The Jackal

Central government vs Local body government

2012-03-05T20:25:00.000+13:00

Today, The Dominion Post reports:

John Key's government is remarkable for many reasons, particularly its enthusiasm for staking its future on illogical but politically expedient policies.

Its plans for local government reform is only the latest in a long list running from its refusal to raise the superannuation age to selling state assets for no economic benefit.

It resolutely sticks to these positions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, even its own recently released budget policy statement showed the fiscal nonsense of selling SOEs.

But with local government reform the government's illogicality reaches new and even more destructive heights.

[...]

And the local funding options will only get far tighter, as Smith says of his local government reforms. It is also clear he intends to claw back many of local government's environmental remits to the central government Environmental Protection Authority he is championing.

Fleeced of financial resources and environmental responsibilities, unitary councils would be next to useless. But Smith's plans are bigger than that. He intends to strip back the responsibilities of all councils to the likes of roads, rubbish, sewerage, footpaths, street lighting, parks and libraries.

Very well said Rod Oram.

The interesting thing about this is that council's are usually predominated by politically right leaning people, who should understand that for them, National's policy direction is leading to a dead end.

I bet some councillor's are scratching their heads about now and wondering why they voted for John Key at all. His restructuring is in fact contrary to many previous National government's policy directives.

There is no doubt that National is eroding its core support, and political betrayal is seldom forgiven.

Hopefully councillor's and the wider public in general understand that National's counterproductive austerity measures will actually increase costs while reducing the decision-making ability of local authorities.

People who have a vested interest in their communities are always going to be better suited to make financial decisions about their jurisdictions.

Ratepayers need to realize that rates will increase faster than a speeding bullet while services decline into third world conditions. There will be less infrastructure maintenance, which will lead to further costs being placed onto the public when things go wrong.

The Keys party are hell bent on following their ideologically defunct policies that have no economic, social or environmental benefit for New Zealand. Degrading these and the financial viability of our Council's will benefit nobody.

National has no mandate

2012-03-05T19:00:00.002+13:00

Today, stuff.co.nz reported:

Prime Minister John Key says anger over the potential sale of the Crafar farms to a Chinese company has not damaged support for the National Party.

Meanwhile in the real world, the latest Roy Morgan polling shows a very different story:

Labour 31.5
Greens 13
NZ1st 5
Mana 1
Total 50.5

National 45.5
Act 0.5
UF 0.5
Maori 1.5
Total 48

If there was a general election today, National would not be the government.

Which makes more sense?

2012-03-04T18:51:00.000+13:00

Daniel Corbett - climate change denier

2012-03-03T12:22:00.000+13:00

I watched the new MetService meteorologist Daniel Corbett on Campbell Live last night go on about the unprecedented bad weather being an effect of La Niña. Not once did he mention Climate Change, most likely because he was told not to. He did however start going on about repairing a flat tyre. WTF!

The latest data from NOAA says that during the last four weeks, La Niña has weakened considerably across the Pacific Ocean and is expected to transition to ENSO-neutral conditions during March-May 2012. Collectively, the oceanic and atmospheric patterns reflect a weak-to moderate strength La Niña. Therefore the increased bad weather cannot be blamed on a naturally occurring cycle that is in decline.

It appears that New Zealand has inherited the BBC's failed sceptic. Only a fully-fledged climate change denier could lie so proficiently in order to keep the public in the dark. It's nothing new though... five years ago Daniel Corbett was peddling the same line, saying that the adverse changes in weather are due to El Niño:

I sometimes despair at the idiocy of our news media. They are clearly being controlled by the very industries that are responsible for destroying our environment. I cannot even recall the last time there was a level headed and reality based discussion on TV about climate change and its detrimental effects on our planet.

Unfortunately the news media is a joke. The fact that they're completely unwilling to inform the public properly about the largest catastrophe we face would be funny if the circumstances weren't so damn serious.

Still don't believe there's a problem huh? Well here's what the real experts say:

NIWA's website states:

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its most recent assessment report that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. "This statement was based on a vast array of evidence from observations, as well as our understanding of the physics of the atmosphere, ocean and land.

Globally, the biggest contribution to greenhouse gases is from carbon dioxide, which is emitted when fossil fuels are burnt for their energy. In New Zealand the emission of methane from agriculture is also a significant contribution to our local emissions.

The IPCC 2007 Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems (PDF) states:

1.4.2.1 Attributing regional temperature change: It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases averaged over each continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century (Hegerl et al., 2007, Section 9.4.2). Statistically significant regional warming trends over the last 50 and 30 years are found in many regions of the globe (Spagnoli et al., 2002; Karoly and Wu, 2005; Karoly and Stott, 2006; Knutson et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2006; Trenberth et al., 2007, Figure 3.9). These warming trends are consistent with the response to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols and likely cannot be explained by natural internal climate variations or the response to changes in natural external forcing (solar irradiance and volcanoes).

The IPCC recently confirmed that the worlds worsening weather is due to climate change.

We've known for a long time that manmade climate change is having a detrimental effect on our weather. The fact that Daniel Corbett completely ignored the scientific research and expert diagnosis on the matter and instead rattled on about everything but Climate Change clearly shows that he's a climate change denier. He therefore has no right to call himself a meteorologist.

I invite him to defend his position.

Cathy Odgers factually deficient

2012-03-02T12:20:00.001+13:00

Today, the blogger known as Catcus Kate asked a question:

John Campbell went soft however as he misses one very pertinent question that would have been my second question -

Where are you [sic] tax resident and how much tax have you paid in New Zealand individually and for Megaupload.com?

Obviously she didn't bother to watch the Campbell Live interview with Kim Dot Com properly. There has been no information to question Kim Dot Com's validity concerning this matter, simply because he's not evaded his tax obligations.

Again the prickly pear has written an entire post based on her dubious speculations, rallying against Kim Dot Com's profound argument with factually deficient innuendo.

But what is even more idiotic is that after Cactus Kate says Kim Dot Com gave a "masterful performances in gaining public sympathy", she then says that the appearance on Campbell Live was not advisable because some shit an increasingly irrelevant blogger named Cathy Odgers is making up might make the public not support the beleaguered entrepreneur.

Opening your gob like he has and inviting media in to his lair for a looksie has its downsides. It brings up little questions like this one that need answering. It is why lawyers always tell clients to STFU and face palm to themselves when the client opens up to media.

This is the usual right wing mentality that thinks anybody who is arrested is guilty. It doesn't matter if they are or not... they are god damn guilty of something because the cops say so OK! People like Cathy Odgers cannot differentiate between what is fact or fiction, and she would be best served by adhering to her own advice. Only pricks make shit up to try to defame others!

Fuck TEPCO

2012-03-01T19:43:00.000+13:00

Get the word on fracking out

2012-03-01T16:03:00.001+13:00

Award-winning filmmakers Tom and Sumner Burstyn from Cloud South Films are reaching out to concerned Kiwi citizens to help fund their next documentary with the working title Fracking Whakatutu.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a mining technique that involves injecting millions of litres of a high-pressure cocktail including water, sand and chemicals into fuel-rich subterranean rock.

Industry advocates claim the practice is safe; opponents claim it leaves a toxic legacy. What’s not in dispute is the steady increase of fracking in New Zealand in recent years, and the lack of public engagement on the topic.

“If information is power, then the public of this country is virtually powerless when it comes to the potential risks and rewards that fracking represents,” says writer-producer Sumner Burstyn. “As such we feel compelled to make a film that puts the claims of both energy companies and environmentalists under the microscope.”

With the likelihood of the Government allowing a great deal more fracking in the near future, the Burstyns’ aim is to have their documentary feature in NZ cinemas by early 2013.

“This kind of accelerated schedule is something an agency like the Film Commission just isn’t set up to accommodate,” notes director-cinematographer Tom Burstyn. “By its very nature, the NZFC has to be very deliberate in its decision-making. So we’ve decided to jumpstart the project by soliciting funding directly from members of the New Zealand public.”

The filmmakers are doing this via recently launched “crowdfunding” website PledgeMe. Their goal is to raise $150,000 in this manner by 27 May, which will enable them to pull together enough compelling material to secure the rest of the production budget and have the film – working title, Fracking Whatatutu – ready for release early next year.

“We’re really passionate about this project and the part it can play in contributing to democratic discussion of an important issue for this and future generations,” says Sumner Burstyn. “We’re also excited about helping trail-blaze a new kind of film financing in NZ.”

Click here to view Fracking Whatatutu’s PledgeMe page.

Tom and Sumner Burstyn (This Way of Life), have decided to break their plans and make the movie because they're concerned by the lack of informed debate on fracking, among politicians and the public alike.

With fracking already underway in New Zealand, time is of the essence.

The Impact

We're really passionate about this project. Film has the power to change the direction of individuals and governments. New Zealand still has the chance to be the clean green haven the world sees it as. Our vision is for Fracking Whatatutu to become the preeminent tool for proactive democracy around this subject.

What We Need & What You Get

The first $30,000 will be used for early research and early production - the first step in the process. These donated funds will help us pull together enough compelling material to secure the rest of the production budget for the film - working title Fracking Whatatutu. This material will enable us to approach funding bodies with solid evidence of why this film should be supported. With public support we will be able to have this film ready for release in the first half of 2013

Other Ways You Can Help

Join our mailing list - http://www.cloudsouth.co.nz/join-mailing-list/

Tell eveyone you know, join all of our groups - we can use as much coverage as possible and we'd love you to be a part of the conversation!

www.facebook/FrackingWhatatutu
www.twitter.com/fracknz
www.pinterest.com/fracknz

Tui advertising breaches law

2012-03-01T13:51:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Tui has cancelled today's (Wed) planned meeting with a feminist group to discuss a television advert it branded sexist, telling the group to instead direct its concerns to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Auckland Feminist Action said it was "disappointed'' after a Tui beer spokesperson pulled out of the meeting in which a group representative wanted to discuss their concerns about the television advert.

[...]

In a message to APNZ, Tui spokesman Jarrod Bear said he was busy with several meetings and was no longer able to meet Ms Morris.

The Tui advertising campaigns adhered to advertising codes and that the company had received "overwhelming support from NZ public'', said Mr Bear.

"She could channel her organisation's concerns through to Advertising Standards Authority.''

For now, let's just ignore what the World Health Organisation’s European Charter on Alcohol states:

All children and adolescents have the right to grow up in an environment protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Let's also put aside the fact that Tui considers themselves "socially responsible" while exploiting the public with alcohol promotions in every way possible.

The issue concerns Tui using sex to sell their beer... and there are laws as well as a code that is meant to regulate such advertising:

2(d) Advertisements shall not be sexually provocative or suggestive or suggest any link between liquor and sexual attraction or performance.

The Tui adverts are clearly in breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Code for Advertising Liquor. What is the point in having rules when they're breached with impunity?

But what is a more pressing question is why would anybody drink such a shit beer? Surely no amount of brainwashing can trick people's taste buds into liking that crap!

Parata steps over the bounds of decency

2012-03-01T11:37:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta asked the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata:

Does she have confidence in her Ministry?

What followed was a despicable display of arrogance from Hekia Parata, where she exhibited nastiness and incompetently misled the House of Representatives:

No kidding there is room for improvement.

So Parata went home for the weekend leaving the parents none the wiser about the child sex offender. The Minister of Education obviously had access to the name and home contact details of the school principle, who in turn has the contact details of the parents whose children had interacted with the known sexual offender. A phone call would have been a far more appropriate way for them to be informed. Leaving it up to the Six O'clock news to do the job is not acceptable.

Parata then made a press statement where she attempted to gain support for the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill... completely ignoring the fact that the failure to share information on the sexual offender who was breaching his bail conditions by working in schools had nothing to do with the current privacy laws. The agencies involved had the legal power and should have intervened.

It is despicable that National is trying to gain political ground over such an issue, especially when it's ultimately the Ministers responsibility to ensure such failings do not occur.

Today, National party apologist Mai Chen had an opinion piece in the NZ Herald called ‘Sex offender case shows law’s limits’. However this statement is quickly contradicted:

The Privacy Act does not stop you from sharing information when it needs to be shared. In most circumstances relating to the protection of vulnerable children, there will be an exemption when you need it - such as health and safety reasons (where there is a serious and imminent threat) and the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences (Information Privacy Principles 10 and 11, section 6, Privacy Act).

There simply should not have been such incompetence that allowed a known sexual offender the ability to work with young vulnerable children. Somebody should be held to account for such mismanagement.

National attempting to gain political support for the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill that has nothing to do with this case is simply abhorrent!

In the four seminars we did in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin for the Social Service Providers Aotearoa Inc on these issues, concerns were raised about whether the bill should mandate reporting of suspected child abuse. That is a separate issue that would be difficult to accommodate in the narrow scope of this bill.

After running a half page promoting the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill, Mai Chen then admits that it would have no proper way to increase information sharing on suspected child abusers anyway. Why then is Parata trying to gain public support for the bill on the back of such incompetence?

The question is; do the actions of criminals and the need to ensure the publics safety outweigh peoples right to privacy? As a law-abiding citizen I have serious reservations about the actions of criminals impinging on my right to privacy. That, to a degree, is letting the criminals win. I also do not think it's appropriate that government institutions can simply agree to not adhere to the Privacy Act where it suits them, which is what the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is proposing.

A law change is not required when there is an obvious imminent and serious threat to public safety, and the current laws are already designed to ensure the public is protected. It is the procedures and management that is the problem here, not the current laws. People weren't doing their jobs properly, and heads should roll.

Parata should not be trying to gain political ground out of the institutional incompetence she is responsible for. In doing so, Hekia Parata has stepped over the bounds of decency and should consider resigning.

Speak to the machine

2012-02-29T09:12:00.000+13:00

National have announced that many Housing New Zealand personnel are going to be replaced by an answer machine. There’s one main reason for this, and that’s to lessen the amount of people applying for state houses. National are making the application process even harder, so that people are deterred and have to rent in the private sector.

On Monday, TV3 reported:

An 0800 number and call centre will replace face-to-face contact after Housing New Zealand closes 52 offices and cuts 70 front line jobs.

The change will affect how New Zealanders get in touch with the organisation.
Porirua’s Betty Tahitahi and Brian Grace are concerned about the change, as their Cannons Creek state house has cracks after an earthquake last year.

They say Housing New Zealand is always slow to respond, and are worried having a call centre will make it worse.

“Calling them is not really an option because I could be talking to a computer and they say the same thing again and again. If I go face them then I know things will get done,” Ms Tahitahi says.

There are 69,000 state houses in New Zealand, many of them rented by people who do not speak English.

The right-wingers hate the fact that there are state houses that to a degree keep rental prices down. Even though New Zealand has one of the most expensive rental markets in the world, they want more.

Landlords can only achieve better returns from rack-renting if the alternative is no longer available… hence the move to depersonalise the system to deter people from calling Housing New Zealand, which will result in less efficiency and therefore less state housing.

The other way in which National is trying to destroy the state-housing sector is to leave many houses empty until they are vandalized. They then use this as an excuse to demolish. Between 2008 and 2011, National increased the amount of vacant state houses by a whopping 471 and the overal state houses available declined by 171 in the same time period. 256 houses were demolished.

National is also evicting long-standing tenants and shifting them into less desirable areas to meet the demands of their property speculator buddies.

Housing demand is growing at around 20,000 per year, with building and maintenance not keeping pace. The cost of such mismanagement can be measured in more overcrowding in overpriced and unsuitable accommodation.

Increased hospitalisation, homelessness and decreased productivity are all results of New Zealand’s poor housing stock... the fault of which can be traced back to National's deregulation and policy bungling.

National's nanny state

2012-02-29T08:27:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

From July, up to 14,000 teenagers aged 16 and 17 who are not in education, work or training and teen parents aged 16 to 18 will be coupled with a private provider to help them with budgeting courses, parenting courses, training or job-hunting.

Their basic costs such as rent and power will be paid by the state, and they will have a payment card for living costs that can be monitored to ensure they do not buy alcohol or cigarettes.

They will receive an allowance of up to $50 a week, but this can increase by $10 a week for a good attendance record at school or for completing a budgeting or parenting course.

Likewise, providers will receive extra funding, but Ms Bennett said payments to them would be based on the results they achieved what she called "real outcomes''.

There are some major problems with this tinkering around the edges.

Firstly, the government will be deciding who the private providers will be. We have seen countless cases of National cronyism over the last few years, and this just opens up another avenue for those who are finding favour with National to line their own pockets.

Secondly, the government cannot hope to control direct payments to landlords so that there is no rorting going on. Having a mechanism whereby the government allocates money that goes directly to landlords is open to abuse.

Thirdly, and more importantly, young people need to learn to budget for themselves. National cannot hope to have people that can look after themselves if the state is controlling their money and perhaps where they live. But what is strange about this aspect of National’s proposed changes is that it goes against their personal responsibility motto.

The hypocritical Bennett needs to look at policy that will achieve real outcomes like creating jobs and providing proper incentives for training that actually meets market requirements. National’s beneficiary bashing will achieve nothing.

Lucy Lawless - Hero of the Week

2012-02-27T12:38:00.000+13:00

Today, the Taranaki Daily News reported:

Actress Lucy Lawless and five other Greenpeace protesters have been arrested after spending four days on board the Noble Explorer, which was due to travel to the Arctic in exploration of oil.

Lawless and a group of Greenpeace activists scaled the Noble Explorer's 53-metre drilling derrick and unfurled banners in Port Taranaki at 7am on Friday.

The ship was scheduled to leave the port yesterday to drill three exploratory oil wells in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska, but the journey was delayed due to the protesters' actions.

Lawless' involvement drew international attention to their cause.

There is no question that the risks involved in drilling for oil in such an inhospitable place outweigh any potential benefit. However with very little financial punishment when (not if) things go wrong, the oil companies see things differently.

It's the wild west out there with a lack of any proper safety mechanisms, old equipment and the same procedures that have proven disastrous on numerous occasions being used.

That's why the international attention Lucy Lawless brings to the cause is so fantastic. People power can change the world. In fact this award is for everybody involved in trying to save the Arctic. Keep up the good work.

Bill English - Asshole of the Week

2012-02-24T09:03:00.000+13:00

Last night, the National party website reported:

Opponents of the Government’s mixed ownership programme need to explain to New Zealanders why it would be better to borrow an extra $5 billion to $7 billion from overseas lenders, Finance Minister Bill English says.

Now hang on a second... there's still unanswered questions concerning National over-estimating the potential revenue gained if they partly privatise our SOE's. Firstly, their midrange $6 billion estimate was shown to be $800 million over and above the $5.2 billion book value.

In the current stagnant economic climate, how can National expect to gain more than the book value and why are they still promoting a falsehood?

Last Friday, the NZ Herald reported:

Mr English said the Treasury "had to pick a number" so they picked the mid-point of the range.

"If we did get $6 billion, that would be a gain of sale [of $800 million] which is just a product of the accounting.

"I just want to emphasise that it is not our best guess; it's just a guess. It's just to put some numbers in that look like they might be roughly right for forecasting purposes.

"That's an honest answer."

Talk about creative accounting. It's a pity English wasn't honest about the potential sales revenue prior to the last election... you now, the election that apparently gave National a mandate to sell our assets.

Not only did the assholes garner more votes because of their lies, their over-estimating the sale proceeds means they get to say there's a saving of $266 million in interest payments on government debt.

They're also saying they will spend all the money gained on purchasing other taxpayer owned assets FFS! It simply does not compute... will they purchase more tax payer owned assets or pay down debt with the revenue gained?

Last Friday, The Standard reported:

If you want a real estimate of what Treasury thinks asset sales will bring in, look in the PREFU. It has the new capital spending allowance (rebranded the Future Investment Fund by National) being paid for by just $3.86b of ‘balance sheet funding’ (ie asset sales).

[...]

Then, they’ve under-estimated the dividends and retained profits, which the buyer gets in the form of a higher share price. In the past five years, the dividend flow from the shares National wants to sell has averaged $326m but they’ve only booked $200m a year in lost dividends in 2016.

So National is planning to sell our assets at a loss. They are completely ignoring the fact that it is cheaper to pay the interest on the debt to service new capital expenditure than it is to lose the revenue streams from the SOE's. How many people would have voted for asset sales if they knew it was going to cost New Zealand money?

The PREFU shows that the estimate is overstated by as much as $3.14 billion. There's also a huge cost in getting the SOE's sold that has not been factored in. But as hard as it is to believe, National's blatant propaganda gets even worse:

“Taxpayers own $245 billion of assets, and this is forecast to grow to $267 billion over the next four years. So we are not reducing our assets. Our challenge is how we pay for their growth, while getting on top of our debt.”

He's actually arguing that funding irrigation systems for farmers is somehow better than retaining our power companies in public ownership. Personally I don't want my power bill to increase dramatically and think that farmers should pay for their own damn irrigation systems.

National simply want another transference of money from the public to the already wealthy. They're obviously unsatisfied with the last round of tax cuts for the rich, which cost us $1.1 billion in the first nine months... they want more.

Despite the recent exponential growth in inequality in New Zealand, National's irrational financial reasoning continues:

The rationale for offering New Zealanders minority stakes in four energy companies and Air New Zealand is quite simple, Mr English says.

“First, the Government gets to free up $5 billion to $7 billion – less than 3 per cent of its total assets – to invest in other public assets like modern schools and hospitals, without having to borrow in volatile overseas markets.

Well since the puppet like English has raised the subject; the government's net debt has increased to FIFTY BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS. That's an increase of 190% in National's first term as government. In comparison, the net debt under the last Labour government increased by only 5.3% in nine years.

English then rambles on about being confident New Zealander's will retain 85-90% of shares, forgetting that State Services Minister Tony Ryall had previously said there was no guarantee of this. English even says there will be greater transparency, when there is going to be less transparency because private companies are not bound by things like the Official Information Act 1982 (PDF).

National need to explain why they're still promoting falsehoods about the potential returns from MOM asset sales, why they've dramatically devalued the current dividends and how they've managed to borrow $50 billion with practically nothing to show for it? There are huge risks involved in borrowing so much money, especially when there's increased interest payable now that New Zealand has experienced (thanks to National) a couple of credit downgrades.

Somehow I doubt the Pinnocchio like English has the ability to honestly explain why he's been lying... and for that he's most assuredly an asshole!

Dismantling the reason for war

2012-02-23T10:11:00.001+13:00

As you can see, there is an imminent threat of war between the United States, Israel and Iran. Please keep in mind that it's Fox news, and completely biased, but the message is pretty clear: Iran joining the nuclear weapons club will not be tolerated.

The theological reasons behind Israel's stance are well known, however the excuses for war have focused mainly on a threat of terrorism from Iran and nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

This is where Gordon Campbell has excelled himself with this article that cleverly dismantles the reasons given by those promoting war with the Islamic Republic of Iran:

In one package, Hague has included every half-baked rationale for conflict. Take the terrorist angle that Hague mentions… why would Iran be any more likely to hand over nuclear weapons to terrorists than Pakistan, the West’s own unstable ally and supporter of terrorist groups? And if we are so very concerned about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East as Hague purports to be, why has Britain – and New Zealand – voted against UN resolutions in the past aimed at making the Middle East into a nuclear free zone?

The propaganda for war is as usual, highly flawed. It is based on a falsehood that the United States and Israel are somehow operating their nuclear weapons industries properly, and can therefore judge a hypothetical threat from Iran.

Here is why their argument is defunct: In July 2007, an Energy Department audit found that the United States had misplaced numerous nuclear weapons parts, and there was widespread confusion of who was responsible. In fact since the fifties, the United States has lost at least eight fully operational nuclear bombs.

