Magnus Wilberg writes in the Financial Times:

Europe is making a mistake. In February, the European Commission published a proposal for a financial transaction tax – also called a Tobin or “Robin Hood” tax – in the EU. Eleven states have been granted the right to impose a minimum 0.1 per cent tax on equity and debt transactions and a minimum 0.01 per cent charge on derivatives transactions. If the experience of Sweden’s use of such a tax is anything to go by, this move is extremely unwise.

Why do some people advocate for a FTT?

One aim of the proposed tax is to improve the efficiency of financial markets by reducing speculation. Another is to generate tax revenues. Those were also the reasons why Sweden introduced a transaction tax in 1984.

If an FTT actually worked, and it was used to lower income tax rates, then it could be worth considering as part of a policy of broad base and low rates. But do they work?

Initially, the tax rate was 0.5 per cent in connection with the purchase and sale of shares. In mid-1986, the rate was doubled and the tax base was broadened to cover share options and convertibles. The trading volume on the Stockholm stock exchange changed dramatically when the tax was increased. Average turnover fell 30 per cent during the second half of 1986 and throughout 1987. The turnover in the 11 most traded shares fell 60 per cent. It seems unlikely that this sharp decrease reflected a decline only in speculative trading.

Later, in 1989, the tax base was broadened to include bonds. This, in turn, led to an 85 per cent reduction in bond-trading volume and a 98 per cent reduction of trading volume in bond derivatives. The increase in tax revenues resulting from the broadening was less than 5 per cent of what had been expected.

By 1990, shortly after the last vestiges of the currency controls were abolished in Sweden, more than 50 per cent of the trading in Swedish shares had moved to London. Conversely, once the tax was abolished in December 1991, trading on the Stockholm stock exchange recovered.

We live in an increasingly mobile and borderless world. Companies can decide where to locate, where to pay tax, and where to do financial transactions. The best way to have a good tax base is to have low rates.

This conclusion is reinforced by studies on the effects of the Swedish tax, which suggest that it reduced market liquidity but not volatility. Since increases in speculative trading tend to be associated with more volatility, this also suggests that the tax had little substantial effect on speculative trading.

So it didn’t even achieve its main aim.

The NZ Herald editorial:

When the Marriage Equality Bill passes its final vote in Parliament, possibly tonight, it will signify a marked social change. Less than a decade ago Helen Clark’s Government dared not extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples, offering them a legal equivalent called civil union. Since then, public opinion has undergone a sea change.

It has happened not only in New Zealand but in Australia, the United States and Europe. Quite suddenly, most people have come around to the view that homosexual commitments deserve equal recognition.

It is a change primarily linked to age. Younger people have grown up with gay and lesbian friends, class-mates and colleagues and see no reason not to allow their friends to marry.

In the US in 2004 opposition to same sex marriage was an electoral winner for the Republicans. In 2012 it was an electoral loser. And a poll in the US had just revealed that a majority of Republicans under 30 favour allowing same sex marriage with 51% in favour and 46% opposed.

The same poll also looks at views based on religion.

• White evangelical Christians: 24% support/73% oppose
• White non-evangelical Protestants: 54% support/43% oppose
• White Catholics: 53% support/43% oppose
• Hispanic Catholics: 54% support/35% oppose
• African-American non-evangelical: 65% support/31% oppose
• Jewish: 78% support/21% oppose

So a majority of (white) American Catholics support same sex marriage.

Thoughtful contributions to our opinion pages have argued that marriage between a man and a woman is too important to social cohesion for its heterosexual definition to be lost. Marriage, they said, is not simply a declaration of love and commitment, it is the legitimation of procreation and the formation of families.

If its definition is to be detached from that purpose and marriage is to mean any form of human bond, what next, they asked. Might a commitment of more than two people have a right to the same recognition? Polygamy is permitted in some cultures. Why restrict the recognition to sexual relationships? One woman who lived with her sister wrote about their enduring non-sexual life together and wondered whether, in the name of equality, they too should be allowed to marry.

Marriage, as a professor of law pointed out on our pages yesterday, has been instituted in every culture, tribe and race since antiquity as the union of a man and a woman. It has never, until now, included a category of relationships that have no reproductive capacity and cannot provide a child with the care of two biological parents.

A fair summary of the better arguments against.

Those who worry that something of value will be lost can probably relax. Laws cannot change the ordinary meaning of words such as marriage, bride, groom, husband, wife, mother and father. Marriages for heterosexuals, including the blessings that believers obtain from churches, will not be diminished.

It remains to be seen whether same-sex couples marry in large numbers but their right to do so will be a significant achievement, another legal statement of equality. The gay community’s fight for the right to marry pays tribute, in its way, to the inherent value of the institution.

I agree. Couple aspiring to marry is a good thing.

The debate will be over tonight, thank goodness. It’s been great to be part of a team working for this change. I respect that some are opposed to the change, but the opposition to civil unions proved misplaced – and I think this will prove the same.

While there has been some passionate views on both sides, I think it reflects well on New Zealand that we can have this debates generally without the nastiness and rancour you see in some countries.

A Herald story also has a useful breakdown by party for the second reading:

FOR

* National: 44 per cent of MPs
* Maori: 100 per cent
* United Future: 100 per cent
* Act: 100 per cent
* Labour: 91 per cent
* Green: 100 per cent
* Mana: 100 per cent.

AGAINST

* National: 56 per cent of MPs
* Labour: 9 per cent
* New Zealand First: 100 per cent
* Independent (Brendan Horan): 100 per cent.

From my point of view, it would have been nice to have the majority of National MPs voting in favour. But even if only 10 out of 59 National MPs were in favour, this law change would have occurred.

The Electoral Commission has announced:

On 15 April 2013, the Electoral Commission referred Larry Baldock and Peter Redman, Conservative Party of New Zealand candidates at the 2011 general election, to Police for filing a false Candidate Election Expenses and Donations Return.

It is an offence under section 205N of the Erlectoral Act 1993 for a candidate to file a false return.

The Electoral Commission has also referred Larry Baldock for paying, or arranging another person to pay, election expenses in excess of the $25,000 maximum specified in section 205C of the Electoral Act 1993.  This is an offence under section 205F of the Act.

This is quite rare. Reading between the lines it looks like some election expenses were not declared, and in the case of Baldock those expenses would have put him over the $25,000 limit.

Baldock stood for Tauranga and got 1,512 votes or 4.2%. Peter Redman stood for Bay of Plenty and got 1,306 votes or 3.7%.

