An interesting story from Kate Chapman at Stuff:

The oversharers

Oversharing on social media is nothing new. Everyone has friends who insist on posting endless Facebook updates about what they ate for breakfast or daily selfies on Instagram.

MPs are no less immune. No one really wanted to know that Gilmore’s new girlfriend thought he was “96kgs of fit hot Kiwi beef”. Nor were we concerned about what National’s Tau Henare benchpressed that day or that United Future leader Peter Dunne had computer problems.

NZ First MP Asenati Lole-Taylor’s Twitter account reveals she has an opinion on everything but has failed to grasp some basic realities, particularly the background of her parliamentary colleagues after she said “few businessmen are capable of being in politics”.

Asked whether she got a tweeting lesson from leader Winston Peters, Lole-Taylor lashed out: “that is the kind of racism and discrimination that people like you wld use when you run out of anything intelligent to say”.

My highlight with Asenati is when she abuses and then blocks journalists. A great way to get good publicity.

Labour MP Clare Curran must be Parliament’s queen of tedium with more than 16,000 tweets, many of which were snipes or arguments with other politicians or media. “On #WorldPressFreedom Day in NZ there r no killings of journalists to mourn, instead insidious strangulation of the craft,” she griped recently.

Not so much a glass half empty, but more a glass never ever full.

There are of course a few MPS who’ve hit the nail on the head. Justice Minister Judith Collins joined Twitter recently and was off with a good mix of humour and scorn.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has sent more than 10,400 tweets on just about every topic and his colleague Chris Hipkins also balances partisan politics with snippets from everyday life.

NZ First leader Winston Peters has adapted his snide remarks for social media well: “according to Treasury advice the economic return from The Hobbit tourism is, just like JRR Tolkien’s book itself, a complete work of fantasy”.

There are certainly a lot of twits on Twitter, there are several in Parliament too. The problem with sending out immediate 140-character dispatches is that there isn’t enough time for self-editing.

It has been the downfall of many a public figure and it’s only a matter of time before one of our MPs reveals themselves as a complete twit.

My favourite Twitter episode was the war between Trevor Mallard and Russel Norman. They will be such a stable Government one day.

Rod Oram writes in the SST:

At first glance it seems improbable that ambitious New Zealand companies could learn much from Huawei, a remarkable corporate success story even by the standards of its extraordinary home country, China.

Our companies are small and slow growing. One reason is they struggle to commercialise R&D and to develop into international businesses.

Huawei was a domestic start-up only 26 years ago. Yet, today, it is a global technology powerhouse leading its telecommunications equipment sector. Its revenues from 140 countries were US$35.4 billion last year, 70 per cent from outside China. It is aiming for sales of US$70b by 2017.

I like their structure:

Being employee-owned helps the company to focus long term. Huawei is not distracted, like many western companies, Ren said, by the sharemarket’s hefty demands for short-term investment returns.

“We can control and mange our lust, our greed. Instead we provide a good service for our customers and make reasonable money.”

Of Huawei’s 150,000 staff, half own shares. They have to be Chinese nationals but allowing other citizens to participate is under consideration, a company spokesman said.

Employees have to be with the company for at least two years, and they and their teams have to be performing well to be invited to buy shares. This has been a good source of capital for the company.

Having employees as shareholders is one of the smartest things a company can do. Look at Port of Tauranga compared to Ports of Auckland.

Rodney Hide gives 10 reasons there policy is full of holes:

1. Electricity prices are working. As they should
   
2.  Electricity prices are fair and reasonable
3. Quick! Turn up the swimming pool
4.  The lights will go out
5. We all lose as taxpayers
6.  Businesses shut, jobs gone
7. What about the planet?
8. We have choice and competition
9. Shearer-Norman power
10.  It’s cheaper to hand out money

No 9 I wish to focus on:

The power market is one of the easiest to enter. Labour and the Greens claim companies are making “super-profits”. If that were the case, they could set up their own power company and fund their election campaign – and lower power prices for everyone. They won’t, of course, because they can’t. There’s no easy money to be made supplying power. The super-profits line is political rhetoric: it’s not true.

