There once was a man from Parnell,
State assets he wanted to sell;
The public were wild,
Till he gave them a smile,
And now they all think the plan's swell.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
An Epic Poem Of Heartbreaking Beauty And Power
Asset Sales - Should We?
It has been said many times that John Key is a lucky politician. Likewise, it is often remarked that whenever Phil Goff makes an important announcement or gives a notable speech, something else in the world happens to leave him in the shade.
And so it was this week. We quickly forgot about Goff's big idea when John Key told us how he wanted to partially sell some of our state assets, and when the Hone Harawira circus took the media's attention away.
Goff's announcement wasn't all that well received among the pundits and commentariat anyway. Labour's supporter loved it, but most of the people paid to give their opinion don't vote Labour. So the idea of a tax-free first $5000 and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy was panned widely across the media. The response was either "great idea but wrong time" or "it's socialism gone mad!"
Goff maybe shouldn't have released the policy without spending more time explaining how it was going to be paid for. But at the time of the speech Labour was languishing in the polls, and he needed to do something. It was hardly a big idea, but at least it showed a different direction to the one the Nats have been travelling in.
In any event, Key's plan to sell down a portion of some of our state assets has transfixed those same paid opinionators, and just about everyone seems to have written something on it. I won't link to any articles, because there are just too many.
There are some moderate voices out there, but the consensus seems to be "great idea, John." Key has been praised for his political courage, although you could argue that it is not so much courage as a retreat from his customary timidity. We all knew asset sales were coming. It was just a question of when.
If you're as much a politics nerd as me you'll have read a million pieces on the rights and wrongs of asset sales. Myself, I am not ideologically opposed to asset sales per se, but when our nation's appalling history of getting asset sales terribly wrong is considered, the sale of state assets should only ever take place where the argument in favour is compelling. Now there are some positives in the proposal, but also a lot of negatives. So let's sum them up.
Positives
The Government will have a majority interest, so will retain control. So long as the government retains majority ownership of any partially sold company, it can control the board and so the decisions the company makes. But there's a big difference between owning 51% and 75% of the shares. Owning 75% (e.g. the Air New Zealand model) means you can pass a major transaction resolution. If minorities holding more than 25% of the shares don't like a critical board decision they have potential remedies. So selling more than 25% of the shares in these state assets would mean a loss of some control.
We can't keep borrowing at the current rate. The money raised can be used to invest in infrastructure, meaning the government won't have to borrow to fund it. Of course, if you sell a share in a profitable entity you'll get an initial windfall, but a reduced profit share in the future. So this is really only a short-term win. It makes sense if you accept our books are a mess, we're hopelessly in debt and have to sell some of our assets to reduce our indebtedness. If we don't have a hopeless public debt position then it may not be good sense, and it may be better to borrow to fund infrastructure. When Michael Cullen was running big budget surpluses and the then opposition called on him to cut taxes, they argued that it made no sense to make the current generation pay for infrastructure that future ones would enjoy. Borrow it, they said. What has changed?
These entities will do better if forced to follow stock exchange listing and disclosure rules, and if forced to follow corporate best practice. I've heard this a lot this week, but nobody has explained how or why. It may be one of those articles of faith believed without question by neoliberal economists. Will someone please explain this to me?
The shares would stay mostly in Kiwi hands. Key has mentioned giving priority to Kiwi "Mun and Dad" investors when the shares are offered. I'm not sure how that would work. It is likely that institutional investors (Kiwi and otherwise) would want to invest heavily, and so it's impossible to know how many "Mum and Dad" investors would end up holding shares. It's likely that a lot of the shares sold would end up in the hands of overseas investors.
The share issues would help our struggling capital markets. This is beyond argument. Our stockmarket has had few decent listings for the last couple of years, and investors would flock to invest in the power companies Key is proposing to sell. It would also be a step towards rebalancing our economy away from real estate speculation. But it's only a baby step, which is why if it's Key's plan to transform the economy there would need to be many more asset sales in the future.
The government has no business running businesses. You either believe this or you don't. I have no problem with the government being involved in the operation of utility companies. But I'm not a socialist, which is why if, say, the government ran a chain of coffee shops I'd think that was a stupid investment and that they ought to sell them. Many neoliberals believe the government is the enemy of the people, and can't run anything well. The sad reality is that the business sector in this country has consistently underperformed for many years, and can't really point the finger at the government.
Negatives
These assets are profitable: why sell the goose that lays the golden egg? Some people say that the power companies to be put on the block already make a profit, so why sell them? I've seen conflicting opinions on whether the SOE power companies have performed as well as the private ones, so can't say for sure if this argument is a valid one. If the SOEs were underperforming, then that might make an argument in favour of private investment and involvement more compelling.
This is the thin end of the wedge. Key may talk about how he doesn't make decisions based on ideology, but the reality is that if the constraints of public opinion were not such a brake, he would have already sold off billions of dollars worth of state assets. Key may be a pragmatist, but only because he must balance what he wants to do with what the public will let him do. So if we endorse a partial sale of state assets, Key may take that as a sign to commence the Great Sell-Off.
We have a history in this country of disastrous asset sales. Think of the bargain that the purchaser got when we sold Telecom. And when we sold Air New Zealand the buyers managed it so ineptly that the company had to be bailed out. Think of Transrail and the BNZ. We sold New Zealand Steel in return for shares in Equiticorp, just before those shares became worthless. The only people that seemed to benefit from the asset sales of the '80s and '90s were Messrs Fay and Richwhite.
Power prices will go up. Some people are saying that we will be even further gouged as consumers if we partially sell the power companies. I've seen no good evidence why this should be the case, however. The power companies compete with each other, and I'm not sure that Contact (privately owned) is any more expensive a power supplier than, say, an SOE such as Meridian. But then I've not crunched the numbers.
There's no major crisis in public debt. We don't need to sell our assets to pay down debt. Our national debt figures are pretty grim, but the debt owned by the government isn't the main reason for these awful figures, thanks to many years of government surpluses in the last decade. Selling state assets is not an imperative. Yes, we're borrowing billions, but the books aren't in as bad a shape as Key is suggesting.
There are no doubt other arguments for or against asset sales. But if you consider the above list then (at least in my opinion) the case for asset sales doesn't stack up. There are some good reasons for selling, but a pile more for holding on to our assets.
And so it was this week. We quickly forgot about Goff's big idea when John Key told us how he wanted to partially sell some of our state assets, and when the Hone Harawira circus took the media's attention away.
Goff's announcement wasn't all that well received among the pundits and commentariat anyway. Labour's supporter loved it, but most of the people paid to give their opinion don't vote Labour. So the idea of a tax-free first $5000 and increasing the tax burden on the wealthy was panned widely across the media. The response was either "great idea but wrong time" or "it's socialism gone mad!"
Goff maybe shouldn't have released the policy without spending more time explaining how it was going to be paid for. But at the time of the speech Labour was languishing in the polls, and he needed to do something. It was hardly a big idea, but at least it showed a different direction to the one the Nats have been travelling in.
In any event, Key's plan to sell down a portion of some of our state assets has transfixed those same paid opinionators, and just about everyone seems to have written something on it. I won't link to any articles, because there are just too many.
There are some moderate voices out there, but the consensus seems to be "great idea, John." Key has been praised for his political courage, although you could argue that it is not so much courage as a retreat from his customary timidity. We all knew asset sales were coming. It was just a question of when.
If you're as much a politics nerd as me you'll have read a million pieces on the rights and wrongs of asset sales. Myself, I am not ideologically opposed to asset sales per se, but when our nation's appalling history of getting asset sales terribly wrong is considered, the sale of state assets should only ever take place where the argument in favour is compelling. Now there are some positives in the proposal, but also a lot of negatives. So let's sum them up.
Positives
The Government will have a majority interest, so will retain control. So long as the government retains majority ownership of any partially sold company, it can control the board and so the decisions the company makes. But there's a big difference between owning 51% and 75% of the shares. Owning 75% (e.g. the Air New Zealand model) means you can pass a major transaction resolution. If minorities holding more than 25% of the shares don't like a critical board decision they have potential remedies. So selling more than 25% of the shares in these state assets would mean a loss of some control.
We can't keep borrowing at the current rate. The money raised can be used to invest in infrastructure, meaning the government won't have to borrow to fund it. Of course, if you sell a share in a profitable entity you'll get an initial windfall, but a reduced profit share in the future. So this is really only a short-term win. It makes sense if you accept our books are a mess, we're hopelessly in debt and have to sell some of our assets to reduce our indebtedness. If we don't have a hopeless public debt position then it may not be good sense, and it may be better to borrow to fund infrastructure. When Michael Cullen was running big budget surpluses and the then opposition called on him to cut taxes, they argued that it made no sense to make the current generation pay for infrastructure that future ones would enjoy. Borrow it, they said. What has changed?
These entities will do better if forced to follow stock exchange listing and disclosure rules, and if forced to follow corporate best practice. I've heard this a lot this week, but nobody has explained how or why. It may be one of those articles of faith believed without question by neoliberal economists. Will someone please explain this to me?
The shares would stay mostly in Kiwi hands. Key has mentioned giving priority to Kiwi "Mun and Dad" investors when the shares are offered. I'm not sure how that would work. It is likely that institutional investors (Kiwi and otherwise) would want to invest heavily, and so it's impossible to know how many "Mum and Dad" investors would end up holding shares. It's likely that a lot of the shares sold would end up in the hands of overseas investors.
The share issues would help our struggling capital markets. This is beyond argument. Our stockmarket has had few decent listings for the last couple of years, and investors would flock to invest in the power companies Key is proposing to sell. It would also be a step towards rebalancing our economy away from real estate speculation. But it's only a baby step, which is why if it's Key's plan to transform the economy there would need to be many more asset sales in the future.
The government has no business running businesses. You either believe this or you don't. I have no problem with the government being involved in the operation of utility companies. But I'm not a socialist, which is why if, say, the government ran a chain of coffee shops I'd think that was a stupid investment and that they ought to sell them. Many neoliberals believe the government is the enemy of the people, and can't run anything well. The sad reality is that the business sector in this country has consistently underperformed for many years, and can't really point the finger at the government.
Negatives
These assets are profitable: why sell the goose that lays the golden egg? Some people say that the power companies to be put on the block already make a profit, so why sell them? I've seen conflicting opinions on whether the SOE power companies have performed as well as the private ones, so can't say for sure if this argument is a valid one. If the SOEs were underperforming, then that might make an argument in favour of private investment and involvement more compelling.
This is the thin end of the wedge. Key may talk about how he doesn't make decisions based on ideology, but the reality is that if the constraints of public opinion were not such a brake, he would have already sold off billions of dollars worth of state assets. Key may be a pragmatist, but only because he must balance what he wants to do with what the public will let him do. So if we endorse a partial sale of state assets, Key may take that as a sign to commence the Great Sell-Off.
We have a history in this country of disastrous asset sales. Think of the bargain that the purchaser got when we sold Telecom. And when we sold Air New Zealand the buyers managed it so ineptly that the company had to be bailed out. Think of Transrail and the BNZ. We sold New Zealand Steel in return for shares in Equiticorp, just before those shares became worthless. The only people that seemed to benefit from the asset sales of the '80s and '90s were Messrs Fay and Richwhite.
Power prices will go up. Some people are saying that we will be even further gouged as consumers if we partially sell the power companies. I've seen no good evidence why this should be the case, however. The power companies compete with each other, and I'm not sure that Contact (privately owned) is any more expensive a power supplier than, say, an SOE such as Meridian. But then I've not crunched the numbers.
There's no major crisis in public debt. We don't need to sell our assets to pay down debt. Our national debt figures are pretty grim, but the debt owned by the government isn't the main reason for these awful figures, thanks to many years of government surpluses in the last decade. Selling state assets is not an imperative. Yes, we're borrowing billions, but the books aren't in as bad a shape as Key is suggesting.