Peter Redman declared no donations and $42 of expenses.

Baldock declared a donation of $24,900 from the Conservative Party and $24,900 of expenses so I’d say it is about some sort of undeclared expense. Maybe it was a joint advertisement for Baldock and Redman and they attributed it all to the party, rather than to each candidate? We’ll find out in due course.

Of course the Police may do nothing, as is often the case. No Right Turn undiplomatically puts it like this:

Of course, we know what will happen: the police will take the complaint, and then forget about it, just as they have with virtually every other complaint referred to them by the Electoral Commission. The police simply don’t care about electoral law. If you steal a television, they’ll throw you in jail. Try to steal an election, and they ignore it.

As they did with Labour in 2005.

This is not the first time the Conservative Party has had issues with its returns. I blogged on these last May.

UPDATE: This NZ Herald story has more details on what may be the issue.

Also of interest to me is that Baldock got only 206 votes more than Redman despite Baldock spending the maximum $25,000 and Redman basically zero. This reinforces again to me that advertising has only a minor impact on votes.

Stuff reports:

Labour and the Greens will unveil their policies to cut power prices on Thursday.

The announcement follows criticism of Labour leader David Shearer after he said the party would make changes, but did not say what they would be.

Shearer said on Sunday that Labour would make changes to the electricity sector if it was successful in the 2014 general election.

He said he was announcing the plan because it was only fair to those considering buying shares in Mighty River Power.

Or, they are trying desperately to scare people off. The more relevent information they should be disclosing is whether they will purchase back the shares, if they win Government.

“The reason we’re doing this is because we both share the same ambition to bring down electricity prices,” Shearer said.

Really? I hope media ask Labour about how their proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme will double the impact of the ETS on power prices.

Also look at all these Green party policies that would push the price of power up:

• Development of a fully renewable electricity generation system – that will push costs up as renewables tend to cost more.
  
• Encourage the development of emerging renewable technologies by setting Feed In Tariffs whereby they will be paid a higher rate per kWh generated for the first few years; – ie force consumers to pay more for electricity
• The Green Party does not favour further large hydro plants – ie no economies of scale
• The Green Party believes that the best way to reduce emissions from mining and burning coal is to leave the coal in the ground
• Phase out fossil fuels, starting with coal
• Making all new deep sea drilling within territorial waters, the EEZ and the continental shelf for fossil fuels a prohibited activity

Now if you think these policies will lead to cheaper electricity, I have a bridge for sale you can buy.

I can’t find data for New Zealand on costs of various sources, but this US graph illustrates pretty well.

Now nuclear is not an option for NZ. The Greens want coal banned. They also want no more large hydro projects. They want NZ to be 100% renewables. And both Labour and Greens want to double the impact of the ETS on power prices.

The idea of cheaper power prices under a Labour/Green Government is as plausible as Palmerston North becoming a tourist mecca.

I am a fan of renewable energy, but decisions on using it need to be based on it being cost effective. Blanket bans and prohibitions on coal and large scale hydro will inevitably lead to much higher power prices.

The Ministry of Health has just published a survey of NZers and alcohol. The results are interesting, compared to five years ago. I think they show again how exaggerated the moral panic around alcohol has been.

• The proportion of NZers who have had an alcoholic drink in the last year has dropped from 84% to 80%
• The proportion of 15 to 17 year olds who had a drink in the last year has dropped from 75% to 59%. This shows how absolutely wrong it would have been to increase the alcohol purchase age to 20. The current age of 18 is leading to fewer young people drinking than in the past.
• The proportion of adults who have “hazardous” drinking has dropped from 26% to 22% for men and from 11% to 9% for women.
• The proportion of 18 – 24 year old drinkers who are hazardous drinkers has fallen from 49% to 36%.
• The more deprived the area someone lives in, the less likely they are to drink, but if they do the more likely they are to be a hazardous drinker. 11% of adults who live in the least deprived areas are hazardous drinkers compared to 18% of adults in the most deprived areas.

These results are very consistent with other surveys in recent years.

(Apologies readers – today’s post is a little later than usual! As such I’ve added links to videos of the oral questions via inthehouse.co.nz – speters)

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers

1. DAVID SHEARER (LAB) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? (video)
2. TODD McCLAY (NAT) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its share offer programme to reduce debt and free up capital for priority spending? (video)
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZF) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that he has met the requirements of the Cabinet Manual to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards in his ministerial capacity, his political capacity and his personal capacity; if so, why? (video)
4. Hon PHIL HEATLEY (NAT) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the latest benefit figures? (video)
5. Hon DAVID PARKER (LAB) to the Minister of Finance: Will the recent rise in the New Zealand dollar to a post-float high on the Trade Weighted Index cause job losses among non-primary exporters and import substitution businesses? (video)
6. JULIE ANNE GENTER (GRE) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have a plan to fund the Auckland City rail link in the upcoming Budget given that public backing for the rail project is more than twice as strong as the Government’s proposed new motorway north from Puhoi? (video)
7. Dr JIAN YANG (NAT) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government recognising the importance of China for New Zealand’s trade, education and tourism sectors? (video)
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (LAB) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What responsibility, if any, does he take for Solid Energy’s precarious financial position? (video)
9. NICKY WAGNER (NAT) to the Minister of Housing: How will the $320 million settlement of Housing New Zealand’s insurance claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the Government’s priority of rebuilding Christchurch? (video)
10. GRANT ROBERTSON (LAB) to the Prime Minister: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau? (video)
11. MIKE SABIN (NAT) to the Associate Minister of Social Development: What early results can he report from the Government’s efforts to deal with welfare fraud? (video)
12. GARETH HUGHES (GRE) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will he recommend returning the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill to the select committee so that the public can have a say on the so-called “Anadarko Amendment”; if not, why not? (video)

National is asking five questions, Labour four, the Greens two, and NZ First one. Patsy of the day goes to Nicky Wagner for question 9 – how will the $320 million settlement of Housing New Zealand’s insurance claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the Government’s priority of rebuilding Christchurch?

Labour is asking the PM a gotcha, and on exchange rates, Solid Energy, and the GCSB Director’s appointment. The Greens are asking on the Auckland City rail link and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, and NZ First is asking the PM a gotcha.

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

1. Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (third reading)
2. Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) (third reading)
3. Continental Shelf Amendment Bill (third reading)
4. Reserves Amendment Bill (third reading)
5. Wildlife Amendment Bill (third reading)
6. Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill (second reading)
7. Immigration Amendment Bill (second reading)

The Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2), Continental Shelf Amendment Bill, Reserves Amendment Bill and Wildlife Amendment Bill (formerly the omnibus Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill) are being guided through the house by Simon Bridges and received their third reading together. The bills aims to promote prospecting for, exploration for, and mining of Crown owned minerals for the benefit of New Zealand.