But what is even worse is that President Bill Clinton lost the biscuit sometime between 1993 and 2001. The biscuit is a nickname given to the plastic card the president carries with him at all times with the codes necessary to launch a nuclear strike. The list goes on.

In February 2011, the IAEA released a report that was widely referenced:

Pursuing “some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” is significantly different from pursuing a completed, deliverable nuclear bomb. Numerous obstacles stand in the way of Iranian development of the latter capability – obstacles that suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran capable of threatening Israel is a good deal further off than recent reporting would indicate.

Nothing has really changed since then. The propaganda however has gained momentum while the real reasons behind the imminent war go largely unreported on. The west looks set to support yet another ideologically fuelled and fear based invasion that could result in mutually assured destruction... have they/we learnt nothing?

Murray McCully's leaked emails

2012-02-22T09:49:00.000+13:00

Privet.
Товарищи hacked into Foreign Affairs Ministers email account. This is year ago.
We see reports from New Zealand tv. It show some emails. We will leak the emails he talk about.
This is not important to us. This is skid stuff. We move onto more things now.
(Sorry for bad english).

- Long Live RBN

- @TheComradez

до свидания
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- On Wed, 20/4/11, Halia Haddad (MIN) wrote:

From: Halia Haddad (MIN)
Subject: NZDF plane availability
To: "Minister blackberry (murraymccully@vodafonenz.ap.blackberry.net)" , "Billie Moore (MIN)" , "Minister McCully (murraymccully@xtra.co.nz)"
Date: Wednesday, 20, April, 2011, 3:45 PM

Minister

As discussed, the broad indications NZDF has given me regarding possible plane availability in May/June is as follows:

- 23-27 May: a 757 and a 757 backup available
- 30 May to 3 June: one 757 available. Would need to look at an alternative backup.
- 8-11 June: one 757 available. Would need to look at an alterntive backup.
- 21-24 June: no 757s available. Only one C130 available. i.e. probably no backup planes available.
- 27 June - 2 July: no 757s available. Only one C130 available. i.e. probably no backup planes available.

Most of July is looking very difficult for the NZDF - no 757s available, and only one C130.

Halia

Halia Haddad | Private Secretary, Foreign Affairs | Office of Hon Murray McCully
Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister for Sport and Recreation | Minister for the Rugby World Cup
Phone +64 4 817 9738 | Mobile +64 (0)21 420 132 | Fax +64 4 817 6510
6.1 Executive Wing Beehive | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minister, as discussed PAC has provided some further updates on availability of PIC governments.
Solomon Islands, PNG the week of 13 June can be locked in, with a possibility that Timor could be added; details as follows: Papua New Guinea

As discussed, we are locking in the visit to Port Moresby for 17-18 June.
Solomon Islands Honiara advise that Solomon Islands is ok for June and we can lock this in (but not June 13 which is a public holiday).
At this stage the Prime Minister (Philip), and Opposition Leader (Sikua) are available that week.
Assistant Secretary Pacific at MFAET advises that Minister Shannel is travelling to Korea the first week of June but the intention
is for him to be back in Solomon Islands by 13 June, and that Shannel would therefore be available to meet with you. Shannel's travel plans
are yet to be finalised, however if we are able to formally to indicate to the Solomon Islands Government that you would visit on the week of 13 June then this will be taken into account in finalising Shannel's date of return.

The Minister of Finance (G Darcy Lilo) will be returning from Vietnam on 12 June and available from then.
RAMSI Special Coordinator confirms he will be in Solomon Islands the week beginning 13 June.
Based on this availability, we would welcome your views on whether we should go ahead and lock the Solomon Islands the week of 13 June,
combined with the PNG visit.
Timor-Leste

· We are working with NZDF and looking at commercial schedules to Timor-Leste, as well as contacting Timorese officials to seek
their views on a visit the week of 13 June. If it works out this could then be combined into the travel schedule with PNG and Solomon Islands.
Samoa/Polynesia

· Post has re-confirmed that PM Tuilaepa will not/not be in country at all the week of 9-13 May (Samoa is an LDC and we assume there may be a connection with the Istanbul meeting).
· I have spoken with

continues: the Electorate Office regarding the opening of the Food Technology Kitchen at Long Bay College. They advise that there is a
delegation coming from Korea for it, and it would therefore be impossible to move the date. There is the option that another
Minister/dignitary opens the event (and Long Bay College has previously been advised that we could not confirm your attendance absolutely),
however as it is also an electoral event the Electorate Office did not recommend it. Therefore assuming you need to attend this, it would make
it impossible to combine Samoa with Tonga and Vanuatu in the third week of May and have you back for Friday 20 May.

As an alternative, one option we are working on with NZDF and PIC governments is to identify other possible weeks in which we
could combine Polynesian destinations. This would of course need to fit in around your other travel commitments.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"--- On Wed, 20/4/11, Stephen Parker (MIN) wrote:"

From: Stephen Parker (MIN)
Subject: FW: Update on Consular Case: Arrest of NZ Woman in Argentina
" To: ""Billie Moore (MIN)"" , ""murraymccully@xtra.co.nz"" "
" Date: Wednesday, 20, April, 2011, 1:00 PM"

" Hi,"

A lot of media attention on the Armstrong drug case. The DomPost have interviewed her in prison and plan to publish the interview tomorrow - so its likely to attract further attention.

The Dom Post is asking for comment but I am declining - unless otherwise advised.

However appropriate consular assistance is being provided and this is being communicated through MFAT comms.

" Regards,"

Stephen

Stephen Parker | Press Secretary.
" Office of Hon Murray McCully (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sport"
" and Recreation, Rugby World Cup 2011)"

6.1 Executive Wing | Parliament Buildings | Wellington
DDI +64 4 817 9568 | MOB 021 838 372| FAX +64 4 817 6510

" From: WILLIAMS, Catrina (CMD) [mailto:Catrina.Williams@mfat.govt.nz]"
" Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 11:51 a.m."
" To: GEMMELL, Andrea (CON); Halia Haddad (MIN); Amy Laurenson (MIN); Stephen Parker (MIN)"
" Cc: TAPLEY, Jane (CON); Annelies Windmill; LAW, Anna (CON)"
Subject: RE: Update on Consular Case: Arrest of NZ Woman in Argentina
Importance: High

[UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi All

The Dom Post (Clio Francis) has now interviewed the Sharon Armstrong from prison in Buenos Aires. They've given this info in-confidence to Stephen. Clio reports that Armstrong is distraught and concerned about the level of assistance being offered by NZ. Due to the circumstances of the case there is likely to be a level of sympathy for Armstrong and her predicament. The Dom have asked for comment from the Minister.

At this stage Stephen and my view is that it is best to keep this at an operational level and for comment to continue coming from the Ministry.

As we have a good deal of info on where the story is likely to go next - I think we need to be on the front-foot and go back to the Dom this afternoon with a response along the lines of:
The New Zealand Embassy is Buenos Aires is providing consular assistance to Sharon Armstrong following her arrest last week. The Embassy was informed of the arrest on April 14. An official from the Embassy has visited [will be visiting] [when] Ms Armstrong [when] and the Ministry is in touch with her family. The Embassy has provided [is providing] details to Ms Armstrong for English-speaking lawyers.
" When New Zealanders are detained overseas the Ministry can provide a range of assistance including informing next of kin, arranging for the transfer of funds for payment of bail or other legal expenses, and attending legal proceedings as an observer. The New Zealand Government or its officials cannot intervene in the justice system or law courts of other countries."
" Can someone in CONS pls confirm these with post and get back to me with any amends - the Dom is holding the interview for tmrw's edition, likely front-page, so we'll have til around 6pm to provide comment."

" Also to note that Armstrong's family have alleged to TVNZ that information regarding her situation has entered the media via a leak at MFAT. TVNZ sought comment on this - I've told them its extremely unlikely that this is the case, and the case for running such an allegation is flimsy, but that we would not be engaging publicly with the allegation."

20 plus calls so far.

I'm also going to alert SLT and PM's office etc on where we are at media-wise.

Thanks
C

" From: GEMMELL, Andrea (CON)"
" Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:53 p.m."
" To: ....HADDAD2, Halia (Inet); ....LAURENSON2, Amy (Inet)"
" Cc: WILLIAMS, Catrina (CMD); TAPLEY, Jane (CON); WINDMILL, Annelies (BNA)"
Subject: Update on Consular Case: Arrest of NZ Woman in Argentina
[UNCLASSIFIED]

" Further to our email advice (Watson/Laurenson) on 16 April, of the arrest of a NZ citizen, Sharon May ARMSTRONG, on 13 April in Buenos Aires on drugs charges, we provide an update below . "

Background - NOT FOR RELEASE

" On 13 April 2011 NZ citizen, Sharon May ARMSTRONG, was arrested in Buenos Aires, Argentina on drugs charges."
Armstrong was arrested arriving into Ezeiza International Airport with drugs in her suitcase.
The NZ embassy in Buenos Aires has now been in direct contact with Armstrong and are providing consular assistance.
" The main family contact is a sister in Australia, where Armstrong was most recently resident. There is also a brother in NZ. Consular staff at the Embassy in Buenos Aires, NZHC Canberra and MFAT Consular Division in Wellington have been in contact with the family and are providing consular advice."
NZ media are aware of the case and MFAT have received some enquiries.
Armstrong has advised the Embassy staff that she does not wish her name to appear in the media in NZ and would appreciate every effort to ensure her name and circumstances are kept confidential. (She is particularly concerned because she has worked for the NZ government for the past 20 years although she is not employed now).

Media Points

MFAT is aware of the arrest of a New Zealander in Buenos Aires.
The New Zealand Embassy in Buenos Aires is providing consular assistance to the individual concerned .
The Ministry will not be releasing any further details about the individual at this stage.

Regards

Andrea Gemmell

" Consular Officer for Europe, the Americas and Australia"
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Wellington
Ph + 64 4 439 8074
Fax + 64 4 439 8532

" ""The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the Ministry. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately."" "
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"--- On Wed, 20/4/11, [redacted] <> wrote:"

From: [redacted] <>
Subject: SPC MEETING and other observations
" To: ""Murray McCully"" "
" Date: Wednesday, 20, April, 2011, 2:03 PM"

" Murray, "

You will by now have talked to others and gained your own feedback but here is my unvarnished view.

The message you wanted delivered has been. I gave no undertaking that you would be signing a cheque. That is for you to decide when Jimmy replies to your letter.
" Your judgement is correct that the region gets precious little outcome for the expenditure of $145 million. The SPC meeting had 176 attendees (7 from Cook Is) for 6 days and cost $250,000 to hold for almost no result. In part because Nzer Capt John Hogan Director of the Economic Division was not on top of his game?..and I expressed disappointment in his performance at a final meeting with Rodgers, his deputy Mann and Hogan."
There is a certain amount of smoke and mirrors around the $6 mill your sitting on. Jimmy said it was actually part of the core budget needed to run the SPC. They can try to tie the money to specific activities with measurable outcomes ?????.but it is still core budget. That?s the space you have been left in by successive generations of NZ officials who have attended these meetings.
I think you have no option but to sign the cheque at this point.. You can give notice of a reduction in the future or create contortions of apparent accountability by tying some or all of the cash to outcomes.. Jimmy knows your view and says he is on board as did Mann privately.
" Seems to me the real problem is that the SPC and Forum are too big a drain on the resources of region. No matter how you look??..drain on manpower and competition with the regions governments for competent staff, drain on cash, drain on time for officials and pollys at meetings that achieve nothing etc and the challenge for the region is how to reduce the burden. Some one at one point said an energy issue had been spinning around for 10 years without resolution because leaders had not taken a decision. There is a case to bring the organisations together under leaders so that decisions can be taken including on technical issues but more important to reduce the cost of endless meetings drain on limited good people etc etc it would lessen dependance on Fiji and bring the whole region and its entities together in a way that might help people resist China. With a careful game plan and some careful lobbying it ought to be possible to get some sort of mandate out of the Forum to advance consideration of the idea."
" A less ambitious outcome from the forum would be for each country to adopt a target for sustainable electricity generation and for each country to adopt aust, nz, us and french energy standards and labelling for household appliances across all forum countries. These labels make it easier for shoppers to identify which appliances would lead to the biggest savings on their electricity and gas bills. The SPC put up a budget of $500 k to pursue this and some outfit we are supporting under NZ aid flew a person to Noumea to give a 12 minute presentation????.all a bit underwhelming but MED and the Aussies could deliver an outcome if you wanted it."

PNG
No doubt PK is telling you how wonderful the visit was. So no need for me to duplicate! We do need a double tax agreement and unless you disagree I plan to write to Dunn to push that.

MFAT Observations

PNG
Seems odd that we have 7 staff ??..3 seconded and 4 local running a $28 mill aid programme yet no trade commissioner in this market which has huge commercial opportunity. I'd have thought you could cut 2 NZAID positions and donate the saving to NZTE if they were to put a trade person into the post.
Thought the Don the FM was especially impressive and he is honest which is not a given.

2. MFAT Phone Book

Its interesting to take a look at the phone book as it shows who is doing what where
For example??there are 37 positions in the knowledge services division; 105 in Information and Comms technology division and 48 in the Human resources division and 23 FTE in the communications division
All back office
But 6 policy staff in Australia's division and 7 in American division.

When you talk next to JA you could ask:
" 1, why do NZDF, NZTE and MFAT run completely different ICT systems offshore?"
2. Why does MFAT own its entire ICT platform?.is it an IT company?
3.What % of MFAT's communications are rated confidential or above? ???.all messages shared with me were over classified.
4.When GCSB sets the security rules how does it take into account the operational/transactional costs for the affected organisations?
5. I saw evidence of mindless wasteful admin crap from wellington and am in no doubt insufficient financial delegation is given to HOM's???JA does not have the system humming as I expect he would have had.

Let me know if there is anything you want me to expand on

Best

J
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"--- On Wed, 20/4/11, Halia Haddad (MIN) wrote:"

From: Halia Haddad (MIN)
Subject: Minister's travel to the Pacific
" To: ""Minister blackberry (murraymccully@vodafonenz.ap.blackberry.net)"" , ""Minister McCully (murraymccully@xtra.co.nz)"" , ""Billie Moore (MIN)"" "
" Date: Wednesday, 20, April, 2011, 1:50 PM"

" Minister, as discussed PAC has done some work on the priorities for Pacific travel over the coming months, and how we can manage these within the constraints of your schedule and the availability of host governments."

" They have worked within the three weeks we currently have scheduled for Pacific travel (second and third weeks of May, and third week of June). A quick summary of the options they have worked out is as follows:"

Visit #1 : Week of 9-14 May

" Cook Islands (TBC if Cooks agree), Niue, Solomon Islands"
or
" Cook Islands (TBC if Cooks agree), Niue, Canberra (TBC if Rudd still available for talks)"

Visit #2: Week of 16-20 May
" Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa (NB: including Samoa here would mean not being back in Auckland in time for Friday 20 May)."

Visit #3: 16-19 June
" PNG (with the option of adding Solomon Islands before PNG, if Canberra included in the first Pacific trip)."

" From: NUTTALL, Ruth (PAC) [mailto:Ruth.Nuttall@mfat.govt.nz]"
" Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 1:05 pm"
To: Halia Haddad (MIN)
" Cc: SMITH, Andrea (PAC)"
Subject: Minister's travel to the Pacific
Importance: High

Hi Halia

as discussed we outline options and constraints below:

Pacific Visits May/June 2010

Minister?s priority for these visits are the key PIF and bilateral relationships.
These are: Vanuatu; PNG; Solomon Islands; Tonga; Samoa; Niue; Cook Islands.

" In the week of 9-15 May, a number of leaders and senior Ministers are out of country and many are involved in the LDCs meeting in Istanbul. (Pacific LDCs are Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu.) French Polynesia and New Caledonia are relatively low priority in this context, and both are undergoing ongoing, inward-focused political turmoil that is unlikely to be resolved in the next few weeks."

PNG

" PNG has separately advised that they cannot host a visit in May and have offered 17/18 June as a specific time when Foreign Minister Don Polye could host a visit by the Minister, and would like to personally host him on a visit to the Highlands. (Separately Somare has just announced that he is taking ?indefinite medical leave? ? he?s understood to be getting heart surgery in Singapore - Sam Abal is Acting PM.)"

" We understand that 17/18 June is the only window available on Polye/PNG?s part. Polye is a possible successor to Somare and we strongly recommend the Minister agree to this offer, as soon as possible. (June travel option outlined below)"

Solomon Islands

" While Foreign Minister Peter Shanel and Deputy PM Maelanga are planning to go to Istanbul, and Gordon Darcy Lilo will not be in country, PM Danny Philip will be present and welcomes the Minister?s visit. Philip has seen off challenges to his government and now has a strong margin of support. Recently he has been joined in government by relatively high calibre politicians such as Steve Abana and Rick Hou. Post has confirmed that in addition to the PM, leader of the Opposition Sikua, Governor General Frank Kabui and Minister of Development and Planning Coordination (Snyder Rini) expect to be present."

" With Danny Philip being present and we believe it is worthwhile going ahead with a visit in the week of 10 May. However an option would be to add a Solomon Islands visit on to a PNG visit in June, if the Minister agrees to do that."

Samoa

" We have been advised that the Samoan PM will be out of country in the week of 9 May. In the week of 13 June, his only availability clashes with the timing proposed by PNG. "

An option would be to add Samoa to the visit of 16-20 May (to Vanuatu and Tonga for the FTMM). This would conflict with a commitment in the Minister?s diary on Friday 20 May.

Vanuatu

" The programme for Vanuatu has been scheduled for Monday 16 May, on the way to Tonga for the FTMM. This suits Vanuatu - PM Kilman will be returned from Istanbul."

Tonga

" There appears to be sufficient time available in the programme for 16-20 May for substantive bilateral calls in Tonga, which means Tonga could then be removed from the Pacific Mission trip scheduled for June - freeing up time for another destination in the third week of June (e.g. PNG)."

Cook Islands

PM Puna may be in Vienna the week of the Pacific Mission - from 14/15 June. Cook Islands will also be in budget negotiations that week. Post is checking availability urgently with CI officials/PM. It may be possible to keep the Cook Islands at the start of the week of 13 June - allowing a visit before Puna leaves for Vienna.

Niue

" General election on 7 May which could impact on formation of government and a series of electoral petitions could follow. NB. Post recommends a later visit, but a stopover would be possible."

Canberra

Canberra is seeking advice on whether it is still possible to hold talks with Mr Rudd on Thursday 12 May as originally proposed by DFAT.

Visit options (Note: all travel times are approximate and to be confirmed by NZDF).

Visit #1 : Week of 9-14 May
Option A: Cook Islands-Niue-Solomon Islands

Monday 9 May
Depart for Rarotonga after Cabinet (arrive Sunday evening local time) (flight time c. 4hrs)

Monday 9 May (Tuesday NZ time)
Programme in Cook Islands

Tuesday 10 May
Morning: Depart Cook Islands for Niue (flight time 1h 40).
Short stopover in Niue
" Afternoon: Depart Niue for Solomon Islands, arriving Honiara late evening Wednesday local time (flight time c.4hrs)"

Thursday 13 May
Programme in Solomon Islands

Friday 14 May
Return to Auckland (flight time 5 hours approx)

Option B: Cook Islands-Niue-Canberra

Monday 9 May
Depart for Rarotonga after Cabinet (arrive Sunday evening ? across dateline) (flight time about 4 hours)

Monday 9 May (NB Tuesday NZ time)
Programme in Cook Islands

Tuesday 10 May
Morning: Depart Cook Islands for Niue (flight time 1h 40).
Short stopover in Niue
Afternoon: Depart Niue for Canberra (arrive late evening Wednesday local time) (flight time approx 5 hrs)

Thursday 13 May
Talks with Minister Rudd in Canberra
Thurs Evening or Friday 14 May
Return to Auckland (flight time about 4 hours)

Visit #2: 16-20 May
Schedule currently confirmed for Vanuatu and Tonga.

Option: to add Samoa as follows:

Thursday 19 May
8.35am OR 4.05pm: Vava?u to Nuku?alofa (Chathams Pacific flight time 55 mins)
" (Calls in Nuku?alofa or Vava'u, depending on where PM Tu'ivakano is that day)."
Afternoon: Nuku?alofa to Apia (flight time 1 h 20 - arrive Apia Wednesday 18 May local time).

Wednesday 18 May
Evening: programme in Samoa

Thursday 19 May
Programme in Samoa
Afternoon/evening: depart for Auckland (flight time 3h 45)
Arrive Auckland evening of Friday 20 May

Visit #3: 16-19 June
(NB. 13 June is a holiday in many Pacific countries (Whitmonday))
" PNG (with option of visiting Solomon Islands before PNG, if not included in the visit 9-14 May)"

Thursday 16 June
" Afternoon: Depart Wellington for Port Moresby, arriving late Thursday evening (flight time approx 6h)"

Friday 17 June
PNG programme

Saturday 18 June
PNG programme
Late Saturday 18 June / or Sunday 19 June
Return to New Zealand

" ""The information contained in this email message is intended only for the addressee and is not necessarily the official view or communication of the Ministry. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately."" "

Go to original source.

Who killed economic growth?

2012-02-21T21:58:00.000+13:00

Unknown police officer - Hero of the Week

2012-02-21T09:08:00.000+13:00

What a compelling story:

The officer was called to an incident in which he was required to extricate a man from a running vehicle inside a locked garage about 11pm yesterday.

Nelson Bays Area Commander Inspector Steve Greally said the Officer had to break a window to enter the building, extricate the man from the vehicle and then open a door which had been pinned shut before dragging the man to safety.

"The place was full of carbon monoxide and he had to take gasps of fresh air from the broken window during the rescue attempt," Inspector Greally said.

The officer was affected by the carbon monoxide and required treatment at Nelson Hospital. He is now convalescing at home.

"He's risked his own life to rescue another person and thankfully his efforts have been successful.

The unknown police officer didn't have to risk his life to save the suicide victim, he went above and beyond the call of duty.

I'm not sure if the person he rescued will thank the officer, but they are both expected to make full recoveries.

Personally I think the police officer is deserving of recognition with an order of merit for his bravery. Well done.

Tenants in our own land

2012-02-20T19:42:00.000+13:00

There's been a lot of talk recently about whether Pengxin's bid to by Crafar farms has financial backing from the Chinese government. This is important because if they do, it would give their bid an unfair advantage.

Clearly no New Zealand companies are receiving cheap loans from the New Zealand government to acquire land in China or elsewhere for that matter. In fact New Zealand businesses cannot purchase land in China at all.

The difficulty in trying to find information pertaining to Pengxin's financial backing is that they do not make their financial records available to the public. Likewise, the Chinese government keeps its books very secret. The people of China don't even know what their government is spending their money on.

Despite this secretiveness, there is good evidence to show Pengxin Group does receive financial assistance from the Chinese government.

Shanghai Pengxin Group Co., Ltd., is an industrial conglomerate, engaging in real estate development, agribusiness, chemical manufacturing, mining, infrastructure construction, and investments to name but a few of their diverse enterprises. It was founded in 1997 and is based in Shanghai, China.

By 2009, Pengxin Group's meteoric rise saw them with total assets of US13.0 billion, and an asset-liability ratio of 76%. This is before we even look at operational liabilities, such as accounts and taxes payable. Why is this important I hear you say? Well the debt ratio compares a company's total debt to its total assets, which is used to gain a general idea as to the amount of leverage being used by a company.