This is a very good point. There are no huge barriers to becoming an electricity generator. We have 14 companies that are generators.     If they think the profits are so excessive, why don’t they do what they did with Kiwibank and just set up one new competitor – rather than take over the entire industry?

NZ Herald quiz is here. Too easy this week. Trevett needs to work harder on them 🙂

UPDATE: It appears Trevett was too busy staking out the Hamner Springs Heritage Hotel to do the quiz this week, so her replacement is obviously not as tough as her!

Nick Smith announced:

An Auckland Housing Accord has been agreed today by Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown to urgently increase the supply and affordability of housing in Auckland. …

The legislation, to be introduced to Parliament as part of Budget 2013, will enable Special Housing Areas to be created by the Auckland Council with approval of Government. In these areas it will be possible to override restrictions on housing put in place by Auckland’s eight predecessor Councils, like the Metropolitan Urban Limit.

Qualifying developments in these Special Housing Areas will be able to be streamlined, providing they are consistent with Auckland’s Unitary Plan, once it is notified, expected in September this year. New greenfield developments of more than 50 dwellings will be able to be approved in six months as compared to the current average of three years and brownfield developments in three months as compared to the current average of one year. The streamlined process will not be available for high rise developments that will need to be considered under existing rules until the Unitary Plan has been finalised in 2016.

“This is a three year agreement to address these housing supply issues in the interim until Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan becomes fully operative and the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms for planning processes take effect.

“The Government respects in this Accord that it is for Auckland to decide where and how it wishes to grow. The Government is giving new powers for council to get some pace around new housing development and is agreeing on aspirational targets to ensure Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues are addressed.

“The Accord sets a target of 9,000 additional residential houses being consented for in Year 1, 13,000 in Year 2, and 17,000 in Year 3. This is a huge boost on the average 3,600 homes that have been consented each year over the past four years and the 7,400 a year over the past 20 years.

The only way one can reduce the price of housing in Auckland is to reduce demand or increase supply. Now assuming you can’t start deporting Aucklanders to Gore, that means increasing supply.

39,000 houses in three years compared to 3,600 homes a year is massive.

And best of all it doesn’t involve the Government borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to try and become a large scale property developer itself.

Congrats to Len Brown and Nick Smith for working together to do something meaningful in this area.

The Press editorial:

The new website developed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust inviting the public to “judge the judges” has attracted more alarmed comment than it warrants.

Critics of the site worry about its focus on individual judges and fret that it may encourage contemptuous or defamatory attacks on judges. These concerns are overwrought.

As it is set up at present, the site is relatively innocuous and to the extent that it gives greater publicity to judges’ decisions and sentencing notes may do some good. …

Instead, the site presents a number of criminal cases in which, in the opinion of the site’s organisers, judges have given either particularly lenient or particularly commendable sentences to offenders.

Along with the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s critique of the sentence, the site also presents a link to the Ministry of Justice website so readers can form their own opinions from what the judge has said in his or her judgment and sentencing notes.

Those readers who bother to follow the links and read those documents will gain as good an insight as possible into the many competing, and often irreconcilable, factors that judges must take into account in trying to produce a just result in the cases before them.

I agree that the links to the case notes are a useful service.

While the website itself may be an incentive to redneck, talkback-style instant outcry about the leniency of this or that sentence, by making the official documents more widely available it also provides some antidote to it.

The silliest argument against a site critiquing judges’ decisions is that judges cannot answer back. The response to that is that they do not need to – their judgments speak for themselves, which is why judgments should be promptly available.

If further publicity is needed to protect a judge from unfair criticism, the Ministry of Justice has a large enough PR department to see it is done and in extreme cases there is nothing to inhibit the Attorney-General or Minister of Justice from speaking.

It will be interesting to see how many more cases end up on the site.

Stuff reports:

A lesbian couple have been turned away from a Whangarei guesthouse that refused to let them share a bed.

Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, made an online booking for a room with a king-sized bed at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge.

