Q+A returns for 2013 this Sunday. We speak to the Government’s Mr Fix It, Steven Joyce, about the deals with Novopay and SkyCity, and question how committed the government is to creating new jobs.

Also on the programme, should marriage be solely between a man and woman; we hear from a gay couple who question why they’re being treated as second class citizens. We debate the same-sex marriage bill with Labour MP Louisa Wall and Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig, and ask if gay couples should be able to adopt.

On the panel this week is political scientist Dr Raymond Miller, publisher Ian Wishart, and former Labour party candidate Josie Pagani.

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

Jeffrey Tucker writes at Not PC:

Twitter began by calling it “libertarian porn” — the longest and most sustained attack on the State leviathan from the U.S. Senate floor in modern history. But then it became more. And more. It went on for 13 hours. It was about halfway through when the junior senator leaned over to an aide and whispered: “Can I get a candy bar?” 

He deserved it. Before the end of the night, the significance of what he was doing was being described as “epic.” What began as a surprise political move became a bipartisan cry against all the evils of our times, which somehow all come down to the egregious power of the executive state and its omnipotent power over our lives and property. It became political theatre unlike any we’ve seen in many years. The target: all terrible things. 

In short, it was a beautiful day on Capitol Hill. 

It all came courtesy of Senator Randall Paul, the man who has brought truth, excitement, fun, and the appearance of real-life morality back to the Senate. …

Senator Paul’s action began just before noon. He started by standing alone against the nomination of John Brennan for the head of the CIA. This Brennan guy is the top advocate of the drone program and the White House’s super-creepy claim of the right to kill American citizens on American soil using unmanned aircraft.

Sen. Paul seemed to break the taboo. He finally said it: This winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is asserting the right to kill citizens right here, without any recourse to courts or law or anything related to the dead letter called the Constitution. …

Again, his one question: Why won’t the president say that he won’t kill non-combatants with drones on American soil? The White House pretended none of this was happening. …

Just before noon yesterday, Rand Paul stood alone. Then others joined him. Still others. Rand talked and talked. He went on and on. The online crowd began to grow. And grow. The tweets grew and grew. Facebook went nuts. It went on all day. The Senate chamber filled up by the evening. The fracas became frenzy and then became a mania. Hashtag #StandWithRand became the Internet meme of the night.

The drone debate has been fascinating. Obama has used drones to kill hundreds or thousands of targets (and collateral casualties) in Pakistan and other countries. Most Americans support the use of drones (83% in February 2012). The opposition has been a few muted liberals. I suspect if Bush had been carrying out the same numbers, there would have been massive protests.

I personally have no problem with using technology to kill people at war with you. However in one recent case a drone was used to kill a US citizen and for some that was a significant step – maybe one too far.

Now wars are no longer between states, but between states and loose groups of militias or terrorists, I think drone strikes are a sensible way to fight such wars. There are some risks of course – namely that it becomes “too easy” to kill – an issue some US Generals have said is why drone use should be limited.

But wars are basically against foreigners. Should a war power be used against a citizen of your own country born in this case in the United States?

The argument in this case is he was based in Yemen and actively advocating attacks on the US by Muslims living there. And if you look at his history, you can see why he was seen as a danger. But it means the line has gone from killing foreign combatants to killing US citizens overseas.

And then that raised the question – what if a US citizen is in the United States and thought to be a terrorist. Can the President add his name to the list and send a drone in to kill him? If US citizens can now be killed by drones – does it matter where they live?

To my mind, it does. If they are in the US then you can arrest them and should try to do so (if they surrender peacefully). It is impractical to think you can fly into Yemen and try and arrest someone in the middle of the mountains.

But the Obama administration when asked by Rand Paul would not rule out using drones in the US. The Attorney-General said:

Mr Holder stressed in his letter that the prospect of a president considering the assassination of an American citizen on US soil was “entirely hypothetical” and “unlikely to occur”.

Yet “it is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorise the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” he wrote.