The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill makes changes to the provision of legal services paid for by the Crown, including legal aid and lawyers for child and youth advocate services. Specifically, it limits the number of legal aid grants and increases the amount legally aided people must pay. The Bill also limits eligibility for legal aid, reintroduces a user charge for civil and family legal aid, and enables interest to be charged on legal aid debts. Judith Collins is in charge and it received its second reading today.

The Immigration Amendment Bill amends the Immigration Act for the purpose of discouraging people-smuggling. Specifically, it establishes a legal framework for the mandatory detention, under a group warrant, of irregular migrants arriving as part of a mass arrival group. Michael Woodhouse is in charge and its second reading is in progress.

John Key has announced:

“Today I am announcing that, as part of this package, we will be investing an additional $158 million over four years into tourism,” says uriMr Key.

“Achieving growth in tourism earnings requires targeted new investment to position New Zealand as a high value destination in markets with real potential for growth.”

In the year ended March 2012 tourism generated $9.6 billion of revenue and was 15.4 per cent of export earnings. It was 3.3 per cent of GDP and employed 6.2 per cent of the workforce.

“Later this week when I attend New Zealand’s premier tourism conference, TRENZ, I will announce details of where this $158 million will be invested,” says Mr Key.

Tourism is a great export earner, and helps reduce the current account deficit.

Current Vote Tourism is:

• Departmental Costs $7.6m
• Tourism Strategy $1.2m
• Tourism Marketing $83.8m
• National Cycleway $12.1m

A $158m increase over four years is an average of an extra $40m a year which is basically a 50% increase in the marketing budget.

Stats NZ has the latest life expectancy data:

• Life expectancy at birth is 83.0 years for females and 79.3 years for males.
• Life expectancy at birth has increased by 0.8 years for females and 1.3 years for males since 2005–07.
• Female life expectancy at birth is 3.7 years higher than male life expectancy at birth, down from the largest difference of 6.4 years in 1975–77.
• The gap between Māori and non-Māori life expectancy at birth has narrowed to 7.3 years. This compares with 9.1 years in 1995–97, 8.5 years in 2000–02, and 8.2 years in 2005–07.
• Life expectancy at birth is 76.5 years for Māori females and 72.8 years for Māori males, compared with 83.7 years for non-Māori females and 80.2 years for non-Māori males.

The closing of the gap between men and women, and between Maori and non-Maori is a good thing (so long as the gap closing is by both getting better, not worse!).

The average life expectancy for a 45 year old non-Maori male is another 37 years, so that may be 47 years of Kiwiblog to look forward to 🙂

If like me you are a male born in 1967, then there is a 96.4% chance you are still alive, and 3.6% chance you have already died. The chance of dying within the next year is 0.2%.

If you were a male born 65 years ago, there is a 12.8% chance you have died and a 1.1% chance you will die in the next year.

The age at which you have a 10% chance of dying in the next year if you are a male is 86 and at 90 you have a 16% chance of dying in the next year.

At age 67, the chance you have died is 28.1% for Maori men, 21.2% for Maori women, 12.2% for non-Maori men and 8.8% for non-Maori women.

A few years ago the SOE Kordia purchased the ISP Orcon. I wasn’t sure it was a great idea for a government owned enterprise to be purchasing private companies in an incredibly competitive market. However SOEs are meant to make decisions for commercial reasons, and presumably Kordia saw it as adding value to their business.

Yesterday Kordia sold Orcon. Just as their purchase as a matter for the board, so was the sale. Neither require or gain shareholder approval. Ministers would have been informed, but are not needed to consent.

But Clare Curran has put out a release suggesting that Orcon is a strategic asset and that somehow it is all the Government’s fault. Very bizarre. Her release says:

The sale of the state-owned Telco Orcon is shrouded in mystery and appears to be yet another example of short-term thinking by this Government, says Labour’s Communications and IT spokesperson Clare Curran.

It worries me when MPs do not realise that there is in fact no Government decision involved. Does Labour think Ministers should run SOEs directly and decide for them what assets they purchase or sell? Why have boards of directors?

Ministers would be consulted on decisions like this, but are not the decision makers.

“The bottom line is the Government should have decided whether Orcon is now a strategic asset and if it is an important means to drive uptake of ultrafast broadband.

The suggestion that Orcon is a strategic asset is staggering, and shows that I think some in Labour regard everything as a strategic asset. Orcon has around 5% market share and if Labour think you can consider Orcon as a strategic asset, then I can only assume they believe the Government should purchase Chorus, Telecom, Vodafone, 2 Degrees, Inspire Net and well just about every company in New Zealand.

Then on this new definition of strategic asset, they should buy both Foodstuffs and Progressive because what is more strategic than food? But wait if a 5% market share is also now strategic, they better buy up the 4 squares also!

Now you might say Labour have not said Orcon is a strategic asset, just that it might be. Well I think such distinctions are meaningless when a company is so clearly a million miles away from being a strategic asset.

If I was attacking the decision to sell Orcon, I’d focus on whether Kordia has actually made a profit or a loss on the purchase. Did Kordia lose taxpayer money by buying an ISP?

Audrey Young reports:

Trade Minister Tim Groser says his bid to become the next director-general of the World Trade Organisation is no longer “a long shot”.

From the original nine candidates, Mr Groser has made it through the next round of five candidates.

Over the next few weeks, they will be reduced to a shortlist of two.

“What we thought was a very long shot I don’t think you could describe as a very long shot any longer,” he told the Herald.

Mr Groser is a former trade ambassador to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), based in Geneva.

He is competing with candidates from Indonesia (Mari Pangestu), South Korea (Taeho Bark), Mexico (Herminio Blanco) and Brazil (Roberto Azevedo).

He said he needed strong support from developed and developing countries to survive this far.

“Given that three out of four members in the WTO, 120 out of 159, are a developing country, I needed to get strong support from developing countries to survive politically.

I would not be surprised if Tim makes the final two. However my expectations are that while Groser is the strongest candidate (by far) on a personal level, being from a developed country will count against him with most of the voting countries. Hence when it gets down to the final two, the other candidate will win through.

I hope I am wrong, as we need a strong WTO to liberalise world trade and Groser would do an excellent job.

