Mathew Dearnaley in NZ Herald reports:

Police are shocked at the high numbers of drivers still dividing their attention between cellphones and the road, three years after calling or texting at the wheel was banned.

“That’s appalling, isn’t it?” said national road policing manager Superintendent Carey Griffiths, when told how in one hour, the Herald counted 29 people using phones while driving north through Auckland’s 80km/h central motorway junction yesterday afternoon.

I’m not surprised. An educational campaign would be better than a ban.

Mr Griffiths said the number of tickets issued to cellphone offenders had risen steadily since the ban was imposed.

Of course. If people need to take a call, they take a call. I always said I doubted it would change behaviour – just get more fines.

The most blatant texter yesterday was a truckie punching a message into a phone he was holding above his steering wheel.

But he was possibly out-pointed for road peril by a woman who took both hands off her steering wheel to fix her hair while starting the descent to the motorway tunnel under Victoria Park.

Mr Griffiths agreed that cellphones were far from the only source of distraction.

This is what I objected to. The ban was on cellphone use only. Why not ban fixing your hair, changing the radio, eating, drinking in cars for drivers? They are all distractions. Far better would have been a focus on safe driving and use the general careless driving laws to get people who drive unsafely due to a cellphone etc.

The Dom Post editorial:

The English got rid of the absolute power of the monarchy in 1215 when King John’s seal was attached to the Magna Carta at Runnymede. In Waikato, former MP Tukoroirangi Morgan wants to bring it back to protect the “mana” and “prestige” of the Maori king.

Mr Morgan, a central figure in the long-running dispute between King Tuheitia and sacked Waikato-Tainui parliament chairwoman Tania Martin, wants the king given the power to veto decisions made by the parliament and even to dissolve the body that represents Tainui’s 63,000 members. “We must never be able to go to court to settle our differences,” he said this week.

The parliament and Waikato Maori should reject Mr Morgan’s proposal.

The dispute between the king and tribal representatives in the parliament appears to be over control of Treaty settlement moneys that have now grown to $800 million. Those moneys were paid to Tainui by the Crown to settle the historical grievances of all Tainui, not just those of the king or the coterie of advisers who cluster about him.

Decisions about how that money is invested and how the dividends from it are spent should be made by all Tainui.

King Tuheitia’s mother, the Maori queen, Dame Te Atairangikaahu, was widely respected within Maoridom and outside it for the quiet dignity with which she performed her role. Behind the scenes, she knew how to work the phones but, publicly, she made a point of staying above the rough and tumble of politics.

King Tuheitia shows no such restraint. Not only has he got himself offside with the Government and alienated much of the Pakeha world by nonsensically declaring that Maori have “always owned the water”, but he has also allowed himself to be drawn into intra-tribal disputes and wrangles over the spending of Tainui money by the executive Mr Morgan once headed.

King Tuheitia seems to listen to Tuku Morgan only.

Morgan Godfery at Maui Street blogs:

 Gifting the King the power to dissolve tribal parliaments will not solve the political and structural problems in Tainui. At most, inserting the Kingitanga as the ultimate decision maker will only change the way tribal politics is played. So, rather than engage in legal plays**, ambitious tribal politicians will jostle for standing in the Kingitanga. Lobbying, not law, will be du jour. …

Here are the problems: 1) Under Tuku’s model, the King could dissolve TK and override the will of the individual iwi members. …

The troubles in Tainui are not tidy and while I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, I’m sure the answer is not to reduce democracy in favour of feudalism.

The infighting doesn’t affect me directly obviously. But I can’t see feudalism as helping the hapu and whanua of Tainui, for whom the settlements were intended to benefit.

Susan Hornsby-Geluk from Chen Palmer writes in the Dom Post:

 Employees, listen up – here is something you may not know. If you are made redundant you will not be entitled to payment of any redundancy compensation unless you have an employment agreement which provides for this. It does not matter how long you have worked for a particular employer: no contract – no entitlement.

Harsh? Well, Labour MP Sue Moroney clearly thinks so. She recently introduced a member’s bill to Parliament which provides for minimum entitlements for employees if they are made redundant.

If the bill becomes law, every employee would be entitled to at least four weeks’ notice of their redundancy. They would also be entitled to redundancy compensation of four weeks’ pay for the first year of employment plus two weeks’ pay for every subsequent year, up to a maximum of 26 weeks’ pay in total. A similar bill was voted down by the National-led government in 2010.

This is trying to turn the clock back to the 1980s. Redundancy provisions should be negotiated on a case by case basis in collective or individual contracts. One size fits all laws are bad and kill jobs.

