Saturday, July 31, 2010

Stirring Words From Walter Nash

Over on Red Alert Chris Hipkins has posted this extract from Walter Nash, who was PM from 1957-60.
“We have obligations towards the old and infirm because their work in their earlier and more fruitful years has made it possible for us to enjoy the standards we enjoy today – because they have done their share in making our present life possible. We have obligations towards the young because if we fail to provide for them, we fail to provide for the future, because it will be the duty and the privilege of those who are young today to make a still better world for tomorrow.We have obligations towards the sick and the ailing because they cannot care for themselves. And when those obligations have been fully discharged, when those unable to provide for themselves have been provided for, it is our duty to ensure that those who do the useful work of the world enjoy the full reward of their toil”.

“Men and women are not free to develop their own souls, to express their own individual personalities, to contribute according to their individual capacities to the world’s cultural inheritance – they are not free to do any of these things so long as the fact and fear of economic insecurity confronts them. Only when this fear is removed do they become in the fullest sense of the term a free people. We cannot reasonably expect the flowering of the higher attributes of humanity in a society that is diseased at its roots. Squalor, destitution, unemployment, slums, malnutrition, ill health, insecurity – these are diseases of the body politic which must be stamped out fearlessly and without equivocation before we can hope to build on foundations that are spiritually as well as materially secure”.
They are powerful words, and they remain as relevant today as they were when they were first spoken.

They don't make politicians like that anymore, because none of the current crop of politicians would dare to give a speech like that today. If you read the speeches of Key and Goff the tone is very different. Short, simple statements, and lots of repetition. Nowadays speeches are designed to be hard-hitting and effective, rather than beautiful.

In these times, when commentators, experts and bloggers analyse everything that is said by our leaders, when the cycle of news is a 24 hour one, and when the sheer volume of information coming at us is overwhelming (we even know which politicians bought flowers, and for whom, for chrissake), the emphasis is on the simple and the bite-sized.

It makes you realise when you read the works and speeches of these great men what we have lost, and how incapable our current leaders are of inspiring us. You may vote for a Key or a Goff, but are you a believer?

We Just Need To Show Up To Win

Tonight's big rugby game will be a test for the boys in black, but they have been in sizzling form and will destroy Australia tonight.

The clinical destruction of South Africa by the All Blacks is a clear sign of what to expect this evening. And, my word, the boys are confident. They have been saying all week how well their combinations have come together, and how good the feeling within the team is.

Remember all those other big games (like, say World Cup knock-out games) when all we needed to do to win was show up? This will be one of those games.

And that's why our boys should ease up, rest on their laurels, and start looking ahead to next week's game. Because this one's in the bag.

It's pleasing to know that at the end of 80 minutes tonight the chickens will still be roosting away from home. We have the wood on Australia, and there's really nothing that can go wrong tonight. Not even God can change the inevitability of tonight's result. But then God wouldn't. He recognises champions when he sees them.

Victory is a given, so if there was ever a time for complacency, maybe this is it. That's why tonight the All Blacks can afford to put the foot on the brake pedal. It won't mater if they leave any number of stones unturned in their quest for victory, because the result is ordained. We can be sure that our boys are not chokers, and that the pressure will not get to them.

Are we tempting fate with this level of confidence? Are we guilty of hubris? Sure. But God is on our side, so it doesn't matter.

People, I urge you to put your life savings* on an easy victory by New Zealand tonight.

Update: See? I told you. We are invincible.

* I realise those of you who followed my advice to put everything into first ranking secured debentures offered by various finance companies are probably wondering whether my investment advice is still good. It is! That Bridgecorp investment will come good eventually, believe me. You have to to be prepared to stay the course.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Ten Questions About Chris Carter

  1. How soon before Carter starts likening himself to Jesus? "Christ" Carter?
  2. Carter said yesterday that Labour can win in 2011 if Winston gets back in. But Winston needs an electorate seat. Was Carter simply making room?
  3. Remember how a couple of days ago National was on the ropes for its flipflops and policy incoherence? No, me neither.
  4. Did Carter tell Helen what he was planning?
  5. Where will Carter's next holiday be? I hear Coventry's nice this time of year.
  6. Are we being tough on Carter because he's gay, or is it because he's disloyal and treacherous?
  7. Is Carter right to think no party will have him? Clowns are always welcome at kids' parties.
  8. An inflated ego and sense of entitlement. Supercity mayoral candidate?
  9. Who are the people Carter takes advice from, and does he realise the voices in his head aren't actual people?
  10. With Carter soon to disappear from political life, is it time to think about selling those Air New Zealand shares?

A Letter To My Local MP

Dear Chris

I don't suppose you'll ever read this. Even if you do, I don't expect any of my words to penetrate through the hard shell of self-entitlement you live inside.

But because I voted for you in 2008 I'm going to tell you what I think, and if you don't like that then tough luck. You were elected to represent me, and to be my advocate. So listen up.

You obviously don't like being in Opposition. Perhaps it isn't grandiose enough for you. You seemed to enjoy the trappings of office, and all the travel that went with it. And we are always hearing about what you want and what you are entitled to. How many times have we been told how badly you want to be foreign minister?

Somewhere in your journey you forgot you were a servant of the people. You would complain whenever someone challenged you. This whining became repetitive and incessant, and your victim mentality started to become a running joke. You must have known your behaviour was damaging Labour. I'm sure the people around you told you so. Had you been a loyal and selfless party man you'd have just shut up, endured the bad press, and continued to fight hard for your team.

Instead, you launched one of the most inept attacks on a political leader this country has ever seen.

So you don't like Phil Goff's leadership. That's fine. It's hard being out of office when the polls are loving the other guy. But did you really think attacking Goff in the media would end well? Events over the last several months have suggested you are little more than an overpaid drama queen*, so I'm sure you are well pleased with the martyrdom you have now achieved. Even if it has caused incalculable damage to Labour and ensured whatever slim chance it had in 2011 has now gone.

You say you remain a loyal Labour man, but your actions show you don't put a high value on loyalty. You say that Helen Clark is a close friend, but I can well imagine what she must think of your stupid stunt. Clark would not have tolerated your inept behaviour for a moment.

I voted for you last election, because I felt a reasonable loyalty towards Labour. I'm not a party member, and not everything Labour does pleases me. But I wasn't prepared to support National.. Some people say you're a hard-working MP, and maybe you are, but you're also the member of a political party, and if you think people voted for you simply because of who you are and not which party you stood for, just try standing in 2011 and see what happens.

Chris Carter, you have no place in Labour or in Parliament. Had your act of disloyalty occurred in another country or in another time you might have been taken outside and shot, or given a dagger and told to do the decent thing. Instead you can remain an MP for another year, despite no longer representing the people who put you there.

So cling to office, just as Philip Field did, and enjoy the perks of office, because in 2011 you will be gone.

* Let me assure you that I don't use that term because you are gay. I don't think that has anything to do with this matter.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Book Fair Starts Tonight

If you like books and are in the Auckland area, may I suggest you make the effort to visit the Variety Club Monster Book Fair this weekend? It is on at Alexandra Park. It's free to get in (apart from opening night, where it costs $10 to get in), though I can't remember if there's a parking charge.

Not only will proceeds go to a good cause, but you will leave with a mountain of second-hand books that (if you're anything like me) will see you through the best part of the next 12 months.

And it will cost you next to nothing.

Lies, Damned Lies, and National

After a clumsy attempt by National to portray damning statistics as saying something quite different, and being caught doing so, Gerry Brownlee is now telling everyone that the plan to close the wage and income gap with Australia by 2025 was only only ever an aspirational one.

Can anyone else smell an enormous u-turn?

John Key says we can catch up with Australia, but we will need to grow 2% faster than Australia per year for the next fifteen years. How likely that is, given our current economic policies? There's no focus on increasing productivity. Instead the emphasis has been on policies that will either reduce productivity or make no difference, such as cutting Government spending, tax cuts, and employment law changes.

If there is any compelling evidence that tax cuts spur productivity I've yet to see it, and it would be interesting to hear why countries more highly taxed than ours continue to outpace us on productivity. Clearly, the effect of tax cuts on productivity is insignificant.

Cutting government spending means gutting public services, which means redundancies, which means unemployment. Rising unemployment will bring downward pressure to bear on wages, as more people compete for fewer jobs. And titling the balance of labour laws in favour of employers will also potentially push wages down over a gradual period.

Why, if you were trying to close the income gap with Australia, would you be taking steps to reduce wages?

But then this is a Government that thinks it can convince people black is white. Political commentators might think the brazen and deliberate misuse of statistics in Parliament is a jolly clever thing, but it's no laughing matter. It borders on outright dishonesty.

But let's get back to those growth projections. How is that 2% a year plan looking? Are we going to be ahead of Australia this year? I think you know the answer. Next year? Unlikely. What about 2012? 2015?

Can we reasonably expect to outpace Australia by 2% in any of the next 15 years? It is unlikely, unless Australia has a downturn. Because, without serious structural change, the only way we'll catch Australia is if the Australian economy goes south.

But now this is only an aspirational target, we don't need to bother with it. We all know about the importance of aspirational targets. My aspirations include winning lotto, driving a nice car (my Toyota Corolla is a reliable enough car but lacks that "wow" factor), and living in a house in the eastern suburbs of Auckland that will be so enormous it will block out the sun for most of Remuera's residents.

It seems that my aspirations are as achievable as John Key's.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

My One Uses Less Power

Dear Apple.

I don't care about your iPad. It's just another over-hyped gadget that looks pretty but actually isn't that good. I won't be buying one in a hurry.

This tablet has all the features I need.

 

Respect Must Be Earned

Police Minister Judith Collins has said:
"I think it's very important to acknowledge that over the last decade or so there have been numerous attacks (in the media) on the police. There have been the reports into police conduct, all those sorts of things, none of which have actually encouraged people to increase their respect for the police."
Louise Nicholas
The thing about respect is that it has to be earned. There have been attacks on police in the media in recent years, but not all of this attention has been undeserved. Perhaps Minister Collins has forgotten about Louise Nicholas, or about the series of assault charges various police officer have faced in recent years.

Distrust of the police as an institution is a healthy thing in a civil society. That doesn't mean that most police don't do a good job, or that we should not support the ordinary efforts of hardworking coppers. But the police should be scrutinised, and if they stuff up I'm quite happy for the media to be all over them like a great big dirty all-over-thing.