The Guardian profiles the five remaining candidates. I think Roberto Azevedo from Brazil could be the one to beat.

The Dom Post editorial:

There are good reasons to be cynical about Labour leader David Shearer’s vague promise to rein in power prices if he becomes prime minister next year.

It’s like King Canute claiming he can stop the tide – except King Canute knew he couldn’t.

First, it will have escaped nobody’s attention that Labour had plenty of time to ease the burden of electricity costs for households and businesses during the nine years it was in government from 1999 to 2008. But instead of putting in place measures to achieve that, it presided over a nearly 70 per cent rise in prices and happily raked in more than $3 billion in dividends from the state-owned power companies.

And this was a time of record surpluses.

Clearly, Labour had no problem with families and small businesses being hit with unnecessarily inflated electricity bills when the cash was helping to fund its big spending policies. That only appears to have become a concern once it was turfed out of office.

Exactly.

Mr Shearer says the policy has arisen from the prospect of power prices soaring further once 49 per cent of Mighty River Power, Genesis and Meridian are sold into private hands. However, as the price gouging by the three companies between 2001 and 2007 showed, vesting full public ownership in a power company does not necessarily guarantee lower prices. Indeed, figures issued by Energy Minister Simon Bridges in February showed that, at that time, private companies were offering the lowest rates in 15 of the 21 regions on the Powerswitch website, which allows consumers to compare prices.

What matters is having choice and competition, not ownership.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Mr Shearer’s main aim in announcing the policy the day before the first shares in the part privatisation of MRP were offered to New Zealand retail investors was to dampen down interest in the sale. The woeful lack of detail only supports the view that it has been made up on the hoof and rushed out as a last-minute sabotage tactic.

Sabotage is a good word for it, but it was such a pitiful attempt at sabotage, with no details, that it was more like a damp fire-cracker.

~ John Stringer, www.CoNZervative.wordpress.com

“you have the satisfying sense of a five-course meal with a great dessert at the end.”
I went and saw this on opening night last night. I have to say, this is Tom Cruise’s best movie since A Few Good Men (1992) and Vanilla Sky (2001). But I’m a huge fan of intelligent sci-fi. so may be biased. First the synopsis…

A veteran US tech. (Cruise, Jack/”Tech 49″) and his female British station assistant (‘Victor’), United Nations/Earth Fed. 2077, are assigned to the devastated Earth after “the war.” Humans won but were forced to leave for Titan, a moon of Saturn. They protect several huge nuclear extractors, processing sea water as energy for humanity on Titan under the NASA control of The Tet circling above them in the atmosphere, like an orbiting moon (destroyed by aliens). Comm.s link and Control is “Sally,” evoking “HAL” of 2001, “Data” or “Computer” of Star Trek). Jack and Vic. maintain really cool drones that are mopping up enemy ‘alien’ Scavs (scavengers) on Earth. But memories torment Tech 49.

Ok, that’s all I’m going to say, as the real star of this film is the story, and that is why this film is so good. The story rocks first. Now to the stars…

Tom Cruise (Jack Harper/Tech 49) is brilliant as lead. He doesn’t over act, is less intrusive, and – like Vanilla Sky – moves beyond clichéd handsome sex-hunk saving the world single-handed and getting the girl (hooray, hate that rubbish). Oblivion has restored my interest in Cruise as an actor after several recent flops (Rock of Ages 2012). His acting is a good balance. Perhaps three divorces has grounded him. Morgan Freeman (Breech) plays his usual wise-head sage role, but is under-cooked in this movie (I would have liked more screen time). One of two leading ladies is Olga Kurylenko (Julia) a Ukranian actress whom we’ve seen as a recent Bond girl (Quantum of Solace). She looks Maori and plays the juxtaposed black-haired First Lady to red-head surrogate Andrea Riseborough (Victoria ‘Victor’), a British actress in her first A-list role, Cruise’s mission side-kick.

This is a movie of a graphic novel (like Walking Dead, Constantine, et al) by Joseph Kosinski (who also directs, brilliantly). The novel is as yet unpublished by Radical but was given out at a 2009 comics con. delayed by art development for the film. The concept made it to film first after initial conception in the graphic novel genre, a form of backwards development.
“Oblivion” is Prometheus meets Star Wars (Ewoks and Sandmen) meets Red Planet. There is also some time travel interplay. It has a great kick at the end.

We begin in 2077 after the Earth has been devastated after the arrival of aliens. Humanity fights back with nukes, wins, but in the process devastates the earth. Earthquakes and tsunamis finish off civilisation and humanity flees to Titan, a moon of Saturn. Our heroes are on Earth as “An Efficient Team” in a sky station 3000 feet up, maintaining war drones and protecting the massive sea water nuclear processors. Scavs (scavengers) are still about, remnants of the defeated ‘alien’ army who interfere with drones and the processing plants, like the Ewoks and Sandmen of Star Wars.

The design of this film is immaculate (Cruise calls it “elegant”). The space craft are stunning, on a par with the predatory cat droid of Red Planet (‘AMEE’). Delicious. Cruises’ space and ground transports are awesome.

Sci fi frequently adopts Classical or Biblical allusions. The names of space craft often feature (Zion, Nebuchadnezzar, Prometheus, Icarus, etc.) and in Oblivion, Jack’s mission craft is called “Odyssey,” an obvious message there. Latin prose from Roman poet Horatius’ The Lay (stanza XXVII) also features strongly in this film, but no spoiler.

Another high point are the sweeping devastated vistas (ala Planet of the Apes): Washington DC as a flooded delta, the tip of the Empire State Building, the tops of the Brooklyn Bridge etc, you get the picture. At times it feels like New Zealand but was shot in Iceland.

There’s a Modernist-feel to the sky station that ’49’ and ‘Victor’ inhabit, coupled with a 1960s Mad Men chic that flavours the high-tech Star Wars/Red Planet-esque sci-fi aesthetic.

The gadgets and armoury are gorgeous, restrained but highly designed. This is not the grunge of Alien or the pop culture of Star Wars, something satistfyingly in-between. The comm.s link from NASA control in The Tet is crinkly black and white (like the 1969 moon landings). Nice.

The story grips you immediately, and has twists and turns. Good movies move through several plot-altering episodes, and Oblivion does this in spades. So you have the satisfying sense of a five-course meal with a great dessert at the end.

Tech 49 has a huge secret that he has kept from Victor, who plays the Company game and is a rigid stickler for protocol. Recurring memories, deja vu and bad dreams are a key to this movie, but no more on that.

