Matt McCarten in the Herald on Sunday wrote:

Abolish 15 per cent GST. Replace with 1 per cent financial transaction tax as recommended by the New Zealand Bankers Association. Same money.

Earlier this week I ran into a couple of executives from NZBA. They had the good sense not to read Matt’s column, so were surprised when I told them that Matt said they supported a Financial Transactions Tax.

They do not, of course. It has been a disaster in the couple of countries that have tried it.

They complained to the Herald on Sunday about the misrepresentation, but their complaint was decline on the basis they they once did support an FTT – in 1985!

Would anyone reading that column think that was a 30 year old position, rather than a current position. Of course not. Entirely misleading.

I don’t know why print media are so loath to run corrections. I think it helps your credibility when you do.

I look forward to the Herald on Sunday and Matt McCarten talking about how Labour supports privatisation, because they once did in 1985.

Worth noting one other policy of Matt’s:

 Abolish PAYE on wages and salaries. Replace it with a wealth tax and a capital gains tax when shares, businesses, land and property are sold. People are taxed when they’re cashing up, not when they are making it.

I’m sure Matt does want PAYE abolished, as UNITE doesn’t pay it anyway.

The Dom Post reports:

Wellington City Council is stumping up $1 million of ratepayer’s money to help Wellington Airport make it through the resource consent phase for its proposed runway extension.

The airport is considering a 300-metre extension north into Evans Bay at a projected cost of $300 million – or $1m a metre.

The extension would allow long-haul flights to and from Asia, and connections to Europe, with new-generation aircraft such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A350.

Mayor Celia Wade-Brown said the resource consent process was expected to cost $2 million and the council would vote later this month to contribute up to $1 million as a project ”kick start”.

I’m all for extending the airport, but not sure why the Council should subsidise a resource consent for it.

If Wellington Airport thinks they can make enough money from extra flights and user charges, then they should start the process.

The short and long-term benefits to Wellington of a runway extension were significant, she said.

BERL has calculated the immediate direct economic benefit to the region at more than $43 million a year with more than 300 post-construction jobs created.

Hopefully that report is more robust than the one they did on the costs of alcohol which was beyond redemption as it included costs only, and neglected to include benefits in their calculations.

Hopefully also more robust than their one claiming nationalising the power industry would create 5,000 jobs.

As I said, I think a runway extension is a good idea, and would love to be able to fly overseas (except Australia) without going through Auckland.  But the Airport is a commercial entity. It should only fund an extension if it believes it can generate enough revenues to pay for it.

The Conversation reports:

Conducted between May 2012 and March this year, the University of the Sunshine Coast’s representative survey of 605 journalists around Australia found that more than half (51.0%) describe themselves as holding left-of-centre political views, compared with only 12.9% who consider themselves right-of-centre.

I’m not surprised. Would NZ differ?

When asked about their voting intentions, less than two-thirds of the journalists we surveyed revealed their voting intention. Of those 372 people, 43.0% said they would give their first preference vote to Labor; 30.2% would vote for the Coalition; and 19.4% said they would choose the Greens – about twice the Australian average.

55% of Australians are supporting the Coalition, compared to 30% of journalists.

Yet, among those who arguably matter most – the journalists in senior editorial ranks who have the most power to decide news agendas – a dramatically different picture emerged.

Among the 83 senior editors who took part in the survey, the Coalition was the party of choice on 43.2%, followed by Labor (34.1%) and the Greens (11.4%).

So at a senior level they are more representative.

An interesting finding emerged when we compare journalists from the three biggest news organisations in the country – News Limited, Fairfax Media and the ABC.

The national broadcaster has repeatedly been attacked for having a seemingly leftist bias, while others have accused News Limited – and particularly its flagship newspaper The Australian – of being overly conservative in its political views.

At first glance, the findings do not support this assumption, with no significant differences in the way journalists from the ABC and News rate their political views on a scale of 0 (left) to 10 (right).

However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.

In contrast, 46.5% of 86 News Limited journalists who answered this question said they would vote for Labor, 26.7% for the Coalition, and only 19.8% for the Greens.

So most journalists support Labor, including those at News Corp. But at ABC they love the Greens, and less than 15% support the Coalition. Would Radio NZ differ?