If we ever find we are giving deference to people simply because they wear the blue uniform we will probably be well on the road to dictatorship.

No Apology For Alexander

US film director Oliver Stone has apologised for remarks he made about Jews and the Holocaust.

But he still refuses to apologise for making movies such as The Doors and Alexander, or for supporting deluded conspiracy theories.

In an interview with The Times a few days ago Stone said that Jewish groups overplayed the importance of the Holocaust. He blamed this on “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f**ked up United States foreign policy for years.”

His comments provoked outrage, and he has since apologised.

But he still refuses to admit that Alexander was an outrageous stinker of a film, that his directorial style has all the subtlety of a David Tua jab, and that he’s a paranoid conspiracy nut.

Holocaust survivor Benny Rosenfeld said that Stone’s apology was a positive step, but criticised Stone for failing to show contrition for his crimes.

“I watched that lousy piece of rubbish, Alexander, and let me tell you what the Germans did to me was nothing compared to the cinematic outrage committed by that man.”

Marvin Hier, a director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he accepted Stone’s apology.

‘Sure, sure, he’s sorry for what he said, but what about that piece of crap World Trade Centre? Shame on you, Oliver Stone! Shame!”

Stone was unavailable for comment. He is in post-production with his latest project, Tin Foil, a documentary about the Iran-Contra-Roswell-JFK-Watergate-Fox News conspiracy to poison US drinking water. It is narrated by Mel Gibson and is due for release in 2012.

Stoning Adulterers Sends A Powerful Message

The Commonsense Corrections Society has sent a delegation to Iran to learn more about the Iranian justice system.

The group, led by founder and spokesperson Arthur McGee, arrived in Tehran yesterday.

McGee said he had long admired the Iranians, and was looking forward to visiting some of Iran’s corrections facilities.

“New Zealand could learn a lot from the tough measures taken by Iranian authorities against criminals and other scumbags”, said Mr McGee.

McGee was asked about recent media reports on the death sentence handed down to Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Ashtiani was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death in 2008. She had been previously sentenced to receive 99 lashes, but was subsequently charged with her husband’s murder. Though she was acquitted of his murder, her sentence for adultery (which had already been carried out) was then changed to death by stoning.

“If this had happened in little old New Zealand, they probably wouldn’t have even charged her,” said McGee.

“In fact, they would probably have given this woman a medal.“

Ashtiani has claimed that, while she confessed to adultery, her confession was extracted by means of torture. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have organised petitions and protests against her treatment .

But McGee rejects criticism of Iran’s justice system.

“It takes a great deal of courage in these politically correct times to do what’s right. The police do a difficult job, and it isn’t helped by our constant criticism and questioning. It’s the same in our country. Let’s give them the tools they need to do the job.

“Look, nobody forced this woman to confess to anything. If she was innocent she could have just held her tongue as they tortured her, and threatened to kill her children and do all sorts of unspeakable things to her. She made the choice.”

McGee admitted that the Iranian system was less than perfect.

“It was disappointing to hear that the liberals and do-gooders managed to get the stoning sentence changed to a mere hanging. That sends the wrong message to criminals and ratbags who might be thinking of doing things that I personally disapprove of and so demand the ultimate penalty for.

“But I like the way judges over here can just make any old thing up if they decide they really don’t like someone. We could learn a lot from the Iranians.”

The group will spend ten days in Iran, before joining a delegation to Saudi Arabia being led by ACT Party MP Gary Mansard.

God, Just Do Your Job, Goddammit!

Please, God, don't let this happen.
Speculation is rife that NZ First leader Winston Peters and his former adviser Michael Laws are to team up again as part of a "relaunch" of the party this year. 
Neither Mr Laws, who is to stand down as Whanganui mayor this year, nor Mr Peters would confirm the rumours. But MPs from both sides of the House and sources close to NZ First said they were aware of plans.
You need to sort this out, and quickly. Please don't forsake us in our hour of need.

I know you are a busy God, what with all that smiting and turning people into pillars of salt, so you probably don't appreciate what a truly awful piece of humanity this Laws fellow is. Let me assure you that he is not fit to hold public office. Please, take my word for it. When have I ever let you down?

Oh, you mean apart from all the times I made fun of your followers? So I'm not perfect.

And I know I am generally dismissive of anyone who frames their life around a belief in the Great Sky Fairy. But come on, you have to admit The God Delusion is a cracking read.

Anyway, let's move on, as Tony Blair would say. Forget the past, because I need you now. You can't let this happen. You need to do something. ,

The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

Your words, not mine. I'm not saying that's what you should do, because, man, that's just some crazy shit.

But you need to do something.

God, it's time to step up to the plate. You've not been keeping up with business. Have you seen the mess in the Middle East? You're lucky we don't vote for you because you'd be toast come election time.

Dude, sort it out!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Our Nation In Pictures

  The National Party's road safety plan:


National consults widely on youth matters:


Labour reacts to latest polling:


John Key's typical employer:


Sue Bradford's typical employer:


John Key's plan to close the income gap with Australia by 2025:



Where our economy will be in 2025:


John Key's Leadership:

Under Pressure Springbok Coach Attacks Critics

The pressure continues to pile onto Peter de Villiers, the embattled coach of the South African rugby team.

His team is returning home after a dreadful three-match tour, following Saturday night’s hammering at the hands of the Wallabies.

Now questions are being raised about his coaching skills, and reports are emerging of a rift between de Villiers and his assistant coaches.

Last week de Villiers accused referees of favouring New Zealand teams, and accused them of bias. He also claimed All Blacks captain Riche McCaw was a cheat.

The accusations of referee bias have been strongly denounced by SANZAR referee officials.

“We reject any suggestion of bias or anti-South African sentiment,” said spokesperson Andrew White.

“Of course, it’s no surprise to hear them whining like this yet again. Everyone knows they’re a nation of cheats. I’ve always said the only good South African is a dead one.

“So that’s why we don’t take seriously these allegations of bias and anti-South African treatment. What else would you expect from a nation of villains?”

Peter de Villiers spoke to the media just before he boarded a plane back to South Africa.

On the accusations of referee bias and cheating de Villiers said: “You can’t be an elephant without squashing a few flowers. In the case of South African rugby it seems the flowers are wearing referees’ jerseys. And when you swim with sharks the trick is to make sure you feed them first.”

He shrugged off the latest series of setbacks, and denied his team had a discipline problem.

“You ask me what is wrong with my coaching, and let me tell you. They told Jesus he couldn’t walk on water, but when he turned it into wine and they all got drunk he was the only one left standing when the band began to play.

“When they put King Tut in his tomb they filled it with gold. Now gold is a very fine thing, but it won't help you when you’re dead.”

The embattled coach also took a swing at his team’s critics.

“I don’t listen to all this criticism of how this player is dirty or that player is a cheat, because when a crocodile looks you in the eye it doesn’t matter who has the bigger balls.

“This team is like a fast car. If a tyre blows the car will lose control, and might end up in a ditch. You don’t throw your car away because of one bad tyre, even if the driver is dead at the wheel.”

The South African coach is not without support within the rugby community. Former All Black Andy Haden said last night that de Villiers was worth persevering with.

“South Africa is going through tremendous social upheaval,” said Haden. “We should not underestimate the importance and symbolism of a non-white being at the head of an institution that for many years epitomised white rule and the evils of apartheid.

“I’d like to see de Villiers given more time to transform the game in South Africa, and to bring about much needed reform there.

“Also, he’s a shit coach, so hopefully they don’t dump him before the World Cup.”

Monday, July 26, 2010

One Question Too Many – Part 2: Bad Reptile!

When last we visited our intrepid hero he was falling to what seemed a certain death. Oh no! Can anything save him? Let the story continue.

My hands were shaking as I pushed open the door and slipped silently into the DG’s private quarters. I had little time to spare, but nothing was going to stop me from taking a good look at my surroundings.

I had not expected this: a drab windowless room. I had imagined the DG surrounding himself with luxury furnishings and fine art, and had expected to learn something useful about the kind of man who became the head of a dangerous and sinister intelligence organisation. But all I saw were walls of grey, a dull brown carpet and almost no furniture.

At one end of the room was a white desk, unlike any functioning desk I had ever seen, because it had almost nothing on it. A stern black chair sat behind it. On a table at the other end of the room stood a rectangular glass tank. The tank housed some kind of reptile, an iguana maybe, or lizard. Just the kind of pet someone like the DG would have.

The creature stared at me with unblinking eyes and I turned away in revulsion.

I went over to the desk and picked up the only thing actually on it: a small photo-frame. Some loved one? Did the DG have a family? Children? I was eager to unlock some of the mysteries about the man, but the picture only added to them. A photograph of Anne Tolley? It took an extraordinary amount of willpower not to rush shrieking out of the room there and then.

The clock on the wall informed me that I was running out of time. The DG had told his assistant not to expect him back before five o’clock. Only fifteen minutes now remained to rummage through the DGs personal effects and find some answers. I had to find something to use, some evidence of wrongdoing that would stick. I had come here against my better judgement because, unless the DG could be stopped, he would eventually realise I wasn't dead and would take immediate steps to rectify the situation.

But for now I was supposed to be dead, lying in a watery grave underneath the main spy facility at Waihopai. The DG had arranged a special trip for me, and I had tumbled helplessly for what seemed an eternity before slamming into icy water. I had bobbed to the surface but there was nothing for me to see, because no light could penetrate into the hole I was in. It was a dark unforgiving place, like the cold heart of of the man who had put me here.

My hands struck rock as they flailed about for something to grip, and it became quickly obvious that I was in a confined space. I could only just reach from one end of the hole to the other. This is not looking promising, I told myself. The bottom of a well is never a good place to be, and as far as I knew the only way out was the way I had come.

That, as far as the DG was concerned, was the end of me: just another nuisance asking awkward questions about his operations. People like me were easily disposed of. The DG lived in the world of shadows, where ruthless men operated with impunity, and ordinary people could not even begin to understand the kinds of things these men were capable of. They had no reason to believe I might get out once I had been flushed down the hole. I was just a sheep – a slightly curious sheep, but still essentially stupid.

So he would not have expected me to crawl from that hole alive.

