The Press reports:

Accidentally releasing the private information of almost 10,000 claimants is a “very embarrassing” mistake for the Earthquake Commission, Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker says.

How sensitive or private was this information?

EQC said in their release:

This morning information about 9700 claims, including claim numbers and street addresses, was inadvertently sent to one person outside EQC who was not the intended recipient.

The information sent did not include customer names. Most of the information would require knowledge of EQC’s internal workings in order to interpret it.

EQC chief executive Ian Simpson says EQC staff contacted the recipient as soon as the breach was identified. The recipient has agreed to destroy all the information.

I have to say it sounds at the lesser end of the scale. No names, just addresses and claim numbers.

Canterbury Community Earthquake Recovery Network spokeswoman Leanne Curtis said the breach was “unfortunate”.

“It’s unfortunate for the people involved, [EQC] staff included, but I think it’s not unknown to most of us to have sent email to the wrong person at some stage in our life,” she said.

“I think this is a really good lesson for them and I hope they learn from it,” she said.

I understand the problem was the e-mail client did an auto-complete, and it was the wrong name. One can turn auto-complete off but mistakes will happen. Maybe you can put in some system rules where any e-mail with an attachment sent t an external address generates a warning?

Christchurch city councillor Glenn Livingstone said the breach was a “great betrayal of trust”.

Oh, don’t be hysterical.

Livingstone said Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee should also take responsibility for the mistake.

It takes a special kind of politician to turn an accident from a staff member (that was immediately realised and notified, involved no names of people, and was immediately retrieved) into an issue of ministerial responsibility.

Narelle Henson at Stuff reports:

Frustrated bosses say they can’t find suitable workers for even the most basic of labouring jobs despite the high unemployment rate, as they deal with people who turn up drunk if they come to work at all. …

But despite the many jobless, employers say continual absenteeism, substance abuse and poor work ethic appear to be making a lot of them unemployable.

Dave Connell, vice-president of the New Zealand Contractors Federation and managing director of Connell Construction, who is juggling operations in the Waikato and for the Christchurch rebuild, said 100 people responded to a Trade Me job advertisement for a junior construction role, but not one was suitable to hire.

“We are letting seven people go for every one we keep,” he said.

“I have had some people last half a day and walk off the job with $800 worth of [work] gear on them; one guy had six sick days in two weeks, and we have had issues with physicality too.”

Mr Connell said he was desperate to fill positions, but could not find anyone with the right attitude.

It will take many years to fix these problems.

The first is we need to stop people leaving school with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills.

The second is we need to install a work ethic in people from their teenage years. That is why I don’t support a minimum wage for under 18s, and why I support welfare reform.

1. Graham “Richo” Richardson on the Australian Labor Party leadership debacle.
2. Torben Akel investigates how the Govenrment’s radical new plan to manage freshwater is going down in the heartland.
3. Green MP, Eugenie Sage; Federated Farmers Environment spokesman, Ian MacKenzie; Ecologic Executive Director, Guy Salmon debate the proposal.
4. And we talk to the TV star who has burst the Novopay bubble.
5. On the Media Panel on Sunday Brian Edwards and Bill Ralston will have David Hastings author of “Extra Extra”, a new book on the raucous world of 19th century Auckland newspapers as their guest. And we will have details of how you can win a copy of the book

UPCOMING THIS WEEKEND 0930 SATURDAY – 0800 SUNDAY TV3

On Q+A this Sunday, NZ’s in the midst of a drought so how will it affect you and me and our pockets? We speak to the Finance Minister Bill English, and a climate scientist who says we have to no option but to adapt.

Also on the programme, is New Zealand set to become a world leader in energy? We speak to visiting economic geologist Dr Scott Tinker.

And the Catholic Church has a new Pope, we hear the view of a Kiwi Catholic.

On the panel this week is political scientist Dr Raymond Miller, former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, and Tower Investments’ CEO Sam Stubbs.

Join host Susan Wood and political editor Corin Dann on Q+A at 9am this Sunday on TV One.

Katie Chapman reports:

After months re-reviewing the options, $40,000 spent, and another three-hour debate, Wellington city councillors still can’t decide where they stand on the Basin Flyover.