Hat Tip: Cantabrians Unite

Today’s pic is of the NZ dotterel, an endangered shore bird found on some beaches around NZ.  They’re also pretty timid, so getting close enough to take pictures requires a great deal of patience and care.  I appreciate they’re not the most spectacular of our native species, but watching them still appeals.  The shells on the beach give some sense of size-perspective

Click for larger, higher res image

Hope everyone is enjoying their Friday.

The Press editorial:

The proposal that the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, put forward yesterday for changes to five schools in the eastern suburbs is a compromise and will not please everyone.

It does, however, demonstrate that the minister has been prepared, as she promised, to listen to the submissions made to her from the community and to change her mind in some areas. The consultation process will continue – the schools still have 28 days to respond to this interim proposal before Parata will announce a final decision.

I’d say the Government has been very flexible and accommodating with its decisions around Christchurch schools. Around 25% of initial decisions have changed.

It is a pity that this level of consultation was not undertaken before rather than after the appallingly mishandled initial announcement for the reorganisation of Christchurch schools was made last year.

Yep. That poisoned the well. The primary fault lay with the Ministry, but the Minister is responsible and should not have just left it to the Ministry to do.

So far as the eastern suburbs were concerned, Parata originally proposed that five schools – Aranui School, Avondale School, Wainoni School, Chisnallwood Intermediate and Aranui High School – be combined at the Aranui High site to create one school that would take pupils from year 1 to year 13.

The idea was to take account of the fact that many of those schools had facilities and grounds that were damaged and had suffered sharp declines in enrolments that were expected to continue, probably for several years.

Parata’s new proposal is to combine four schools, leaving Chisnallwood Intermediate to continue to operate separately. This compromise, if it goes ahead, will please Chisnallwood, which strongly opposed the original proposal, but will disappoint Avondale, which also did not want to join with the other eastern schools.

It should also please Aranui, Wainoni and Aranui High, since it largely reflects their submission to Parata that they have a similar spirit, were a natural fit and should unite at the Aranui High School site.

Leaving Chisnallwood out of the new proposal makes sense. A very large proportion of its enrolment already comes from outside its zone. If it had been combined with the other schools, most of those pupils would almost certainly not have gone to the new site.

Does seem sensible.

Yesterday’s announcement leaves 17 still to hear final decisions on whether they will merge or close by the end of this month.

After the uproar at the beginning, the ending is much less tumultuous. To some degree, that must be because of the intensive discussions that have taken place in the interim.

If Parata deserved blame for the botchup at the beginning, she deserves some credit for being prepared to listen and if necessary change her proposals since then.

A fair editorial.

Stuff reports:

A bid by ethnic communities to have a decision-making role within the Auckland Council appears unlikely to succeed any time soon.

The ethnic advisory panel that reports to the council asked Mayor Len Brown for a “decision-making” role on council committees in its quarterly report, given the growing ethnic population in Auckland.

It is inevitable that if you have seats reserved for one race, that other races will want seats also. That is why I think Maori seats at national and local government is a bad idea, albeit well intentioned.

I also note that there are two Councillors from the Pacific community. So why do you need ethnic communities to have a decision making role on Council committees, when members of those communities are being elected to Council in their own right.

LG had a little expo down at Chaffers Wharf yesterday. I popped in for a bit, to see what they were promoting. I knew I’d be interested in the TVs, but to my surprise also found myself interested in one of their washing machines.

Yes that is a washing machine balanced on four wine glasses, and yes they demonstrated in action on a spin cycle, and it didn’t move at all. Whomever came up with the idea of demonstrating its lack of movement and vibrations with balancing it on wine glasses did well.

LG use a direct drive motor in their washing machines, and it really does make them both very quiet and also relatively still. I felt the machine as it was working, and you really just pick up minor vibrations from it – way different to most washers.

What I was really there to see though was this:

Ignore the reflection that makes this a bad photo, and try to concentrate on the colour. This is their 84 inch ultra high definition TV.

The picture quality is an incredible eight million pixels, four times the normal high resolution. And trust me you can tell the difference. The quality is superb. The resolution is 3840 x 2160.

It also does 3D television. We watched a few minutes of Life of Pi, and it really was just as good as watching it in the cinema.

