Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:

Schools are reporting large and unexplained overpayments in holiday pay in Novopay’s end-of-year cycle.

Well I guess that is preferable to being underpaid!

I suspect while almost all of us know the basic themes of Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, few of us have actually read the novella. What we know is the change in Ebenezer Scrooge after being visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Yet to Come.

It has been made into no less than 28 films, at least 36 different stage productions and the story is deeply embedded into English and American culture.

The production I saw at Circa last night was different to many, as it was a one man show, with Ray Henwood narrating the book and playing all characters. Henwood not only looks the part, but sounds it also.

Most will know Henwood from his role in the fabulous Gliding On series. Henwood is also one of the founders of Circa.

There is no ad libbing in this play. Every word of dialogue is from the original novella. For someone who has never read the book, I found it deeply satisfying. Henwood has a gravitas that was made for the production and was supported by a simple yet effective script, some wonderful period costumes and sympathetic lighting.

The play is not just a reading. Henwood gyrates between narrating the story at the lectern, and acting the roles across the stage.

If you’re never read the full story of A Christmas Carol, this is a great chance to have it performed in front of you over a couple of hours. It is on until 22 December.

Tom Pullar-Strecker at Stuff reports:

The first judgments under the controversial ‘SkyNet’ law that is designed to help stamp out music piracy are edging closer as the wraps come off another service, Pandora, that lets people listen to music legally online.

A Justice Ministry spokesman said the Recording Industry Association, which represents major record labels, had asked the tribunal to make awards against 15 people who the association has accused of illegally accessing music over file-sharing networks.

All 15 had received their “third strike” and could be liable for penalties running into thousands of dollars.

In four of the cases, the tribunal now had all the information it needed to begin its deliberations, the spokesman said, though no date has yet been scheduled for those to start.

None had requested to appear in front of the tribunal in person and they had instead asked for their cases to be judged on the written evidence “so they are ready to proceed and have a decision made,” the spokesman said.

A lot of people will be reading the first judgments with interest. The two major issues will be what constitutes proof of infringement, and what is an appropriate level of penalty within the bounds laid down by the law.

I don’t regard it as a bad thing that there is a simple fairly cost-effective remedy for rights holders to get sanctions against those who infringe by downloading a free copy, rather than paying for it. But the law is imperfect with its assumption of liability, so again great interest in how these first cases are resolved.

Martin Johnston at NZ Herald reports:

About 70,000 fewer adults smoke tobacco daily now than three years ago, the latest official survey has found. …

However, a preview snippet of the results, already published on the ministry’s website, says the provisional data indicates that about 17 per cent of people aged 15 or older are daily smokers. That equates to about 600,000 people.

The prevalence was more than one-tenth lower than in 2009, when the ministry found that 19 per cent of adults smoked daily.

Tobacco control and public health advocates have hailed the reduction as a vindication of the Government’s efforts to cut smoking.

It is good news. Almost everyone who smokes, would like to give up – but they are addicted.

The focus should continue to be on policies that actually work at reducing smoking.

Smoking rates

Prevalence of daily tobacco smoking among people aged 15 or older:

23 per cent 2002/03
19 per cent 2006/07
17 per cent 2011/12

The breakdown by gender and ethnicity is interesting. In 2008, the prevalance rates were:

• European women 21%
• Maori women 49%
• Asian women 5%

Also ironically, those who can least afford to smoke, are more likely to smoke. Those in the bottom quintile for deprivation were 2.7 times more likely to smoke than the top quintile.

The average number of cigarettes smoked appears to be 5,000 a year for a smoker, which is 200 packs of 25 a year. At $15 a pack, that is $3,000 a year – to help kill yourself.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers. 2.00pm – 3.00pm.

1. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress has the Government made with its economic programme in 2012?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that “I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary”?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and have confidence in the statements of all his Ministers?
4. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How is the Government delivering a strong and effective recovery for greater Christchurch following the earthquakes?
5. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Justice: What are the specific “assumptions” based on “incorrect facts” demonstrating some “misunderstanding of New Zealand law” that she alleges are contained in the report of Justice Binnie concerning the application by Mr Bain for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment?
6. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Whānau Ora?
8. KRIS FAAFOI to the Minister of Police: Is she committed to all of her promises in regards to the New Zealand Police?
9. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made towards achieving Better Public Services across the justice sector?
10. HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister of Education: Does she accept the finding of the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that a government funded food programme in low-decile schools is a simple, do-able, and low-cost solution to help children in poverty learn and achieve at school, and the recommendation that Government design and implement such a programme; if not, why not?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she believe that her consultation process around the possible closure of residential special schools provided all those affected with an opportunity to have a meaningful say and have that say properly considered; if so, why?
12. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What progress has the Government made in 2012 to shift the focus of our welfare system to one that is active, work focused and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Today Labour is asking four questions, the Greens, New Zealand First and Mana have one question each. Labour is asking about if the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, the David Bain compensation report by Justice Binnie of Canada, promises to the Police and the reversal of the decision to close a residential special school. The Greens are asking about standards of conduct for Ministers. Mana is asking about food in schools to combat child poverty.

The final patsy of the day for the year goes to Dr Paul Hutchison for Question 6: What progress has the Government made on its national preventive health targets this year?

Adjournment Debate 3.00pm -5.00pm.

This is the last sitting day for the year, so no bills will be debated. What follows is the adjournment debate, which may go for up to two hours.

Vernon Small reports:

The architect of KiwiSaver, former finance minister Sir Michael Cullen, is proposing a revamp of the scheme to help cut the long-term costs of superannuation to the Government.

Under his plan KiwiSaver would be made compulsory in 2016 and contributions would rise to 4 per cent for employees and 4 per cent for employers, followed by further increases to 6 per cent or 8 per cent for employers.

But half of a saver’s nest egg would have to be used to buy an annuity.

If that provided an income lower than the current superannuation formula, the state would top it up to the guaranteed retirement income.

“In effect this means that for many people the shift from state funding to private funding would result in half of their retirement KiwiSaver savings being income-tested away,” Sir Michael said.

This approach has some considerable merit. We have not adjusted superannuation policy o take account of KiwiSaver. I recall when KiwiSaver came in, the projections were that someone who earned the average wage would receive in retirement a higher income from KiwiSaver and NZ Super combined that they did when working. This is clearly not sustainable.

Labour’s proposal to lift the age from 65 to 67, while a step in the right direction, is just tinkering. What Cullen proposes would make a huge difference to the long-term financial sustainability of retirement savings.

Stuff reports:

The “struggling mother” who harangued Invercargill mayor Tim Shadbolt for almost 10 minutes on television was actually Environment Southland’s chairwoman Ali Timms.

Timms admitted the deception when confronted by a journalist yesterday.

She said she had done it as a practical joke . . . and when questioned further, Timms hung up on the reporter.

The call was made to the city council’s live talkback show on Cue TV last Wednesday night. Timms claimed to be “Ruby”, a mother of two who was struggling to make ends meet after her husband had been laid off from the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter.

Timms is an elected official. To pretend to be someone else to have a go at another elected official is just dishonest and unacceptable. She should resign – or her Coucnil Council should sack her.

Around 20 years ago John Carter did a prank call. But that at least was done in humour, not as a political attack. And he did get sacked as senior whip for it.

As a public service:

In House Counsel Position
Campaigning Organisation
Based in Hawkes Bay

A specialist campaigning business is seeking an in house counsel to help with campaigns against councils, government departments and political parties. The role is to ensure that these organisations obey the law, and are held to account if they do not.

The purpose of this role is holding the Hawkes Bay Regional Council to account, and ensuring they act lawfully. Other councils will also be pursued, and there will be a wide variety of interesting legal work in the political field. 

The successful applicant will be a young, ambitious and committed lawyer who wants profile and court time. They will likely have political aspirations and will understand that this role is about winning campaigns, not winning cases. They will have a strong work ethic, not be bound by convention, and want regular media coverage talking about issues that matter.

Fearlessness will be a major positive attribute, and a willingness to take on tough cases. This is not a standard lawyers job, and will require flair and imagination and is not for the faint hearted. Coping with pressure from opposing counsel and opposing organisations will be a key part of this role.

Remuneration will be based on experience and ability.

Please contact Kiwiblog by email for your details to be passed onto the organisation. 

The Alcohol Reform Bill passed its third reading yesterday. There’s actually a lot of significant changes in it, even though the wowsers are wailing that it doesn’t bring in minimum pricing, so a bottle of wine would cost at least $16.

