Lois Cairns at The Press reports:

If Christchurch is to become a city for cyclists, then the city council should spend the $69 million needed to create a city-wide cycleway network.

That is the view of Cr Aaron Keown, who says that if the council is serious about turning Christchurch into the Amsterdam of the South Pacific, it needs to put its money where its mouth is.

He said number crunching by council staff showed that if ratepayers were prepared to accept an extra 1 per cent increase in their rates, the network could be funded and built within two years.

“The average household in Christchurch pays $1600 a year in rates, so a 1 per cent rate increase is an extra $16 a year,” Keown said.

“If the people of Christchurch really want a cycle network, are they prepared to pay an extra $16 a year for it?”

Christchurch looks to be an ideal city for cycling as it is so flat. The idea of cycleways is a good one. However I am unsure about the robustness of the $16 a year figure.

There are around 140,000 households in Christchurch. $69 million is in fact $492 a household. Not $16.

The story refers to it being funded within two years. So that would in fact require $250 a household per year – not $16.

This wasn’t hard to calculate. It would be nice if media had the resources or inclination to fact check claims made by politicians, rather than just report on them.

Jane Clifton writes at Stuff:

As new Speaker David Carter began his first full sitting day in the job, Winston Peters started as he meant to go on, too: “Pointofordah!”

This is usually the first thing out of the NZ First leader’s mouth at question time – but this was before the first question had even been asked. Mr Peters’ urgent problem with Mr Carter was “the regalia you’re wearing”. What was the background of the feathery capelet bedecking the Speaker’s shoulders?

Mr Peters’ mockingly querulous tone – “because we’re full of curiosity” – made it clear he was really asking: “What the heck have you come as?”

Mr Carter decided not to take offence, however, and explained good-humouredly that it was a Maori gift, symbolising “goodwill, honour and peace to the House”.

Mr Peters laughed delightedly as if he’d just heard the punchline to a good joke – though there was an immediate outbreak of goodwill in the form of House-wide applause for Mr Carter.

Save for a little cantankerous sniping later from the usual suspects, Mr Peters and Labour’s Trevor Mallard, and a bit of cheek from Green co-leader Russel Norman, Mr Carter had a reasonably undemanding workout.

I thought it was a good first outing for Speaker Carter. What was pleasing is that when Ministers didn’t answer a factual question, he allowed the Opposition MPs to re-ask the question (without it having to count as an additional question) until the Minister answered.

The funniest aspect was in relation to question 11 from Chris Hipkins to Hekia Parata about which, if any, particular decisions she regretted. Trevor Mallard got up before the question was even asked and started quoting several Standing Orders and Speaker’s Rulings. I, like most, was busy looking up the orders and rulings being referred to until at the end of his point of order he revealed that he was suggesting to the Speaker he be lenient if the primary answer is longer than is normally allowed. Very very funny, and a nice reasonably subtle (for Trevor) use of points of order to sledge someone.

A useful publication, listing 40 common occupations and showing three dials indicating likely future income, size of fees and job prospects.

The settings are low, medium and high for income and fees and for job prospects are limited, fair and good.

As far as I can see the only occupation with low fees and high income is real estate salespeople. However they have limited job prospects.

Fees, even high ones, tend to be insignificant compared to future income so the two  factors I would look for are high income and good job prospects. Those occupations are:

• Accountants
• Financial Advisors
• Engineers
• Vets
• Dentists
• Doctors
• Psychologists

Of course more important (for me anyway) is whether you find an occupation interesting and challenging.

They have career sheets on each occupation, such as this one for journalists. Some interestings stats such as average income is $56,000 and 87% of journalists work in print media, and 80% of those work for APN or Fairfax.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of Budget 2013?
2. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Education: Given the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report shows a widening education gap between students from wealthier and poorer communities, would she have done anything differently, in hindsight, to better support children in lower decile schools?
4. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Police: What announcements has the Government made on the availability of new technology for frontline Police to help them in their fight against crime?
5. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister for Economic Development:What progress, if any, has the Government made in the area of regional development?
6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his Budget 2012 statement “We are moving towards growth that is driven by savings, exports, and productive investment in the parts of the economy that trade with the rest of the world”?
7. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the 2012 NCEA results?
8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he agree with the Salvation Army whose report states today that “Another year of minimal change in levels of child poverty was matched by little tangible progress being made by the Ministerial Committee on Poverty”; if not, why not?
9. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What steps is the Government taking to reduce costs for New Zealanders using their mobile devices overseas?
10. HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he agree that a Māori and Pacific unemployment rate that has been nearly three times higher than the Pākehā rate for each of the four years of his Government’s time in office signals the failure of the National Governments employment, education, skills and training policies for Māori and Pacific peoples; if not, why not?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her decisions as Minister of Education; if not, which, if any, particular decisions does she now regret?
12. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Ethnic Affairs: What is the Government doing to increase the leadership capabilities in youth of ethnic minorities?