The TVs are $25,000 so really for pubs and bars or commercial offices. They will be rolling out a 55 inch model later this year, and are pricing it up at the moment.

The 84 inch TV is 2.8 times the area of an 50 inch TV. Not one for a small apartment!

All the TVs there now come with an ethernet port and built in WIFI. Clearly the future is TVs running programmes off the Internet or local computers. My only worry is what many GB would a one hour TV show be at ultra high resolution – can anyone do the sums?

Shane Cowlishaw at Dom Post reports:

A man who helped dozens of people with their ACC claims says the corporation has driven him into bankruptcy and depression.

After more than 20 years of acting as an ACC advocate, Mike Dixon-McIver has spent the past six years locked in a battle with the corporation after it tried to prosecute him for fraud.

That case was thrown out and a judge awarded Mr Dixon-McIver, of Upper Hutt, full legal costs. But the corporation has refused to go to mediation to discuss damages.

This has infuriated Mr Dixon-McIver, who at noon today will host a barbecue protest outside the corporation’s head office in Wellington to publicise his plight.

He plans to camp outside the office until ACC agrees to meet him.

“Nobody has said ‘we’re sorry’, nobody, and that’s the first thing I ever wanted from them.”

Adding to his frustration, he and wife Jolene will be forced out of their home on Friday after an option to buy the property expires.

He sent ACC a starting figure for damages and losses of $4.69 million, including sums for loss of earnings and impact on his mental health.

You want $4.7 million from ACC levypayers because of a failed prosecution against you that didn’t even go to trial?

Good luck with that one.

Incidentally Mr Dixon-McIver seems to have had some compensation issues of his own, after the Employment Court ordered him to pay three months salary and $6,750 for distress, humiliation and injury to feelings to a former employee who was constructively dismissed after he threatened to assault her, following his son assaulting her.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

A cub scout leader confronted terrorists just seconds after they had beheaded a soldier asking them to hand over their weapons and warning them: “It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose.”

Well done Ingrid Loyau-Kennett.

Mrs Loyau-Kennett, 48, from Cornwall, was one of the first people on the scene after the two Islamic extremists butchered a soldier in Woolwich, south east London.

The Herald provides a guide to the Auckland Unitary Plan:

Height is at the top of many people’s minds with the Unitary Plan.

Whether it’s walls of apartments on the ridges overlooking Browns Bay or 18-storey high rises in Newmarket, the council is facing a chorus of complaints.

Buildings in central Auckland will have no height restriction, and 10 metro centres such as Takapuna, Henderson, Botany and Newmarket will have an 18-storey limit. In another 37 town centres, the limit will be eight, six and four storeys, and in local centres, such as Mt Eden, it will be three or four storeys.

To prevent a canyon effect, any buildings of four storeys or more will have to be set back from the street and require resource consent.

After nine weeks of saying the maximum height of “small scale apartment buildings” in the residential “mixed housing” zone was two storeys, it emerged last week that the height limit is three storeys.

That omission of the real height limit is what has destroyed a lot of trust.

The days of “shoebox” apartments are back with plans to reduce the minimum apartment size from 35sq m to 30sq m, plus a minimum balcony space of 8sq m.

I’m not sure there should be a minimum size at all. If someone wants to live in a 25 square metre apartment, then let them.

The proposed rewrite of Auckland’s tarnished heritage rules leaves power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and shuts out the public.

This is the view of the Character Coalition – a group of heritage and community organisations – that called for Auckland to follow Brisbane, which prevents demolition of pre-1945 houses unless the owner can make a case. The public have a say in the process.

On a visit to Auckland in March, Queensland Government architect Malcolm Middleton said the Brisbane model had been considered radical when introduced 15 years ago, but was now largely accepted and worked for the amenity and value of character suburbs.

The rules in the draft Unitary Plan will see council or consultant planners using case law to decide if applications to demolish or remove a house would be publicly notified or not. The council says more applications will be publicly notified. When this method was used by the former North Shore City Council, two of 17 applications were notified in eight years.

The council has proposed widening the heritage net to pre-1944 houses outside the existing heritage character areas and requiring owners to obtain a resource consent for demolition. The council, however, says the public will have no say in this process and officers will make the call because many landowners bought in these areas knowing they were not heritage areas.