The SOP by Lianne Dalziel was supported by most of Labour, all the Greens and NZ First. So expect the price of a drink to skyrocket under a change of government. There is a glimmer of hope though – Shearer, Mallard, Hipkins, Woods, Cosgrove and Faafoi voted against Dalziel’s minimum pricing amendment.

So what are the major law changes:

• local alcohol policies can be set determining maximum trading hours in their area and limiting the location of licensed premises. This sensibly recognises that the needs of Wainuiomata may be different to Courtenay Place.
• stronger rules about the types of stores eligible to sell alcohol and restricting supermarkets and grocery stores to displaying alcohol in a single area.
• express consent from parents or guardians before supplying alcohol to a minor
• new liquor licensing criteria, making licences harder to get and easier to lose
• stronger controls on alcohol advertising and promotion

I think the most important change is that it is now an offence to supply alcohol to minors, without parental consent. Previously it was only an offence to sell it.

Mares Leg Cove, Cathedral Cove Walkway, Coromandel. New Zealand Landscape Photography By Sarah Sisson

As promised, I am delivering a welcome reprieve from big colour lupins this week by way of some summery beach delights.

Sarah made this image yesterday morning after we had photographed sunrise at Cathedral Cove (next bay over).  The advantage to being thick enough to get up at 4:30AM to photograph this is that we got the whole place to ourselves for 3 hours – the first visitors only arriving 2 minutes after I decided to take an impromptu dip in my undies – too much info?

Have a great rest-of-week y’all – we are now up in the Bay of Islands chasing more beachy goodness.

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] 

Ian Binnie has responded to the statement from Judith Collins about concerns with his report. What strikes me as fascinating is how passionately pro-Bain he is. He complains that David Bain has not yet been given a copy of his report, for example.

He also cites the Privy Council judgement at length, but of course that was a decision there were grounds for a retrial. That was not a decision that on balance of probabilities Robin Bain was the killer.

A commenter makes the point:

Binnies statement, reproduced above, is the best evidence so far supporting Judith Collins stance. In it, he quite clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the facts.

In paragraph 4 he states that the decision of the Privy Council that there had been a miscarriage of justice was reinforced by the verdict in the 2009 retrial. I am astounded that he would make such a statement.

The acquittal did not reinforce the conclusion of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was at pains to say that it did not have an opinion as to whether Bain was guilty or not. In NZ, the term miscarriage of justice refers to the process, not the outcome. You can have a trial which is found to have been a miscarriage of justice, but which still reaches the right result.

Binnie has demonstrated in his statement that he does not understand the meaning of the term miscarriage of justice, nor doe he understand the PC decision. He has also demonstrated a failure to understand the 2009 jury’s verdict. His statement quite clearly demonstrates a belief that the not guilty verdict equates to a finding of innocence.

Then in paragraph 5 he states that “all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt”. Again a mistake that goes to the very heart of his integrity.

The PC made no judgement on David Bain’s guilt. Their judgement states “In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial”

Collins doesn’t have to release the report now. Binnie, by his own statements, has vindicated everything she has said about the report.

Another commenter (who is a lawyer) also says:

I have read Binnie’s statement which shows a scary misapprehension of events. The PC did not make any comment about guilt or innocence. It refused to go into that arena. It dealt with admissibility of evidence. The jury did not find him innocent. It found that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyound reasonable doubt. I gather that he refused to hear from one of the jurors who expressed concern about jury misconduct. He cannot do that and, in the same breath, conclude that the jury found him innocent. I have no wonder why Collins is getting a second opinion.

Also worth reading this post by Andrew Geddis at Pundit.

Stuff reports:

Former NZ First MP Brendan Horan says he will stand for Parliament in 2014 and in the meantime will remain to “work for taxpayers [and] all New Zealanders”.

NZ First severed its final links with Mr Horan on Monday night after confirming that his membership had lapsed once he informed Parliament’s Speaker Lockwood Smith that he was remaining in Parliament as an independent.

Mr Horan was expelled from the NZ First caucus after leader Winston Peters said he had lost confidence in him. He had received “substantive” information after allegations about money from Mr Horan’s late mother’s estate.

Mr Horan, who continues to receive his backbencher salary of $141,000 plus an expense allowance, told Radio New Zealand he had a mandate to remain in Parliament and represent the people of Tauranga, who voted for him.