Today Labour are asking four questions, The Greens have one question, Mana and NZ First also have one question. Labour are asking about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, Bill English about growth in the economy and child poverty, and Hekia Parata about which decisions as a minister she regrets. The Greens are asking about child poverty, NZ First is asking about regional development and Mana is asking about Maori and Pacific Islander unemployment relative to Pakeha unemployment.

Patsy of the day goes to Melissa Lee for Question 12: What is the Government doing to increase the leadership capabilities in youth of ethnic minorities?

Debate on the Prime Ministers Statement 3.00 PM – 4.10 PM

Speeches of ten minutes, with 1 hour and 10 minutes to go

Valedictory Statement of the Dr Rt Hon Lockwood Smith 5.30 PM – 6.00 PM

Dr Smith has served as an MP  for first the Kaipara electorate and then Rodney since 1984, and has held a number of Cabinet positions; he was Minister of Education from 1990 to 1996 and subsequently served as Minister of Agriculture, Minister for International Trade, and Associate Minister of Finance. Lockwood has been the Speaker of the House from late 2008 until last week. Valedictory speeches are normally 15 minutes in length, but given Lockwood’s long service I expect it will be extended to 30 minutes.

Government Bills 4.10 PM – 5.30 PM and 7.30-10.00 PM

1. Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill – Second Reading

2.Corrections Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

3. Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill – Committe Stage

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 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.

Source of Hamurana Springs, Lake Rotorua. New Zealand landscape photography by Sarah Sisson.

This is another image from our recent North Island adventures, this one is by Sarah – @fredinthegrass is hiding somewhere in the bush wrangling our kids out of shot 🙂

Hamurana springs was one of my favourite finds on this trip. The crystal clear waters are on a par with pupu springs in Golden Bay with the addition of plentiful trout.  To boot, the bush walk along the stream is fantastic – thanks to the restoration planting undertaken by the local community and DOC.  A great family outing.

Have a great week.

Free Wallpaper Download

You may download the large version of today’s image from this link:  Password = freewallpaper

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] 

Stuff reports:

A man convicted of multiple charges made a rude gesture to a judge after he was sentenced to prison.

Joel Twain McVay, 34, held up his middle finger to the judge, told him he would not follow some of his sentence, and swore at a police officer after his sentencing in the Blenheim District Court yesterday.

A pretty good sign he will not stop offending.

McVay was sentenced on his fourth drink-driving conviction and 19th conviction for driving while disqualified, as well as burning his partner’s belongings and assaulting her.

The Police should wait outside his place and just arrest him as he jumps in a car.

Judge Richard Russell said it was McVay’s 10th assault conviction. He sentenced him to two years and one month in prison after he admitted charges of refusing to give a blood sample, driving while disqualified, assault and wilful damage.

Only 25 months? His 10th assault conviction.

I’m not sure if his type of assault was serious enough to get a strike – but I hope so in the sense that he look to be a prime candidate for getting the maximum sentence with no parole. A lot fewer people will end up assaulted by him that way.

The Business Committee of Parliament basically schedules the business of Parliament, within Standing Orders, and has delegated authority to make decisions on various House matters. Because of that, it operates on a consensus basis – ie pretty much all parties agree.

A few interesting decisions today:

• Agreed, That the time by which the Commerce Committee must report the Regulatory Standards Bill be extended from Thursday, 28 February 2013 to Friday, 28 February 2014. – this indicates ACT’s bill is not fit to progress, but they don’t want it dumped either – playing for time.
  
• Agreed, That Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith make a valedictory statement at 5.30 pm on Wednesday, 13 February 2013. Will be worth tuning into to. Lockwood has been an MP since 1984.
• Agreed, That that the sitting on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 be extended from 9.00 am to 1.00 pm on Thursday, 18 April 2013 for consideration of business to be agreed at a future meeting of the Business Committee. Interesting that so much advance notice is being given. A long way from the days when the Opposition would only be told or urgency the day it occured.
• Agreed, That, after questions for oral answer on Thursday, 18 April 2013 a debate on Pacific issues will be held. Now, this is unusual. Not often Parliament has a debate on a specific topic not related to a bill. I wonder who put this up.