Of course not. It’s not as if it is even a complex decision. The opponents don’t even have a viable alternative. They are doing the worse kind of negative politicking. Fine to put up alternatives, but they have failed to come up with anything sensible.

In a committee debate yesterday that saw cries about congestion woes clash with descriptions of a ‘‘monstrosity’’ in the city centre, councillors continued to tie themselves in knots over the controversial roading project.

I was walking through Victoria Park in Auckland on Wednesday and you know that has a motorway actually go over part of the park, and guess what – still pretty popular. And unless you move the Basin Reserve to Miramar, it is inevitable that you will need improved traffic flows at this major congestion point.

Finally, after 3 1/2 hours of debating what position to take, they voted not to take a position.

Sigh.

Jo Coughlan labelled opposition ‘‘anti-car’’ and ‘‘anti-family’’.

Yep. You can’t send the kids off to weekend sport on the bus or train. You drive them there, and watch their games etc.

Ray Ahipene-Mercer said it was time for councillors to accept officers’ advice, rather than reviewing the options repeatedly because they didn’t like the outcome.

Again, if there was a viable alternative, then fine. But they don’t have one.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett said having the largest local authority in the region unable  to fully back a project of regional significance was a bad look.

I wonder if we could get Nick to stand for Mayor of Wellington. He may be a leftie, but at least he is a sane leftie – like Ray Ahipene-Mercer.

Wellington City Council’s refusal to fully support the flyover was frustrating for the rest of the region, which recognised the economic importance of a speedy corridor between Wellington Airport and Levin, he said.

‘‘It’s regional traffic that will be using the road. People in Porirua want to be able to get to the airport and to the hospital.’’

And you can’t have a transport corridor that is four lanes for 99% and two lanes for 1%. Because that 1% sets the flow for the whole corridor.

HOW THEY VOTED

For the motion to “not support the flyover”: Mayor Celia Wade-Brown, Stephanie Cook, Paul Eagle, Justin Lester, Iona Pannett, Bryan Pepperell, Helene Ritchie

Print that out for local body elections as a list of people not to vote for, if you want to reduce congestion.

These advertisements have been banned by Auckland Transport from their bus shelters. The Herald reports:

The ad, for online electricity store Powershop, shows the Chinese former dictator surrounded by Chinese people and soldiers with guns, and carries the slogan ‘Same Power Different Attitude’.

It has been banned from bus shelters by Auckland Council-owned Auckland Transport over fears it could offend some members of the Chinese community.

Oh for fuck’s sake. It’s not even a denigrating portrayal, but a humourous one.  I hate this sort of self-censorship.

And while we are at it, Mao managed to kill tens of millions of Chinese through his policies. Would Auckland Transport refuse an ad with Stalin in it, in case some Russians were offended?

We live in New Zealand, not China. Local Government officials should not be censoring ads because they may offend some people. On that basis every advertisement could be banned.

Pleased to see Wellington transport officials are not so politically correct.

Commodore Bainimarama has released his draft constitution for Fiji. I can’t find it online anywhere but the Government kindly sent me a copy so I have embedded it below.

The proposed constitution is actually very good in the main, and a huge improvement over the former constitution. I’ll go through what I see as the major good and not so good points of it.

Concern remains over the process. The independent constitutional panel’s report was basically sidelined and the pledge to have the draft considered by a Constituent Assembly has now been dropped also. The ends do not justify the means.

The draft constitution proposes it can only be amended by referendum. If so, then the constitution itself must be adopted by referendum, not by decree. It also should require the same vote in favour as will be needed to amend it.