As a child I had climbed everything and anything, and there was hardly a wall or tree I wouldn’t attempt to scale. This had understandably driven my parents mad with anxiety, and they became convinced my climbing would be the death of me. But no amount of bruises or broken bones would deter me. It was a gift I had.

And so, even though I thought I’d left behind my childhood ways, when I grasped the ragged stone wall with my fingers and yanked myself up, all the old memories came back to me. I found myself several metres up the rock wall before I had time to consider this remarkable gift I still had.

But years of sitting behind a computer screen furiously denouncing those in the blogosphere who had wronged me meant that, while my legs and arms were willing, the skin on my fingers was torn and bloody in no time. My digits were soon so messed up I could barely hold on. The long climb upwards began to feel like an impossible journey. Besides, even if I made it to the top, what exactly was I going to do once I got there? Would I knock on the hatch in the hope that someone would open it, and then explain that there had been a terrible mistake and, actually, would they mind awfully if I just went on my way?

That was about as likely as Ian Wishart buying a hybrid car and wearing a t-shirt that said "Fuck you, Jesus".

Then my left hand failed to grasp anything and I almost let go. I steadied myself and felt again. It was an opening! Crawling inside the cavity, I rested for a few moments as dozens of indignant muscles protested at my sudden exertion.

I felt around the space I was in. I hoped it would be a tunnel leading to my salvation, but quickly collided with what felt like a smooth concrete face, only a metre back from the opening. Just another dead end, or so it seemed until I felt something protruding from the smooth surface and realised it was a door handle.

The door creaked like a subterranean monster aroused from its repose. I shivered, expecting to hear a sudden clattering of boots and the shouting of hard anxious voices. But no sound followed, so I pushed the door open further and emerged into another black space, a corridor, where the air was fresher. Padding the walls with my hands I shuffled along until I came to another wall, and attached to it a ladder of smooth metal. Looking up I could see cracks of light and what appeared to be an opening, only a couple of metres up.

Using what little remained of my strength I climbed the few rungs and then pushed away a grating, emerging squinting into the light, no longer caring what awaited me. Let them kill me if they chose, so long as I didn’t alone die in a dark hole like a sick rat.

I could not believe my luck. The opening took me out into sunlight, into the very middle of what appeared to be a farmer’s paddock. A ram stared at me anxiously, as if to say “could you move along? You’re spoiling my lunch”. There was no sign of the place I had just escaped, apart from the hole I stood next to. But the spybase could not be far away

Shivering and dripping with dank water, I walked for miles across fields and vineyards, hoping not to be seen, but not daring to think I would evade their clutches. But they did not appear to be chasing me and I was able to make it to the outskirts of Blenheim by nightfall. They had not made it to my motel room, and the key was still in my pocket. So I went in, cleaned myself up, then left. I tried to make it look like I had not been back, because I knew these people would not let me live if they thought I had escaped. Someone would be here eventually, to remove all traces of my existence and to buy the motelier’s silence.

As I left the motel I pondered what to do and where to go. The DG’s disposal of me had been brutal but casual. He was clearly a man accustomed to wielding power over others. Squashing me gave him a small pleasure, but it was all too common an occurrence to be a thrill for him. He would continue to murder until he was exposed, so I had to find a way to bring him to justice.

With a borrowed motel blanket in hand I found a sheltered spot in a local park and tried to sleep. But anyone who has survived being dumped in a well by a villainous monster will be able to tell you that you don’t usually sleep well afterwards. Still, it gave me time to compose in my head the text of the denunciatory blog-post to come. They may be powerful and dangerous people, but I would unleash Hell via the blogosphere. I would make Cameron Slater’s blog look like the work of a polite and well-behaved child.

In the end it was remarkably easy to get into the spybase. A day after wallowing in fetid water at the bottom of a well I was in the DG’s own quarters. It was typical of a powerful man to be lax about security, because nobody ever dared to threatened him. I was able to waltz through the front door of the establishment, waving my library card to the receptionist like it was a security pass. The rest was easy. I’ve always found you can open almost any door if you just swagger and look confident, so I walked bullishly around the building for a bit until I found a door helpfully labelled “Director General”. I checked the handle and felt the door move slightly. The man didn’t even lock his door!

Hearing voices nearby, I panicked, but there was a cupboard door half-open next to the DG’s quarters, and I could see it was roomy enough for one. That was when I heard him and his assistant talking about when he would return. When they had gone I stepped out and entered his room.

I returned to the desk. Unlike the desktop, the drawers revealed a wealth of information. As I shuffled through the assorted papers from the desk drawers, I realised that the tentacles of this shadowy organisation stretched further than I could ever have imagined. They had influence at every level of society, and had infiltrated just about every major business organisation.

The papers revealed how they had cornered the jam donut market. It was done with their usual efficiency and brutality. The managing director of Sunrise Foods, Derek Snout, the world's biggest donut supplier, had been found dead one Monday morning beneath a mountain of mock cream. The coroner ruled it was an accident, but with Snout's demise the last barrier to complete confectionery domination was removed. The papers in the desk proved they had murdered Snout.

All of this was deeply disturbing. And yet it did not greatly surprise me.

It was only when I opened a red dossier and peered inside that I felt truly angry. Here was evidence that they had infiltrated the ACTA negotiations on copyright law. The secrecy behind the negotiations had been essential, to ensure the DG’s people could operate with impunity. And there was worse. His people dominated the main patent attorney firms, and had taken critical strategic positions where they could best extort patent examiners to grant ridiculously broad patents to the multinationals who would pay them handsomely. Now I knew how they had afforded this gigantic subterranean complex: Bill Gates had funded it.

I looked at my watch. I had better get out.

"You’re back," a familiar voice said behind me. I turned around to face him. "And I thought you were dead. How unfortunate for you that I was wrong. I shall now have to make you suffer."

He stood in front of the reptile tank, gun in hand. Except that the reptile had gone. Had it simply been my imagination that anything had ever been in the tank?

“You are more resourceful than I ever expected,” said the DG. “It’s a shame I can’t let you live, because someone like you might have been a useful asset to me.”

“Not a chance,” I replied angrily, staring at the gun. “I’d sooner die than be a player of your perverse games.”

“Seeking and maintaining power is neither perverse nor a game,” he said. “It is the natural way of things.”

“There’s nothing natural about what you did to Snout.”

“Snout got greedy. He said he wouldn’t deal with us, and then he threatened to release information that would destroy us all, unless we did as he said. He was so arrogant and cocksure, like the cat that got the cream. Burying him like that was my little joke.”

“You don’t seem capable of humour,” I replied, trying to determine whether the gun was loaded, and whether I had any hope of rushing him. “How did you know I was here?”

His cruel face revealed what might have been a smile: a slight upward movement of one side of his mouth. “I was here all along. I smelt your presence in the building.”

That did not explain how he could have returned without my noticing him. And the more I thought about it, the more I felt certain there had been a reptile in the tank. Was it just possible…? No, I told myself, David Icke was a lunatic. There’s another explanation, there has to be.

“It is getting late,” said the DG as he glanced at the clock on the wall. “Will you stay for dinner?”

“Do I have a choice?” I tried to imagine just what he had planned for me. Some awful poison? Or was he going to sit opposite me and simply gloat, until disposing of me some time after dessert?

“There is always a choice. You can do as I tell you, or I can shoot you in the face. You decide.”

“When you put it that way, dinner would be lovely.”

He gestured for me to walk towards the door. I went, because, really, what choice did I have? Two of his boiler-suited goons were outside, waiting in the corridor, and they led me down a number of passages until we were standing before a vast stainless steel door. The first guard pulled the door and shoved me through.

“Welcome to our laboratories,” said the DG. “Let me give you the guided tour. We have so few visitors, so it’s always a pleasure to show off our facilities.”

We were in a vast room filled with computers, machines, filing cabinets and mechanical contraptions. The light was harsh and white, and fans whirred all about me, trying to keep the room at a constant temperature. It was hot in here, like I had just stepped into a sauna. The place was busy, with people tapping away at their PCs, leaning over machinery, or doing whatever else it was that they did down here. There must be hundreds of people down here.

“They always look like that,” murmured my captor. “Visitors. Dropped jaw, eyes wide, unsure where to look. It’s impressive, yes?”

“Indeed. How many people do you have down here?”

“Plenty. Under this building is a small city.”

“What are they doing? Is this all part of your spy network?”

He laughed, though it sounded more like he was choking. “You are in our Special Operations Centre. Here is where it all happens. You see that?” He pointed to my left. A row of men in white overalls sat diligently at a bank of computers, tapping furiously at their keyboard. “That’s our Climate Change Section. That is where all data about global warming is generated. There wouldn’t be a piece of data about climate change anywhere the world that didn’t come from here.”

I inhaled sharply. “Are you telling me climate change is a hoax?

“Of course it is.”

“But why? Why would you mislead so many people?”

“There is profit to be had in panicking people. Eventually, when the good citizens of the world become convinced that their planet is doomed unless drastic action is taken on climate change, they will look about for strong leaders. We will be ready.”

We began to walk through the huge room, and he pointed out a number of other operations. “And over there is the genetic modification department. That’s where we implant the genes of mutant creatures into common foodstuffs, before releasing them into the environment. We have also developed a range of GM crops that can be switched on and off by means of wireless device. They will reap a bountiful harvest, but only if we command it to be so. It is such a shame about the famine in Central Asia."

"I didn't know there was one," I said.

"It doesn't happened until next year. And over there,” The DG pointed to a series of desks and filing cabinets, “is the Black Ops Department.” It was deserted - nobody there. “They're on a mission,” he explained.

“What do they do?” I enquired, fearing that the explanation would make me sick to the stomach.

“Plan fake terror attacks, frame people for crimes they didn’t commit, and the like.”

“I suppose you’re going to tell me they masterminded 9/11.”

He looked at me as if I was a lunatic. “Don’t be so absurd. That was our Washington office. We did do the Bain case though. Both the murders and the legal trials. A neat bit of work, that was.”

“You killed a man’s family and then let someone else take the rap?”

“I didn’t say we killed them.”

“Then…” My mind was spinning with the possibilities. “The Crewe Murders?”

“Oh yes, that was one of our ones. Before my time, though.”

“Watergate?”

“Our Washington office again.”

“The crucifixion of Jesus?”