Pengxin's asset-liability ratio is considered to be high, which means they are more susceptible to market changes. They also need to generate larger returns above the cost of capital. Basically Pengxin Group has to make a large profit on its investments in order to be able to service their debts.

Pengxin is unlikely to have such a large asset-liability ratio unless they have stable and low interest loans ie those available from the Chinese government through the foreign direct investment (FDI) fund.

The financial crisis has given Chinese companies a shortcut for making more acquisitions overseas. Don't believe me? Well that's what the Chinese government says. There's no doubt that China has an agressive policy of using the financial advantage the recession gave them to secure resources and assets from other countries.

According to China's Ministry of Commerce:

China Investment Corp (CIC), the country's $300 billion sovereign wealth fund (SWF), is considering setting up a mechanism for continued new capital, as the country accumulates foreign exchange reserves, said a senior executive on Thursday.

[...]

CIC will soon receive $100 to $200 billion in new funds, as the government seeks to reduce its exposure to US government debt, according to a report in the Financial Times on April 25.

However the outbound FDI is likely to be higher. In may last year, the NZ Herald reported:

China's enormous sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation, may have set aside up to 1.5 per cent or about $6 billion of its massive foreign exchange reserves to invest in New Zealand assets, including government bonds, companies and potentially dairy farms.

[...]

Set up in 2007 to invest some of China's now more than US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves accumulated through trade surpluses, the China Investment Corporation is thought to have been shifting some of its vast resources away from US dollar assets while the US Federal Reserve undertakes its quantitative easing policy, driving the greenback down, and America's economy struggles to recover from the global financial crisis.

The China Investment Corporation is among the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds with about US$332 billion in assets.

The China (government) Investment Corporation (CIC) was founded in 2007 specifically to earn a higher return for government investments. At the time, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the central bank, said that China's $3 trillion foreign exchange reserves had exceeded a "reasonable" level and there needed to be diversification of the portfolio.

With the economic crisis depressing asset prices worldwide, Chinese firms jumped at the opportunity to bid for distressed foreign businesses, and the Chinese government heavily promoted outbound investment by easing and decentralizing regulatory procedures and broadening financing channels for firms with overseas ambitions.

The National party has been all too happy to help China's expansion into New Zealand, promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) with reckless abandon.

China is also notorious for using tax havens to hide FDI flows from regulators, all of which is alarming many governments from around the world, especially the Americans. According to this Congressional Research (PDF), China's advantage was mostly due to implementing an economic stimulus package in 2008.

The global economic crisis that began in 2008 significantly affected China’s economy, especially its external sector. China’s trade (both exports and imports) and inflows of FDI diminished sharply, and millions of workers reportedly lost their jobs. The Chinese government responded by implementing a $586 billion economic stimulus package (largely aimed at infrastructure projects), loosening monetary policies to increase bank lending, and providing various incentives to boost domestic consumption. Such policies enabled China to effectively weather the effects of the sharp global fall in demand for Chinese products. While several of the world’s leading economies, including the United States, experienced negative or stagnant gross domestic product (GDP) growth in 2008 and 2009, China achieved real GDP growth rates of 9.6% and 9.2%, respectively. In 2010, China’s exports recovered to pre-crisis levels, and real GDP grew 10.3%.

So that cover's where the money is coming from. The other point that should be made in context to the Crafar farms is that China recently developed policy to increase their food security. This involves increasing distribution channels within China, purchasing worldwide supply chains and reducing tariff's through trade agreements like the one with New Zealand.

In December last year, China's Ministry of Commerce reported:

The government said on Tuesday it would abolish restrictions on the sale of baby milk, a move that will lower its price by a fifth and help some families cope with plunging incomes and recession.

From January 1 consumers will be able to buy all forms of baby formula at the supermarket, ending a pharmacy monopoly over the sale of power for 1-6 month-old babies, Development Minister Michalis Chrysochoidis told a news conference.

"Prices will go down by 20 percent," he said.

There is no doubt that this will dramatically increase demand for milk products in China.

Considering the Chinese government's requirement to boost regional and bilateral trade because local production does not meet consumption rates and that China would forfill two of it's policy directives with the acquisition of Crafar farms as well as the huge amounts of funds available, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Pengxin Group has financial backing from the Chinese government through its outbound FDI policy administered by the CIC.

According to the same NZ Herald article:

Elsewhere, high profile completed Chinese purchases in New Zealand in recent times include Agria Corporation buying a controlling stake in PGG Wrightson, and Haier helping rescue an ailing Fisher & Paykel Appliances by taking a 20 per cent cornerstone stake. China's partly state-owned Bright Dairy also bought Canterbury's Synlait dairy processing operation last year for $82 million.

Tenants in our own land indeed. It is no wonder then that at least one of the Crafar farms is going to be occupied. Today, Radio New Zealand reports:

Members of a King Country iwi are setting up camp on one of the Crafar farms near Benneydale, demanding that their ancestral whenua, or land, is returned.

[...]

The occupiers from Ngati Rereahu began setting up camp on Monday afternoon, using shipping containers as a base.

They say they are prepared to stay for the long haul.

Let's hope this will all be a unifying factor to mend Maori and Pakeha relations.

Aotearoa is not for sale

2012-02-17T23:13:00.002+13:00

Lockjaw Smith guard dog

2012-02-17T21:12:00.000+13:00

On 10 October last year, I wrote to Lockwood Smith to make a formal complaint concerning John Key misleading the House of Representatives about what Standard & Poor's had stated.

The next day, Lockwood Smith responded by email (SpeakersOffice3@parliament.govt.nz), saying that honesty in Parliament is of utmost importance, particularly in the context of question time. He went on to say:

A member who had evidence that another member had willfully misled the House would be expected to raise the matter with the Speaker at the earliest opportunity, for the Speaker to consider whether to refer the question to the Privileges Committee. It is for the Privileges Committee to undertake any investigation.

Yours sincerely

Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith
Speaker

At the time, I understood that to mean that my complaint would be considered, because I had provided evidence to a member of the House of Representatives that John Key had been willfully misleading, and that it was up to the Speaker to refer it to the Privileges Committee.

Then last week I came across this NZ Herald article:

A number of changes to the way Parliament is run will help ensure more integrity from MPs, less use of urgency and greater public scrutiny when Parliament sits again today.

Changes to the standing orders adopted in November include an order designed to keep ministers more honest by allowing Opposition MPs a chance to respond if they feel a minister has damaged the MP's reputation.

"The Speaker can enable the member, where there is evidence that the member has been adversely affected, to respond [in the House] to that misrepresentation," Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith told the Herald.

"At the moment there is no such mechanism. A breach of privilege complaint could also be dealt with in this way."

Dr Smith said he had received many complaints in the previous term about ministers' answers to oral questions, but had not referred any to the privileges committee because the threshold was high.

"But there have been some where there was a reasonable reason for grievance, yet we've had no mechanism to deal with that.

This will improve the tone of the House, and encourage ministers not to make careless statements they don't know to be fact."

How high that threshold has to be is anybodies guess. But there is no doubt in my mind that John Key misled the House of Representatives in an attempt to discredit not just one Member of Parliament, but an entire political party.

Yesterday, I wrote back to Lockwood Smith requesting information on the progress of my formal complaint. Today, I received a response by email (amelia.abplanalp@parliament.govt.nz) from ~~Lockwood Smith's Private Secretary~~ Research and Communications Adviser in the Office of John Key Amelia Abplanalp, who writes:

Members of the public cannot raise matters for referral to the Privileges Committee. I regret that this was not clear to you from my previous response.

Yours sincerely,

Amelia

Amelia Abplanalp | Private Secretary
Office of Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith

Her response? I thought Lockwood Smith had written the initial email.

That aside, why is Lockwood Smith claiming in the media that changes will ensure more integrity and increased public scrutiny, when this is obviously not the case?

Only somebody without a modicum of impartiality would think John Key had not misled the House of Representatives over the S&P downgrade debacle. With Lockwood Smith as Speaker, it appears that the public has no proper process of redress either... and that's simply fucked!

David Carter - extreme biosecurity risk

2012-02-17T12:04:00.000+13:00

Today, TVNZ reported:

Around 500 kiwifruit growers will meet today in Te Puke over the Psa disease crippling their orchards.

The growers face the elimination of the gold kiwifruit strain and dire financial problems, said the meeting organiser Rob Thode.

More than 1,000 hectares of orchard in the Bay of Plenty region has been lost to the virus and it is now being seen in South Auckland.

Growers accuse Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) of allowing the virus, which is spread by air, to get into the country because of low biosecurity standards.

They say overseas pollen is allowed to get into the country, whereas in other nations it is illegal.

Kiwifruit growers will come to the meeting tabling six demands, including the Government taking responsibility and admitting the virus is a biosecurity failure, as well as deeming it "New Zealand's biggest ever agricultural disaster" and an "adverse event".

Biosecurity is something we cannot afford to get wrong. Not only does our economy rely on many industries that are susceptible to foreign viruses, pests and diseases, our current financial situation is precarious and cannot adequately meet the costs associated with another major breech in New Zealand's biosecurity.

Considering our isolation, we should be able to effectively mitigate biohazards. They simply should not be reaching our shores, and if they do, there should be an effective procedure in place to ensure they do not get anywhere near our productive industries. This of course relies on proper boarder control, which in turn relies on proper funding.

In their first term as government, National reduced MAF staffing numbers by 55 and reduced their frontline biosecurity budget by more than NZ$2 million. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that this means less biosecurity and an increased risk to our productive industries.

Last year, National's Minister for Primary Industries David Carter introduced the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, which proposed further reductions to New Zealand's biosecurity measures. This is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.

We already have Chestnut blight fungus (Cryphonectria parasitica), the Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Psa (Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae) to name a few hazards that have breeched our biosecurity... the cost of which can be measured in the billions of dollars. Why would we reduce security measures further when the consequences of doing so are financially disastrous?

Radiation leak in Auckland

2012-02-17T09:29:00.000+13:00

Today, Auckland Now reported:

The Fire Service gave the all clear to a Singapore Airlines freight plane that was examined for a radiation leak at Auckland Airport last night.

The article doesn't say where or what the possible radiation leak was coming from, which seems odd. Hopefully somebody will follow it up.

John Key's internet fantasy

2012-02-16T14:19:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, TVNZ reported:

The Government is being warned it risks alienating people if it relies too heavily on internet based services to cut costs in the public sector.

Prime Minister John Key said this week he had been talking with global search engine giant Google about providing software services to cut the cost and improve the efficiency of public services.

Key gave little detail, but proposed being able to interact with Government agencies on a smartphone as a benchmark for lower cost, more efficient public services.

In fact Key gave no details and there has been nothing reported by Google either. Apparently National have met a few times with Google representatives, but this in no way constitutes a plan to replace public sector workers, with many thousands already fired.

The other issue is that people can already interact with the government's websites using smartphones. The problem is that many New Zealander's cannot afford to purchase a smartphone, thus restricting many people's ability to participate properly, particularly those socioeconomically deprived.

John Key, who seems more interested in promoting and grandstanding on the beginnings of an idea, has ignored this reality. Miriam Lips from Victoria University, who chairs a group focussing on e-Government strategies, said:

"I don't think we will end up in a situation where you don't have anyone in the public service as some services are too complicated to fully deal with online" she said.

"(But) Government also has a unique role in society and some people may be left behind, so it needs to keep open multiple channels to also meet the needs of people who aren't that tech savvy."

[...]

More detail on the Government's plans is expected in tomorrow's Budget Policy Statement which will also include greater data sharing between departments to avoid people having to repeatedly give the same information.

The Budget Policy Statement (PDF) was released today. It contains nothing about the supposed plan to employ Google's software services. Neither does it mention anything about greater data sharing.

This looks set to be yet another National failure.

Stop the evictions meeting on Saturday

2012-02-15T17:26:00.000+13:00

Doug White - Asshole of the Week

2012-02-15T15:08:00.000+13:00

There really is a lot of people deserving this weeks Asshole award.

From Lockwood Smiths' discrimination against Mojo Mathers, mining magnate Gina Rinehart's bid to buy up Fairfax to better promote climate change denial, new revelations about the RadioLive DJ Key debacle and a Police witness refusing to answer questions in the Urewera 4 trial all likely candidates... and we're only half way through the week FFS!

However the deciding factor has to be the hurt caused to the families of those killed in the Pike River mine explosions, in no small way caused by the mismanagement of one Doug White.

Yesterday, the Otago Daily Times reported:

Angry Pike River Mine families have slammed the former mine manager for sending an email about a new job 17 minutes after the explosion that killed 29 men underground.

Doug White's emails caused an upset when revealed at the Royal Commission of Inquiry in Greymouth today.

[...]

Mr White was examined for hours about gas monitoring in the mine. He said some parts of the gas monitoring system were in place when he arrived at Pike River, and he assumed they were being run correctly.

Whenever gas levels spiked he always investigated, he said.

But the commission heard that when the vital sensor at top of the ventilation shaft was calibrated on November 4, it was wet and muddy, giving different readings than the one at the bottom.

Mr White said he was not aware of the discrepancy at the time, or that one sensor had `flatlined'.

Mine experts have said they think it did this after being exposed to methane greater than 5 per cent after the mine was gassed out one day.

At one stage a crucial sensor was not working for two and a half months.

"I would have expected them (problems) to be picked up during the calibration process at the very minimum. I would have expected that information to be passed on,'' Mr White said.

In fact, there appears to have been little calibration in the months before the disaster. When a fault was uncovered on one monitor, it was not replaced.

Why on earth Doug White would simply assume things were being run properly and that devices were operational instead of having things properly checked, I will never know.

There is the aspect that White inherited many problems at the mine and that some issues were not passed onto him (all of which a proper governmental inspectorate would have resolved), but this is simply further evidence of Whites lack of managerial skills and ability to address the mines problems.

Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know the mine had exploded as he applied for another job, the overall mismanagement of Pike River mine is highly despicable!

There were claims that sensors were intentionally switched off, which at the time I dismissed because the thought of this happening was to horrible to contemplate. However in light of this new information, it appears that sensors were intentionally decommissioned so that work did not have to stop due to excessive gas build-up.

It's not as if gas monitoring devices are all that expensive these days either. Many even calibrate themselves automatically. As well as the badly maintained and in some cases inoperable gas sensors, the mines air circulation system was badly designed and did not work properly, meaning potentially explosive gas build up was inevitable. Management knew this to be a problem well before the disaster occurred.

Doug White has refused to answer questions as to why the mine had no risk assessment process for explosions or high-consequence events and how he could assess whether the ventilation system was dealing with methane hazards with no gas sensors. What an asshole!

National's slack internet security

2012-02-15T12:40:00.000+13:00

Today, stuff.co.nz reported:

The Telecom Xtra account was broken into by international hackers' collective Anonymous, potentially revealing sensitive Cabinet information and cable traffic from foreign posts.

McCully had asked that official emails be forwarded to that account while he was overseas in April last year.

Prime Minister John Key said he was aware of the breach and warned other ministers to be more careful, particularly about passwords.

[...]

McCully said he had not had an easily hacked password. "Any breach of security is serious. Mr Key made clear his expectations.

"My office and I are [now] more careful about these things."

Too many assumptions are going on here. Firstly there is no evidence that it was hacker collective Anonymous that gained access to McCully's email account or that the password itself was hacked. This appears to be spin to make the story juicy.

Slack security measures and incorrect procedures mean documents like this one (PDF) marked 'IN CONFIDENCE' and not intended for public release are readily available online from The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. Nothing groundbreaking... but it's another good example of slackness.

There are many holes in the government's Internet security, mainly because there are so many operators that don't know what they're doing.

National's RadioLive jack-up

2012-02-15T10:48:00.000+13:00

Heavily redacted documents (PDF) attained by Labour under the Official Information Act show that the PM's office had an active role in organizing the controversial RadioLive appearance on 30 September 2011 that the Electoral Commission has ruled an electoral programme.

But what is worse is that the PM's Office knew it might be ruled an electoral program, but was fine with this because the responsibility would fall on the broadcaster. A National Party internal memo states:

So the Electoral Commission has replied, and basically said they can’t make a judgment on a radio show without seeing a transcript. But they have been pretty clear about putting the responsibility on the broadcaster, which is useful.

The documents show that the broadcaster was not in control of the content of the show that has ultimately been ruled upon by the Electoral Commission as a prohibited broadcast. John Key as host and his communications manager who wrote the shows brief are obviously responsible.

Winston Peters is correct in that Key should have been referred to Police along with the broadcaster for breaching the law. It is only through a vagary of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (PDF) that this did not occur.

The issue then gets complicated, as a ruling has been made that the show has unduly influenced voters. How many votes were influenced by the show is difficult to quantify, but it certainly makes me question the validity of the current governments right to govern.

With a potential $100,000 fine if the Police decide to prosecute the broadcaster, RadioLive looks set to appeal the decision. They are likely to argue that they were not in control of what the PM and his guests said.

John Key's only defence seems to be that he said the broadcast was an "election-free zone" before undertaking the hour-long show that has been ruled a prohibited broadcast. He again used the excuse in parliament yesterday, when questioned by Grant Robertson:

This is yet another unacceptable subversion of the law and manipulation of the public by National.

Where is the love?

2012-02-14T18:02:00.000+13:00

Herald response to Paul Holmes complaint

2012-02-14T09:44:00.001+13:00

I received a generic response to my formal complaint about Paul Holmes' racist article this morning. Predictably it in no way properly addresses the issues I've raised.

The worse thing about the Weekend Herald Editor David Hastings response is that he tries to justify Paul Holmes' racist rant under the freedom of speech banner. What an ignoramus!

The real funny thing is that Hastings claims the Herald "strives to publish the breadth of opinion on major public issues." Perhaps the deluded old white guy should read some of Bomber's commentary to see how wrong that statement is.

Anyway... here is the Herald's response and my reply:

By email: David.Hastings@nzherald.co.nz

Thank you for your formal complaint regarding the Paul Holmes column of Saturday Feb 11.

As you are no doubt aware, it is one of many messages we have received on both sides of the ledger since publication. Those supporting his right to his opinion have markedly outweighed those against. Having said that, we are concerned that a number of people have taken such strong exception to it.

There is no question the piece was written in a raw and provocative style. But we do not believe it constitutes "hate speech" or close to it. It is not, as many people have suggested, a commentary on all Maori people or Maori culture generally but on the few protesters who disrupted proceedings. Nor does it breach Press Council principles, which accommodate freedom of opinion in comment pieces.

It was one of a series of opinion pieces discussing Waitangi Day and its place in New Zealand society which began the previous Saturday with a front page cover story by Buddy Mikaere and included an editorial which recognised the obvious divisions in society but supported the idea of the day as being our national day.

The column in question was clearly aimed at the behaviour and attitudes of Waitangi Day protesters at Waitangi itself – similar to criticism by former Prime Minister Helen Clark of protest leaders as ‘haters and wreckers’, in another context. Disparaging and critical words, but neither intended to cast all Maori in that light. Holmes expressed his opinion as a columnist as he is entitled to do in a country where freedom of speech is regarded as a central pillar of public discourse.

Although many have objected to it -- as is their right -- I hope they can recognise that the very ‘freedom’ in the concept of freedom of speech is meaningless if it applies only to speech that offends no one. As has been recognised by the Press Council, true freedom can mean the freedom to be ignorant, offensive and wrong.

The same points can be applied to his comments about anti-fluoride campaigners, La Leche and Syria. They are, as you point out in paragraph 12, opinion.

We strive to publish the breadth of opinion on major public issues and no doubt will carry strong views in the paper and on our website in response to the latest Holmes column.

Yours sincerely
David Hastings
Editor
Weekend Herald

Dear David Hastings,

Thank you for your email concerning my formal complaint regarding Paul Holmes' article.

I would like to point out that my email was not a comment, as you seem to believe, it is a formal complaint. There is also little relevance as to the comments Paul Holmes' article received in terms of my complaint, although the comments supporting Paul Holmes' racist article confirm that he is strengthening racism within society.

You state a number of times that it is an opinion of Paul Holmes, yet the article remains incorrectly labelled.

You also say that Paul Holmes is only commenting on those Maori who are protesting, however the article in question often does not make a distinction and is obviously commenting on Maori people in general. Even if this is not the case and as my formal complaint specifically outlined, Paul Holmes is making a number of inaccurate statements concerning the protesters.

I am not particularly interested in the other articles that the Herald ran concerning Waitangi Day and there is no relevance with you raising the content of these articles. My formal complaint is specifically concerned with Paul Holmes' article. Likewise there is no relevance to an historic statement as way of justifying Paul Holmes' racism. Please refrain from attempting to legitimise what Paul Holmes has written by providing spurious and irrelevant reasoning.

You say that freedom of speech is regarded as a central pillar of public discourse. In this you are correct. However there should be no freedom of hate speech and racism that is clearly defined and outlawed under the Human Rights Act 1993. There is no doubt in my mind that Paul Holmes' article is hate speech directed at Maori with the purpose of promoting racism and further division within an already divided country.

I have no problem with people having an opinion, as long as it does not include calling for people to be murdered and stigmatising people on account of their beliefs and race. Therefore your response is summarily rejected as it in no way responds adequately to the issues I have raised in my formal complaint.

Please be advised that I run a number of blogs including one called The Jackal where I will be responding to your unreasonable dismissal of my formal complaint. I will also be forwarding the issue onto the Press Council and the Human Rights Commission shortly for their consideration.

As a final note, it is setting a very bad precedent to allow the publication of articles that call for people to be murdered.

Stop the forced evictions meeting tonight

2012-02-13T16:13:00.000+13:00

Paul Holmes - senile old white male syndrome

2012-02-13T13:26:00.000+13:00

Once again Paul Holmes has provided an article of pure unimaginative bullshit that deserves all the contempt people can muster. I presume he wrote the piece of trash while in an alcoholic infused stupor, thus breaking the first rule of journalism... don't write when your wasted.

But there's really no excuse for such shoddy reporting. Obviously Paul Holmes' vitriolic diatribe of unadulterated drivel should never have got past the NZ Herald editor, who I presume shares many of the senile old fools bigotries.

Although there's probably little point in complaining, being that the Human Rights Commission is toothless and the Press Council have chosen to ignore my last two complaints about the NBR's biased reporting and NZ Herald inaccuracies... here goes anyway:

By email: tim.murphy@nzherald.co.nz

Re: Formal complaint - Paul Holmes

Dear Tim Murphy,

I write to lay a formal complaint concerning an article written by Paul Holmes entitled 'Waitangi Day a complete waste' that appeared on the NZ Herald website 11 Feburary 2012.

1. Paul Holmes makes gross generalisations about the protesters on Waitangi Day saying they are “hateful, hate-fuelled weirdos who seem to exist in a perfect world of benefit provision”. This is an affront to the many people who were protesting about deep sea oil drilling and other matters and who are in full time employment. The statement is discriminatory and inaccurate.

2. Paul Holmes states that the people protesting “believe that New Zealand is the centre of the world, no one has to have a job and the Treaty is all that matters”. However this is clearly not the reality of the situation as many of the protesters have jobs. Such a gross generalisation to try and besmirch their characters is unjustified and unfair.

3. Paul Holmes states that he woke up on Waitangi Day knowing the news would show “irrational Maori ghastliness with spitting, smugness, self-righteousness and the usual neurotic Maori politics, in which some bizarre new wrong we've never thought about will be lying on the table”. The people were not protesting about things that were previously unknown. They were protesting about things that have been well documented in the news already. Paul Holmes' ignorant semantics are clearly designed to create a falsehood in the mind of the reader.

