3 News reports:

Former Cabinet minister-turned RadioLIVE host John Tamihere has taken a swipe at the media’s coverage of his return to the Labour Party, calling one 3 News journalist a “stupid little girl”.

Mr Tamihere’s reapplication to be a member of Labour was approved at the weekend, opening the door for him to vie for a place as a candidate in the 2014 election. …

Ms O’Brien asked him this morning if he was sexist, a misogynist or a homophobe, and he took to the radio waves to voice his anger. 

“Tova, go jump in the lake you stupid little girl,” he said.

“I’ve had a gut’s full of idiots like you trying to position people like me.

“Pimply little girls in a newsroom trying to position you for being cut up on a little news bite. Tova O’Brien, where the hell do you come from?”

John must be taking lessons from Winston Peters on how to respond to media inquiries.

Generally speaking if a woman reporter asks you if you are sexist, it isn’t a convincing response to call her a pimply little girl (incidentally not at all an accurate description of Tova).

Likewise responding to a question on homophobia by questioning the “preferences” of the reporter is also incredibly dumb (and offensive).

John has some admirable strengths, but this show his less than admirable weaknesses. And I’d say his already low chances of getting a winnable list ranking or seat have plummeted.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key denies the Government is casting around to get the advice it wants on compensation for David Bain.

He confirmed yesterday that Justice Minister Judith Collins had sought a second opinion on recommendations from retired Canadian judge Justice Ian Binnie.

Robert Fisher, QC, has been asked to look at Justice Binnie’s report, which the Government has had since September.

Asked if it was a question of the Government looking for the advice it wanted, he said: “No, I don’t think so . . . she [Ms Collins] had some concerns, or at least issues, that she wanted to flesh out a bit more before she took the next step.

“There will be a lot of public interest in what happens here and obviously the Government needs to ensure it’s fair.”

Justice Binnie concluded Mr Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his parents, two sisters and brother in Dunedin in 1994.

Mr Bain is seeking compensation for the almost 13 years he spent in jail after being convicted in May 1995. Mr Bain was acquitted at a retrial in 2009 and stands to get about $2 million. But the Government is not obliged to pay compensation.

It is unusual for the Government to get a second opinion. It makes you wonder why.

I don’t think it is in anyway a fiscal issue – that the Government just doesn’t want to pay out money. To be blunt $2 million is less than 0.01% of Government expenditure – it’s loose change. So this isn’t a case of the Govt being stingy. In fact getting a second opinion in itself will cost money.

I also don’t think it is an issue of not wanting to do something unpopular, which they might be criticized for. Quite the contrary. While NZers have a variety of views on the competing David v Robin theories, I don’t think the Govt would be criticised for paying compensation if they were following the recommendation of an independent review as per long stated policy. In fact, if they do not pay compensation they will face serious criticism on Karam and other Bain supporters. The easy thing for the Government to do is to simply rubberstamp the report and recommendations. Certainly my assumption has been that this is what the Govt would and should do.

If it has been reported correctly that the report concludes Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities and should be compensated  and the Government is seeking a review of the report, then I can only conclude that they have serious issues with the quality of the report. If they did not, then you’d simply follow its recommendations – that would be the popular non controversial thing to do.

Auckland-based Mr Fisher was a high court judge for 15 years. He was asked by the Government to look into a compensation claim from Aaron Farmer who was accused of rape. He found in favour and Mr Farmer was awarded $350,000.

This indicates that Mr Fisher is not predisposed to assuming guilt in these reviews.

Until both the Binnie report and the subsequent Fisher report are released, I guess we won’t know what the reasons are for the review – and how substantive they were. But I don’t think this unusual step is something the Government would do lightly.

While the amount of money is insignificant at a Government level, the principles are important. If David did kill his family, then it is repugnant that profits from it by getting a large payout. If however  Robin killed his family and himself, framing David for it, then it is repugnant that he spent over a decade in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

I haven’t seen Matt McCarten’s column in the Herald on Sunday for a couple of weeks. Has he been dropped? I hope not.

Rodney Hide writes in NBR:

You gotta love politics.

Think of the care, the anguish, the endless calculations, the budgeting, the fear, the heartache that the average household endures before determining to build a house.