This held me all the way. Oblivion is luscious in its cinematography, the CGI Special FX are dazzling unobtrusive supporting actors serving the story, which is deep, satisfying, moving, exciting, and resolves brilliantly. I empathised with the characters, came to hate the enemy, and enjoyed the ride at several levels.

9/10 (one point behind The Avengers, a perfect move, because I wanted more development of Freeman).

~ John Stringer, www.coNZervative.wordpress.com

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Dr Jackie Blue as the Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Commissioner.

“I congratulate Dr Blue on her appointment as EEO Commissioner for the Human Rights Commission,” Ms Collins says.

“The EEO Commissioner has an important role to play in championing EEO principles, issues and practices in New Zealand as well as appreciating their relationship to social, economic and labour market trends.

“Dr Blue is committed to human rights and equity issues and is currently the Chair of three cross-party groups in Parliament. I’m confident she will be a very capable Commissioner.”

Dr Blue will be leaving Parliament to take up her new position. She will assume office on 4 June 2013.

Congratulations to Jackie on her appointment. I was very critical of the appointment of former National MP Brian Neeson to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, so I will criticise political appointments that lack merit. but this is not one of those cases.

Jackie has a good track record at working with MPs from all parties, and will do well in the role I am sure.

Her departure from Parliament will of course create a list vacancy. The next candidate on National’s list is former MP Paul Quinn. Media have previously reported he does not desire or intend to return to Parliament. If he declines the spot, then Wellington Central candidate Paul Foster-Bell will become a List MP.

If Tim Groser does become WTO Director-General, then the next on the list is broadcaster Claudette Hauiti.

Stuff reports:

An Invercargill man convicted of raping a woman in 2004 is angry she was upset by his appearance outside her house on Sunday and says what happened is in the past and she needs to get over what happened.

Craig Crofts moved next door to the woman in 2011, which outraged the community and spurred the justice minister to propose an amendment to the Harassment Act.

Crofts had moved from that address but on Sunday was seen outside the woman’s house by her partner, who said Crofts was at the end of the driveway. …

Yesterday, Crofts said he lived four blocks from the woman and had every right to walk down the street.

He had been returning from his father’s house and, though it was not his usual route, he had done nothing wrong.

There was “no particular reason” he had chosen to walk down that street, he said. As he was walking past the woman’s house, her neighbour had called out to him. He had said hello to the neighbour, but he did not stop at the end of her driveway, he said.

“It’s been eight years – it’s in the past. It’s a public area and it’s my right to walk down the street. I don’t want anything to do with her. I got over it; she needs to get over it, too.”

What a nasty piece of work. There is no way he just happened to walk home that way, and stop. He is harrassing her, after raping her.

Crofts has at least 77 convictions and has been sent to prison on 13 or more occasions. Sadly he only got four years for the 2004 rape. Since then he has been back inside at least twice – relating to breaches of harassment orders and stealing women’s underwear.

Last year, Justice Minister Judith Collins proposed a new protection order under the Harassment Act following The Southland Times’ story about Crofts moving next door to the woman he raped.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Ms Collins said the proposed order was a priority for the minister and would probably be introduced to the House in late May.

The order would allow victims of a serious violent or sexual offence to apply to the court for protection. The advantage would be the new order relies on an application by the victim, and could include special conditions designed to address the particular circumstances of the case.

Breaching the order could be punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $5000.

For two breaches in three years, the maximum penalty would be increased to two years’ imprisonment for a third contravention.

Sounds very much needed for cases like this.

Fox News reports:

The Boston Marathon headquarters has been locked down after two explosions were reported near the finish line, a spokesman told Reuters.

Witnesses reportedly heard two booms near the finish line inside the Fairmount Copley Plaza Hotel that sounded like two claps of thunder. 

The Associated Press says there are reports of injuries. 

Unless this is a freak accident, this is a terrible criminal event – to target marathon runners. One can only assume they wnted to kill or injure as many people as possible.

There are first hand reports on Twitter of horrific injuries, legs blown off etc.

My prayers and thoughts are with the victims, and with the United States today.

UPDATE: Two or three dead so far. My emotions are torn between profound sadness and massive anger. What should have been a day of joy has become a day of tragedy. May those responsible be found and removed from civilisation.

UPDATE2: The NY Post is reporting 12 dead and 50 injured. Note no other media are reporting this many dead. Two dead and six critical is the latest on CNN.

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

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Although, we are pre-taping the programme hours before the 3rd reading of Louisa Wall’s marriage equality bill—it currently looks as though it is set to pass. What we want to know—what will happen now? Will we notice the difference? What will Thursday look like in this new environment?

WILL MIGHTY RIVER SHARES = MIGHTY PROFITS FOR YOUR BOTTOM LINE?: The shares into Mighty River Power open to the public this week. So far 440,000 people pre-registered for shares but how many of them will actually be purchasing shares? How keen are mum & dad investors? What could happen to the Mighty River shares should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter close? What will this mean for power prices? Can reform lower power prices? Or are rising power prices much like death and taxes-a certainty?

FEELING SUPPRESSED?: The Jesse Ryder case is one of the many recent examples where suppression laws have come into question. The men accused of Ryder’s attack have suppression but one citizen journalist is now facing charges of breaking suppression after videotaping the two men and posting the video on-line. Fair? A step-too far? Is it time to have a look at our suppression laws? Are too many people given suppression unnecessarily? Or in a country of 4.5 million—is suppression necessary to protect privacy? Are there some crimes that should be named & shamed?

There are two ways to get in on the pub political action:
First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 17th of April at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

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

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

Our Panel: Labour MP Jacinda Ardern, National MP Jami-Lee Ross, and Green Party MP Holly Walker.

John Key has announced changes to the oversight of the GCSB and SIS:

1: The pool of candidates who are able to perform the role of Inspector General will be widened, by removing the requirement that the person be a retired High Court judge. This will broaden the range of experience and capability available to the role. For example, Australia’s equivalent is a former ombudsman.

2: The Inspector General’s office will be made more proactive, taking it a step further from the role it currently has, which is more review-focused. The office would be able to undertake its own inquiries more easily, and it will be expected to specifically note publicly each year its view on whether or not the agencies it oversees are compliant with the law.

The Government will increase the scope of the Inspector General’s active review programme to include a much broader range of the agencies’ activities. This will have the effect of making the Inspector General’s role more proactive.

3: The resourcing and staffing of the Inspector General’s office will be increased, and the new role of Deputy Inspector General will be created.

4: Legislation will explicitly expand the Inspector General’s work programme, including compliance audits and greater reporting responsibilities. GCSB’s own quarterly reporting processes will be tightened up.