There are no doubt other arguments for or against asset sales. But if you consider the above list then (at least in my opinion) the case for asset sales doesn't stack up. There are some good reasons for selling, but a pile more for holding on to our assets.
Key Captures Critical Demographic After Radio Show
After a momentous week in politics, both main political party leaders were this weekend reflecting on the reaction to their state of the nation speeches.
Most commentators and analysts have given John Key a positive tick for what they say was a courageous initiative.
Lecturer in Political Studies at Timaru University, Fraser Newdick, said that Key had recaptured territory lost to him over the last couple of years.
"Being interviewed on Tony Veitch's radio show and talking on-air about who he'd like to bag was a sure sign of the man's class," said Mr Fraser.
"It was also a politically astute move. Having already sewn up the bland-spineless-lacking-initiative demographic, he's now made the sexist-boofhead vote his own.
"Anyone who is about to throw their girlfriend down the stairs will now be thinking of voting National."
The media reaction to Mr Key has also been largely positive.
Newspaper columnist Harold Balls wrote this week that "Key's discovery that he's a hot-blooded man-mountain busting for some action will delight all the little ladies. Come on girls, you know you can't resist a man of power."
But when interviewed yesterday, Mr Key was less forthcoming about the radio show interview, and preferred to discuss his asset sale programme.
"Most people know that securing a brighter future for ourselves and our families is more important than who I happen to be sexually attracted to," said Mr Key.
"But don't get me wrong. I may be a happily married man, but if some fine hot lady walks by then I'm going to tell the world 'hey, I would so do that.'
"I doubt that prissy choirboy Goff would be brave enough to. Like all of Labour's man-ladies, he'd be castrated by the Sisterhood the moment he opened his mouth."
Mr Key then scratched his backside, belched loudly and wiped his nose on the Warriors shirt he was wearing.
Mr Goff has publicly rejected suggestions that Labour is losing ground in the critical sportsjock-misogynist demographic. But party insiders have confirmed that Goff realises Labour must regain the sympathies of the domestically violent classes if the party is to have a realistic hope of returning to government.
"A Labour government would be an inclusive one," said Mr Goff yesterday, standing at the bar in Showgirls with his hands in his pants.
"We are a party for all New Zealanders. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white, brown or yellow, rich or poor. If it's female and hot then I'll tap it.
"My message to ordinary New Zealanders who are struggling through these hard times and who happen to be female and sexy is this: show us your tits, love!"
Most commentators and analysts have given John Key a positive tick for what they say was a courageous initiative.
Lecturer in Political Studies at Timaru University, Fraser Newdick, said that Key had recaptured territory lost to him over the last couple of years.
"Being interviewed on Tony Veitch's radio show and talking on-air about who he'd like to bag was a sure sign of the man's class," said Mr Fraser.
"It was also a politically astute move. Having already sewn up the bland-spineless-lacking-initiative demographic, he's now made the sexist-boofhead vote his own.
"Anyone who is about to throw their girlfriend down the stairs will now be thinking of voting National."
The media reaction to Mr Key has also been largely positive.
Newspaper columnist Harold Balls wrote this week that "Key's discovery that he's a hot-blooded man-mountain busting for some action will delight all the little ladies. Come on girls, you know you can't resist a man of power."
But when interviewed yesterday, Mr Key was less forthcoming about the radio show interview, and preferred to discuss his asset sale programme.
"Most people know that securing a brighter future for ourselves and our families is more important than who I happen to be sexually attracted to," said Mr Key.
"But don't get me wrong. I may be a happily married man, but if some fine hot lady walks by then I'm going to tell the world 'hey, I would so do that.'
"I doubt that prissy choirboy Goff would be brave enough to. Like all of Labour's man-ladies, he'd be castrated by the Sisterhood the moment he opened his mouth."
Mr Key then scratched his backside, belched loudly and wiped his nose on the Warriors shirt he was wearing.
Mr Goff has publicly rejected suggestions that Labour is losing ground in the critical sportsjock-misogynist demographic. But party insiders have confirmed that Goff realises Labour must regain the sympathies of the domestically violent classes if the party is to have a realistic hope of returning to government.
"A Labour government would be an inclusive one," said Mr Goff yesterday, standing at the bar in Showgirls with his hands in his pants.
"We are a party for all New Zealanders. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white, brown or yellow, rich or poor. If it's female and hot then I'll tap it.
"My message to ordinary New Zealanders who are struggling through these hard times and who happen to be female and sexy is this: show us your tits, love!"
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Guess I'll Read This
As I mentioned yesterday, I managed to leave my book at home, so I've been scrambling around to find something to read during my time on the Coromandel.
It's a shame the local store doesn't have a better selection of magazines. I'll just have to make do with what they have.
It's a shame the local store doesn't have a better selection of magazines. I'll just have to make do with what they have.
Comedy Quote Of The Week
"I want to stress that the Government is interested in what works, not in following any particular ideology."
Saturday Celebrity Fluff
Anna Leask of the Herald has discovered where the gold is: tabloid journalism. We like to know all the grubby details of our celebrities, and she delivers with style. Her previous sojourn into the world of bad boy celebrities was an expose of the shocking behaviour of that "household name" Martin Devlin.
This morning she's taking the horse out for another gallop. But this time Devlin's friends are along for the ride.
It's just a pity that, with one very notable exception (Tony Veitch), it's small beer. Sitting on a car, possession of a few tablets of a mostly harmless drug, driving while disqualified.
And how is Mike King's struggle with addiction newsworthy? Leave the poor man alone.
If further proof is needed that this is a piece of tabloid celebrity fluff Leask also finds an "industry insider" to dish the dirt.
And now (shock horror!) one of the said boofheads has written in support of sacked UK Sky TV commentator Andy Gray.
If newspaper editors want to know why people are turned off by their product, here's a clue: don't print this celebrity tittle-tattle and pretend it's news.
This morning she's taking the horse out for another gallop. But this time Devlin's friends are along for the ride.
Convictions, addictions and disorderly conduct all par for the course for these big egos, says one television industry insiderThe article then rehashes the various offences that the Game of Two Halves boofhead set have been charged with.
They were applauded for being "laddish" and outrageous on screen - but no one is laughing after a fifth panel member of the sports show Game of Two Halves got himself into trouble.
It's just a pity that, with one very notable exception (Tony Veitch), it's small beer. Sitting on a car, possession of a few tablets of a mostly harmless drug, driving while disqualified.
And how is Mike King's struggle with addiction newsworthy? Leave the poor man alone.
If further proof is needed that this is a piece of tabloid celebrity fluff Leask also finds an "industry insider" to dish the dirt.
And now (shock horror!) one of the said boofheads has written in support of sacked UK Sky TV commentator Andy Gray.
If newspaper editors want to know why people are turned off by their product, here's a clue: don't print this celebrity tittle-tattle and pretend it's news.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Random Friday Links
Due to a convergence of unfortunate events it turns out that I have gone away for the long weekend and don't have a book to read. Not exactly what I had planned, but I will endeavour to make the best of it.
The place I am staying at has a bookcase filled with books. Most of them are from esteemed authors such as Tom Clancy, Wilbur Smith and Jeffrey Archer. So what am I to do now?
Thankfully I has the interwebz. So here is a collection of some of the stuff I've been reading and enjoying in lieu of a good book.
Deborah Coddington at Pundit is at her confused best in one of those "it's PC gone mad" type posts.
Johann Hari of the UK Independent has written this fantastic piece about the plight of gay children in the UK. Read it.
Keith Ng at Public Address thinks John Key's plan to partially sell state assets makes little economic sense. Unlike many of the noisy voices on the left, Keith always brings facts and figures to his arguments.
I have been enjoying this series of post by Paul Buchanan on Kiwipolitico, seeking to identify who are the leading thinkers of the left and right in New Zealand. Some interesting names pop up.
Deborah Hill Cone says she is out of love with the super rich. Is she becoming a socialist? I doubt it. She seems to lump all super wealthy people into the same boat, regardless of whether they are just financier parasites or people who have contributed meaningful technologies to humankind, and then attacks them because some of them even give billions to the poor. These guys can't win.
Let's do as they do in Laos. David Farrar argues that because the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party has agreed to allow people to buy shares in state assets, Labour must be more ideological than the Marxist Leninists. Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't have any particular ideological axes of his own to grind. Laos is a poor country that doesn't have the resources to pay for infrastructure, hence the need for overseas investment. New Zealand is not quite in that category yet, although another generation of neoliberal economic policies should just about get us there.
The place I am staying at has a bookcase filled with books. Most of them are from esteemed authors such as Tom Clancy, Wilbur Smith and Jeffrey Archer. So what am I to do now?
Thankfully I has the interwebz. So here is a collection of some of the stuff I've been reading and enjoying in lieu of a good book.
Deborah Coddington at Pundit is at her confused best in one of those "it's PC gone mad" type posts.
Johann Hari of the UK Independent has written this fantastic piece about the plight of gay children in the UK. Read it.
Keith Ng at Public Address thinks John Key's plan to partially sell state assets makes little economic sense. Unlike many of the noisy voices on the left, Keith always brings facts and figures to his arguments.
I have been enjoying this series of post by Paul Buchanan on Kiwipolitico, seeking to identify who are the leading thinkers of the left and right in New Zealand. Some interesting names pop up.
Deborah Hill Cone says she is out of love with the super rich. Is she becoming a socialist? I doubt it. She seems to lump all super wealthy people into the same boat, regardless of whether they are just financier parasites or people who have contributed meaningful technologies to humankind, and then attacks them because some of them even give billions to the poor. These guys can't win.
Let's do as they do in Laos. David Farrar argues that because the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party has agreed to allow people to buy shares in state assets, Labour must be more ideological than the Marxist Leninists. Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't have any particular ideological axes of his own to grind. Laos is a poor country that doesn't have the resources to pay for infrastructure, hence the need for overseas investment. New Zealand is not quite in that category yet, although another generation of neoliberal economic policies should just about get us there.
Because I Just Can't Remember
Can someone help me out?
I'm sure supporters of one of the two main political parties regularly accuse the other of containing a large number of career politicians: people who have never set foot in the "real world", and who have spent their entire adult life in politics. We are told that these people lack any business sense.
Now which party is that? Maybe this guy will know.
I'm sure supporters of one of the two main political parties regularly accuse the other of containing a large number of career politicians: people who have never set foot in the "real world", and who have spent their entire adult life in politics. We are told that these people lack any business sense.
Now which party is that? Maybe this guy will know.
Reasons Why You Should Follow Me On Twitter
Are you on Twitter? If not, then you are missing a veritable rollercoaster ride of fun, frivolity and high drama.
If you are a Twitter enthusiast then, like me, you are living the dream.
For those of you who are yet to join in the social media phenomenon, I have nothing to say to you. How do you sleep at night? Won’t someone think of the children?
For the rest of you, a simple instruction: follow me.
My long-term plan in joining Twitter is to gather up enough followers so that I can issue orders to my millions of disciples when the time for the great uprising finally comes. The world’s a big place, and when we go to seize the means of production and the apparatus of the state we’ll need lots of people on the ground doing the dirty work. That’s why I need you.
If that isn’t a compelling enough reason, here are some more:
If you are a Twitter enthusiast then, like me, you are living the dream.
For those of you who are yet to join in the social media phenomenon, I have nothing to say to you. How do you sleep at night? Won’t someone think of the children?
For the rest of you, a simple instruction: follow me.
My long-term plan in joining Twitter is to gather up enough followers so that I can issue orders to my millions of disciples when the time for the great uprising finally comes. The world’s a big place, and when we go to seize the means of production and the apparatus of the state we’ll need lots of people on the ground doing the dirty work. That’s why I need you.
If that isn’t a compelling enough reason, here are some more:
- I would so hate to see something bad happen to you. Have you checked the brakes on your car lately?