4. Paul Holmes states; “it's a bullshit day, Waitangi. It's a day of lies. It is loony Maori fringe self-denial day. It's a day when everything is addressed, except the real stuff”. This is clearly an opinion and holds no relevance to what many people feel Waitangi Day stands for. The article in question is undoubtedly in breach of principle 4 of New Zealand’s ethical journalism standards because it is not clearly labelled as an opinion piece. Paul Holmes states that only loony Maori support Waitangi Day. He is therefore unfairly disregarding the many thousands of people who are not of Maori lineage who support a day in history when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Paul Holmes is also discriminating against Maori that do support Waitangi Day by insulting their mental health.

5. Paul Holmes states; “Never mind the child stats, never mind the national truancy stats, never mind the hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies. No, it's all the Pakeha's fault. It's all about hating whitey. Believe me, that's what it looked like the other day”. There was no anti white sentiment shown by the protesters. Therefore Paul Holmes is being misleading in his gross generalisation that once again is designed to besmirch the character of Maori. Paul Holmes is unfairly trying to stigmatize a race of people because of the actions of a few. It is unlawful to discriminate against a group of people on account of their race.

6. Paul Holmes states that he would not “take my Uncle Ken who died in a Wellington bomber, then try and tell him Waitangi Day was anything but filth”. Again this is an opinion with added emotional context to try and besmirch not only the belief many hold in Waitangi Day, but the day itself. This is not only divisive in a wider context; it damages the good name of the many Maori who fought bravely to defend New Zealand’s liberty. It is also damaging to New Zealand’s credibility on an international scale. Waitangi Day is not filth just because a group of people chose to voice their concerns about governmental decisions in the form of protest, which they are legally entitled to do.

7. Paul Holmes states; “No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it”. There has been no argument by Maori that they want Waitangi Day for themselves. Paul Holmes is misleading the reader with his inaccuracies.

8. Paul Holmes states; “Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly.” Again Paul Holmes is generalizing that all Maori are taking more than they require and this is making (them all) big. Not only does this statement discriminate against those Maori who do have weight control issues, in that he is implying they are breaching quota restrictions on kai moana, Paul Holmes is trying to besmirch the character of all Maori. His statement is both bigoted against people with weight control issues and racist against Maori in general.

9. Paul Holmes states; “speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions”. Clearly Paul Holmes is showing his ignorance of the treaty claims process. He has used his ignorance to again try and besmirch the character of Maori people. Paul Holmes is being unfair and inaccurate.

10. Paul Holmes sates; “The second looniest are the anti-fluoride crowd. But leave them aside for today”. People who believe in Maori sovereignty and that fluoride could be bad for people’s health are not loony. This is once again a gross generalization by Paul Holmes based on his ignorance. By allowing such divisive ignorance to be published, you have breached a number of human rights and ethical journalistic principles.

11. Paul Holmes states; “The looniest crowd in this country, the most irrational and bullying are La Leche, the breast feeding fascists who've become involved in the most bizarre controversy I can remember. Breast feeding is all they think about.” People who believe breast-feeding their babies is better than bottle-feeding are not fascists. Paul Holmes' grossly generalized statement discriminates against people who prefer breast-feeding. Obviously breast feeding is not all that people involved in La Leche think about. Paul holmes' statement is inaccurate and discriminates on account of peoples belief.

12. Paul Holmes states; “So now Syria will grind on in broken, abject misery for the rest of the year until they shoot the despot”. This is an opinion making the article incorrectly titled. Paul Holmes is also promoting murder as a way to resolve the crisis. Such a statement is currently illegal under New Zealand and international law.

The article in question is inaccurate, unfair, unbalanced and discriminates on the basis of race and peoples beliefs. The article is in breech of Sections 61 (Racial Disharmony) and section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) of the Human Rights Act 1993. Please remove or amend the article so that it adheres to New Zealand's laws and good journalistic practice without delay.

John Roughan - Asshole of the Week

2012-02-11T16:54:00.000+13:00

The debate concerning the partial privatisation of our state owned assets is starting to heat up, with propaganda and a lack of objective opinion being all too apparent in the MSM.

But just when it looked inevitable that National would disregard the majority of Kiwi's who don't want asset sales, a document the rightwing would prefer we all ignored is set to wake them up from their free market stupor.

Last Tuesday, The Dominion Post reported:

The Maori Council says it is prepared to take the Government to court if it does not act in good faith over its Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

The Council will also today lodge two claims to the Waitangi Tribunal over the Government's plans to partially sell the state-owned enterprises, including one relating to rights for the water used by the companies.

[...]

Mr Key said he did not expect the Council's actions would delay things.

No one owned the water in New Zealand, people had rights to use it, but did not own it, he said.

"There'll be endless debates about usage rights, and they'll certainly claims it's taonga (treasured) and it's been a long-standing debate."

John Key is really showing how ignorant he is of the founding document of our nation. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi states:

The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the sub-tribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise (7) of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures (8). But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell (9) land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

8 "Treasures": "taonga". As submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Maori language have made clear, "taonga" refers to all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non-material heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies), etc.

Māori consider water to be a taonga and sacred, and it is therefore included under the Treaty of Waitangi. There is no question that Article 2 defines and includes all New Zealand's water resources, which unless legitimately sold to the crown or its appointees, still belong to Māori. The fact that this ownership has not been formally recognised by the crown is irrelevant to that fact.

That's why it's disappointing to see the spin John Roughan is trying to put on the debate. Today the ignoramus made some shit up to try and paint those opposed to asset sales in a bad light, also arguing that ignoring our founding document is somehow justified.

The old hack writes:

Lands, forests, fisheries and treasured things were expressly in the Maori sphere. Government and good order were entrusted to the Crown. Cooke stressed that the obligation to act "reasonably and in good faith" was reciprocal. It applied no less to Maori than the Government.

Is it "reasonable" of them to ask that Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power and Solid Energy should continue to be bound by an obligation on the Crown to observe Treaty principles? I think so; the Crown will remain their major shareholder.

Is it reasonable that those companies might be obliged to consider Maori interests if they ever want to change the flow of rivers or drown land? I think so.

On the Maori side, is it acting "reasonably and in good faith" to invoke the Treaty simply to oppose partial asset sales? I don't think so.

Obviously Roughan doesn't think very much at all.

The Treaty doesn't need to be "invoked" because it's already incorporated into legislation... you don't need to invoke it for it to be in effect. The problem is that the government of the day is trying to usurp the legally binding document and is therefore acting unreasonably and in bad faith.

Whether or not people disagree with the partial privatisation of our state owned assets is not particularly significant in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi either... in my opinion the bad faith shown by National in trying to disregard our founding document is of more significance.

There's also no relevance as to the government supposedly retaining a majority share in terms of the Treaty because Māori have not rescinded their rights. There is no scope within the Treaty to allow places sacred to Māori (which includes all waters) to be sold off if the Crown retains a certain percentage.

Although the principles of the Treaty should not place unreasonable restrictions on the Crown to follow policy, the government must act reasonably in formulating its legislation in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi... they cannot simply ignore it like National is trying to do.

That's where John Key has gone horribly wrong... National have arrogantly formulated policy without properly considering existing legislation that binds the crown to act in accordance with the founding document of New Zealand, which assuredly takes precedence over any badly formulated legislation.

The Waitangi Tribunal has outlined a number of Treaty Principles (PDF) including:

If the Crown is to avoid acting in breach of the Treaty or Treaty principles it must recognise that its power to govern is constrained in important ways by its Treaty obligation to respect and give effect to the critically important guarantee of Maori rangatiratanga in terms of article 2.

There is no question that National will lose any legal battle concerning this issue, because it has already been ruled on before:

It was recognised by Justice Somers in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 (CA) at page 693 that a breach of the Treaty must be a breach of the principles of the Treaty. This raises the question of whether the Crown can ever be justified, when exercising its right to govern in terms of article 1, in doing so in a way which is inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to Maori under article 2.

I suspect John Roughan actually knows that National's insane privatisation plan is long term economic suicide, but is choosing to ignore the facts of the matter because it suits his selfishness. What an asshole!

As long as people like Roughan believe they can make a short term profit at New Zealand's expense, we will continue to get manipulative articles that are written with the comprehension level of your average drunkard.

Bradley Manning nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

2012-02-10T12:44:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, CityBeat reported:

Some U.S. progressives are supporting a move by Icelandic politicians to nominate alleged WikiLeaks collaborator Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Manning was nominated for the prestigious prize by The Movement of Icelandic Parliament, a group of politicians in Iceland dedicated to empowering grassroots activism.

In its letter nominating Manning, the group wrote, “The leaked documents pointed to a long history of corruption, war crimes, and imperialism by the United States government in international dealings. These revelations have fueled democratic uprising around the world, including a democratic revolution in Tunisia. According to journalists, his alleged actions helped motivate the democratic Arab Spring movements, shed light on secret corporate influence on our foreign policies, and most recently contributed to the Obama Administration agreeing to withdraw all U.S. troops from the occupation in Iraq.”

There are far too many people willing to blindly follow orders and allow atrocities to be committed without question... but thankfully there are also people like Bradley Manning.

Bradley Manning has changed the world by leaking documents that show the United States trying to cover up crimes against humanity. In highlighting these crimes, Bradley Manning has swayed public opinion against the so-called wars on terror that have claimed millions of innocent lives.

Instead of labelling Bradley Manning a criminal, he should be thought of as a hero that stood up against tyranny and injustice. The flow on effects of his justified actions have undoubtedly saved countless lives.

Friday fun with photos #13

2012-02-10T10:51:00.000+13:00

On Wednesday, stuff.co.nz reported:

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee has entered the political fray consuming the city council, calling Mayor Bob Parker a ''clown''.

So who are the real clowns?

Time for a housing WOF

2012-02-09T21:41:00.001+13:00

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The NZ Child and Youth Epidemiology Service says hospital admissions of children with serious bacterial infections doubled from 210 for every 100,000 children in 1991 to 451 in the meningococcal epidemic in 2001, and fell back to 377 by 2005 after the epidemic was contained.

But admissions have risen again since then to 445 for every 100,000 children in 2010, driven by a 24 per cent rise in skin infections since 2005.

[...]

Dr Baker says: "Maybe we should be using the same approach to deal with all infectious diseases in children."

But he says "the big fundamental issues" are inequality and housing.

"A basic thing would be a housing warrant of fitness that covers health, safety and sustainability issues, a bit like the five-star approach with appliances." He believes that could be run by the Auckland Council.

Despite numerous calls for houses to have a warrant of fitness, the National government has done very little to ensure the housing stock in New Zealand is safe to live in.

As usual it's a question of money... and who exactly is going to pay?

The benefit to the government in having healthier homes and thus less hospital visits and time off work by those adversely affected by poor living standards is pretty obvious... however there is also a benefit to landlords.

Having an effective housing WOF gives the landlord a good gauge of when maintenance needs to occur and therefore appropriate planning can be undertaken. Roofing, piling and re-wiring (to name a few expensive maintenance costs) can all benefit from a planned approach.

Not only will proper maintenance increase the value of a house, a good WOF can make a house more appealing and mitigate any financial claims. This is because a referencing document would be available that specifically shows what state the house is in when it's sold. Integrating the pre-purchase inspection into a housing WOF system could ultimately save time and money.

With 59% of New Zealand houses not maintained properly, surely the government should be looking at ways of rectifying this huge problem that is contributing to increasing levels of ill health and costing the taxpayer millions of dollars each year?

Who owns the water?

2012-02-08T17:36:00.002+13:00

Today, the Dominion Post reported:

Mr Key said iwi water claims were being dealt with through the separate land and water forum but in his view nobody owned the water.

"It's like air. No one owns air."

If nobody owns the water, why is National trying to privatize it? Key has changed his tune since he last spoke publicly about New Zealand's vast water resources.

Back in 2008, the NZ Herald reported:

Mr Key told reporters that better allocation of water and tradeable rights were issues that may be considered.

The Crown has yet to concede water ownership to any iwi.

Asked about Maori rights to water, Mr Key said: "That's something ultimately that will need to be debated.

They are very important stakeholders and I would have thought they would want to argue pretty strongly that they do have rights."

We haven't had a proper debate about who actually owns New Zealand's water resources, so why is National trying to swoop in and sell them?

This smacks of the bad old days of land confiscation.

Monckton's manipulation

2012-02-05T10:51:00.000+13:00

Fuck the police protests

2012-02-04T08:45:00.002+13:00

On Thursday, The San Fransisco Chronicle reported:

Protesters arrested during an Occupy Oakland rally Saturday said they were abused by police, subjected to illegal mass arrests and suffered a litany of human rights violations while held at two county jails - which only strengthened their commitment.

Organizers held a news conference outside Oakland City Hall on Wednesday to denounce police and restate their goal to move into a vacant building. Members called for another demonstration Saturday night, the latest in what Occupy activists have dubbed "F- the police" rallies, as well as a march to a courthouse Monday.

"Even the people who suffered the most traumatizing experiences are back out here," said Caitlin Manning, an Occupy Oakland member. "Santa Rita (county jail) spawns rebels. People who go through that don't come out broken; they come out strengthened."

The Occupy movement, which essentially started on September 17, 2011 with Occupy Wall Street in New York City's Zuccotti Park, has seen tens of thousands of people arrested for peacefully protesting against economic and social inequality.

Police have been heavy handed in trying to curb the mass demonstrations, often using tear gas, pepper spray and brute force to suppress people exercising their democratic rights... so it's no wonder there's a lot of resentment felt towards the police. They really only have themselves to blame for blindly following the orders of the 1%.

John Key - Asshole of the Week

2012-02-03T22:51:00.000+13:00

Today, Stuff reported:

Prime Minister John Key is undeterred by the risks of a hostile reception at Waitangi this weekend and vows matriarch Titewhai Harawira is not going to make him cry.

Clearly John Key is trying to provoke a spectacle on Waitangi day that will take the focus off National's plans to privatise state owned assets. National can then claim that the Maori's are all radicals and therefore not give their concerns the attention they deserve.

Key is talking big while he will be hiding behind unprecedented numbers of the DPS. Well I don't know about you, but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of his fucked attitude. Such juvenile smugness means John Key is this week's asshole award winner.

Bennett's bungled numbers

2012-02-03T21:13:00.000+13:00

Despite the introduction of Future Focus, whereby beneficiaries have to adhere to strict conditions or loose their entitlements, people on the unemployment benefit grew by 2158 in the last month.

Today, Paula Bennett said:

“Normally you would see a huge spike in benefits over January, but all benefits rose by just 100 to 351,032 in the last month,” says Ms Bennett.

There's never been a huge spike in beneficiary numbers over January... this is pure spin.

This is the smallest December to January increase since 2008.

“In the last month more than 2,000 Maori went off welfare into work and more than 2,000 young people did the same,” says Ms Bennett.

Very suspect figures Bennett.

There were 62,122 people on Unemployment Benefits in January 2012.

While that is up from 59,964 on the previous month, there were also more than 4,000 people who went off this benefit into work in January.

Paula Bennett claims that 4000 people went off the unemployment benefit into work in January. However figures attained under the Official information act show that only 2,155 people found employment in the first eight months of Future Focus, which was implemented in October 2010.

That's an average of 270 people per month who were previously receiving the unemployment benefit that managed to find work. Bennett saying 4000 people went of the unemployment benefit into work last month is quite frankly bullshit!

As of 30 June 2011, Future Focus resulted in 7,423 previous WINZ UB clients no longer receiving a benefit. Only 2,155 found employment while a whopping 3,698 apparently did not bother to reapply, and are not documented as having any other income.

236 of the 7,423 had their benefits stopped because they moved overseas. 596 people lost their benefits because they failed a WINZ work test, stopped training or did not provide personal details and documents the new regime requires. 373 had their benefits cancelled for undisclosed reasons.

One has to wonder what the people who've been kicked off welfare without any other income are doing to survive?

“Predictions that Unemployment Benefits would rise to about 100,000 post-recession have never eventuated, but clearly we still have a way to go.”

How long is National going to use the recession as an excuse for their economic and social bungling?

The problem is they're intentionally kicking people off welfare so the figures don't look bad. The actual unemployment rate including people not receiving any government assistance is information nigh on impossible to attain... and there's an obvious reason National is playing hide the statistics?

National and Maori party to split?

2012-02-02T17:16:00.000+13:00

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

An embarrassing blunder has revealed the Government's original intention to keep a crucial Treaty of Waitangi clause out of legislation required for state asset sales.

The information appeared in the draft of a key document that appeared on the Treasury's website yesterday for a few minutes before it was taken down.

[...]

But the draft that appeared on the Treasury's website included a list of the changes made since Tuesday morning - the day after the Maori Party first questioned whether the Government intended to include a clause protecting Treaty rights.

It showed the Government's original intention was not to include any Treaty clause at all in the new legislation covering the mixed-ownership model.

The leaked document shows there was no intention of properly negotiating with the Maori party about possible changes to section 9 of the State Owned-Enterprises Act 1986 (PDF) as well, because there would have to be changes to that act to allow the legislation governing National's MOM model to proceed. John Key can't simply ignore that section of the act.

But what should make this even more damaging is that last night, TV1 News reported that John Key preferred a more specific Treaty clause in the SOE Act, when the leaked document shows that the government planned to remove the clause entirely.

John Key is therefore lying or does not have a proper grasp of what National is intending to do... either way, he's again shown just how unfit he is to be Prime Minister.

The leaked document also shows National planning to reduce the government's control of the partially privatised enterprises:

The draft document shows other politically sensitive paragraphs were also deleted at the last minute - including references to the limited powers ministers would have over mixed-ownership-model companies, despite the Government's majority shareholding, and the aim of the policy being to run them as private firms.

Yesterday, John Key argued that the consultation document required under the current SOE act cannot apply to partially privatised SOE's, but gave no proper reasons why this is the case.

It makes me very suspicious that National want further changes so there's effectively no consultation process with Maori... presumably so the SOE's can be sold off completely without too much bother.

This sort of hidden agenda should not be acceptable to politicians obligated to uphold the mandate of the people.

On a smaller scale, a comment about "iwi leaders" was changed to "iwi". The reason given for the change was that it was "to avoid implication that Crown is consulting iwi elite".

The revelations in the draft document will do little to reassure the Maori Party. Co-leader Tariana Turia has questioned whether the consultation will be genuine, saying it would not be in good faith if the Government had already made up its mind.

That's not such a small change, because the reality of the situation is that the Crown does only consult with the Maori elite... it is not just an implication. You can therefore understand why they're being precious about such things.

In light of this leaked document, the Maori party will loose what little credibility remains if they continue to support a National led government that has shown them such contempt.

Yesterday, Mr Key said he expected the issue of the Treaty clause to come up at Waitangi on Sunday.

He would raise it at Te Tii Marae himself to help address any "confusion and bamboozlement" caused by misinformation.

The only people creating confusion here is the National led government with their secretive plans.

As a public gauge on the issue, responders to a question posed on the NZ Herald website about whether the Maori Party should leave the National led government shows 84% think they should.

Ken Grenda - Hero of the Week

2012-02-02T15:35:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, the Telegraph reported:

A MELBOURNE boss has stunned his staff by giving them a staggering $15 million gift -- the ultimate pay-off for their hard work and loyalty.

Workers at bus company Grenda couldn't believe their good fortune when surprise bonuses averaging $8500 were paid into their accounts - with some staff receiving as much as $30,000.

Family-owned Grenda Corporation recently sold off its transit operations after 66 years and decided to pour a chunk of the profits into the remarkable thank-you gesture.

That's NZ$19 million. A non-greedy boss is a very rare thing these days, with most large companies being run by unscrupulous and uncaring cretins who have no concern for their workers. That's why Ken Grenda wins a Hero award, because he's such a breath of fresh air. Here's what the philanthropist said:

"Bus drivers, as these guys will testify, aren't the highest paid people in town but they're totally dedicated, they've worked very hard, we've had people here for 40 and even 50 years working for us, that's all of their working life. We just felt that they deserved a decent reward at the end of it."

What a dude.

Wetlands day nothing to celebrate

2012-02-02T11:51:00.000+13:00

Today marks the 41 anniversary of the Ramsar Convention, which is designed to raise public awareness and safeguard what wetlands remain. It's also meant to protect the environmental, economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value of wetlands.

The convention covers marshes, fens, peatlands or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.

Yesterday, Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson said:

“As a Cantabrian I’m well aware of the importance of clean natural waterways and the role wetlands play in reducing floods, recharging groundwater, purifying water or augmenting flows,” says Ms Wilkinson.

“Wetlands also support the greatest concentrations of bird life of any New Zealand habitat and support far more species than a comparable forest. Numerous threatened species – such as the Australasian bittern, brown teal, fernbird, marsh crake, white heron, and native fish – rely on New Zealand’s remnant wetlands for their survival.”

While wetlands are always in the natural process of evolving towards dry land, introduction of invasive plants and land development has resulted in New Zealand losing some 90% of its natural wetland cover.

“For decades now, Fish & Game NZ and hunters have been working in good faith with landowners to claw back what’s been lost – the conservation gains they’ve achieved are highly commendable.”

Despite Wilkinson's rhetoric, in September last year the National party announced a $7.5 million cut in the Department of Conservations budget with 96 jobs to go. This will inevitably mean the agencies of government responsible for wetlands will be less effective at protecting the irreplaceable and internationally significant ecosystems, as well as the many of thousands of unique species they contain.

The National led government also plan to fund further intensive farm irrigation systems through various schemes like the Irrigation Acceleration Fund. But what is even more abhorrent is that the projected $400 cost of these schemes will be funded through the sale of our state-owned assets. National are also including much of our water resources as a going concern in the MOM sales.

Effectively National is selling our power companies along with the water resources they control so that a number of privately owned businesses can have unrestricted use. National do not plan to charge these companies appropriately either, so it's unlikely New Zealand as a whole will see any financial benefit.

This has all come about because Nick Smith and Rodney Hide set up a group of cronies in 2009 to look into ways of further water exploitation in the Canterbury region. They came back with the obvious conclusion; to adopt a business and not environmental model of water resource management.

National also helped set up the supposedly independent Land and Water Forum, that is predominated by business people with a vested interest, to promote the industrialisation of our water resources.

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn reports:

On the solutions front, they propose setting limits on water use and requiring regional councils to meet them. They suggest managing allocation by abandoning "first in, first served" in favour of rules in regional planning documents, and possibly a resource rental. They also want to see greater ability to transfer allocations, which points to a tradable permit system. While this is a good idea for managing a scarce resource if done properly, the two examples of such systems we have in New Zealand - the fisheries Quota Management System and the Emissions Trading Scheme - give me no confidence that that would happen. Both are over allocated, with the cap effectively set by politics rather than science. In the case of the ETS, we also have massive ongoing free allocations, which turn the scheme into a giant pollution subsidy. If that's how "cap and trade" works in New Zealand, then we should eschew such mechanisms in favour of a regulatory system combined with usage charges.

Oddly, they promote water storage schemes as having environmental benefits. But water storage is about increasing intensification, which increases pollution. Farmers want water storage schemes; the rest of us, who care about the environment, should oppose them.

In my opinion, the Land Water Forum is designed to gloss over the environmental damage that intensive irrigation systems cause... they simply ignore the fact that further intensive irrigation means even more ecological pressure will be placed on our already delicate wetland ecosystems. Like the National party, their modus operandi is to facilitate New Zealand’s vast water resources flowing into private hands.

This unbelievably stupid and economically ignorant plan will ensure that there's no proper remuneration for the use of our water resources and that areas most affected by the resulting increased pollution such as wetland will be even more degraded.