5: The Inspector General’s work will become more transparent, through greater availability of its reports and views publicly.

These all look like good changes, in line with what Kitteridge recommended.

I presume these proposed changes be open for submissions, and there may be further changes that can be proposed and considered.

“It is now the responsible thing to do to clarify the legislation, to make it clear the GCSB can provide support to agencies which are undertaking their lawful duties.

“To do anything less would be to leave our national security open to threat, and as Prime Minister I am simply not willing to do that. To do nothing would be an easy course of action politically, but it would be an irresponsible one.”

Mr Key says thetre proposed changes to the GCSB Act will clarify its long-standing practices, so the GCSB can provide assistance to other agencies, subject to conditions and oversight.

I think this is inevitable and desirable. It would be silly to allow what was basically a drafting error in the 2003 law, neuter our capacity to respond to potential security threats.

However it is important that any legislation restricts the GCSB to assistance where an independent warrant has been granted to the other agency. And the changes above must include specific disclosure of such assistance as part of regular reporting so that one can see that any assistance is rare and only in line with warrants issued by the appropriate authorities.

I assume and hope that the legislation will follow the normal legislative path, including committee submissions. Of course it will go to the Intelligence and Security Committee, rather than a select committee.

The ISC comprises (I think) John Key, David Shearer, Peter Dunne, John Banks and Russel Norman

Today, Mr Key also released the terms of reference into the unauthorised disclosure of Ms Kitteridge’s report.

The Commissioners of the report, DPMC Chief Executive Andrew Kibblewhite and GCSB Director Ian Fletcher, have appointed David Henry to conduct the inquiry.

Good. It is outrageous that the draft report was leaked, and there are only a few people who could have had access to it. Hopefully the inquiry will discover the person responsible.

By David’s Flatmate

People ask me where are you living these days. Well, due to Heidi Klum not returning any of my many emails, txt’s or skype calls I’ve ended up with David Farrar as my flatmate. Shoot for the ground and you can’t miss I say.

Now, evidently he has a little known/read blog which I think is called “Kiwioil Meathead Captured Cooked”…I’m not too sure as I tend to engross myself in the IRD’s Blog titled “How much do I owe in Child-support to my numerous ex -wives”.

Anyway, I digress. So David’s my flatmate, and flatting with him is like living with a born again Richard Simmons. I’ve known him for well over 20 years and seeing him turn into a Health food zealot often borders on Monty Python-esque humour.

In fact, a typical evening’s conversation from David goes along the lines of….”Hey did you know I ran 673 kms at the Gym, came home, devoured a brussel-sprout and am thinking now I’m thin and skinny I’ll get married”.

Too funny right! I know, but pretend I’m laughing at Southpark which is the only television programme we watch…..he’s none the wiser…… poor man.

So, last Friday night he actually surprised me, I was expecting the normal… “G’day, today I ran 49 billion kms, ate a single uncooked grain of brown rice and am thinking of walking to Antarctica this weekend”…Instead he said “Come look at this I need you to write up a Car Report for me…..BMW have given me this white car and you know a bit about cars, so take it for a drive and write the report.

I said…. “Dave, I’m a good looking guy, I’m single and it’s Friday night…I have options”……He pointed out that I’m an Orang-utan with many ex-wives and that a white BMW was about as lucky as I was going to get on any night.

So, like the cool young hip things we are, we jumped into the latest BMW 320i and went Friday night cruising in Wellington.

Dave’s driving, and it seems an opportune time to begin the review.

Ok, so this is where we review of the bad stuff first. Like any good motoring journalist you have to put the ‘boot’ (cleverly hidden car pun right there) in somewhere. And as we are both nowhere near ever becoming motoring journalists I think it’s best to get the negatives out the way first.

The first major drawback of the car is that it’s a 320i. And this was compounded by the fact that it had the 320i badge on the back. Sure, it’s true, Dave and I have no shame, but seriously Mr BMW person, you could have saved our dignity and given us something with a big donkey in it. The one saving grace is that it has tinted windows, so we didn’t lose our cool.

Then there is the English lady who was on the Sat Nav. It was like listening to my English mother…she kept mispronouncing Wellington Place Names. So that was worth a laugh. However I don’t blame BMW about that, because after all this really is a Remuera car, and I’m sure the English voice settings are perfect in its natural environment……probably something like…..“Benson Road Cafe, 20 metres, and you have reached your gorgeous trophy wife”. I sooooo miss Auckland.

The next major drawback was that the stereo immediately picked up David’s iPhone song list……. Turn on the car and being accosted by Sonny and Cher’s – You got me Babe was a low moment. BMW, there are apps to jam both Sonny and Cher and the Carpenters.

It gets worse…..seriously.

So Dave’s driving the car right, and he’s trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about.

This is a verbatim record of his observations about BMW’s most popular car; “Fuck, it’s got bright indicators”. “The Brakes work”. “It turns tight“. “It goes fast”. “I like this car”.

So, those were the low points of the drive.

Now for the good bits of the 320i. We know Mr BMW is hanging on our every word so as to use one of our quotes in their next NBR advert.

I take over the driving from David. NB: I will declare my interest in BMW’s…I love them, having owned three in the past.

This 320i really is a great car to drive. I it just feels at home on the road and nothing phased it at all. We didn’t even bother looking at the instruction manual – mainly because we know that Whale’s a big follower of this blog and would take our man cards off us if we even knew where the instruction manual was.

On the Sunday, we headed off to Petone foreshore to kayak over to Soames Island. However, we get there and it’s cutting up rough…southerly, rain, freezing…a typical Wellington summer day…and we were trash talking how we will make it to the Island.

In between the trash talking I was playing with the entertainment system, audio and sat nav etc. It is easy to use and very intuitive! We even changed the clock settings due to Daylight savings giving me an extra hour in bed. So, all the crap that Jeremy Clarkson goes on about not being able to work BMW’s thingamabob icontrol button system, seems to be nothing more than that of a man clinging tightly to his iPhone 4s and not embracing new technology.

Ok, so it’s blowing a Southerly, the trash talk is getting up there, then Mr Kayak man turns up.

We get out of the snug Beeeemer and are ready to go!

“Ah…sorry, it’s too rough for you to go out there”. Said the Kayak delivery man. Farrar sold out and was back in the car ready to go home. I pushed a little harder and explored the options. The response from the kayak man was soul destroying and a salutatory lesson in listening to the experts…..”Listen, I would go out there but I’m a pro, you aren’t and I kinda like my kayaks”.