Employees may need greater protection in tough economic times, but introducing mandatory redundancy compensation to the level envisaged by Moroney could have unintended consequences.

In most cases the impact of such legislation would be felt by small employers. In the case of large employers, including government agencies, most of these businesses already provide for redundancy compensation in their employment agreements. So, for these employers the legislation will make little or no difference.

However, take your local dairy employing a handful of people. If the business has to restructure to prevent it going under, requiring the employer to pay significant redundancy compensation will only hasten the demise. The knock-on effect is the loss of employment of the other staff.

Exactly.  When a business is already struggling, onerous redundancy provisions can send it under. Labour wails about the lack of jobs on the one hand, yet keeps putting job destroying measures up.

Interestingly, a recent United States study indicated about 57 per cent of men negotiated employment agreement offers, whereas only 9 per cent of women did. In other words, they just accepted what was offered.

This is a fascinating statistic and in my opinion is the largest factor by far in the gender pay gap.

We saw Peter Dunne plank on Backbenches, after it became a viral craze. Will he take part in “milking”?

This craze started in Newcastle. Feel free to send in photos or videos of locals milking!

Russel Lupin(e)s Eglinton Valley, Fiordland New Zealand. Landscape Photography By Todd Sisson

This week’s wallpaper was captured on the banks of the Eglinton River, just outside the Fiordland National Park boundary – and apparently out of reach of the spray trucks. This little spot would surely make the world’s top 100 most idyllic freedom camping sites (self contained campers only of course) – barring the omnipresent cloud of sandflies.  I hope to get back there again one day soon.

Free Wallpaper Download

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

Of course it is also available as a premium Canvas Print on our website.

2013 Calendars

Thank you to those fine folk who have purchased our 2013 Calendar ‘South’ – your support is greatly appreciated 🙂

See you next week!

Cheers – Todd

[www.sisson.co.nz] [blog]

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

The Auckland Council is considering a region-wide ban on demolishing tens of thousands of heritage and character homes unless owners can prove they are beyond repair.

The proposed new rules are based on the Brisbane model and would apply to all pre-World War II houses. Unlike now, every application to demolish or remove a house would be publicly notified.

This is nuts. There is a difference between heritage and old. Just because a house is more than 70 years old does not make it a heritage house.

The rules would apply to 23,344 houses in the existing character zones of the inner city suburbs, Devonport, Birkenhead and Northcote, plus thousands more pre-World War II houses being identified in other parts of the city.

This is a massive theft from existing home owners. Suddenly their houses are not their property. The Council should buy the 23,000 houses if they really think they are of heritage value.

A blanket rule making every pre WWII house a heritage building is just the Council being lazy. Heritage buildings should be identified on a case by case basis and should have some special character about them.

From Hansard yesterday:

Hon David Parker: I would ask whether the Minister checked his arithmetic coming to the House, because, by my reckoning, if there was going to be one house built every hour for every hour of the day, 7 days a week for 10 years, there would be a build of 613,000 houses, not the 100,000 houses that Labour says we are going to build.

Let’s make this easy for the Labour Shadow Finance spokesperson:

1. An house an hour is 24 houses in a day
2. That is 168 houses in a week
3. That is 8,736 houses in a year
4. That is 87,360 houses in ten years

It is clear that David Parker must also be responsible for the same calculations that they can build houses in Auckland for under $300,000 each. He was out by a factor of 7000%.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers.

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Social Development: When she said in her response to the 2010 Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence, that it was important to “consider future funding options to ensure the sector has greater certainty”, did she intend for that to mean funding may be cut?
2. Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What contribution is the screen industry making to the New Zealand economy?
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: What advice has he received about a new agreement between the New Zealand Government and China Southern Airlines in respect of visa processing?
4. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on rheumatic fever that “Tackling this disease is something I am personally championing. It’s so important to achieve results in this area, that I’ve made it one of our top 10 results areas”?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making on the national health targets?
6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Education: What evidence, if any, has she received that creating bigger, super schools in Christchurch will benefit students and their communities?
7. MIKE SABIN to the Minister for Social Development: How is the Government supporting communities to make a difference for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children?
8. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Defence: Has he read all the Defence Force reports regarding the accident involving a RNZAF Iroquois on ANZAC Day 2010; if so, what action has he taken?
9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government’s response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recently released interim report on fracking?
10. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that his health targets are working for those that need them the most?
11. NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to raise educational achievement for Pasifika students?
12. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: What is the difference between a trial and a test when it comes to ICT systems in light of his answer to a supplementary question on Oral Question No 10 yesterday?