90% of New Zealand's low lying-waterways are already too polluted to swim in, which shows just how hollow Wilkinson's words really are.

The National Government pretends to care about the environment but have no real concern, as they believe there’s more money to be made through polluting enterprises. This means that in New Zealand, wetlands day is nothing to celebrate.

How many people attended?

2012-02-02T08:57:00.001+13:00

There was a protest in Christchurch yesterday, with people voicing their concerns about the pay rise of council CEO Tony Marryatt.

On the day, TV3 reported:

Around 1000 protesters are gathering outside the Christchurch City Council building, angry over council chief executive Tony Marryatt's $68,000 pay rise and calling for him to be sacked.

Today, The Otago Daily Times reported:

Thousands of people gathered in Christchurch yesterday to demand "urgent change to restore democracy" over continued concerns about the Christchurch City Council and its controversial chief executive Tony Marryatt.

[...]

About 3000 people showed up to protest and the Rev Mike Coleman said the large turnout was due to ordinary citizens who knew something was wrong with their city.

Using Jacob’s method shows 750 people attended the protest. Clearly the mainstream media plucked their estimate out of thin air... over-exaggerating by a whopping 300%. I wonder why?

The problem is that the media also underestimates the numbers attending protests their masters don’t like… so much so you’d think they couldn’t count at all.

These days there are lasers, satellites, aerial photography, 3-D grid systems and recorded video footage to assist with an estimated crowd count… yet the mainstream media still don't get it right.

In this case it's looking like CERA and the government will be trying to use the Christchurch City Council as a scapegoat for their own failings... helped along with a complacent media all to ready to promote National's propaganda.

A universal aberration

2012-02-01T21:30:00.000+13:00

Last Sunday, the Ministry of Economic Development released New Zealand's Energy Outlook 2011 (PDF), which presents long-term forecasts of energy supply, demand, prices and energy sector greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only is the report late or incorrectly named, being that it's now 2012, it also makes a number of non-factual statements... not least of which are its outdated projections:

The Reference Scenario assumes an emissions price of $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emitted from 2013. Two alternative sensitivities are considered, a no emissions price sensitivity case and a sensitivity case where the emission price rises to reach $100 per tonne by 2020 and remains at that level out to 2030.

It's interesting that the $25 per tonne of CO₂ projected by the Ministry of Economic Development has halved since their $50 per tonne projection in 2010. But what's even more indicative of the government's incompetence is this Press report that shows the MED 2011 forecast is already 68% off the mark:

Since the disappointments of Durban, the market price of carbon has crashed from about $21 a tonne to barely $8. So should he be buying or selling to strengthen his position? Again, "buggered" if he can say. "We're just growers, not carbon traders," Alexander admits.

[...]

Kyoto 1 was supposed to see us back down to a 1990 level of carbon pollution of 310Mt for the five-year period. But a Sustainability Council analysis of the latest numbers shows us 55Mt over this budget.

The main problem that has led to a huge reduction in the price of carbon is polluting industries threatening to outsource their businesses to countries where the tax is not in effect or not properly enforced.

In light of this threat, some government's have despicably decided to not adhere to their protocols to profit at the expense of countries that do... a cold hearted calculation because they know from experience that to bypass any worldwide carbon reduction regime goes largely without financial penalty.

The threat to outsource is of course coming from the very industries that need further regulation. In effect they're holding the world to ransom and have kneecapped the Kyoto protocols effectiveness with their short-sightedness. They wish to avoid the carbon tax because it means a costly change to their manufacturing processes to ensure competitiveness... a decision purely based on greed.

With such a weak response from many countries who only agreed at the Durbin climate talks that even if a binding treaty is agreed to in 2015, it wont even take effect until 2020, we can expect the climate change problem to continue to go unchecked for many years to come.

Prepare for climate change

2012-01-31T09:58:00.002+13:00

Everybody should have heard by now about the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced; climate change. Increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme weather patterns are just a few of the now obvious side effects.

Perhaps the most damaging of all adverse effects from the approximately 29 million TMT+ of CO₂ released into the atmosphere each year by humans is heavy precipitation events that can cause devastating flooding.

It seems every few days we hear about more instances of flooding. South East Asia, Southern Pakistan, Northwestern Australia and Southern Brazil all experienced severe flooding in January this year alone... with the cost for such events often massive.

Last Thursday, the Independent reported:

New research commissioned by the Government shows that if no further plans are made to adapt to changing flood risks, as temperatures rise and population grows, by the 2080s damage to buildings and property could reach £12bn per year, compared with current costs of £1.2bn. In the worst-case scenario, five million people could be affected. Flooding is regarded as the most serious of 100 separate challenges from a changing climate to Britain's economy, society and natural environment, which have been identified in a comprehensive new study, the Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA).

These include increased health problems for vulnerable people in hotter summers, increased pressure on the UK's water resources, droughts affecting farmers and the potential introduction of new pests and diseases.

The study says that if no further precautions are taken, the number of people affected by flooding is likely to hit between 1.66 million and 3.64 million annually by the 2050s, and by 2.43 million to 4.98 million by the 2080s.

It is significant that of the many problems posed by climate change, flooding is now seen as the most important. The man behind the CCRA, Sir Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said. "I think the flooding issue is the most dominant."

However, this seems at odds with the Government's spending priorities, as expenditure on flood defence has been cut by 27 per cent from the last Labour administration's £354m annually, to £259m a year for the next four years. "Ministers are playing Russian roulette with people's homes and businesses by cutting too far, too fast," the shadow Environment Secretary, Mary Creagh, said.

Of course a common reaction many climate change deniers have to such information is that the scientists are just "fear-mongering" and it is somehow a worldwide conspiracy. This response is becoming even more tenuous in the face of now overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is predominantly a man made phenomenon.

The Climate Change Risk Assessment (PDF) isn't all doom and gloom though, as it outlines a progressive approach the tourism, horticulture and food production industries (to name a few the report covers), can take to limit the adverse effects of climate change.

Pike River broken promises

2012-01-28T15:38:00.000+13:00

It's been fourteen months since the Pike River Mine first exploded in November 2010, trapping 29 miners inside. Five days later and after the second explosion occurred, they were all presumed not to have survived.

Despite continued assurances that the government would do everything in its power to recover the deceased, they have remained entombed in the mine. To date, there's been very little progress to retrieve the 29 miners... so why the interminable delay?

Back in September 2011, TVNZ reported:

Key said his position on returning the miners to their loved ones has never changed. He said he promised from the outset that he would do everything he could to recover the bodies and that promise remains.

But he said the families fully understand the situation and realise that it would not be wise to put other lives at risk.

Key also told the families of the miners that he would discuss with Cabinet extending the funding of the families' legal team beyond the Royal Commission.

"I've always said if there aren't enough resources from Oil and Gas they can come talk to the Government, it's not an issue of money."

Unfortunately it is an issue of money. Instead of accepting some responsibility for the disaster, the government has allowed the receivers to make the retrieval of the miners a condition of the sale. This has assuredly meant a delay.

Back in July last year, Acting Minister of Energy and Resources, Hekia Parata welcomed the receivers’ decision:

The Government supports the approach being taken by the Pike River receivers to seek a commitment from any purchaser of the mine to take all reasonable steps to recover the miners’ bodies.

[...]

“The challenges faced at the Pike River mine are complex. We fully understand the desire of the West Coast community, and especially the immediate families of the miners, to have their bodies retrieved from the mine.

“We are seeking to proceed in a way that offers the best chance of recovering the miners’ bodies, and restoring to the West Coast a working mine at Pike River, if it is possible to do so.”

Clearly Parata does not understand the desire of the West Coast Community, because she supported the receivers decision that has ultimately delayed the retrieval process.

What we need to see is some real leadership on this issue, but instead all we seem to get is more broken promises:

Key said he will call the receivers personally to discuss a recovery plan but just who will implement it will not be known until there is a new owner for Pike River Mine.

The receivers say a decision could be several weeks away.

The families are hoping that promises made today will not be forgotten after November's election.

Several weeks away? Try several months, and perhaps several years. Yesterday, TVNZ reported:

Engineer Bruce McLean was commissioned by the families to write a report examining possible issues around reclaiming the mine tunnel and recovering the men's bodies.

His report concludes that if there is a successful sale of the mine, recovery of the bodies could be completed between July 2015 and June 2017, dependent on a number of factors, including completion of a new shaft to establish ventilation in the mine.

His estimated time frames include conditions attached to the sale, such as potential Oversees Investment Office approval, transfer of permits, and agreeing on recovery obligations.

[...]

New Zealand Oil and Gas (NZOG), which held significant shareholdings in Pike River, recently acknowledged that the mine may not be able to be sold.

In such a case the role of the government would become 'critical' says Counsel for the families, Nicholas Davidson QC.

It's bad enough that the families and not the government commissioned the report, but it's totally unacceptable that a decision as to who will be responsible for the retrieval of the deceased miners hasn't even been made yet.

The government is clearly being remiss in its duties by allowing a financial and not moral decision to be made. John Key should not be disregarding the wishes of the miners families and the many thousands of other New Zealander's who want some closure on Pike River mine.

Having the retrieval dependent on the sale of Pike River when this might never occur is completely unacceptable.

In my opinion, people who make promises without any intention of keeping them are the lowest of the low... and in this case; such things are a cruelty on the affected families. Breaking promises is definitely not how a Prime Minister should be conducting himself.

Defend the right to protest

2012-01-27T20:19:00.001+13:00

Teapot tape transcript

2012-01-27T13:52:00.001+13:00

Banks: Yeah, so it’s been great. Um, and um…this is great territory for you.
Key: Yeah. No. It’s a great spot and um I mean, we’ve done well to follow that up from…
Banks: I’m sure you’ll get 70% of the party vote here.
Key: Yeah, it feels like that, yeah.
Banks: Feels very good.
Key: Across the country actually we’ve got some…most of our electoral polling is looking really really good so…I’m a bit suspective – I think theoretically Palmerston North could be in play, theoretically Rimutaka could be in play, but I’m suspect in Palmerston North because my [] last time and um, he um, he…he…he bloody worked hard last time, for myself I don’t…he knocked on a lot of doors for a year, so I’d be surprised…I mean, she’s quite good but I’d be a little bit surprised –
[Tea cups set down. Media snap photos and are shooed away]
Key: The most photographed cup of tea in the world.
Banks: This is a very good media contingent.
Key: Yeah, it’s huge ay?
Banks: I’ve got to tell you…
Key: Wherever I go though there’s more big numbers normally, yeah, waiting, waiting to trip me up. [To the wait staff] Thank you!
Banks: I mean, uh…
Key: [To wait staff] Cheers. Thanks very much.
Banks: There’s 30 here today.
Key: Yeah.
Banks: That’s very very good.
Key: Apparently Roy Morgan’s out this afternoon is very good too and TV3’s very good at the weekend for us, but it’s all pretty solid. I’d say the Herald will be slightly low, but you know, margin. I mean, in the end it’s going to ease down, would be my guess, go…we’ll get to 50, 49 50, anything around there will be good enough.
Banks: Yeah. It will be good…
Key: Yeah, I expect so…well, you know what campaigns are like. When you’re where we are, the risk is in the downside…
Banks: The election has been very, very nasty.
Key: Yeah, yeah. I don’t…I don’t think that’s a strategy that works very well. I reckon you’re much better just to get out there and promote what you’re doing, promote your policies and…
Banks: You have got no idea how vicious they’ve been, you know, especially at public meetings, but um, we can handle that and I’m not buying into it.
Key: No.
Banks: I’ve been around too long, I’m not…
Key: I feel the same and…
Banks: I don’t play the…
Key: No, no, I don’t reckon it works. When you look at Roughan last week in the paper saying ‘the moment he called him a liar I knew it was all over’ and I mean, it’s so, you know, there are so many things where you go ‘I could spend my life on this stuff’ but you know, I can’t be bothered and I’m not going to do it. And I just don’t think it’s going to take me anywhere. I mean, I was, I’m there to make a difference, I’m just going to keep on working on it each year, and I’m actually proud of the record we’ve got and that’s what we’re going to be.
Banks: Yeah. Someone’s told me you’re gonna be, you’re going to be working with uh…
Key: Yeah, yeah. It’s good. Yeah, no that’s right…I reckon you guys are…yeah yeah…unfortunately that’s always the case.
Banks: I didn’t know.
Key: No, no, no [chuckles softly]…um…but you…you guys will track at some point. Bit of luck…so what I’m going to do when I go out is I’m gonna say, look we’ve worked with Act for the last three years, provided strong and stable government, blah blah, and then I’m just going to run them through and say look, in 2005 and 2008, the voters of Epsom gave their party vote to National then voted tactically and if they do so in 2011 I wouldn’t be at all unhappy about that, we’re likely positioned to provide strong and stable government again blah blah blah. And they’ll ask about how I’m going to vote for the National candidate, and that’s because I am the leader of the National Party here’s my job, and then if they go on to the ministerial warrants, let’s just say we’ll go through it another day.
Banks: And, you might, you might be inclined to say ‘I know John quite well.’
Key: Yeah. That’s right, yep.
Banks: And we’ve had a good working relationship, and we did a lot of stuff together.
Key: Yep. Worked well.
Banks: We’ve achieved a lot.
Key: Yep. We’re on the same page.
Banks: Do you think Winston will be back this time?
Key: [dismissive laugh] No, not at all no chance.
Banks: [mumble]
Key: [amused] Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s , but no, no, not a show. He, look, he’s at 2.5 I think on the TV3 poll, we have him about 2.5, 3. Look, he polled 4 last time, he’ll poll 3 this time, a lot of his constituents have all died. He won’t poll, I don’t think he’ll poll much above 3 this time.
Key: How are you enjoying it? Is it just bloody hard going?
Banks: Oh, it’s hard going, I mean it’s really hard, I mean, I’m at it 14 hours a day. Bus stops this morning, on buses, in the trains, on the trains, railway stations, taxi stands, pushing it hard, and ah, but it’s quite small, the response here is amazing. Our polling this week shows the gap between Paul and I is closing anyway, albeit there’s some distance, but a couple of key media have him well out in front…
Key: Look at the end of the day, there will always be [] both [], but you shouldn’t be worried about the [] help with the Maori Party that will be a very different set of circumstances, and um…
Banks: Makes your time here very…
Key: Mmm, mmm, yeah, I’m not worried.
Banks: I think the Labour Party have um have given up on Epsom.
Key: Oh, yeah.
Banks: He’s a horrible fellow, that candidate. Nasty, nasty.
Key: He is, ooh, nasty. They’re a nasty party in a lot of ways.
Banks: Yeah, well, you know they’ve been putting stuff in letterboxes about me. Shocking stuff.
Key: Yes, that’s nasty. That’s what they do, they play the person the whole time. We never do that stuff.
Banks: And John, I think the important thing is the [] politics, the policies, [] I’ve learned that the long term experience is never any value with them…
Key: No, it doesn’t help you, does it?
Banks: People…people…
Key: I mean, longer term I reckon Act’s gotta…the reason I didn’t text you is because it’s better if I don’t because it puts you under pressure to say he has or he hasn’t you know?
Banks: No, no I haven’t heard from the Prime Minister.
Key: No, no, it’s easier to say…
Banks: I don’t expect you to [] on me…what’s that number of yours? I’ve got two numbers for you.
Key: Oh, the proper one is [number omitted from transcript]
Banks: [repeats number]. I haven’t talked to you…they want us to know I haven’t heard from the Prime Minister. I think it’s important during the campaign we stay at arm’s length. He’s got his party, and…
Key: Definitely.
Banks: I think that after the election with Catherine…
Key: Yeah, she’s good.
Banks: Don Nicolson, and Steve Whittington, the four of us, we can completely restructure and rebuild this party.
Key: That’s right. And she’s good actually. She’s…I reckon she’ll have quite a bit of female appeal.
Banks: Yeah.
Key: Yeah, that’s where you’ll…
Banks: He’s a strange fellow, the other fellow isn’t he?
Key: Mmmm! Oh, yeah! Yeah, no, no, we’ve been down that road! That is why when they rang me in the UK I never ever thought of this, you know, 15 percent we’d have a snap election…
[quiet mumbling]
Banks: I didn’t know. I didn’t know.
Key: Well, you learn everyday. So, you want to do the standup? Is that yours? Is that yours? Is that yours?
Banks: No.
Key: Hey, that’s a recording device.

Hat tip Blue

Catherine Taylor moron

2012-01-27T13:17:00.000+13:00

Did you hear that? Catherine Taylor the new Rena recovery manager said:

The Natural organisms will deal with a lot of the oil; the Limpets climb across the rocks and munch it up.

Well that statement flies in the face of all of the major scientific studies done into the effects of oil pollution on Limpet populations. Here's an excerpt from one such major study called The Effects of Natural Oil Seepage on Intertidal Communities (PDF):

Differences in limpet populations were shown to be statistically significant. Limpets have demonstrated 100% mortality rates when subjected to high concentrations of oil (Carthy 1968). Many studies have shown that upon the release of oil into the environment, limpets and other grazers are often the hardest hit (Newey and Seed 1995, Glegg et.al. 1999). There are also no known tolerances to oil in limpets (Glegg et.al. 1999).

Limpets cannot "munch" oil and Catherine Taylor is a moron for thinking they can. She also says that it's safe to eat shellfish, when there is still a toxin warning for most of the East coast.

Clearly it's her ineptitude that needs to be monitored.

PoAL vs MUNZ

2012-01-27T08:46:00.001+13:00

The Ports of Auckland industrial dispute has been dragging on for ages now, with any hope of resolution appearing lost in the ideological divide between the waring parties.

On one side we see a push to reduce wages to make the port more profitable with the excuse being that the workers need to be more flexible, and on the other we see a Union determined to protect worker's rights under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (PDF).

So what's the way forward when resolving the issues doesn't fit into what appears to be a pre-defined plan to privatise the port? The answer is to see some real leadership from the Auckland City Council and in particular Mayor Len Brown... who has been conspicuous by his absence.

Len Brown needs to brush aside the rhetoric that's doing nothing to help the two parties resolve the issues. He should disregard the divisive propaganda that has already been categorically disproved. It is time to stop talking around failed political ideology and the PoAL be made to act in the best interest of the port and its majority shareholders: the ratepayers of Auckland.

The Auckland City Council needs to act to ensure a resolution that does not involve destroying a Union, reducing workers remuneration or selling a profitable asset. New Zealand already has a fragile supply chain that cannot be squeezed further by international interests... we simply cannot allow our industries to be exploited by a few unprincipled individuals.

We cannot afford to have the PoAL use the dispute as a reason to privatise at the request of a few politicians hell bent on performing economic harakiri.

Assange TV on RT

2012-01-27T07:10:00.000+13:00

Cameron Slater - Asshole of the Week

2012-01-26T21:09:00.001+13:00

Most of us would have heard the teapot tape by now. It's not as bad as I thought it might be, but it certainly makes the two Johns look like a couple of prize jerks.

Amongst the claims by the right wing that there is nothing to see and we should all just move along, is yet another feckless rant by Cameron Slater:

Winston Peters has been proven to be a liar. Nothing on the tape even remotely suggests what he breathlessly intimated.

This whole episode shows the parlous state of some media outlets in NZ.

It is curious that the tape has been released on the same day as the Prime Minister’s first major speech of the year. Proving that this whole stitch-up has been a political act from beginning to end, shamelessly milked by media outlets desperate for sales and corrupt politicians desperate for votes.

So let's check the transcript to see if Peter's lied about what was in the teapot tape. Firstly, Winston said the tape canvassed issues including the future and leadership of the Act party:

Banks: I think that after the election with Catherine…
Key: Yeah, she’s good.
Banks: Don Nicolson, and Steve Whittington, the four of us, we can completely restructure and rebuild this party.
Key: That’s right. And she’s good actually. She’s…I reckon she’ll have quite a bit of female appeal.
Banks: Yeah.
Key: Yeah, that’s where you’ll…
Banks: He’s a strange fellow, the other fellow isn’t he?
Key: Mmmm! Oh, yeah! Yeah, no, no, we’ve been down that road! That is why when they rang me in the UK I never ever thought of this, you know, 15 percent we’d have a snap election…
[quiet mumbling]
Banks: I didn’t know. I didn’t know.

Looks like Winston Peter's got that bit right. He also said Banks and Key spoke about New Zealand First's electoral chances, the percentage of the vote National would secure and that Key had disrespected the people most likely to vote for New Zealand First, the elderly:

Key: Apparently Roy Morgan’s out this afternoon is very good too and TV3’s very good at the weekend for us, but it’s all pretty solid. I’d say the Herald will be slightly low, but you know, margin. I mean, in the end it’s going to ease down, would be my guess, go…we’ll get to 50, 49 50, anything around there will be good enough.

[...]

Banks: Do you think Winston will be back this time?
Key: [dismissive laugh] No, not at all no chance.
Banks: [mumble]
Key: [amused] Yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s, but no, no, not a show. He, look, he’s at 2.5 I think on the TV3 poll, we have him about 2.5, 3. Look, he polled 4 last time, he’ll poll 3 this time, a lot of his constituents have all died. He won’t poll, I don’t think he’ll poll much above 3 this time.

So Winston wasn't lying at all, and the leaked tape vindicates him for informing the public prior to the last election about what the recording contained.

Anybody who keeps track of Slater's blog knows that he's a consummate liar. Believing what he writes is akin to believing the holocaust never happened. As usual Cameron Slater has chosen to not even check the facts... his argument is simply delusional!

Slater has also been bullying a 16-year-old girl for wanting an end to child poverty. Therefore the bewildered troll wins an Asshole award for 2012. Hurrah!

Teapot tape released

2012-01-26T11:28:00.002+13:00

2Johns2Cups by goldenturkey

Please seed it: http://tinyurl.com/goldenturkey

Today, the Otago Daily Times reported:

Mr Key, who is in Auckland giving his first major speech of the year, today apologised to pensioners if they took offence to his comments in the recording.

He said he would phrase things differently in public than in private.

"Older New Zealanders at some point pass away, and it's a statement of fact that Winston Peters' base has typically been represented by older New Zealanders," Mr Key said.

"But that was a private conversation. I would always phrase things in a better way if it was a public conversation.

"So if there was offence, yes I would apologise for that, but I haven't listened to the tape."

He said he would listen to it in "due course".

He said the leaker may have broken the law, but that was a matter for police.

"[Publishing the tape] is not something I've authorised, so anyone that's done that may find themselves in breach of the law."

Evidence that Key is a contrived little snake who has to doctor the message.

Nick Smith posturing on dogs

2012-01-26T11:22:00.001+13:00

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Nearly 12,000 people suffered dog bite injuries last year, including more than 1700 children aged under 10 - many of whom will be left with scars.

The number of attacks requiring medical attention has increased since 2003 when 8677 people were attacked, including 7-year-old Carolina Anderson who has needed years of surgery after being mauled in an Auckland park.

Despite new laws meant to toughen up dog control, that's an increase of 35% since 2003 for people getting treatment for dog attacks. So why the huge increase in the amount of dog attacks and subsequent injuries?

The problem is that worsening social conditions results in more dogs being uncared for properly... this leads to hungry and sometimes abused (angry) dogs roaming the streets looking for food. Some dog owner's are simply unable to look after and register their dogs because of their financial circumstances. Unregistered dogs are nine times more likely to be involved in attacks.