So, back into the car and off to Days Bay in Eastbourne in atrocious weather.

Driving round to Eastbourne in a Southerly is a real test of any driver’s mettle, the car feels solid on the road, and the pounding rain doesn’t phase the car.

After a quick café stop, where David said to the waitress…”Hold the ice, I don’t eat solids” …seriously, I don’t make this stuff up….. we went off driving.

And the driving part is actually fun in this car. The 320i doesn’t feel like its underpowered or lacking in get up and go -I was genuinely surprised. We headed up into the twisting hills of Khannndaaalaaaah….as our Sat Nav woman pronounced it and this car just felt a delight to drive.

Another thing, when driving was that everything felt familiar in the car. As I said, I’ve owned 3 BMW’s and when I jumped in it seemed so easy to know where things are. So anyone who has owned a BMW in the past will quite happily feel at ease in this cockpit. Can I say cockpit? Oh, yeah I can, because I’m not a real journalist and this is a little read blog.

Now, I know that all 2 readers of this blog want to know the more ‘grunty’ stuff about the car…or techy bits. So, for all you detail nerds out there, here are some of the more technical aspects:

• Engine stuff…have no idea, we didn’t bother lifting the bonnet, but it goes well and sounds quiet.
• Fuel consumption was care of BMW’s fuel card, so it was fucking fantastic!
• Co2 emissions ….not sure as we never ever looked in the rear-view mirror.
• The boot looks like a boot. Dark, uninteresting and no doubt can hold 400 litres of whatever they measure boot space with.
• Full or space saver spare tyre? LOL, like who cares.  The last time I got a flat tyre was when I was rally driving dad’s Mark 5 Ford Cortina Sport on Waikato Roads.
• Reverse camera with guidelines and even radar……shows just how close you really are.
• Lots of leg room behind David when he’s driving.
• And of course the most important thing that us motoring journalists focus on “Is the car value for money”. I’m of the opinion that if you can afford this car brand-new, then you have a sound grasp of the value of money.

So, Mr BMW, thank you for lending us the latest BMW 320i to test drive.

And judging from the feedback, all 2 out of 2 Kiwioil Blog readers agree this is a great car.

Anyone who wants to read more about the 320i, and I have no idea why, because I’ve said it all and more…here is the link to the official website:

http://www.bmw.co.nz/com/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2011/showroom/introduction.html

No doubt will be full of boring advertising speak like…”So you’ve finally made it, why not go the extra step and really finally make it by driving a BMW, you deserve the best, no seriously you do, because you have finally made it…now punch the air”.

So that’s the review, and while having to hand back a cool car, I begin to doubt myself and think I haven’t finally made it, but my melancholy is rapidly replaced as I walk back into the flat and see the child-like delight on David’s face as he beams proudly;

“Hey, did you know that each individual pea is less than a calorie?”

I think how can life not be great!

John Key was on Q+A yesterday. A number of interesting aspects of the interview:

JOHN KEY – NZ Prime Minister 
 Well, I think that’s the, sort of, $64 million question or maybe the 1.35 billion question, given the number of people here.   I mean, what we know is we produce what they want to buy.  That’s the really good news part of the story.  Fundamentally, they want food, whether it’s ultimately aquaculture or dairy, meat, it doesn’t really matter.  They want that food.  They want the quality of that food.  They want the assurance that the food will be of a standard that they expect.  Secondly, they want to educate their children, and they want to come and travel.  And there are specialist areas where it can be a niche in the Chinese market, like, say, Rakon is to New Zealand, for instance.  But in this market, you know, a niche can be a very, very big order for New Zealand, so there’s lots of potential.

CORIN Tim Groser – I heard him say on this trip New Zealand’s trade to China – China could be our biggest trade partner within two years at current growth levels.  What does that mean for New Zealand longer term?

It means we may be not so fucked as the rest of the world when Europe crashes 🙂

JOHN  Well, I think the good news part of the story is, I mean, we’re here and we promote this relationship and the trade aspects of this relationship because we genuinely believe it means better jobs, it means more jobs, it means, you know, greater opportunities for New Zealanders.  I mean, the challenge always for New Zealand, I think, is a) making sure that we maintain our brand and quality, maintain margin so we make money, and the second thing is we don’t want to become solely China dependant. I mean, this is a market that could at one level buy everything New Zealand produces, but the reason we go to Latin America, as we did a few weeks ago, or we sell to other markets and focus on them is that in our history, we’ve been solely-

While China will become our largest trading partner, we must make sure it doesn’t become our only one.

JOHN Okay, but let’s put that in a bit of context.  If you take the situation where Ian Fletcher was appointed, so, you know, we had significant media coverage and, you know, a lot of very, very& highly critical claims being made personally directed at me, right? 
  
CORIN But you did not make it clear when you were asked that you had shoulder-tapped Ian Fletcher.

JOHN  I was asked a specific question in Parliament not with any warning, as a supplementary question, didn’t even know it was coming, it bore very little relation to the primary question at the end of a parliamentary question session, and, actually, the answer I gave was perfectly correct.  Now, if the test is I’ve got to give you absolutely all of the full information – it comes back to the point I was making last week – then I need to actually slow that process down so that I can be- you know, I can meet the people’s expectations-

CORIN Did that episode get to you, though?  I mean, you only a couple of times in your whole time as Prime Minister have you lashed out at the media.  Were you genuinely wounded by that?

JOHN  Well, firstly, it wasn’t at all media, and secondly, the point is that my view was that there wasn’t balance on the way that that was being reported. I mean, you had the State Services Commissioner coming out totally supporting what I was saying, and, actually, that wasn’t always fully covered in that way.  My reputation matters to me because, you know, I am honest and I am up front.  I also am way more accessible than virtually any other leader in the world, so if you want to go and ask other leaders, you have a limited number of questions, you have lots of warning what they’re going to ask them about, they have lots of time to prepare questions.  I do two or three stand-ups a day, and I’m asked questions about a huge number of issues. 

It is a fair point that Key as Prime Minister is more accessible than not just any of his foreign counterparts, but also I think more so that any of his predecessors.

Helen Clark, to her credit, did re-institute the formal weekly press conference, and was more available than her predecessors. But I’m pretty sure that she didn’t do anywhere near the number of media standups that Key does – a lot of her engagements would be photo ops only.

They collect and publish data in the US on how often the President has done press conferences, interviews and gaggles or stand-ups.

It would be fascinating if anyone collated and published the same data on NZ Prime Ministers.