Mayor Len Brown and chief executive Doug McKay are refusing to release the documents of a political working party, that meets behind closed doors, used to draw up the heritage rules.

The documents should of course be released, before submissions close on 31 May.

I think extending the definition of heritage to all pre-1944 houses is daft. Old is not the same as heritage.

Michael Goudie, a 28-year-old councillor, was picked by Mayor Len Brown and Penny Hulse to fire up young people to counter the views of generally older “Nimbys” – Not in My Backyard.

But instead of a legitimate campaign to get teens and 20-somethings to jump on social media with their views, Brown and Hulse turned a blind eye when Goudie promoted an anonymous blog labelling the elderly as “selfish, arrogant and narrow-minded” who should “just hurry up and die”.

Charming.

Nick Smith has announced:

Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith today announced his approval under the Crown Minerals Act for an access agreement for Bathurst Resources for its Escarpment Mining Project on the Denniston Plateau, near Westport.

“This approval is for an open-cast mine on 106 hectares of the 2026 hectares that comprise the Denniston Plateau. This area is not National Park, nor Conservation Park nor does it have any particular reserve status. It is general stewardship land, which is the lowest legal status of protection of land managed by the Department of Conservation. The area does have conservation values although there has been some disturbance from previous mining including roads, bulldozer tracks and an artificial reservoir. The area also has some infestation from weeds like gorse and broom,” Dr Smith said.

“The loss of conservation values is compensated by a $22 million package by Bathurst Resources. This will fund pest and predator control over 25,000 hectares of the Heaphy River catchment in the Kahurangi National Park, 4,500 hectares on and around the Denniston Plateau, as well as for historic projects on the Plateau itself. This is the largest ever compensation package negotiated by DOC for a mine or other commercial venture.

The Greens say they are not against all mining, just some mining. But what is the bet they condemn this decision despite $22 million for conservation.

It will be interesting to see what Labour says on this decision, and especially Damien O’Connor.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party has called the independent report on the 2007 Urewera raids damning and said a dramatic overhaul of police culture was still needed.

The review, released today, labelled police actions ”unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable”.

The party’s police spokesman, Dave Clendon, said it was not okay to “descend like masked ninjas” on a small community, adding that police thinking about the raids had not fundamentally changed.

He believed racial discrimination played a part on the abuse of rights and illegal detention of innocent people.

“Would the police have raided Remuera in Auckland, or Khandallah in Wellington in the same way?” he asked.

Ummm. Engage brain before operating mouth,

Can anyone think of a high profile raid a couple of years ago in Coatesville? One that involved armed police and helicopters? I’m pretty sure the targets were not Maori, but German and Finnish.

And according to the 2006 census, the ethnicity of Coatesville is 80% European, 4% Maori, 3% Asian and 12% other so the racism claim from the Greens is quite unfounded.

The Dom Post reports:

Wellington’s mayoral race has just moved up a notch, with veteran councillor and former New Zealand cricketer John Morrison declaring his candidacy.

John is very well known, and will be a serious contender. I can’t see him being asleep at the wheel and not even aware of the costs of his own office refurbishment.

“The city and the council need good leadership and some decisiveness and some action. We’re the centre of the region, so we should be leading the pack, not following.”

The Council is ineffective and embarrassing at present. Not all Councillors – but overall.

It was not likely he would run for a ward position again, meaning his stab at the mayoralty could be his final performance.

However, he was confident he had strong support around the council table and was keen to use the talent available.

“Everyone at that table has to come offering something for the city.”

The Council is not divided on left v right terms. One of the biggest critics of Celia’s mayoralty has been Ray Ahipene-Mercer who has a life-time of activism on the left including the Clean Water and other environmental campaigns.

Stuff reports:

Mr Faafoi said the latest Ten One police magazine showed more than 50 sworn officers had resigned around the country in the past month.

“It’s the sheer number and the experience of these officers that’s of concern,” he said.

A meaningless number. The Police have around 11,500 staff. How many staff normally resign in a month? What has been the rate for the last year. A month’s figures by themselves may be a blip.

Mr Faafoi said the problem stemmed from cost-cutting and he was not surprised that there was nothing extra in the recent Budget for police.

Actually the Police were given an extra $4 million in the Budget for operational spending, and since 2008 their funding has increased by $173 million which is considerable, even more so when you consider the structural deficit inherited from Labour.