- Everyone who follows me will get a free 12 month subscription to Ian Wishart’s new magazine “Investigate For Pets”.
- You will have access to all of my words of wisdom on Twitter. Even my back catalogue of tweets. And I’m offering this for free! I know, I’m going CRAAAAZY!
- You have no friends and no career prospects. You’re at the bottom of the heap. What really have you got to lose? You’ve nothing left.
- Jesus wants you to. He talks to me.
- I will also offer occasional legal advice to my followers, for free! Here’s a teaser so you get the idea of what I am offering: “People, don’t commit murder, because it’s a criminal offence.” If you want advice from any other lawyer they’ll charge you a bucket-load.
@ImperatorFish
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Harawira 1, Sharples-Turia 0
Hone Harawira is a master showman. He managed to turn the Te Tai Tokerau electorate disciplinary hearing into a circus, and it ended up being little more than a supporters' rally for him.
I'm sure the failure to invite the original complainant was not an oversight. It merely adds to the farce and is a direct snub to the party's leaders. Perhaps Harawira's got his own advice on the Maori Party constitution and has realised how utterly inadequate it is. It doesn't set out what process must be followed by the electorate committee to resolve any complaint.
Harawira is winning the PR battle hands-down, and is getting enormous amounts of publicity. I wonder if the Maori Party leadership would have engineered the complaint against him had they known how impotent he would make them appear.
If any further sign were needed that the Maori Party leadership are losing the PR battle, consider how remarkable it is that people like Garth George are writing in admiration of Harawira*. Nobody but the man himself, and perhaps a few of his closest advisers, knows what his plan is, or even if he has a plan. You can be sure, however, that whatever happens next the cameras will be rolling and Harawira's supporters will be vocal. Sharples and Turia may be putting on brave faces, but they must be mortified.
If Harawira's goal was to draw attention to the failure of the Maori Party leadership to follow the principles that led to its existence, he has succeeded brilliantly. What that will mean for the future of the party is anyone's guess, though.
* He may want Harawira gone, but only because he is "too good for politics".
I'm sure the failure to invite the original complainant was not an oversight. It merely adds to the farce and is a direct snub to the party's leaders. Perhaps Harawira's got his own advice on the Maori Party constitution and has realised how utterly inadequate it is. It doesn't set out what process must be followed by the electorate committee to resolve any complaint.
Harawira is winning the PR battle hands-down, and is getting enormous amounts of publicity. I wonder if the Maori Party leadership would have engineered the complaint against him had they known how impotent he would make them appear.
If any further sign were needed that the Maori Party leadership are losing the PR battle, consider how remarkable it is that people like Garth George are writing in admiration of Harawira*. Nobody but the man himself, and perhaps a few of his closest advisers, knows what his plan is, or even if he has a plan. You can be sure, however, that whatever happens next the cameras will be rolling and Harawira's supporters will be vocal. Sharples and Turia may be putting on brave faces, but they must be mortified.
If Harawira's goal was to draw attention to the failure of the Maori Party leadership to follow the principles that led to its existence, he has succeeded brilliantly. What that will mean for the future of the party is anyone's guess, though.
* He may want Harawira gone, but only because he is "too good for politics".
Granny On John The Beloved
I predicted yesterday that the reaction to Key's asset sale announcement by the main newspaper editors would be favourable.
The Herald's editorial perhaps lays it on a bit thick, however:
The editorial writer then displays what we have come to expect from the Herald: a commitment to economic illiteracy:
There is no particular crisis in public spending, if government spending as a percentage of GDP is compared with other countries*. Unlike the "PIGS" countries referred to by Key, most of our foreign debt has been incurred by households and businesses, not the government.
The editorial then continues:
And while the bulk of the dividends would still go to the public purse with a partial float, 100% of the dividends go to the public purse at present.
As I said yesterday, there are some potential benefits in Key's proposal. But this editorial merely repeats National's talking points, making a totally uncritical assessment of the proposal. Does the Herald have an independent editorial policy, or are its editorial pieces now written by the Beehive?
* At the time of writing I haven't been able to locate on teh interwebs the table I've previously seen with the relevant comparative stats. When I get time (i.e. when I don't have to work!) I'll find it.
The Herald's editorial perhaps lays it on a bit thick, however:
Courage in politics is seldom recognised when it is successful. It takes courage to challenge a sacred cow, but a well-aimed challenge can render the cow sacred no longer. John Key's announcement of public asset sales yesterday should be recognised as a decision both courageous and well directed.I wouldn't have described Key's move as political courage. I don't believe Key has a great deal of that particular product stored away anywhere. I have no doubt that Key's (to date) centrist policies are not favoured by many in the party, especially in Cabinet. It would probably have taken more political courage for Key to refuse to countenance asset sales in National's second term.
The editorial writer then displays what we have come to expect from the Herald: a commitment to economic illiteracy:
...he also announced that this year, the Government plans a determined assault on public debt.
As he put it, "The only other developed countries with a foreign debt the size of ours are Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. That is very uneasy company indeed. It is precisely the difficulties those countries are in that has led to Standard & Poor's putting New Zealand on negative outlook."Public debt and foreign debt are two different things. Public debt is what the government owes to creditors. National debt is what we as a nation (i.e the government, households and businesses) owe to creditors. How is it that our leading newspaper does not understand these basic concepts?
There is no particular crisis in public spending, if government spending as a percentage of GDP is compared with other countries*. Unlike the "PIGS" countries referred to by Key, most of our foreign debt has been incurred by households and businesses, not the government.
The editorial then continues:
Speaking the day before Mr Key, Phil Goff made no more than the ritual nod to the sacred cow. It remains to be seen whether he will now try to raise the heat on asset sales or whether he senses the electorate has moved on.I think it is way too early to assume that the electorate has "moved on", judging by some of the initial public reaction expressed on various radio and TV station polls. I've no doubt that Goff will (if you can pardon the mixing of metaphors) seek to flog this sacred cow until it comes home to roost.
Labour seems to have no interest in reining in the government spending that it allowed to expand by 50 per cent during the property and consumption boom. It has already announced extended welfare proposals for the election. It seems not to have noticed that the recession of its last year in office revealed its level of spending to be unsustainable.There seems to be debate on what the actual spending increase was. Labour people have said it was less than 50%. But Key said 50%, and who is the editorial writer to question His wisdom?
This privatisation programme will favour local share buyers over foreigners, much like the sale of power companies in the 1990s. Unlike then, the Government plans to retain a majority holding. Mr Key believes this makes for the "best of both worlds". The company is subjected to the discipline, reporting requirements and oversight of the sharemarket and the bulk of its dividends go to the public purse.The downsides: what about mentioning the fact that it is likely to be impossible to prevent foreign ownership of a substantial proportion of the shares?
And while the bulk of the dividends would still go to the public purse with a partial float, 100% of the dividends go to the public purse at present.
As I said yesterday, there are some potential benefits in Key's proposal. But this editorial merely repeats National's talking points, making a totally uncritical assessment of the proposal. Does the Herald have an independent editorial policy, or are its editorial pieces now written by the Beehive?
* At the time of writing I haven't been able to locate on teh interwebs the table I've previously seen with the relevant comparative stats. When I get time (i.e. when I don't have to work!) I'll find it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Good Economic Management, Or Selling The Family Silver?
Another day in West Auckland and another important political speech. I haven’t read anywhere in the news media what colour John Key’s hair was, or whether anyone fell over during his speech, but I’m sure those critical details will come out.
As with Goff’s speech, I only have the transcript. But Key’s style of public speaking is workmanlike and competent, so I don’t expect it was one of those “you had to be there” moments, unlike, say, a rousing Obama speech. And I don’t mean that as a criticism of Key in particular, because he’s really no better or worse than most of our politicians when it comes to his oratory.
The most notable aspect of John Key’s speech today was his announcement of a plan to partially sell-off some state assets. I’ll deal with that issue in a minute, but first a look at what else was in the speech.
The main points
Key begins and ends the speech by talking about building a “brighter future”. This is one of those feel-good phrases that is essentially meaningless, and he has used this terminology in his speeches before. It irritates me, but presumably someone likes it, otherwise Key wouldn’t keep repeating it.
Key talks up our economic potential as a nation. As our PM he has to do this. If he admitted our economy’s more stuffed that a Christmas turkey who would vote for him?
Key emphasises in the speech that we are a food producing nation. There is precious little in his speech about our nation’s need to expand on the range of goods and services we offer to the world. There was a bit in Goff’s speech about innovation and clean tech, even if much of it was aspirational waffle. Key doesn’t even pretend to care, which tells me that his talk of economic transformation is just that—talk.
There’s a fair amount of “blame the last government” throughout the speech. That will appeal to the core National constituency, but you can only keep blaming the other lot for so long. It’s true that National came to power in the midst of a recession, and that they inherited an ugly situation. But the types of structural problems that have caused the horrendous deficits now being run are a result of decades of poor decisions by both main parties. Labour ran surpluses for most of its reign, and though it is vulnerable to claims that it allowed government spending to blow out, it also used much of that surplus money to help struggling families (e.g. Working for Families), and to pay off debt and invest in superannuation.
Key is on especially shaky ground blaming Labour for the rampant consumption that took place in the last decade, the explosion of consumer debt that resulted, and the housing bubble. Most countries experienced something similar, and we would have had much the same result had National been in power during the period.
Still, political speeches are about perception, and National has done well in the polls by blaming Labour for the Global Financial Crisis. Key was always going to flog Labour continuously throughout his speech. And the picture painted of doom and gloom caused solely by Labour is a good way of leading into the real kicker: National intends a partial privatisation of state assets.
Key’s speech talks about the need to stimulate savings and investment, but beyond the asset sale programme being announced, he’s light on detail as to how this will be achieved. Just as commentators have attacked Goff for being light on concrete policy, so they should also hone in on Key’s lack of detail.
Key also announces what we already knew about this year's budget –it won’t be a lolly-scramble, and there will be only a modest increase in state spending. The plan is to return to surplus in 2014/15. That relies on revenues holding up, which is certainly not a given in this sluggish economic environment.
Asset sales
We all knew an announcement about asset sales was coming, but now we have some idea of what is planned. I have heard some commentators and media persons suggest that the model Key proposed was much softer than what had been expected, but with the greatest respect to those commentators and media persons, that's nonsense. Key was never going to announce the wholesale cashing up of state assets, and this proposal was well signalled.
And so to the detail. Key has announced that he intends to partially privatise a number of state-owned assets (Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy), and to sell some of the Government's stake in Air New Zealand. He provides little detail in his speech about the plans, but mentions in the speech the Air New Zealand model. Air New Zealand is a terrific company and a brilliant example of Kiwi innovation leading the world, and Key puts this down to the company being partly in private hands. He does not explain why this is so, and despite his saying at one point “I want to stress that the Government is interested in what works, not in following any particular ideology”, my impression is that Key is taking a purely ideological position on the success of Air New Zealand. An argument could be made that the government's acquisition of 75% of Air New Zealand in late 2001 not only saved the company, but also helped it to become the innovator it is today.
Key stresses that the government would remain a majority owner of any SOE put up for sale. But his speech doesn’t tell us whether he is considering say a 20% or 30% privatisation, or 49%. He might have trouble selling to the public a partial sale where say 49% of an SOE was sold, as opposed to maybe 10-20%.
Key does not say anything firm about preventing foreign shareholders from taking substantial stakes in the SOEsZealanders can’t buy them (and I’m not sure how he would ever be able to achieve this even if he had the will to do so), many of the shares will end up in the hands of overseas investors. I’m not sure that’s an evil that must be prevented at all costs, but the least Key could do is be up-front about this.
Verdict
It was a reasonably competent speech in most respects, even if like the Goff speech it lacked detail, but there will be only one real talking point. In some respects the decision to announce the partial sale of state assets can be seen as a bit of a gamble, but we all knew something like this was coming.