But when they arrived on Tuesday, they were told only rooms with single beds were available.

When they queried the booking, the owner eventually told them the booking was correct, but she was offended by same-sex couples sleeping in the same bed. She would not even let them push two singles together.

How stupid. Heh it reminds me of the time a few years ago when I turned up with a girlfriend to a hotel at 1 am asking for a double room. They replied they only had twin beds available and saw the crestfallen expressions on our faces. He then helpfully offered that they could push the beds together for us 🙂

They eventually found accommodation 50 kilometres away.

How appalling.

First of all, the law is clear. You can’t discriminate. However ever if the law does allow you to, then they should state upfront on their ads that they do not allow same sex couples to stay at their lodge. That would allow people who don’t like bigots to decide never to stay there.

In the past, same-sex couples have been allowed to stay at the Pilgrim Planet Lodge, but only if they slept in separate single beds.

But Ms Collison said what went on behind closed doors was none of the Ruskins’ business.

“It is a closed bedroom, she is not invited in there.

“I’m not allowed to cuddle my partner in a shared bed, but if I walked in there with a random guy I picked up off the street she would let me in. This is my fiancee.”

A good point. Casual sex with a stranger is fine in their lodge, but not sex with someone engaged to be married.

The Ruskins believe they are exempted from the provisions of the Human Rights Act because they also live in the lodge.

“This is our home, we are not a big motel,” Mrs Ruskin said. “In our home, where our grandchildren are, where our guests are, we don’t want sodomy.”

Oh dear, oh dear. I think Mrs Ruskin needs a biology lesson. Like many anti-homosexual people she seems obsessed with sodomy. Well first of all lesbians are not equipped very well for sodomy.

Secondly many heterosexuals couples practice sodomy also. If sodomy is what worries Mrs Rushkin I suggest she just puts up big signs at her lodge asking guests not to sodomise each other while staying. Maybe she can include that in her advertisements also.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Embattled National list MP Aaron Gilmore was warned by a Government department over inappropriate emails.

The emails were not sexually explicit but had an “inappropriate tenor”, the Ministry Of Business Innovation and Employment said.

Gilmore was employed as a contractor for the the-then Department of Building  and Housing from May to November last year. He was a senior policy analyst. …

Days before Gilmore’s contract ended, ministry deputy chief executive Andrew Crisp was alerted to the emails between Gilmore and the Treasury staff member.

“Mr Gilmore was advised verbally that in the public sector context the tone of his emails was inappropriate,” Crisp said.

He was told his contract would not be renewed because of this.

And what did they say:

In the emails from Gilmore to a Treasury analyst, he wrote: “I’ve worked at Treasury though I saw the light and left as a senior adviser at 24.”

He boasts he was the youngest MP on Parliament’s finance committee “and made a few million as a GM in the private sector in-between”.

Gilmore went on: “I think I have a reasonable understanding of what ministers need and what works and how Treasury should operate.”

He chides the recipient saying: “Playing games and being secrecative [sic] witholding information and then bullying and whiteanting [sic] people when they don’t do what you want is how most people see you and is what I have seen too, not as a good Treasury analytic policy maker.”

In an earlier email, dated November 15, he says: “You may want to consider your perchant [sic] for firing off messages to all and sundry trying to undermine people … given my background and that I go back into Parliament on the govt side in the New Year I’m happy to talk about this with you at some stage, as this behaviour is far from productive.”

Gilmore also took exception to being corrected on a figure, writing: “Most of what I have said has been shown to be right once it has been debated …

“I am sure this sort of thing will come back to haunt you if you want your career to reach its full potential.”

There is a certain bullying pattern here.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Unamused Chinese censors have been at work to stop people sniggering over the new Beijing headquarters of the People’s Daily newspaper, which bears an unfortunate resemblance to part of the male anatomy. 

A journalist friend commented that when studying journalism they were told sub editors needed dirty minds to ensure no possible double entendre got into print. She suggests  the same requirement should apply to architects!

