Amelia Wade in the NZ Herald reports:

Food prices are not becoming more expensive as the increase in cost tracks the rate of inflation, an economist says.

The cost of a basket of fruit and vegetables has increased by 14.2 per cent in five years, according to Statistics New Zealand data requested by theHerald.

The Consumers Price Index – a measure of inflation – has jumped 15.7 per cent over the same period.

Shamubeel Eaqub, principal economist at the NZ Institute of Economic Research, said the rising cost of food often inspired emotive reactions.

“When you look at these issues, you sort of need to step back a bit.”

Mr Eaqub said food prices were not becoming more unaffordable. Since 2000, the average hourly wage had risen by about 50 per cent while food prices had risen about 30 per cent, he said. “Typically speaking wages will rise quicker than the cost of living.

Good to see the Herald doing stories like this, rather than just reporting a lobby group calling for GST to come off fruit and vegetables.

Note on Sunday I also blogged on this issue.

Nicholas Jones at NZ Herald reports:

The humour of trail-blazing broadcaster Kevin Black is again filling New Zealand’s airwaves in tribute after his sudden death.

Radio Hauraki, where “Blackie” reigned supreme as the country’s top radio DJ, has been playing some of his most-loved prank calls since the 69-year-old died after a suspected heart attack on Monday night.

Listeners called in throughout yesterday to recall their favourite Blackie parody calls, which set the standard for radio humour.

The highlights are:

* Called the Ministry of Mines to report that after finding readings for uranium in his backyard, he and his friend dug a 100ft hole, and thought they had better inform the authorities. A concerned and overwhelmed official, muttering “my God”, asks him if he has any professional qualifications to do such a thing. “No. I have an uncle who was a coalminer down in Westport,” Black deadpanned.

*Told a woman in Papatoetoe that her garage remote was suspected of interfering with planes flying over her home. The woman went outside and confirmed to Black that the remote was closing and opening the garage. “Now point it at the plane above you,” he instructed. “Oh, no, I don’t want to do that,” she insisted.

*Called a rental car company and asked for some modifications to be carried out before picking up his car. “I don’t want any doors, could you take them off?” he asked. “Could you also take out all the seats except the driver’s, and the bonnet, too?” Finally, the attendant asked what he would do with the car. Black explained he would race it in the stock cars on Saturday, and wanted it as light as possible.

Love them all. Some pranks can be a bit nasty and humiliating. But these were all great fun. I love the rental car one especially.

Questions for Oral Answer – 2pm to 3pm

Questions to Ministers.  

1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that “anyone expecting details of a ‘cosy sort of little deal’ would be disappointed” by the Deputy Auditor-General’s report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations.
4. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections’ most recent rateable value?
5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it?
7. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud?
8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production?
9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia’s objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?
10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured?
11. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?
12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?

Today there is 5 questions being asked by Labour with questions relating to Sky City Convention Centre, Assest Sales, Canterbury Earthquake recovery and the clossure of schools in Christchurch. In addition, the Greens are also asking about the Sky City Convention Centre mainly in relation to the report by the Deputy Auditor-General and are asking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

New Zealand First are asking about the Christchurch Earthquake recovery and the payout decisions made on commerical sections. Finally, National are today asking 4 questions ranging from the possitives of the Sky City Convention Centre to Welfare Fraud and prisoner training inside our prisions.

Questions to Members    

Today also sees 1 question from Brendan Horan to Hon Damien O’Connor (Member of Parliament for West Coast – Tasman) in relation to the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill.  

1. BRENDAN HORAN to the Member in charge of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill: What is the purpose of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill?

General Debate 3pm – 4pm

12 x 5 Min speeches from various MPs

Private and Local Orders of the day 4pm – 6pm and 7.30pm to 10pm

1. Waitaki District Council Reservces and Other Land Empowering Bill  – 3rd reading – 12 x 10 min speeches – Jackie Dean 

This bill relates to 3 pieces of land inside the Waitaki District including sites such as the Palmerston Showgrounds, Lookout Point Island with it’s intent to clafifty the status of one piece of land and for the removal of reservations on the Palmerston Showgrounds and Lookout Point Island in order to allow the council to take over ownership of Palmerston Showgrounds and allow for the council to sell parts of Lookout Point Island as was orignally intended for in 1885.