Politics dodges that.

You just announce it. No care. No anguish. No calculations. No budgeting.

And not one house. One hundred thousand houses.

It’s think bigger!

In business you would be dismissed as a quack and jailed for fraud. That’s why politics is so wonderful. It turns the world upside down.

Newspaper editorials have enthused over the policy.

These same editorials condemned finance companies for their recklessness.

The 100,000 house policy makes the finance companies appear paragons of transparency, analysis and proper budgeting.

I am amazed that no media outlet has tried to seriously analyse the numbers behind the policy.

The backers of the 100,000 houses policy don’t have to trouble themselves with a carefully worded prospectus that could land them in jail should the plan go pear-shaped. Nope.

They just have to announce it.

Politics has no need to attract investors. Inland Revenue works day in and day out fleecing citizens of their hard-earned cash precisely to fuel such grand projects, the very stuff and substance of politics.

Yep, the taxpayers are the ones who will for out $30 billion or so in the belief that the Government will be able to sell houses in Auckland for under $300,000 and only lose $15,000 on them.

Transtasman has published (not yet online) its annual ratings for the 121 MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 4.4 (-0.6 from 2011, which is a significant drop)

Average Ratings per Party

1. United Future 6.5 (+1.5)
2. Maori 5.7 (-0.1)
3. National 4.9 (-0.3)
4. Mana 4.5 (-0.5)
5. Green 4.0 (-0.7)
6. Labour 4.0 (-0.1)
7. NZ First 3.4

I actually thought the Greens were a bit hard done by. I thought Hague, Hughes and Genter who scored 5, 3 and 3.5 all should have got higher marks.

Top MPs

1. Chris Finlayson 8.0 (+1.0)
2. Russel Norman 8.0 (nc)
3. John Key 9.0 (-1.0)

The next five MPs on 7.5 are Tony Ryall, Tim Groser, Bill English, Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee.

Bottom MPs

1. John Banks 0
2. Rajan Prasad 1.0 (nc)
   Kanwalkit Bakshi 1.0 (-2.0)

14 MPs were rated just 2/10.

Top Labour MPs

1. David Parker 6.5 (+0.5)
   Phil Goff 6.5 (+0.5)
2. Grant Robertson 6.0 (nc)
   Annette King 6.0 (nc)

David Shearer was rated 15th equal in Labour, along with Kris Faafoi, Shane Jones and Megan Woods!

Top Third Party MPs

1. Russel Norman 8.0 (nc)
2. Winston Peters 7.0
3. Peter Dunne 6.5 (+1.5)
4. Tariana Turia 6.0 (-0.5)
   Metiria Turei 6.0 (nc)
   Te Ururoa Flavell 6.0 (+1.0)

Biggest Increases

1. Louisa Wall +2.0
   Colin King +2.0
2. Peter Dunne +1.5
   Jonathan Coleman +1.5
   Chris Hipkins +1.5
   Paul Hutchison +1.5
   Ross Robertson +1.5
   Clare Curran +1.5

Biggest Decreases

1. Hekia Parata -4.5
2. Kanwlakit Bakshi -.2.0
   Nanaia Mahuta -2.0
   Phil Heatley -2.0

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.0 (-0.3)
2. Cabinet 6.1 (-0.3)
3. National frontbench 6.8 (-0.4)
4. Labour frontbench 4.1 (-0.7)
5. National backbench 4.0

Both front benches have dropped compared to 2011. However National’s frontbench still rates an average 1.9 higher than National as a whole. Labour’s frontbench ranks just 0.1 higher than the caucus as a whole, which cements the perception that a reshuffle is definitely needed. Five of Labour’s eight frontbenchers got a score of under 5/10.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Trade is these days recognised as a universal benefit even if countries still make heavy weather of bargaining for it.

I wish that was true. NZ First and Greens oppose almost all trade deals, and elements within Labour are anti-trade also.