Today National is asking five questions, Labour four, Greens two and New Zealand First one. Labour are asking about rheumatic fever policy,  Defence Force accidents, health targets and Novopay.  The Greens are asking about sexual violence  treatment funding and Christchurch schools. New Zealand First are asking about the China Southern Airlines special visas.

Patsy of the day goes to Nikki Kaye for Question 11: What is the Government doing to raise educational achievement for Pasifika students?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Advanced Technology Institute Bill-Committee stage  (cont.)

2. Financial Reporting Bill – First reading

3. State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill – First reading

4. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill  – Third reading

The Advanced Technology Institute Bill was introduced by Steven Joyce in September 2012. The aim of this bill is to establish a new statutory Crown entity, the Advanced Technology Institute (ATI), with the purpose of supporting businesses, primarily in the manufacturing sector and services sector, to improve their competitiveness and growth through science and technology-based innovation and its commercialisation.

The Financial Reporting Bill was introduced by Craig Foss in July 2012. The aim of this Bill is to repeal and replace the Financial Reporting Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) and, in particular, to continue the External Reporting Board and define its functions and powers, provide for the issue of financial reporting standards and auditing and assurance standards and provide for auditor qualifications and other standard provisions relating to financial reporting duties under other enactments

The State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill was introduced in August 2012. This bill amends the main statutes governing the management of the State sector and public finances in New Zealand.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was introduced by David Carter in May 2012. It aims to reform the law relating to local government in New Zealand by amending the Local Government Act 2002

The Press looks at the possible contenders:

• Lianne Dalziel – says not standing and that a change of mind is “unlikely”
• Tim Carter – not ruling it out, will decide next year
• Garry Moore – never say never
• Mike Yardley – No plans, will not stand for Council
• Humphry Rolleston – would not comment
• Peter Townsend – Not standing
• Peter Beck – Initially said too soon to say, and then later said no
• Glenn Livingstone – Not decided yet

Ipredict has Garry Moore at 70% likely to stand and Peter Beck 55% likely.

The only two I read as definitely not standing are Townsend and Yardley. The others have all left some wriggle room.

Parker is at 47% to be re-elected.

The Dom Post editorial:

Along the way J Tolkien’s creation had to contend with trolls, goblins, giant spiders and Smaug, the dragon. Jackson has had to deal with accountants, jittery film bosses, Actors’ Equity and the Council of Trade Unions.

Bilbo returned to his hobbit hole rich and possessed of a magic ring, but his neighbours never looked at him the same way again. About him hung the unsettling aroma of adventure.

Jackson returned from his first foray to Hollywood with a clutch of Oscars for his work on The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but he too found perceptions had changed. About him hung the aroma of success. He was no longer a hometown boy made good, but a movie mogul. Hence Actors’ Equity’s attempt to use The Hobbit as a vehicle for settling long-running industry grievances.

A dumber strategy is difficult to imagine. The Lord of the Rings gave thousands of Kiwis a start in the film industry and became the greatest marketing tool New Zealand has possessed. Tolkien fans flocked to see the places where the story they loved was brought to life.

The Hobbit is doing the same. Over the past year, 2000 people have been employed on the three films Jackson is making from the book and work will continue for another two years.

To organise an international blacklist of the project was close to being an act of sabotage.

And it was done by an Australian union that had probably just a few dozen members in New Zealand, almost none of whom were even involved in The Hobbit. People forget that in fact the terms and conditions for The Hobbit were better than arguably any other production in NZ.

Yes, The Lord of the Rings was shot in New Zealand, yes, Jackson wanted to make the films here, yes, other potential English-speaking locations were already unionised. However, for every argument to suggest Warner Bros would have no choice but to bow to union demands, there was another to suggest it would pack up and go elsewhere.

In the end I believe Peter Jackson when he says the films were at serious risk. I do not think he is a liar. Those who argue otherwise base their arguments on speculation.

If Jackson felt Actors’ Equity was jeopardising the project, he needed to be listened to. Fortunately he was by the Government, which changed the law to ease Warner’s concerns and pumped even more public money into the project.

Some things are too important to gamble on a coin toss. New Zealand is a minor player in an industry in which tax breaks and publicly funded incentives are part of the furniture.

The choice before John Key’s Government was simple – stand on its dignity or sweeten the pot. Today’s red carpet premiere of the most eagerly anticipated movie of 2012 confirms it made the right choice. Other potential locations will be looking on in envy.