Also in case you ever wondered how they allocate the questions for oral answer, the current schedule is here. There is also a schedule for general debate speeches.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

NZ First MPs are privately seething at Richard Prosser’s call for Muslims to be banned from Western airlines.

I’m not surprised.

There are some good people in NZ First. I’m no fan of Winston but some of his MPs are trying to be productive Representatives in Parliament. I’m sure they are cringing at the thought of having to explain to their friends and families how they are part of a party where an MP can refer to Muslims coming from Wogistan and calls on anyone who is “or looks like” a Muslim being banned from air travel if they are a young male.

The list MP went to ground yesterday after his remarks were widely publicised and provoked controversy. NZ First leader Winston Peters has refused to sack him and says he doesn’t have to apologise.

They should be equally angry at Winston. He has made it impossible for them to distance themselves from the views expressed, as not even the bare minimum of an apology has been given. They have no defence against people saying they are part of a party that effectively allows MPs to label some New Zealanders as wogs and that wogs shouldn’t be allowed on our planes.

A NZ First source said its MPs were furious and believed Mr Prosser “acted like a stupid idiot”.

Did no one in NZ First think to vet the column before publication. It is common in pretty much every party for columns to be go through the Leader’s Office in advance. You can’t allow an MP to claim they are a journalist and an MP, and what they write as a journalist is exempt.

And if I was in NZ First, I’d also be annoyed that the Leader knew about the column for three weeks and did nothing.

In a later interview he stood by his views and went on to say that an Israeli airline that bans Muslims is one of the world’s safest carriers.

Incidentally this is wrong. They do not ban Muslims. And having travelled to Israel let me tell you the security there is far more rigorous than merely losing a pocket knife as happened to Prosser. It took me over an hour to clear security – and you know I don’t “look like a Muslim” so the references to Israel are quite wrong.

“We are a mature party, we don’t go round telling people off. After a rational discussion he has changed his mind,” Mr Peters said. “. . . We can’t take it any further than that. He’s had a chance to reflect . . . he admits it was unbalanced.”

Rational?

The comments have gained some attention overseas, being well covered by Australian news organisations and turning up further afield in such publications as the Singapore-based Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia, Dubai-based Gulf News, and the UK edition of the Huffington Post.

I doubt there is another country on Earth where a legislator has actually seriously called for a travel ban on anyone who “looks likes a Muslim”, and is young and male.

UPDATE: The spin doctors have now got to Prosser and after saying he stands by what he wrote yesterday, he today said on Nine to Noon he regrets his choice of words (yet defends the use of the word wog!) and that he should have called for a debate on profiling, not a travel ban. There is a world of difference between what he wrote and what he now says he should have written.

He’s also trying to distract by saying my release of the story was part of a National strategy to cover up some (unidentified) other issue. Maybe he means the Papal abdication?

As I tweeted this morning, no one in National knew of my blog post before I made it. The only person who knew would be my flatmate after I showed him the article last night. You see, I only purchased a copy of Investigate on Monday afternoon, read the column with disbelief, and wrote my post that night timing it for 10 am Tuesday. So the conspiracy theory is just a desperate attempt to divert attention.

UPDATE 2: A very personal blog post from a Kiwi Muslim on what Prosser said.

I am a Bengali New Zealander. I am also a feminist, a bookworm, a foodie and a cinephile. Some days I have good taste in music and some days I have bad taste in music. I love the beach but hate getting sand everywhere. I speak several languages. I still get upset at the thought that Dumbledore dies. When I lived in Auckland, I thought of West Auckland as home. Now that I live in Wellington, I think of Auckland as home, and of Wellington as “my city,” whatever that means. I bake decent brownies (oh the irony).

Oh, yes, I am also a Muslim. …

Richard Prosser’s comments hurt because he’s saying I’m not a real New Zealander. I am an Other. I am suspect because I don’t, undoubtedly, look like his daughters. My little brother, now 20, studying a Bachelor of Commerce, with his terribly cheesy sense of humour and his kind, kind heart, who loves his sports and protein shakes but who I will partly always think of as that bossy toddler with chubby cheeks, is for no other reason than because Mr Prosser, from his position of power and privilege says so, not enough of a New Zealander. Because of only one thing, out of the many things that he is, because he is Muslim. Not enough of a New Zealander to deserve the minimum modicum of respect one would expect from an MP when talking about one of the citizens of this country, simply based on his faith, and, let’s be honest, the colour of his skin. Not enough of a New Zealander to get on his Western planes.

