The Press reports:

Christchurch mayoral candidate Lianne Dalziel has slammed the level of debt the city council will be taking on as “fiscally irresponsible”.

Great to hear a Labour MP blast fiscal irresponsibility and raise the alarm on debt. I can only presume Lianne will not be voting Labour at the next election then, as their policies are for more spending and more debt.

In her speech Dalziel said it was “fiscally irresponsible” to take the council’s debt levels to 2% short of the maximum allowable ratio “giving us no room to manoeuvre should any calculations fall short of budget”.

I agree.

3 News reports:

But Ms Dalziel, the current Christchurch East MP, did not offer a solution to the planned uptake. Instead, she says she’s not making any promises around level of debt.

“I’m just offering absolute fiscal responsibility in terms of insuring that we’re not placing our council into so much debt that we don’t have we anywhere to move just in case something goes wrong,” she says.

Ms Dalziel says she’s opposed to asset sales as a solution – but is not ruling them out completely.

“I’m opposed to strategic assets being sold, [but] I’m not having a conversation at the moment about what strategic means,” she says.

It is pointless to criticise unless you have a credible alternative.

Debt is a function of spending. You borrow money to fund either an operational deficit or capital expenditure.

There are basically just two ways to reduce debt – spend less, or increase revenue.

If Lianne is saying the Council is spending too much money (which is very possible) she should identify what spending she would chop.

If she is saying the Council needs to increase its revenue, then she should spell out which assets she would sell, or how much more she would increase rates by.

“My final decision to run was only made two weeks ago so I haven’t got a detailed policy platform, but I will have one when I launch [the campaign] formally,” she says.

“I’ve got a couple of months to basically work with a variety of people across the city to put together that policy platform.”

Fair enough not to have it yet, but having blasted the Council for their debt she will in time need to be specific about what spending she would cut to reduce debt – or alternatively which assets she would sell and/or how much rates would increase.

Stuff reports:

The country’s third-largest internet provider, Slingshot, is likely to be on a collision course with Hollywood after launching the Global Mode service, the Telecommunications Users Association says.

The service disguises customers’ internet protocol addresses and can make it appear as if customers live in the United States or Britain. That means Slingshot customers can access online services that are not available in New Zealand, such as online television service Netflix and the US shopfronts of online stores such as iTunes.

Slingshot launched Global Mode as a free option for its broadband customers, promoting it as a service that they would use if they were hosting overseas visitors.

What a great idea. It is so frustrating that some online retailers refuse to sell you material based on your IP address. For example, there is no legal way to purchase the US House of Cards in new Zealand.

A guest post by Gary Lindsay:

On Saturday I managed to get myself banned from the Facebook page for Fish and Game New Zealand, after commenting on this post about their blanket opposition to RMA reforms. It’s not the first time I have been banned from Facebook pages and will probably not be the last. It’s also not the first time that I have been banned for putting forward a rational argument at odds with what the admins think. What makes this different is that Fish and Game is a statutory body, whose job is prescribed by New Zealand law.

The Fish and Game Council is the body who get the money from hunting and fishing licenses (except for Taupo licenses). In return they are responsible for managing the fresh water fishery and game habitats and ancillary activities (link). One of their statutory functions is also to “Advocate generally and in any statutory planning process the interests of Fish & Game New Zealand and, with its agreement, any regional Fish & Game Council in the management of sports fish and game, and habitats.” Whether this includes a propaganda campaign opposing a major government policy that is vaguely in their sphere of interest is a matter of conjecture. Personally I think it’d be a hard sell to convince anyone.

As a statutory body, Fish and Game shouldn’t have a policy of blanket opposition to RMA reforms, and certainly shouldn’t be using such emotive terms as ”Attack on RMA” and “Attack on Kiwi Values”. They should also be careful about using the opinion of a former prime minister from the opposition party, even if he is head of the Law Society. The Environment Minister has said that the reforms will not result in water degradation, so the points raised are controversial at best or incorrect at worst. It reminds me of being required to join VUWSA when I was studying, even though I didn’t agree with any of their policies either – although I am sure the Fish and Game Council won’t be spending money on cannabis for J-Day.

Instead of blanket opposition to the reforms, surely the best result for anglers will be if the Fish and Game Council work with the government to ensure their concerns are dealt with. Shutting the door on dialogue is counter-productive and will only result in Fish and Game being ignored through the reform process. And it will be recreational anglers, not the Fish and Game Council or anyone else, who will (potentially) lose.