Yey the hypocrites who spent two years attacking the deal constantly, and vowing to repeal it, are now out there at the premiere. They had a choice of supporting jobs for New Zealanders or supporting a malignant Australian union, and they chose union solidarity over the best interests of New Zealand.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

As Hobbit fever builds, the Government is touting job creation as the biggest win from incentives that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for movie producers.

But Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says those jobs did not come cheap – and at tens of thousands of dollars a job, he questions whether the Government should be backing other industries instead.

Taxpayers have reportedly shelled out more than $500 million in the past decade subsidising Hollywood productions like Sir Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is expected to snare as much as $60 million in subsidies.

Hollywood Studios have pressed the Government to raise the subsidies even higher – and Hobbit director Sir Peter Jackson reiterated that call yesterday.

Prime Minister John Key suggested that was unlikely, but said the Cabinet would be looking at extending them to television productions.

The Hobbit had created 3000 jobs, he said.

But Dr Norman said there needed to be a cap on the cost of producing those jobs. If 2000 jobs were created over a year at a cost of $100 million that was a cost of $50,000 a job.

“If the Government is willing to pay $50,000 a job for a Hobbit job, it does beg the question why they won’t give any support whatsoever to the manufacturing sector and are happy to see us lose tens of thousands of jobs there and do nothing about it.

Firstly it is good to see Russel Norman concerned about inefficient job subsidies. I hope his concern extends to his proposals for massive investment on “Green Jobs” as these tend to represent a subsidy of over $100,000 a job.

I’m not a huge fan of the film subsidies, but as I understand them they are close to fiscally neutral. They basically represent the a refund on the GST spent by the production. Now as the movies can be made anywhere, the argument is that if there was no subsidy then they would not be made here and the Government would not gain the GST on the production.

This is a reasonable argument. It is also quite different from subsidising a particular industry over another, where the investment would be happening regardless.

So the argument is that the taxpayer doesn’t actually lose money on the subsidy, as they gather it back from the increased GST take. And on top of that you have the wider economic activity from the production.

Recently Amy Adams announced the NZ Govt would not support any changes to the International Telecommunications Regulations at WCIT, which would give the Government dominated ITU a role in Internet governance.

Adams said:

The ITR’s has existed since the time of the telegraph, and have largely been superseded by commercial arrangements.  They haven’t been reviewed for 20 years, and there are naturally some areas where the language needs to be updated to ensure the regulations continue to support an efficient and innovative telecommunications environment.
The key debate though will focus around two sets of proposals for including the Internet in the treaty – proposals that focus on the management of the network through matters such as IP allocation, routing, and address registries; and proposals that focus on control of content, spam, and security.

It is my view that these changes would be unhelpful, are unwarranted and could represent a significant threat to innovation and free and open debate.

The NZ Government is not alone in this view. The International Trade Union Confederation and Greenpeace International have written to the UN Secretary-General to oppose changes to the ITRs.  They said:

We are writing to you to express our deep concern about a potentially very damaging change to the governance of the Internet.

You will recall that at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis in 2005, Heads of State and Government decided that a multi-­stakeholder approach remained the most appropriate form of governance for the Internet – our most technically innovative and truly global communication medium.

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that certain countries are preparing to undermine this inclusive governance model. Their chosen vehicle appears to be the forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-­12), being organised by the ITU to be held in Dubai in December 2012. The task of the WCIT is to review the International Telecommunication Regulations
(ITRs), which were established in 1988.

We are becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of transparency inherent in the approach of the ITU in its preparations for this conference. The ITU Governing Council recently declined to accept the entirely appropriate proposal of the ITU Secretary-­General, Dr Hamadoun Toure, that all stakeholders should be given free access to all the preparatory documentation for the conference. This decision on the part of governments alone undermines any suggestion that ITU might itself constitute a multi-­stakeholder organisation.

This is quite contrary to Internet bodies that tend to automatically place all documents in the public domain, and allow pretty much anyone to attend their meetings.

Google has also been prominent in campaigning against that would impact a free and open Internet. You can sign their global petition here.

What, for me, shows why we should fear the ITU is the deceptive language they use in trying to rebut these concerns. Rather than deal with the issues in good faith, they try to tell people there is nothing to worry about. In their blog on the Google campaign they say:

Google has erroneously claimed that WCIT-12, which will take place in Dubai from 3-14 December, will be used as a forum to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.

The freedom of expression and the right to communicate are already enshrined in many UN and international treaties that ITU has taken into account in the establishment of its Constitution and Convention, and also its mandate by the Plenipotentiary Conference, which is the Supreme Organ of ITU. These treaties include Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These Articles – as well as Article 33 and 34 of the ITU Constitution – clearly establish the right to communication and the limits that governments can impose on those rights.