Appearing in front the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, Mr Holder reiterated that “the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States”.

That response is what led to Rand Paul to do his filibuster of the CIA nomination. And it worked. After 13 hours the Obama Administration then clarified:

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

So the filibuster is over. But the issue of the limits of drone strikes is now mainstream, and occurred not due to any Democrats but the libertarian Republican Senator from Kentucky.

The Economist reports:

IF YOU are a working woman, you would do well to move to New Zealand—or if that is a little out of the way, you could try one of the Nordic countries. To mark International Women’s Day, The Economist has compiled its own “glass-ceiling index” to show where women have the best chance of equal treatment at work. Based on data mainly from the OECD, it compares five indicators across 26 countries: the number of men and women respectively with tertiary education; female labour-force participation; the male-female wage gap; the proportion of women in senior jobs; and net child-care costs relative to the average wage. The first four are given equal weighting, the fifth a lower one, since not all working women have children. New Zealand scores high on all the indicators.

The index weighting is 23% each for the first four factors and 8% for child-care costs.

NZ has a far higher proportion of women than men in tertiary education which will be part of the reason NZ is ranked the best place in the world to be a working woman.

NZ Herald quiz here.

Gerry Brownlee spoke this week to the Marlborough Chamber of Commerce on the possibility of the terminal for the Interislander ferries moving from Picton to Clifford Bay. He stressed no decision has been made, but his speech was all about the benefits of doing so and suggests that a positive decision is likely. Some extracts:

By bringing travel times down between our major population centres, we could increase trade between the two islands and in doing so increase economic prosperity.

We have made no decisions, but information to date has suggested we need to further test the viability.

Clearly any benefits must be weighed against the cost of developing and operating a port.

It would need to be a commercially viable and sustainable operation.

Decreased travel times is good for trade and tourism.

By way of comparison a Clifford Bay terminal would cut 30 minutes off the ferry trip between North and South Islands.

The road trip from Wellington to Christchurch would be 50 minutes shorter and the same rail journey would reduce by 80 minutes.

So a road trip would be 80 minutes quicker and rail would be 110 minutes quicker – almost two hours. Knocking 80 minutes off a 480 minute journey is 15% improvement – very significant.

Because of the steep terrain between Picton and Clifford bay, there would be a one-third reduction in fuel burnt when transporting freight by rail to Christchurch.

The shorter ferry journey would mean ships could be more productive, making more journeys.

Better for the environment also.

Speed restrictions through the Marlborough Sounds limit the number of return sailings ferries can make each day.

Two of the ferries have ‘grandfathered’ speeds – meaning they do not have speed restrictions – and can complete three return trips a day.

That fleet is nearing the end of its economic life and will need expensive replacements.

And replacements are going to be harder to find, as internationally rail ferries are rapidly falling out of favour with operators.

Larger, faster ships are becoming the norm.

But if the route stays the same those replacement ferries will also be speed restricted.

These restrictions affect operating efficiency and cost, and any potential tightening of the speed restrictions will further constrain ferry services.

If you can’t get as many sailings out of the fleet, more ships will be need to provide the same capacity.

And that comes at a high cost.

That suggests that Picton is just not very viable in the long-term.

I think it is clear the Government would like a new terminal at Clifford Bay. The challenge is who builds is, and for how much.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he is “totally relaxed” about former Solid Energy chief executive Don Elder appearing before a select committee, but the decision was one for the committee and the board of the state-owned coalminer.

“If he wants to go and they want him to go he is not going to get any opposition from my office,” Mr Key said today.

Totally relaxed is a step up from relaxed. This got me wondering on Twitter yesterday if we need a formal scale to measure the PM’s relaxed level. It could be:

• 1 – Fairly Relaxed
• 2 – Pretty Relaxed
• 3 – Reasonably Relaxed
• 4 – Relaxed
• 5 – Very Relaxed
• 6 – Totally Relaxed
• 7 – 100% Relaxed

So totally relaxed is pretty high up the (now) official relaxed scale.