At the last reading of the bill the vote passed by 97 to 23 with New Zealand First, Mana and the Greens voting against the bill

     2.    South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill – Committee Stage – Hon Chester Borrows

This bill would allow for the South Taranaki District Council to transfer ownership of the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to back to the community via creating a co-operative called Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited which would allow allow them to look after the scheme that provides water to around 7,620 hectares of land  in the Pihama/Te Kiri area in South Taranaki.

So far the Greens have opposed this bill on the grounds due to “the potential injustice that the privatisation would result in” (Quote from Eugenie Sage – 2nd Reading speech)

    3.   Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill – First Reading – 12 x 10 min speeches – Hon Damien O’Connor 

This bill is designed to claifiy rating issues in the Tasman District during the years 2003-2004 and 2008-2009 in which they failed to apply section 23 of the Local Government Act 2002 correctly when setting rates in the region, especially in the areas of  Tata Beach and Ligar Bay in Golden Bay who have challenged the Tasman District Council over stormwater charges charged to them during these years.

For some background reading to the bill and the reasons why it has been created feel free to read these stories from the Nelson Mail

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7731601/Council-seeks-bill-to-fix-rating-mistake
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/7783535/Residents-meet-MP-over-new-bill

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is using his personal wealth to make a nationwide drop of leaflets which criticise MPs who do not follow their electorate’s wishes.

His office has published and distributed 200,000 leaflets at a cost of $55,000 – a figure which Mr Craig expects to double as he ramps up his party’s electioneering.

The leaflets have accused MPs of ignoring their electorates in making changes against the wishes of the majority, such as the anti-smacking bill and asset sales.

Mr Craig was especially critical of Prime Minister John Key for backing a bill to legalise same-sex marriage – a move he felt was out of tune with Mr Key’s Helensville electorate.

“This is not an insignificant issue. The majority of people genuinely feel their MP should be guided by their own electorate and not their own opinion.”

I disagree entirely. I quote (again) Edmund Burke:

Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

As much as I would personally benefit from MPs making all their decisions based on opinion polls, I think it is wrong. Public opinion is always something to be considered and of influence. But at the end of the day decisions should be made on the basis of whether you believe an action is good or bad.

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

Really? Honestly?

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

I doubt it.

Anna Leask at NZ Herald reports:

Doctors later said the severity of Mike’s head injuries was usually only seen in car-crash victims – they had never seen it in an assault before.

Three men were arrested soon after and charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The Herald has chosen not to name them for legal reasons.

Two of the men were already on bail and jointly facing charges, including assault with intent to injure and possession of a knife. After the alleged assault on Mike, one was remanded in custody and the other re-bailed.

Bail is often appropriate when people are first charged as they have not yet been found guilty (if they are). But if you are on bail and get charged again then bail should not occur unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The third man was also remanded in custody but bailed after a successful High Court appeal. He was arrested again in January for failing to appear in court and then granted bail again until his next appearance.

And if you fail to turn up to court, you should also lose the right to bail.

The family believed that anyone charged with a violent offence should be kept in custody until their trial to prevent any further attacks.

That is a step too far. But if they have a history of offending or were already on bail when further alleged offending occurs – then bail should not occur.

Mathew Dearnaley reports at NZ Herald:

Former North Shore mayor and senior policeman George Wood says he did not realise he was breaking the law by taking a cellphone photograph while driving across the harbour bridge. …

He believed he would have been within the law had he used a standard camera, which would have been harder to operate while driving.

He is correct. Absolutely legal to take a photo on a camera, just not on a cellphone.

This shows the stupidity of a law that targets just one sort of device  mobile phones. The law should focus on all distractions, not just scapegoat cellphones.

Stuff reports:

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee has backed a coroner’s call to make prisoners serve their driving bans after they are freed, not while they are still in jail.

Coroner Garry Evans’ recommendation is contained in his report into the death of a young woman in a car crash caused by a paroled criminal who was on a witness protection programme at the time.