He got 12.88 per cent of the vote in Tauranga, third behind National’s Simon Bridges on 61.4 per cent of the vote.

Horan has no mandate to represent those 4,611 people who voted for him. He lost. He came third. He became an MP not because of those 4,611 votes for him, but because NZ First placed him on their list and they got 147,544 votes.

Lots of people got 4,611 votes or more in the electorate vote and are not MPs. James Shaw the Green candidate in Wellington Central got 5,225. Paul Foster-Bell got 12,460. By Horan’s logic they have more of a mandate than him.

Mr Horan said details would be released this week discounting allegations that he took money from his late mother’s estate.

That will be very interesting.

Girol Karacaoglu’s, Chief Economist to The Treasury, speech at the Affording Our Future Conference is a good and useful read.

So, assuming that the Crown’s tax revenue is kept as a stable ratio to GDP from 2020, and assuming existing legislative entitlements are kept unchanged, what this indicates is that the Crown would run growing budget deficits (negative operating balances) from 2030, increasingly driven by rising debt-financing costs (to pay the interest on the growing Crown debt levels that all these figures imply).

We know in reality that the above will never happen. Crown debt levels won’t be permitted to rise to above 100% or 200% of GDP.

Unless like the Greens you think you can just print money.

But it is interesting that it is around 2030, that things start to get tight.

As you can see, healthcare costs and retirement income policy are two significant drivers of the fiscal gap through the projection period. As indicated, two implications of Treasury’s projections are:

• Publicly-financed health costs could rise from around 7% of national income or GDP in 2012, to around 11% by 2060;
• Gross NZ Superannuation costs could rise from over 4% to 8% of GDP.

Another 8% of GDP would mean huge increases in taxation.

What do the numbers mean?

They mean there is no cause for panic.

They mean there is no crisis.

They mean that we have challenges ahead and they are manageable.

Future governments will manage them, just as governments have successfully managed the challenges of the last 20 years.

Treasury’s advice is that the most important and appropriate responses in the first instance is to have a strong and credible fiscal strategy for the short and medium-term.

Returning the Crown’s accounts to surplus and, reducing the Crown’s net debt levels down to a low level as a ratio to GDP over the next decade, is the prudent and sensible approach to protect the interests of New Zealanders now and in the future. The current Government is doing this.

From the mid to late 2020s, there will be many potential options that will be available to address the challenge. And these will be discussed over the next day and a half.

I agree we must get net debt down and that has to be the focus for the next decade. Just getting back into surplus by 2015 is only the beginning.

In terms of policy changes for the long-term challenges, I’d rather these started before the mid 2020s, as the longer lead in time we can give people, the more that can be done.

The 88 page decision is here.

English and Ryall say:

Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall today welcomed the High Court decision in favour of the Crown following last month’s High Court action regarding the sale of shares in Mighty River Power.

“The High Court decision confirms the Government can proceed to sell up to 49 per cent of shares in four state owned energy companies, in accordance with the legislation passed by Parliament earlier this year,” Mr English says. 

“The Government is firmly of the view that the partial sale of shares does not in any way affect the Crown’s ability to recognise rights and interests in water, or to provide redress for genuine Treaty claims.”

Mr Ryall says the Government’s share offer programme remains on track.

“The Government remains committed to an initial public offering of Mighty River Power Shares in the first half of 2013,” he says. “If the High Court decision is appealed, we hope this can be heard as soon as possible.

Will the Maori Council throw away good money after bad? Their lawyers will want them to, for sure.

Very pleased personally with the decision. I’ve regarded the legal action as an attempt to blackmail (in a legal not criminal sense) the Government into offering free shares or some such to those behind the Council action.

What is significant is that the High Court has ruled that the decision is simply not reveiwable. He also shoots down the shares plus proposal by the Waitangi Tribunal. On the main issue he concludes:

I am satisfied that the sale of MRP shares will not compromise the Crown’s ability to provide recognition of rights or redress for Māori for claimed proprietary interests in water.

There is little connection between the sale of shares in a company which neither owns nor has any property rights in water, but uses water for its business and Māori rights recognition and redress with respect to water.

The precise point that has been obvious to many.

On shares plus:

I cannot see that the shares plus concept is workable, all but one of the identified advantages are available after the sale and the shares plus concept is unlikely to provide the benefits to Māori identified.