Jason Krupp at Stuff reports:

In addition, some energy sector commentators have questioned MRP’s decision to actively pursue geothermal projects in Chile and the United States as opposed to passively investing via an investment fund structure as it has done in the past.

Energy analyst Molly Melhuish said investors needed to be aware the strategy shifts MRP’s risk profile away from a “safe, utility-type investment prospect”, which is how the firm is being marketed to investors.

Countering those negatives is the company’s position within the New Zealand market, with MRP generating and selling about a fifth of the country’s power, a position that gives it fairly defensive earnings.

It is worth making the point that Mighty River Power does have risks around its investment plans. I don’t say that as a bad thing – it is in fact the risk which is one of the reasons the Government should not be sole shareholder.

Some people think running a company is easy. Just produce your product, mark it up, and sell it. Bang – guaranteed product.

Solid Energy is a good example of how quickly things can change. The global price for coal dropped 30% over two years. While power prices are less volatile, demand can be variable and you can end up with over-supply.

I am looking forward to reading the prospectus.

Chris Keall at NBR reports:

What I’m talking about is an actual William Shatner moment. 

Sky TV is bringing the Star Trek star to Auckland later this month.

I’m thinking the event must be the launch of the sci fi channel that unemployed Wellington man Pat Pilcher has pushed so hard for (and, earlier, Sky TV CEO John Fellet told NBR ONLINE a sci fi channel was number two on his list, after Soho).

If the speculation is correct, that would be great news. I will happily pay for the Sci Fi channel.

Meagan Dillon of Northern Territory News reports:

A MAN charged with having sex with a pet pig called Michael Jackson on a Territory island has appeared in a Darwin court.

The 35-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, sat in the dock at Darwin Magistrates Court charged with having sexual intercourse with an animal and indecent behaviour in public in November last year.

The NT News understands Michael Jackson had to be shot following the incident at Alyangula, on Groote Eylandt.

Why did they shoot the pig? Would have been better to shoot the guy!

A guest post by Larry Mitchell:

It is sobering to reflect that at the time of the passage of the 2002 Local Government Act a working maximum Territorial Local Authority debt level was set, in 2002 nominal dollar terms at $1,500 per ratepayer, ($750 per capita). Looking back then there were few Councils challenging these limits, even fewer exceeding them.

Fast-forward to 2012 and average debt per ratepayer in today’s’ dollar terms have reached close to $4,000 per ratepayer. Sector-wide total debt, (including the Regional’s) has quadrupled from around $2 billion seven years ago to $8 Billion by 2011-2012.

Of greater concern, according to Council long terms plans forecast sector debt is scheduled in the period to reach around $25 Billion, with Auckland Council taking a disproportionate share of this at $16 or more billion … or over two thirds of the total.

And what have we got from this explosion of debt? The picture is murky as the dollar figure put on the infrastructure created and associated with this debt has been revalued-inflated due to accounting valuation adjustments, a number of times over the period. It is next to impossible to assign accurate values to the Council assets created that have been funded from debt sources.

The quality of this recent debt-driven capital infrastructural asset expenditure is also problematic. It has been a very mixed bag, consisting of a proliferation of low or no revenue-earning community assets amongst (exempting local roading), the creation of largely self-funding public utility assets.

Given these uncertainties of asset creation and quality, one thing though is “for sure”. In spite of Council’s bold business as usual long term 2012-2022 plans  …  plans set less than a year ago, they will not proceed. For one, the law has outlawed them and future affordability issues render them unrealistic and redundant.

Apart from the obvious perils and unreality of the proposed unsustainable blowouts of Council debt, there are two principal reasons why Council’s tomorrows will be very different from their yesterdays … in financial management terms. 

The law has changed

December 2012 saw major changes to Local Government law. Councils now are legally bound to realign their future plans and budgets to deliver “cost effective expenditures” spent upon “essential community based infrastructure”. This is a very explicit central government-directed shift to utilitarian purposes, a far cry from the much broader earlier free-for-all multi-purpose Council capital expenditures.