Debbie Ashton, 20, died when repeat driving offender Jonathan Barclay, a former P addict, smashed into her car while speeding and drunk, near Nelson in December 2006.

Barclay has twice served out driving bans while in prison for more serious offending. Both times he has gone on to crash into other people.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

In a statement last night, Mr Brownlee said he had asked officials from the justice and transport ministries to look into the recommendation. Any change would require an amendment to legislation, which meant it would have to be put before Parliament.

Will the Greens oppose it as they could argue it punishes the criminal twice?

Hank Schouten at Stuff reports:

A Wellington home steeped in political history is being sold by the Government.

The red-brick house at 41 Pipitea St, Thorndon, was the home of prime ministers Sir Sidney Holland, Sir Walter Nash, Sir Keith Holyoake and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, as well as a string of Cabinet ministers, including Jim Sutton and most recently Nick Smith.

Tommy’s agent Steve Wagg said it was a huge 450-square-metre house with a large foyer and reception area, and six bedrooms.

About 10 interested parties went to an open home on Sunday, though he guessed its days as a family home were numbered because of its size and location in the heart of Thorndon.

That would be a pity. I’ve been to the house a few times, and it is a lovely home.  It would be a shame to see it demolished and turned into apartments or converted to an office.

It is in a superb location. I suspect it will go for a big price.

The latest poll (Fairfax Ipsos) is at  Curiablog. It shows no Government could be formed without the Maori Party.

David Fisher at NZ Herald reports:

Three sons of anti-violence campaigner Hinewhare Harawira – and nephews of MP Hone Harawira – are facing charges over an assault on a 12-year-old boy. …

The three sons facing charges of injuring with intent to injure in relation to the August 24 incident are Mau Toa Harawira, 30, Enesi Zane Brooks Taito, 25, and Tohora Harawira, 22.

Assaulting a child is loathsome. However I think the reference to Hone Harawira and headline of “Harawira sons charged” is inappropriate.

These three people are all adults. One of them is 30. Their uncle is not responsible for what they do. Even their mother is not responsible.

The parliamentary office of Hone Harawira, leader of the Mana Party and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, declined to comment.

He shouldn’t have been asked to comment. Would any other MP be asked to comment on what an adult nephew does?

Don’t take this to mean any support for the three men who have been charged. Three adult men beating up a 12 year old is awful, and if guilty they should be punished. But I don’t believe in guilt by association.

The Press editorial:

The big reduction in the number of schools being forced to close or merge, announced by Education Minister Hekia Parata yesterday, is more than welcome. It ends the anxiety of the many Christchurch people who faced their most cherished community asset being torn from them or drastically altered, reduces pupil and parent fears and gives teachers more certainty about their jobs.

The Government should be congratulated for at last properly consulting people about the plan and for taking heed of concerns. Even greater congratulations should go to the schools, parents and supporters for gathering the facts and ensuring that the Government took them aboard. This was a demonstration of people power at its constructive best.

There is nothing as good as winning an argument by having the facts on your side.

Now it emerges that much of that outpouring was avoidable had the Ministry of Education built its plans on sure facts and consulted more effectively before the wholesale announcement. Had it done so, the first plan would have been something like that now proposed and would not have hit the city like a load of lead. People would have been much more accepting of change because they would have been informed about its need and contributed to its detail.

It is clear the original proposals were not just communicated badly, but were in some cases based on faulty info. The Herald touches on this also:

The outcry that greeted the announcement of the plan in September made its revision inevitable. The revised version appeared yesterday. Instead of closures and mergers of schools across the city the closures now appear to be confined to areas worst hit by the earthquakes or where rolls had been in steepest decline.

While there is anguish in any school that has to close – and the date has been set sooner for them under the revised plan – some of them had to go. The city’s schools had a combined capacity for about 5000 more pupils than attended them before the earthquakes and its school-age population had dropped by a further 4300 by July last year.

It is hard to argue that nothing should change at all, based on the surplus of 9,300 places.