MRP shares are now at $2.73. Labour and Greens scared off some smaller investors but larger investors have worked out their nationalization policy will never be implemented, and are valuing shares higher.

In April 2008, the anti-smacking petition fell short of the required signatures for a referendum, just as the asset sales one did.

The petitioner can resubmit it with more signatures up to two months later. But what did the Green Party say at the time:

Green Party response to petition shortfall – time to move on

So will they take their own advice and move on?

Hat Tip: Bob McCoskrie

on

So Professor Sellman says it is all the fault of Big Alcohol who have been brainwashing Aaron since he was 15 years old to buy alcohol. This is the fault also of the supermarkets for placing alcohol next to the fruit and veges.

Somewhat obsessive I say.

I blogged earlier this week about the Critic editor being suspended.

Salient has some more details on what happened:

The editorial shake-up became public knowledge on Monday, when Fredric’s presence at the Critic office caused Campus Watch, and then police to be called. Senior Sergeant Benn told the Otago Daily Times, ”When the policeman asked him to leave he did so, and that was the end of that.”

Although the reason why the police were called to the office remains unclear, Critic staff filmed the incident, but then later claimed that the file had “corrupted” when Salient requested it. Salient has been told by staff present that Fredric left when asked, and was not “escorted” from the premises, as was reported in the Otago Daily Times.

Fredric wishes to “continue as Critic Editor”, and has sought legal advice on the matter. It is understood that Fredric has lodged a personal grievance claim under the Employment Relations Act, and filed an affidavit of his written evidence in support of the claim on Tuesday.

Where an employer suspends an employee in order to investigate alleged misconduct, the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment advises that “Suspending an employee is a serious action, and due process and consideration should be applied by the employer in instigating a suspension”.

I’ve not seen anything so far to indicate that suspension was a necessary or justifiable step. As I said, this could be a very messy employment issue for OUSA. it is ironic that the worst offfenders when it comes to employees’ rights are unions themselves when they are the employer.

I referred in my earlier post that one of the issues between the OUSA General Manager and the Critic Editor was that the Editor didn’t do anything about an e-mail sent by one of their columnists to the manager of Netsky after he was kept waiting eight hours for an interview. I now have a copy of the e-mail, which is:

Hi, sorry I wasn’t in the office once Boris had finished unwinding from his gig, I’m sure he’s a great guy so don’t worry I wont say anything bad about him. It’s a shame his equipment hadn’t been sorted by the gig though, his voice sounded at times like it was being distorted, almost as bad as if on purpose (plus some bits seemed like they were echoing). I will need to fill that spot on the tv & radio show though, do you mind doing an interview with me? we’re doing a piece about NZ management being shit.

I actually think that is a great piss take e-mail. Netsky is of course known for distorted vocals and echos. I understand the manager didn’t catch on that the columnist was taking the piss! I’d write a far worse e-mail if I was kept waiting for eight hours!

The Electoral Commission has published the 2012 donation returns from registered political parties. They appear to reveal a major breach of electoral law by the Labour Party.

Donations over $15,000 only have to be disclosed annually, but donations over $30,000 must be disclosed within 10 working days of receipt.

Labour’s return shows they received $430,259.33 from the estate of Brian Dalley (ironically a professional property investor who made his riches from capital gains) between April and July 2012. They were required to disclose this to the Electoral Commission within 10 working days, but the Commissions say they were only notified on 9 May 2013. Their disclosure is 12 months late.

Unless there is an incredibly good reason for this, I presume the Electoral Commission will ask the Police to prosecute Labour. Not only does their Leader forget a massive US bank account for four years, the party fails to disclose a $430,000 donation for 12 months.

Other donations declared are:

• ACT – John Boscawen $24,000
• Conservative – Colin Craig $1,618,600
• Social Credit – Murray Gouk estate $25,000
• Greens – various MPs totalling $233,487
• National – Chris Parkin $16,850
• National – James Crisp Ltd $17,850
• National – Roncon Pacific Hotel Mgmt $22,000
• National – Scholar Hotel $24,000
• National – Graeme Douglas $25,000
• National – Cyril Smith $29,950

Also of interest is the disclosure of the total amount of donations received under $15,000 in brackets.