Today I am asking myself: to what extent should statutory bodies be allowed to lobby the government? Should those organisations be allowed to be the political mouthpiece of the people who are elected to run them? Or should the government demand that they should stick to their statutory functions and not overstep the mark? I know that other statutory bodies, such as the hundreds of commissions (such as the Human Rights Commission) do lobby the government and do criticise government policies, however their role is not to manage a resource. Other government bodies manage their business and make recommendations to the government but tend to stay away from politics, like the old Department of Building and Housing. Exactly what should the lobbying role of this government body be?

Finally, since I know it will be brought up in the discussions, I would like to say why somebody who lives in Queensland has an interest in this at all. It is simple – although I live in Australia, I fish in both countries. I also retain strong ties to New Zealand through my family and friends, and I have an interest in politics and governance in general. Some will also recognise that I do sometimes enjoy a bit of trolling, and will think “I’m not surprised that he got banned.” I wasn’t trolling in this instance (I wouldn’t be writing this if I was), however I was questioning their policy. I can supply a copy of what I wrote prior to being banned.

It’s bad enough when taxpayer funded lobby groups use taxpayer money to attack the Government (they should use their own not mine), but even worse when a statutory body with compulsory funding does so.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The surveillance capabilities of police, the Security Intelligence Service and Defence Force will be beefed up if controversial spy legislation falls over, Prime Minister John Key says.

This is what some people overlook. Those agencies all have legal authority to intercept communications if they get (for Police and SIS anyway) a warrant for it.

What is being proposed is that the GCSB can continue to do the actual interception on their behalf as they have the expertise. If the bill fails, it won’t mean a single less domestic interception. It will just mean interception infrastructure will be duplicated and exist in multiple agencies, rather than one.

That’s not to say there are not some changes that can be made to the bill.

Stuff reports:

As Ms Gillard starts what is shaping up to be her toughest week in Parliament, a review of opinion polls indicates that Mr Rudd’s three-stage siege on the Labor leadership has cost the party direct political support and could destroy it for a generation.

The review by Gillard supporters is of opinion polls before and after Mr Rudd’s two previous leadership tilts.

Its release represents a new stage in the internecine warfare between the current and former prime ministers as Labor MPs stare electoral annihilation in the face.

A senior minister has told Fairfax Media that the only certain effect of Mr Rudd’s “revenge mission” has been to send the ALP’s stocks into the basement, guaranteeing that Tony Abbott will be prime minister after the election.

The figures, based on the results of the monthly Fairfax-Nielsen poll, the fortnightly Newspoll, and others, show Labor’s standing with voters has headed south immediately following the last two raids on the top job by Mr Rudd and his backers.

Very smart work by the Gillard team to compile this. Yes Labour would be low in the polls even if Rudd’s supporters were not white-anting the Government, but his continual attcks (through proxies) on Gillard are what has driven the ALP to such a low level in the polls. Voters hate disunity.

The ALP Caucus should not reward him for his campaign.

The most recent Fairfax-Nielsen and Newspolls show Labor’s primary vote at 29 per cent and the gap widening between Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in the preferred prime minister category.

On that poll, the ALP would win 42 seats and the Coalition 103.

Meanwhile, the Australian Services Union’s NSW secretary, Sally McManus, has confirmed that she sent an email to members asking their opinions on the Labor leadership.

“I’m not doing that in order to get any publicity about it,” Ms McManus said in a voicemail message to Fairfax Media.

“At the moment it’s between me and my members . . . Probably I’ll leave the poll open for a couple of days and after that be in a position to talk to people.”

Support from the unions is critical to Ms Gillard’s hold on power. Australian Workers’ Union boss Paul Howes in particular has backed the Prime Minister’s continuing leadership.

Isn’t it appalling outside groups get to determine who the Prime Minister and Labor Leader will be?

And NZ Labour is heading this way. In Australian Labor, the unions only have (great) influence. In NZ Labour they now get 20% of the vote.

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”:Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

WHO SHOULD GET THE PILLS?:  Pharmac—the Government’s drug-buying agency wants your input on their funding policies? Who should be getting the pills? Where should our priorities lie? Should they put more money extending the lives of the elderly? Or should they prioritise medicines that would improve the lives of younger people?   What about the poor—are they more deserving of help than rich people? Should the future earning potential of children be considered? Focusing on preventable diseases vs. genetic?