“Definitely before my time,” he laughed-coughed. “Our people in Jerusalem sorted that one out. Of course, Jesus was in on the whole thing. Thought it was a terrific idea.”

“JFK’s assassination?”

“What makes you so sure he’s dead?”

I asked the DG what the current mission of the Black Ops Department was. “Plugging a regrettable leak. The coach of the South African rugby team has uncovered one of our operations and needs to be shut down.”

One of his men shoved me forward. “Come along now,” said the DG. “It’s getting late and we have other dinner guests. I wouldn’t want to keep them waiting.”

We had reached the other end of the room and were now facing another steel door. It opened automatically, but the two guards did not enter with me and the DG. I was in a smaller room, but it was not well lit. Through the gloom I could perceive a great table, and people sitting around it. As my eyes were drawn further into the room I could see that the people at the table were mostly middle aged, that of the twenty or so around the table the vast majority were men, and that they were all in business attire. It could have been the meeting of a company's board of directors. Except it wasn’t, because I began to recognise the faces. Directors of sorts, I realised, as I stared in horror at the faces of New Zealand’s Executive. The entire Cabinet were here: Key, English, McCully, Brownlee, Tolley, Power, Collins…

“Welcome,” said the Prime Minister with a goofy grin that was as out of place as a dead dog on a ballroom floor. “You must be dinner.”

I paused to take in what he was saying, but the DG was already laughing, in his choking coughing way. And the others started to chuckle. Gerry Brownlee was guffawing, and Paula Bennett began to cackle. Then, just as I felt suddenly faint and struggled to stay on my feet, they changed. Their faces melted before me, their pinkish flesh turning to liquid and dripping to the floor, and they tore at their clothes, shredding them with fingers that had suddenly become claws. What they became left me shuddering and screaming: an army of green reptiles with savage mouths stuffed with razor-like teeth. They climbed over the table and began to advance towards me.

I turned and ran. Or, at least, I tried to. But one of the reptiles had me by the neck, pinning me with one of his enormous claws.

“It seems we must say farewell”, hissed the monster in a voice that was unmistakeably the DG’s. “Bon appétit.”

Will our dashing hero survive? Or is he destined to be a very satisfying snack for the Hon Gerry Brownlee and his Cabinet colleagues, before they get back to the arduous business of pretending to run the country? And will we finally find out whether They are responsible for the new Cadbury Dairy Milk recipe? Stay tuned!

Yo Kids, Stevo's In The House And Is Down On Yo' Asses

The Transport Minister wants to do more research on the difference between a 0.05 and 0.08 blood alcohol limit, before he lowers the blood alcohol limit for drivers aged 20 or over. But he's happy to impose a zero limit for those under 20.

Quite why he needs to undertake any further research on the matter is something only Steven Joyce would be able to tell you.

Especially as Rebecca Williams of Alcohol Healthwatch told Checkpoint tonight that over 300 studies confirmed drivers were impaired when their blood alcohol exceeded 0.05. I'm going to assume she's not just making shit up, in which case, why do more studies?

And why hit the under 20s? Don't older drivers cause accidents too?

This is another example of National hitting the young. It's no fun being young at the moment. You're probably scratching around to find work, thanks to difficult economic times, and a succession of middle-aged ministers is telling the world that you're the cause of all society's ills. You're lazy, you're loud, you drink too much, and we don't like those ridiculous cars you drive up and down the main street late at night.

Young people, when will you learn to be joyless like the rest of us?

Business-Savvy PM Wows Conference

John Key speaking about the Supercity merger at a conference on local government:
It is $29 billion worth of assets and $3.2 billion worth of revenue. It is bigger than a lot of companies in New Zealand, if not most," Mr Key said
I especially liked Key's "if not most". It's good to see our PM has his finger on the pulse and has such an understanding of our business world. Isn't that why we elected him?

Even if there in no company in New Zealand that comes even close to holding $29 billion worth of assets.

Unlawful Solicitation?

Computerworld reports on an intriguing US employment law case, in which an IT firm has accused a former employee of breaching a non-competition agreement.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Minnesota, US, by TEKsystems, charges former employee Brelyn Hammernik of soliciting TEKSystems' employees and clients using LinkedIn.

The lawsuit alleges that after Hammernik left TEKsystems in November 2009, she "communicated" with at least 20 TEKSystems contract employees and "connected" with about 16 of them using the LinkedIn professional network.

TEKsystems contends that Hammernik's actions were on behalf of her new employer and constituted a violation of the non-compete and non-solicitation contracts, which she signed when joining TEKsystems as a recruiter in January 2007.
Non-compete and non-solicitation provisions are commonplace in employment contracts, especially where employees are engaged in sales roles. These clauses are designed to ensure that when an employee leaves a job they do not simply contact all of the clients of the former employer and solicit their work. Under New Zealand law a restraint of trade such as a non-solicitation clause will only be enforceable if it is reasonable. Generally, it will not be reasonable to stop an employee from plying their trade, but it is generally reasonable to prevent direct solicitation of the former employer's clients for a specific period of time after ceasing employment.

The intriguing thing about the US case is the involvement of social media. Many professionals (such as myself) use LinkedIn, and it is easy to send a messages out to your “connections” (In case you haven’t used LinkedIn, it’s quite similar to Facebook in many ways. LinkedIn “connections” are like Facebook “friends”), or to contact people on LinkedIn you want to connect to. And the other thing you can do to alert people of your changed circumstances is update your profile.

There are other, more subtle ways, to use LinkedIn. Like Facebook it will alert you to people who are linked to you via others. So you could, for example, focus on creating connections with people who you know or suspect are connected to your targets, in the hope that those you’re targeting are encouraged to click through to your profile when they are notified of a link. Would this activity amount to a “solicitation”?

And what about the problem with Twitter? If you tweet regularly about your everyday activities and some of your old employer’s clients just happen to be followers, would a tweet such as “first day at new job, going great” be enough to get you in trouble? Some people will tweet anything, and it’s possible someone might be able to argue that such a tweet wasn’t a solicitation.

There will be employment law cases in this country involving social media – eventually. It’s a fascinating area of law, and the constantly changing technology and evolution of social media are going to create ongoing challenges for those who draft non-solicitation and restraint of trade clauses. How specific would a clause need to be about the ability of a former employee to use social media to connect to others, or to communicate their changed circumstances? Would a requirement to actively disconnect on social media with all clients of the employer be regarded by a court as reasonable?

I should make it very clear that am not an employment lawyer, so don’t go doing sneaky things on social media and then tell the judge I said it was okay.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Former ACT MP Not Barking Mad

It's my birthday, and I really can't be arsed trying to write an important or clever post. So just a short post on something I read that impressed me.

When you're an ACT MP and your time comes, you can go one of two ways. You can do a Muriel Newman and set up a right-wing thinktank in order to expound your views on "Maori privilege" and the "myth" of climate change, or you can go back to your day-job and achieve something closer to sanity.

Deborah Coddington appears to have done the latter. During her time as an ACT MP I had little time for Coddington, and she took positions on issues that I felt were wrong. But either I've softened or she has (I don't think I have), because now I often find myself agreeing with much (though not all) of what she writes. Since moving away from ACT she has started to sound so... well, reasonable.

Her opinion piece in Saturday's Herald is a good example, and it was a pleasure to read a former ACT MP laying into the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Family First. The close involvement of the SST with ACT continues to cause ructions within a party that has a strong libertarian following. The SST is led by authoritarians and reactionaries who think the answer to society's problems is to use state power to crush those who don't conform to approved norms. Coddington's sharp rebuke of the SST most likely reflects the opinions of many within ACT.

Coddington laments the rise in the "cult of victimology".  She is right to identify this as an issue, and it's one the Chief Justice raised last year, although she was publicly slapped down by Simon Power for doing so. The current trend of placing victim rights at the forefront of everything that happens in the justice system jeopardises some of the most fundamental principles of the justice system - impartiality, reason and the rule of law. It may sound callous to say so, but there can be no room for emotion in the decisions judges and juries must make.

We are now used to seeing the tears of the grieving mother, or the heartbroken partner, as victim impact statements are given, but we dare not ask how these images serve the greater ends of justice. We are told that we have no right to question the central involvement of victims in the justice system, because we cannot understand what it is like to lose a loved one to an act of thuggery, or to ourselves be the victim of a vicious crime. We are told in no uncertain terms to shut up.

And I understand those sentiments. If someone hurt one of my children I can only imagine what I would want to do to the person.

But the justice system needs to balance the interests of many people. Offenders have rights too. So do we as a society. We have a right to expect our courts will act rationally and reasonably, and not give over to the lynch-mob.

So well done to Deborah Coddington.*

* No, this is not a satirical post. I actually meant that.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

The Nation Interview Transcript

Here is a transcript of my interview on TV3's The Nation this morning*

Duncan Garner: So what did you think of Don Brash? 

Me: It pains me to give credit to the man, but we should thank him for raising the retirement age question. Other countries have raised the age of retirement, and it is something we will eventually need to do, even if our current Government refuses to discuss the issue.

Did you know the Germans have just lifted their retirement age to 67? I've always been a fan of the German way of doing things.

Garner: That's an interesting point of view.

Me: Don't sound so surprised. Not all bloggers are mental midgets. I could so do your job.

Garner: It's not as easy as it looks. You have to be good with people.

Me: You mean actually like people? I see your point. That could be a problem.

Garner:  Anyway, back to Brash. Do you think his plan to let people retire at 65 and receive a lesser superannuation amount could work?

Me: I can see problems with the proposal. If it's largely fiscally neutral you're not actually solving the problem, which is that people are living longer. Is it time to consider death camps instead?

Garner: What? Death camps?

Me: Yes, for those over a certain age. It's reasonable to give people a few years of retirement, but once they start becoming a burden on people, let's just get rid of them.

Garner: Like the Nazis did?

Me: Why is it that everything the Nazis did has to be attacked like it's a bad thing? They weren't all bad. For example they were sharp dressers, and their uniforms were definitely the smartest of all the armies in World War Two. Clothes maketh the man, as they say.

Garner: They also say "thou shalt not kill". Are you completely insane?

Me: You know, a lot of people have asked me that. They weren't so keen on my idea to close the income gap with Australia either.

Garner: Dare I ask, what was your idea?