That's why it's unhelpful to see Nick Smith, who isn't even the Minister for ACC, grandstanding about the issue... being that it's largely National's policies of reducing social spending that have led to a worsening dog control problem. Despite the association, Nick Smith decides to pontificate about the long-standing issue:

Local Government Minister Nick Smith is seeking a more detailed breakdown of the statistics, including trying to establish how many of the attacks have caused serious injury, occurred in public places and left children permanently maimed.

He plans to use that information in a review of current dog control laws to see if there is anything else that can be done to prevent serious attacks - but is warning in advance there are "no magic bullets".

"We have got 500,000 dogs in New Zealand so it's just impossible to prevent every dog bite or injury. The number of ACC claims is static, albeit, nearly 12,000 is a lot of people that have been hurt by dogs.

"The attacks that are of a particular concern to me are those that occur in public places and even more so where they involve children."

Mr Smith promised to review the laws this week after three children were seriously attacked.

If Nick Smith actually gave a damn about the increasing number of dog attacks, he would ensure that people could register and feed their animals properly.

Until the government actually understand the results of their archaic and socially destructive policies, we will continue to see similar dysfunction. After all, that's what you get with dog eat dog politics.

Questions about Rena need answers

2012-01-26T09:12:00.000+13:00

Today, NZ Newswire reported:

The government is poised to announce a plan to restore the Bay of Plenty coastline to the condition it was in before the Rena disaster.

[...]

Environment Minister Nick Smith will announce the plan at 11am on Tauranga's Waikari Marae.

He told NZ Newswire it was a comprehensive plan to co-ordinate all the agencies involved in the clean up.

"We've got a very large number of agencies already involved as well as three regional councils," he said.

"There are public health authorities as well, this is going to bring it all together to restore the Bay of Plenty to its pre-Rena condition."

Meanwhile the governments idea of a cleanup response for areas that aren't important to tourism is to drop off a couple of rubbish skips and let the locals fend for themselves.

Further down the Bay of Plenty coastline, where oil and debris litters the beaches, the mainly Maori inhabitants have been forgotten... and there has been no reporting by mainstream media about the continuing environmental disaster there.

Maritime NZ is even failing to report on the amount of oiled and dead birds that continue to wash up. Yesterday, they claimed:

There have been no oiled birds found by wildlife patrols over the past week.

This is simply untrue with some news services reporting that up to 50 dead Blue penguins (likely the same penguins released from Tauranga) have been found scattered along the far Eastern Bay, along with a lot of other dead wildlife.

This article by Sunlive even contradicts the MNZ report. So it is no wonder people want answers.

Today, Radio NZ reported:

Coastal iwi in Bay of Plenty want a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Rena disaster.

Te Moana A Toi iwi leaders group represents 16 iwi whose tribal waters and fisheries assets have been affected by tonnes of oil and debris spilled from the vessel that ran aground on a reef off Tauranga in October last year.

[...]

Mr Tawhiao says they're looking to ensure the same sort of disaster doesn't happen again anywhere to any iwi, and an assurance that if any systems in dealing with a marine disaster are deficient, they will be addressed.

At the moment, the main deficient system is the National led government.

Bob Parker - Hero of the Week

2012-01-25T19:38:00.000+13:00

Once in while, a local body government will take the time to look properly at the evidence available and put people and the environments wellbeing ahead of financial gain. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does, we should congratulate those who have pulled their heads out of the sand.

Most people would have heard by now about the destructive process known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking as it's more commonly known.

Recent studies have confirmed that fracking has caused water contamination in the US and even been linked to earthquakes there and in the UK.

That's why today's news that the Christchurch City Council has called on the Government for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in Canterbury is so fantastic!

Stuff.co.nz reports:

In a letter this month to Minister of Energy and Resources Phil Heatley, Mayor Bob Parker said the council had resolved to call for a moratorium at a meeting on December 8, after widespread community concerns.

[...]

"Both the board and the council are aware of community concerns about this issue, including the issues of the practice leading to contamination of drinking water, discharge of pollutants into the environment and possible linkages with increase in seismic activity," Parker wrote.

He added: "The council respectfully requests that the Government consider a moratorium until an independent inquiry is carried out, and would appreciate being kept informed of its decision on the matter."

Let's for a minute put aside the fact that the Canterbury District Council has just awarded their chief executive, Tony Marryatt a pay rise of 14.4%... because some things are more important than money.

So for putting the environment and people's future ahead of any short-term financial gain, Bob Parker wins this week's Hero Award. Let's hope John Key's newly elected government is bold enough to pull their heads out of the sand as well.

Mortgagee sales down... slightly

2012-01-25T09:38:00.000+13:00

Today, the Otago Daily Times reported:

Mortgagee sales figures may have dropped since the harshest days of the recession, but 89 Otago properties still had to be sold in the 12 months to September 2011.

[...]

Massey University Centre for Banking Studies director associate professor Dr David Tripe said the peaks in 2009 and 2010 were no surprise.

"In general terms, when economic circumstances are more difficult, there will be more instances of mortgagee sales," he said.

Reasons for people going through mortgagee sales varied greatly: sometimes it was the fault of the lender, other times the property owner, and sometimes it was due to circumstances outside either party's control.

"Generally, each situation is slightly different, but the most common reason for problems is people thinking they can afford bigger mortgages and taking out bigger loans then they can actually afford. Sometimes they are encouraged in that process by lenders."

Much of the banking industry tightened its lending criteria and changed risk weightings in 2008, which effectively made it more difficult to get a loan. However much of the lending system remains ungoverned... in fact the only real criteria to start up an unregistered bank is to not have the word 'bank' in the title.

The government does plan to introduce tougher consumer credit laws, which will mainly target loan sharks. But there are currently no rules to ensure responsible lending requirements. A lender isn't even required to expect the borrower to be able to repay the loan without substantial hardship.

It's just another factor causing our home ownership levels to fall.

ACTA explained

2012-01-24T23:09:00.000+13:00

Scott Inglis in the gray area

2012-01-24T21:59:00.000+13:00

A rather misinformed editorial by Scott Inglis was published yesterday in the Bay of Plenty Times. It's a purely speculative rant about what other people should be thinking based on the authors diploma in pseudoscience, which is par for the course for many propagandists.

Here are the worst parts of a decidedly bad read:

But to blame the oil spill disaster for the stranding and subsequent deaths of four whales on a local beach, without any proof, may be taking it too far.

[...]

And while samples have been collected from the whale carcasses to assess if they had ingested oils or toxins, there has been no evidence to suggest the stranding was related to Rena.

That doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists though.

Since 23 October, there has been eleven-documented whale stranding in seven different locations within the Bay of Plenty, which is above the normal amount of stranding seen in the area for the same time period.

It's true that it would be speculative at this stage to associate the increased stranding with the sonor being used to salvage containers or the oil and chemical spilt from the MV Renabefore the test results are known... but it's equally speculative at this stage to say there is no association.

Inglis is admonishing people for their opinion while being factually incorrect himself. He even criticizes Project Jonah, an organization dedicated to helping marine mammals, for even suggesting the Rena could be the cause:

It was reported yesterday that Project Jonah conservationists - a charitable organisation responsible for the first aid of stranded whales - suggested there could be a link as sonar being used to salvage containers can injure nearby whales.

Inglis appears to want people not to communicate about happenings that are likely associated with New Zealand's largest ever environmental disaster... and for that he really has no place in journalism.

Stranded Gray's beaked whale - Papamoa Beach - 21 January 2012

IPCA in breach of law

2012-01-24T15:23:00.000+13:00

In late December 2011, I blogged about the website data.govt.nz, which allows public requests for information from various government funded departments without needing to go through the normal official channels.

While looking through the site, I happened upon the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) ignoring a request for information about the complaints they receive, and this piqued my interest enough to make a formal request under the Official Information Act 1982 (PDF):

21 December 2011

Dear Independent Police Conduct Authority,

I write to make a formal request for information under the Official Information Act 1982. Please supply me with the following information:

The total number of complaints made for each year since 2000
The number of complaints that are dismissed by the IPCA by year since 2000
The number of complaints upheld as valid by the police by year since 2000
The gender of the people making complaints by year since 2000
The age group of the people making complaints by year since 2000
The region where the complaints originate from by year since 2000
The amount of Police charged for a crime in relation to formal complaints by year since 2000.
The names of the Police charged for a crime in relation to formal complaints by year since 2000.

Please give an in-depth explanation if you're not able to supply any part of this formal request for information.

I believed my request was pretty straightforward... but unfortunately the IPCA had other ideas. On the 23 December, they replied to my formal request for information:

The IPCA is not subject to the Official Information Act, and further, is required by its legislation to conduct its investigations in private.

However some of the data you ask for is available through our Annual Report, which is available on our website www.ipca.govt.nz

For example, the number of complaints accepted in the most recent financial year, and for the previous five years, are noted on p.16 of the Annual Report, and are as follows.

2010/11 2052
2009/10 2049
2008/09 1997
2007/08 2073
2006/07 2016
2005/06 1741

Kind regards

Kathryn

Kathryn Street
Communications Manager
Independent Police Conduct Authority

Well that doesn't come close to answering my formal request for information... as I already had the information Kathryn provided. On the same day, I wrote back to the IPCA:

Dear Kathryn Street,

Thank you for your email.

Most of the information I have requested does not breach any privacy of the Police or the complainants. I would appreciate you supplying me with the requested information excluding the last question.

Could you please direct me to the particular law or piece of information that exempts the IPCA from the Official Information Act 1982?

Kathryn has not bothered to respond to this email and it's now well over the due time for the information requested to be provided.

What is most annoying though is that Kathryn Street's claim that the IPCA is not subject to a formal OIA request for information is incorrect. The Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 (PDF), states:

Disclosure of certain matters not to be required

(1) Where—
(a) the Prime Minister certifies that the giving of any information or the production of any document or thing might prejudice—
(i) the security or defence of New Zealand, or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
(ii) any interest protected by section 7 of the Official Information Act 1982 (which relates to the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency); or
(b) the Attorney-General certifies that the giving of any information or the production of any document or thing—
(i) might prejudice the prevention, investigation, or detection of offences; or
(ii) might involve the disclosure of proceedings of Cabinet, or any committee of Cabinet, relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature, and such disclosure would be injurious to the public interest,—
the Authority shall not require the information to be given, or, as the case may be, the document or thing to be produced.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), the rule of law which authorises or requires the withholding of any document, or the refusal to answer any question, on the ground that the disclosure of the document or the answering of the question would be injurious to the public interest, shall not apply in respect of any investigation by or proceedings before the Authority.

Clearly the information requested will not prejudice New Zealand's security or our international relations... it will not inhibit the Police from doing their job.

The information requested will not be injurious to the public interest, although it could be injurious to Police credibility... that's the only reason I can think of that would cause Kathryn Street to lie about the laws the IPCA should adhere to.

Not only is the IPCA in breach of the OIA by ignoring the initial request for information, they're also in breach of the OIA under section 16 Documents (3)(b) by not providing details on the reason for their contemptuous decision.

Perhaps the IPCA doesn't uphold any complaints about the misconduct of Police officers, but without the relevant information being provided... I guess we will never know.

Auckland Anti-War Protest - 19 March 2005

Facebook killed your feed

2012-01-24T13:13:00.000+13:00

Facebook has killed the RSS feeds from thousands of websites in an attempt to increase traffic... and they didn't even bother to inform the people affected.

Here's the only notification, which you have to waste time searching for:

Since November 22 last year, Facebook no longer allows a status to be automatically updated, and you have to visit the site instead.

The endless changes to Facebook are simply making the format harder to use, which sux!

The real nanny state

2012-01-24T11:57:00.000+13:00

On Friday, the Waikato Times reported:

A raft of issues has been raised in the aftermath of TV3's screening of a controversial documentary about child poverty just four days before the general election last year.

[...]

The agency is reported to be displeased with TV3's timing, obviously because political displeasure was communicated. Board minutes show the December meeting decided to seek legal advice on whether the broadcast covenant could require broadcasters "not to screen programmes likely to be an election issue within the election period as defined in the Broadcasting Act".

The media's disclosure of that decision has triggered accusations of the state wanting to control political discussion.

Those accusations are not readily rebuffed, because NZ on Air board member Stephen McElrea is Prime Minister John Key's electorate chairman and the National Party's northern region deputy chairman. The records show he asked if the agency was aware the documentary would be scheduled four days before the election.

NZ on Air's handling of the issue raises the spectre of documentaries being censored or rejected by party pooh-bahs. This fortifies the case for politically neutral appointees to state boards. But poverty will be vanquished long before governments relinquish their long-standing practice of giving board jobs to their mates to reward loyalty.

Pooh-bahs is right. The lead up to an election when people's political radar is switched on is the perfect time to broadcast political documentaries and other relevant information... because we want people to be well informed of their decision on who they elect. Unfortunately most of the time such relevant programming is on late at night or not at all.

There is no doubt that further restrictions on truthful political programming is designed to keep people uninformed and in the dark. Unfortunately it's a tactic also used for online content... to remove factual information that makes the government of the day look bad.

This callous attempt to repress information is undertaken because arguments based on misinformation can only gain traction in the absence of the truth.

It's a bit like a criminal destroying evidence of their crimes... with any relevant information that remains often speculative in nature because the majority of evidence has been hidden. Without the full picture, an argument can be less convincing. That's why it often appears the debate is speculative and purely built on opinion, when it should always be based on facts.

Restricting people's right to communicate their factual arguments because they don't conform to a certain political ideology is a clear violation of freedom of expression. Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BoRA), states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

I might not like a lot of people's opinions, especially when it's based on misinformation... but I will defend people's right to be allowed to express their opinion in any form when it's within the law.

That's why it's concerning to see the Electoral Commission disregarding the BoRA by restricting what messaging is allowed to be produced.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The advisory opinions also show several groups which were not political parties were stopped from going ahead with some of their election plans. Teachers' union the New Zealand Educational Institute submitted scripts for television and radio advertisements but was told that references to the Government cutting early childhood funding and the words "speak up for education" meant they could not be broadcast because they encouraged people not to vote for National. Strict broadcasting laws meant they could not be played.

Save TVNZ 7 - a group set up to campaign against the decision to cut TVNZ 7 - was thwarted from running a radio ad urging people to "vote to save TVNZ 7" and saying "the bad news is the National Government's going to scrap it".

A radio network was told a Sensible Sentencing Trust advertisement which referred to the trust's website was in breach because the website was likely to contain election material.

Environmental group The Renewables was told the use of "vote for the planet" was too close to the Green Party's slogan in 2008, making it an election ad which would require Green Party permission.

And handing out copies of the Hollow Men book at Wellington Railway Station was ruled to be "treating" - giving gifts to influence voters.

Controlling the message is a dangerous manipulation that should be consigned to histories mistakes. Institutionalising restrictions on freedom of expression will undermine politics and ensure the public's opinion is built on speculation. Clearly a society cannot function properly on misinformation.

The question is do we really want a nanny state insulting our intelligence by repressing relevant political information? In my opinion the overwhelming answer to that question is no!

Police impersonation

2012-01-23T21:47:00.002+13:00

Click image to enlarge

Today, Michael Fox from Stuff reported:

Police officers arresting Occupy protesters in Auckland this morning were wearing identical badge numbers, leading to claims from protesters that it was a deliberate attempt to ensure they couldn't be identified.

Protesters claimed this morning that up to four officers in Aotea Square were wearing the same badge number - Z557. Photographic evidence partially backs those claims, with one photograph showing two officers wearing the same number.

Officers must wear identification badges to help be identified by members of the public complaining about or praising police actions.

It appears that the police involved have gone about reproducing identification numbers in an attempt to not be identified. Being that the situation was volatile and the likelihood of an assault was high, the police involved have made a conscious decision to break the law to try and avoid potential prosecution for any violent assault they might be involved in.

But what's most interesting is that the law (which I'm sure exists) that requires Police to wear identification numbers is conspicuous by its absence. The only online reference to Police identification requirements is this Issue paper from January 2007:

Unlike the situation in most other countries, New Zealand police officers do not have a warrant card which certifies their identity and acts as proof of entitlement to use police powers. Instead, Police staff carry a photo ID card with an employee number, confirming their identity as a member of Police. Constables, Senior Constables, Sergeants and Senior Sergeants also wear an identifying number on their shoulders. At the rank of Inspector upwards, epaulettes do not have 'shoulder numbers', although these senior officers normally wear name badges. As for detectives, by and large such officers do not wear uniforms or badges of rank, but they do have equivalent ranks to uniformed members of Police. When plainclothes detectives wish (or are legally required) to be identified, they simply display their Police photo IDs.

It would have been bad enough if the police involved had just removed their numbers like they often did during the Springbok tour protests, but to falsify identification is a very concerning development.

Taking on the false identity of a police officer is a criminal offence that is just as applicable to a police officer impersonating another officer as it is to anybody trying to impersonate a police officer. The law makes no distinction to allow the Police to impersonate each other.

Not only is impersonating a Police officer a criminal offence in New Zealand, the Policing Act 2008 (PDF) states:

The [Police] Commissioner must prescribe a code of conduct for Police employees, stating the standards of behaviour expected from Police employees.

Well that would be fine and dandy if the Police code of conduct (PDF) wasn't such a shallow and ineffective piece of claptrap that isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

It basically says that in providing policing services Police are required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.

Clearly the officer's involved have acted in breach of their code of conduct... but somehow I doubt the offenders will even be questioned.

FBI calls the shots

2012-01-23T14:12:00.000+13:00

After the SOPA protest last week that blacked out much of the worlds internet, international raids initiated by the United States government took down one of the worlds largest cyberlocker sharing websites MegaUpload.com, clearly showing that copyright law enforcement is already too powerful.

The raids elicited a quick response from hacktivist group Anonymous, which on Friday started to take down the websites of DOJ, RIAA, Universal Music, the U.S. Copyright Office, Broadcast Music Inc, the Motion Picture Association of America, CBS and the FBI.

On Sunday, the Telegraph reported:

Anonymous supporters attacked the websites of the Department of Justice, the FBI and Universal Music Group, among others. The hacktivists used a technique called a Distributed Denial of Service to overload their targets with web traffic and effectively force them offline.

[...]

A federal court in Virginia ordered that 18 web address associated with Megaupload.com be seized. Some 20 search warrants were executed in the United States and eight other countries and about $50 million in assets were also seized.

I'm not sure why the FBI is involved at all, being that the case is between Megaupload and the privately owned companies alleging the copyright infringement. The Racketeering and Money Laundering claims are most likely in place to ensure extradition occurs.

On Friday, Mafia Today reported:

“There are significant issues of due process,” attorney Ira Rothken said. “The government has taken down one of the world’s largest storage providers and have done so without giving Megaupload an opportunity to be heard in court.”

Rothken dismissed the government’s attempt to file criminal charges against his clients. “Many of the allegations made are similar to those in the copyright case filed against YouTube and that was a civil case….and YouTube won.”

What is most alarming about the scope of the raids is they appear to be undertaken under the clear instruction of the FBI.

The news reports quickly changed their story to say that the FBI had "requested" the raids... probably after a quick call from Washington DC... but since when was the FBI the international enforcer of the entertainment industry?

When a house is not your home

2012-01-23T05:00:00.000+13:00

On Wednesday, Voxy News reported Housing rental demand stays strong:

There is good news for landlords across much of the country with rental demand from tenants up 13% on a year ago, according to the latest analysis of Trade Me Property's house rental listings in the three months from October to December.

Head of Trade Me Property, Brendon Skipper, said the trend of strong tenant demand had continued.

"In the September quarter, we saw the number of enquiries from tenants was up 10% on 2010. This quarter it's up to 13% with Christchurch and three corners of the Auckland super city driving the growth."

In the Auckland region, demand from prospective tenants increased significantly in Manukau (+25%), Waitakere (+20%) and North Shore (+19%), while the central city (+9%) lagged the national average.

This might be good news for landlords, but it's most definitely bad news for tenants and in a wider context; the entire social fabric of New Zealand. It's also bad for the government, because an increase in rental demand puts more pressure on the accommodation supplement, which is already costing $1.2 billion per year and growing at an annual rate of 7%.

An increase in rental demand is partly due to our declining level of home ownership.... that is directly attributable to our low waged economy, which ensures a growing number of New Zealander's are no longer able to afford the Kiwi dream of owning a home.

One of the by-products is rental churn through a lack of security of tenure, which can affect children’s learning ability, reduce older people’s saving potential for retirement and negatively exacerbate many existing social conditions. Not only does this mean 59% of houses are not maintained properly, it also leads to increased transience and ensures many more people leave to find a brighter future overseas.

A favourite destination is Australia, with more governmental housing developments, better overall property management, special rules to ensure housing maintenance and 55% cheaper building materials... the lucky country definitely has its advantages.

Although Australia also experienced a housing boom, it was mainly driven by a huge demand for expansion, whereas New Zealand's rental boom is driven by property speculation and capital gain on investment... both of which have little regard for the wider social implications of falling home ownership and its associated social dysfunctions.

A recently released draft report on housing affordability (PDF) from the Productivity Commission, paints a somewhat gloomy picture of the current housing situation in New Zealand:

Stability of the home environment is widely considered to be important for social cohesion and family stability. Real house prices in New Zealand are markedly higher than they were a decade ago. The rise in real house prices has been associated with general declines in housing affordability, as indicated by a number of different measures, and in the rate of home ownership. These declines have contributed to increased demand for rental accommodation and additional pressure on the social housing sector.

The debt accumulation and wealth effects associated with the rise in house prices may have also exacerbated New Zealand’s last economic cycle. Interest rates and exchange rates were arguably higher than they otherwise would have been during the upturn and there has been greater contraction in demand during the recession. Debt accumulation may also be a factor in ongoing economic risks.

[...]

The available evidence suggests that greater numbers of households are coming to rely on the private rental market for long-term accommodation. A range of issues including poor quality, insecure tenure and inadequate income in retirement all indicate that the market is not currently equipped to deliver housing necessary for well-being in the long term. These issues appear to have been exacerbated by the dominance of small-scale investors, who are motivated by expectations of longer-term returns as opposed to growing a loyal client base by providing high-quality tenancy services.

That's the hardest hitting bits from the report, which essentially recommends the government sits on its hands. This is most likely because they're not directly affected by what should be considered a nationwide crisis, and in some cases will even personally benefit from investments (PDF), that rely on a continuation of the dysfunctional system.

Solutions to the crisis include increasing the minimum wage so people can more easily service their mortgages and implementing a Capital Gains Tax, which would drive down the incentive for property speculation.

However a CGT was Labours idea and the Productivity Commission (which directly quotes Roger Douglas); was set up by John Banks. It's therefore no wonder that they came out in favour of a predefined outcome, which appears to be designed to make Banks look good.

ACT is glad to have secured National’s support last term for the establishment of the Productivity Commission, which is tasked with improving productivity and therefore the standard of living for all New Zealanders.

Blah blah blah! It's worth noting that over reliance on the free market system, something the Act party often promotes, is what got us into the mess in the first place.

I would be surprised if Banks et al does anything to change the current dysfunctional system until it really starts to bite their bottom lines. By then, I wonder if there will be any Kiwi's left in New Zealand at all?

Fairfax fears the facts

2012-01-22T18:06:00.000+13:00

On January 12, Warwick Rasmussen wrote an opinion piece for the Manawatu Standard called Greenpeace makes meal out of the Rena:

The online and television campaign features imprints left by oil-covered birds on plain paper, then ends with a dead bird covered in oil. The words then say that offshore drilling could cause an environmental catastrophe 1000 times worse than what happened with the Rena.