A very personal and moving post.

UPDATE3: The Radio NZ audio is embdedded below.

Sam Boyer at Stuff reports:

Drinking too much Coke helped kill mother of eight Natasha Harris, the coroner has found.

Harris drank up to 10 litres of Coke every day – equal to more than twice the recommended safe daily limit of caffeine and almost one kilogram of sugar.

She died aged 30, on February 25, 2010, from a cardiac arrest. Her partner, Christopher Hodgkinson, found her seated on the toilet, slumped against the wall and gasping for air.

Of course 10 litres of coke a day will kill you. So will 10 litres of water or orange juice probably.

10 litres of coke is over 4,000 calories a day – and that’s without any food!

Coca-Cola has argued that the huge quantities of Coke drunk daily by Harris day could not be proven to have contributed to her death.

But in findings released today, coroner David Crerar said Harris would not have died if it wasn’t for her dependence on Coke.

Coke have never said that drinking 10 litres of coke a day won’t harm you.  If you ate 10 kgs of lamb a day it wouldn’t be great for you – but lamb is not the problem.

What is sad is that no one got her help or intervened to stop her drinking 10 litres a day.

I note the Coroner said:

He recommended the Government consider imposing caffeine and sugar warnings on soft drinks, such as those already compulsory on energy drinks.

The Coroners want their recommendations to require an official Government inquiry and response. Not going to happen when they make so many daft recommendations. I don’t think we need a warning that you should not drink 10 litres of coke a day!

Joe Nunweek has blogged what is probably the most detailed critique of Seven Sharp. It’s a good read.

As I have blogged previously I have generally enjoyed the show. But there was one part this week that really made me groan. They had someone on for 5 to 10 minutes to give his view of how the entire banking system was a Ponzi scheme and that the Reserve Bank should just print more money or something (no it wasn’t Russel Norman – this guy made even Russel seem rational). Then at the end of the entirely unchallenged viewpoint:

“Now, we could have had any number of economists in to discuss the yin and the yang of what we’ve just seen, but we’d rather know what you think!”

Aaarrgh!

I’m all for viewer input and feedback but they are complementary for expert opinion – not a substitute for it. Especially in an area such as the financial and banking system. It was an appalling decision to not only refuse to have anyone to to put the other side of what the Social Credit type activist was claiming – but to actually boast of how they were not interested in having a well-informed discussion. If they had put on an economist on, then the viewer would have been in a better position to give feedback. Feedback is not a substitute for analysis.

To give credit to Greg Boyed, he did at least attempt to point out why the banking system is not a ponzi scheme.

Just published the monthly polling newsletter. The summary is:

January saw just two polls published – both Roy Morgan polls.

 The average of the public polls has National 14% ahead of Labour in January, 2% greater than in December. The seat projection is centre-right 57 seats, centre-left 61.

 Australia has divergent poll results with Roy Morgan having the Coalition 3% ahead and Newspoll 12% ahead. Newspoll also has Gillard’s approval rating dropping and Abbott’s rising.

 In the United States Barack Obama’s approval rating is at +10%, and the country direction is -22%. The generic congressional poll average has the Democrats 5% ahead of the Republicans.

 In the UK the Conservatives are 8% behind Labour, having gone up in the polls after announcing a future referendum on membership of the EU.

 In Canada the Conservatives are on 25%, NDP 30% and Liberals 22%.

 The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both.

 We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on Maori voters, Prince Charles, same sex marriage, euthanasia, housing affordability, The Hobbit, drink driving plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

The full  newsletter is only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Stuff reports:

Peters said this afternoon Prosser had made a mistake.

A mistake? It was a column! He wrote it. He says he stands by what he said. How can you claim it is a mistake!

He said he knew about the article three weeks ago, and told Prosser it wasn’t acceptable to present only one side of the argument.

“I’ve told him he cannot have a view that doesn’t have the balance in the other side of the argument.”

You think the lack of balance was the issue Winston? Not calling people wogs and saying people who look like wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes? The issue wasn’t balance. Columns are not meant to be balanced. They are meant though not to be racist.

Prosser wrote the column as a journalist, not as a NZ First MP, and the views expressed were not those of the party, Peters said.

Are you serious? He wrote it as a journalist, not as an MP? That’s your excuse for doing nothing.

He said a press statement was imminent from Prosser – but the MP had said he stood by his comments.