Key’s difficulty will be in convincing the voters that this is a limited asset sale programme, and his critics will inevitably raise the “thin end of the wedge” argument. I remain unconvinced that the asset sale programme will stay limited, because asset sales are precisely the thing so many within National are itching for, but on the other hand Key seems to be liked and trusted by a large proportion of the public, and they will probably take him at his word when he talks about a limited programme.
We will find out for sure tomorrow, but I also suspect that most business commentators and newspaper editors will give the speech the big tick, and will talk about how sensible the asset sale proposal is.
But not everyone seems to have read the speech properly. Here are the three main points highlighted on 3 News tonight.
The first point is arguably wrong (the Government's ownership percentage will be a minimum of 51%, and may be higher), the second point is definitely wrong (there is no mention in the speech of foreigners paying a higher price for shares), and only the third point truly represents what Key said.
I will probably be tarred and feathered and drummed out of the “leftie blogger’s club” for saying this, but there are some compelling arguments in favour of at least some public investment in state assets. We need to get people off the real estate investment teat, but if we are going to do so they need investment alternatives, and we saw how well the finance company alternative worked out. SOEs would be good quality investments and would provide a bit of strength and stability to our capital markets. These entities would in turn have more cash to spend on infrastructure investment, and would not need to borrow as much.
We also have an enormous hole in our books, and have been borrowing $300 million a week to cover government spending (thanks in part to John Key's tax cuts. He tried to claim on Campbell Live tonight that they were fiscally neutral, but that's only arguable in relation to the second round of cuts - the so-called "tax switch" - otherwise known as the "we won't increase GST" GST increase).
So I’m not against some form of limited public ownership of these assets (and, yes, I know, some people will say “but the public already owns 100% of these assets”, but you know what I mean). However, I want majority ownership and control to remain with the Crown. My fear is that because I simply don’t trust politicians, I can see the potential for the partial privatisation of some SOEs turning into a full scale sell-off.
As with Goff’s speech, I only have the transcript. But Key’s style of public speaking is workmanlike and competent, so I don’t expect it was one of those “you had to be there” moments, unlike, say, a rousing Obama speech. And I don’t mean that as a criticism of Key in particular, because he’s really no better or worse than most of our politicians when it comes to his oratory.
The most notable aspect of John Key’s speech today was his announcement of a plan to partially sell-off some state assets. I’ll deal with that issue in a minute, but first a look at what else was in the speech.
The main points
Key begins and ends the speech by talking about building a “brighter future”. This is one of those feel-good phrases that is essentially meaningless, and he has used this terminology in his speeches before. It irritates me, but presumably someone likes it, otherwise Key wouldn’t keep repeating it.
Key talks up our economic potential as a nation. As our PM he has to do this. If he admitted our economy’s more stuffed that a Christmas turkey who would vote for him?
Key emphasises in the speech that we are a food producing nation. There is precious little in his speech about our nation’s need to expand on the range of goods and services we offer to the world. There was a bit in Goff’s speech about innovation and clean tech, even if much of it was aspirational waffle. Key doesn’t even pretend to care, which tells me that his talk of economic transformation is just that—talk.
There’s a fair amount of “blame the last government” throughout the speech. That will appeal to the core National constituency, but you can only keep blaming the other lot for so long. It’s true that National came to power in the midst of a recession, and that they inherited an ugly situation. But the types of structural problems that have caused the horrendous deficits now being run are a result of decades of poor decisions by both main parties. Labour ran surpluses for most of its reign, and though it is vulnerable to claims that it allowed government spending to blow out, it also used much of that surplus money to help struggling families (e.g. Working for Families), and to pay off debt and invest in superannuation.
Key is on especially shaky ground blaming Labour for the rampant consumption that took place in the last decade, the explosion of consumer debt that resulted, and the housing bubble. Most countries experienced something similar, and we would have had much the same result had National been in power during the period.
Still, political speeches are about perception, and National has done well in the polls by blaming Labour for the Global Financial Crisis. Key was always going to flog Labour continuously throughout his speech. And the picture painted of doom and gloom caused solely by Labour is a good way of leading into the real kicker: National intends a partial privatisation of state assets.
Key’s speech talks about the need to stimulate savings and investment, but beyond the asset sale programme being announced, he’s light on detail as to how this will be achieved. Just as commentators have attacked Goff for being light on concrete policy, so they should also hone in on Key’s lack of detail.
Key also announces what we already knew about this year's budget –it won’t be a lolly-scramble, and there will be only a modest increase in state spending. The plan is to return to surplus in 2014/15. That relies on revenues holding up, which is certainly not a given in this sluggish economic environment.
Asset sales
We all knew an announcement about asset sales was coming, but now we have some idea of what is planned. I have heard some commentators and media persons suggest that the model Key proposed was much softer than what had been expected, but with the greatest respect to those commentators and media persons, that's nonsense. Key was never going to announce the wholesale cashing up of state assets, and this proposal was well signalled.
And so to the detail. Key has announced that he intends to partially privatise a number of state-owned assets (Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy), and to sell some of the Government's stake in Air New Zealand. He provides little detail in his speech about the plans, but mentions in the speech the Air New Zealand model. Air New Zealand is a terrific company and a brilliant example of Kiwi innovation leading the world, and Key puts this down to the company being partly in private hands. He does not explain why this is so, and despite his saying at one point “I want to stress that the Government is interested in what works, not in following any particular ideology”, my impression is that Key is taking a purely ideological position on the success of Air New Zealand. An argument could be made that the government's acquisition of 75% of Air New Zealand in late 2001 not only saved the company, but also helped it to become the innovator it is today.
Key stresses that the government would remain a majority owner of any SOE put up for sale. But his speech doesn’t tell us whether he is considering say a 20% or 30% privatisation, or 49%. He might have trouble selling to the public a partial sale where say 49% of an SOE was sold, as opposed to maybe 10-20%.
Key does not say anything firm about preventing foreign shareholders from taking substantial stakes in the SOEsZealanders can’t buy them (and I’m not sure how he would ever be able to achieve this even if he had the will to do so), many of the shares will end up in the hands of overseas investors. I’m not sure that’s an evil that must be prevented at all costs, but the least Key could do is be up-front about this.
Verdict
It was a reasonably competent speech in most respects, even if like the Goff speech it lacked detail, but there will be only one real talking point. In some respects the decision to announce the partial sale of state assets can be seen as a bit of a gamble, but we all knew something like this was coming.
Key’s difficulty will be in convincing the voters that this is a limited asset sale programme, and his critics will inevitably raise the “thin end of the wedge” argument. I remain unconvinced that the asset sale programme will stay limited, because asset sales are precisely the thing so many within National are itching for, but on the other hand Key seems to be liked and trusted by a large proportion of the public, and they will probably take him at his word when he talks about a limited programme.
We will find out for sure tomorrow, but I also suspect that most business commentators and newspaper editors will give the speech the big tick, and will talk about how sensible the asset sale proposal is.
But not everyone seems to have read the speech properly. Here are the three main points highlighted on 3 News tonight.
The first point is arguably wrong (the Government's ownership percentage will be a minimum of 51%, and may be higher), the second point is definitely wrong (there is no mention in the speech of foreigners paying a higher price for shares), and only the third point truly represents what Key said.
I will probably be tarred and feathered and drummed out of the “leftie blogger’s club” for saying this, but there are some compelling arguments in favour of at least some public investment in state assets. We need to get people off the real estate investment teat, but if we are going to do so they need investment alternatives, and we saw how well the finance company alternative worked out. SOEs would be good quality investments and would provide a bit of strength and stability to our capital markets. These entities would in turn have more cash to spend on infrastructure investment, and would not need to borrow as much.
We also have an enormous hole in our books, and have been borrowing $300 million a week to cover government spending (thanks in part to John Key's tax cuts. He tried to claim on Campbell Live tonight that they were fiscally neutral, but that's only arguable in relation to the second round of cuts - the so-called "tax switch" - otherwise known as the "we won't increase GST" GST increase).
So I’m not against some form of limited public ownership of these assets (and, yes, I know, some people will say “but the public already owns 100% of these assets”, but you know what I mean). However, I want majority ownership and control to remain with the Crown. My fear is that because I simply don’t trust politicians, I can see the potential for the partial privatisation of some SOEs turning into a full scale sell-off.
Goff First, Key Later
I won’t have time to post on Key’s speech until later. In case anyone thinks I spend all day blogging, I don’t. I only do so during my spare time, of which I seem to have precious little. I am writing this while eating my lunch.
And before I deal with that Key speech, a few comments on the reaction to Goff’s.
National and its coalition partners have been quick to pounce on Labour’s promise to make the first $5000 of income tax-free.
In this case the person responsible for formulating Labour’s previous position on tax isn’t even in Parliament any more.
Mr Dunne should also be careful about the allegations he levels at people. Dunne will work with either party, so long as they give him a seat at the table, regardless of their policies. He is the ultimate political chameleon.*
On the subject of press releases, will someone please proof-read the Maori Party releases before they go out? “Goff too doom and gloom of Maori youth” What does that even mean?
* I was going to use another term to describe Dunne’s preparedness to go with anyone, but thankfully remembered the laws of defamation just in time.
And before I deal with that Key speech, a few comments on the reaction to Goff’s.
National and its coalition partners have been quick to pounce on Labour’s promise to make the first $5000 of income tax-free.
Labour leader Phil Goff’s pledge to make the first $5000 of income tax-free was rejected out of hand by Michael Cullen in the last government, Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said today.I’ve always thought it a weak argument to say that because someone has ruled out doing something in the past, they should never be able to consider it in the future. I’m reminded of the famous quote by John Maynard Keynes when challenged over what appeared to be his changed position on an issue:
“So when did a bad idea become a good idea?” Mr Dunne asked.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?But if ruling something out forms an election promise (e.g. "National will not raise GST"), resiling from that position is an entirely different matter.
In this case the person responsible for formulating Labour’s previous position on tax isn’t even in Parliament any more.
Mr Dunne should also be careful about the allegations he levels at people. Dunne will work with either party, so long as they give him a seat at the table, regardless of their policies. He is the ultimate political chameleon.*
On the subject of press releases, will someone please proof-read the Maori Party releases before they go out? “Goff too doom and gloom of Maori youth” What does that even mean?
* I was going to use another term to describe Dunne’s preparedness to go with anyone, but thankfully remembered the laws of defamation just in time.
I See A Small Problem
Frogblog has a story about the police recruitment poster.
Words fail me. Did the police's marketing people spend the last five years in another country? Have they even heard of Louise Nicholas?
The new Commissioner sure will have a lot of work to do.
Words fail me. Did the police's marketing people spend the last five years in another country? Have they even heard of Louise Nicholas?
The new Commissioner sure will have a lot of work to do.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Goff's Speech Rated
Okay, so now I might try a serious post for a change.
The Phil Goff State of the Nation speech attracted a bit of attention, but the media don't seem to have thought a great deal of it. I didn't hear it delivered (I did get an invite, but thought it might be hard to justify skipping work), but have read the speech. It looks like it hit a lot of key Labour points. The main points:
Duncan Garner was dismissive of Goff's speech on TV3 tonight, which I thought was a bit over the top. His obsession with Goff's hair was also troubling. I don't mind the media being critical of Labour policy, especially the lack of costings, but when Garner criticises Goff for lacking boldness, he might also consider levelling the same accusation at the incumbent.
But I don't want to carp on about the media, because every partisan thinks the media favours the other guy. It does demonstrate, however, that whatever impressions Goff may have left with the average voter who heard bits of his speech, he has failed yet again to move the influencers like Duncan Garner.
The Phil Goff State of the Nation speech attracted a bit of attention, but the media don't seem to have thought a great deal of it. I didn't hear it delivered (I did get an invite, but thought it might be hard to justify skipping work), but have read the speech. It looks like it hit a lot of key Labour points. The main points:
- It mentions the cost of living and provides examples of the things that have become more expensive: staples such as milk and cheese, and petrol. This is a reminder to the punters that life for a lot of people over the last couple of years has got tougher.