If the original plan had been confined to those sorts of areas it would probably not have incurred the wrath and derision it received. But somewhere in the higher echelons of education, the earthquake was seen as an opportunity to redesign schooling as we have known it in this country. The whole of Christchurch was to be a template for “something different and innovative to support improved outcomes in education”.

The ministry’s document talked of “shared campuses” for everything from early childhood to tertiary education, and educational institutions that would comprise not just schools but “dental clinics, doctors’ surgeries, mental health and other support services such as counsellors, social workers and therapists”.

To this end, the planners hoped to knock down and rebuild much more public property than had suffered serious damage.

The original plan was based on the “ideal” but failed to take account of how disruptive change can be. The revised plan appears to be based on necessity where change is minimised unless there is little alternative.

The Deputy Auditor-General has reported:

The inquiry has considered both the adequacy of the process followed and whether anything substantively wrong has taken place. The main question underlying this inquiry was whether the Government’s decision to negotiate with SkyCity had been influenced by inappropriate considerations, such as connections between political and business leaders.

We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.

The Opposition will try and ignore this conclusion.

However, we found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry provided and the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.

And this appears to be very fair criticism. Note that there is no suggestion that the process should be redone. Also none of the other bidders want (as far as I know) for the process to be redone.

The full report is here. A quote:

In our view, the result was that one potential submitter had a clearer understanding of the actual position on a critical issue – that the Government  did not want to fund any capital costs – than any other potential submitters. 

Although this is a fl aw in the process, it might not have had significant consequences. The other submitters still understood that the Government’s finances were constrained, and became more so as 2010 progressed. No other submitter appears to have been likely to be able to adapt their proposal to enable them to fund the full construction costs. We accept that it is unlikely that this flaw made a material difference to the outcome.

Also:

Given the nature of the responses, it is likely that the SkyCity proposal was always going to be the most attractive from most perspectives. Indeed, in the course of this inquiry, we have not heard any comment to suggest that other proposers did not understand the reasons why the Government might prefer the SkyCity proposal. …

We accept that officials were acting in good faith to support decision-making by Ministers on some difficult and controversial matters. The fact that the process was unsatisfactory does not automatically mean that the conclusions reached were unsound.

Now this is not to minimise the criticism of the Deputy Auditor-General. MED did not run the process to the standard expected, and the Government should ensure it does so in future. But let’s be very clear that this is a different issue from whether the report of the DAG means the convention centre agreement should not proceed.

Also worth noting:

In the previous Parts, we briefly mentioned that officials have researched the costs of increased gambling and provided advice to Ministers on this. It is not appropriate for us to detail the content of that advice in this report, but we can confirm that we are satisfied that the issues have received adequate attention during the evaluation and negotiation process. As already noted, any reforms of this kind will also be debated publicly and by Parliament before they can be implemented.

Of course the Government and Sky City are yet to agree on a package, so the focus will now be on an agreement being struck, and then legislation proposed to implement it.

For some reason the Government has been unable to e-mail out the official statements, so this is based on listening to the press conference. But the decision appears to be:

1. New Zealand will follow Australia and legislate to allow for mandatory plain packaging of tobacco products
2. The regulations to implement the law will not be activated until the conclusion of the WTO cases a number of countries have filed against Australia for its decision

 The second part of the decision is sensible. Implementing it prior to the WTO cases being concluded would just open New Zealand up to possible trade sanctions. As a country that has benefited from WTO decisions in our favour (such as apple exports to Australia), it is important we obey the rules we agree to.

In terms of the main decision to implement plain packaging, if legal, my views are:

1. It is desirable and appropriate for the Government to take measures to reduce smoking rates, considering the cost to the health system of smoking, and the devastation to families by early premature deaths. Various policies have lowered the smoking rate massively over recent times.
2. Tobacco is a dangerous addictive product that kills even if taken as intended. It is fundamentally different to say alcohol which is fine in moderation. Also in my experience the vast majority of tobacco users are addicted and desperately want to give up and regret they started. By contrast the vast majority of drinkers have no desire to give up alcohol, rightfully so.
3. I do not like the precedent of the Government confiscating intellectual property such as brands from private businesses. Tobacco companies may not be popular, but they sell a legal regulated product. My concern is that various groups will use this decision to advocate plain packaging and confiscation of brands and intellectual property for other companies such as alcohol and “fast” foods and “fizzy” drinks. Make no mistake that this is on their agenda.
4. Taking the competing beliefs of (1), (2) and (3), I would support plain packaging if it stops young people taking up smoking. Tobacco is different to other products and I believe the gains from fewer young people smoking outweighs the damage caused by the precedent of intellectual property confiscation.
5. However there is no evidence that plain packaging will reduce the uptake rates of smoking, or the overall smoking rates. The so called evidence is laughable – basically a few surveys of teenagers asking them if they find plain packs less attractive than branded packs. Of course they say yes. That is very different from whether the pack design would affect their decision to take up smoking or keep smoking.
6. My preference, as previously stated, was to trial plain packaging in one area of New Zealand, and compare to change in smoking rates to the control group in the other area. This would allow its effectiveness to be measured without being contaminated by other policies or initiatives such as increases in tobacco taxes. If it was shown to be effective, then  it would be rolled out to all of NZ and made permanent.

A science-based approach is far preferable to making a decision based on hope.

However the decision has been made, and will be implemented so long as legal under WTO rules we have agreed to. What my hope is that the Government will still at least try and monitor its effectiveness and see if it impacts smoking rates by trying to isolate the impact of plain packaging from other changes such as excise tax increases, or advertising campaigns.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers.

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: In relation to the proposed school closures in Christchurch, does she agree with Manning Intermediate head Richard Chambers that “The Minister promised us that we would have two years no matter what. It was a guarantee she made to our community repeatedly, it was unequivocal”?
2. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
4. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: In the context of the Government’s Christchurch schools announcement, what is the process going forward?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he believe that the contracting system currently used in the construction industry works appropriately and fairly in circumstances of insolvency; if so, why?
6. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What progress is being made on making the Christchurch city centre safe for rebuilding?
7. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
8. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How is the Government focussing New Zealand’s science funding investment, and encouraging Kiwis to get involved in science?
9. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding government support for volunteering?
11. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister of Local Government: Does he have any concerns about the Hawkes Bay Regional Council’s forecast of 530 percent increase in its debt by 2021/22?
12. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Associate Minister of Health; if so, why?

Questions to Members.

1. Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR to the Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill?

Today Labour are asking four questions, The Greens have two questions, and NZ First  have one question. Unusually David Shearer has two of Labour’s questions for himself asking the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in all his ministers and later on in question time does he stand by all his statements.  Labour are also asking about insolvency procedures in construction projects to Maurice Williamson,  and the Prime Minister again about the withdrawal of New Zealand troops from Afghanistan. The Greens are asking about Christchurch school closures and local government debt  forecasts. NZ First is asking whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the Associate Minister of Health.

Patsy question of the day goes to Alfred Ngaro for Question 10: What recent announcements has she made regarding government support for volunteering?

Government Bills 3.oo PM- 6.00 PM and 7.30 PM – 10.oo PM.

1. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill – Committee Stage

2. International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

3. Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill –           Committee Stage

4. Corrections Amendment Bill – Third Reading

The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is being guided through the house by Judith Collins. The aim of the Bill as introduced is to amend the Privacy Act 1993 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 in relation to information sharing by agencies delivering public services to better integrate services, reduce duplication and lower information handling costs across government.

The International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Bill English.  It  provides for New Zealand to recognise the changes to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Comissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Chris Tremain. The main aim of the Bill is to extend from 2013 to 2016 the Canterbury Regional Council’s (ECan) governance arrangement and special water management decision-making powers in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 (the Act).

The Corrections Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Anne Tolley. The main aim of this Bill is to remove barriers to managing prisoners in a manner that is safe, secure, humane, effective, and efficient.

The 2013 Youth Parliament is on 16 and 17 July 2013.

All 121 MPs will select a Youth MP, plus there will be 10 Youth Press Gallery members. It’s a great opportunity for young people interested in politics.