Me: Launch a pre-emptive strike. Seize the entire east coast of Australia and force the population into slavery. Once Sydney, Melbourne and other centres of commerce are ours, we'll have no more troubles with that income gap issue. And with the cheapest labour force in the world, we'll be able to compete with China. It will be boom times for our manufacturing sector.

Garner: You are nuts. Of all the suggestions I've heard for closing the income gap with Australia, that would have to be the stupidest and most hare-brained.

Me: You obviously haven't read the 2025 Taskforce Report then.

Garner: Good point.

*  When you hear people saying "don't believe anything you read", please think of this post.

I'm On The Telly

I am today's guest blogger on TV3's The Nation.

Last week it was Cameron Slater, so I'm following in the footsteps of a giant.

I've no idea how this will go, but am hoping it won't end with me weeping inconsolably and crying for my teddy.

They'll be crossing live to me before midday via Skype.

Apparently we bloggers are a tech-savvy lot. But I'd never used Skype until two days ago. So maybe not.

I've always said any fool with an Internet connection can blog.

Update: That was over in flash, and I barely got to say anything. How long was I on for? A minute? Two? I didn't even get to alert the public to the Great Reptilian Conspiracy. Dammit!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Garth's Week So Far


Monday 19 July 2010

Has the world gone mad? Why is it so goddam hard to get a decent pie nowadays? I don't want a panini, or a brioche, or any of your fancy wholemeal breads.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

But oh God I'm so hungry for a pie.

Tuesday 20 July 2010

Those bloody kids have been at it again. Stepping onto my lawn, even though I warned them what would happen!

Look at them, with their underpants hanging out and their trousers almost down to their knees.

"Suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope"

Oh, but Lord, I do so want to smite them with my shovel.

Wednesday 21 July 2010

What's all this social media about anyway? When I was a young fellow and wanted to say something I'd say it in person or write a letter. Technology will be the ruin of us all.

And these modern typewriters are impossible to use. Where do I put the paper?

"And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous"

And that intertubes thing is just another modern fad that will go nowhere.

Thursday 22 July 2010

Another column done and dusted. That will set the cat amongst the pigeons. They don't like it up 'em, as one of my favourite TV characters would say.

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more"

Oh, but it's so hard to be a good Christian!

Deposed Prince Needs Your Cash To Unlock His Fortune

You have to admire the spirit and tenacity of the Crafars in refusing to give up hope (even if there's plenty not to admire about them). Allan Crafar still believes he can find the money to pay off all the debts and save the family's operations.

And what, you ask, is this hope based on? The Dom Post tells us:
The Crafars said they expected to be able to pay their debts before the Overseas Investment Office could rule. 
"It should have already happened by now, except for a bit of a hiccup," Mrs Crafar said.

The couple are trying to secure $2.7m from an unnamed Australian investor to pay the application fee for a US$200m loan from an institutional investor in Bahrain, who would source the cash from Swiss bank accounts.
Sounds like your classic Nigerian 419 scam to me. Is that really their best hope?

Forgive Me

Readers, if I tell you my dirty secret, will you promise not to desert me in droves?

Okay, just hear me out. It's a bit of an ask, when you don't even know what odious thing I'm about to reveal.

Gee this is awkward. How do I begin?

Okay, I'll start with this news article.
Former National leader Don Brash has waded back into the retirement debate, suggesting future governments let workers decide for themselves what age to retire. 
His call coincides with a major retirement income policy seminar in Wellington this week where there are expected to be calls for compulsory superannuation to help prepare for a looming "silver tsunami".

Dr Brash is also raising the alarm over New Zealand's ageing population. In a speech to an Auckland business audience yesterday, he said workers should be able to decide what age to collect a pension, with the rate determined by the age at which they start.

He said changes to the age of eligibility were inevitable as the number of retirees soared in comparison to the number of workers.

"The acceptance of this would be greatly helped if we allowed people much greater flexibility as to when they actually start drawing the pension, with those who chose to draw the pension down early being paid a lower rate over the rest of their lifetime compared with those who chose to draw the pension down later.

"That flexibility would have substantial indirect fiscal benefits but, arguably, even more important, it would encourage older New Zealanders to stay productively engaged in the community."

Such a system would also give people a greater degree of choice about when to retire, he said.

"If the age of eligibility were 67, for example, under a policy allowing flexibility regarding the age at which it could be drawn, somebody might choose to take the pension at, say 65. At that younger age, the amount received would be actuarially adjusted downwards and would remain at that lower level ... until death."
So you're thinking "Brash has been smoking something again". Choice? What choice do people have about when to retire?

But here's the filthy secret. I actually think Brash might be onto something. Because we are going to have to accept sooner or later than we can't all retire at 65.

Admittedly, the Government's decision to suspend contributions into the Cullen Fund aren't going to help the situation, but more people live longer so we need to accept the fact that, sooner or later, we'll need to raise the retirement age. I don't know how far away that time is, but it will come eventually. This is starting to happen in other countries.

The other alternative is to reduce the amount of the entitlement, but then that would potentially increase rates of poverty among the elderly.

So raising the retirement age is the most likely scenario - eventually. But no government will agree to do it in this current environment. It's politically toxic to even suggest raising the retirement age.

Brash's proposal is not the craziest thing he's come up with. If we accept that at some point we'll need to raise the retirement age but acknowledge that it's politically difficult to do so, then something like what Brash is suggesting may make it easier to convince people of the need for change. Those who really want to retire at 65 can still do so, but those who hold out because they really don't need to retire will receive more when they do.

That doesn't mean we should just adopt what Brash is saying, because I still see a number of issues with it. For example, what entitlement rates do we set for those who want to retire at 65? If we set the entitlement rate too low we may just end up creating poverty.

But surely it can't hurt to at least discuss these things, rather than simply shut down the debate.

And so that's my dirty secret. I found myself not disagreeing wildly and angrily with something Don Brash said. I'm really sorry, but can we still be friends?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Evil Three Strikes Law

I've posted before on the appalling nature of the Three Strikes Law.

Now we have a good example before us of the potential injustices the law will create.

A 69 year old man with apparent dementia and apparently suffering from Parkinsons Disease has been charged with two counts of indecent assault on a woman. He apparently grabbed the breasts of a fellow rest home resident. These are "strike" offences. The man's lawyer, Michael Bott, says that the man's conduct is a side effect of the medication he is taking, and that he had no record of significant offending until two years ago.

If a conviction is entered the man will be given his first strike. It appears he is not mentally sick enough to claim insanity as a complete defence, and New Zealand law does not recognise diminished responsibility as a defence or partial defence.

So the man's only hope of not avoiding a strike is that the judge will be lenient and not convict (and this might be part of the reason why the man's lawyer has gone public - to illustrate how obscene the law is and what the consequences of a conviction could be).

If what the man's lawyer says is true then this represents an appalling example of the very injustices people feared would occur under the new law. If the man is genuinely sick and cannot control his impulses then there's a good chance he'll re-offend. If he lands a second strike he'll have to serve whatever sentence he is given without parole. Strike three and he gets the maximum penalty, probably without parole. Indecent assault will land him seven years in prison.

(The man also has a serious problem finding anyone to take him in, and is languishing in prison because there is nowhere else to put him, which is an appalling indictment on our health system, but that's another issue entirely)

Judith Collins, whose heart must be made of granite, doesn't care. She says the judge can simply choose not to enter a conviction. 
“If a person with mental health issues is found guilty of, or pleads guilty to, a qualifying offence at any of the three stages, the court has the option of discharging the person without conviction.
“The court may order a discharge without conviction if it is satisfied that consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence.
If a person is discharged without conviction, the Three Strikes law will not apply because it is triggered by conviction.”
But is it realistic or even reasonable to expect a discharge without conviction on an indecent assault charge? Even if we accept that the man has some diminished responsibility for what he did, I don't feel comfortable that the answer is just to let him off all charges. If judges have to go to those length to avoid the effects of the new law then that says a lot about the law.

Collins also says that the three-strikes law works because on the third offence the judge can decide not to impose a non-parole sentence.
Ms Collins said that even if a person was convicted of a stage three offence, and not acquitted on the basis of insanity, the person would not necessarily serve the maximum term in prison without parole.
“The court must order the defendant to serve the sentence without parole unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it is manifestly unjust to do so,” she said.

“The mental health of the offender may be a factor that the judge takes into consideration in deciding if it would be manifestly unjust to serve the sentence without parole.

“If parole was allowed, the offender would not necessarily spend the maximum term in prison.”
can
That means the offender would still get seven years, but might be out earlier. I say "might" because "manifestly unjust" is a very tough standard to meet. "Fairly unjust" or "considerably unjust" won't do the job.

I have to stress that I'm relying on what the man's lawyer has claimed, and if it turns out that Mr Bott's client is actually a calculating evil shit then by all means let the man feel the full weight of the law.

But even if this man isn't a potential victim himself, the case has thrown up a potential example of how obscene the three-strikes law is or could be. It is evil legislation, and it needs to go.

A Humiliating Backdown?

John Key and Gerry Brownlee claim that the decision not to mine Schedule 4 land was not a humiliating backdown.

This is what Key said on the issue in February:
The Government will shortly be releasing a discussion document for public consultation on potential changes to Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Schedule 4 is the part of the Crown Minerals Act which prohibits mining or prospecting on specified areas of Crown land.
The discussion document will recommend that some areas of Crown land be removed from Schedule 4 and in addition that some areas currently not in Schedule 4 be added to it.

Notwithstanding the public consultation process, it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of these recommendations and make significant changes to Schedule 4. This is because new mining on Crown land has the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs.
Bill English stood by Key's statement in Parliament in March.

I read this to mean: "There's a discussion document out on mining, and we'll consult on the issue, but notwithstanding that consultation we're still going to allow some mining on Schedule 4 land."

How is this not a humiliating backdown? Have I missed something?

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Good Doggy

Over on Kiwiblog, National Party poodle David Farrar is desperately spinning the proposed 90 day trial period law as being no different to what other countries are doing. He has published a list of 35 countries that supposedly have trial period laws.

The list includes a number of European countries, but it also includes Pakistan, Thailand, the UAE, Moldova, and Armenia.