The Commodore’s summary is:

• it gives sovereign control to a single house in Parliament, which is represented by members elected by you;
• the size of parliament shall be 45 with a four year term. The idea is to attract good quality and honest parliamentarians who will be paid accordingly and who won’t be corrupt;
• it provides for not only civil and political rights, but also, for the first time in our constitutional history, it provides for a wide range of socio-economic rights. As seen through the constitutional submissions, many Fijians are concerned about their day to day living and access to better facilities and utilities. The draft Constitution has rights to housing and sanitation, reasonable access to transportation, adequate food and water and social security schemes. It also for the first time gives specific rights to persons with disabilities and to children;
• it creates a secular state which will allow all Fijians to practice their own faiths;
• it has proportional representation through a multi member constituency which will give enhanced opportunities for women and the youth to be in Parliament;
• it gives more independence to the Judiciary,  to control their own budget and finances as approved by Parliament. FICAC and the DPP’s office shall control their own affairs;
• it creates a Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to give protection to all citizens irrespective of their backgrounds or socio-economic status;
• it creates a truly independent electoral commission  with appropriate powers; and
• for the first time in our history, it gives you the right to change the constitution once implemented via a referendum;

As I said, overall it looks to be be very good, and worth adopting. But there area areas of potential improvement. My key take from it is:

• Explicitly rules unconstitutional any future coups, or immunities for future illegal actions. A valiant attempt to stop the coup culture. Of course those with guns can ignore laws, as we have seen, unless soldiers are trained to arrest any commanding officer who gives an illegal order.
• Clearly defines Fiji as a secular state with freedom of religion, and that religious beliefs are subservient the the constitution and laws. Excellent.
• All citizens are equal, regardless of racial background.
• A comprehensive bill of rights. Of course having the Commodore back state officials who torture prisoners makes you wonder about the will to enforce this.
• The freedom of speech section has a long list of limitations which could in fact lead to fairly restricted speech. Will depend on how independent the Judiciary is.
• A 45 MP proportional representation Parliament, with four multi-member electorates.
• No hereditary upper house
• A four year fixed term unless two thirds of Parliament vote for an early election.
• There is an Independent Electoral Commission but four members are appointed by PM and one by the Opposition Leader. Would be far better for all to be consensual appointments.
• A neutral President appointed by Parliament. Ceremonial powers only. Would be better to require President to have a super-majority so backed by Govt and Oppn.
• PM, not President, is Commander-in-Chief of Military.
• An independent Judiciary
• The PM appoints the Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces.
• The role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces is “to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all its residents”. I think that is far too wide a role, and can be used to justify the military doing almost anything they want, so long as they believe it is necessary to the “well-being” of Fiji. It is not their job to decide. Their job should be to protect Fiji from external threats.
• Grants immunity to all those involved in past coups etc, and this section can never be amended or repealed.
• Constitution can only be amended by a bill in Parliament that is then ratified by a three quarters majority in a referendum. Happy with that, but the adoption of the constitution MUST also be subject to a three quarters majority referendum to be morally valid.

Overall, as I said, it looks to be a sound document.

2013 – Fiji Draft Constitution

Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:

Secrecy surrounding disciplining teachers is under scrutiny by MPs, with a lawyer asking that teachers face as much transparency as doctors and lawyers.

Not unreasonable.

Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler’s complaint about the Teachers Council’s blanket suppression on disciplinary decisions was heard by a parliamentary select committee yesterday.

Teachers Council rules state that no-one, media or otherwise, can publish details of a decision on a teacher’s bad conduct. The council argues that that avoids deterring victims, particularly children, from coming forward to give evidence.

But Mr Edgeler said the presumption should always be openness.

“These rules are wrong. It’s the Teachers Council taking upon itself something that Parliament should be doing and has done in other situations.”

The Regulations Review Committee can effectively rescind the regulation made by the Teachers Council. Hopefully the Council will amend its own rules but …

Teachers Council director Peter Lind said: “Changing the rules . . . could have the unintended consequence of people, particularly children, not coming forward to give evidence.”

Oh nonsense. You really think that the 12 year old lid won’t tell their parents about something bad a teacher did because they’re aware of the rules around name suppression that the Teachers Council has?

PPTA president Angela Roberts said the suppression of disciplinary details was to protect vulnerable victims, particularly in small communities.

Oh, yes of course it is. To protect the victims. How about you don’t name the victims, but do name the teachers.

The point Edgeler is making is that a blanket rule is wrong. Sure if the teacher is the sole teacher in a small school of 10 pupils, then you might consider name suppression is necessary to protect the victims. But you don’t need a blanket rule, such as the Council has. Suppression should be the exception – not the rule.