Generally:

I have found that the actions of the Crown are not inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in that those actions are not likely to materially affect redress or rights claims by Māori or redress with respect to its claims to a proprietary interest in water.

And on if the decisions are reviewable:

I am satisfied that the three proposed decisions of the Crown; the commencement decision; the amendment to the constitution of MRP decision; and the sale of MRP shares decision; are not reviewable decisions. …

No review of Parliament by the Courts is permitted in law. This is effectively what the claimants have asked this Court to do in these proceedings.

If you are interested in the detail, I suggest you read the full court judgement. I’d call it damning for the plaintiffs. Justice Young has not just said that the decisions are not reviewable, but even if they are they would fail on each and every ground submitted by the plaintiffs. It is a very strong victory for the Crown in my lay opinion.

Bryce Edwards writes in his politics summary about the cyber-bullying allegations with Labour and notes:

The Labour Party has long been drifting towards an organisational and political style that political scientists call ‘electoral-professional’. This is a modus operandi in which a party no longer acts a bottom-up mass membership party but is instead an elite of parliamentarians and parliamentary staff who have almost total control over the image, policy, ideologies and activities of the party.

Party membership in this model is simply not necessary. In fact members and activists are at best tolerated instead of encouraged. Therefore such parties tend to have very low membership numbers, and the members have little real incentive to join unless they want to rise up the ranks to become MPs or parliamentary staff. Instead of relying on the fundraising of party members or their activism, instead such parties rely on backdoor state funding through parliament which pays for the bulk of their activities.

I’ve written in much more detail about this in blog posts such as The professionalisation of party campaigning and The Electoral-Professional party. 

The upshot is that, if Curran is indeed involved in the suppression of party members’ activism and speech as alleged, then she is hardly acting out of sync with the spirit or operations of the modern Labour Party. Instead she is simply reinforcing and playing the usual role required under the model of the modern electoral-professional style party.

The way to get ahead in the Labour Party is to become a parliamentary staffer. Look at their caucus. The former parliamentary staffers include:

• The Leader
• The Deputy Leader
• The No 4
• The House Leader
• The Chief Whip

As far as I know only one MP in National used to be a parliamentary staffer. The Greens also have a fast-track for parliamentary staffers with three MPs having worked for the Greens in Parliament. But at least their selections are not so centrally controlled.

A leftie reader e-mailed me:

I too was disappointed with the Green Party’s response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s review of fracking in New Zealand.

The problem with the Greens is that they are reflexively anti-science when it doesn’t fit their world-view. Their latest position on fracking is the second time in a row the Green Party has attacked the work of the Commissioner.

The last time was in July when Gareth Hughes had a go at her report on Evaluating solar water heating: Sun, renewable energy, and climate change. That report took an extensive look at whether subsidised solar-power units for household hot water actually helped reduce carbon emissions. Turns out the impact at peak times (when gas-powered reserve energy generation capacity is needed) is negligible. 

Ignoring that, Hughes said the evidence-based report was “unhelpful” and “has done solar water heating a disservice”.

Now, remember that the investigation into fracking was undertaken at the request of the Greens – back in March they presented a petition to parliament entitled “Frack No”, which expressly called for “the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to conduct an inquiry into the practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in New Zealand, and to report the results of the inquiry to the House.”

Talk about an own-goal.

In a speech in May, Hughes said: “The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is currently investigating fracking. This is the appropriate independent body to have a look at all the facts. Let’s wait for the research to come into effect”. Shame Hughes didn’t take his own advice and began trying to undermine the outcome of the report before it was released.

Well, Dr Jan Wright did have a look at all the facts. And while she says some of the rules governing fracking should be considered, she ruled out any knee-jerk response.

It’s just a shame the Green Party refused to do the same.

A timely reminder that there is a history of attacking the independent Commissioner for the Environment, when her conclusions and the scientific evidence doesn’t support their political campaigns.

Been sent a link to a poll commissioned by the First Union on the TPP. It looks like 64% oppose TPP, but look at the question:

New Zealand is currently negotiating a free trade and investment treaty with ten other countries called the Trans Pacific Partnership. As part of the negotiations, there is a proposal to allow foreign investors to sue governments in private offshore tribunals if government actions threaten their future profits. The US advocates it while Australia says it would not sign a deal with this in it. Which one of the following statements do you most agree with:

That’s such an outrageously worded question, I am surprised they didn’t get 90% opposed. There is no proposal to allow investors to sue if their “profits are threatened”. The proposal (which is in many other trade deals we have) is to sue if the government discriminates against the company based on their country. You can’t simply sue because the Govt passes a law that will harm profits.