Barry Soper reported that Prosser had said he stands  by his comments.

Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser is technically Muslim (as he married a Muslim). If he was a bit younger, then according to Prosser he should be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Many interesting, outraged and humourous comments on Twitter under the Wogistan hashtag.

Jess Mutch from One News has tweeted:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

I would have thought that was an easy call for a Labour leader. But I guess he doesn’t want to upset a future coalition with Winston.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says there is an ‘element of truth’ in the column and he has not asked Mr Prosser to apologise.

Incredible.

The PM has said:

Prime Minister John Key said Mr Prosser’s comments were “an example of the depth of thinking coming out of New Zealand First”.

“It’s an appalling thing to say. It was premeditated. It was written in an opinion piece. It’s clearly what New Zealand First think of other New Zealanders but it’s a bit buffoonish if you ask me.”

And others:

Asked whether the NZ First MP should have kept his comments to himself, Mr Harawira said: “It’s best that they’re actually expressed openly because when people hold views as extreme as that it’s best that we hear them.”

I agree. It’s good to know that at least one NZ First MP things wogs shouldn’t be allowed on planes.

Act Party leader John Banks said the comments were “crazy” and “bizarre”.

“What can you say? I believe in good in all people, all races, all people.”

Asked whether there was a place for such extreme views in Parliament, Mr Banks said: “That is going to be tested by this member.”

United Future leader Peter Dunne also criticised the remarks on Twitter.

“It all reveals an ugly racist seam lurks just below the skin of too many people here – very uncomfortable,” he wrote.

We often call things racist too often. But in this case it is hard not to conclude it is racism when he writes of Wogistan and banning from travel anyone who “looks Muslim”.

Imagine how stable a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana Government would be!

UPDATE: Listen to Richard Prosser on radio here. Some quotes:

• it isn’t anything derogatory particularly
• I certainly think it is appropriate for me to be making those comments
• This is what we are here for – we are here to represent

Here to represent people who don’t like wogs.

Andrew Stone at the NZ Herald:

A leading human rights lawyer yesterday hit out at a decision banning a West Papua independence activist from speaking at Parliament.

Jennifer Robinson, a member of Julian Assange’s defence team, is in New Zealand briefly with Benny Wenda, a leader of the self-determination campaign for West Papua, which is under Indonesian control.

Is the right not to be raped not a human right? Is it a human right to flee justice rather than fight rape charges in court?

Not sure how you can be called a leading human rights lawyer, when you argue against alleged victims of rape being given a chance to have their case heard in court.

Note I am not saying Assange is guilty of rape. I am saying that he is not above the law, and should fight his case in court. It’s paranoid nonsense to suggest two hard core left-wing anti-US activist Swedish women are part of a plot to get him to the United States.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00 PM -3.00PM

Hamish Rutherford reports at Stuff:

Maurice Williamson is under pressure to stand down as Building and Construction Minister, because of his role as a director of a company associated with collapsed construction group Mainzeal.

Associated with! Sounds bad. Did Maurice make Mainzeal collapse? No the company is what is known as a supplier!

The National MP for Pakuranga is a director on Holyoake Industries, an air conditioning specialist which had worked on a number of projects with Mainzeal, which collapsed into receivership last week.

Yes. Companies work together on building sites. Plumbers and electricians work together. Architects and builders. Still yet to see what the issue is.

Labour Party deputy leader Grant Robertson said it was inappropriate for Williamson to hold the building portfolio while he was potentially making decisions concerning Mainzeal.

”He [Williamson] is the director of a company which has had a long and deep relationship with Mainzeal,” with projects the two companies had worked together on including the Supreme Court,” Robertson said.

”Our concern is that if he is making decisions about the future of Mainzeal, that may well have an effect on Holyoake industries.”

This is really desperate stuff. The Minister is not making decisions on the future of Mainzeal. The receivership is a matter for directors, shareholders and staff.

Labour and Green MPs have generally never worked in business. This allows them to claim any MP with any business interest is somehow conflicted. In their ideal world I guess no MP would have any business background.

Let us look at this issue. Grant Robertson is saying that it is possible that Maurice Williamson may make a decision on Mainzeal and that this theoretical decision could possibly have an effect on Holyoake and hence the Minister must resign his portfolio.

Are you serious?

In a statement Williamson said he had instructed officials that he would ”not receive papers on and would withdraw from discussions about heating and ventilation” because of his association with Holyoake Industries.