There are some concerns though, that Councils have “yet to get it”. Although the jury is still out, sector chatter at this early stage is that many Councils will not, at such short notice make the necessary budgetary or other shifts necessary or that they plan to ignore the new provisions in the belief that the law is drawn loosely enough to permit a continuation of their more expansive spending.

To counter this delinquent behaviour, the second stage of the reforms, planned for mid 2013 should include any necessary amendments to plug these apparent loopholes. To do otherwise would be to scupper the reforms while accepting the continuation of unsustainable Council debt levels and risking further poor quality expenditures.

We will not be able to afford it!

An aging population, (to say nothing of likely increases in future debt servicing costs) will with little doubt reduce our local community’s future capacity to carry increased (real dollar) Council rates and charges.

Authoritative assessments of looming demographic influences are plain scary. In Canada for example, where research on their comparable issues is deep, detailed and convincing, their affordability “Tsunami” is still some 12 to 15 years away.

In New Zealand, where Council debt limits have already been reached for many (a majority of) New Zealand Councils, our projections are that the crunch point will be reached in as little as 5-6 years time. Further detailed research of these issues is now urgent but the implications of the known facts are plain enough.

The new reality

To address these new financial realities, Council management policies must be adjusted to take account of the following sobering future realities.

• New Zealand Council sustainable-affordable debt limits have been reached and must not be allowed to “blowout” further. Debt reduction programmes must match the altered budgetary frameworks

• Future community affordability issues for Council rates and charges including those created by an aging ratepayer base insist upon a complete rethink and revised budgeting of all Council 2013 Annual Plans  …and then beyond to amended 2014 -2022 long term financial plans.

•  Legislation including closing the existing legal loopholes (with “active” audit encouragement) must ensure that Council financial management policies recognise these new realities.

It isn’t just central Government that needs to live within its means. We must not burden future generations of taxpayers and ratepayers with massive interest bills on the debt we incur.

Willie Jackson labeled John Ansell a racist and a fool in Truth. He said:

Treatygate is a nonsensical racist campaign where Ansell and a few rednecks go around the country spouting about what they perceive as inequality and Maori privilege.

I met Ansell by accident in Waitangi. He is a more than cordial type of bloke. I said to him I thought he was a racist, and so he challenged me to have him on our RadioLIVE talkback show.

Ansell spent two hours with me and John Tamihere last week and absolutely confirmed my view he is a racist and a liar.

Ansell has responded in Truth saying Jackson is a “chronic liar” who fools no-one:

Maori bully boys and extortionists like Willie Jackson like to get down in the sewer and call critics like me racist.

It’s just a trick, and it doesn’t work on me.

So why does Jackson throw mud instead of facts? Because he knows he  can’t compete on the history. He hasn’t got a clue about what happened between the Crown and Maori in the nineteenth century. So he just spits out an endless stream of half-truths and lies, and hopes you’ll believe him. He’s a chronic liar.

There is, of course, a big difference between criticism and racism. I’ve never said anything racist. That’s not me.

But I’m very critical of Maori leaders who have a financial interest in keeping their people at the bottom of all the bad stats. That way they can keep claiming the big bucks – most of which they keep for themselves…

The debate continues!

Simon Bridges announced:

The first reflagging of a foreign charter fishing vessel as New Zealand-registered is good news for foreign crews fishing in our waters, and for New Zealand’s international reputation, say Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy and Labour Minister Simon Bridges.

The Ukrainian fishing vessel FV Mainstream, chartered by Independent Fisheries, was today officially reflagged, bringing it under New Zealand labour, and health and safety laws.

The reflagging, carried out by Maritime New Zealand, required Independent Fisheries to ensure the vessel fully complied with New Zealand maritime rules and the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. Reflagging also requires the crew to have appropriate New Zealand-equivalent qualifications.