- Goff creates a couple of typical Kiwi battlers: Matt and Lisa. Rather than just talking about how bad the Nats are, Goff tries to relate how the current environment affects two typical Kiwis. It's a good rhetorical device.
- Hit the tax avoiders. The reality is that successive governments have been hitting tax avoiders for decades, but the avoiders just get smarter lawyers and accountants. However, this is politics, and Goff will be wanting to paint a picture of a society where gross inequality exists; where an elite pays little tax, and where the Matts and Lisas of the world do the hard yards.
- Provide that the first $5000 of income is tax free. If the cost of doing this can be justified, then this is good policy. Tax cuts typically favour those on higher incomes. Cutting tax at the other end will mean those on lower incomes get a break. Labour needs to reconnect with the working and middle classes, and getting those who earn north of $100K to pay more tax won't hit their vote too hard.
- How exactly the hole in the budget created by the tax cut will be funded isn't explained. Raising taxes for the rich probably won't cover the shortfall. This is the area the media has focused on, and where Goff looks a bit weak. Goff says more details will come, and that's probably fair enough. It's early in election year, and Labour won't want to give away everything too early. But the news media is a hungry beast and does not like to wait for its food. Goff will know this, so should he have waited to announce the policy at a later date? Probably not. Labour needs a boost in the polls and has to do something. They can't wait until four weeks out from the election. But if it turns out that this policy has been poorly costed then it may come back to hurt Goff.
- The speech mentions closing some of the loopholes that property owners use to avoid paying tax, but is imprecise about the specifics. This far out from the election it is probably fair enough to set out general policy principles, and leave the detail until later. Implementing a true capital gains tax is something no political party seems prepared to contemplate, so we may see a bit of tinkering rather than wholesale reform of the tax system.
- Goff spends a bit of time talking about a high tech economy and clean tech. The language is very grand and aspirational, but there is no substance. Every political party makes these grandiose sweeping statements, and none of them seem to be delivering. Probably the weakest part of the speech for me.
- Goff promises to strengthen trade training, but fails to say how and in what areas. Another weak point.
- National's gutting of Kiwisaver and cutting funding of the Cullen Fund get an airing. Both schemes are achievements Labour can be proud of, so it is fitting that he reminds people who brought them in, and who has pared them back.
- Goff says that Labour will change the Reserve Bank. But how? We are left to wonder.
- He says Labour will be an active part in changing the economy, but doesn't say how.
Duncan Garner was dismissive of Goff's speech on TV3 tonight, which I thought was a bit over the top. His obsession with Goff's hair was also troubling. I don't mind the media being critical of Labour policy, especially the lack of costings, but when Garner criticises Goff for lacking boldness, he might also consider levelling the same accusation at the incumbent.
But I don't want to carp on about the media, because every partisan thinks the media favours the other guy. It does demonstrate, however, that whatever impressions Goff may have left with the average voter who heard bits of his speech, he has failed yet again to move the influencers like Duncan Garner.
Goff Rescues Woman But Fails To Stop Kittens From Dying Somewhere In The World
Critics have attacked Labour leader Phil Goff for the way he reacted, after a woman collapsed during his State of the Nation speech in New Lynn today.
Goff was in the midst of his speech when the woman collapsed. Witnesses say that despite the woman being at the back of the room, Goff immediately stopped, ran to the woman’s aid, and began barking orders to those around him.
Cecil Meldreg, who was next to the woman, said Goff’s quick reactions were remarkable.
“I didn’t even realise for a few moments that the old dear was down. The first I knew was when Mr Goff leaped from the stage, grabbed the first aid kit he always keeps at hand, and ran down towards us.”
Mr Meldreg said that Goff quickly examined the woman, then told a group of party members to form a circle around the woman, with their backs turned.
"I heard him telling them that he had urgent but delicate surgery to perform, and that the woman deserved some privacy and dignity during the ordeal," said Mr Meldreg.
It is understood that Goff then took a cake knife from the refreshments table and performed open heart surgery on the woman. Goff reportedly then sewed the woman up using a needle and string from her knitting bag.
Other witnesses reported that once the woman was stabilised, Mr Goff picked her up, put her over his shoulder, and ran outside. He was seen running down the road at speed with the woman on his back.
"I couldn't believe how fast he was running," said one unnamed woman. "I didn't know anyone could run so fast."
Mr Goff reportedly made the trip from the New Lynn Community Hall to Waitakere Hospital in Henderson in four minutes. The woman was reportedly in a stable condition at the hospital, and doctors confirmed that but for Goff’s swift intervention the woman would have died
However, critics have slammed Mr Goff’s behaviour as callous, irresponsible and uncaring.
“How is it that each and every elderly person at the meeting did not have a monitoring device connected to them, so that if they were in distress an alarm would instantly go off?” asked prominent blogger Adelia Smair.
“Does Labour not give a damn about the welfare of the elderly now? At least five seconds were allowed to elapse before anyone noticed there was a problem.”
Others have criticised Goff’s recklessness in running the woman to hospital at superhuman speed.
“What kind of example is Goff setting to young drivers?” Transport Minister Steven Joyce asked. “He would have been going at speeds that quite frankly were dangerous. Someone could have been hurt.”
Health Minister Tony Ryall also accused Goff of not leaving the treatment of the woman to the experts.
“Since when does the Leader of the Opposition have the skill to save a woman’s life? It is a miracle that the woman is still alive. Goff clearly got lucky.”
At a press conference in Wellington today, Prime Minister John Key also attacked Mr Goff’s response and called it extravagant and unnecessary.
“Had it been me giving the speech I would have simply laid my healing hands upon the woman,” said Mr Key.
Mr Key then smiled, causing several in the press gallery to swoon.
Questions have surrounded Goff's performance since he took over the leadership of the Labour Party from Helen Clark
In 2010 Mr Goff was criticised for his handling of the Canterbury earthquake. On that occasion Goff flew down to Christchurch in his customised rocket ship and used his special superhuman powers to stop the Earth from shaking. However, he was widely panned in the media for failing to get a resource consent for his activities.
And Mr Goff has also been savaged for failing to prevent the devastating floods in Queensland.
Mr Goff issued a statement to the news media abut the incident earlier this evening.
However, nobody read it.
Goff was in the midst of his speech when the woman collapsed. Witnesses say that despite the woman being at the back of the room, Goff immediately stopped, ran to the woman’s aid, and began barking orders to those around him.
Cecil Meldreg, who was next to the woman, said Goff’s quick reactions were remarkable.
“I didn’t even realise for a few moments that the old dear was down. The first I knew was when Mr Goff leaped from the stage, grabbed the first aid kit he always keeps at hand, and ran down towards us.”
Mr Meldreg said that Goff quickly examined the woman, then told a group of party members to form a circle around the woman, with their backs turned.
"I heard him telling them that he had urgent but delicate surgery to perform, and that the woman deserved some privacy and dignity during the ordeal," said Mr Meldreg.
It is understood that Goff then took a cake knife from the refreshments table and performed open heart surgery on the woman. Goff reportedly then sewed the woman up using a needle and string from her knitting bag.
Other witnesses reported that once the woman was stabilised, Mr Goff picked her up, put her over his shoulder, and ran outside. He was seen running down the road at speed with the woman on his back.
"I couldn't believe how fast he was running," said one unnamed woman. "I didn't know anyone could run so fast."
Mr Goff reportedly made the trip from the New Lynn Community Hall to Waitakere Hospital in Henderson in four minutes. The woman was reportedly in a stable condition at the hospital, and doctors confirmed that but for Goff’s swift intervention the woman would have died
However, critics have slammed Mr Goff’s behaviour as callous, irresponsible and uncaring.
“How is it that each and every elderly person at the meeting did not have a monitoring device connected to them, so that if they were in distress an alarm would instantly go off?” asked prominent blogger Adelia Smair.
“Does Labour not give a damn about the welfare of the elderly now? At least five seconds were allowed to elapse before anyone noticed there was a problem.”
Others have criticised Goff’s recklessness in running the woman to hospital at superhuman speed.
“What kind of example is Goff setting to young drivers?” Transport Minister Steven Joyce asked. “He would have been going at speeds that quite frankly were dangerous. Someone could have been hurt.”
Health Minister Tony Ryall also accused Goff of not leaving the treatment of the woman to the experts.
“Since when does the Leader of the Opposition have the skill to save a woman’s life? It is a miracle that the woman is still alive. Goff clearly got lucky.”
At a press conference in Wellington today, Prime Minister John Key also attacked Mr Goff’s response and called it extravagant and unnecessary.
“Had it been me giving the speech I would have simply laid my healing hands upon the woman,” said Mr Key.
Mr Key then smiled, causing several in the press gallery to swoon.
Questions have surrounded Goff's performance since he took over the leadership of the Labour Party from Helen Clark
In 2010 Mr Goff was criticised for his handling of the Canterbury earthquake. On that occasion Goff flew down to Christchurch in his customised rocket ship and used his special superhuman powers to stop the Earth from shaking. However, he was widely panned in the media for failing to get a resource consent for his activities.
And Mr Goff has also been savaged for failing to prevent the devastating floods in Queensland.
Mr Goff issued a statement to the news media abut the incident earlier this evening.
However, nobody read it.
On Banning Junk Food Sales To Kids
The evils of fast food are well documented, and whenever I tuck into a burger or a scoop of chips there is the inevitable moment of truth when I realise my own weakness and hate myself for it.
My particular weakness is pastry. If ever I am recruited by the Russians or Chinese to spy on my compatriots, it will be because of the sweet smelling pies and sausage rolls they put before me.
Thanks to the various nasty pleasures we like to enjoy, we now have an obesity epidemic. Fast food is killing us, and the cost to our health system is ballooning along with our waistlines.
Obesity is not just a disease for adults, however. Many kids have appalling diets, and for some children junk food is a staple in their diet.
This looming health crisis has prompted the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand to call for restrictions on what shops near schools can sell during certain hours. They argue that dairies and fast food outlets should be banned from selling certain types of food to kids, such as pies, chips and cans of coke.
I have no doubt that most people, when they hear that a ban is being proposed, will shake their heads and wonder at the PC nanny-state society we live in. Telling shops near schools not to sell junk food? "What will these bozos come up with next?", they will say.
People probably said the same thing when controls were proposed on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. Booze and fags are killers, and their sale is strictly controlled. You need to be of a certain age to buy cigarettes or alcohol, and few people think that is odd, although there will always be debate about what age people should attain before being allowed access to those drugs.
If we accept that an excess of fatty and sugary foods in our diets is killing many of us (and there seems little doubt that this is so), then why do we treat these foods any differently to alcohol or tobacco? Why can anyone buy a pie and chips and douse their heart in fat, while only an adult can buy a beer? Is drinking a beer any worse for someone than scoffing a pie?
Many blame the poor eating habits of children on the kids’ parents. This is about parents taking responsibility, they cry. Forget the nanny state regulation. If parents aren’t prepared to take responsibility then why must the rest of us suffer?
The trouble with demanding that parents take responsibility is that you can say it until you’re blue in the face and it won’t change anything. We can’t stand over parents and force them to be responsible, and to feed their children only healthy food. And wouldn’t that be the ultimate nanny state response? So when people on the right talk about “parental responsibility”, what they really mean is “let’s do nothing at all.”
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether doing nothing at all to tackle obesity in kids is a viable option. If we want most of our GDP to be spent on our health system then the answer of course is yes. If not, then someone is going to have to take action.
That someone is probably going to be the government, unless the food industry can agree on self-regulation.
I don’t know whether a ban on shops near schools selling junk food to kids is a good idea. But I wouldn't dismiss out of hand any suggestions people raise to deal with the problem.