The difference is massive. As that poll question describes the proposal, a normal respondent would imagine that there would be potentially hundreds of law suits – because many many Govt actions impact a company’s profits. In reality law suits under this provision are massively rare – one per decade maybe, because any action is restricted to whether it is discriminatory (ie would not impact local companies also).

Again, based on that question, I’d expect 90% to be against. There is a legitimate debate about investor state provisions, but this loaded question is all heat and no light.

The lesson for media should be to always look at the actual poll question asked, and don’t just go off any media release. And ask yourself if the poll question is a fair representation of the issue being debated.

Vodafone pointed out to me their data angel service allows you to buy data in advance and not be able to go over your cost limit. This is better than what they had previously, but I have to say I like the idea of just having a flat rate and not having to worry about how much data I am using.

But people may wonder, which is cheaper. Well here is the comparison.

• Australia $6/day Telecom v $15 for 100 MB Vodafone. So if you do more than 40 MB a day then Telecom is cheaper. Less than 40 MB a day and Vodafone is cheaper. But of course they key difference is most of us have little idea how much data we may use on a trip. If you end up using your phone for GPS the data use will be much higher.
• UK/USA $10/day Telecom v $15 for 40 MB Vodafone. So if you do more than 27 MB a day then Telecom is cheaper and less than 27 MB a day, Vodafone is cheaper.

If you use your smart phone to tether your laptop also, I’d say you end up doing far more than 40 MB a day. I’m doing around 70 MB a day in NZ, and that is without tethering when I am in Wellington.

My prediction is Vodafone will move to flat rate data plans within 12 months. And it should be much easier for them to negotiate the plans as their counterparts in other countries are Vodafone Australia, Vodafone UK etc etc. Telecom managed to do it with telcos that are not even part of the same global company.

Tom Hunt at Stuff reports:

The roughest storms are set to get rougher under climate change predictions that already have two decades of proven reliability. …

It was possible events such as the floods in Nelson and Golden Bay last December could become more common, said New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute director David Frame.

Professor Frame is co-author of a report published in the latest edition of Nature Climate Change.

Along with Daithi Stone, from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, Prof Frame has compared predictions from the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report in 1990 with actual data from the past 20 years.

The comparison showed global climate change was happening as predicted in 1990. “Things are changing pretty much the way we thought – surprisingly so,” Prof Frame said.

Since 1990 the average global surface temperature rose by between 0.35 degrees Celsius and 0.39C, in line with 1990 predictions. This was in spite of unforeseen climate-altering events, such as the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the collapse of Soviet bloc industries in the 1990s, and the recent fossil fuel-intensive growth in economies such as Asia.

“What we’ve found is that these early predictions seem pretty good, and this is likely due to the climate responding to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere at a rate broadly in line with what scientists in 1990 expected.”

The 1990 predictions looked ahead as far as 2030, and forecast that average temperatures would continue to rise by about 0.2C a decade.

You have to pay to see the full article, so I can only go on what is reported. There is no doubt the average global temperature today is significantly hotter than in 1990. But what did the 1st assessment report predict:

An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases;

So they actually said 0.3 per decade. The 0.2 figure referred to was not for the BAU scenario but a scenario of increasing levels of controls of emissions. And we have been told for the last 20 years that there has been no significant control of emissions – none of the major emitters joined Kyoto and that applied to 2008 to 2012 only. So I think this is a case of cherry picking the scenario which fits the data. The BAU prediction was clearly 0.3. Also the sea level rise was predicted to be:

Under the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions, an average rate of global mean sea-level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3—10 cm per decade).

Now what has been the increase? Well the NASA data says:

• 1990 – 0.37 (above century average)
• 2011 – 0.52

That’s an increase of 0.15, and the IPCC BAU prediction was 0.60. So again there is an increase but I wouldn’t hold the 1990 1st assessment report as an uncanny oracle that is flawless.  Again I can’t see the full report, to see which data they have selected to back their argument, but all I have done is choose the BAU prediction and the NASA global average data. I’ve not gone looking for a particular dataset to support the case that warming, while happening, has not been as fast as predicted.