This is not the first time opponents have blurred the lines between two significant, but separate, issues. If Greenpeace's latest effort was to highlight the risk of large ships carrying huge amounts of oil and other potential pollutants, that would be fine.

But it has gone further than that to push its message about something quite different. It'd be a bit like campaigning against fossil fuels because people die in car crashes. There is a link, but not enough to campaign on.

[...]

That's why their latest effort to shock people into action is so unnecessary and borderline insulting to people who do care about the environment and environmental issues

Rasmussen ignores a very simple fact; the Rena disaster clearly shows that New Zealand doesn't have the capacity to respond to a relatively small oil spill. If we don't have the resources to cope with the Rena, we have no chance of responding properly to a larger oil spill from a rig in deep waters.

So why the misleading article you might wonder? Well Fairfax Media of course.

There's a tendency with many Fairfax articles to ignore relevant issues and developments in favour of a controlled and sometimes contrived message. This is a mechanism of propaganda that has been greatly exacerbated by Fairfax's centralization regime.

Fairfax's modus operandi is to take over the competition... and according to research done by Bill Rosenberg on News media ownership in New Zealand (PDF), Fairfax uses underhanded tactics to achieve their acquisitions:

But Fairfax is by no means squeaky clean. Part of its formula for buying INL’s newspapers was for New Zealand taxpayers to help it. Using a scheme that O’Reilly used with his New Zealand newspaper operations, the plan was to sell the mastheads of the newspapers (which INL had revalued in 1997 from $228 million to $673 million) to a US bank and lease them back. Tax advantages in both New Zealand and the US would have doubled the return on Fairfax’s acquisition – using a handy $33 million of our money in tax benefits.

Unfortunately for Fairfax, the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen intervened and legislated to close the loophole in 2004. Exactly how much ANM made a year from our taxes has not been revealed, but it would have stood to lose up to $200 million by 2006 if the 2004 legislation had been backdated to 2001.

Fairfax now owns around half (48.6% in 2008) of New Zealand's print media and is closely tied to right wing politicians with a vested interest in controlling the message.

Fairfax has a long history associated with right wing politicians... most notable being former Liberal Party Treasurer, Ron Walker, who along with David Kirk managed hundreds if not thousands of redundancies.

The former All Black captain, Kirk had no newspaper experience before he became CEO of Fairfax in 2006, which he left in late 2008 amongst reports of a power struggle.

In May 2008, Kirk funded a full-page advertisement opposing a $1.5 billion wind farm in Central Otago proposed by Meridian Energy, which has only recently been cancelled. Kirk is a former National Party hope and has worked as an executive assistant and chief policy adviser to then National PM Jim Bolger.

Fairfax has been implementing planned redundancies since 1999, which has resulted in editorial sharing, sub-editing, fewer stories from smaller rural areas and something I'm sure you've all noticed; reprints across various publications. This ultimately weakens the function of journalism; to investigate and report on the facts in an unbiased way.

Please visit fairfactsexposed for further reading on how Fairfax games the system.

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ― Malcolm X

Last BDO in New Zealand

2012-01-22T12:10:00.002+13:00

Kurt Cobain from Nirvana - Big Day Out Sydney 1992

Last Wednesday, the NZ Herald reported:

Big Day Out promoters have denied the announcement that this year's festival will be the last is a mere publicity stunt to boost sales.

For 18 years The Big Day Out has been Auckland's biggest, noisiest music festival and a rite of passage for many teenagers - but after Friday, it will be no more.

[...]

Organisers confirmed last night they were pulling the plug on the transtasman music festival's New Zealand show, although Australian concerts will continue.

Mr Smith insists it's no publicity stunt.

What event organiser Campbell Smith actually said was:

“It’s complete crap, it’s bullshit. We are genuinely sad about having to do this [and] we wanted to let people know.

The 2012 BDO lineup was slated on forums, however the organizers have made amends by letting people with any previous authentic BDO merchandise in for free.

Low ticket sales and increased competition are undoubtedly the main reasons for the events untimely demise... but really it's just another good reason to move to Australia.

Anonymous - Operation Blackout

2012-01-21T09:27:00.000+13:00

Transcript:

Citizens of the United States, We are Anonymous.

This is an urgent emergency alert to all people of the United States. The day we've all been waiting for has unfortunately arrived. The United States is censoring the internet. Our blatant response is that we will not sit while our rights are taken away by the government we trusted them to preserve. This is not a call to arms, but a call to recognition and action!

The United States government has mastered this corrupt way of giving us a false sense of freedom. We think we are free and can do what we want, but in reality we are very limited and restricted as to what we can do, how we can think, and even how our education is obtained. We have been so distracted by this mirage of freedom, that we have just become what we were trying to escape from.

For too long, we have been idle as our brothers and sisters were arrested. During this time, the government has been scheming, plotting ways to increase censorship through means of I S P block aides, D N S blockings, search engine censorship, website censorship, and a variety of other methods that directly oppose the values and ideas of both Anonymous as well as the founding fathers of this country, who believed in free speech and press!

The United States has often been used as an example of the ideal free country. When the one nation that is known for its freedom and rights start to abuse its own people, this is when you must fight back, because others are soon to follow. Do not think that just because you are not a United States citizen, that this does not apply to you. You cannot wait for your country to decide to do the same. You must stop it before it grows, before it becomes acceptable. You must destroy its foundation before it becomes too powerful.

Has the U.S. government not learned from the past? Has it not seen the 2011 revolutions? Has it not seen that we oppose this wherever we find it and that we will continue to oppose it? Obviously the United States Government thinks they are exempt. This is not only an Anonymous collective call to action. What will a Distributed Denial of Service attack do? What's a website de face ment against the corrupted powers of the government? No. This is a call for a worldwide internet and physical protest against the powers that be. Spread this message everywhere. We will not stand for this! Tell your parents, your neighbors, your fellow workers, your school teachers, and anyone else you come in contact with. This affects anyone that desires the freedom to browse anonymously, speak freely without fear of retribution, or protest without fear of arrest.

Go to every I R C network, every social network, every online community, and tell them of the atrocity that is about to be committed. If protest is not enough, the United States government shall see that we are truly legion and we shall come together as one force opposing this attempt to censor the internet once again, and in the process discourage any other government from continuing or trying.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive censorship.
We do not forget the denial of our free rights as human beings.
To the United States government, you should've expected us.

Who's wrong in the Ports of Auckland dispute?

2012-01-20T22:00:00.000+13:00

The Aucklander is currently running a poll:

Click here to vote

Occupy the White House

2012-01-20T19:26:00.000+13:00

Good riddance Perry

2012-01-20T10:34:00.000+13:00

I've been cringing at some of the happenings in the American Republican presidential nomination race lately... particularly the candidates obvious mental deficiencies and bigotries. The clear winner there has to be Texas Governor Rick Perry.

A few of his transgressions include homophobic advertising campaigns, forgetting what government departments he would axe in a public debate, family shoots at their 'Niggerhead' ranch and defending the marines who urinated on three dead Afghan men. So it's no wonder he's quitting... he simply has no chance of winning.

On his way out, Perry endorsed Newt Gingrich:

“Newt’s not perfect, but who among us is?’’ Perry said. He called the former House speaker a “conservative visionary’’ best suited to replace Barack Obama in the White House.

Gingrich welcomed the endorsement:

“I ask the supporters of Governor Perry to look at my record of balancing the budget, cutting spending, reforming welfare, and enacting pro-growth policies to create millions of new jobs and humbly ask for their vote,’’ Gingrich said.

In my opinion, Perry's endorsement of Gingrich ultimately guarantees his failure. Let's hope it's the final nail in the Republican coffin and they wont escape from the huge political grave the candidates have been digging. The problem with zombies though...

New Zealand suicide rate 2007 - 2011

2012-01-19T11:59:00.000+13:00

Spinz has removed this document from their website, so I have uploaded it again in blog format.

Media statement sent on behalf of the Chief Coroner, Judge Neil MacLean.

26 August 2011 - Under embargo until 3pm Friday August 26 2011

The Chief Coroner Judge Neil MacLean has today released the latest provisional national suicide statistics drawn from information collected by the Ministry of Justice’s database.

This follows on from last year when this type of information was first made publically available by Judge MacLean.

In releasing the information Judge MacLean said that although Coroners were not experts in suicide prevention, the coronial system has a legal responsibility and a pivotal role to play in stimulating discussion on issues that could help the explanation and prevention of suicide in New Zealand.

“The suicide toll is a really concerning commentary on our society, and I believe anything we can do to aid more accurate information can only be for the better.

“I have suggested that there may be room for a gentle opening up of the restrictions on media reporting of suicide, but we need to consider all viewpoints – especially those of families – so we can make informed decisions.

“These statistics clearly show that what we have done in the past is not bringing the toll down so we must look for new solutions,” Judge MacLean said.

Note: All reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the following information is accurate and current, but as a lot of it is still provisional there may be some variances in final figures.

Table 1. Provisional Suicide Deaths and per 100,000 rates July 2007 – June 2011.

Note: The per 100,000 population rate shown has been calculated following Statistics New Zealand annual population estimates.

Table 2. Male and female provisional suicide deaths and rates per 100,000 population between July 2007 and June 2011 (n=2170)

Note: The per 100,000 population rate shown has been calculated following Statistics New Zealand annual population estimates.

Table 3. Provisional Suicide deaths reported to the Coroner by age and gender between July 2010 and June 2011 (n=558)

Click image to enlarge

Note: The per 100,000 population rate shown has been calculated following Statistics New Zealand annual population estimates for the 2011 year.

Table 4. Provisional suicide deaths reported to the Coroner by ethnicity between July 2007 and June 2011 (n=2170)

Note: The per 100,000 population rate shown has been calculated following Statistics New Zealand annual population for the 2006 census year.

Table 4 shows provisional suicide deaths by ethnicity between July 2007 and June 2011. The small numbers and volatile nature of these data for Pacific and Asian peoples makes

reliable estimation of the patterns very difficult and may be misleading.

Figure 1. Provisional suicide rates by ethnicity per 100,000 population between July 2007 and June 2011 (n=2170)

Note: The per 100,000 population rate shown has been calculated following Statistics New Zealand annual population for the 2006 census year.

Ethnic groups have classified in the following groups: Maori, Pacific peoples, Asian, Other (including European, Not Elsewhere classified and New Zealand European).

The small numbers and volatile nature of these data for Pacific and Asian peoples makes reliable estimation of the patterns very difficult and may be misleading.

Table 5. Provisional Suicide deaths reported to the Coroner by method between July 2007 and June 2011 (n=2170)

New Zealand Suicides by area 2007 - 2011.

Graph 1. National trend-line.

Click to enlarge.

Graph 2. Provisional Suicide deaths in relation to the Christchurch earthquakes .

Click to enlarge.

3. Mental Health History, Known Attempts/Threats to Self Harm and Drug/Alcohol use for provisional suicide deaths between July 2010 and June 2011.

Table 7. Provisional Suicide deaths by employment status between July 2007 and June 2011.

Media contact for the Chief Coroner:
Steve Corbett
Steve.corbett@justice.govt.nz
027 666 8949

Boycott Rabobank

2012-01-17T21:17:00.000+13:00

Black Leopard - Panthera pardus

Today, Yahoo News reported:

Thirty-six endangered big cats at Northland's Zion Wildlife Garden could be killed off if an urgent hearing goes ahead.

Their fate was to be decided in the High Court next month, but the park's receivers Rabobank have applied for a hearing to be held tomorrow.

Evgeny Orlov, lawyer for park operator Patricia Bush, says if the hearing goes ahead the cats will be moved or euthanased.

"They're applying for a court order to kill them, that's not only inhumane, that's ridiculous that you have one of the biggest collections of cats in Asia, if not in the world, they're all endangered, they're beautiful animals and even looking at them makes you cry.

Evgeny Orlov says the cats' owner Ms Bush is distraught at the bank's move.

Is Rabobank crazy? To even contemplate killing these endangered animals is fucking unbelievable! Many of the big cats are included on the International Union for Conservation's Red List of Threatened Species.

Zion Wildlife Gardens has 3 Bengal (Panthera) Tigers - Endangered, 7 Royal White Tigers - Endangered, 1 Leopard pardus (Black Panther) - Near threatened, 2 Asiatic Cheetahs - Vulnerable, 14 Asiatic (Panthera) Lions - Vulnerable and another 10 White Lions, which makes them even more unique.

I really do hope Rabobank will see some sense and retract their despicable court action that could potentially have these endangered big cats killed.

The Northern Advocate reported:

Evgeny Orlov, lawyer for park operator Patricia Busch, said he was more than surprised by the move.

"I'm angered and offended that they could even contemplate asking for an order to kill 36 wild animals that are perfectly healthy," he told APNZ.

"If they want the animals to be killed or thrown away, why not just give them to Ms Busch, withdraw from these proceedings and let her move them to a place where they will be looked after, where they will be safe."

Mr Orlov will argue in court tomorrow that Rabobank does not have the right to ask for any order over the animals.

Rabobank should think about the international scandal this is turning into, with the despicable idea causing New Zealand worldwide embarrassment.

In the mean time, lets boycott Rabobank for even contemplating killing these endangered big cats for a miserly $100,000 debt. What a bunch of cretins.

Internet goes on strike

2012-01-17T18:43:00.000+13:00

On January 18th, 2012 the internet is going on strike to stop the web censorship bills in Congress! Now is our moment— we need you to do everything you can, whether you have a website or not

On Jan 24th, Congress will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate, even though the vast majority of Americans are opposed.

We need to kill the bill - PIPA in the Senate and SOPA in the House - to protect our rights to free speech, privacy, and prosperity. We need internet companies to follow Reddit's lead and stand up for the web, as we internet users are doing every day.

Everyone: Prepare to Strike

If you have a Twitter account, tweet about the #SOPASTRIKE and ask your followers to get ready. You can follow us on twitter for news as the strike gets closer. Go to Blackout SOPA to add ‘STOP SOPA’ to your Twitter image.

Post this SOPA Strike page to your Facebook account by clicking here.

Get ready for January 18th! Email and tweet at your friends, tell them to tell everyone about the strike. When the day comes, call Congress, tweet like crazy (#SOPASTRIKE), and help the strike appear everywhere!

Websites: How to Strike

Black out your website for 12 hours with this page's HTML, or by putting this Javascript into your site's theme. Tucows is doing this and so is BoingBoing.
Other people have made tools to strike. Some other ways to strike:

Zachary Johnson's blackout page
ProtestSOPA.org
CloudFlare's Stop Censorship app
SOPA Strike Wordpress Plugin
Did you make something? Tweet it to #StrikeTools

Preventing crime

2012-01-17T09:57:00.000+13:00

Yesterday, Sergeant Shane Miles reported:

Nelson Police are encouraging the community to take action to prevent becoming victims of crime and reduce the opportunity for criminals to offend.

Recently Police have attended a number of burglaries and thefts from insecure cars and homes.

"Around 40% of thefts from cars in Nelson Bays occur where the vehicle has been left unlocked with valuables visible in the car," said Sergeant Shane Miles.

"The Police focus is 'Prevention First', which means stopping crime before it happens.

It's all very well and good to expect communities to be vigilant, but what about the main driving force behind crime?

While the government ensures New Zealand has the fastest growing inequality in the world, we will continue to have desperate people committing petty theft.

An ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is never going to fix the problem.

Failed to report

2012-01-16T19:36:00.001+13:00

Being a relatively small Island nation in the Pacific means we're somewhat isolated from what happens in the rest of the world. But that's no excuse for New Zealand's mainstream media to ignore important stories.

Clearly they're underreporting on relevant topics. So in light of this censorship... here's a small sample of recent stories that we don't get to see here in gods own:

Lunch with John Key

2012-01-16T15:54:00.000+13:00

The Waitakere Business Club presents the Right dishonourable John Key, in his first major public piss up of 2012 at the Business Club Lunch event on Thursday 26 January.

During his long summer hiatus in Hawaii, John Key has had an epiphany and decided to cast off his teflon coated suit along with other trappings of power and showmanship like his toupee.

No longer hiding behind a smile and a wave, John Key will now concentrate on lucrative motivational speaking about the opportunities available in a cannibalistic dog eat dog economy. Don't let this opportunity pass you by.

John Key will cover Laissez-faire ideology and other class warfare doctrines such as asset stripping, financial repression, politicism, extrajudicial punishment, environmental plunder and how best to remove citizen's rights while keeping them ignorant and occupied.

Date: Thursday 26 January
Time: 10.30 am -1.00 pm
Venue: The Genesis Room, The Trusts Function Centre, Central Park Drive, Henderson
Cost: $65.00 + GST per person or $650.00 + GST for a table of ten sheeple | Includes buffet lunch served in a trough, cash bar available and tab available to be set up by prior arrangement | enjoy a complimentary glass of wine from John Keys very own secret estate.

This lunch will be a great opportunity for you to meet your dictator and host your key clients and suppliers to hear first hand the topics on the mind of New Zealand's most deluded Prime Minister ever.

John Key assures the organizers that he will not walk out during question time.

Book your place today and be there to hear the Prime Minister's fascist agenda for 2012 and beyond.

Methyl iodide challenged

2012-01-16T12:54:00.000+13:00

Methyl iodide is a pesticide that is sometimes used for fumigating soil before planting. It's manufactured by Arysta LifeScience and sold under the brand name MIDAS, and is currently banned under the Montreal Protocol.

In june 2010, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approved an application to import and manufacture the soil fumigant Ripper, which contains methyl iodide. In New Zealand it's mainly been used in the strawberry growing industry.

In 2009 a New Zealand study (Pay-walled PDF) showed that methyl iodide induces fetotoxicity in white rabbits when maternal exposure occurs during a susceptible window late in gestation. In fact evaluative studies performed as long ago as 1970 show that methyl iodide causes cancer and reproductive toxicity. ERMA appears to have ignored these studies in making its decision.

Approval in New Zealand was given despite the European Parliament banning the use of methyl bromide (a similar halogen to methyl iodide) in the EU from 18 March 2010 for environmental and health reasons and growing concern in the United States. Methyl bromide is used for the pre-export fumigation of logs.

The Council of Trade Unions called for a ban on methyl bromide in January 2010:

Professor Ian Shaw, toxicologist and Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Canterbury, asserts that methyl bromide may have caused motor neurone disease in Nelson port workers after a cluster of deaths from the disease (see New Zealand Herald, Monday 25 January). Nelson’s port population has suffered a rate of motor neuron disease 25 times the international average.

[...]

“There is no evidence to justify any human exposure level to methyl bromide,” said CTU President Helen Kelly. “This neurological poison could have caused the fatal motor neurone disease in six Port Nelson workers, and its ozone depleting status means it is hazardous to us all.”

The problem is that methyl iodide was initially incorrectly classified. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA has been receiving submissions concerning that misclassification and the health effects methyl iodide is shown to cause. Here's an excerpt from the American Industrial Hygiene Association submission:

The AIHA stated that "a number of potentially carcinogenic substances for which PEL revisions are proposed appear to have been misclassified concerning their toxic effect" (Ex. 8-16, p. 6). The AIHA includes methyl iodide in this group of substances.

At the time methyl iodide was classified in the United States, top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned their superiors of its dangers and strongly criticized the levels of exposure set by the political appointees running the department.

Their classification mistake has resulted in a potentially huge increase in cancer rates of people who are exposed... and continued litigation that could potentially cost entities such as ERMA (who approved the dangerous substance in New Zealand) millions of dollars.

On Friday the 13th, Yubanet reported:

OAKLAND, Calif. January 12, 2012 - Earlier today, California's Alameda County Superior Court heard arguments regarding the state's approval in December 2010 of methyl iodide, a cancer-causing pesticide fumigant approved for use on the state's strawberry fields. Methyl iodide was approved despite independent scientific evidence about the significant health risks it poses to children, rural communities and farmworkers. Judge Frank Roesch is anticipated to file an opinion within the next few months.

[...]

The judge did give some initial indications from bench about his opinions. "Did you consider not approving methyl iodide?...I don't see it. Absent that, I don't see how you can prevail in the lawsuit," said Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch. He also gave defendants until January 20 to make a legal argument that DPR was not required to consider alternatives to methyl iodide under the California Environmental Quality Act.

"The science is clear that cancer-causing methyl iodide shouldn't be used near farmworkers, rural communities and children," said Paul Towers, spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network, the lead plaintiff in the case. "This case highlights the breakdown in government decision-making at the hands of corporate influence—a dangerous precedent that must be rectified."

"The exposure levels that California approved as "safe" for workers are 120 times higher than the levels that government scientists say protect against miscarriages and 56 times higher than the levels they say protect against thyroid cancer," stated Jora Trang, Managing Attorney of Worksafe, a plaintiff in the case. "Children are more vulnerable to pesticides than adults, so methyl iodide poses a particular risk to teenage farmworkers and young rural residents. The approval of methyl iodide has made lab rats out of our rural children. It is unconscionable."

It looks likely that Judge Frank Roesch will find in favour of the claimants and methyl iodide will be removed from use in the United States. That will leave New Zealand along with Mexico, Morocco, Japan and Turkey the only countries stupid enough to allow methyl iodide to continue to be used and cause adverse effects in their populations.

With such idiots running things, it's no wonder New Zealand has the fourth highest rate of cancer in the world.

MSDS for Methyl iodide (PDF).

Righthaven is a schmuck!

2012-01-16T10:54:00.000+13:00

Anybody who's been on the end of frivolous litigation will know it's not much fun.

First you need to defend against often vindictive and fictitious claims, and then you have to sit through the claimant's bullshit being considered by a judge, who sometimes rules against you.

The process can drag on for years and destroy people's lives, families and businesses.

Frivolous litigation is the scourge of the United States, with some firms founded entirely on the destructive practice. Righthaven is one such lawsuit factory... run by a Steven Gibson, who's also a partner in law firm Dickson Wright, one of Detroit's largest and oldest firms.

On Saturday, Voxy reported:

Since its founding in January 2010, Righthaven has brought hundreds of copyright infringement lawsuits, even though it does not create, produce or distribute any content.

Instead, Righthaven claimed it was assigned the copyrights from Stephens Media, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and other newspapers. In the course of its work fighting the Righthaven cases, EFF unearthed a document showing the copyright assignment was a sham, and that Righthaven never owned the copyrights it sued over.

Electronic Frontier Foundation is a great organisation that has been working tirelessly since 1990 to protect the public against bad legislation and schmucks like Righthaven.

Thanks to their efforts, Righthaven's assets are subject to confiscation by the US Marshals Service and their domain name, righthaven.com, has been sold this month at auction to an undisclosed purchaser to help pay its debts.

The death of Righthaven should stand as a warning to all copyright trolls, and hopefully reduce the huge amount of spurious lawsuits that ensures unscrupulous litigation lawyers are in the money.

Rena scam warning

2012-01-15T14:46:00.000+13:00

Today, Maritime New Zealand report:

National oiled wildlife fundraising scams

There have been reports of a number of phone, online and merchandise scams for people to donate to an oiled wildlife fund for the Rena response.

There are no official fundraising activities for the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team.

Police have been notifed and the public are reminded to be cautious and never disclose personal, bank details or credit card information over the phone, online or in an email.

You can find out more about the latest hoaxes, scams and safety advice on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs Scamwatch website: www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/scams

The only official fund in operation is the "Bay of Plenty Care for our Coast Fund". Donation information is available on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council website: www.boprc.govt.nzhttp://www.boprc.govt.nz/

Jazmine Heka - Hero of the Week

2012-01-15T10:56:00.000+13:00

Increased drowning, car accident deaths, new oil and debris washing up all along the East Coast, ships running aground all around the world, a devastating hot air ballooning accident, most of Europe being downgraded, a potential US Iran war developing, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and climate change making summer non-existent... with so much bad news these days, it's nice to read something positive for a change.