SPY BILL—IS IT SAFETY vs. PRIVACY?: The Law Society has made their opinion over the GCSB law changes proposals known. They hate it. They say the changes would mean the GCSB would go from a foreign intelligence agency to a domestic one. So, would the new powers be too broad? Why would New Zealanders need to watched? In order to gain safety—is a loss of privacy the price to pay?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 26^th of June at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, National MPPeseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, and Green Party MP Kevin Hague.

Review: World War Z by John Stringer (http://conzervative.wordpress.com/).

As a selective zombie genre fan (Zombieland, Legend, 28 Days/Weeks, The Walking Dead) I vote this a good addition to the zombie film cultus; how appropriate to have a lead actor named Pitt front a zombie film.

World War Z (for Zombie) is based on “World War Z” the 2006 apocalyptic horror novel by Max Brooks which was a follow-up to his 2003 book, The Zombie Survival Guide. However, the movie bears little relation to the Brooks’ book.

Brad Pitt (Gerry Lane) is a retired UN operative (last mission Liberia). The world starts goin’ crazy, fast (ie when a wing-mirror gets smashed off by a cop, you know your day’s goin’ downhill when that happens) with a rapid-spreading, 11-second-infecting rabies type virus afoot (or no foot, as the case may be). Most cities of the world are over-run and these zombies move fast. Gerry and his family only just make it to a military flotilla out at sea, safe from zombies, where a US official (Fana Mokoena) is running things after everyone else in Washington has got their teeth in to something else and “turned.”

Gerry heads off with a special Ops team in exchange for his family’s place on one of the ships, to try and track down the original source at possible locations around the world. They want to understand how and why the infection is spreading. Don’t get bit.

This is essentially the very successful British 28 Days Later (2002) and 28 Weeks Later (2007, starring Robert Carlyle, one of the best actors around) zombie romps redone, which introduced sprinting zombies. Z borrows heavily from both movies.

We have the clichéd Mummy and Daddy separated and kids caught in between issues, seen in Legend, Walking Dead, 28 Days and War of the Worlds, now a required plot staple of these movies (is zombie-ness a meat-aphor for separation?) and perhaps most poignantly addressed in the seven minute Australian zombie movie Cargo (appropriately directed by Ben Howling another great genre surname).

The drama and special effects of Z are fantastic. There are also some riveting scenes (like when zombies attack on a plane; and the attack on Jerusalem). Others I really enjoyed:

the over-running of several mega cities is dramatic and poignant political commentary under the zombie veneer.
The desperation on the Belarus airplane after they think they’ve escaped but find a zombie in the toilet, and how that plays out. No spoiler.
Pitt instantly chopping off the female Israeli soldier’s hand (Segen) to save her from “turning” a partnership begun but not really developed in the movie. I suspect the script had a betrayal and conflicted love story in it that got edited out.
The Laboratory lab technician zombie on the other side of the glass door from Pitt for hours on end, with his teeth-chattering Hannibal Lector impersonation.
A zombie going nuts in a plane seat still strapped in, after crashing.
The turbulence caused to the Belarus airplane from a nuclear detonation we glimpse out the port side window.
I also like how Pitt wraps Vanity-Fair or Vogue magazines around his limbs to protect himself (will zombies be put off?) a kind of parody on himself and the paparazzi.
This movie also gives us the most frightening zombie I’ve seen yet, a black female lab technician with dreads, locked in a glass lab. Awesomely disturbing.

If you didn’t catch it, the scene where Pitt and his family are trying to flee from the rooftop by helicopter and Pitt suddenly runs over to the edge of the building, and counts to 11. He thinks he’s been bitten and counts to 11 to see if he turns. If so, he’ll fall off and save his family from himself.

I would not watch this in 3D, it was fine in 2D, but one NZ critic found the action in 3D exhausting. That is sometimes my experience too; you can have too much clarity, like drinking too much champagne.

Mum is freckle red head Mireille Enos (incidentally a Mormon); the ubiquitous black man in charge is Fana Mokoena; and Z also stars British actor Peter Capaldi known to Commonwealth audiences from the Dr WHO Torchwood TV franchise (incidentally playing a Dr here of the W.H.O Research Centre).