The Herald reports:

The Ministry of Education is bloated, inefficient and making the jobs of principals more difficult by “stealing their precious time” making them fill out paperwork, says the outgoing president of the Secondary Principals’ Association.

In his final comment to members this week, Patrick Walsh wrote that he had met many hardworking and highly skilled Ministry employees.

“It has, however, struck me as odd that in an era of self-managing schools we have a ministry that is so large and yet not able to perform in an effective and efficient manner. …

Mr Walsh, who steps down after three years as Spanz president on Tuesday, told the Herald that despite having about 3000 employees, the Ministry had underperformed for more than a decade.

I agree with Mr Walsh. i think significant structural change is needed for the Ministry.

Sent in by a reader, in response to my blog post yesterday on David Cunliffe saying it was a no brainer to reduce the threshold on which GST is applied to online purchases from overseas.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Almost one in five New Zealanders who oppose the partial sale of Mighty River Power intend buying shares in the company anyway, according to a Herald-DigiPoll survey.

But the survey also indicates opposition to the sales plan is softening, with just over half of the 750 respondents saying they are against it compared with almost two thirds a year ago, and as much as three quarters before the 2011 election, which was largely fought on the issue.

According to the poll, conducted between March 11 and March 17 during the Government’s initial Mighty River Power advertising blitz, 52.2 per cent of respondents opposed the sale and 41.9 per cent supported it.

That’s a big change – from almost 75% against to just over 50%.

I have always assumed that any referendum vote would be a massive vote against.

Every CIR to date has always had a massive vote in favour of the desired outcome of the petitioners. The results have been:

• Firefighters 88%
• Size of Parliament 81%
• Justice reform 92%
• Smacking law 87%

How much of a political disaster would it be for Labour and the Greens if they lost the referendum? They’ve spent $400,000 of their parliamentary budgets on getting people to sign the petition. The referendum may cost the taxpayer up to $10 million to run. They’d be laughing stocks if they lost the vote they spent so much money on trying to achieve.

Of those opposed almost a fifth intended buying shares while 30 per cent of all those polled said they would buy shares. The survey has a margin of error of 3.6 per cent.

Turnout could be fascinating. Those who have purchased shares and support partial asset sales may be highly motivated to vote in the referendum as if the referendum endorses the sales it would discourage Labour, Greens and NZ First from confiscating their shares back after the election. And those against may wonder what is the point when one or two companies have already been floated by the time of the referendum.

The Maori Electoral Option will be underway soon. If you have registered on the electoral roll as being of Maori descent, you can decide whether to enrol on the General Roll or Maori Roll during the option run after each census. Once you do decide, you can’t change until the next option.

The higher the proportion of Maori who decide to enrol on the Maori roll, the more Maori seats there will be. Over the years they have gone from four to seven. It has remained at seven after the 2001 and 2006 censuses.

Some Maori decide to go on the Maori roll to boost the number of seats. Some may decide on the basis of which electorate they wish to vote in. They may prefer to vote in a marginal general seat where their vote can have more impact than say a safe Maori seat.

Research has shown attitudes are very different amongst Maori on the general roll and Maori on the Maori roll. In a very general sense, Maori on the Maori roll tend to identify foremost as Maori while Maori on the general roll tend to be more self-identifying as New Zealanders who happen to have some Maori descent. That far from applies to all, but previous research has shown this. Also the issues of importance vary too. Maori on Maori roll are more likely to cite Treaty issues as important while Maori on the general roll are more likely to cite jobs, economy etc.

Now we won’t know for sure how many Maori seats there will be for the 2014 election until we get both the census results and the Maori option results. Let’s look at what the calculations were in 2006.

First of all the South Island electoral quota is calculated and that was 57,562. The SI general electoral population was 920,999 and you divide it by 16.

The estimated Maori electoral population is divided by the SI quota to calculate the number of seats. It was 417,081 which means the quota for each Maori seat was 59,583. The fact it is higher than the SI quota makes it more likely there will be an eight seat in 2014 if more Maori transfer over.

How many would have to have been in the Maori electoral population in 2006 to get an 8th seat? In 2006 they would have needed 432,000 in the Maori electoral population. That means an extra 3.5% would have been needed or an extra 15,000.