For donations between $1,500 and $5,000 National received a total of $255,000 and Labour $27,000. However for d0nations between $5,000 and $15,000 National had $380,000 and Labour $240,000. So Labour gets most of its money from large donors while National receives a fair amount from moderate sized donors (below $5,000).

UPDATE: According to Felix Marwick of NewstalkZB, the Electoral Commission have decided to take no action. I’m staggered.

Can you imagine what would have happened if National failed to disclose a $430,000 donation from a property developer for 13 months. It would be the lead item on the TV news, with opposition parties demanding the PM front up over the issue.

We live in a country where almost no electoral law transgression has been prosecuted in the last 10 years. It’s outrageous.

Click for larger, higher res image

Back to the garden today, with the tauhou (silvereye).

Relatives of this species are found through Australia and Asia.

A reader writes in:

I’ve been reading the various Wgtn vs Akl vs ChCh posts and thought I’d put a plug in for the provincial centres. I live in Christchurch but come from Blenheim and have an interest in the various property mini-bubbles that arise. This interest has been intensified recently by my brother and I trying to sell our Mum’s house since she shifted into a resthome (http://wyber.com/housead/ if you’ll excuse the ad).

I went to uni in Christchurch then lived in Wellington for nearly three years, returning to Blenheim for six years before settling in Christchurch. My brother has lived in central Auckland for the last 15 years and I have visited him regularly, often staying with friends on the North Shore. My wife and I bought our first home in Blenheim, selling to move to Christchurch where we rented for a year then bought in Avonhead, Christchurch. After five years we considered renovation and instead sold and bought a few blocks away. We bought a flat near central Christchurch with a friend as business partner five years ago: she lives in it as tenant and co-owner. 18 months ago my brother and I found ourselves as trustees trying to sell, then rent out, then sell again our Mum’s house.

I gave this brief background to give some validity to my observations. I would consider my family fairly typical middle-class NZ: I started in admin then accounting and now work in IT. My wife is an immigrant, studied here to get her law degree and has worked on and off as we raised our two sons, both now teenagers.

Buy The House Your Parents Bought When They Started Out, Not The One You Left Home From

This is one of my bigger gripes with the housing market. Teenagers and young adults should ask their parents to show them the house their parents first bought (or similar if that house doesn’t exist or is too far away). Our first house was a smallish two-bedroom dwelling on a cross-lease, with the drive on the corner near a busy suburban Blenheim shopping centre. To our Wellington eyes it looked fine, but our Blenheim friends thought we had gone way down-market. We scraped for the deposit, focused on paying off the mortgage and were debt-free after five years. Our next house in Avonhead Christchurch was still simple with one bathroom and three bedrooms and was cold in Winter, apart from the lounge heated by the woodburner. Again we focused on the mortgage and were again debt-free after five years. We looked at renovating and worked out the cost to add a bedroom, second lounge and second bathroom. Instead we found another house close by which had been upgraded by the previous owners for around the same cost. We are now debt-free again after five years.

I get really slacked off with people who want to buy a four-bedroom house in a nice suburb soon after they get their first job or permanent relationship. Be realistic. Your best bet is to buy a unit or flat or apartment, pay most of it off then upgrade. Kids nowadays want the same comfort they grew up in.

Consider The Provinces

For graduates this should be their first consideration. Anyone with a professional qualification is going to be snapped up by provincial employers and doing real work, seeing clients from the start of their career. Contrast this with the “lucky few” who get jobs in the “factory” law/accounting/engineering/etc firms in the big cities. They will be lucky if they see a client for the first three years of employment and will instead get locked up doing boring work as a test to see if they are committed. At the same time they will be suffering high costs of living especially housing.

For people with young families or recent retirees I have thought they should consider moving to a provincial centre as an extended family. The couple with the young children could find a job in a provincial centre and persuade the Mum and Dads’ parents to move with them. Their housing costs would drop dramatically and the grandparents would enjoy a better climate moving with their children and grandchildren.