There is plenty of modern politics woven in here too:
1. Israel catches on quickest that the zombie outbreak is happening (in India) using its “tenth man paradigm” and closes its walls and thus protects itself, or does it? So, some subtleties there about walls, Jews, immigration and how Israel is besieged.

2. North Korea controls its outbreak when all 23 million act as one, and smash each other’s teeth out so there is less biting. Gummed to Death in North Korea might be a sequel. It adds a new dimension to Gangnam.

3. Working with Belarussian airways.

This is apocalypse on steroids. It is gripping racy drama, and I loved the tension all the way with the same pressure applied in different contexts (a supermarket, dark apartment hallways, a crowded city, in a research centre -vestiges of Alien II there).

Pitt is great, restrained acting and good presence, but the narration at the end is a bit of a hokey anti-climax. The discovery of how to deal with the zombie threat is somewhat implausible (well, this is an Undead movie I suppose) and frankly, wifey and kids were redundant other than as inconvenient satellite phone callers (you’ll see). Why too, do only our two protagonists survive the mega plane crash. Luck? Pitt’s good looks?

A great addition to the genre, and really worth a watch – I enjoyed it immensely, especially the Jerusalem scenes – but it’s not deep (just enjoy, you don’t read Shakespeare on a roller coaster after all).

One point behind the grittier British 28 Weeks Later with its relentless opening scene, 7/10.

~ John Stringer.

The strange HoS editorial:

Consumers of tomatoes, which means almost all of us, are about to face a test of our trust in science. The tomato bins in shops and supermarkets will soon be replenished with stock imported from Australia and, as we disclose today, it will have been decontaminated by radiation.

Oh, no radiation. The same killer force which is used in microwaves, cellphones, and also exists in the environment.

Irradiation was hotly debated in this country more than 10 years ago, when our regulator of food standards, a joint authority for Australia and New Zealand, rejected 1000 submissions against the process and declared it safe.

Science won over hysteria.

Since then, the only irradiated fresh fruit and vegetables approved for sale here have been mangos, papaya and lychees. Lovely as they are, those tropical fruits are not exactly standard consumer items. They are not tomatoes.

Oh, so is there some science the HoS knows of which suggests irradiation has a different impact on tomatoes than mangos? On mangos, it has no harmful effect, but maybe on tomatoes it causes them to mutate and grow feet??

Irradiation does not sit well with New Zealand’s attitude to nuclear physics in other applications, especially weapons, ship engines and electric power stations.

What a stupid thing to say. It is not nuclear physics. The only thing in common is they both involve radiation – which includes x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves,

I like some of the comments on the editorial:

Sorry, but almost any processed food (tins, jars etc) passes through at least one beam of radiation these days. Many flow gauges monitoring density of product being piped around factories use a radioactive source. Scaremongering by Kiwi growers methinks.

“Gamma Radiation”? Like what we get everyday from Microwave Ovens, Light Bulbs, & the SUN???
Fear-mongering at it’s worst IMAO.

You can either trust science or be irrational.
The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that irradiation produces safe and nutritious food. The World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency accept the safety and usefulness of food irradiation. The process is also endorsed by the American Medical Association, the Scientific Committee of the European Union, and the American Spice Trade Association among others.

Much ado about nothing. I was a principal partner in California’s first wholesale distributor and retail chain of organic foods and we imported irradiated organically grown mangoes, papayas and pineapples from Hawaii. It’s the residues from pesticides we should be worrying about.

Good to see some people will call bullshit on the nonsense.

The Herald asks the main Ikaroa-Rawhiti candidates for their views on some issues:

Meka Whaitiri: Until we have some sound research that says [mining] doesn’t have any environmental impact, I can’t support that.
Marama Davidson: Ban it! Risky off-shore drilling, mining and fracking are all industries we want to get away from. Today we are releasing a package of green jobs for Ikaroa-Rawhiti that don’t ruin our environment.
Na Raihania: I am absolutely opposed to mining and drilling our Mother Earth. And this idea it will provide jobs for everybody is stretching it.
Te Hamua Nikora: As far as mining goes, we say frack off. No thank you.

So all four candidates want the entire mining and oil industry in New Zealand closed down, putting close to ten thousand people out of work and knocking more than two billion dollars off NZ’s GDP.