”I will continue to deal with issues related to Mainzeal, where that does not conflict with my declared personal interest.”

As is appropriate. But to claim that he can’t deal with any issue re Mainzeal because he is involved with a company that has done some work with Mainzeal is just ridiculous. It’s like saying if you are involved in a trucking business you can’t deal with any issues around supermarkets because they get their food delivered by truck.

A spokesman for prime minister John Key declined to comment other than to say it was ”not a story”.

Or shouldn’t be.

I would make the general point that I do think it is best for Ministers not to have outside directorships – for a number of reasons. But if you have them, you declare them and recuse yourself on issues affecting them – as Maurice has done. Calling for his resignation on the basis of he may make a decision on Mainzeal that may affect Holyoake is just silly politics.

UPDATE: This has just fizzled even more. PM has confirmed in the House that Holyoake is not a contractor or sub-contractor to Mainzeal. Basically they once worked on a couple of building sites together!

A few thoughts:

• Isn’t it amusing that when Helen Clark agreed to take some boat people who were seeking asylum in Australia she was lauded by the entire left for her humanitarian gesture yet when John Key agrees to do much the same, but annually, he is condemned by the exact same people. And yes, the Tampa refugees were treated as part of the quota also.
• How can one criticize this deal for encouraging queue-jumping yet also advocate that Australia should resume onshore processing which has been shown to massively encourage boat voyages and queue jumping.
• Personally I think there is a legitimate criticism that this deal may encourage queue-jumping, but probably not significantly enough to actually lead to a group of people deciding to make a boat voyage they otherwise would not have.
• There is a surprising lack of sophistication in understanding our relationship with Australia is not purely a transactional one. The decision by the NZ Government helps Julia Gillard (and any successor)  in what is arguably her most difficult domestic issue. That will not be forgotten.
• The notion that Australia bullied NZ into this is ridiculous. In fact as reported it was a NZ initiative
• What is surprising is the lack of focus on a centre-right NZ PM helping out a centre-left Australian PM. It’s a nice example of not letting domestic politics interfere with having a strong relationship.
• I’m surprised also no one has cottoned on to Gillard making an unprecedented early announcement of the election date, almost certainly being because Key the same thing in 2011.
• Personally I think taking in refugees is one of the better things a country can do, so long as they are able to integrate well into their new country and that the level is sustainable. Note that Australia takes in 20,000 to our 750. I’d like that to increase at some stage in the future when our economy is stronger. But I think it is best increased through the UNHCR process, not through increasing the number in the bilateral agreement with Australia
• You have to love Labour’s strong clear policy on this issue. They are outraged of course, but when asked what they would do, the answer is “Shearer said if elected, Labour would discuss the policy with Australia.” – you can’t make this stuff up.

Sue Neales at The Australian reports:

LAST year, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates gave $US10 million to British scientists to crack a problem he hoped might help solve the looming world food crisis.

Unusually, this time the philanthropy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was met with howls of outrage from left-leaning politicians and environmental groups that previously had welcomed its efforts to eradicate malaria and alleviate global poverty and hunger.

The reason? The Gates Foundation had dared to suggest that if British scientists could transfer the genes that give some root bacteria the ability to produce nitrogen from soil and air into wheat, corn or rice plants, it might help feed the nine billion people who will inhabit the planet by 2050.

How evil. They want to feed the planet.

Success would potentially allow wheat, rice, corn and other global food staples to be grown in even the poorest soils of Africa, Asia and South America without the need for costly fertilisers, greatly expanding world food production.

The potential is enormous.

Greenpeace Australia’s sustainable agriculture adviser Richard Widows immediately called the donation misplaced. He accused the Gates Foundation of feeding not the world but the profits of its biggest biotech and chemical conglomerates.

One can have a company make a profit, and help feed the poor. But the real sin is that the use of science conflicts with the near religious devotion some people have against science such as genetics.

“It’s the precautionary principle: that where the results of a new technology are still unknown, or where there is a lack of scientific knowledge or consensus regarding its safety, it’s smarter not to use it,” Greenpeace exhorts.

If one applied the precautionary principle the way Greenpeace does, we’d still think the world was flat as no one would have sailed too far in case they go off the edge.

It was this attitude towards GM crops that prompted two Greenpeace activists in July 2011 to climb over a fence at CSIRO’s plant research centre in Canberra and whipper-snip an entire trial plot of pioneering new wheat varieties bred using genetic engineering techniques.