The Maori electoral population is calculated on the basis of the total number of ordinarily resident persons of New Zealand Maori descent as determined by the census multiplied by the proportion of Maori who choose to go on the Maori roll.

from 2001 to 2006 the numbers on the Māori roll increased from 188,487 to reach 244,121. and the numbers of Maori on the general roll increased from 151,931 to 178,139. This means the proportion on the Maori roll increased from 55.4% to 57.8%.

The Maori descent population increased from 671,293 to 721,431 – a 7.5% increase. This means the Maori electoral population was in 2001 671,293 x 55.4% = 371,690 and 2006 721,431 x 57.8% = 417,081.

If the percentage who went on the Maori roll had been 60% instead of 57.8% then there would have been an eight seat.

It is hard to project what will happen this time as it will depend both on the growth rate of the Maori population to the non-Maori population and also how many Maori change their roll. But based on the change from 2001 to 2006, it looks like we could well see an 8th seat in 2014.  The proportion on the Maori roll increased 2.4% last time and they only need 2.2% transfer to get an 8th seat. However that does depend on the overall growth in the Maori population also since 2006.

If there was an iPredict stock on there being an 8th Maori seat I’d buy stock up to around 55c.

Today’s pic is of one of our native crab spiders (Sidymella sp).  It’s unusual to see them in their hunting pose during the day.  I got around this problem by photographing it in local bush, at night.  The trick was actually seeing it. You can see from the scale it is just a few mm across.

Click for larger, higher res image.

After the last few weeks of dealing with the elephants in the media, a changed of pace to the very minute was in order. 🙂

The best quote about the failed putsch against Julia Gillard I saw was along the lines that if you have the numbers you use them, if you don’t have the numbers you talk about it.

Gillard has now beaten Rudd three times in a row. Is this the end? Probably until they get wiped out in the election.

Rudd’s talk of how he will keep his word and not challenge is simply code for he did not have the numbers. If he did, then they would have no confidenced Gillard and he could have them declared he is not challenging but there is a vacancy. His supporters have been waging a destabilisation campaign with Crean meant to be the Kingmaker. Instead Crean’s career is now as over as Rudd’s.

Gillard comes out of this internally stronger, but the public must be even more wary of someone whose caucus is so divided.

Tony Abbott must think it is Christmas Time. He had a wonderful quote, which may resonate with the public:

“You deserve a government which is focused on you, not on itself,” he said.

Nice. Also true.

Stuff reports:

Greens co-leader Russel Norman has written an open letter to new Speaker David Carter urging him to return to the rulings set down by his predecessor Lockwood Smith or risk increasing disorder in the House.

Smith instituted a new regime that ditched the old requirement for ministers to merely ”address” a question in favour of a tougher requirement to answer a direct question where possible.

But opposition MPs have been frustrated at what they see as Carter’s shift away from that.

Norman is due to meet Carter soon to discuss the letter.

In it Norman said he felt compelled to write after sitting through ”another chaotic question time”.

He said Smith’s rules in summary were that “a straight question will get a straight answer” and that delivered a more orderly and effective question time.

I thought the straight question gets a straight answer rule was a very good one, so in that regard I agree with Norman.

What I’m not so sure about is whether that rule is or is not still being applied. I simply have not watched enough question time to judge. I would make the point that there remains a difference between a primary question and a supplementary. A straight primary question should get a straight answer. A supplementary question which is seeking very specific data may often be unable to be answered unless it was very tightly connected to the primary.

The Australian Labor Party is tearing itself apart. Great political theatre. News.com.au is doing a live update. Developments today include:

• Labor hid polls from their own leader so Rudd could be rolled in 2010
• A Labor MP has called om the Chief Govt Whip to resign for disloyalty to Gillard
• Rudd and Crean discussing a leader-deputy ticket to roll Gillard
• Simon Crean has both called on party to unite behind Gillard and also attacked her for “the class warfare politics she has waged”
• Labor has backed down and withdrawn their media regulation bills
• Crean has now called for a leadership spill and says he will not stand for leader, but will for deputy.