Biggest issue in the electorate
Meka Whaitiri: Jobs.
Marama Davidson: Jobs and protecting the environment and wanting jobs that don’t ruin the environment.
Na Raihania: Mortality rates are high, education … but employment, I guess, and our social status.
Te Hamua Nikora: Poverty, stemming from unemployment, and a lot of health issues coming from poverty and poor housing.

So in one sentence they all say they are against all mining, fracking, drilling and in the next they all says jobs and unemployment is the major issue. Idiots, all of them.

The Press reports:

Online polls have offered few clues to the early favourite in Christchurch’s mayoral race.

Incumbent Bob Parker and outgoing Labour MP Lianne Dalziel are locked in a head-to-head battle to lead a new-look city council from October.

Three unscientific surveys have given conflicting pointers to ratepayers’ preferred candidate.

Of course they have. That is because they are unscientific. How is this newsworthy? This is like saying that the astrology forecast in The Press and the Dominion Post differed this week, and writing a story about it.

Late last week, The Press emailed a survey to 1700 readers asking them whether they would vote for Dalziel or Parker if they had to immediately cast a vote.

Some 597 readers responded and 377 (63 per cent) said they would support Dalziel, while 149 (25 per cent) said they would support Parker.

The remaining 71 readers (12 per cent) said they would support neither candidate.

A readers survey is perhaps the least worst unscientific survey. The sample is not representative, but people can only vote once and had to be pre-registered.

A running press.co.nz poll with more than 11,000 votes has Parker leading on 50.5 per cent and Dalziel well back on 38.8 per cent.

This sort of poll is akin to astrology – worthless. People can vote multiple times if they want to, and candidates e-mail their supporters encouraging them to vote. These polls are entertainment, not a scientific poll.

Political forecasting website iPredict suggests Parker has a 65 per cent probability of retaining the job, and Dalziel a 37 per cent chance of claiming it.

iPredict has a good track record, but the fuel for it tends to be public scientific polls. In the absence of such, people are investing in a vacuum.

Polls in the last local body election had Parker lagging well behind his opponent, Jim Anderton, throughout most of the campaign but on election day he walked away the victor, with a nearly 17,000-vote majority.

Umm, probably relevant to mention the earthquake that occurred! All those polls were prior to the earthquake.

I only discovered Down the List today as I do not normally listen to Radio NZ on weekends.

If this week’s episode is typical, it is well worth listening to. Involves two Labour List MPs talking about what is going wrong.

Otago Uni have announced:

Critical developments and issues in the Pacific will be closely scrutinised at next weekend’sUniversity of Otago Foreign Policy School, which is gathering leading academics, diplomats, politicians and development experts for a weekend that promises insightful presentations and fruitful debate.

Former Fijian Prime Minister Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka is among several speakers who will address the current Fiji Coup, the prospects for a successful return to democracy and what the wider implications for the region may be.

Other national and international experts will focus on themes including the US and China’s growing engagement with the Pacific, the uphill struggle the region faces in meeting millennium development goals, and the emergence of sub-regional groupings such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group that are challenging traditional voices such as the Pacific Islands Forum.

This year’s School, which runs from Friday 28 June to Sunday 30 June at St Margaret’s College, Dunedin, is co-directed by Associate Professor Jenny Bryant-Tokalau (School of Maori, Pacific & Indigenous Studies) and Dr Iati Iati (Department of Politics).

The OFPS often has several interesting stories emerge from them. Well worth attending if you are in Dunedin and interested in foreign affairs.

Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:

Meanwhile, teacher unions have launched a campaign to boycott the trial of a computerised national standards assessment tool.

This is a tool designed to mitigate the very issue that some critics of national standards have complained about – inconsistent moderation. A computerised tool to guide teachers (not force, it just suggests where a student is at) seems like a no brainer.

It could be used to introduce performance pay that could see teachers paid according to their pupils’ achievement levels.

So this is what is really motivating them? They will boycott a tool that will improve assessment of pupils, purely because it could be used one day to introduce performance pay.

Is that not the most selfish thing you’ve seen?

Matthew Hooton writes at NBR:

In the 1960s and ’70s, Norway’s mainly left-wing governments decided to make their country of four million rich.  In 1963, they asserted sovereign rights to North Sea natural resources; exploration began in the mid-’60s; a state-owned petroleum company, Statoil, was launched in 1972; and the profits, taxes and royalties later put into the government’s petroleum fund, set up in 1990.