Since the ITU Constitution prevails over the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), nothing in the ITRs has the power to result in a reduction of freedom to communicate.

This is just UN style nonsense. The assertion that the UDHR means that no changes to the ITRs cam impact on our free speech on the Internet is farcical and insulting.

Let me give you an example. The UDHR also states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

So the UDHR proclaims no distinction of rights on the basis of sex. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which gives the UDHR force has been signed by over 160 countries. Yet despite this women in many countries are little more than chattels or slaves.

So arguing that there is nothing to worry about with Internet freedom, because we have the UDHR is just duplicitous.

The ITU is little better in responding to the ITUC letter:

The counterfactual letter published by Greenpeace and the International Trade Union Confederation inaccurately claim that ITU Council rejected a proposal to make all documents available to all stakeholders. This is simply not true. In fact, membership unanimously accepted the proposal of Dr. Touré, ITU Secretary-General, to make public the main proposals document – a fact that could have easily been verified with ITU. This document is available on ITU’s WCIT-12 website.

Now this is simple deception, hoping we are too stupid to notice. There is a big difference between releasing all documents and releasing the main proposals document. It is a fact that the ITU Secretary-General proposed making all documents publicly available and was unable to get his Council to agree. Of course they then agreed to release some documents, but again that is vastly different.

So when I see the ITU resorting to such transparent deception, that just reinforces to me that they are an institution that has no role in Internet governance. Their structure is flawed, they are controlled by Governments, they operate in a default mode of secrecy, they are desperate for relevance and as you can see they have an unhealthy culture.

Danya Levy and Tony Wall report at Stuff:

The mother of NZ First MP Brendan Horan spent money on operations and a new car in the years before she died, a close family source says. …

A family source said yesterday Mrs Horan “spent like a trooper” in the years before she died.

She bought a new Mazda 6 and spent money on operations and plastic surgery in an attempt to save her failing eyesight and her nose after she was diagnosed with skin cancer, the source said.

This just reinforces to me the need to suspend judgement until some facts are established. There is obviously a family dispute, but I don’t know whether or not there has been any wrong-doing by anyone.

Mr Peters twice yesterday refused to express confidence in his MP and reiterated he was still waiting for facts from the family on allegations he described as “very serious”.

That, combined with the fact Peters sent Horan home to sort this out does indicate there is some concern that the allegations could be correct. But again, nothing has been substantiated at this point.

If the allegations are proven, and Horan goes as an MP, then the new NZ First MP would be Helen Mulford. She is currently at 80% on Ipredict to become eligble to become an MP before the next election.

While the Greens still insist fracking should be banned (until it is *proven* safe – an impossible test to ever meet), other green groups are less reactionary.

The United States Environmental Defence Fund is a non-partisan environmental group. So they are worried abotu the environment, not about getting elected to anything. They have over 700,000 members. Their achievements include getting DDT banned, the Safe Water Drinking Act, getting lead out of gasoline, banning ozone depleting CFCs, marine and ecosystem reserves and many more.

The EDF has blogged why they think that fracking overall is beneficial for the environment:

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is often called upon by those opposed to natural gas development to support a ban or moratorium on drilling.  They argue that fighting for tough regulations, as EDF is doing, helps ensure that natural gas development will take place.  Some of our friends in the environmental community have questioned why we are working on natural gas at all.  They suggest that we should simply oppose natural gas development, and focus solely on championing energy efficiency and renewables.  We understand these concerns, and respect the people who share them.  And for that reason, we want to be as clear as we can be as to why EDF is so deeply involved in championing strong regulation of natural gas.

Our view on natural gas is shaped by three basic facts.  First, hydraulic fracturing is already a common practice in the oil and gas industry.  Over 90 percent of new onshore oil and gas development taking place in the United States today involves some form of hydraulic fracturing, and shale gas accounts for a rapidly increasing percentage of total natural gas production—from 16% in 2009 to more than 30% today.  In short, hydraulic fracturing is not going away any time soon.

Second, this fight is about much more than the role that natural gas may play in the future of electricity supply in the United States.  Natural gas is currently playing an important role in driving out old coal plants, and we are glad to see these coal plants go.  On balance, we think substituting natural gas for coal can provide net environmental value, including a lower greenhouse gas footprint.

This is the hypocrisy of the Greens. They moan about job losses on the West Coast, at the same tide as they try to close mining down. They  complain our greenhouse gas emissions are too high, yet oppose fracking for natural gas.  Underneath the slick marketing, you have a fundamental belief system that any industry that use natural resources is wrong and must be stopped.