On the wider GCSB issue I’m one of those who said I thought the phone call to Ian Fletcher was unwise, and I stand by that. It would have been better to have just passed the details onto the SSC.

But one has to understand how different PMs have different styles, and they come with both pros and cons – and you generally can’t just choose part of a style.

Some refer to Key’s style as CEO style. He is constantly engaging with people, including (very importantly) those outside Wellington. He talks constantly to numerous leaders in business and other areas. He is very focused on getting the job done, more than process.

What this means is that sometimes he’ll not get the process right, and make a mistake.

But you know what. If I have a choice of a Geoffrey Palmer type Prime Minister who is a stickler for proper process at all times or a John Key type Prime Minister who actually gets things done, I know what I’m happy with. Now that’s not to say it is a choice between too extremes. In no way am I saying process is not important, just that you have to accept different leaders have different strengths and weaknesses.

CORIN Do you still want to do this job?

JOHN  I do. 
  
CORIN Do you want to carry on?

JOHN Well, look, you know, the thing is I’m actually enjoying it.  As Prime Minister, what are they going to remember when they look back?  And the answer is going to be is the economy strong, does the education system work better, does health system work better, is New Zealand a stronger, more confident country?  I’ve been Prime Minister for four and a half years.  My own personal view is that we are building that sort of New Zealand.  Now, you know, is there perfection?  There will never be perfection in politics, but you can do your very best and you can see the course, and that’s what we’ve done.  I really believe passionately that- And again, I’ve read lots of stuff in the media that I’m not going to be there in 2014, I’m not going to run National in the election, that’s not true.  None of that is true.  I’ll be there.  As long as National wants me there, I’ll be there in 2014.  Why?  Because I don’t think we’ve actually finished the job yet. And, you know, there will always be some weeks that are better than others, but for the most part I’m in an incredibly privileged position.  You know, I’m the 38th prime minister of New Zealand, and I’ll always be grateful to the New Zealand public that they gave me that chance.

If anyone thinks that John Key won’t lead National into 2014, they’ve either been having too many drinking sessions with David Shearer’s office (as Mr Robins at The Standard appears to have done) or they’re deluded.

If National wins a third term, it would not be guaranteed that Key would want to lead National into a 4th election. But that falls into the category of “nice problems to have and resolve” if National gets re-elected in 2014.

Next month, National and John Key will have been in power for four and a half years – half the nine years of the last Labour Government. I’ll blog some interesting poll comparisons comparing the parties and leaders at the 4.5 year marks.

Chester Borrows announced last week:

Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows today congratulated Police and the Ministry of Social Development on a joint investigation which has uncovered a sizeable welfare payment fraud out of South Auckland.

As part of the government’s new interagency fraud group, the Welfare Fraud Collaborative Action Programme, MSD and Police worked together on a case involving a bogus dental practice and hundreds of thousands of welfare dollars.

Police have arrested a 48 year old man and 51 year old woman as part of ‘Operation Novocaine’ and they face deception and other charges. They are being held at the Manukau Police Station overnight and will appear in the Manukau District Court tomorrow.

“Police worked closely with the Ministry of Social Development after it uncovered a scam involving beneficiaries who falsely claimed for emergency dental treatment,” says Mr Borrows.

“Providing false documents the pair allegedly took a 25 per cent cut of each payment. In total $375,000 was paid out since December 2011. The vast majority of the payments were benefit advances and the beneficiaries in the main are repaying these out of their regular benefit payments. The small number who received grants will also now be required to repay the money.

The amount is not major, but the number of people involved was. Each person on a benefit knew they were making a false claim or loan, as they paid the fake dentist practice 25% of the money they got from the taxpayer.

So I asked how many people were involved in this fraud scam, and it totaled 280 people. That’s a shocking number – and they are lucky all they’ve had to do was repay the loan or grant.

Steven Price blogs:

I confess I’m entirely befuddled by the Dominion Post’s front-page lead on Saturday, “Prosecution for breaching paedophile’s rights”. Can someone help me out here?

Isn’t the story conflating the Commission with the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, an independent office within the HRC? But why is the Office of Human Rights Proceedings bringing a “prosecution”? Does the DomPost mean a claim before the Human Rights Review Tribunal (it seems so, since it mentions the Tribunal later on)? That’s not a prosecution, which is a criminal action.

Or is it a charge that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has breached name suppression? Now, that would be a criminal prosecution, but why isn’t it being brought by the police?

If it’s a Human Rights Proceedings Office case, it sounds like a Privacy Act claim, and not a charge for breach of name suppression at all (some of the language in the story suggests it’s about the Privacy Act, though the Act gets barely a mention in the story). That would also suggest that the Privacy Commissioner has already been involved and either refused to uphold the complaint or couldn’t reach a settlement with the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That would be interesting to know.

And the Human Rights Commission has clarified:

A story published by The Dominion Post on Saturday 6 April “Prosecution for breaching pervert’s rights” and on Stuff.co.nz requires clarification.

The statement that the Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust needs to be clarified.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is instituting proceedings under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act requires the Director, at his discretion, to make the decision as to whether to institute proceedings.

The Director of Human Rights Proceedings is acting on a referral from the Privacy Commissioner that the Sensible Sentencing Trust interfered with an individual’s privacy.

This is quite important info. As far as I can tell, this matter doesn’t involve any of the Human Rights Commissioners. The agency that appears to be behind this issue is the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

This whole issue is quite convoluted. The man’s identity was actually published in Truth in 2009, and I believe again last week.

David Shearer has said:

David Shearer is today signalling Labour’s intention to make changes to the electricity sector to stem the relentless rise in power bills and to ease future pressure on prices from foreign investors looking to boost profits at the expense of consumers.

“Over the past 15 years, the annual average household power bill has gone up by almost $770, even after inflation is taken out. Prices in New Zealand are rising faster than in our major competitor countries.

Indeed power prices have gone up a lot over 15 years. When Labour were last in office they took $3.1 billi on in dividends from state owned power companies – despite massive surpluses.

Also Labour seem to not be mentioning that their ETS policy is to double the impact on power prices of the ETS, which will push prices higher.

The history of electricity cost increases in NZ, according to Stats NZ is:

• 4th Labour Govt – 98.7% or 16.4% a year
• 4th National Govt – 47.5% or 5.3% a year
• 5th Labour Govt – 63.7% or 7.1% a year
• 5th National Govt – 16.2% or 4.1% a year

So the average increases since 2008 are historically low, and the two periods of massive increases both occurred under Labour Governments.