The fund is now worth approximately NZ$860 billion, or around $172,000 per Norwegian.  By 2030, it is forecast to be worth as much as NZ$4 trillion, or around $800,000 per Norwegian, and exists primarily to pay generous superannuation.

Meanwhile, Statoil has evolved into a classic mixed-ownership model company, with the government owning two thirds and the remainder trading on the Oslo and New York stock exchanges.  It is now the world’s 38^th largest public company with a market value of NZ$98 billion and profits of $15.6 billion.  This is more than the entire NZX.

The thinking behind Norway’s approach is that a country’s natural reserves are intergenerational property, they are worth nothing under the ground, and the industries are inherently unsustainable: eventually, even if far in the future, the field will run dry.

The best strategy, therefore, is to get it out of the ground as soon as possible, monetise it, but avoid an economic sugar rush by investing the money for future generations.

As opposed to the competing strategy of never ever dig anything up or drill for anything.

Oil is already New Zealand’s fourth largest export earner, after dairy, meat and wood. The government collects around $400 million in royalties each year, plus another $300 million in company tax.  The present value of future royalty income alone, just from known reserves, is an estimated $3.2 billion.

Relatively conservative MBIE studies suggest that, if exploration continues to grow at current rates, royalties could yield another $5.3 billion in present value terms.  If there is faster growth in exploration, the estimate is $9.5 billion.

Even that may be conservative.  It has been suggested the value of our offshore oil reserves could be in the trillions.  Solid Energy isn’t a very good precedent right now, but New Zealand could choose the Norwegian Statoil model to secure that wealth.

Currently, oil royalties just go into the consolidated fund, to pay for everything from welfare payments to Wellington arts festivals.

The risk Mr Weake identifies is that, if large oil deposits were found, the temptation for a government would be to put the money into something to help it through the next election.  He argues we should establish cross-party agreement now on what we would do with that wealth.

He is surely right.  God knows what decisions a desperate John Key and Bill English would make – let alone a desperate David Shearer and Russel Norman – if we struck oil in the lead up to a close 2017 re-election campaign.

I am sure Russel Norman would refuse to spend any money earnt from dirty oil!

So here’s some friendly advice to the minister: have a chat with Mr Weake and his industry colleagues, take a trip to Oslo and the North Sea, face down the crypto-anarcho-neosyndicalist Greens, achieve consensus with Labour, and get New Zealand’s equivalent of Norway’s oil fund and even Statoil up and running before the election.

One could call it Kiwioil!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Ngai Tahu manager James Caygill, the son of former Labour finance minister David Caygill, has thrown his hat in the ring for the Christchurch East seat and in the process taken a swipe at his main rival.

Caygill, 35, yesterday confirmed he would seek Labour’s nomination for the seat to be left vacant by Christchurch mayoral hopeful Lianne Dalziel, saying he represented “renewal” for the party – a clear comparison with list MP Clayton Cosgrove who is tipped to stand but has so far refused to confirm or deny that.

 

Cosgrove, who lost the Waimakariri seat to National’s Kate Wilkinson in 2011, is seen as to the right of Labour and his election would clear the way for the next candidate on its party list, Northland-based Kelvin Davis, to return to Parliament.

 

Caygill yesterday described himself as “reasonably Left-wing”. He was the chair of the environment sector and “you won’t find me disagreeing with our stances on social policy or individual rights or the fact that we need to build a more sustainable economy”.

“Clayton’s a sitting MP and a senior frontbench MP. No-one could dream that counts as renewal. He’s a senior MP and he deserves his shot if that’s what he wants to do but I don’t think he would run under a banner of renewal.”

Caygill said if he won the nomination he would step down from his role as a senior manager with Ngai Tahu where he is responsible for environmental policy work, regional economic development, education policy, research and development and the iwi’s savings scheme.

NY Times reports:

A working group assigned by the Federal Aviation Administration to research the use of electronics on airplanes is expected to recommend relaxing the ban on portable devices during takeoff and landing.

But the group has postponed its final report until September, two months after its original deadline.