People complain it’s not possible to earn the same amount in a provincial centre. They seem unable to do the budget on the reduced cost of living side. If your pay drops but your mortgage drops even more then you are likely better off. It is likely your travel times will be negligible and your family will only need one vehicle. You may go home for lunch and save on cafe costs.

Even if you don’t have a qualification that gives you good job prospects try the provinces. It’s important to get a job and then work your way up. Many provincial centres will provide agricultural and horticultural jobs within easy biking or driving of the town. Often it is easier to get casual work in retail or small-scale industry as well. There is an upside to everyone knowing who you are. This can also mediate the lowering of income for the primary earner if a family moves from Akl/Wgtn/ChCh to a provincial centre: the main caregiver can often find part-time employment close to the home, especially with hours that fit in with school.

Climate

I’m generalising here as I don’t know every provincial centre well. I can guarantee that anyone shifting from Akl/Wgtn/ChCh to Blenheim or Nelson will find a marked improvement in climate. We had neighbours in Blenheim who retired from Christchurch and said their lifestyle and well-being improved. They needed firewood for two or three fewer months over Winter as Blenheim has glorious sunny days throughout Winter.

Traffic

This one should be obvious. When I lived in Blenheim it would amuse me to hear people grumping at having to wait a couple of minutes at an intersection.

Shopping (For Blokes)

I’m sure people that love shopping find provincial living a bit limiting. However they can turn this into a holiday: driving to the nearest big city to get their retail fix as a weekend outing. For people who don’t love shopping (blokes like me I guess) provincial living is ideal. Parking near (or biking to) shops is easy and there’s only a couple of retailers to choose from for most things. Almost all the shops are in the town centre making necessary shopping a quick and relatively pain-free exercise.

Outdoors Lifestyle

Parents worry less about their children in provincial centres. There are more outdoor activities. Schools can link up with the surrounding rural community and have easy access to rivers and beaches. People have more time to volunteer for sports clubs and social clubs. There’s less expectation to work weekends. Parents can take their children to activities.

Rural Connection

This one also bugs me. Most of NZ’s foreign earnings come from farming yet most city dwellers are ignorant of the rural community. Living in provincial centres keeps people in touch with the farming and horticultural industry that powers our economy. It’s great to get out in the country and to be able to buy fruit, vegetables, eggs and other produce direct from the growers.

 

Anyway, that’s some thoughts on this. I guess I should make my excuse for why I live in Christchurch and not in a provincial centre. I work at a University in IT and have a job I enjoy which would be difficult to replicate in a provincial centre. My sons thrive at independent schools with the assistance of scholarships they earned through hard work. I don’t think they would have the same educational opportunities at a state school, certainly not at the one I went to.

However living in Avonhead on the western edge of Christchurch gives the next best experience. I bike to work most days and the countryside is within biking distance of home. In the end people make choices. I do wish they would consider provincial centres as another option instead of focusing on the cost of living and housing in the bigger cities.

Stuff reports:

Animal welfare advocates outraged at the possibility of party pills and synthetic cannabis being tested on rats and dogs have been “gagged” by politicians, a Labour MP says.

Hundreds of submissions objecting to animals being given lethal doses of legal highs before they are tested on humans have been pushed to one side by the health select committee.

Submitters were also prevented from appearing before the committee in Wellington this week, while others – including health professionals, legal high retailers and users – were allowed to speak.

Chairman Paul Hutchison said the issue was “outside the scope” of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which would put the onus on manufacturers to prove their mind-altering products were safe before they hit the shops.

Labour Party associate health spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said that technically this was correct but, “at the very least, the select committee should be able to hear submitters and offer a considered opinion on the issue”.

What an absolute beat-up.

You can’t hear submissions on an issue that is out of scope on a bill. That is not gagging.

This would be like me complaining that I can’t turn up to a hearing on an electoral reform bill and talk about national standards.