I reccently heard one person, who must be a Green member, advocate against trade that requires transporting of goods further than can be done on a bicycle. No, I am not kidding – this was in New Zealand.

Our analysis has led us to conclude that there are many ways to eliminate hazards and reduce risks from hydraulic fracturing and related ‘unconventional’ oil and gas production practices.  Strong rules that require these steps to be taken are needed, backed up by effective oversight and enforcement with the necessary financial and human resources to make these efforts real. 

There is where the debate should be.

Demand for natural gas is not going away, and neither is hydraulic fracturing.  We must be clear-eyed about this, and fight to protect public health and the environment from unacceptable impacts.  We must also work hard to put policies in place that ensure that natural gas serves as an enabler of renewable power generation, not an impediment to it.  We fear that those who oppose all natural gas production everywhere are, in effect, making it harder for the U.S. economy to wean itself from dirty coal.

Natural gas production can never be made entirely safe; like any intensive industrial activity, it involves risks. But having studied the issue closely, we are convinced that if tough rules, oversight and penalties for noncompliance are put in place, these risks become manageable.

This is the difference between a true environmental group, and between politicians who spout slogans to attract support, such as banning fracking.

The NZ Herald editorial yesterday:

Russel Norman is absolutely right to say that scientists must be free to perform their academic duty to report environmental degradation. But in talking about concerns raised by Massey University scientist Mike Joy, the Green Party co-leader should also have noted that any comments from academia should be fair and accurate. If not, they can expect to be the subject of well-warranted criticism. Such is the case with Dr Joy’s comments about New Zealand’s environmental record.

Specifically:

Dr Joy told the newspaper that although this country promoted itself as “100 per cent Pure New Zealand”, the reality came nowhere close to matching this. “We don’t deserve 100 per cent Pure, we are nowhere near the best in the world, we are not even in the top half of countries in the world when it comes to clean and green,” he said.

Maybe Dr Joy has not travelled a lot. I have. To say we are not even in the top half is bonkers. No doubt he has some criteria that he bases his claims on – but the criteria he uses will not be ones most people would regard as vital for clean and green.

But the reality of New Zealand is also a long way from the bottom half of the countries of the world in terms of pristine environments. Whatever its deficiencies, it is nonsensical to place this country in the company of the world’s more polluted nations.

The 2008 Environmental Performance Index has NZ 7th highest in the world. The Greenest Countries Index has NZ at 19th out of 141. We are 13th lowest for air pollution. So of course not perfect, but Dr Joy’s smearing of NZ as being in the bottom half is just cherry picked data to make shock headlines.

Dr Joy is also making something of a habit of this practice. In an Opinion article in the Herald in April last year, he exclaimed that “far from being 100 per cent pure, natural, clean, or even green, the real truth is we are an environmental/biodiversity catastrophe”. This implies a situation where there is great damage or suffering. On no account could that be considered close to reality.

We have had a big loss of biodiversity. But that is more a historical issue. Yes many species were wiped out 150 years ago. So does that mean no one should visit New Zealand today?

Academics have a right and responsibility to comment publicly on issues of importance to the community without fear or favour. Their expert knowledge makes them an important part of any public discussion. But their comments must be appropriate. Dr Joy’s exaggerations fail that test. If he wants his criticism to be treated seriously, it will have to be expressed in a more judicious manner.

The media are starting to realise that Labour’s policy to build 100,000 houses for under $300,000 is out of touch with reality. It simply can not be done. Labour have in fact been proving this themselves with their photo ops.

First Shearer visited some affordable housing in Newtown as an example of what they will provide. But the houses there were not $300,000 but $495,000.

However, at the Newtown development Mr Shearer saw first-hand how expensive even entry level housing can be. The four four-bedroom homes he visited were each valued at $495,000.

So he tried again.

Opposition leader David Shearer got a closer look at what houses built under the Kiwibuild scheme could be like today. …

Shearer spent the morning touring New Zealand Housing Foundation properties across Auckland to promote the policy by illustrating innovative projects already underway.

The foundation is a charitable trust that helps low to middle income people into houses through a range of shared equity programmes.

His second stop was in Mt Roskill where he saw larger homes worth $400,000-$500,000.

”A lot of people are asking what can you build in Auckland for that money. We’re saying if you can build these here so close to central Auckland, we should be able to build much bigger homes if we’re doing it en masse.” 

Yeah the Govt will wave a wand and homes will both be bigger and cost less, under $300,000.