If you are aged between 16 and 18 you are eligible to be a Youth MP. Each MP will make a selection as they see fit. Most run some sort of application process and judging contest.

Don’t be shy. If you don’t apply, you can’t be considered.

Charles Chauvel has announced:

Labour MP Charles Chauvel has today announced his resignation from Parliament.

“I have written to the Speaker, resigning my seat effective Monday 11 March.”

Charles Chauvel said that he had accepted a position with the United Nations in New York, advising on Parliamentary Development and Democratic Governance. 

Good God, is there any limit to how many jobs Helen can arrange for Labour MPs?

While Chauvel was not in favour with Shearer, it is still not a promising sign for Labour that an MP who is in the shadow Cabinet bails out of Parliament for a job. It indicates a lack of confidence he will become a Minister after the election.

Chauvel entered Parliament in 2006 and was always thought likely to become a Minister. He would have been appointed one if Labour had won in 2008.

This means that Carol Beaumont will be eligible to return to Parliament as a List MP. That is great for the union faction, but not so good for renewal.

Regardless of politics, I wish Charles well in his new job.

The Herald reports:

A Wellington businessman who has declared “open season” on cyclists has outraged cycling advocates who say his comments are frightening and dangerous.

David Ware, managing director of publicly listed mobile radio company TeamTalk, wrote an editorial in the latest company newsletter railing against cyclists.

He calls them “sodding road vermin”, “roadkill”, “weasels in Lycra”, and said “it’s time to declare open season”.

“More than anything it’s their unbridled arrogance that gets up my nose.

“Unlike the rest of us they don’t pay road user charges or extra ACC premiums. But in spite of being guests on our roads they think they have some god given right to ride wherever they bloody-well please, whenever they please.”

However, Mr Wade said he had just bought a bike and would let readers know how he went.

The editor of cyclingnz.com Tim Pawson said the article was “distressing and appalling”.

He said it was frightening to see such anger in the editorial.

Oh good God, it is a pisstake.

The “editorial” is here. David Ware has just taken up cycling. He is actually taking the piss out of anti-cycling views. Does anyone think you would seriously write an anti-cycling rant and then announce at the end that by the way I am now a cyclist.

David is well known for being slightly wacky. He once settled a commercial dispute with an arm wrestle. His company’s annual reports are half annual report and half cocktail guide.

Stuff reports:

What could have been yesterday’s hot political ticket was cancelled, apparently because of too much media interest.

Social media was abuzz at the prospect of NZ First MP Richard Prosser outlining his “common sense” views at the Aro St Community Centre, in the first public speech since his infamous “Wogistan” comments came to light.

However organiser Hugh Barr said as a result of a “media beat up” the long organised event had been cancelled. “We were scared that the only people who would turn up would be media.”

Oh I don’t think they were really worried about a lack of people turning up. I knew a lot of people planning to attend.

Telecom have announced:

Telecom, Vodafone and Telstra announced today they have signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MoU) to co-invest in the construction of a new submarine cable between Auckland and Sydney.
The new cable, tentatively titled the Tasman Global Access (TGA) Cable, will significantly improve New Zealand’s international telecommunications connectivity as well as strengthen links into fast-growing Asian markets.

The total cost of the TGA cable is expected to be less than US$60 million. The cable will incorporate three fibre pairs with a current design capacity of 30 terabits per second – approximately 300 times the current internet data demand out of New Zealand.

30 terabits a second isn’t bad!

The TGA cable will achieve significant international connectivity benefits for New Zealand at a fraction of the build cost of another, much longer trans-Pacific cable, the consortium partners said.

It would be nice to have another trans-Pacific cable also, but this announcement is good news as it means more competition and more capacity. What is pleasing is that it is not just Telecom (who have the biggest stake of Southern Cross) but also Telstra and Vodafone.

Telecom chief executive Simon Moutter and Vodafone New Zealand CEO Russell Stanners jointly commented: “The business case for a new cable between New Zealand and Australia is compelling, providing greater capacity and global redundancy capability. It also reflects the growing importance of trans-Tasman internet traffic: for example, around 40% of both Telecom and Vodafone’s international internet traffic is now Australia to New Zealand, versus just 10% in 2000.