It is important that countries signing up to an investment treaty indicate at the outset the sort of health and environmental regulation they will uphold. John Key reaffirmed as recently as last week that New Zealand will not give up its public medical purchasing system, Pharmac, under pressure from US pharmaceutical manufacturers. Pharmac was not the only possible “deal breaker”. Mr Key also said the Government would not sign a TPP that allowed dairy tariffs to remain at present levels. New Zealand, as Trade Minister Tim Groser has also made clear, is aiming for a “gold standard” agreement and has no reason to settle for less. The TPP’s original four signatories set the standard and they should stick to it. If others want to do a weaker deal, they are in the wrong talks. The TPP means business.

What I would welcome is an equally clear statement from the Government on the IP provisions. Their negotiating position to date has been excellent – no change to our domestic laws. However the fear is this may be compromised later on. A pro-TPP website has also been launched – Trade Works, by a group of businesses. I agree trade works. I don’t agree that US copyright laws work, or are suitable for New Zealand.

TV3 reported:

Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman and Ms Kelsey both claim the TPP will form a legally-binding agreement which will impact on future Governments.

“The cabinet effectively can sign them off and make them binding on us without us having any say about it. Parliament has very very little role to play in this process,” says Ms Kelsey, but Mr Hooton disagrees.

“If, after time, we don’t like it we can always pull out so there’s no question of sovereignty,” he says. “We remain sovereign.”

The facts appear to me on Mr Hooton’s side. Clause 20.8 of the existing TPP (it is an expansion being negotiated) states:

Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement. Such withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of six months from the date on which written notice of withdrawal is received by the Depositary.

Some people are against all trade agreements. I’ve yet to find one that the Greens or Jane Kelsey have supported. This is ironic as the China FTA has been a huge economic boon with massive increase in exports to China.

With TPP, there are definitely some proposed provisions that are not good for New Zealand. But they are just proposals at this stage, and to date New Zealand has been resisting them. This is a good thing. Of course at some stage, there may be some compromises (but recall this is a 11 party negotiation, not a bi-lateral so a lot depends on where the majority of the parties wishes lie) and one has to take a view on the final package as a whole. It might be great for NZ as a whole. It might be mildly beneficial or it might not be beneficial, either slightly or significantly.

Until we see a final agreement, my position is to keep opposing the provisions I feel are bad for NZ, but to retain an open mind on any final agreement. Ideally of course I want a TPP which has as many wins for NZ as possible. I also want it to be wins for other parties, and the US would actually benefit in the long-term if they dropped their silly tariffs (as has been the case for NZ) and also gave up trying to have copyright laws that damage the Internet. So I see the NZ position as not being bad for the US, but actually good for them also – they just have vested interests back home they try to placate.

NBR (paywall) reports:

Quentin Duthie was project leader for the team which put together the report on fracking, released by the commissioner on Tuesday.

Mr Duthie was a Green Party candidate in 2005 and 2008 and has also worked as a parliamentary staffer for the party. More recently he has been a conservation advocate for Forest and Bird. …

Mineral industry groups welcomed the report but the Green Party, with MP Gareth Hughes calling it “half-baked”, condemned it, saying there should be a moratorium on fracking.

This just demonstrates that the Greens parliamentary wing are putting politics ahead of the environment.  They demanded this inquiry, and then rejected out of hand the main conclusion that there is no evidence to justify a moratorium (a Orwellian term for a ban).

People need to understand that many many people in political life care about the environment and conservation. The Greens political party pushes an extreme version of environmentalism which is basically opposition to any activity that impacts the environment in any way.

A guest post by Charlotte Kieft, as I have a Y chromosome.

As BMW New Zealand has just appointed a female CEO – Nina Englert – it seems only appropriate (though I am assured it is just coincidence) that BMW recently held a BMW Ladies’ Day at Boomrock near Wellington. And, seeing as Dave lacked the necessary prerequisites (and quite frankly even in a dress and wig would convince no-one), I volunteered to be the lady in question – tough job, huh?

I would be the first to admit, I’m not the natural choice for a day designed to wow motoring enthusiasts. To me, a car has always been a practical machine, designed to get you from point A to B in the shortest space of time, or to serve as a motorised shopping cart. In fact, my last two cars have been Toyotas – a Corolla and then an Echo. Good solid reliable 1.3 litre machines. Sure, they struggle on the hills in Wellington, but who needs to go higher than second gear up hill, right? Wrong! As I was soon to find out…

As we headed over the hills of Wellington, steadily north, it seemed even the weather conspired to give myself and the other ladies a great day out. After a week of strong winds and sporadic rain we were treated to a light breeze, a few fluffy wisps of cloud in the sky, and full on sun. You can’t beat Wellington on a good day, eh?