“The Government is committed to making it compulsory for all foreign charter fishing vessels to be reflagged by 2016, following concerns raised in a Ministerial inquiry last year into safety, labour, and fishing practices,” says Mr Guy.

Mr Bridges says reflagging brings the crew of foreign charter vessels under the protection of New Zealand law in terms of labour conditions and health and safety.

This is a welcome step that one ship has already reflagged.

The conditions on some FCVs was akin to slavery. There was physical and sexual abuse as well as multiple breaches of NZ laws (which could not be enforced). It had to end, and I’m proud the Government decide to do so.

Not all FCVs were a problem. In fact as I understand it the Ukranian ones had relatively few problems. It tended to be the Korean ones than used Indonesian labour. What will be interesting is when they reflag – if they do at all.

Gavin White from UMR blogs:

Some of you may have seen some of our research commented on in the media earlier in the week. The research has been interpreted as supporting Gareth Morgan’s campaign on cats, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as clear cut as that. 

In other words, don’t believe the spin of a campaign that selectively quoted the results.

The media reports focussed on one statistic: the fact that 54% of New Zealanders supported some form of controls that would reduce the future population of cats, once told that an Otago University study estimates 1.12 million native birds are killed by domestic cats each year in New Zealand. The question cannot, however, be treated in isolation: the other questions in the survey make clear that the sorts of controls people are actually prepared to have are actually pretty mild.

So what were the full results.

• 62% believe that all cats should be neutered or spayed.
• 57% think that cats should be banned from areas near wildlife reserves, forests and national parks
• 53% believe that all cats should be registered and microchipped
• 42% consider that all cats should wear bells
• Just 12% believe that cat owners should not replace their cats when they die
• Only 7% think that cats should be kept indoors at all times of the day.

This reflects I think the common sense approach of New Zealanders. Only 7% agree with the more extreme proposals from Morgan, but a bit over half agree with some of the more moderate stuff.

Gavin also points out:

In the question on banning cats from near wildlife reserves, forests and national parks, I suspect that many people would have used a reasonably narrow definition of the word ‘near’ (e.g. within a few streets of the park boundary).  It would be stretching the case to say that the poll supports banning cats from whole suburbs or towns (like Karori, which is adjacent to the Zealandia wildlife reserve, or Ohakune, which is near the boundary of Tongariro National Park).

A very good point also. It’s good to have pollsters commenting on their own research publicly – they are often the one best placed to know what limits there are in interpreting what it means.

Peter Dunne blogged:

This government prides itself on a business like approach to issues. It likes to cut through quickly and resolve issues before they get too bogged down in red tape. For many New Zealanders, this pragmatism is welcome, coming after years of stultification and wariness under successive previous governments.

A lot of this change is due to the attitude and style of the Prime Minister, who is focused on achieving things and making a difference. In general, it is an approach which has worked well and probably explains in part at least why the government remains so popular in its fifth year in office.

But, as a couple of recent examples show, there is a danger that the cut through which has been one of the government’s hallmarks will become a major problem for it.

Take the case of the Sky City Convention Centre proposal. There is no doubt Auckland needs a world class convention centre, and that in all probability, Sky City is arguably in the best position to develop such a facility. No problem with that, subject, of course, to the specifics of the deal stacking up. But as the Auditor-General’s report shows, while there has been no impropriety in the process followed by the government, it did play very fast and loose at times.

Similarly, with the Hobbit movies. No-one seriously opposed making the movies here, and the government would have been roundly criticised if let the opportunity slip through its fingers, but as the various documents recently released show, the government’s enthusiasm for the movies being made here did get in the way of the facts from time to time as deals were struck to ensure the right outcome.

There is a time-bomb warning to the government here. Support for the cut through approach will wither if it is seen to be a standard proxy for bending the rules or doing special deals to achieve the desired outcome. While the government is not immediately vulnerable on this issue, the clock has started ticking.