If they wish to be heard on the issue of drug testing on animals, then they should do a petition to Parliament, and seek to speak to it, when it is considered by a select committee.

UPCOMING THIS WEEKEND 0930 SATURDAY – 0800 SUNDAY TV3

www.frontpage.co.nz will have all our video and transcripts after Sunday’s show.
Housing Minister Nick Smith on why the Government’s got new ideas on how to make housing more affordable in Auckland.
British Attorney General Dominic Grieve, here for the Quintet Attorney Generals’ Meeting, on social media, privacy, contempt, name supression and his reponse to growing demands this week that Britain abandon the European Convention on Human Rights.
Our secial report on Ikaroa Rawhiti and the issues that will decide the by-election. Researcher Tony Ng and Reporter Torben Akel have spent the week travelling from Wainuiomata to Gisborne. Their report will be an eye opener.
Trade Minister Tim Groser on why Japan’s decision to join the Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement talks could make us richer — and on why he failed to become head of the WTO. Did we waste $250,000?
NEXT WEEK — OUR BUDGET SPECIAL WITH BILL ENGLISH, DAVID PARKER, RUSSEL NORMAN PLUS A SPECIAL PANEL OF CEO’S — ANDREW THORBURN (BNZ); DAVID McCONNELL (McCONNELL/HAWKINS GROUP) AND PAUL McGILVRAY (TATUA DAIRY CO). HEAR FROM THESE BUSINESS LEADERS WHAT THE BUDGET WILL DO FOR THE ECONOMY.

Youth Parliament is every three years, and will be 16 and 17 July this year. I think it is an excellent initiative to promote civic awareness among younger New Zealanders.

The major topic for Youth Parliament will be electoral reform. Youth MPs will debate a bill that:

• reduces the voting age from 18 years to 17 years
• includes electronic voting to the methods of voting
• makes voting compulsory for all eligible voters
• extends the Term of Parliament from three years to four.

Also select committees will consider the following issues:

• How can public expectations for social services be balanced against likely rising costs for these services?
  
• Are young people taking enough responsibility for reducing and preventing substance abuse or should this be government’s role?
• What are the barriers to young people entering employment across New Zealand workplaces and how can these be addressed?
• Should government restrict or permit private businesses profiting from conservation activities?
• Compulsory vs. elective subjects in secondary schools – should subjects like science be compulsory?
• Purchasing online: supporting modern consumerism
• Where should New Zealand’s international obligations lie – Pacific or wider afield
• White collar vs blue collar crimes: do current sentences reflect the economic and social impacts of these crimes?
• As more iwi move towards a post-settlement environment, how do rangatahi see the role of iwi in supporting the development of the next generation?
• Can New Zealand afford to be free range?

The list of the 121 Youth MPs and 20 youth press gallery members is here.

If any Youth MP or youth press gallery member wants to do a guest post/s at Kiwiblog detailing their experiences with Youth Parliament, just let me know. I can arrange a guest login.

Craig Foss has announced:

Commerce Minister Craig Foss has today released a supplementary order paper (SOP) to clarify issues around the patentability of computer programmes in the Patents Bill.

“Following consultation with the NZ software and IT sector, I am pleased to be further progressing the Patents Bill with this SOP. These changes ensure the Bill is consistent with the intention of the Commerce Select Committee recommendation that computer programs should not be patentable,” says Mr Foss.

Today’s change is to codify a test set out in UK case law to provide clarification around the “as such” wording used in SOP 120 (tabled 28 August 2012).

“I would like to thank the NZ software and IT sector for their engagement over the last few months. I’m confident we’ve reached a solution where we can continue to protect genuine inventions and encourage Kiwi businesses to export and grow.

The SOP is here. A key extra clause is:

A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program.

There had been considerable concern that the previous proposed wording with the “as such” clause could lead to a lack of clarity in the law, and that it might not achieve its intention that software is not patentable. This extra clause provides that clarity and is excellent news from the Government and Minister,

To also achieve greater clarity, the SOP provides an explicit example of what is not patentable in terms of software, namely that a chip for a washing machine is, but an online filing software system is not (the code is copyrighted though).