And when we reach our destination – wow. Boomrock is spectacular – a working farm turned event centre, better known for hosting weddings and parties, but which also boasts a purpose built ‘race track’ on the very top its lush green hills, complete with distracting views of the Mana and the South Island.

Once we had settled in, the Ladies were divided up into groups – Red Team and Black Team – sorry Dave, no Blue Team J.

We began the day with a quick lap of the course to orientate ourselves with one of the two fantastic instructors (Mike Eady and Martin Collins) 

Next we got to have a go driving both the 1 Series Hatch and the 3 Series – or ‘the white one’ and ‘the blue one’ (I warned you I wasn’t a car person.)

Both were fantastic cars to drive – as smooth as silk on the road, even in the ‘wet spot’ and like drinking cream after the diet of slightly sour skim milk served by my trusty old Echo.

The instructors’ tips of how to sit in car correctly (who knew it was so easy to get wrong!), cornering, looking ahead and correct use of ABS brakes were real eye openers and definitely provided something worthwhile to take away.

Being a bit of a geek, I also fell in love with the great tech that comes with the cars: hands free Blue tooth (including voice activated calling with soothing BBC English responses), reversing cameras complete with lock lines, GPS, and the ‘heads up’ visual display which made you feel like you were in some futuristic version of Kit.  I was so taken by the tech, I forgot to even check out the cup holder (usually my first priority!) and heated seats.

I felt a sense of almost grief when I left the lovely 1 Series (my favourite – and I later learned 2011 NZ Herald Car of the Year, Overall Car of the Year) behind but was soon consoled by my next adventure: off-roading in a 4WD, BMW style (the X5 if you are interested in models), complete with the obligatory whoosh through mud puddles, crazy up hill and down dales, and mud slinging donuts.

This time the features of the car could be shown off with daredevil hijinks – the impressive DSC (dynamic stability control) where the car brakes by itself gently as it rolls down the hill is of course best demonstrated by the driver having his feet poking out the door – look no pedals!  Who’s driving now?

After a brief interlude of skeet shooting, archery and knife throwing, we arrived at the adrenaline-filled highlight of the day – the ‘hot lap’.  Surely the most fun you can have on four wheels!  The impressive Mike Eady took his bevy of lovely ladies around the track at breakneck, scream-inspiring speed just to show us how it is really done in the M Series Sports.

Afterwards, we were taken down to the lodge for bubbles on the lawn (Deutz – absolutely delicious) followed by a three-course lunch –I had worked up quite an appetite after all that excitement.

As I drank my second glass of bubbles and gazed over the ocean, I realised I finally understood what all the fuss was about – cars are fun.  And a day out with the BWM team is more than just fun – it’s a great experience that I would recommend to anyone, young or old, man or lady.

John Donnachie at The Press reports:

There are compelling arguments from both sides to why Scotland should remain or not stay in the United Kingdom. The re- establishment of a devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999 has been generally welcomed throughout the British Isles, and viewed as a progressive step towards a more autonomous Scottish state from within the United Kingdom. …

And yet, the move towards a Scottish state and break-up of the 305-year-old union appears an unlikely and forbidden scenario, given the current economic turmoil Britain is experiencing.

As Europe’s monetary system tethers on the brink of collapse, it seems going it alone is a downright absurdity that will bring irreversible financial hardship just as has happened to Scotland’s fellow Celtic neighbour, Ireland.

Opinion polls during October showed support stagnating for independence between 30 and 35 per cent. The golden summer of British Olympic success and the shared feel-good factor has been speculated as the reason for declining interest.

There were four polls in October. Support was at 28% in two of them, 29% in another and 37% in the fourth. Opposition was 55%, 53%, 52% and 45%. That is a big margin to over-turn.

Polls in England show more support for Scottish independence than in Scotland itself.

That’s fascinating, but not entirely surprising. A poll in early 2012 of English voters found 43% want Scottish independence and only 32% opposed. They know a lot of their money goes towards Scotland. Also 52% of English voters want the referendum as soon as possible, not in 2014.