“It was more about the National Party’s mates than hard-working Kiwis and that extends to the police as well,” he said.

I think Labour came up with this slogan before they saw the Budget and are too lazy to change it. Is Kris really saying $100 million for home insulations for low income families is helping National’s mates, not hard working Kiwis? I thought Labour used to claim they cared for low income families. Does he think the extra $1.6 billion for health is restricted to National’s mates? And the $900 million for education? And please Kris tell us how the $2.1 billion extra for Christchurch is for National’s mates. sounds like National has lots of mates, and Labour has none.

As a result communities were not feeling as connected to police as they did in the past and Mr Faafoi believed this could have resulted in the drop in reported crime.

Trying desperately to spin his way out of the fact that not only is reported crime down, but serious violent crime is significantly down – and the notion that serious violent crimes are not being reported is laughable.

Mr Faafoi said Labour had a track record of looking after police officers and would look to rebuild the public’s confidence in the organisation.

Really. Please tell us about this track record. Labour’s opposed almost every law change that the Police have supported such as three strikes.

Stuff reports John Key as laying out the choices for Canterbury:

1. Council borrows money for infrastructure projects
2. Council raises rates for infrastructure projects
3. Council changes its asset mix to fund infrastructure projects
4. They don’t proceed with or downsize some of the infrastructure projects

My preference is (3) but it is a decision for the locals. If residents don’t want a new stadium, then absolutely that is their call. Likewise if they want one, but are happy with higher rates, then also their call.

Clare Curran exposes at Red Alert the right wing agenda. It seems to be:

1. Tony Abbott spoke at the 70th anniversary of the Institute of Public Affairs
2. Tony Abbott is advised by Crosby Textor
3. The NZ National Party is also advised by Crosby Textor
4. Hence the NZ National Party plans to implement the policy agenda of the institute of Public Affairs

Clare goes on to list some of the policies that may find their way into National’s policy agenda here, which she disagrees with. They include:

• Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
• Introduce a special economic zone for northern Australia
• Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
• Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
• Cease funding the Australia Network
• Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
• Privatise the CSIRO and the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
• Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
• Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
• Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
• Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
• Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

I’m pretty sure we won’t see any of the above implemented in New Zealand. Well, we could try to implement them but Australia may not take too kindly to us passing laws on their behalf.

There is one policy Clare agrees with:

Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database

That’s good to see, as I’ve been pushing this for some time. I would have thought Clare also supports:

Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship

As it happens I think many (not all) of the IPA’s policies are very laudable and sensible. Ones I especially like are:

• Means-test Medicare
• Abolish the Baby Bonus
• Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
• Repeal the alcopops tax
• Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
• Introduce a single rate of income tax
• Return income taxing powers to the states
• Cut company tax to 25 per cent
• Cease subsidising the car industry
• Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
• Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
• Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
• Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
• Repeal the mining tax
• Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
• Means test tertiary student loans
• Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
• Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
• Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship
• End public funding to political parties
• Introduce voluntary voting
• Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a % of GDP
• Legislate a balanced budget amendment which limits the size of budget deficits and the period the government can be in deficit
• Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
• Remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
• Deregulate the parallel importation of books

The Herald reports:

Newly released papers raise fresh questions over Prime Minister John Key’s claim that Solid Energy asked for $1 billion of taxpayers’ money to fund its transformation into a massive resources company.

Mr Key made the claim earlier this year when it was revealed the state-owned coal miner was on the verge of collapse under the weight of almost $400 million in debt.

Former chairman John Palmer, who approached the Government with the plan in 2010, denied asking for the money but later said he understood why Mr Key might have said the proposal involved “those sorts of costs”.

But Solid Energy documents released by Treasury yesterday detailing the proposal contain noreference to a request for the money.

Solid Energy’s business proposal said the Government’s willingness to forgo dividends from Solid Energy and Kupe were essential for the project to proceed, and it would require extra equity of up to $1 billion on top of that to fund the expansion.

However, it did not seek that from the Government in the proposals, saying: “All this can be achieved … without requiring a direct Government equity contribution (other than forgoing dividends from Solid Energy and Kupe for up to 5-10 years).”