My particular weakness is pastry. If ever I am recruited by the Russians or Chinese to spy on my compatriots, it will be because of the sweet smelling pies and sausage rolls they put before me.
Thanks to the various nasty pleasures we like to enjoy, we now have an obesity epidemic. Fast food is killing us, and the cost to our health system is ballooning along with our waistlines.
Obesity is not just a disease for adults, however. Many kids have appalling diets, and for some children junk food is a staple in their diet.
This looming health crisis has prompted the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand to call for restrictions on what shops near schools can sell during certain hours. They argue that dairies and fast food outlets should be banned from selling certain types of food to kids, such as pies, chips and cans of coke.
I have no doubt that most people, when they hear that a ban is being proposed, will shake their heads and wonder at the PC nanny-state society we live in. Telling shops near schools not to sell junk food? "What will these bozos come up with next?", they will say.
People probably said the same thing when controls were proposed on the sale of tobacco and alcohol. Booze and fags are killers, and their sale is strictly controlled. You need to be of a certain age to buy cigarettes or alcohol, and few people think that is odd, although there will always be debate about what age people should attain before being allowed access to those drugs.
If we accept that an excess of fatty and sugary foods in our diets is killing many of us (and there seems little doubt that this is so), then why do we treat these foods any differently to alcohol or tobacco? Why can anyone buy a pie and chips and douse their heart in fat, while only an adult can buy a beer? Is drinking a beer any worse for someone than scoffing a pie?
Many blame the poor eating habits of children on the kids’ parents. This is about parents taking responsibility, they cry. Forget the nanny state regulation. If parents aren’t prepared to take responsibility then why must the rest of us suffer?
The trouble with demanding that parents take responsibility is that you can say it until you’re blue in the face and it won’t change anything. We can’t stand over parents and force them to be responsible, and to feed their children only healthy food. And wouldn’t that be the ultimate nanny state response? So when people on the right talk about “parental responsibility”, what they really mean is “let’s do nothing at all.”
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether doing nothing at all to tackle obesity in kids is a viable option. If we want most of our GDP to be spent on our health system then the answer of course is yes. If not, then someone is going to have to take action.
That someone is probably going to be the government, unless the food industry can agree on self-regulation.
I don’t know whether a ban on shops near schools selling junk food to kids is a good idea. But I wouldn't dismiss out of hand any suggestions people raise to deal with the problem.
Fifth Is Pretty Good
I never know what to make of the various international indexes (indices?) that do the rounds. You know, the ones that rank nations by prosperity, freedom or stability.
But New Zealand always seems to do well in most of them. Which is a nice reminder that life here for most people is pretty sweet.
Today, Stuff reports that we are ranked number five on Britain's Legatum Institute Prosperity Index (and no, I haven't heard of these people either).
That doesn't mean we'll all just shut up our whinging any time soon, though (what would I do with my time if I couldn't have a good whine on this blog?). We may be sitting pretty as a nation compared to most others, but we can still do much more to tackle poverty.
Not everyone in Aotearoa is happy and content, and some have dared to suggest that the gap between rich and poor is ever widening. I know, what a crazy idea. How could cutting taxes for those in higher tax brackets, increasing GST and targetting beneficiaries possibly benefit the wealthy? No wonder the right are so dismissive of the idea.
Nor are we performing well economically. If we do nothing to transform our economy, and continue to rely on primary production to provide the bulk of our nation's export income, we will likely slide slowly down the rankings as our prosperity declines.
That is why I for one will continue to whinge for a while longer.
But New Zealand always seems to do well in most of them. Which is a nice reminder that life here for most people is pretty sweet.
Today, Stuff reports that we are ranked number five on Britain's Legatum Institute Prosperity Index (and no, I haven't heard of these people either).
Its Prosperity Index ranks 110 nations, and includes both material wealth and quality of life.
Norway headed the index, followed by Denmark, Finland, Australia and New Zealand.This is all pretty predictable stuff. We have a world-class education system that is the envy of the rest of the world, and despite the choking red-tape, regulation and political correctness that the right assures us we are overwhelmed by, we rank highly for personal freedoms.
The indices said New Zealand rated only 19th in the health rankings and 17th in economic.
It was first in education and third in ranks of personal freedom and social capital. It was fourth in governance and seventh in safety and security. It was 14th in entrepreneurship and opportunity.
New Zealand would have been higher than Australia had it not been for Australia's much stronger economy.
On the overall scale, the US was 10th, Britain 13th, Japan 18th , China 58th and India 88th.
At the other end of the scale, Zimbabwe came in at the bottom. Pakistan was second to last and the Central African Republic third to last.
That doesn't mean we'll all just shut up our whinging any time soon, though (what would I do with my time if I couldn't have a good whine on this blog?). We may be sitting pretty as a nation compared to most others, but we can still do much more to tackle poverty.
Not everyone in Aotearoa is happy and content, and some have dared to suggest that the gap between rich and poor is ever widening. I know, what a crazy idea. How could cutting taxes for those in higher tax brackets, increasing GST and targetting beneficiaries possibly benefit the wealthy? No wonder the right are so dismissive of the idea.
Nor are we performing well economically. If we do nothing to transform our economy, and continue to rely on primary production to provide the bulk of our nation's export income, we will likely slide slowly down the rankings as our prosperity declines.
That is why I for one will continue to whinge for a while longer.
Monday, January 24, 2011
My Cricket World Cup Squad
The Cricket World Cup is only a few weeks away. In this post I take a look at the squad of 15 to go to the Indian sub-continent, and give my assessment of the team and our chances.
The Team.
John Key (captain)
Key has been a consistent performer with both bat and ball for New Zealand over the last few seasons. He has been the leading run-scorer in New Zealand domestic cricket for the last two seasons running, and has taken wickets at critical times in crucial matches. Some commentators have suggested that Key has been lucky, and that some of his many wickets have been off bad balls, but it's also a sporting cliche that good players seem to have more luck.
Key is a respected and popular leader, but some former players have suggested that his captaincy is lacklustre and conservative. In the last test series against Australia, when New Zealand came up short yet again, Key was criticised for not having a plan to keep us in the game, and for lacking urgency, even though he led the averages for New Zealand in the series. He will have to sharpen up his act if we are to win tight games and exert sustained pressure against the top teams.
Phil Goff (vice captain)
Many picked that this right-hander would not make the tour party. His batting has been disappointing of late, and Goff hasn’t got a score of 50 or more in international games since 2007. He can be a match-turner with his slow-medium dribbles, especially on slow wickets. However, in recent domestic games batsmen seem to have had no difficulty in picking him off, and he conceded a lot of runs in the recent domestic 20-20 competition.
It is clear that Goff has been picked on reputation alone, rather than on form. Some commentators say he is a big-match player who will rise to the occasion when the pressure is on. Others are saying that he is past his best, and that this tournament was the perfect opportunity to blood a younger player.
Bill English
English has been in a form slump for the past couple of seasons, and this will almost certainly be his last chance to impress. English will likely open the innings or bat at three. A traditional sort of opener, he has eschewed the flashier style of some modern openers in favour of the long graft and the methodical accumulation of runs, however long that may take.
English’s approach isn’t really suited to the shorter version of the game, but the selectors have shown a loyalty towards him that flies in the face of his modest achievements. He will be competing with David Cunliffe for a place in the playing eleven.
Paula Bennett
Bennett brings a real excitement to the crease with her batting, even if in terms of results her recent performances have left something to be desired. She is back in the team after a stint playing overseas.
"Basher" Bennett is known for her ability to hit the ball, and to keep it hit. It looks good when it comes off. Unfortunately she also has a tendency to throw her wicket away at critical times with rash strokeplay, and Bennett’s technical deficiencies are well known. Bennett's inclusion in the squad is a gamble, but the selectors will be aware that they lack explosive players. She could be a match-winner or a disaster.
Simon Power
An aggressive wicketkeeper and opening batsman who plays an expansive game and likes to dominate the bowling. Regarded as a future captain, Power displays a confidence and (some say) arrogance that makes him a potentially potent weapon.
However, some have questioned whether Power can continue to both open the batting and keep wickets without burning out. In recent weeks he has looked tired. Maybe it is time he took a break and gave someone else the wicketkeeping gloves.
Tony Ryall
The real backbone of the team, and the best slip fieldsman in the country. Ryall’s no-nonsense approach to the accumulation of runs is in sharp contrast to the flashy approach of his opening colleague Simon Power. Ryall has been near the top of the domestic batting averages this year, and will be looking to continue that sparkling form. Mr Dependable in the field, Ryall is a safe pair of hands in the slips.
Trevor Mallard
On a good day and on the right wicket Mallard’s slow left-arm offspin can be almost unplayable. He’s been a reliable performer with the ball, and a useful lower-order batsman, but incidents off the field and have marred what should have been a more successful career. Mallard is also known as an expert sledger, and tends to wind opponents up.
Mallard is a fighter, and his boxing experience may come in handy in the tougher games.
Pete Hodgson
One of the stalwarts of the team for the last few seasons, Hodgson announced at the start of the season that he would retire after the World Cup.
The injury prone bowler has had a mixed year. His aggression is admirable, but he has lost much of his pace. In domestic cricket Hodgson has captured a few wickets, but has also conceded a lot of runs.
In the domestic one-day final in 2009 John Key savaged Hodgson's bowling, smashing him all around the park. However, in the 2010 four-day final Hodgson managed to secure the prize wicket of Pansy Wong at a critical time, turning what looked like a certain defeat into a creditable draw.
But touring the sub-continent is demanding, and this may be one tournament too far for the ageing bowler. Will his body hold up?
Judith Collins
A fired up Collins with the new ball in hand is a sight to behold. You can almost see the terror in the eyes of batsmen when Collins runs in to bowl. Her express pace and lethal array of bouncers and short bowling will be effective on any fast bouncy wicket.
Unfortunately, the types of pitches the team will be playing on in the subcontinent won’t suit Collins' style. On the slower pitches she will be easier to hit, and may go for a few too many runs.
David Cunliffe
A batsman in the classical mode and a smooth performer with the bat at number five. Nobody hits a cover drive as elegantly as Cunliffe.
Cunliffe has been around the team for a couple of seasons and looks to have the potential to cement a permanent position in the starting eleven, if he has a strong tournament. His mediocre average does not reflect his potential.
Andrew Little
The only new cap in the squad, Little’s been around the domestic scene for a few seasons now, and has performed well with both bat and ball. The left-hander has been quietly impressing, accumulating runs and wickets with his medium pacers. A capable fieldsman and potential future leader, Little ought to prosper if given the chance.
Tariana Turia
A nuggety performer with the bat at 6, Turia was called in to the squad late as a replacement for Hone Harawira, who failed a fitness test. Turia was at her best in late 2008, but her form has since withered, and she seems to have lost some of the explosive power that made the diminutive number 6 one of the most effective middle order players in the country. Selecting Turia her is a risk.
Grant Robertson
A recent addition to the team, this leg-spinner hasn’t put a foot wrong yet. A useful lower order batsman when quick runs are needed, Robertson is also developing into a classy bowler. His ball that turns the other way is a potentially devastating weapon on a turning pitch. This tournament will hopefully bring out the best in Robertson.
Gerry Brownlee
The player opposition teams love to hate. A useful number three, Brownlee had a poor start to 2010, but has recently recaptured the form that first got him selected to the team, after a big score in the recent Christchurch test. He looks unfit, though, and his slowness between the wickets could be a problem in tight games.
David Garrett
The shock pick of the squad. Garrett had announced his retirement from international cricket last year, withdrawing after a series of lurid revelations in the tabloid media about his personal life. It is not known why the selectors sought to woo him from retirement. But with injuries or unavailability ruling out a number of other players (Steven Joyce, Annette King, Anne Tolley, Russel Norman), the selectors may have been concerned about the risk of blooding someone inexperienced.