Also 49% of English voters want an English Parliament with only 16% opposed.

I’ve been supplied a copy of the submission made by RIANZ seeking $4,675 from a woman for file-sharing 11 songs!! This is $425 a song.

RIANZ dropped the prosecution after the woman’s lawyer pointed out she had never received any of the three notices required under the Copyright Act (detection, warning, or enforcement). None of these were sent to her billing address – the ISP (Slingshot) just sent them to the e-mail address that was established with her account (which she had never used or accessed or has a password for). So the first she knew of the issue was when she received the tribunal proceedings seeking $4,675, which is $425 a song.

It is good RIANZ dropped the prosecution when they become aware that she had never received the notices. Of course, they risked losing the case if they had proceeded. But regardless what is concerning is the amount of damages they were seeking.

The cost of each song is $2.39 and the Copyright Act says that should be what damages are based on. RIANZ however construct a hypothetical scenario saying they think each song would have been downloaded by 90 other people, while she made it available for upload (note she didn’t even know that bittorrent software made it available for upload – she thought it was just a downloading tool) and hence she should be fined for the estimated 90 copies other people may have uploaded. I’d be very unimpressed if the Copyright Tribunal starts handing out penalties on the basis of hypothetical ratios of possible uploading – rather than on the actual evidence of any infringing.  Her lawyer says this would be penalising her on the basis of assumed or hypothetical activity, rather than established fact.

RIANZ use their hypothetical maths to say she should pay $1,175 for the songs, but then claims that is not a sufficient deterrent! They seek an extra $3,500 on top of that.

The lawyer for the woman pointed out that $425 per song compares to the following:

• $500 + $133 court costs for the average first time drink driver (20% over)
• $500 + court costs for the average driving while disqualified
• $500 + court costs for the average common assault
• Diversion and a $200 donation to charity for first time cannabis use

The lawyer submitted that an appropriate fine, if she was found to have infringed is $315 which is $30 a song approx. This would cover the filing costs for RIANZ and the cost of the songs if purchased.

This case was dropped, but eventually RIANZ will manage to find a case which isn’t so flawed that they have to drop it. It will be interesting to see how the Tribunal rules on their heroic attempts to seek punitive damages based on hypothetical additional infringing.

The RIANZ submission is below.

20121130184431260

The Press editorial:

The British tabloid press at its worst has never been a pretty thing to contemplate.

Hyper-competitive, unscrupulous, concerned more to get something that might be tricked up as a “scoop” no matter who got trampled on in the process, its unlovely ways have often been deplored. When British Prime Minister David Cameron appointed a Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Leveson, to conduct an inquiry into the operation of newspapers and to suggest how they might be better regulated, it was the seventh inquiry in 70 years to traverse much the same ground. When the inquiry was set up the papers’ reputation could hardly have been lower and nine months of hearings, in which some 337 witnesses were heard and 300 more gave statements, have done nothing to improve it. Despite all that, Leveson’s principal recommendation, for tougher regulation supported by law, is unlikely to be acted upon, and for very good reason.

I think there will be tougher regulation, but I don’t think it will be statutory regulation.

At the end of it all, Leveson found one of the central allegations that had been made – that Cameron had become too cosy with the Murdoch empire and had tailored policy to suit it – was not made out. He further found much of the press excellent. But the judge also found Britain’s system of newspaper self-regulation weak and inadequate and he proposed a new, much stronger one, ostensibly independent and voluntary but in fact coercive, with powers to fine heavily and, most crucially, backed by statute.

In NZ broadcasters can be fined, but not print media.

Direct state control over newspapers has not existed in England for more than 300 years. The idea of putting at risk the hard-won freedoms developed over centuries because of the excesses of a few tabloids is rightly regarded as anathema. To his credit, Cameron immediately spotted the dangers and while accepting Leveson’s findings, he has rejected that part of his report. A strong and effective regulatory body is undoubtedly needed, but not one established by the state, no matter how far removed from the immediate grasp of politicians. The practically inevitable risk of further political meddling is too great.

I agree.