“We are seeing increased data content being provided from Australia-based servers by global companies and being accessed by New Zealand internet users. An additional cable connection with Australia will strengthen the business case for international data servers to be located in New Zealand.

I’ve blogged on this in the past. NZ will never be big enough to have global datacentres here, but if we can get the Googles and Apples of the world to do regional datacentres in Sydney, then we will pull more and more of our data from Australia rather than the United States.

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins has announced legislation will be introduced to Parliament today to clear the way for changes to laws dictating the line of succession to the throne.

The Royal Succession Bill allows an elder daughter to precede a younger son in the line of succession, meaning the order of succession to the throne will no longer be based on gender.

“The new laws will apply to any children in the Royal line of succession born after 28 October 2011. This means the change will apply to the child of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, due to be born in July,” says Ms Collins.

If we are to have a monarchy, then it is a good thing that women will no longer be discriminated against.

The new rules will also allow a person married to a Roman Catholic to become King or Queen. Currently, prospective heirs who are married to Catholics are disqualified from succession.

The changes will not allow a Catholic to accede to the throne. The rules which require the Sovereign to swear an oath to maintain the Protestant religion will remain unchanged.

Which is just one reason why NZ as a secular country should not be part of a system that prohibits Catholics from becoming the New Zealand Head of State.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn blogs:

A little over ten years ago, a blog was born. Two days later, on February 18 2003, I made my first post, having been lured aboard by my then-co-blogger Mike (who then wandered off and left me in charge, which may have been his cunning plan from the beginning).

Congrats to No Right Turn on the 10th birthday.

That reminds me that on 27 July 2013 Kiwiblog will be ten years old.

I’ve been thinking for a while that it would be nice to have a 10th birthday party to celebrate the blog, and the impact it has had in various ways.

To allow me to do something a bit more appealing than a function with water and carrot sticks only, I am wondering if there are any organisations or companies out there that would be interested in sponsoring the 10th birthday party. If you are interested, drop me an e-mail and we can discuss possibilities.  Not looking to do anything massively flashy but would be nice to be able to provide a bit of food and drink. In return of course would be some publicity.

The actual party would be in early August as I will be in the United States in July.

The broadcasters have announced:

Broadcasting Industry to Launch Online News And Current Affairs Self Regulatory Body

New Zealand’s major radio and television broadcasters today confirmed the launch of a new industry funded, self-regulatory body, the Online Media Standards Authority “OMSA”, which will oversee online news and current affairs content standards.

Since the Law Commission’s paper, The News Media meets ‘New Media’ was published in December 2011, NZ television broadcasters TVNZ, SKY/Prime, MediaWorks TV, and Maori Television have worked together with Radio New Zealand, The Radio Network and MediaWorks Radio to provide an industry led, cost effective and consumer friendly solution to regulate online news and current affairs content. OMSA will publish a code of standards and provide a free complaints process overseen by the OMSA Complaints Committee.

The OMSA Complaints Committee will be chaired by retired Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Bruce Robertson and including the Chair; will comprise four public members and three broadcasting industry representatives.

The new body will use a similar format to that used by the Advertising Standards Authority and the NZ Press Council, as they are excellent examples of industry funded, self- regulatory regimes working effectively. OMSA acknowledges the advice and guidance that was provided by both organizations. OMSA Chair, Clare Bradley, said

“OMSA enjoys the total support of New Zealand broadcasters and the OMSA code and complaints process will apply to the websites operated by all OMSA members. The Authority has its genesis in the report of the Law Commission which identified a regulatory “gap” in the oversight of news and current affairs content solely published on line. We are delighted to be able to provide the solution to the Law Commission’s “gap”.

This does help plug a gap. Currently broadcaster’s websites are not covered by any code or body. Print media websites are covered by the Press Council.

It’s a step in the right direction, but a poor substitute to what we should have – which is a converged standards regulator for all media – totally independent of Government.

What is no clear is what the membership eligibility for OMSA will be, and associated fees. Should online publishers who wish to be seen as media join OMSA or the Press Council? Will the fees be affordable for non-commercial entities.