I think at the heart of what Dunne is saying, is that Governments should not be seen to be picking out individual companies to do “deals” with. There is a difference between measures which favour a specific sector such as relaxing RMA rules, making mining easier, tax rebates for films – and “deals” with specific companies.

In the two cases cited, there were unusual circumstances for both, which won’t generally apply across the board.

The Hobbit “deal” was basically triggered by the malign acts of an Australian union official who was trying to blackmail the production through an international boycott. The union represented almost no actual New Zealanders and was trying to muscle its way in. If MEAA had never triggered a global boycott, then the crisis that caused the deal would never have eventuated. It was an own goal. But the key point, is that it was forced on the Government. And in the end the agreement they came to with Warners did not apply just for that production or that company.

The proposed (not yet agreed) Sky City deal for some regulatory changes in return for building a $350 million convention centre is a deal with just one company. This is not ideal. But the reason it is that way is because we have a law that prohibits any further casinos in New Zealand – there is a monopoly in Auckland – Sky City. Hence there is only one company you can negotiate with if you want to negotiate regulatory changes in return for more investment. If I had my way I’d get rid of the silly ban on more casinos so we have multiple operators.

Anyway the point I think Peter Dunne was making is that these two cases should be exceptions, not the rule. And I agree with him.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key’s refusal to attend the funeral of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is a “mind-boggling political blunder,” a former MP says.

Former Green MP Keith Locke says Key is wasting an opportunity to rub shoulders with leaders in the increasingly influential region.

I’m really not sure how news worthy it is that a former Green MP disagrees with the PM. If it was a current MP, maybe.

I thought Keith Locke was against leaders who abuse human rights. I guess he thinks it is okay, when they are of the same ideological persuasion.

Aaron Leaman at Stuff reports:

An intoxicated Hamilton clubgoer has been prosecuted for taking the law into her own hands – literally – during a routine bar check.

Galloway, 36, was drinking at Hamilton’s Shenanigans Irish Pub about midnight on May 18 last year when a constable entered the bar to carry out a liquor licence check.

In what her lawyer termed “a grossly stupid act”, Galloway groped the officer’s groin as he made his way through the bar.

Galloway was ejected from the bar, prompting her to yell abuse and suggest the officer was enjoying the attention.

In explanation, Galloway later said she did not realise her victim was a police officer and she had “been doing this to men all night“.

If you ran this story without mentioning the city, I reckon most people would guess it was Hamilton 🙂

The charge carries a maximum sentence of two years’ jail. Judge Connell declined to impose a fine, instead opting for a sentence of community work.

Incidentally if the genders were reversed I suspect the patron would be in considerably more trouble.

Stuff reported:

A 6-year-old girl with violet hair has become the unlikely poster child for the transgender people’s rights after her United States school barred her from using the girls’ bathroom.

The family of Coy Mathis has filed a civil rights lawsuit against her Colorado school over the issue, which has become a cause celebre since hitting the headlines last week, CNN reported.

Coy was born a boy but according to her mother she started expressing herself as a girl at the age of 18 months.

When the behaviour continued, the parents sought medical advice and were told that their child was transgender – a little girl in a boy’s body.

Though they diagnosed Coy as having a gender identity disorder, doctors recommended against surgery until she was older.

Which is the correct decision. Any decision on surgery should be made by Coy when she is older, not her parents.

When the child was in kindergarten at Eagle Elementary School in Fountain, Colorado there was no problem because Coy was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom.

But in December school officials told the family Coy could no longer use the girls’ facilities and would have to use the boys’ or nurse’s bathroom instead.

“That wasn’t a safe environment for her,” said Coy’s mother Kathryn Mathis, a nurse.

“It set her up for a lot of harassment and it wasn’t a place where we were able to let her be because we want her to be safe and we want her to be healthy.” …

The school said its decision “took into account not only Coy, but other students in the building, their parents and the future impact a boy with male genitals using a girls’ bathroom would have as Coy grew older”.

Kathryn Mathis is not blind to the possibilities but fears the district will stigmatise her daughter at a crucial stage in her development.