This is being pedantic, and the PM’s interpretation of Solid Energy seeking $1 billion (in fact up to $3 billion) of equity is entirely consistent with being interpreted as a potential call on taxpayers. The difference between not taking dividends and a capital contribution is semantics. Both increase the Crown’s equity in the company.

Thank God, the Government said no.

Also interesting to note in the released papers that what forced out into the open the lack of substance to Solid’s forecasts was in fact the mixed ownership model preparation. It was only the preparation for potential partial float that got the detailed coal price forecasts out of Solid Energy. Without that policy, the extent of their optimism may have gone unnoticed for much longer.

Solid Energy is a superb example of why the Crown should not be the sole shareholder of a risky commercial business. The transparency and discipline you get from being listed on the NZX is significant.

NBR reports:.

The death today of Supreme Court Justice Robert Stanley Chambers (59) has been confirmed by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias.

Senior judicial communications officer Neil Billington told NBR ONLINE Chief Justice Elias is expected to issue a statement soon.

Justice Chambers was appointed to the Supreme Court in December 2011, after seven years on the Court of Appeal and five years on the High Court.

Justice Chambers, the husband of leading divorce Queen’s counsel Deborah Chambers (nee Hollings), began practice as a barrister in 1981 and was appointed Queen’s counsel in 1992.

He graduated LLB (Hons) from Auckland University in 1975 and gained a doctorate from Oxford University in 1978.

This is I believe our first Supreme Court Justice to die in office, and 59 is very young. No details on the cause of death but commiserations to his family, friends and colleagues.

The Attorney-General has said:

“Justice Chambers had an outstanding career as a servant of the law, ultimately appointed to the nation’s highest court,” Mr Finlayson said. “I was devastated to learn of his untimely death.”

“I served with him for many years on the Rules Committee of the High Court, and he had recently been appointed to the Council for Continuing Legal Education as the Chief Justice’s representative. He made a great contribution, and had only begun what was expected to be a long tenure on the Supreme Court.”

“He was involved in so many other areas outside the judiciary, and lived life to the full. It is not often one comes across the likes of Justice Chambers in the profession.”

And the Justice Minister:

“I am extremely sad to learn of the sudden death of Justice Robert Chambers.

“He was renowned across the profession as one of New Zealand’s greatest legal brains. His sudden death at such a young age is a significant loss to the legal community.

“I instructed Justice Chambers on many occasions when he was a barrister. I served with him on the Auckland District Law Society Council for a number of years and when he became President, I was Vice-President. I will always remember Justice Chambers’ for his humanity, terrific wit and way with words.

If he had not died at such a young age, he may have carried on as a Supreme Court Justice for the next 11 years or so. A huge loss.

Stuff reports:

Trade Me has joined 31 consumer and lobby groups from New Zealand and overseas in writing to Trade Minister Tim Groser to voice concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement.

The company is a member of the New Zealand-born umbrella group the Fair Deal Coalition, which was set up last year during the Auckland round of the negotiations to lobby against possible provisions in the yet-to-be-completed trade agreement.

The coalition fears the trade agreement could unduly strengthen intellectual property rights, for example by extending copyright by 20 years and introducing new controls on parallel imports. …

In its letter, the coalition asked Groser to reflect on the “variety of sectors” that stood to be adversely affected by such provisions. “As a group we are diverse, but we share one thing in common: we seek appropriately balanced intellectual property laws,” it said.

Trade Me spokesman Paul Ford said the firm backed the coalition because it was concerned the agreement could “result in a crappy deal for both Kiwi consumers and a decent chunk of the Trade Me community”.

“We reckon parallel importing is pretty important to New Zealanders as it means Kiwi sellers can source goods direct from licensed suppliers around the globe, so buyers get more choice and, with any luck, better prices too,” he said.

The Fair Deal Coalition has attracted support from advocates in six of the 12 countries which are party to the trade negotiations, including the United States, Canada and Australia.

The group’s founders include Consumer NZ, InternetNZ, the Royal NZ Foundation for the Blind and the Telecommunications Users Association.

I’m one of those involved in the Fair Deal coalition, and it is great to see it gain supporters in the major countries involved in the TPP.