The Institute of IT Professionals has welcomed the announcement:

The Institute of IT Professionals, New Zealand’s largest IT representative body, strongly supports the Government’s announcement today clarifying that software will not be patentable in New Zealand, removing a major barrier to software-led innovation. …

“The Institute thanks Minister Foss for responding to industry concerns, clarifying the Patents Bill’s intention to remove patentability of software and for taking extra steps to ensure the law around software patents is clear and unambiguous,” Matthews said. “Software will not be patentable in New Zealand and a major barrier to software innovation has been removed”.

“We also acknowledge the work of United Future’s Peter Dunne, Labour’s Clare Curran and other political parties who have listened to the industry’s concerns and contributed towards a solution,” Matthews said. “It’s great that all parties support software-led innovation in New Zealand.”

I’d agree with the IITP that MPs from several parties helped contribute to getting a law that will be clear and good for New Zealand. The recommendation to do so was a unanimous one by a select committee.

Ian McCrae, chief executive of New Zealand’s largest software exporter Orion Health agreed, saying today “We welcome this announcement. Under the current regime, obvious things are getting patented. You might see a logical enhancement to your software, but you can’t do it because someone else has a patent. In general, software patents are counter-productive, often used obstructively and get in the way of innovation. We are a software company and as such, our best protection is to innovate and innovate fast.”

John Ascroft, Chief Innovation Officer of Jade Corporation said “We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation.”

Orion and Jade together account for around 50% of software exports from New Zealand.

The decision is also welcomed by InternetNZ:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) welcomes today’s tabling of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that makes it clear that computer software is not patentable in New Zealand. …

The question of software patents has been an important issue for InternetNZ for several years. InternetNZ has previously made submissions on the issue, noting that software is inextricably linked to the good functioning of the Internet. Patenting software would not only make the continued development of the Internet more difficult, it would reduce innovation and could well stymie interoperability of various software platforms.

InternetNZ spokesperson Susan Chalmers says InternetNZ is happy to see the issue now resolved and looks forward to the passage and implementation of the Patents Bill, a long-awaited and much needed update to a large component of New Zealand’s intellectual property regime.

So it is a good outcome all around. Congratulations to Craig Foss for constructively working with industry groups to get this issue resolved, and kudos to other MPs such as Peter Dunne and Clare Curran who supported getting a good law.

I’m personally very pleased that National has taken a balanced approach on intellectual property issues. While of course there are areas of disagreement, the current Government has consistently moved things in the right direction. To name a few:

• Repealed the previous three strikes guilt upon accusation copyright law
• Suspended the provision for termination of Internet accounts for repeat copyright infringement
• Set the copyright infringement filing fee at $25, $5 higher than recommended by officials
• Kept the fee at $25 when reviewed, despite massive opposition from the MPAA
• Have consistently rejected the US proposed IP chapter for the TPP
• Amended the law to exclude software from being patentable

Now as I said, there are still a few areas I’d like further change. but overall the direction in the last few years has been a positive one.

The latest quarterly Household Labour Force Survey is here. The number of people in work had the largest increase since the HLFS started in 1986. Key stats:

• 2,234,000 people in work, up 38,000 from December.
• Unemployed down from 161,000 to 146,000
• Unemployment rate down from 6.8% to 6.2%
• Under 20 unemployment rate down from 30.9% to 25.6%
• Maori unemployment rate down from 14.8% to 13.9%
• Manufacturing jobs up by 6,600 (recall the “crisis in manufacturing” manufactured by the left)
• Total hours worked up 3.2% in the quarter
• NZ’s unemployment rate now puts it in 11th= out of 34 OECD countries, so in the top third. the average rate is 8.0%

Now the HLFS does bounce around a lot, but the strength shown here is consistent with other data. It is very easy to focus on the high profile job losses, and miss all the areas where jobs are being created. An employer losing 100 jobs is a big story but 10 employers taking on 10 more staff each flies under the radar.