The sad reality is that life is going to pretty difficult for Coy Mathis regardless. I can see the school’s point about concerns for other students. It’s pretty difficult to explain to six year olds about trans-gender. But whichever set of toilets she uses, it means you have to explain to the other kids why, and it is likely she’s going to face some teasing or worse.

Which is why in the end, when both choices are imperfect, I’d go with what the family wants.

The Truth editorial:

Labour and the Greens need to come clean on asset sales. We know that both parties oppose asset sales. We get that. They have spent a considerable amount of taxpayer cash recruiting staff and manipulating for political purposes the Citizens Initiated Referendum process to try to re-litigate the 2011 election. …

Investors and voters need to know if Labour intends opposing the sales in actions and not just words.

Will Labour commit to forced buy-back of the shares, essentially a re-nationalisation of the asset. Before readers poo-pooh that suggestion remember Air New Zealand.

Helen Clark even flirted with securities laws by advising on national television for Mum and Dad investors to keep their shares in Air New Zealand…that everything would be alright. As we know everything wasn’t alright and some weeks later the government forcibly acquired as many shares as it could and left about 25% of shareholder mired without any sort of say in the company.

Would Labour do this again with the listed power companies…and if so how much would they pay for the shares…The listing price? The market price (unlikely)?

Labour and their hangers-on who oppose asset sales need to clarify before even a single share is sold what their intentions are.

I agree. Labour, as the potential next Government, has a duty to announce its policy before the offer document is issued. Will they buy the shares back or not, and at what price?

The Age reports:

Former opposition leader Denis Napthine is the state’s new Premier after Ted Baillieu resigned under internal pressure and after the shock resignation of embattled MP Geoff Shaw.

Mr Shaw, who is facing a police probe for misuse of his government car, quit the parliamentary Liberal Party on Wednesday morning, kickstarting a frenzy on Spring Street that reached fever pitch just before 7pm after he finally released a statement.

“I believe my actions reflect the general loss of confidence Victorians are feeling in the leadership of the government,” Mr Shaw said.

Nonsense. Shaw is a rorting MP who has been caught out.

The Baillieu government had been rocked by scandal this week over fresh revelations regarding Tristan Weston, the former police adviser to Deputy Premier Peter Ryan, and secret recordings of conversations he had with Mr Baillieu’s chief of staff, Tony Nutt, and Liberal Party state director Damian Mantach.

Mr Baillieu referred the case to the new Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

Facing poor polls for nearly a year, leadership speculation has been bubbling, with Planning Minister Matthew Guy most often named as the next in line.

A poll last June had the Coalition on 52% and Labor 48% in Victoria. But Baillieu had poor personal ratings at 29% positive and 54% negative.

A much more fun political party than the one I just blogged on below is the Canadian Rhino Party.

Operating within the tradition of political satire, the Rhinoceros Party’s basic credo, their so-called primal promise, was “a promise to keep none of our promises.”^[1] They then promised outlandishly impossible schemes designed to amuse and entertain the voting public.

And:

The party claimed to be the spiritual descendants of Cacareco, a Brazilian rhinoceros who was elected member of São Paulo‘s city council in 1958, and listed Cornelius the First, a rhinoceros from the Granby Zoo, east of Montreal, as its leader.^[4] It declared that the rhinoceros was an appropriate symbol for a political party since politicians, by nature, are “thick-skinned, slow-moving, dim-witted, can move fast as hell when in danger, and have large, hairy horns growing out of the middle of their faces.”

I like their abortion policy:

A candidate named Ted “not too” Sharp ran in Flora MacDonald‘s Kingston and the Islands riding with the campaign slogan “Fauna, not flora“, promising to give fauna equal representation.^[8] He also took a stand on abortion (promising, if elected, never to have an abortion) and capital punishment: “If it was good enough for my grandfather, then it’s good enough for me.”