New Zealand does not have the tabloid rabble that London does. It is also fortunate in having in the Press Council an effective body to deal with complaints. A few months ago, though, the Law Commission, fretting about alleged problems with the web, proposed a new statutory body to regulate all media. It is not a good idea, nor is it necessary, and with luck it will go no further.

I agree there should not be a statutory body. However I do think the idea of one combined industry self-regulator for print, broadcast and online is sensible and the best way to stop state regulation would be for media to proactively start work towards a combined self-regulator with no gaps as currently exists.

UPDATE: Sean Plunket writes in the Dom Post:

This isn’t to say there is no bias in New Zealand media. There most certainly is at an individual and institutional level. Most often, it is unconscious or unwitting, incredibly hard to positively identify and virtually impossible to eradicate.

To attempt to do so by writing a new set of rules and regulations would be a waste of time. It would hamstring the majority of genuine journalists doing their best to inform their readers/viewers/listeners of the opinions and activities of our politicians.

Impartiality has always, and ever will be, an aspirational goal for the media but kidding ourselves that some code of conduct can ever actually achieve it is a vain hope.

Events in Britain, where media bias is generally accepted, are far more concerning. The issues there are not about how the fourth estate presents the news but how it gathers it. In the case of Rupert Murdoch’s empire it would seem the catch cry was “by any means necessary”.

I’m happy to say that in my 25 plus years in New Zealand media it is not the prevalent attitude here. I don’t know any Kiwi colleague who has bribed, hacked or blackmailed to get a story. The teapot tapes suggest some of us aren’t above a bit of covert surveillance but it is most certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The Leveson inquiry showed us that attitudes were different among a large sector of British media but despite the fact that I find that abhorrent, I think Mr Cameron is doing the right thing.

I have not detected any great enthusiasm for Leveson’s recommendation to have a statutory basis for media regulation.

Stuff reports:

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson has been named politician of the year by Trans-Tasman, beating off challenges from Prime Minister John Key and Green co-leader Russel Norman.

The judges in the political newsletter’s annual “roll-call” said Mr Finlayson, who is also Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, had “given away a national park to Maori, and no-one seems to mind much. That’s pretty good going”.

They gave him eight out of 10 for his performance this year – the same as Mr Key and Dr Norman – noting “his disdain for his political opponents is palpable – one of the sharpest debaters in Parliament”.

His increasing stature as a politician and member of the inner circle was evident when Mr Key gave him responsibility for the Labour portfolio when Kate Wilkinson stepped down after the Pike River royal commission.

The Herald also gave Finlayson top marks, so a bit of a consensus there.

Curiablog has the latest polls from One News and 3 News.

Both are good news for David Shearer. It looks like the public like him sacking David Cunliffe. National also down a bit in both polls.

3 News would have the Maori Party hold the balance of power on their poll, while One News would have a centre-left Government able to form.

The last election was very close between the CR and CL, and these polls show 2014 is likely to be also.

The latest household income survey has some good and interesting news in it.

• Average annual household income from all regular sources increased from $79,256 to $81,067 – a 2.3% increase
• Average annual household income from wages and salaries increased from $77,843 to $82,029 – a 5.4% increase
• Total housing costs as a proportion of total regular household income decreased from 16.4 percent to 16.0 percent.
• The median annual regular household income went up 5.8% from $62,853 to $66,469
• The median annual regular household income from salaries went up 7.9% from $46,410 to $50,057
• The median annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 5.9% from $37,673 to $39,889
• The average annual personal income from salaries, for someone in employment, went up 4.0% from $44,376 to $46,169
• The average household with a mortgage is paying $20 a week less than a year ago
• In Auckland the average annual housing cost has dropped from $17,619 to $16,654 while the average income has increased from $90,762 to $93,532 so the proportion spent on housing costs has dropped from 19.4% to 17.8%.
• Only around 20% of those in the two lowest income deciles say they are dissatisfied with their material standard of living, and 60% are satisfied.
• 10% of NZers have income of over $80,000. If you have a bachelors degree it is 24%, masters 26%, and doctorate 34%

It is always interesting to see how the stats measure up against the perception.

The video is done by the What is the ITU site. Just four minutes long but covers the basics well.

Steve Kilgallon at Stuff reports:

Rather proving Ballingall’s assertion that politicians have steered clear of population debate because it touches upon such sensitivities as immigration, the Greens remain the only party with a population policy.