The group is expected to endorse permitting a wider use of devices during takeoff and landing, including tablets and smartphones used only for data, said a member of the panel, who declined to be named because members are not permitted to speak publicly about internal discussions. Talking on cellphones will still be prohibited during all phases of flight, the person said. These recommendations are outlined in a draft document that the panel member has seen.

News of the draft document was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.The panel hopes to allow “gate-to-gate” use of electronics, the person said, meaning devices could be left on in a limited “airplane mode” from the moment the gate door closes on the tarmac until the plane arrives at the gate of its destination.

This is long overdue. An iPad in flight mode (ie no wireless, mobile or bluetooth) can not interfere with flight devices, anymore than a hearing aid could.

Personally I’m even dubious that they can interfere if in non-flight mode, but one battle at a time.

I used my iPad on flights to read books. It is frustrating that you have to stop reading for up to a third of the flight due to these silly rules.

Stuff reports:

Christian schools say it’s hardly surprising they think students should have a burping contest instead of having sex.

Christian Schools Australia CEO Steve O’Doherty says horse riding, eating something new, blowing bubbles and playing ball without the ball are all better options than doing the deed.

They were among a “101 things to do instead of doing it” pamphlet which was recently given to out to students at Caloundra Christian College in Queensland.

I’m all for burping contests, but I don’t think most people see them as a substitute for sex. You could however combined them with sex, but best to make sure all parties agree first 🙂

SOME SUGGESTIONS A QUEENSLAND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL GAVE STUDENTS TO DO INSTEAD OF SEX:     

*Blow bubbles in the park

*Pretend you’re six again

*Look at clouds and see what you can make them into

*Surprise your parents by cleaning the house

*Have a water fight

*Go fruit picking

*Go to Macca’s in formals

*Make lunch for the elderly

*Share a drink with two straws

*Visit the RSPCA

*Have a burping contest

If I was a student at a school that gave me this, I think we’d turn it into a challenge to see how many of them can be done (barring the 2nd one)  at the same time as sex. I could just see students ticking them all off to see who can do all 101.

The HoS reports:

Former shock jock Michael Laws – once an MP and mayor of Wanganui – is thought to be considering a rerun for his old mayoral job.

A source told the Herald on SundayLaws has been sending more emails recently about civic affairs.

Laws was weighing up the position, but would not announce he was standing until the last minute, the source said.

“It certainly wouldn’t surprise me.”

Well that will liven things up if he does stand.

The HoS reports:

Horticulture NZ chief executive Peter Silcock says irradiated food is a concern for consumers.

“The primary concern is what impact has radiation had on the product and what impact will it have on my body when I eat it.”

No it isn’t a concern. What is concerning is Horticulture NZ trying to use science as a cover for protectionism.

Australian sterilisation and decontamination company Steritech said it would treat New Zealand consignments.

“Tomatoes and capsicums will be treated, in accordance with specified standards which produce food that is safe and nutritious, in Steritech’s Narangba facility in Queensland,” said chief executive Murray Lynch. Irradiation was a safe, non-invasive alternative to methyl bromide and other chemicals used post-harvest, he said. Some irradiated tropical Australian fruit, including mango, papaya and lychees, is already sold in New Zealand.

I’m going to make it a point of principle to buy Australian tomatoes, so as to not reward NZ growers for their scare-mongering.

They are using the same tactics Australian orchardists used to block NZ apples for scores of years. We fought against that and should be better than that.

NZ and Australian tomatoes should compete on taste, quality and price. Not on scare-mongering.

Stuff reports:

The range of services New Zealanders can access online is set to expand dramatically with the launch of a new Government-backed identity verification scheme that could let people get a mortgage and exchange contracts on properties without ever leaving their couch.

The RealMe service is due to be rolled out to businesses like banks next month and proponents say the benefits for consumers could be huge.

The Government is also investigating initiatives like allowing travellers to fill out departure cards online before leaving the country.

That would be good. Such a hassle to do at the airport when you just want to get through as quickly as possible.

The service builds on the iGovt identity verification service, which aims to let users log into a range of government websites with a single username and password.

From July, businesses will be able to sign up, and users will prove their identity using the same user name and password.

The advantage for users is the high level of security – a code will be texted to their mobile phone every time their RealMe identity is used.

The advantage to businesses like banks is that it provides a higher level of identity verification than is currently available because of the hook up with the government.

Sounds a useful service.

Sent in by a reader!