In Pakistan they still stone people to death for adultery. In the UAE homosexuality is a crime and Sharia law is practised, while foreign workers from Asia are often treated little better than slaves. Armenia is only rated "partly free" by international organisations, and police brutality and attacks on journalists are commonplace. The Amnesty International 2009 Report on Moldova is damning. Its report on Thailand is little better.

Should we really be following their examples?

I took a look at the laws of a few other countries cited by Farrar.

In France, labour laws give employers the right to "fire at will" for the first two years. But it's not quite as simple as that. The law only applies to companies with 20 or fewer employees, and employers have to give notice of dismissal.  The employee can also terminate without giving any notice at all. But the law has been subject to a number of challenges and employers who fire without giving an adequate reason risk legal action.

In the UK employees who have worked for less than a year have no rights to claim unfair dismissal, but they are still entitled to notice of dismissal. The cannot generally just be fired on the spot, absent misconduct.

I could find no evidence on the ILO site that Germany has fire at will legislation. But then I'm not an expert on German employment law. Maybe I missed something.

If I had time and didn't need to sleep, I'd research the relevant laws of the US and Australia. I'm not sure how comparable they are to what National is proposing.

But this small selection shows just how pointless comparisons are. No doubt Farrar was aware of that, but couldn't help himself.  Why would anyone trust a thing the man writes?

Lies, Lies, No Surprise

From that Labour Department report John Key keeps quoting:
The international literature suggests exemptions to employment protection legislation, such as the trial period legislation, increase both hiring and firing but have an unclear overall impact on unemployment.
As reported in the Herald. So there are journalists actually researching stories, and not swallowing the official line. Kudos to Derek Cheng.

Treat 'Em Mean...

In case it seems like New Zealand's labour laws are out of step with the rest of the world (is that the "step change" John Key keeps banging on about?), the Guardian reports on the case of a German police officer who sued his boss and won an extra week's holiday to cover the time it takes to take his unform on and off.
A German police officer has won the right to be rewarded for the time he spends getting in and out of his uniform after claiming that it should be considered part of his working day.

Martin Schauder, 44, has earned an extra week of holiday – or pay – every year, after taking his case to an administrative court in Münster, north-west Germany, the Münstersche Zeitung reported.

Schauder, who joined the police at 16, calculated that it took him 15 minutes each day to don the correct uniform and accompanying equipment including his pistol, handcuffs and gas canister. He argued that if he was not paid for the time, he was effectively giving his employer, the state, 45 to 50 hours a year, for free.

He told the court: "If my shift starts at 1pm, say, I'm expected to be completely fitted out by then, including my pistol, handcuffs and reserve weapon, otherwise I face being cautioned."

The court ruled in his favour.
Can you even imagine someone trying that here? Those crazy Europeans have no idea about economics and labour policy, have they?

2009: German per capita GDP US$40875, NZ per capita GDP US$27,259
2008: Average hours worked per German worker 1430, average hours worked per New Zealand worker 1753
2008: GDP per hour worked in Germany 39.5 Euros, GDP per hour worked in New Zealand NZ$38.2

No idea...

Monday, July 19, 2010

John's Diary: 19/7/10

Well that was a pretty good conference.

While I don't want to take all the credit for our success, it was nice to stand there basking in my own glory. The people love me. I hope Bill was watching. To think that only a couple of years ago he reckoned he was just as capable a leader as me.

But not all of our nation's recent successes are down to me. I don't want to take all the credit for the success of our gallant team the All Whites, because after all football is a team game, and I'm sure the guys on the field must have had some part to play. But I was there when we beat Italy one-all. And I'm just about the biggest supporter of the All Blacks you'll find, and aren't they doing well at the moment? Coincidence?

I met a pizza guy the other night, Sanjay Kumar, and he told me he wanted a proper job. This guy is a highly skilled migrant who has a Master's degree in Zoology, and a business diploma, and he just can't get work, so he's forced to deliver pizza for a living. Sanjay made me think of the employment reforms we're pushing through, and how they'll help migrants like him get decent high-paying jobs. I should have put Sanjay at the entrance to the Sky City Convention Centre. He might have been able to help identify some of the scruffy feral lifeforms howling and charging at police. LOL!

Our get-tough crime measures are sure impressing the voters, because there's nothing the public want more than to see hippies and deadbeats punished. I'm also glad that Simon is cracking down on the Catholics. Those turbulent priests won't be able to pop our balloons and other inflatables any longer. Once more we have made the public safe. LOL!

We're shelving Gerry's mining plans, because the people don't like 'em. To be fair, it's actually Gerry the people don't like. He could be announcing plans to give away free cash to everyone and he'd probably manage to do it in such a sneering and haughty way that people would end up throwing it back.

Anne's a dead loss too, but what am I meant to do with her? If I ditch her the other lot will just start crowing. But she even makes Maurice look smart. I wonder if the 90 day trial period laws can be extended to include Cabinet members. I should be able to sack them without any political comeback.

But there's been quite a lot of excitement over those new workplace law changes. The usual rabble protested and jumped up and down, but they don't represent the views of real New Zealanders. I know exactly how real New Zealanders see the world, because Rodney tells me.

Murray's been in fine form, blasting the ARC for its decision on Party Central, only to sign off on the ARC plan a week later and take the credit for it. He's overseas again, off to Kabul for a government conference. I told Murray last week that I felt for him, and didn't envy his having to sit through lengthy conference sessions chaired by politicians from a failed and incompetent government. We agreed the twice in a week was a tough ask. LOL!

And now I have to plan for the rest of the week. Pizza guy is coming over soon to help me make sense of Anne's latest proposals.

Blaming Everyone But Themselves

Saturday’s test between the All Blacks and Springboks revealed a number of interesting things.

New Zealand of course won, and the manner in which it won was convincing.

However, the margin of victory was not as comprehensive as last week’s, and the Boks put up a fight this time. But it was a wet night and the ball was slippery, and Carter missed a load of kicks at goal, so overall the score-line is still pleasing.

It’s interesting to hear the South African take on the game. The Springboks coaching staff were quick to attack the standard of refereeing, as if bad reffing was the only thing that let them down. The fact of the matter is that South African teams continue to struggle with discipline. The sinbinning of Danie Rossouw was a bit harsh, but he infringed right under the ref’s nose, so put himself at risk. Richie McCaw could have been yellow-carded later in the game for infringing, and was a trifle lucky to stay on. But by the time that became an issue we’d effectively won the game.

Apart from the on-field performance, it’s intriguing to see the different coaching and management styles. There were constant camera shots of the two coaching panels during the game. Henry and co were always calm and composed. The South Africans seemed much more excitable, with some of the team gesticulating, cursing and finger-pointing.

In fact, when I think about it I don’t think I’ve seen a match on TV involving this Springbok coach, where he and his team weren’t jumping up and down in excitement and/or outrage. It doesn’t seem to matter whether they’re winning or losing.

And that to me is the difference in the teams. One group of players has a steady and settled management team that doesn’t look externally for excuses when the players don’t perform. Another has a management team that is quick to blame the referee and opposition when things don’t go well.

South Africa’s two-dimensional play was exposed over the last two weekends. Last year South Africa kept winning games because its game-plan was simple, ugly and effective. The plan was to bash the ball forward with that big forward-pack, and then boot the ball high in the air. On defence they would charge up and have at least one guy sniffing for the intercept try. Most teams struggled to come up with a response to those tactics.

But happily for New Zealand, the Springbok coach, Peter de Villiers, is looking to blame South Africa’s poor showing on everything but poor play and unimaginative tactics. Let’s hope he continues to do so for another year and a bit, and doesn’t make the necessary adjustments. It would be nice to win that World Cup next year, and the South Africans are our main threat.

It may be too soon to suggest that South Africa have peaked and are now in trouble. They have some great players, though they also have a few who are looking past their best. Still, they may regroup and come back stronger.

Analysing John Key's Conference Speech

Okay, so this post turned out to be longer than I intended. I wrote most of it last night.

Here's John Key's speech to the faithful. As political speeches go it's pretty staid stuff, in line with most New Zealand oratory.

But let's examine the content.
Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow National Party members, it's wonderful to see you!

I'm proud to be here as Prime Minister.

I'm proud to be the leader of this great Party.

And I'm proud to be leading a government that is making New Zealand a better place.
Go John! Get people feeling good about themselves. They're riding high in the polls and are feeling bullet-proof. 

When our Party was formed back in 1936, it chose the name "National" because it wanted to be a Party that represented all New Zealanders.
Well not quite.  National was born out of the Reform/United coalition in the 1930s - a coalition that hopelessly failed to deal with the great economic crisis of the time. The name change was as much about burying the past and putting a new name to the same tired old politicians as it was about broadening the support base.
That's exactly what we are doing.
The National-led Government is relentlessly focused on what matters to all New Zealanders.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of this Government, one thing it isn't is relentlessly focused, other than on the polls. It is a largely populist government that goes where the polls take it.
Last election, New Zealanders voted for a brighter future.
Yes, but we don't always get what we want.
And we're doing what it takes to secure that future.
To secure the Government's future, he means.
Fellow National Party members, we couldn't do it without you.

So I want to thank all the Regional Chairs, the Deputy Chairs, the Board Members, the Electorate Chairs, the volunteers, and the members.

You make this party strong. You stick with us through thick and thin. You are the reason National is in government today.

In particular, I want to thank our Party President Peter Goodfellow.
Yawn. This is all standard stirring-the-troops stuff.

I also want to pay a special acknowledgement to my friend and deputy, Bill English.

What a great job he is doing as Finance Minister.
Does anyone believe the two are actual friends?
He's delivered two Budgets that have steered New Zealand out of recession and put the economy firmly back on track to grow and create jobs.
I don't think anything English or Key has done could be said to have "steered" us out of recession. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that we have largely been a rudderless ship in that respect.

And where is the evidence that the economy's back on track? Growth is stagnant and unemployment is up.
I want to thank all our wonderful Members of Parliament, who do such a good job of representing New Zealanders - from Northland to Invercargill, from the East Coast of the North Island to the West Coast of the South Island.

I want to thank my hard-working team of Ministers.

I'm delighted to lead a very talented Cabinet.
Tolley, Brownlee, Williamson, Bennett...
And I'd like to thank our partners in Government - ACT, the Maori Party and United Future. Together we make a very stable and balanced Government.

As with all partnerships, from time to time we disagree. That's healthy and normal - after all, we're not the same party.