The medium pacer who can bat a bit, Garrett is famously hopeless in the field, having dropped a number of critical catches in the last one-day tournament he played in. Garrett is also known for his fiery temperament and disciplinary problems, and has been before the authorities on more than one occasion. A potential handful for any team leader to deal with.
Our Chances
In previous tournaments we’ve got as far as the semi-finals, but this year we’ll struggle. With a team lacking star performers, we should be content to get as far as the Super Eights round.
The Team.
John Key (captain)
Key has been a consistent performer with both bat and ball for New Zealand over the last few seasons. He has been the leading run-scorer in New Zealand domestic cricket for the last two seasons running, and has taken wickets at critical times in crucial matches. Some commentators have suggested that Key has been lucky, and that some of his many wickets have been off bad balls, but it's also a sporting cliche that good players seem to have more luck.
Key is a respected and popular leader, but some former players have suggested that his captaincy is lacklustre and conservative. In the last test series against Australia, when New Zealand came up short yet again, Key was criticised for not having a plan to keep us in the game, and for lacking urgency, even though he led the averages for New Zealand in the series. He will have to sharpen up his act if we are to win tight games and exert sustained pressure against the top teams.
Phil Goff (vice captain)
Many picked that this right-hander would not make the tour party. His batting has been disappointing of late, and Goff hasn’t got a score of 50 or more in international games since 2007. He can be a match-turner with his slow-medium dribbles, especially on slow wickets. However, in recent domestic games batsmen seem to have had no difficulty in picking him off, and he conceded a lot of runs in the recent domestic 20-20 competition.
It is clear that Goff has been picked on reputation alone, rather than on form. Some commentators say he is a big-match player who will rise to the occasion when the pressure is on. Others are saying that he is past his best, and that this tournament was the perfect opportunity to blood a younger player.
Bill English
English has been in a form slump for the past couple of seasons, and this will almost certainly be his last chance to impress. English will likely open the innings or bat at three. A traditional sort of opener, he has eschewed the flashier style of some modern openers in favour of the long graft and the methodical accumulation of runs, however long that may take.
English’s approach isn’t really suited to the shorter version of the game, but the selectors have shown a loyalty towards him that flies in the face of his modest achievements. He will be competing with David Cunliffe for a place in the playing eleven.
Paula Bennett
Bennett brings a real excitement to the crease with her batting, even if in terms of results her recent performances have left something to be desired. She is back in the team after a stint playing overseas.
"Basher" Bennett is known for her ability to hit the ball, and to keep it hit. It looks good when it comes off. Unfortunately she also has a tendency to throw her wicket away at critical times with rash strokeplay, and Bennett’s technical deficiencies are well known. Bennett's inclusion in the squad is a gamble, but the selectors will be aware that they lack explosive players. She could be a match-winner or a disaster.
Simon Power
An aggressive wicketkeeper and opening batsman who plays an expansive game and likes to dominate the bowling. Regarded as a future captain, Power displays a confidence and (some say) arrogance that makes him a potentially potent weapon.
However, some have questioned whether Power can continue to both open the batting and keep wickets without burning out. In recent weeks he has looked tired. Maybe it is time he took a break and gave someone else the wicketkeeping gloves.
Tony Ryall
The real backbone of the team, and the best slip fieldsman in the country. Ryall’s no-nonsense approach to the accumulation of runs is in sharp contrast to the flashy approach of his opening colleague Simon Power. Ryall has been near the top of the domestic batting averages this year, and will be looking to continue that sparkling form. Mr Dependable in the field, Ryall is a safe pair of hands in the slips.
Trevor Mallard
On a good day and on the right wicket Mallard’s slow left-arm offspin can be almost unplayable. He’s been a reliable performer with the ball, and a useful lower-order batsman, but incidents off the field and have marred what should have been a more successful career. Mallard is also known as an expert sledger, and tends to wind opponents up.
Mallard is a fighter, and his boxing experience may come in handy in the tougher games.
Pete Hodgson
One of the stalwarts of the team for the last few seasons, Hodgson announced at the start of the season that he would retire after the World Cup.
The injury prone bowler has had a mixed year. His aggression is admirable, but he has lost much of his pace. In domestic cricket Hodgson has captured a few wickets, but has also conceded a lot of runs.
In the domestic one-day final in 2009 John Key savaged Hodgson's bowling, smashing him all around the park. However, in the 2010 four-day final Hodgson managed to secure the prize wicket of Pansy Wong at a critical time, turning what looked like a certain defeat into a creditable draw.
But touring the sub-continent is demanding, and this may be one tournament too far for the ageing bowler. Will his body hold up?
Judith Collins
A fired up Collins with the new ball in hand is a sight to behold. You can almost see the terror in the eyes of batsmen when Collins runs in to bowl. Her express pace and lethal array of bouncers and short bowling will be effective on any fast bouncy wicket.
Unfortunately, the types of pitches the team will be playing on in the subcontinent won’t suit Collins' style. On the slower pitches she will be easier to hit, and may go for a few too many runs.
David Cunliffe
A batsman in the classical mode and a smooth performer with the bat at number five. Nobody hits a cover drive as elegantly as Cunliffe.
Cunliffe has been around the team for a couple of seasons and looks to have the potential to cement a permanent position in the starting eleven, if he has a strong tournament. His mediocre average does not reflect his potential.
Andrew Little
The only new cap in the squad, Little’s been around the domestic scene for a few seasons now, and has performed well with both bat and ball. The left-hander has been quietly impressing, accumulating runs and wickets with his medium pacers. A capable fieldsman and potential future leader, Little ought to prosper if given the chance.
Tariana Turia
A nuggety performer with the bat at 6, Turia was called in to the squad late as a replacement for Hone Harawira, who failed a fitness test. Turia was at her best in late 2008, but her form has since withered, and she seems to have lost some of the explosive power that made the diminutive number 6 one of the most effective middle order players in the country. Selecting Turia her is a risk.
Grant Robertson
A recent addition to the team, this leg-spinner hasn’t put a foot wrong yet. A useful lower order batsman when quick runs are needed, Robertson is also developing into a classy bowler. His ball that turns the other way is a potentially devastating weapon on a turning pitch. This tournament will hopefully bring out the best in Robertson.
Gerry Brownlee
The player opposition teams love to hate. A useful number three, Brownlee had a poor start to 2010, but has recently recaptured the form that first got him selected to the team, after a big score in the recent Christchurch test. He looks unfit, though, and his slowness between the wickets could be a problem in tight games.
David Garrett
The shock pick of the squad. Garrett had announced his retirement from international cricket last year, withdrawing after a series of lurid revelations in the tabloid media about his personal life. It is not known why the selectors sought to woo him from retirement. But with injuries or unavailability ruling out a number of other players (Steven Joyce, Annette King, Anne Tolley, Russel Norman), the selectors may have been concerned about the risk of blooding someone inexperienced.
The medium pacer who can bat a bit, Garrett is famously hopeless in the field, having dropped a number of critical catches in the last one-day tournament he played in. Garrett is also known for his fiery temperament and disciplinary problems, and has been before the authorities on more than one occasion. A potential handful for any team leader to deal with.
Our Chances
In previous tournaments we’ve got as far as the semi-finals, but this year we’ll struggle. With a team lacking star performers, we should be content to get as far as the Super Eights round.
It Would Have Been Better To Be Up Front
I don’t think many people would have given two hoots had Martin Devlin just owned up to being the “household name” arrested late in December after a disagreement with his wife.
The activity Devlin was arrested for hardly sounds like the sort of thing name suppression was designed to cover, does it?
We only have the account by Devlin on what actually happened on the day in question. His description of the events that led to his arrest makes the entire episode sound trivial.
I actually don’t care what the answers are. I merely raise these questions to illustrate that a supposed mea culpa that leads to more questions than answers isn’t one that will make his troubles go away. It’s practically begging the tabloid news to give a different story, or to flesh the details out in a more lurid way.
I’m not a PR guru, but had I been advising Devlin I’d have said “forget name suppression. Just own up and be straight about what happened and why you were arrested.”
But this will probably do nothing to harm Devlin’s career in the long run. Making a tit of himself is what he does for a living. He'd have to go a long way before he was really in strife. He’s not in the same league as the man who pushed his partner down the stairs, kicked her while she lay on the ground and left her lying there in agony. And that man still works in broadcasting - in Martin Devlin’s old job.
The activity Devlin was arrested for hardly sounds like the sort of thing name suppression was designed to cover, does it?
We only have the account by Devlin on what actually happened on the day in question. His description of the events that led to his arrest makes the entire episode sound trivial.
"My wife, two young sons and I missed the 11am ferry sailing because I was watching Manchester United draw with Birmingham.But he’s missed a bit out here. How long was he on the bonnet for? Was he holding up traffic? How did sitting on the bonnet of his own car lead to an arrest in the first place?
"As a result, the atmosphere was a little frosty and my wife dropped me at the terminal and drove away without realising my bag and wallet were in the boot.
"I walked across Quay Street into a lane of traffic to stop the car and get my bag.
Once stationary, for some inexplicable reason I sat on the car's bonnet. It was stupid and I apologise.
I actually don’t care what the answers are. I merely raise these questions to illustrate that a supposed mea culpa that leads to more questions than answers isn’t one that will make his troubles go away. It’s practically begging the tabloid news to give a different story, or to flesh the details out in a more lurid way.
I’m not a PR guru, but had I been advising Devlin I’d have said “forget name suppression. Just own up and be straight about what happened and why you were arrested.”
But this will probably do nothing to harm Devlin’s career in the long run. Making a tit of himself is what he does for a living. He'd have to go a long way before he was really in strife. He’s not in the same league as the man who pushed his partner down the stairs, kicked her while she lay on the ground and left her lying there in agony. And that man still works in broadcasting - in Martin Devlin’s old job.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Do Investigate The Investigate Survey
Danyl at the Dim Post reports on an opinion poll being conducted by Ian Wishart.
Check it out. Some of the questions are seriously clever. Like these:
What about this?
Wishart, a Christian, defines atheism as meaning "God definitely does not exist". But that definition of atheism is very narrow. For a good many atheists something this would be more accurate: "There is no credible evidence that God exists. Therefore I do not believe that God exists." Which is quite different to "God definitely does not exist". If theism is a belief in one of more deities, atheism is an absence of such belief.
Anyway, do Mr Wishart a favour and let him know your opinions on the big issues of the day.
Check it out. Some of the questions are seriously clever. Like these:
QUESTION 9: If Labour promised to abolish the Anti-smacking Law if it became government, would you consider voting for them at this election?How do you answer these if you are already a Labour supporter? If you say "yes" it'll be taken to mean you'll vote Labour only if they abolish the "anti smacking law" or get rid of the ETS. Clever, eh?
QUESTION 10: If Labour promised to abolish the Emissions Trading Scheme if it became government, would you consider voting for them at this election?
What about this?
QUESTION 24: Would you classify yourself as:
Wishart, a Christian, defines atheism as meaning "God definitely does not exist". But that definition of atheism is very narrow. For a good many atheists something this would be more accurate: "There is no credible evidence that God exists. Therefore I do not believe that God exists." Which is quite different to "God definitely does not exist". If theism is a belief in one of more deities, atheism is an absence of such belief.
Anyway, do Mr Wishart a favour and let him know your opinions on the big issues of the day.
QUESTION 19: Have you changed your lifestyle as a result of the recession?
QUESTION 20: If Yes, what would be the most significant lifestyle changes/decisions you have made as a result? (Explain in a few words)
A Cynical And Desperate Attempt To Get More Blog Traffic
Celebrity name suppression, Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin, Auckland celebrity, sex, Justin Bieber, who is the Auckland celebrity? Jesus, how to make a bomb, Barack Obama, Hitler, crochet, household name, Hone Harawira, online gambling, 46 year old man, Lady Gaga.
That should do it. It's just a pity this Blogger platform limits labels to 200 characters.