Theirs is based on New Zealand’s “ecological carrying capacity”, basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. Kennedy Graham says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit.

Graham says the world’s ecological footprint is already 50 per cent over-capacity; New Zealand requires 4.9 hectares per person when we should need only 1.8, making us the 32nd worst country in the world. Therefore, says Graham, you could argue there are already enough of us.

Graham seems to be suggesting we should ideally have 2.8 million fewer New Zealanders. That’s an even more ambitious popullation reduction target than their climate change policy which is to shoot one in five cows  to reduce their methane emissions.

The Greens official population policy states we should have an upper limit for NZ’s population and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions“.

They also are worried not about NZers going to Australia but vice-versa:

With predictions of continuing drought and water shortages it is possible that there could be an increase in immigrants from Australia, who are not covered by the immigration quota.The ability of the environment to sustain the present and future population is not a consideration in current immigration policies. A surge in population could see the population pushed beyond a sustainable level.

No, no, the invasion of the Australians must be stopped!

But the Greens do have hope for us:

By reducing our ecological footprint through means such as more densely clustered housing and a simpler (low meat/ low dairy) diet, we may be able to increase our population levels while remaining within the carrying capacity of the land.

Yes, if we all become vegans and give up dairy then you may be allowed to have children!

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

Three cheers for Sir Peter Jackson. He’s done it again. Another blockbuster movie. Made right here in New Zealand.

Sir Peter proves anything is possible. I would never have believed that a Kiwi down in New Zealand could make blockbuster movies. Not just blockbuster movies but movies that bust the Hollywood block.

Sir Peter’s Lord of the Rings trilogy was the biggest movie project ever undertaken. The trilogy grossed $3 billion at the box office. It won 17 Academy awards. The final in the series, Return of the King, won 11 Oscars, tying it withBen Hur and Titanic for the most Academy Awards ever.

The Hobbit is even bigger. And, again, Sir Peter has delivered.

I was lucky enough to attend the premiere of The Unexpected Journey. The crowd and the enthusiasm for the movie was incredible. It wasn’t just hype. The stars were genuinely overcome by their reception. And their warmth for New Zealand, and for working with Sir Peter, was real. It was a tremendous feeling to be there.

I doubt there is any other city, where a significant proportion of the population would turn up for a movie premiere!

James Cameron, director of Avatar and Titanic, attended. He said the The Hobbit sets a new movie-making standard.

He also had this to say about Sir Peter, elevating the movie industry in New Zealand to a global level: “It’s really only happened a couple of times before, in Los Angeles and maybe London. It’s the first time it’s been done by a single film-maker.”

Jackson’s contribution to New Zealand, and especially Wellington, is almost unprecedented for an individual. I believe his legacy will outlive him and Wellington (and NZ) is well placed to continue as a moviemaking city, even when Jackson is not making films himself.

It’s easy for us to have an inferiority complex. Ours is a small country a long way from the rest of the world. We can easily believe we can’t do as well as the rest of the world. The rest of the world seems richer, bigger and closer to the action.

But Sir Peter proves that wrong. He entered one of the biggest, toughest industries in the world and did it bigger and better than anyone else.

We no longer suffer the tyranny of distance. And, yes, ours is a small population, but that no longer hampers us because now the entire world is only a nanosecond away.

Jackson can be finalising a film on the Sunday, and have it transmitted to Hollywood within a couple of hours.

Oh, The Hobbit has had its share of knockers – political activists, unionists, Peta, the disgruntled and the envious. Our biggest impediment may be the tall-poppy syndrome. But we shouldn’t let nagging ninnies blind us to achievement and opportunity.

Indeed, the Hobbit haters have had their share of publicity. For me, I can’t wait to see the film – especially at the faster frame rate.

Kathryn Powley at NZ Herald reports:

John Tamihere is back. And it seems nothing has changed. This time he’s calling one of National’s women MPs “fat”.

The former MP who in 2005 suffered a calamitous fall from grace has been allowed to become a member of the Labour Party once more.

But he’s vowing not to tone down his opinions or toe the party line. As if to prove his point, in an interview over a beer in a Henderson restaurant yesterday, Tamihere says he intends to be as outspoken as ever.