But our partnerships work because they are based on trust, respect, and a willingness to find solutions together.

The relationships we have with these three parties demonstrate to New Zealanders our ability to lead a stable government.

I am confident we can do so well into the future.
Key is helped by the fact that the Maori Party will do anything to ingratiate themselves with National, in the hope that Key might see fit to throw them some scraps. And because they viscerally hate Labour. Dunne will do a deal with anyone so long as there's a ministerial post in it for him. Rodney is getting what he wants. Yes, a stable government.
Delegates, when we meet at next year's conference, we will once again be close to an election.

An election we are in great shape to fight.

An election we are in great shape to win.

We have a strong, united party organisation.
All true. The Nats are looking very strong and, unless Labour regroups, will probably run away with the 2011 election. They may even be able to govern alone.
Our opponents have been floundering around trying to work out what they stand for - and indeed what they stand against - and waiting for instructions via text message from New York.
It is always a good idea in politics to kick an opponent when they're down.
Meanwhile, we have been getting on with the business of making New Zealand a better place.

We have already achieved a lot and we're setting a cracking pace.
I hadn't noticed. Unless we substitute "kneejerk" for "cracking pace". Then I'm all good with that.
I want to talk now about some of the things we've done, and what they mean for everyday New Zealanders.

The first challenge we faced as a government was the global financial and economic crisis.

We steered New Zealand through that crisis by showing strong economic leadership.

We protected New Zealanders from the sharp edges of recession.

But at the same time we resisted calls to spend billions more on extra stimulus.
The Government did almost nothing of any consequence to get us through the recession. And economic times are still tough. The fact we're not still technically in recession is a happy accident.  But another bout of negative growth could be around the corner, and we will be no better prepared for it than we were in 2008.

Zealanders through their mortgage interest rates or business loans.

The Government got that balance right and New Zealand is better for it.
Here Key is talking as if the battle is already won. I'm not so sure we've seen the last of the tough times.
I appreciate that some families are feeling the pressure as the economy recovers.

That's why it is so important that we lay the foundation for higher economic growth and better times ahead.
We were elected to put New Zealand on a higher growth path and that is precisely what we are going to do.
Economic growth is not just a theoretical construct - it impacts directly on people's lives.

It means an increase in people's incomes, to give them better choices, more security and a higher standard of living.

It means an increase in the income of New Zealand as a whole, to provide better public services like health care, law and order, and better incomes in retirement.

It means improving our performance compared to other countries, so our young people know there is a bright future for them right here in New Zealand.
All meaningless rhetoric. Talk big and hope nobody notices there isn't a plan to go with the words.
We have a six-point economic plan to go for growth.

The drivers of this plan to get New Zealand growing faster are the following:
  • Changes to the tax system to make it fairer, so that hard work and enterprise are rewarded
  • Demanding better, smarter public services
  • A multi-billion dollar investment in infrastructure
  • Cutting red tape and regulation
  • Better business innovation and an ambitious trade agenda
  • And improving education and skills
Underpinning all this is a disciplined fiscal policy.

We will maintain firm control of the government's finances, so we can return to Budget surpluses and keep debt tightly under control.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are making real progress on our economic plan.
National has proposed nothing major to encourage significant growth. Talk of six-point plans may sound impressive, but actions speak louder. Where is the real plan?
First, let's look at tax.

Right now, a lot of countries around the world are looking at raising taxes.

We have been able to cut some of our taxes.

Personal taxes have been reduced across the board, to reward effort and to give people an incentive to get ahead and make a career here in New Zealand.

Our top two personal tax rates will soon be 30 per cent and 33 per cent. In Australia they are much higher - 37 per cent and 45 per cent.

On a straight dollar-for-dollar basis, Australians earning over $55,000 will soon pay more income tax than New Zealanders on the same salary.

That's a big change from the current tax scale where an Australian doesn't pay more tax than his or her New Zealand counterpart until they earn almost $230,000.

These tax cuts will arrive in people's pockets from October 1. And the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off through our GST and personal income tax switch.

The company tax rate will also be reduced to 28 per cent.

That is lower than Australia's company tax rate, and indeed lower than anything Australia is planning.

By lowering the company tax rate we are encouraging productive investment in New Zealand and better paid jobs for our people.
Key's tax-talk is bollocks. It makes no sense to compare us with Australia unless you compare everything. Furthermore, there is little evidence that lowering taxes increases economic growth. We are only modestly taxed compared with other OECD countries, and have been for some time, yet it doesn't seem to have helped our economic performance.

And many people will either be worse off by the tax changes, or no better off. Those on higher incomes will do better.

I want New Zealanders to be aspirational - to want more for themselves and their families, and to know that they have opportunities to do that.

Our tax reform encourages that.
As a party which has personal responsibility as one of its core values, we know that the best way for New Zealanders to get ahead is through their own hard work, and their own effort to make a difference to their lives.
For a PM who claims he's not interested in ideology but in "what works", that's textbook neoliberal economic theory. Personal responsibility and freedom from state intervention.
We're also making good progress toward better, smarter public services.
Slash. Burn. Repeat cycle.
Since we came into office - and after years and years of increases - the number of public service bureaucrats has finally gone down.
It's an audacious move to congratulate oneself for creating jobs, while at the same time patting yourself on the back for increasing the number of unemployed people. These "bureaucrats" didn't just disappear into a hole. Many of them are now on the dole.
That's because we are clear about our priorities - and our priorities are frontline services, not a larger bureaucracy.
More nonsense. Those who were performing the frontline services will now be doing more of the paperwork those now-redundant bureaucrats were looking after. Someone has to do the paperwork.

We're also taking big steps towards addressing New Zealand's gaping infrastructure deficit.

All over the country we've been kicking off major new roading projects to get the country moving.

We're investing billions through Transpower to upgrade the national electricity grid.

We've put money aside for rolling out ultra-fast broadband across the country.
There's nothing particularly startling or bold in National's infrastructure plans. Many people have criticised the plans for being underwhelming.

Another important aspect of our economic plan is cutting red tape and regulation.

We're searching in all areas of Government to find places where overly-restrictive regulations are getting in the way of doing business.

That has already resulted in changes. There are more to come.
 Red-tape hunting is futile and achieves nothing. And what are these changes?
Let's not forget this is the party who within 12 months of being elected had already changed the Resource Management Act.
Yes, but those changes were hardly radical ones, and will do little to appease those who want to see the back of that legislation. If that is the only example of red-tape cutting, then it's not much of an achievement.
Delegates, science and research is a priority in the Budget because we know that our future economic performance depends on generating and using new ideas.

We want to be a smart economy.
There's been some tinkering by National with public sector science funding, and most of these changes are welcome ones. But there's not really any new money.
Fellow members, we also have an ambitious trade agenda because unlocking overseas markets will boost New Zealand exports and help our companies grow.

We are currently negotiating with some of the biggest countries in the world - the United States, Korea, India and Russia.

At the heart of our trade push are living standards and jobs.

Because we know that only a strong economy can provide financial security for our families, real opportunities for our young people, and world-class public services.

That's why my visit to Korea, China and Viet Nam was so valuable.

I'm delighted that we have injected new life into trade talks with Korea.

I have ambitious goals for trade with China, and I hope that Viet Nam will join us as a full participant at the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiating table soon.

There is no doubt there are enormous opportunities for New Zealand in Asia - we are determined to make the most of them.
Free trade has been a priority for the last few governments. Key is carrying on the good work of others. It's too early to tell whether Key's jetsetting has achieved anything concrete, although our Chinese masters will doubtless be impressed by our grovelling behaviour.
Delegates, education and skills are also essential parts of our plan to lift this country's economic performance.
We're moving forward with our Youth Guarantee and Trades in Schools policies and at the younger end of the education system we've introduced National Standards in our schools.

I want to read from a letter about National Standards. It was written to Anne Tolley from the parent of a child with dyslexia.

The letter reads:

"We struggled for years to try and get some idea of just how badly this was affecting her. I am furious we wasted several crucial years, while we were told by the school 'not to judge her against everyone else', and that 'she will catch up when she is ready'. How on earth can any professional teacher object to having a national standard, and object to parents being aware of these?"

I couldn't agree more.

Anne gets a lot of letters like this, from parents who really appreciate being told in plain English how their child is doing at school, so they can do something about it.

With National Standards, we are putting parents and their children first because we are not willing to stand by and let one in five children leave school without the qualifications and skills they need to succeed in a modern economy.

National Standards will help to identify kids who are falling behind or those that can be extended, so that teachers and parents can get alongside them and support them.
Friends, this Government has made a choice. That choice is to put the future of our children and this country ahead of the interests of those who resist change even when the status quo had been so clearly failing our kids.

I for one am very proud of that.
I'm sure Key and his Education Minister have received a few letters from teachers, principals and educationalists on the subject too. It's a shame he didn't decide to read one of those. But anyway, what would those people know about education?

It's wrong to suggest we have a crisis in our education system. Our system is actually pretty good and does well when measured against those from other countries. The fact that many kids leave school without adequate skills isn't always the fault of the education system. Some children come from homes so messed up that it really doesn't matter what steps you put in place in the classroom to improve educational standards, unless you also do something about the home environment.

And those parents who are desperate to know how their kids are going are unlikely to be the ones with children in trouble.
We're getting a great response from the public in other areas where we're making a real difference too.
The second letter I want to read from was written to me by a mother-of-three who was about to begin Herceptin treatment.

She wrote: "I want to express my gratitude and sincerely say thank you for easing the financial burden for my family. In times like this it is really hard to get through day-to-day. I wish you and yours the best of health, happiness and a long life - because that is what you have given me."

I am personally very proud that our party has delivered on our promise to fund a full 12 month course of Herceptin.

It is money that has been very well spent.
The decision to fund Herceptin was a popular one. Deciding which drugs to fund and which not to is a difficult decision, because there isn't enough money to go around. Cancer patients put up a public fight for better funding, and you can hardly begrudge them their success. In health issues, as Gareth Morgan has said, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
The Government's law and order policies have also had a great response.

And why shouldn't they?
Um, because they probably won't work? We've been cracking down on crime for years, without any success.
We've put more police on the streets and it's making a difference.

We've already got 255 new frontline police officers in the Counties-Manukau district.

The police in that district can be far more proactive because there are far more of them.