Glorious fun,

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the latest poll results – a Roy Morgan poll and a Herald Digipoll.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm -3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
2. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Westpac economist Nathan Penny that the increase in the annual current account deficit to $10.5 billion, 5 percent of GDP, is a “worrying symptom of New Zealand’s two-speed economy and re-emerging imbalances”; if not, why not?
3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Labour: What action is the Government taking to improve work opportunities for young people?
4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all statements he and his Ministerial colleagues have made regarding State-owned enterprises?
5. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statements made in Question Time on 12 March 2013?
6. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Has he read the City Centre Future Access Study which found that, of the options for Auckland CBD’s transport infrastructure, the City Rail Link “has the highest road network speeds within the City Centre”?
7. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Economic Development: What contribution, if any, will the ICT sector make to the Government’s stated 2011 Budget commitment to 170,000 net new jobs being created by 2015?
8. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Tourism: What is Tourism New Zealand doing to promote New Zealand as the first Hobbit movie is released on DVD?
9. Dr RAJEN PRASAD to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied with the spending decisions made by the Families Commission in the last three financial years?
10. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for ACC: What is ACC doing to ensure that frontline staff are adequately trained to provide excellent customer service?
11. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Minister of Defence: Will he rule out “systemic health and safety issues throughout the Defence Force” being a cause of Defence Force fatalities, in light of revelations surrounding the non-combat deaths of Defence personnel over the last three years; if not, why not?
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

In today’s questions, Labour asking five questions, Nation four, the Greens two and New Zealand First one. Labour are asking about the current account deficit, SOEs, the ICT sector, the Families Commission and the Defence Foce. The Greens are asking about the Auckland Rail Link and confidence in Government Ministers. New Zealand First are asking about prior statements.

Patsy of the day goes to Mike Sabin for question number 10; What is ACC doing to ensure that frontline staff are adequately trained to provide excellent customer service?

Government Bills 3 pm – 6 pm

1. Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) – interrupted debate on second reading
2. Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill – second reading
3. Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill – third reading
4. Families Commission Amendment Bill – second reading

The Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced October 2012, in response to the John Banks donation saga. The Bill amends the principle legislation in regard to provisions for the conduct of local elections; transparency and accountability around electoral donations; and the integrity and efficiency of the electoral system.

The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill was first read in September last year. This bill is an omnibus bill and amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Conservation Act 1987, the Continental Shelf Act 1964, the Reserves Act 1977, and the Wildlife Act 1953

The Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill was introduced in October. This bill will permit Ministers to set a youth or starting out wage for eligible young people aged 16, 17, 18, or 19 years who are not supervising or training other workers, repealing the ability to set the current new entrant rate, and changing the criteria for setting the current training rate.

The Families Commission Amendment Bill was first read in July. This bill will amend the Commission so that it comprises a single Families Commissioner and other members, amends some functions of the Commission and provides for the appointment of a Social Science Experts Panel to provide academic peer review and guidance.

Arstechnica reports:

The importation of copyrighted goods made abroad has been an increasingly contentious issue in recent years. Easy access to Internet resale markets like eBay and Amazon have made it possible for a new breed of entrepreneurs to buy low and sell high in a wide array of areas. The Supreme Court handed these resellers a major victory today, issuing a decision [PDF] that makes it clear that the “first sale” doctrine protects resellers, even when they move goods across national boundaries. 

Those upstarts have peeved a lot of corporations, and some of them used copyright law to fight back. Textbook maker John Wiley & Sons sued a Thai student-entrepreneur named Supap Kirtsaeng, who had been buying cheaper (but non-pirated) versions of various textbooks in his home country, bringing them to the US, and selling them to his fellow students stateside on eBay. The price differentials were so big that there was quite a bit of money to be made; at trial, the publishing company’s lawyers hammered home the fact that they had counted up $1.2 million in receipts over the life of Kirtsaeng’s business.

Wiley argued those profits should be barred by copyright law. Their right to control prices abroad was actually part of their copyright grant, they argued. The textbook company won a jury verdict against Kirtsaeng, which was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and Kirtsaeng appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his business was protected by the “first sale” doctrine.