Excellent.

So, in the immortal words of fellow Westie MP Paula Bennett, we ask whether his return to politics will force him to “zip it sweetie”.

Tamihere laughs a big belly laugh. “Not for that bloody fat girl up here, I’m going to tell you that right now.”

Back when Tamihere, 53, uttered the words “front bum” to journalist Ian Wishart, he claimed he didn’t realise there was a recorder on the table. Now, there is no such confusion. We are on the record, and he is calling Paula Bennett fat.

I suspect Tamihere will struggle to win nomination for Waitakere, but it will be an interesting contest if he does.

So can he get on with his fellow Labourites?

“Look, I don’t have to get on with these people. I’m joining the Labour Party. I’m not joining the ‘Women’s Party’, I’m not joining the ‘Union Party’, I’m not joining the ‘Gay Party’, I’m joining the Labour Party.

Hmmn, he may be in for a surprise!

Captions below. As always, funny not nasty.

Otari Skyline

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in California and beyond

Did this afternoon the Otari Skyline loop walk, which starts at the Troup Picnic Area and up the blue trail too the 800 year old Rimu tree. Then carry on uphill, with a fairly steep incline, until you cross the pine forest and hit the open. A bit further uphill gets you to the Skyline Track and you follow this North for a bit and then head back down to Otari via the yellow trail.

Took 1 hr 45 minutes, which was good as the guide book said two and a half hours. Some great views and good workout for the calves.

Oh dear. I have already blogged on Labour’s release about tax paid by Google and Facebook. But I overlooked they don’t even know the difference between revenue and profits.

David Clark, ironically a former Treasury staffer, said:

“It’s not just Facebook that funnels revenue through its low-tax Irish counterpart. Google New Zealand does it too. That company paid just $109,038 tax on $4,447,898 in revenue. That’s two per cent, way below our 28 per cent corporate rate.

This is as bad a mistake as Andrew Williams one. These are not statements made under pressure, but ones put out proactively by MPs for the media.

So David Clark thinks tax rates are paid on revenue. Sigh. An article in the Herald gives us some facts:

Clark’s comments that Google NZ appeared to have paid only 2 per cent tax last year was “a bit inept” and misleading, Vandenberg added.

“We get mesmerised by sales figures and people get outraged about how much tax companies should be paying but then you come along and apply a little bit of tax law.”

A company was required to pay tax on profit before tax, not on revenue, Vandenberg said.

Financial statements show Google New Zealand’s revenue last year was $4,447,898 but its profit before tax was only $56,803. It paid $109,038 in tax, making a loss of $52,235.

Facebook New Zealand’s financial statements show revenue of $427,967, a taxable profit loss of $66,696, and $14,497 paid in tax. The company ended up with a loss of $81,193.

So in fact Google paid more in tax than they made in profit, for their NZ subsidiary. Clark wasn’t just wrong with his 2% claim – he was massively wrong.

And Facebook NZ made a loss, yet paid tax (as some expenses are not claimable off tax).

Clark said his point yesterday was that companies were sending their revenues out of the country “one way or another”.

Trying to ignore the fact his statement was factually incorrect and bogus.

And Google are not sending any revenues out of the country. This is Labour xenophobia at play. NZ advertisers have decided to advertise with Facebook Ireland. This is no different from an American company hiring a NZ company to do research for it. Is Labour saying that any NZ company that has overseas clients should be forced to pay tax in the country their clients reside in?

He criticised the way Facebook used its Irish operation, which pays just 12.5 per cent tax, to determine revenue and expenses.

“This ensures the company can put most of its revenue through countries with low-tax systems,” he said.

Wah, wah, wah – it isn’t fair.  Of course they choose to operate from a low tax company. This is why low tax countries attract business.

He called for the New Zealand government to work with other major countries, like Australian, to review international tax treaties and create a fairer system.

Yeah, good luck with that. Unless every country in the world signs up – then companies that can be flexible with where they are based will be based where the taxes are lower.

This is like trying to ban countries from offering higher wages, as people may move to a higher wage country.

UPDATE: David Clark has updated his release to remove the references to tax being levied on revenue, not profit.