The foundations properties are an excellent example of what could be built under Kiwibuild, MP Phil Goff said.

”These are at the higher end for middle income families, but there are still about $100,000 cheaper than most houses in Auckland.

Yes the foundation properties are cheaper. In fact they even do have some homes for $300,000. But do you know why?

They are already being subsidised by the taxpayer. From May 2012:

The majority of the new projects are in Auckland, with the New Zealand Housing Foundation receiving the largest share of funding with $8.86 million to build 68 homes in West Auckland, Takanini, Mt Albert and New Lynn, and a further two in Kaikohe in Northland.

That is an average of $130,000 subsidy per home. Now Labour are saving they can do houses for under $300,000 with a mere $15,000 capital per home. Their numbers are so out of kilter with reality that I don’t think it is too harsh to call them a lie. There is just no way they can make it happen unless they can reduce the cost of land to $50,000 a section. Ironically they oppose almost every initiative to reduce the cost of land and consenting building on land.

Shearer’s credibility on this was savaged on 3 News last night:

Labour leader David Shearer hit the streets today, on a mission to prove his affordable home policy will actually work.

But one of Auckland’s top property experts has offered Mr Shearer some advice: start buying caravans, because it’s not going to happen.

Publicity stunts don’t always go to plan, and Mr Shearer found that out today as he showed off a low-cost subdivision.

Just over a week ago Labour announced, if elected, it would build 100,000 homes – many in Auckland – selling for just $300,000 each.

Construction costs would make up $220,000-250,000 of that, leaving just $50,000-$80,000 for the section.

When asked if he knew the average section price in Auckland, Mr Shearer says, “it depends where the section’s going to be”.

The average section price in Auckland is actually $300,000.

It is simple – we need to reduce the price of land. The supply of land is artificially constrained. Labour are against increasing the urban land limit in Auckland, so section prices are not going to decrease – and only on Planet Labour will you get land for $50,000 – not just one or two pieces of land – but 100,000 sections!

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has announced:

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright released her interim report on fracking this afternoon.

The report, Evaluating the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand, concludes that fracking can be done safely if well managed but raises concerns about the rules and safeguards surrounding the practice in New Zealand.

“During the course of this investigation I have come to a similar conclusion to the Royal Society which is that fracking is safe if it is properly regulated and managed.

“However I have significant concerns about how fragmented and complicated the regulatory environment for fracking is and about how these rules are being applied.

“If fracking is not done well it can have significant environmental impacts including polluting water and triggering earthquakes.

“I am also concerned that regulation may be too light-handed, particularly if fracking opens the door to a large-scale and widespread oil and gas boom with a lot of different companies involved.

“These concerns form the basis of the next stage of my investigation into fracking which I hope to conclude before the middle of next year.”

If the Greens ever go on about evidence based policy again, then recall how they demanded this inquiry and despite the findings they are still calling for fracking to remain banned until it is “proven safe”. They did the same with genetic engineering.

I’m pleased to see the Commissioner (who has not been shy to seriously attack the Government when she thinks they have it wrong), come up with sensible conclusions, and her further work should be very useful in providing a regulatory regime for fracking to continue to be used in New Zealand – as it has for over 20 years already.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm.

Questions to Ministers

1. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to address the long-standing problem of housing affordability in New Zealand?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey shows that “over the last four years, the number of jobs in manufacturing is roughly about the same”, given that the survey shows employment in manufacturing has declined by 31,600 in the four years to September 2012?
3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Yes, there is a housing issue in New Zealand”?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Is the Whānau Integration, Innovation and Engagement Fund open to individuals who do not have New Zealand citizenship or residency; if so, how many non-residents have received grants from the Fund since 2010?
5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he accept the findings of the most recent Household Labour Force Survey that show the unemployment rate at its highest level in 13 years; if not, why not?
6. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of State Services: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding public service office accommodation in Wellington?
7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What projections, if any, have been done on the impact of his amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme on forestry?
8. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with all of the Prime Minister’s statements on housing?
9. Hon PETER DUNNE to the Minister of Transport: What factors led to the Government announcement last Wednesday to proceed with the construction of the Transmission Gully Highway as a public-private partnership?
10. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Associate Minister of Education: Was he aware, before he signed off on the decision for Novopay to go live, that the Ministry of Education’s survey of trial Novopay users found only 37 percent of them believed they were ready for its introduction; if not, why not?
11. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What is the Government doing to help veterans attend significant commemorations of their service?
12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Was the subject of Kim Dotcom raised in his recent discussion with US President Barack Obama; if so, by whom?