And defence policy:

To strengthen Canada’s military, Sharp planned to tow Antarctica north to the Arctic Circle. “Once we have Antarctica, we’ll control all of the world’s cold. If another Cold War starts, we’ll be unbeatable.”

And best of all:

Rather than awarding money as prizes in the lottery, the winners would be appointed to the Canadian Senate.

And kudos to Belgium:

Offering to call off the proposed Belgium-Canada war if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhinoceros “Hindquarters” in Montreal (the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do this)

The war was due to Tintin having shot a rhinoceros!

Greg Ansley at NZ Herald reports:

Next week Daniel Nalliah will be taking his crusade against Muslim immigration and multiculturalism to the Australian Islamic Peace Conference at the Melbourne Showgrounds.

In the meantime he will be plugging democracy and the nation’s “Judeo-Christian heritage”, protecting the nuclear family, urging the pruning of big government and pushing for tax to be cut to the barest possible minimums.

Nalliah, a Sri Lankan-born fire and brimstone preacher who claims to have resurrected three people and to have been instructed to head down under by Jesus, is the leader of the nation’s newest political party.

Just another charlatan and mad fraudster.

He claimed Victoria’s disastrous Black Saturday fires was a retribution for the passage of new abortion laws, and lambasted Prime Minister Julia Gillard for “living in sin”

Yes Gillard should remain a virgin, as she is unmarried.

During the launch Nalliah called for the end of a multicultural Australia, a reduction in the intake of Muslim immigrants, and the defence of Judeo-Christian culture.

He is from Sir Lanka himself. I’d say if they are to reduce immigration, they should have started with him.

The Herald reports:

New Housing Minister Nick Smith is vowing to break the “stranglehold” of Auckland Council’s policy of containing urban sprawl – a policy he says is “killing the dreams of Aucklanders” by driving up house prices.

In his first major interview on how he plans to tackle the housing affordability issue handed to him in January’s Cabinet reshuffle, he said his focus would be on opening up land supply because land prices were the biggest factor putting home ownership out of reach of many Aucklanders.

“There’s no question in my mind that we have to break through the stranglehold that the existing legal metropolitan urban limit has on land supply,” he said.

Excellent. This is the first time a Minister has been this explicit.

The MUL is the enemy of affordable housing. No amount of subsidies, intensification, central planning, economies of scale can defy the reality that if the supply of land for housing is artificially constrained, then the price of land (and hence housing) will increase in line with demand. Arguing against this is like arguing against gravity.

“When we are looking at growth in Auckland of 2 per cent a year, we are going to need sections at the rate of 12,000 a year,” he said. “The metropolitan urban limit is a stranglehold on land that is killing the dreams of Aucklanders wanting to own their home and we have to work with the council to find the tools to increase that land supply and bring section prices back.”

If someone wants to be elected Mayor of Auckland, they should run on a policy of increasing the MUL, to reduce housing costs.

But Mr Brown said Aucklanders had already agreed on the city’s “compact footprint” through developing the first Auckland Plan, and Dr Smith should stop debating it.

He said the plan was based on “a model that is developing truly internationally competitive cities with strong economic bases to them and that give rise to outstanding transport operations within a more compact framework”.

“Have a look at Melbourne,” he said. “Have a look at Hong Kong. Have a look at London. All of those cities, by and large, are operating off what is regarded as best practice.”

Comparing Auckland, one of the world’s smallest cities, to London and Hong Kong – two of the world’s three global centres is ridicolous.

But the comparison to Australian cities such as Melbourne is more sensible. Len Brown is saying that Auckland should be more compact, such as Melbourne and Australian cities are. So what are their urban densities? Demographia has this 2012 report:

• Adelaide 1,400 people per square km
• Brisbane 1,000
• Canberra 1,100
• Melbourne 1,600
• Perth 1,300
• Sydney 2,100

And what is Auckland? 2,400 people per square km.

Auckland has twice the urban density of Melbourne – which Len Brown cites as a model. If we increased the Auckland urban limit by 50%, then it would be the same as Melbourne.