as the Police. So this power is not unprecedented.

Labour have handled this bill very well. Rather than mindless opposition, they negotiated (along with NZ First, United Future and ACT) significant changes to it. A key change was the emergency surveilance power can only be used in relation to terrorism, not in relation to other areas of the SIS’s activity.

The most disappointing MP on the committee was Kennedy Graham from the Greens. Not because I disagreed with the Greens, but how he engaged. In essence my submission was against the emergency surveillance provisions, which is the position of the Greens. Rather than try to utilise the rarity of having a prominent National supporter agree with the Greens on an issue, he decided to play semantic games and tried to trip me up on my description of the Commission of Security Warrants as a semi-judicial figure. He even demanded the Clerk of the Committee state whether or not I was correct (the Clerk said basically yes the Commissioner is a quasi-judicial figure). It was stupid behaviour from an MP towards a submitter who was for once basically agreeing with the Greens on an issue. Someone more sensible in the Greens might want to point out to him, that he missed a good opportunity for positive headlines.

Anyway good to see significant changes to the bill, which reflect well on the MPs involved.