Today National is asking three questions, Labour five, Greens two,  New Zealand First and United Future have one each. Labour are asking about housing twice, unemployment, the Novopay issue and Kim Dotocom. The Greens are asking about unemployment in manufacturing and the effect of the Emissions Trading Scheme on forestry.  New Zealand First is asking about Whanau Ora. United Future are asking about the construction of Transmission Gully.

Patsy of the day goes to Chris Auchinvole for Question 6: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding public service office accommodation in Wellington?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill – Committee stage (cont.)

2. Advanced Technology Institute Bill – Committee stage (cont.)

3. Legislation Bill– Committee stage

4. International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill -Committee stage (cont.)

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill was introduced by David Carter in May 2012. It aims to reform the law relating to local government in New Zealand by amending the Local Government Act 2002

The Advanced Technology Institute Bill was introduced by Steven Joyce in September 2012. The aim of this bill is to establish a new statutory Crown entity, the Advanced Technology Institute (ATI), with the purpose of supporting businesses, primarily in the manufacturing sector and services sector, to improve their competitiveness and growth through science and technology-based innovation and its commercialisation

The Legislation Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson in June 2010. The aim of this Bill is to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official versions of legislation and to bring this law together in a single piece of legislation

The International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill was introduced by Bill English in October 2011. This Bill, which amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 (the Act), provides for New Zealand to recognise changes to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (the Articles), which are the governing documents of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)

[DPF comment: Very interesting that the lead question from the Government isn’t a patsy, but on housing affordability – presumably reflecting a belief that Labour’s policy is full of glaring holes and doesn’t add up. I approve. I think the Government should use more of its questions to attack the Opposition’s dopey policies, rather than patsies to Ministers]

Claire Trevett reports:

Three Labour MPs, including its leadership team of David Shearer and Grant Robertson, will attend the red-carpet premiere of The Hobbit tomorrow despite strong criticism over the deal to appease the movie’s makers, Warner Bros.

The absolute hypocrites. You see it is not as if Labour just opposed the deal at the time – they have attacked it scores and scores of times over the last two years. Labour MPs rail against the deal constantly. Their policy is to reverse it. In fact their policy is to basically turn all contractors into employees, which would absolutely destroy global film production in New Zealand.

Mr Robertson denied it was hypocritical to attend the event after criticising the deal with Warner Bros which included a change to employment law to set out the legal status of film workers as contractors rather than employees. “I remain staunchly opposed to the legislation passed by the National Government in this matter. We thought it was wrong and unnecessary and still do.

Labour still seem unable to understand or accept that restrictive labour laws discourage films like this being made in New Zealand. They think you can have your cake and eat it also. Worse of all they backed the Australian union that instituted a global boycott against The Hobbit against the thousands of Kiwis who gained employment on it.

Normally I am an advocate of civility in politics, but this hypocrisy stinks to hell. If you see the Hobbit hypocrites on the red carpet tomorrow I encourage you to let them know what you think of their hypocrisy.

Mr Robertson said it was appropriate for him to attend – he was the MP for Wellington Central and The Hobbit had employed a large number of people in his electorate.

No thanks to you. Your union backers almost saw the film move overseas – and you backed them – and still do. Grant has a history of not backing his constituents – as when he filibustered his own local bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ based in his electorate.

The Green Party also criticised National at the time and a spokeswoman said none of its MPs were going.

Not hypocrites.

In 2010, the stoush was exacerbated by the Actors Unity proposing a “blacklist” on the Hobbit movies to push for a collective contract – a blacklist which was subsequently lifted. Actors Equity has said it was a scapegoat after official papers showed Mr Brownlee had advised that the real concern of Warners was the employment law change rather than a blacklist.

The very change that Labour fights against, and has vowed to repeal. They want contractors to be employees, even if the parties have agreed to be contractors, which is hideously complex and expensive for film productions.

And if you think there was no danger of The Hobbit moving, then read this:

“[Warner Bros] had sent a location scout around England and Scotland to take photos, and they literally had the script broken down to each scene, and in each scene there were pictures of the Scottish Highlands, and the forests in England… and that was to convince us we could easily just go over there and shoot the film,” he told Radio New Zealand.

All thanks to the Australian union and its supporters in NZ.

I’ve been a fan of the Give A Little website which makes it easy to donate to your favourite charity.

There used to be a small admin fee to cover the site’s costs. Some good news, in that the Telecom Foundation has taken over the site and is covering all the admin costs. This means you can now donate through the site with no fees at all being charged.

More than just charities can use it. Individuals, schools and clubs can also use it for fundraising.