There is no scientific debate about the fact that increased greenhouse gas emissions will increase the temperature. This aspect of the science is unchallenged. What is more uncertain is how does nature respond to this. What are the other factors that may either speed up warming, or mitigate it.

If China, India and the US do not control or reduce their emissions, then I have little doubt that the average temperature in say 2050 will be warmer than today. But I do have doubt over just how much warmer.

With the sea level rise prediction of 6 cm per decade, the data is that it has been 3 cm a decade. This is within their margin of error of 3 cm to 10 cm a year. So it can be consistent to say the 1st IPCC report predictions were accurate for sea level rise, but also that they are at the lower end.

Questions for Oral Answer 2.00pm – 3.00pm

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty”; if so, why has the number of children living in material hardship grown under his watch?
2. TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to support vulnerable New Zealanders through the aftermath of the domestic recession and global financial crisis?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: When he said “we don’t want to see any New Zealand child suffer … children don’t get to make choices, they’re often the victim of circumstance” does that mean he will take tangible steps to ensure children don’t suffer because of circumstances beyond their control?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Immigration?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Compared to 2012, does the Reserve Bank forecast the New Zealand dollar (as measured by the Trade Weighted Index) to strengthen or weaken in the next two years, and does he believe this will make New Zealand exporters more competitive or less competitive?
6. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government encouraging the sustainable use of natural resources to support jobs and grow the economy?
7. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the state of children’s health in New Zealand; if not, why not?
8. COLIN KING to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012?
9. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society in relation to freshwater that “failure to act with decisiveness and urgency risks further environmental degradation and erosion of our international environmental reputation”; if not, why not?
10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL to the Minister for Building and Construction: How quickly will he respond to the building performance, assessment and construction recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes?
11. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing in response to the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission’s full report?
12. CLARE CURRAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Today Labour have five questions, the Greens have two and New Zealand First has one.  Labour are asking about child poverty, the strength of the New Zealand dollar, children’s health, Canterbury building failures and a general question to the Prime Minister on whether he stands by all his statements. The Greens are also asking about child poverty and pollution of freshwater. Winston is asking the Prime Minister if he has confidence in the Minister of Immigration.

Patsy question of the day goes to Colin King for Question 8: What recent announcement has he made about Block Offer 2012?

Government Bills 3.00pm -6-00pm and 7.30pm until 10.00pm. 

1. Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill – Second reading

2. Resource Management Reform Bill – First reading

3.Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill – Third reading

4.Local Government (Alcohol Reform)  Amendment Bill – Third reading

5.Summary Offences (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Bill – Third reading

The Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill was read a first time in December 2012, introduced to the House last month by Minister of Finance Bill English. The purpose of this bill is to confirm and validate financial matters relating to the 2011/12 financial year.

The Resource Management Reform Bill is being read for the first time and was introduced by Amy Adams at the beginning of December 2012. The aim of the Bill is to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA), the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to delivers some fast, discrete improvements to the consenting regime, provide for the delivery of the first combined plan for Auckland, provide further powers to make regulations, and make technical and operational change.

The Alcohol Reform Bill was introduced by Simon Power in 2010, as the then Minister of Justice. Judith Collins, the current Minister of Justice is now guiding the legislation through the house. The bill implements the Government’s decisions on the reform of alcohol legislation; decisions made in response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report on alcohol. The bill has now been split into three parts, amending three different pieces of legislation.

Stuff reports:

David Cunliffe was unceremoniously stripped of his portfolios – and he faced further ignominy last week when the Labour Party replaced him on a parliamentary trust.

In an incident described by a witness as “humiliating”, Mr Cunliffe arrived at a meeting of the Business and Parliament Trust on Wednesday to find fellow MP David Parker in his place.

A staffer from the office of leader David Shearer decided to replace the New Lynn MP after his front-bench demotion – but no-one thought to tell Mr Cunliffe.

This tells you a lot about the current state of affairs.

1. Staffers in Labour decide which MPs sit on which committees or trusts
2. They didn’t even inform their Leader of their decisions
3. They didn’t think they should even inform the MP they were sacking from the trust, that he had been sacked

It is going to be fascinating to observe them trying to run a country, should they win the election.

This story has gone global. Very cool.