On Tuesday, The Whangarei Leader reported:

A 16-year-old is taking action against child poverty and hopes others will join her to create change.

While most people her age are relaxing at the beach, Jazmine Heka from Whangarei Girls' High School has created her own cause, Children Against Poverty.

She has started petitions calling for free healthy school lunches, free healthcare for all children including prescription costs and warrants of fitness on all rental houses.

Jazmine has also written a children's charter based on the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child.

She was inspired to take action after watching Inside Child Poverty, a documentary by Bryan Bruce.

The documentary has been highly controversial, not because it was inaccurate, but because it told the truth. Unfortunately some people would prefer that the truth about child poverty in New Zealand continued to be ignored, with certain right winger's even attacking the producer for shining a light on the problem.

New Zealand produces far more food than it requires and is blessed with an abundance of resources, making the resistance to positive change in respect to child poverty truly astounding. The main obstacle to reducing the highly damaging and costly social failing of child impoverishment is political, which is exactly where Jazmine plans to focus here attention:

She wants to see legislation changes and hopes to meet politicians after the summer holidays.

Ngaire Rae from Whangarei Child Poverty Action Group says it's inspiring to have someone as young as Jazmine taking action.

"It gives adults like us hope that this is an issue young people will pick up. It's inspirational for a lot of us who have been working on these issues for a long time."

It certainly is inspirational that some young people care about the estimated 220,000 children currently living in poverty. Really, it's an issue they all should be concerned with, being that the younger generations are the ones most affected from the older generations failure to fix things.

Jazmine shows a good understanding of the problem, and is going about trying to initiate change in the right way. Yesterday, The Northern Advocate reported:

Jazmine, who is eyeing up a career in law, planned to present her petition to Parliament at the end of the summer.

Her demands would include free health care for all children, free and healthy school lunches, Working for Families tax credits for beneficiary-reliant families, and establishment of a "warrant of fitness" law inspired by Scottish welfare standards to ensure all New Zealand homes were safe living environments.

She said she hoped to mobilise compassion for the plight of sick Kiwi children.

Rae said Jazmine's petition illustrated "minimum standards" that she felt would receive a positive reception. "I think it would be really difficult for the Government to ignore this."

Unfortunately the government has continued to ignore the issue for a long time now... even when legal action was undertaken against them, they fail to implement policy that would help the many thousands of New Zealand children living in poverty.

A young person working for positive change is something we should cherish. Well done Jazmine Heka, you're this weeks Hero award recipient.

Please like the Children Against Poverty facebook page and sign the petition (PDF). Email childrenagainstpoverty@hotmail.co.nz for more information.

The problem as I see it

2012-01-14T20:53:00.000+13:00

Tony Gibson - Asshole of the Week

2012-01-14T19:10:00.000+13:00

We all know that the Ports of Auckland dispute has been dragging on for a long time now. It seems that at every potential step forward, something occurs that halts the resolution process. So why is this the case?

Despite an effective propaganda campaign being run by POAL management, the mainstream media and a number of right wing blogger's, a recently leaked document (PDF) shines a light on the mechanism responsible... and it turns out to be entirely the fault of POAL management.

Last Thursday, Scoop reported:

The Maritime Union have released a copy of a Ports of Auckland Limited management strategy document to contract out the port dating from before collective agreement negotiations commenced in 2011.

MUNZ National President Garry Parsloe says the document shows POAL management have been pursuing a deliberate strategy of ramping up the current industrial dispute while saying they want to resolve it.

The draft management plan sets out a comprehensive contracting out plan, disparages the ports owners and board of directors, and predetermines there is no intention of seeking a negotiated solution.

The Ports of Auckland’s Labour Strategy document also shows a conceited and concerted effort on the part of POAL senior management to manipulate the situation. They even consider what the effect of a threat/actual loss of Maersk would have on the dispute process… something planned out in detail.

Incredibly the document outlines POAL management intentionally setting out to cause the industrial dispute and how they would manipulate the situation to their advantage to reduce Union membership, in clear breach of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which states:

4 Parties to employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith(1) The parties to an employment relationship specified in subsection (2)—
(a) must deal with each other in good faith; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything—
(i) to mislead or deceive each other; or
(ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other.

[...]

It is a breach of subsection (1) for an employer to advise, or to do anything with the intention of inducing, an employee—
(a) not to be involved in bargaining for a collective agreement; or
(b) not to be covered by a collective agreement.

In short, the document shows that POAL; fabricated a crisis with Maersk, potentially acted without a majority of stakeholder’s support, illegally planned to employ full time scabs, actively planned on how to weaken if not destroy the Union, proposed to cut wages by 20% to increase efficiency, acted in breach of the Employment Relations Act, set objectives without proper risk assessment, mislead the board by claiming that any potential strike action would be illegal and falsely claimed Union worker's didn't give the port enough flexibility.

Instead of adopting one of the alternative options outlined, POAL management have chosen to deliberately increase tensions. In doing so, they ignored one of the Ports of Auckland’s main objectives; to supply sustainable customer service.

Page three of the POA Labour Strategy states that one of the considered objectives is to have a sustainable customer service, which would require no actual or threatened industrial action. The strategy shows that POAL management knew what their decisions would instigate, and that the resulting industrial action would negatively affect sustainable customer service… therefore they also acted outside of the ports objectives.

Tony Gibson needs to resign... but for now he's an Asshole Award winner.

Tenants in our own land

2012-01-13T20:29:00.000+13:00

Today, Voxy reported Key's 'Kiwi dream' in tatters:

David Cunliffe said that news that Landcorp may pay about $18 million a year to rent the Crafar farms from offshore-owned Pengxin, which is set to buy the farms, would see a publicly-owned New Zealand company renting New Zealand farmland from a foreign conglomerate.

[...]

"It seems, however, that despite John Key's fine words of two years ago, that the Government is content to let the farms fall into foreign hands and then lease them back," David Cunliffe said.

But what makes this story all the more alarming is that the deal might have been facilitated with a hefty bribe. Last Sunday, the NZ Herald reported:

Chinese New Zealand businesses, including one formerly owned by the businessman spearheading Shanghai Pengxin's bid for the Crafar dairy farms, have boosted the National Party's coffers by more than $100,000 in recent days.

So much for Key working in New Zealand's best interest to create a brighter future for all. In my opinion, National's complicity in this land grab is tantamount to treachery!

Firearm law reform

2012-01-13T10:00:00.000+13:00

Guns found in Jan Molenaar's bedroom.

Firearm law reform is a hugely controversial issue, with many views on what is the best way forward. This article will explore the relevant arguments for and against firearm law reform in New Zealand.

You might be surprised to learn that there were 7074 reported prohibited and regulated weapons and explosive offenses recorded in New Zealand last year, and that most of the weapons used in those crimes came from licensed owners.

So what can be done to curb this problem? A major 1997 review of Firearms Control in New Zealand (PDF), recommended:

That the present licensing system be replaced by a combined licensing/registration system based upon three-year firearm-specific licenses, the new system to be introduced over three years, commencing on 1 July 1999.

Obviously the recommendations were not implemented, with Police preferring to rely on the largely unenforceable requirement for gun owners to secure their firearms. Some progress was made with the Arms Amendment Act, but unfortunately the positive effects the 1992 law change initiated did not last. 558 people committing suicide in the year to June 2011, 38 of these using a gun or explosives.

The figures for other gun crime are just as sobering, with New Zealand now the fifth highest rating country in the OECD for mortality from assaults.

For every violent death there's a thousand violent crimes that are reported to Police. This is particularly relevant in context to family violence, where according to an University of Auckland study (Pay-walled PDF), 50% of reported family violence incidents using a firearm are committed by gun license holders:

Half of the perpetrators involved in domestic disputes were licensed. Of the 100 firearms, 44 per cent were classified as “legal firearms’ and 56 per cent were classified as “illegal firearms’. These findings suggest that strategies aimed at reducing or preventing injury due to firearm misuse must focus on both licensed and unlicensed individuals and both legal and illegal firearms.

That's only the family violence incidents using a firearm that are reported. Three separate studies in New Zealand support the proposition that the majority of those who use firearms in family violence incidents are licensed shooters. Here's an excerpt same Auckland of University study linked above:

In February 1997, police surveyed family violence coordinators from 17 districts, covering approximately two-thirds of the country. The coordinators indicated that in their experience only a small proportion of respondents with firearms are unlicensed.

The coordinators indicated that in their experience only a small proportion of respondents with firearms are unlicensed. The average estimate was 4 percent; however, this finding should be viewed with some caution: of 16 coordinators who made an estimate, 11 estimated 0 percent, while the other five estimated between 5 and 20 percent. The variation in the data makes the average of 4 percent somewhat open to question.

Although it is possible that some women avoid disclosing that their partners are in possession of firearms without a licence for fear that this may make their situation worse, the result does provide some support for the proposition.

The average rate of family violence using a firearm by licensed perpetrators is 96% compared to 4% for unlicensed. This atrocious percentage of family violence committed by license holders is despite the positive effect previous legislative changes had, which reduced casualty rates from firearm assaults dramatically.

According to a study into the Trends in Firearms deaths in New Zealand (PDF), there has been a huge reduction in casualty rates from firearm law reform:

A final finding of note relates to our analysis of the impact of the legislative changes in 1983 and 1993 on casualty rates. Although the main impact of this shock was felt in the immediately following years, our results indicate that its influence was not entirely transitory, with casualty rates in general down by over 40% following the Arms Act 1983 (and 30% following its Amendment) on an ongoing basis.

When that study was conducted, the nine-year mean annual number of deaths by firearm was 79, of which 62 (79%) were by suicide, 9 (12%) the result of criminal endeavour, 0.7 (1%) by legal intervention and 4.2 (5%) by accidental (unintentional) means. (A further 3 (3%) were unable to be identified between intentional and unintentional shootings).

These figures have increased dramatically in recent years, clearly showing that something is still wrong with our current firearms law. Evidence points towards the main problems being that the vetting system is inadequate and many guns used to commit crimes are either sold inappropriately or stolen because of inadequate safety precautions.

A person’s home that is built to house people, can never be as secure as a purpose built facility with 24/7 security. Most gun owners have jobs that they have to leave their homes to undertake and many people who are active enthusiasts and/or hunters cannot hide the fact that they own guns from the general public.

According to a three year Victoria University study into Firearms Theft in New Zealand, Lessons for Crime and Injury Prevention (Pay-walled PDF):

Insecure storage of lawfully held weapons by licensed owners poses a significant public health and safety risk. Furthermore, this paper concludes that the failure of the police to enforce New Zealand gun security laws, and the government’s hesitancy to develop firearm education and regulation policies, exacerbates insecure firearm storage, a key factor in firearm-related theft, injury, suicide, violence and criminal activity.

Opponents of gun law reform say that the determined killer will just substitute a gun for a knife or other weapon, and without people having guns to use as protection (currently against the law in New Zealand) there will be more and not less firearms homicides. Their common slogan to this effect is; 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

That argument has been disproved. According to The Influence of the Weapon Substitution Hypothesis (PDF), a comprehensive thesis by Nestar John Charles Russell:

The results suggested that without guns, determined firearm assailants were less likely to be as capable of lethal weapon substitution in comparison to determined knife assailants. Therefore, it was initially concluded that inhibiting determined firearm assailants from accessing guns would be likely to reduce the rate of homicide.

[...]

As a result, this thesis updated its initial conclusion to the following: inhibiting all potential firearm assailants from accessing guns would be likely to reduce the overall rate of homicide. Based on this conclusion it was therefore recommended that those most at risk of committing homicide with guns need to be identified and such people must be prevented from accessing these deadly weapons.

[...]

Irrespective of what may have caused the proportion of firearm assailants with firearm licenses to diminish, the proportion of firearm assailants without licenses has, except for 1995 and 1998, remained relatively constant. One possible explanation for this constant pattern is that irresponsible storage and handling practice by licensed owners has directly or indirectly enabled unlicensed users to access firearms.

Support for the ‘irresponsible storage’ possibility is provided by Alpers and Walters (1998: 93) who found that out of the 88 incidents of incidents of firearms theft they investigated, 52 percent of the weapons were insecurely stored by the licensed owner. As a result, the authors concluded that: ‘[licensed] New Zealand gun owners, either accidentally or intentionally, continue to leave firearms unsecured.’ And in relation to irresponsible handling practices, Thorp (1997) discovered that a significant proportion of a small sample of licensees were willing to sell their firearms to a buyer who said they held a firearm license.

Based on the above information it is of little surprise that Alpers (1996) identified that a large proportion of assailants who committed firearm homicides who did not have firearm licenses unlawfully acquired their guns from the collections of licensed owners. This observation is reinforced by Newbold’s (1999: 75) survey on the acquisition of illegal firearms by prison inmates when he said ‘It appears that the bulk of sporting guns available on the black market have originally been stolen from legitimate owners.

Therefore, although indicators suggest that the Arms Amendment Act has possibly improved the ‘fitness’ of those who have the easiest access to firearms, other indicators suggest it may be failing to ensure licensees are as ‘responsible’ as they could be in regards to the storage and handling of their firearms. Importantly, with the identification of this potential deficiency in the legislation regarding irresponsible storage and handling practices by some licensees, independent advisors have already provided the New Zealand Government with potential solutions to these problems.

So what can other countries teach us in regards to the proposed changes in New Zealand?

England

Banning handguns appears to be a real solution if England is to be taken as a test case. Gun crime was already relatively low in England before the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 after a couple of terrible massacres, which killed 35 people.

In 2005/6 the number of murders in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9.

Attempted murders in 2010 using knives dropped by 57 to 206, 22% less than the 263 recorded in 2009. Crimes using knives in 2010 across England and Wales fell 4.26%; total ‘knife crimes’ was recorded by police as 29,259 for 2010, which is 1,301 less than in 2009.

Having less handguns available has resulted in less people using knives to commit murder.

England's death rate from firearms is now below the EU average and over four times lower than that of the United States, which has far more guns available to the public.

Canada

The firearm murder rate more than halved in Canada after the registration system was implemented… this despite only around 65% of gun owners registering their weapons.

According to the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program, the Supreme Court of Canada (PDF), says:

The combination of the two parts of the scheme is intended to ensure that when a firearm is transferred from one person to another, the recipient is licensed. Absent a registration system, this would be impossible to ascertain. If a gun is found in the possession of an unlicensed person, the registration system permits the government to determine where the gun originated.

With a registration scheme in place, licensed owners can be held responsible for the transfer of their weapons…. If someone is found guilty of a crime involving violence, or is prohibited from possessing a weapon, the registration scheme is expected to assist the police in determining whether the offender actually owns any guns and in confiscating them.

The registration scheme is also intended to reduce smuggling and the illegal trade in guns. These interconnections demonstrate that the registration and licensing portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly linked to Parliament’s goal in promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all firearms. Both portions are integral and necessary to the operation of the scheme.

Wikipedia, shows that Canada's law changes requiring the registration of hand guns in 1930 and further reforms in 1995 when you had to register all firearms, were highly beneficial:

The murder rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[36] In 2007, the murder rate was 1.98. These statistics do not discuss the impact of social, political, economic, gun law or other factors as causative factors for the drops in overall homicide.

Spousal murder rates have fallen significantly as well. For females in a relationship the rate of homicide fell from 1.65 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.71 per 100,000 in 2004 while for males in a relationship the rate dropped from 0.44 per 100,000 in 1974 to 0.14 per 100,000 in 2004.[37] Spousal homicides committed with firearms dropped by 77% for women between 1974 and 2000 and by 80% for men during the same time period.[38] In the U.S. increased awareness, reporting and publication of domestic violence incidents, as well as police campaigns to crack down on domestic violence, have been the primary factors on the reduction of domestic violence homicides.[39]

While the murder rate using firearms dropped by over half from 1977, homicide rate using other methods declined less sharply. The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped to 0.50 in 2003 while the non-firearm rate went from 1.85 per 100,000 to 1.23 per 100,000 in the same time period. It is not specified how social, political, economic or other factors such as gun laws have affected rates of crime.

The firearm homicide rate was 1.15 per 100,000 in 1977 and dropped by more than half to 0.50 in 2003. Although other societal dynamics could also be responsible, the reduction in firearm homicide in regards to firearm law reform cannot be ignored.

The Canadian population was 31.7 million people in 2003, while the Canadian gun registration program cost $76.3 million. The approximate cost of each life saved (totaling 206 less firearm homicides for 2003) is $370,579 for the same year.

United States

The US is a very bad example. New Zealand had 2.2 homicides per 100,000 in 2010 while the US had over 5 homicides per 100,000 people.

Most firearms deaths in the USA are suicides, over 17,000 in 2007, a comparison here would be over 200 such deaths per year.

It appears that the US having twice as many gun owners as a percentage of population equates to more than twice the homicide rate of New Zealand.

Conclusion

Increasing procedures to ensure a robust three yearly licensing system and a gun registration process would help to reduce societal harm from the misuse of firearms. More research needs to be done into the viability and cost effectiveness of purpose built gun storage facilities in urban areas.

Web of corruption

2012-01-12T14:05:00.000+13:00

New Zealand winning the top spot in the Transparency International’s Corruptions Perception Index last year would make you think that the authorities have got a good handle on any corruption being undertaken here.

But this doesn't appear to be the case. A few years ago, a New Zealand company called GT Group was implicated in a complex financial scheme that embezzled and laundered funds on an international scale.

Many of the offshore businesses they used were registered in New Zealand at the offices of Ian Taylor and GT Group. Taylor is a Kiwi and director of Lamark Group Ltd., which owns the Romanian company operated by a Laszlo Gyorgy Kiss. Romanian police arrested Kiss in Bucharest in October 2010.

According to this article written by Mihai Munteanu:

Kiss set up the network that helped the group steal and hide the funds. All of the companies were registered at the same Newark, DE address, by Delaware Intercorp, Inc (www.delawareintercorp.com), a Delaware based registery agent. The agency regularly worked with Kiss and with Ian Taylor, his New Zealand partner.

According to the Romanian Registry of Companies, Narfalk is represented in Romania by Lu Zhang. That name shows up on many companies associated with Kiss and Taylor. A Chinese immigrant and former fastfood employee in Auckland, New Zealand, Lu Zhang was an employee of Taylor who filed paperwork and checked emails for the agent but was also regularly used as a proxy by the firm.

She is listed on 75 companies in New Zealand and many more in Romania. She was a proxy for a company involved in shipping illegal weapons from North Korea to Iran. She was also charged in New Zealand for making false statements on documents.

Lu Zhang

Lu Zhang, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at Bangkok airport flying arms from North Korea to an unknown destination, most likely to be Iran.

Zhang made false statements in company registration forms by claiming that her office address was her residence. She pleaded guilty on 4 November 2010 to 74 charges in the Auckland District Court.

SP Trading was registered with the New Zealand Companies Office in late 2009. Its 100% owned by Vicam (Auckland) Ltd, registered to Level 5, 369 Queen St, Auckland, one of the virtual addresses used by the GT Group. Vicam is a creation of GT Group Ltd, headed by New Zealander Geoffrey Taylor and his sons Ian and Michael.

In May 2011, stuff reported on the Web of intrigue:

Mexico's brutal Sinaloa cartel, responsible for killing 28,000 people, is using a New Zealand connection to launder drug money.

In Romania, Laszlo Gyorgy Kiss, arrested in a $14.5 million extortion case, is tied to a New Zealand address – the same one that provides cover for North Korean arms smuggling.

Meanwhile, Burger King cook Lu Zhang, 29, one of New Zealand's more unlikely company directors, is also big in Romania.

Central to it all are Geoffrey Taylor and his sons Ian and Michael, who work out of Auckland's inner-city Queen St. Through Vanuatu's GT Group, they run Vicam (Auckland) Ltd, a business that appears to exploit New Zealand's easy company creation laws. Although there is no suggestion of illegality on the part of Taylor, his family members, GT Group or Vicam (Auckland) Ltd, it is clear that some of the shell companies they have incorporated have been linked to a breathtaking array of illegal activity.

There's no suggestion of illegality? Really! The masterminds are simply smart enough to use others as fronts for their operations. Registering a company in New Zealand allows for a proxy to sign a declaration of trust with the beneficiary owner. Operators need only a proxy, like Zhang or Stella Port-Louis, to act as a director.

Ian Taylor is now using another proxy called Angelique Elizabeth Lilley, who has over 80 companies registered in her name since April 2010... 51 of which have been struck off.

Ian Taylor and to a lessor degree, Michael Taylor and other's have been signing Lilley up as a director in companies with questionable addresses, most of which are 100% owned by RSHRS Limited and Atherstone Limited, both entirely belonging to Ian Taylor.

The funny thing is that Ian Taylor is so arrogant that he's using the email address ready@readymadeshelfcompany.com on the registration forms. Lilley uses the email address Globalshelfcompanies@gmail.com.

Ian Taylor has done his best to close the story down:

GT Group's "appointed spokesman", Ian Taylor, emailed The Dominion Post on Friday to say they were "seeking legal advice to pursue an action against your company for the false claims, inferences and misinformation".

"We strongly suggest that you refrain from printing any further articles regarding the following until you have received documentation from our lawyers early next week."

Mr Taylor said there should be no more reporting on "GT Group Limited, GT Group Offshore, Geoffrey Taylor, Michael Taylor, Ian Taylor, Lu Zhang, staff past or present, their associates, any business connections or anyone else, in relation to any matter previously reported by your organisation."

The group that broke the story, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, was subsequently awarded the prestigious Daniel Pearl Global Investigative Journalism Award in October last year. Good on them.

Was Rena pushed?

2012-01-12T10:56:00.000+13:00

Over three months after the MV Rena first grounded on Astrolabe reef, the stern section sunk into the sea, releasing 200 - 300 containers, debris and an undisclosed amount of oil into the ocean.

Last Tuesday, The Bay of Plenty Times reported:

The tug Go Canopus is still connected to the stern section of the Rena. This morning when it became apparent that the angle of its list was changing, salvors took the opportunity to try and use the tug to reposition the rear section on the reef, which would have enabled the container recovery barge Smit Borneo to move in closer. This proved impossible.

The barge Go Canopus was attached to the hull when it began to sink.

[...]

Svitzer spokesman Matt Watson was watching from the air when the stern section fell off the reef.

It took about 40 minutes for the aft-end to slip slowly backwards.

"The stern, the rear-section, has tilted further over to the starboard side and it has slid back. About 75 per cent of the rear-section is now submerged.

"It appears to be perched on the reef's edge," he said.

Svitzer salvors were in a helicopter over the wreck as it began to sink, and Mr Watson said it is possible the stern might have temporarily re-settled into its new position.

The barge Go Canopus was attached to the hull when it began to sink.

"The Go Canopus was attached at the time. It played a role. It powered up when it was clear there was a lot of movement," he said.

It is unclear yet what role the crane barge played and whether it was responsible for the rear-section sinking, he said.

The crane barge was nowhere near the Rena when the stern sunk... so Watsons' comment seems strange.

But what really raised the alarm bells is that in the webcam video below, it's not the Go Canopus tugboat working around the shipwreck as the stern starts to sink... so why the lies?

Two helicopters above the wreck watched as the tugboat maneuvered, and presumably filmed the work. So why hasn’t that footage been released to the public? These questions will likely to go unanswered.

Rena sinks

2012-01-10T21:07:00.000+13:00