I’m all for free trade deals, but that doesn’t mean I want a deal at any price, and I think the proposed US chapter on intellectual property is not balanced or a fair deal. I think the current NZ intellectual property laws are relatively well balanced and we should not agree to anything that would force a change to them. If enough countries stand firm on these issues, I am hopeful the US will modify its position. And to be fair to the US, they have already moved a considerable way by agreeing to writing exceptions to copyright restrictions into the text – a first for a free trade deal with them. But the current proposed wording is still not suitable.

Consumer NZ spokesman Hadyn Green said his group believed the trade deal’s documents had provisions “which may remove parallel importing in New Zealand”. That would mean retailers could no longer import copyright goods, from software to branded clothes, without the permission of the manufacturer, which Consumer NZ feared would push up prices for many products.

Bans on parallel importing work against free trade, and should not be in FTA.

A Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry spokeswoman said last week that the parallel importing of copyright works had been raised in negotiations but there was no consensus among the negotiating parties on whether an agreement “should include specific provisions on this issue”.

Which hopefully means it won’t include such a provision.

The IPCA report on the Urerewa Operation 8 can be found here. Key conclusions:

• The  Authority  has  found  that  Police  were  entitled,  on  the  information  they  had,  to  view   the  threat  posed  by  this  group  as  real  and  potentially  serious.    The  investigation  into  such   activities  by  Police  was  reasonable  and  necessary.  
• From  a  policing  perspective  the  termination  phase  of  Operation  Eight  was  concluded   safely.    No  shots  were  fired  by  Police  or  others,  despite  Police  locating  a  number  of   firearms  and  weapons.    All  target  individuals  were  located  without  incident  and  no   members  of  the  public  were  put  at  risk.  
• The  planning  and  preparation  for  the  execution  of  search  warrants  on  termination  of   Operation  Eight  was  largely  in  accordance  with  applicable  policy.    It  involved  huge   logistical  challenges  given  that  search  warrants  had  to  be  executed  simultaneously  across  the  country.    Those  individuals  who  were  considered  by  Police  to  pose  the  greatest  risk   were  quickly  and  safely  apprehended.      
• In  contrast,  the  planning  and  preparation  for  the  establishment  of  the  road  blocks  in   Ruatoki  and  Taneatua  was  deficient.    The  Authority  has  found  there  was  no  lawful  basis   for  those  road  blocks  being  established  or  maintained.  There  was  no  lawful  power  or   justification  for  Police  to  detain,  stop  and  search  the  vehicles,  take  details  from  or   photograph  the  drivers  or  passengers.      
• There  was  no  assessment  of  the  substantial  and  adverse  impact  of  such  road  blocks  on   the  local  community.    The  road  block  at  Ruatoki  was  intimidating  to  innocent  members  of   that  community,  particularly  in  view  of  the  use  of  armed  Police  officers  in  full  operational   uniform.      
• The  majority  of  complaints  received  by  the  Authority  in  relation  to  property  searches   were  not  from  target  individuals  but  rather  from  other  occupants  at  these  properties   complaining  about  the  way  they  were  treated  by  Police.  Some  felt  they  were  being   treated  as  suspects.    A  number  of  occupants  were  informed  by  Police  that  they  were   being  detained  while  a  search  of  the  property  occurred,  despite  there  being  no  lawful   basis  for  such  detention.  Police  had  no  legal  basis  for  conducting  personal  searches  of   these  occupants.  
• The  Authority  has  concluded  that  a  number  of  aspects  of  the  Police  termination  of   Operation  Eight  were  contrary  to  law  and  unreasonable.    In  a  complex  operation  of  the   type  that  was  undertaken  here,  there  are  always  a  number  of  important  lessons  to  be   learned  about  future  Police  policy  and  practices.    The  Police  internal  debrief  following  the   termination  of  Operation  Eight  has  already  identified  a  number  of  those  lessons  and   necessary  changes  to  Police  training,  policy  and  operational  instructions  have  been  made.     The  Authority  has  made  a  number  of  other  recommendations  in  light  of  its  own  findings.     This  includes  the  need  to  re-­‐engage,  and  build  bridges,  with  the  Ruatoki  community.  