The destroyed wheat plants had been genetically enhanced using a naturally occurring barley gene to modify starch and fibre levels and enhance nutritional value and human bowel health.

By accident, some genetic changes had also produced a wheat variety that has since taken the agricultural world by storm, promising growth and grain production 30 per cent higher than normal yields.

This is what they are trying to stop!

But while such anti-GM rhetoric was commonplace in the 1990s when the use of novel gene technology by the scientific community exploded, there are signs its ferocity is waning. Early this month, a British environmentalist, Mark Lynas, one of the first leaders of the anti-GM movement in the mid-90s, regretfully admitted to a farming conference in England that he had been wrong.

How long will we have to wait to hear the same here? I won’t hold my breath.

Lynas, a leading author on climate change issues, said he had slowly realised it was inconsistent with his reliance on evidence-based science and scientific knowledge to argue that climate change is a reality while simultaneously leading an inherently “anti-science” movement that demonised genetic modification of crops.

A point I often make. You can’t claim to be on the side of science for climate change and demonise science when it comes to fracking and GM.

Lynas told the conference this month that GM crops such as cotton, corn, soybeans and canola growing in the Americas and Australia had resulted in less pesticide and chemical use, reduced the costs of inputs to farmers, cut water usage and boosted food production.

And with three trillion meals containing food derived from GM-bred plants in 29 countries eaten in the past 15 years without one substantiated case of harm, Lynas is now certain it is safe.

Those who still cry out about the precautionary principle are just putting religious belief ahead of science.

I blogged yesterday about the Greenpeace report that claimed all these economic benefits of New Zealand becoming 100% renewable and carbon free energy, and somehow was taken seriously despite not even calculating the costs of what they propose.

Someone said that there is no need for them to calculate the costs as they are environmental organisation, not an economic organisation. Now that would be true if their report was solely about the environmental benefits of implementing their policies. But this report is all about the economic benefits of their proposed policies. And to ignore costs when talking economic policies is just nuts. It’s like doing a report on the health system and ignoring the mortality rate.

Peter McCaffrey facebooked a good analogy:

In other news, my highly technical report which I’ve commissioned tells me that if the government provided every single New Zealander with their own personal satellite we could have the best Internet access in the world.

I have made a deliberate choice not to research the costs of such a program because the aim of the report is to spark a discussion rather than getting too bogged down in the numbers.

I’d like my own satellite and using Greenpeace logic it would be great for the economy if we all had own own satellites. Think of all the jobs it would create.

Now personally I am a fan of renewable energy and think it is a major part of our future. In fact it is a major part of our present also. But there is a difference between direction and absolutism. Now we do have some ideas of what the costs of the policies proposed might be, from the Greens’ own website:

Nikki Kaye: What advice has the Minister received on the statement by those who are promoting a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 that a 100 percent renewable electricity supply is easily achievable by 2020?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that that would require, first, the writing-off of $4.5 billion of thermal generation assets. It would also require $11 billion for the replacement capacity of 2,500 megawatts, and $2 billion for additional renewable peaking stations needed to ensure security of supply in a dry year. This amounts to a total capital cost of $17.5 billion, excluding the additional transmission investment that would be required, and this would amount to a 30 percent increase in the power price for all consumers. Going 100 percent renewable would also require the equivalent of another seven Clyde Dams to be built by 2020. I do not describe $17.5 billion, a 30 percent power price increase, and seven Clyde Dams as being easy.

So just this aspect would cost $17.5 billion, increase power prices by 30% and require seven new Clyde Dams in the next seven years!

That will require those printing presses to really be working overtime.

New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser has a column in Investigate Magazine. In his latest column he refers to certain people as coming from “Wogistan” and also declares that no young male who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or is from a Muslim country should be able to fly on a Western airline.

It is worth realising that these are not comments made off the cuff in an interview. A New Zealand Member of Parliament sat down and wrote a column that refers to Wogistan and calls for basically dark-skinned people (how else do you interpret look like a Muslim) not to be allowed to fly.

36,000 New Zealanders are Muslims. A New Zealand MP has said they should be banned from flying or Air New Zealand if they are male and aged 19 to 35. I’m sorry, but that is appalling.

Now before anyone says this is just political correctness, and one should be able to talk about the fact almost all airline terrorism incidents have been done by young male Muslims – I agree.  I there there is an absolutely valid discussion to be held on issues such as the pros and cons of profiling, the costs of airline security, and the fact that so much terrorism is done in the name of Islam. In fact I have blogged on these issues several times.