For example, bag snatching is down 80 per cent as we add more front line Police on the beat.

We're hiring more Police and we are putting more of them on the street.

Provisional statistics also show that house burglaries in the district are down by almost 14 per cent compared with the year before.
If crime is down in Manukau then that's a good thing. Though I suspect that, as with all crime figures, you can cherry-pick the ones you want and ignore the ones that don't suit your narrative. And how are other police districts doing?
That's not all we're doing to make our communities safer.

We've declared war on P and we're cracking down on the gangs that sell it.
A war on drugs. That's bound to work.
Already in the first seven months of this year a total of 23 kilograms of methamphetamine has been seized - that's four times as much as we seized in the same period last year.

Fellow National Party members, these are just a few of the things the National-led Government is doing to make New Zealand a better place.
Including making the nation's strategic assets safe from the scourge of priest-led vandalism.
We are doing what we were elected to do and we have kept our promises.
 
New Zealanders put their trust in us and we are delivering.
 
There is plenty more to come from this Government.
There probably is at least another term of National, unless Labour starts engaging with the voters.
Today I want to announce some policies that will help productivity and employment in New Zealand.
 
As we continue to grow out of the recession, it's important we have the right environment to create more jobs.

It's also important for greater growth that we improve New Zealand's overall productivity, meaning we generate more value from the hours we work.

I know these can be fairly abstract concepts.

So this is how I look at it.

In the real world, economic growth happens because a business sees an opportunity and is prepared to invest, expand and put its own money on the line.
The critical issue affecting economic growth is productivity. Our workforce is not as productive as it should be, and that is in part due to the reluctance of employers to invest in new capital. Playing around with employment laws to make it easier to fire people won't change that. In fact, it may have the opposite affect. if you treat workers like a commodity you can hardly expect them to be loyal and hard-working. Also, making it easier to ditch new workers does nothing to encourage the mobility of labour.

If these measures are the means by which we are going to grow the economy, let me just say now how truly screwed we are.
Employment happens because a business is prepared to give someone a chance - often someone they have never met before and know very little about.

So an important role for the government is to give businesses of all sizes the confidence to do these things - to seek out new opportunities to invest and take on new workers.

Shortly after the 2008 election we introduced a 90-day trial period for businesses with fewer than 20 employees - as we said we would do.

We introduced that trial period to encourage employers to take on new staff, and to expand job opportunities for people who often struggle to get work.

We wanted those people to back themselves - to say "give me a go and I will prove I can do the job".

That law change has worked extremely well.
The law has worked well for employers, as you would expect. Where's the downside in being able to fire someone at will? As for the employees, Key hasn't actually talked to any of them. 
We recently received an evaluation of the 90-day trial period from the Department of Labour.

It found that half of employers had used a trial period when hiring workers.

And in relation to the last employee they hired on a trial period, 40 per cent of employers said they would not have, or were unlikely to have, hired that person without the trial period.

The evaluation suggests employers viewed dismissals during the trial period as an unfavourable outcome, and actively tried to avoid them.

Take this quote from an employer who used the trial period:

"I think this new 90-day trial period for a small business such as my own is a brilliant idea, and it gives me the confidence to be able to take someone on like I've done and know that if they don't work out we can do something about it, whereas before you were stuck..."

In general, employers have acted responsibly, and workers have been treated fairly.

So I want to announce today that the Government is going to extend the 90-day trial period to cover all employers.

That's all employers, not just those which are small or medium sized.

As with the existing law, the 90 day trial period can only be entered into by a written agreement between the employer and the new worker at the beginning of the employment relationship.

This is a policy of opportunity. It is about giving people the chance to find a job, and nothing is more important than that.

We are giving many more businesses the increased confidence to hire new employees, and giving many more people a chance to prove themselves in the job market.

It's worth noting that many other developed countries we compare ourselves with have similar policies. A number of countries have employment rules that go even further.

For example, in the United Kingdom, no employee - whether or not they have agreed to a probationary period - can normally make a complaint of unfair dismissal until they have completed 12 months continuous employment.

Similarly in Australia, employees must have served a minimum employment period of 12 months if they are employed in a business with fewer than 15 employees, or six months in any other business, before they can make an unfair dismissal claim.

So I consider that the 90-day trial period we are introducing is very fair and balanced.
Just like Fox News is. It's not fair and balanced unless you ask employees how they view the law. The Department of Labour study Key keeps quoting didn't ask employees how the law affected them. Plus those probationary laws in other countries give workers more rights - they can't just be summarily dismissed for no reason.

But there are arguments both for and against the 90 day trial, as I mentioned in my post yesterday.
But that's not all.

Extending trial periods is just one part of a package of amendments to New Zealand's labour laws that the Government is releasing today.

The key elements of these changes were signalled in National's election manifesto.

They are now going to come into effect.

In advancing this package, I would especially like to acknowledge the involvement and assistance of the Act Party, who will be working with us to ensure the passage of legislation through Parliament.
Does that mean some of these measures are too draconian for the other support parties? That says a lot. These measures have Act's imprint all over them.
The package contains pragmatic solutions to real issues facing real businesses and employees.

I have often said that I am interested in what works, not ideological changes for the sake of them.
How I laughed when I read that. These changes are almost completely ideologically driven.
That applies in the area of labour relations as much as it does anywhere else.

National campaigned at the last election with an express commitment to improve labour laws in this country with targeted changes, rather than a radical revolution.

That is precisely what we are doing.

Another area of change will be the personal grievance system.

We are committed to maintaining a fair and equitable system that protects the rights of New Zealand workers.

But there are currently a number of problems with personal grievances.

So we are going to make a number of changes to more speedily resolve employment problems, discourage poor practices, reduce costs, and improve confidence in the system.

For example, we will give the Employment Relations Authority the ability to filter out vexatious or frivolous claims at an early stage.

We will also introduce penalties for delaying behaviour at the Authority, and ensure that an employer's processes are not the subject of pedantic scrutiny.

We are going to make some other changes to improve the way the Employment Relations Authority works, including moving to a more judicial mode of operation, with the right to cross-examine witnesses.

We will be protecting reasonable union access to the work place, although prior consent of an employer will be required.

That consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

However, this change will make access to worksites consistent for everyone, enabling visits to occur at times when they will not compromise things such as workplace safety.

Another change is around employers talking to staff.

Currently, many employers feel they cannot communicate directly with their workers during collective negotiations.

So we are going to amend the law to make it clear that employers can communicate directly with their staff while bargaining is underway, including talking to them about the terms of any settlement offer.

There will also be changes to the Holidays Act.

The issue of "relevant daily pay" has proved to be the most difficult and frustrating part of the Act.

We are going to fix this issue by introducing a new calculation known as "average daily pay" for workers with variable hours and pay.

This will be based on an average of their pay over the last year.

This will fix a festering issue that has proved difficult for both workers and businesses over the past seven years.

National's election manifesto also proposed a change to the Holidays Act to allow workers to "cash-in" their fourth week of leave.

That is part of the package we are announcing today.

Workers will be allowed to request a trade of up to one week of their annual holiday entitlement for cash.
Strict conditions will apply. Cashing-in leave entitlements can only be at the employee's request and cannot be raised in salary negotiations.

In particular, we do not want to see a situation where employers can pressure workers into taking this option.

Altogether, this is a package of changes that I believe is pragmatic, credible and effective.

These changes will provide more clarity. They will reduce delays in the system and resolve problems earlier, meaning that both employers and employees can have more confidence in the system.

This package is one more step on the road to a more productive economy and increased employment.
This package is about increasing opportunities for employment.
I examined some of these measures yesterday, so there's no need to go over them again. I concluded that most of the reforms are not designed with employee welfare in mind.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the National Party is firmly focused on looking forward.
In other words, when's the next poll due?
We are focused on securing that brighter future that New Zealanders so resoundingly chose when they cast their votes in the 2008 election.

You have today heard of the actions that our government is taking to put New Zealand on the path to that brighter future.
I really am getting tired of that "brighter future" phrase. The only brighter future I see is that god-awful canary yellow jacket Rodney Hide wears. And that's a bright future that frightens me.
New Zealand needs strong leadership if it is to take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.
Where is this strong leadership?
New Zealand needs responsible management of the country's finances, so that debt can be kept under control and a strong foundation can be built for the future.
Responsible to a point. But tax cuts are more important still.
And the National Party is the right party to deliver that leadership.

We will back New Zealanders to be the best they can be.

We will make sure Kiwis have the opportunity to reach their personal goals and dreams.

And we will do it by governing in a pragmatic and balanced way.
Blah blah blah. Key here uses the "rule of three", a standard rhetorical device. But it's hardly stirring oratory, is it?
We will be guided by the values and principles that have underpinned this great Party for so many decades.
Which decades are we talking about here? The brutal strike-busting anti-union values of the fifties, the irresponsible Muldoonist interventionism of the 1970s that so royally screwed us for decades, or the hard-right policies of the '90s that continue to impact on those at the bottom of the heap?
Because we believe in a future where we celebrate achievement.
Especially if I can get my photo taken alongside the All Blacks.
Where we reward effort.
Only some effort. Wealthy and need a tax cut? We can help!
Where the economy is strong and our communities are safe.

Where education standards are high.
We all want these things. Hey, I want a pay rise, and a new car too!
Where our young people choose to live in this country because it offers all the opportunities they need and want.
What has National done to encourage people to stay in this country and not skip to Australia? I can't think of anything that would make a bit of difference to most young people deciding whether to stay or go.

My fellow Party members.
In a year's time we will once again be gearing up to fight an election.

We will be in great shape for that battle.
That is true.
We will have a team we can be proud of, a record we can campaign on, and forward looking policies that will take New Zealand the next step towards a brighter future.

Thank you very much.
Underwhelming. Or am I just being churlish? But then I'm hardly the target audience.

This is why I could never be one of the Party Faithful. Imagine having to sit through that and keep your eyes open.

There's no vision or big picture in Key's speech.to inspire the masses.  Just constant talk of a "brighter future", a meaningless phrase that will get nobody excited. Key will stay popular because he's not prepared to do anything too controversial. When anything he proposes gets a negative reaction he's usually quick to back down.

Key's mediocre speech proves that he's got no grand plan to get us out of the economic slump we're in. So all his talk of strong leadership is hot air.