This looks a sensible and well balanced report. In short the conclusions are:

1. The operation against those arrested was justified as they posed a real and serious threat
2. The actual arrest and treatment of those arrested was done properly and lawfully
3. The treatment of the wider community was over the top, insensitive and in some cases unlawful

The Ruatoki community do deserve an apology for their treatment by the Police. I think they have had one already, but will no doubt receive another. It is worth noting that of course we now have a different Police Commissioner and Minister of Police as from 2007.

But let’s not make martyrs out of those arrested. They were acting somewhere between very foolishly and with malignant intent, and the Police were right to bring their activities to an end. Their personal treatment was not generally criticized by the IPCA. They also bear some of the blame for provoking the Police action in Ruatoki. 17 firearms were found in three properties at Ruatoki, and 12 smashed Molotov cocktails at their training camp.

But as I have commented before, the Police response did seem over the top – and the IPCA has agreed. We expect better  from our Police than we do of Tame Iti and Valerie Morse. They have a job ahead rebuilding confidence with Ruatoki.

The Herald reports:

A dangerous high-security prisoner who killed a Corrections officer has been sentenced for assaulting two more but will spend no extra time in prison, a penalty the prison guards’ union calls disgraceful.

Latu Kepu was already serving a jail sentence for the manslaughter of prison guard Jason Palmer when he attacked two other guards in separate incidents last October.

Kepu was sentenced at the North Shore District Court yesterday after previously pleading guilty to two charges of assault.

Judge Philippa Sinclair sentenced him to seven months in prison, to be served concurrently. That means Kepu will not have time added on to his sentence and is still eligible for parole in 2015 on his manslaughter conviction.

Well that will teach him a lesson. Not a single extra day in prison for bashing two prison guards up.

It is disgraceful. This makes life even more dangerous for prison guards if prisoners see they can bash them up and not get any extra penalty.

UPDATE: The disgrace it seems is the Herald story, not the sentence. Whale Oil blogs an e-mail from the Ministry of Justice:

In fact, Latu Kepa was sentenced yesterday in the North Shore Court on a s9 Summary Offences Act assault and a s196 Crimes Act assault (both on prison guards) to 7 months imprisonment cumulatively on his present sentence of Manslaughter. I have checked the court file, the prison warrant and listened to the court recording at the relevant part and all of them refer to a cumulative sentence.

I’m sorry to say the Corrections Association also seems to have been misinformed : “At a minimum, the seven-month sentence should have been cumulative to the manslaughter sentence, Mr Hanlon said.”

Please let me know if you require any further assistance,

Warm regards,

Sonja.

Sonja de Friez.
Director of Community Engagement, District Courts.

That is a huge error by the Herald to get the main fact of the story wrong. My regrets that I assumed the story was correct in criticizing the sentence.

The Herald have removed their story from their website. I trust it will be replaced by an apology.

The Dom post editorial:

Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta has fired a broadside at Parliament’s rules after she found herself stuck in the debating chamber late at night with her 5-month-old baby.

She was aiming at the wrong target.

Instead of having Parliament’s standing orders in her sights, she should have trained them on her party colleagues.

Labour talks the talk on family-friendly workplaces, but it appears it is not so good at walking the walk when it comes to helping a breastfeeding colleague, even one as senior and respected as Ms Mahuta.

Exactly. They have 9 proxies they can use every day. They have only one MP with an infant. Plus as they are not in Government, they can even vote with reduced numbers without consequence.

If Ms Mahuta felt she should be among those whose presence was not required, then the correct place for her to have directed her complaint was chief whip Chris Hipkins, who organises the roster and should have been alert to the high likelihood of Parliament going into urgency after Thursday’s Budget, and her Labour colleagues.

All it would have taken for her to have the night off would have been for Mr Hipkins to give her priority or for just one of those Labour MPs who was excused to have offered to step in and take her place. Surely, Ms Mahuta would have returned the favour when her circumstances allowed?

To be fair to Hipkins, it has been reported she originally had leave for Friday, but asked to swap it. I’m not sure all the blame is with the Whips. To some degree what we are seeing is a continuation of Labour’s internal warring – it is no coincidence that Mahuta is part of the marginalised Cunliffe faction and she has no love for the party leadership and whips after her demotion.

After Ms Mahuta’s complaint, Speaker David Carter is examining whether even more can be done. In the meantime, Labour, the champion of family-friendly workplaces, can help Ms Mahuta no end by practising what it preaches.

A fair point.