But one can have that discussion without referring to Muslims implicitly as Wogs and without calling for Muslims to be banned from flying on Western airlines.

Some of the quotes from the article:

I will not stand by while their [his daughters’] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners, are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan …

I mean seriously – effectively calling people wogs. I actually like Richard Prosser and agree with him on a few issues, but this column is seriously offensive.

If you are a young male, aged between say about 19 and about 35, and you’re a Muslim, or you look like a Muslim, or you come from a Muslim country, then you are not welcome to travel on any of the West’s airline …

When he says looks like a Muslim, does he mean look like a wog? Because let’s face it any sensible wannabee terrorist could simply wear non-religious attire if they really wanted to blow up a plane. So I can only imagine “look like a Muslim” means if you look South East Asian or Persian or Arabic or Turkish etc? Never mind that they may in fact be Christian or Hindu or anything. If they look like a Muslim, we have a Member of Parliament saying you should not be able to travel on Western airlines?

Taking Richard literally, Air New Zealand should refuse to accept any passengers from Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia etc if they are a young male. This presumably includes all the students from those countries that are students at New Zealand universities.

If the belief systems of ancient history are so important to you, and the advances of the decadent West so abhorrent, go ride a camel instead?.

Now this comment was not directed at the extremists, but at anyone who is a Muslim, looks like a Muslim or comes from a Muslim country.

Now again, there is a very legitimate debate to be had about profiling, terrorism, extreme Islamists and the like. I’ve been attacked myself for writing on some of those issues.

But never in a hundred years would I refer to Wogistan and advocate that people be barred from flying based on their appearance or country of origin. And to have a Member of Parliament deliberately write that is staggering.

Labour and the Greens are desperate to form a Government with NZ First as they know it is near impossible without them. Will any Labour or Green MP come out and state what they think of their potential coalition partner writing about Wogistan? Winston wants to be Foreign Minister again. Does he stand by the views of his MP that young men from Malaysia and Indonesia should be banned from travelling on Western airlines?

A photo of the second page of the column is below.

Martin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:

The liquor industry must be shut out of alcohol policy-making and implementation, to prevent manufacturers from undermining efforts to reduce the harms of alcohol, says an international grouping of public health specialists.

I’ve observed there tend to be two types of public health lobbyists. The zealots tend to regard their work as a holy crusade and the industry they specialise in as the enemy. They get focused more on attacking the industry rather than the merits of specific initiatives.

Do not engage commercial or vested interest groups, or their representatives, in discussion on the development of alcohol policy.

yes the zealots think Governments should not even talk to or engage with businesses that will be impacted by Government decisions. They are saying the only people the Government should listen to are themselves. And you know what – I guarantee you they are all being funded by taxpayers so they can lobby Governments with their own money!

The authors of the statement of concern say voluntary codes were often violated and a complete ban on alcohol promotion was preferable.

Nice to have the agenda out there. This means no happy hours, no Tui billboards, no online Wine retailers, no sports sponsorships, no advertising etc.

Stuff reports:

Pope Benedict says in a historic announcement he no longer has the mental and physical strength to run the Roman Catholic Church and will become the first pontiff in 600 years to resign, leaving his inner circle “incredulous”.

Church officials tried to relay a climate of calm confidence in the running of a 2000-year-old institution but the decision could lead to one of the most uncertain and unstable periods in centuries for a Church besieged by scandal and defections.

The last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XI in 1378 and the last voluntary resignation was Pope Celestine V in 1294.

In a general sense I think it is a good think when leaders retire, rather than carry on until death – no matter how infirm. Pope Benedict may have helped set a useful precedent for the future.

I note with monarchies that today many monarchs will  live to be 100, which means that their children may not succeed to the throne until they are 70 years old – or older. A retirement age would be a sensible thing.

Resigning after just eight years may put some pressure on the College on Cardinals to elect a younger Pope.  No doubt in the following weeks speculation will focus on who his successor will be.

Anne Gibson at NZ Herald reports:

A Chinese migrant convicted over an Auckland kidnapping and $1 million ransom plot was allowed to work here after support from a former Associate Immigration Minister.

Wonder which one?

She presented a letter written by Labour MP Shane Jones in 2007 granting a special direction to enable her to have a one-year open work permit, despite her conviction.

I would have though kidnapping was a serious enough crime that the appropriate response would be deportation, not a work permit!

Mr Jones said he did not know Ms Shi nor did he remember writing the letter when he was Associate Immigration Minister.

Shane really needs to start keeping better file notes.