Today’s decision vindicates the “first sale” doctrine, which allows the owner of a particular copy of a work to do whatever she wants with it after purchasing it. It overrides first sale losses in both the 9th and 2nd Circuits and makes it clear that digital commerce can flourish in the Internet era, even when it crosses borders.

This is good news. Once you purchase something you own it, and that ownership should include resale rights.

The world is increasingly becoming a global market. The days of different prices for different countries is crumbling under the Internet.

The Herald editorial:

It is always useful to get a global perspective on issues that are the subject of local political wrangling. Light is generally shed on areas that may be clouded by the heat generated by debate. In that context, the International Monetary Fund’s annual report on the New Zealand economy is timely. It casts an especially valuable eye over the two questions of most current angst and anxiety, the significantly overvalued dollar and the overheated Auckland housing market. Its conclusions should put an end to much of the irrational comment on how these issues should be addressed.

The IMF says there should be no “messing with” the monetary policy framework just because the dollar is temporarily overvalued. Indeed, that framework, including a flexible exchange rate, was one of the reasons New Zealand had been relatively resilient in the face of the global downturn. “Do you want to mess [with] the framework because the exchange rate at the moment is overvalued, and do potentially long-term damage? I would be very reluctant to go down that path,” said Bruce Aitken, the head of the IMF team.

We are a minnow. To think we can unilaterally change our exchange rate is silly. You can do it by printing more money of course, which is a great way of making the entire country poorer.

That represents a strong riposte to politicians who have sought to reap advantage from manufacturers’ grievances over the high dollar. It confirms the dangers inherent in, for example, the Greens’ call for the exchange rate to be part of the Reserve Bank’s mandate. The lower interest rates that flowed from this would, as the IMF notes, remove an advantage held by New Zealand’s central bank. Unlike its counterparts in several nations, it still has the scope to cut interest rates if the country were hit by another major shock. Greens co-leader Russel Norman has accused the Reserve Bank governor Graeme Wheeler of complacency and being stuck in the 1980s. This report confirms that Dr Norman’s credibility is under far greater threat.

The Greens are almost the only party in the western world calling for printing money, when the official cash rate is still well above zero. Quantitative easing is the last resort, not the first resort. They just want to print money to pay for their promises.

The problem is not so much the NZ dollar is too high. The US dollar and Euro are tanking because a generation of borrow and spend policies are crippling them. By contrast we are historically low against the Australian dollar.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

As the second round of welfare reforms come back before Parliament Social Development Minister Paula Bennett says the 650 children born to women already claiming a benefit in January are reason enough for her tough reforms. …

There were 659 subsequent children born to parents already claiming a benefit this January, she said.Under changes introduced last October, they will have to return to work when that child is 12-months-old, if their older children are aged over 5.

Bennett said Work and Income staff used discretion to excuse 22 of those parents from the work requirement, largely because of timing around the announcement and implementation of the policy.

Meanwhile, in 2010 more than 7.5 per cent of live births – 4800 of 63,900 – were babies born to sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.

And between 1993 and 2011, 29 per cent of sole mums on the DPB had another child.

”It does tell us that those that are already on benefits with children are still having subsequent children,” Bennett said.

I think there is a fundamental difference between having a child, and then ending up on welfare (because your partner leaves you, turns violent, dies etc) and already being on welfare and choosing to have further children.

Bennett admits work testing for sole parents was among the ”tougher” reforms.

But in 10 months of last year there were less people going onto the DPB that coming off. A feat which has only been achieved twice in the last 16 years, once when Working for Families was introduced.

A good start.

Stats NZ reports:

Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 1.5 percent in the December 2012 quarter, the strongest quarterly growth since December 2009, Statistics New Zealand said today.

“Fifteen of the 16 industries recorded increases in the last three months of 2012, reflecting the broad-based nature of growth in this quarter,” national accounts manager Rachael Milicich said. …

Economic activity for the year ended December 2012 was up 2.5 percent. This is the highest annual growth in GDP since March 2008, when the economic recession began.

It’s only one quarter, but hopefully the a start that can be sustained.

Also pleasing is private consumption is up 1.5% this quarter while government consumption is down 0.7%. Yay.

Exports went up 0.9% and imports dropped 2.0%.