That should do it. It's just a pity this Blogger platform limits labels to 200 characters.
My Future Is In Napier
When my career as a commercial lawyer finally comes crashing about my ears (the secret fear of every commercial lawyer is that they'll do something wrong to screw up a major deal, their firm will be sued for millions, and they will end up with the wrong sort of reputation), Napier might be the place for me. I could set up as a barrister, and there will be no shortage of work representing the gangs and assorted ne'er do wells who reside in the wider Napier/Hastings area.
I'll also meet lots of really interesting people, from within the profession and from outside it.
One particularly interesting person from the profession is lawyer Philip Jensen. Jensen was in the Napier District Court last week representing Fabian Hungahunga, a Mongrel Mob associate. Hungahunga was in court on a disorderly behaviour charge, after screaming "sieg heil" and other abusive words at police on New Years Eve*.
From Stuff:
But what excuse does a legally trained person have? He went to University. What did he do there?
Everyone knows the phrase "sieg heil" didn't gain popularity from the Commando comics. It was Hogan's Heroes.
As for the Hitler chap all this "sieg heil" nonsense is supposed to have come from, wasn't Hitler just a Hollywood villain? And a badly done one at that. In real life nobody would wear such a ridiculous moustache, and scream and jump about quite as much.
On the other hand, I am not inclined to correct the judge in this matter. He did send someone to jail for 28 days last week for dropping the c-bomb in court.
*My New Years Eve was not dissimilar. I spent the evening reading a book that included a bit about the Nazis. That's just how I roll.
I'll also meet lots of really interesting people, from within the profession and from outside it.
One particularly interesting person from the profession is lawyer Philip Jensen. Jensen was in the Napier District Court last week representing Fabian Hungahunga, a Mongrel Mob associate. Hungahunga was in court on a disorderly behaviour charge, after screaming "sieg heil" and other abusive words at police on New Years Eve*.
From Stuff:
When he pleaded guilty to the charge in Napier District Court yesterday, Judge Adeane said, "What's this sieg heil business, Mr Hungahunga? ... What does that mean?"It doesn't surprise me that a 21 year old gang associate doesn't know anything about the past.
"Ahhh, it's just another way of saying hi to the bros," Hungahunga replied.
"OK. The man who made the phrase popular would have a very different way of dealing with you, Mr Hungahunga. However, today you're fined $300 and court costs of $130," the judge said.
As Hungahunga left the dock, his lawyer Philip Jensen remarked that "it was a German phrase popular in the 60s in the Commando comics".
"Actually it goes back a bit further than that, Mr Jensen. It was made popular in the 30s when very different rules applied," Judge Adeane said.
But what excuse does a legally trained person have? He went to University. What did he do there?
Everyone knows the phrase "sieg heil" didn't gain popularity from the Commando comics. It was Hogan's Heroes.
As for the Hitler chap all this "sieg heil" nonsense is supposed to have come from, wasn't Hitler just a Hollywood villain? And a badly done one at that. In real life nobody would wear such a ridiculous moustache, and scream and jump about quite as much.
On the other hand, I am not inclined to correct the judge in this matter. He did send someone to jail for 28 days last week for dropping the c-bomb in court.
*My New Years Eve was not dissimilar. I spent the evening reading a book that included a bit about the Nazis. That's just how I roll.
It Wasn't Me, It Was...
(Update: It was Martin Devlin.)
The Herald reports:
The stupid thing is that the charge was so minor people are now wondering what this fellow is trying to hide. He'd be better to come clean and end the speculation that is now circling around every Auckland male mid-forties TV or radio personality.
Let me assure my readers that the celebrity was not me. I do have a carpark in the Downtown area, and a wife, but I was in the Coromandel at the time, and am considerably younger. But I can understand how, when you heard the words "household name," you thought of me.
But apart from all that, I don't dare show dissent towards my wife.
PS Don't even think of posting the identity of the "household name" on this blog (that's not a dare, by the way).
The Herald reports:
Police are investigating a breach of name suppression in the case of the "household name" charged with disorderly conduct.This is another one of those cases where almost everybody knows who the guy is. Anyone who wants to find out can do so within a couple of minutes of going online.
And it may not be the only one they have to check - an internet battle is being waged to get his name into cyberspace with his Wikipedia profile being altered, and then realtered, repeatedly.
The 46-year-old man was arrested last month. The New Zealand Herald reported he had jumped on to the bonnet of a car during a blazing row with his wife in downtown Auckland on December 29. It said a member of the public became so alarmed at the man's behaviour that they called over a police officer and he was charged.
The stupid thing is that the charge was so minor people are now wondering what this fellow is trying to hide. He'd be better to come clean and end the speculation that is now circling around every Auckland male mid-forties TV or radio personality.
Let me assure my readers that the celebrity was not me. I do have a carpark in the Downtown area, and a wife, but I was in the Coromandel at the time, and am considerably younger. But I can understand how, when you heard the words "household name," you thought of me.
But apart from all that, I don't dare show dissent towards my wife.
PS Don't even think of posting the identity of the "household name" on this blog (that's not a dare, by the way).
Harawira's Style Is Love Or Hate
There appear to be two schools of thought on Hone Harawira's modus operandi.
Everyone knows that Harawira's a shit-stirrer. Some people love his style, while others think it has no place in Parliament.
For the record I am in the former category. That does not mean I agree with his policies or his arguments. Much of his anti-Pakeha sentiment is uncalled for and ugly. But the manner in which he operates is refreshing. He doesn't leave anyone guessing what he thinks about a particular issue.
For all of those reasons he'd also be a pretty lousy party leader - one that wants to be in Parliament, anyway.
But someone at the Herald really doesn't like his approach (shock horror!). Nor does Kerre Woodham (even more shock! No, not Kerre!).
There are some at the country's biggest paper who see it differently, however. Fran O'Sullivan, whose political views must be about as contrary to Harawira's as is possible, admires his approach.
I for one hope Harawira never tones it down. Maori have many legitimate grievances, and it is no accident that poverty, bad health and crime hit Maori harder than white people. I'm sure that the Maori Party leaders care about these things, but they have allowed their own policies to be subsumed by the interests of their majority partner in government, in return for a few symbolic wins. Now they won't dare speak up against injustice.
But Harawira gets headlines, and these draw attention to the plight of many Maori. That is why he is an effective advocate. He says things many Pakeha don't want to hear. Sometimes he goes too far. But he gets heard.
Everyone knows that Harawira's a shit-stirrer. Some people love his style, while others think it has no place in Parliament.
For the record I am in the former category. That does not mean I agree with his policies or his arguments. Much of his anti-Pakeha sentiment is uncalled for and ugly. But the manner in which he operates is refreshing. He doesn't leave anyone guessing what he thinks about a particular issue.
For all of those reasons he'd also be a pretty lousy party leader - one that wants to be in Parliament, anyway.
But someone at the Herald really doesn't like his approach (shock horror!). Nor does Kerre Woodham (even more shock! No, not Kerre!).
There are some at the country's biggest paper who see it differently, however. Fran O'Sullivan, whose political views must be about as contrary to Harawira's as is possible, admires his approach.
I for one hope Harawira never tones it down. Maori have many legitimate grievances, and it is no accident that poverty, bad health and crime hit Maori harder than white people. I'm sure that the Maori Party leaders care about these things, but they have allowed their own policies to be subsumed by the interests of their majority partner in government, in return for a few symbolic wins. Now they won't dare speak up against injustice.
But Harawira gets headlines, and these draw attention to the plight of many Maori. That is why he is an effective advocate. He says things many Pakeha don't want to hear. Sometimes he goes too far. But he gets heard.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Hooton's Hate Piece
Matthew Hooton has written a column saying that Labour threatens free speech and must be crushed in the 2011 election.
It's behind a paywall, but you can see a copy from the actual paper on Red Alert here.
If Hooton was a National Party politician you could almost understand his sentiment - almost. The language he uses in the column is extreme and (to understate somewhat) provocative.
I don't like reading columns from political extremists in mainstream publications - whether from the left or the right. Hate-filled garbage such as Hooton's opinion piece belongs in the blogosphere, in one of those angry ranty blogs nobody reads.
It's a hobbyhorse of people like Hooton that the left wants to shut down free speech. Most on the left don't. We just want to know that if people say something appalling they should be held accountable - in the court of public opinion or the ballot box.
It's hard to believe Hooton even got this nasty piece of hate through. Sure the NBR is a right-friendly publication, but still... Does the NBR not have an editor any more? Or was he asleep?
It's behind a paywall, but you can see a copy from the actual paper on Red Alert here.
If Hooton was a National Party politician you could almost understand his sentiment - almost. The language he uses in the column is extreme and (to understate somewhat) provocative.
I don't like reading columns from political extremists in mainstream publications - whether from the left or the right. Hate-filled garbage such as Hooton's opinion piece belongs in the blogosphere, in one of those angry ranty blogs nobody reads.
It's a hobbyhorse of people like Hooton that the left wants to shut down free speech. Most on the left don't. We just want to know that if people say something appalling they should be held accountable - in the court of public opinion or the ballot box.
It's hard to believe Hooton even got this nasty piece of hate through. Sure the NBR is a right-friendly publication, but still... Does the NBR not have an editor any more? Or was he asleep?
Friday, January 21, 2011
New Zealand Lawyers Who Blog - Updated
I am trying to compile a list of New Zealand lawyers who blog. I am one such person of course, even if a lot (in fact most) of my blogging does not relate strictly to the law.
Anyway, I thought it would be a useful exercise to find out who in the legal profession is out there in the blogosphere. I might even include a list as a sidebar.
Here are the ones I know about (in no particular order). (I'll update this list as I get more recommendations)
Steven Price
His blog is Media Law Journal. A barrister, lecturer and all-round media law expert. His blog posts cover a wide range of media law issues.
Andrew Geddis
Geddis is a Professor at Otago University. His specialty is public law. He contributes to the Pundit blog, and his posts cover a range of public law and constitutional issues.
Dean Knight
His blog is called Laws 179: Elephants and the Law. Knight is a senior law lecturer at Victoria University, and his specialty is public law. He blogs mostly about public law and constitutional issues.
Guy Burgess
Burgess is an Associate at Clendons, lawyers. Burgess’ blog is called Law and Technology and his blog posts cover a range of mostly IT law issues.
Cathy Odgers
Her Cactus Kate blog is well-known within the political blogosphere. Odgers is Hong Kong based and specialises in tax. Her blogging style is aggressive and forthright and she delights in furiously attacking people who don’t share her strongly-held opinions, which are firmly on the right side of the political spectrum. She blogs mainly on political and business issues. I’ve included her since most of her posts relate to New Zealand matters, even though she’s not NZ based.
Stephen Franks
Franks is the eponymous owner of this blog. Franks was the 2008 National Party candidate for Wellington Central, and is a former ACT Party MP. He has now returned to commercial law. He blogs mainly on politics and law and order issues, and has been an advisor to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. As you would expect from his political background, he brings a notably right-wing perspective to many of his posts.
Graeme Edgeler
Graeme is a regular contributor to the Legal Beagle section of the Public Address blog. He’s a Wellington-based barrister. His posts relate mostly to constitutional issues, and they reveal a deep knowledge of electoral law and our electoral system.
Carwyn Jones
Jones' blog is Ahi-kā-roa. It focuses on issues in the law relating to Māori and other Indigenous Peoples. Jones is a lecturer at Victoria University, focusing on Maori and indigenous legal issues.
John Edwards
Edwards' blog is jcelaw's posterous. Edwards is a privacy and media lawyer. His blog is pretty new, and only has a few posts so far. Hopefully we'll see more from him soon.
Various Victoria University Staff
Wellington seems to be leading the way with lawyer bloggers. Victoria University has a blogsite called 15 Lambton Quay, which is contributed to by a number of law staff. It covers law, policy and government, and some of the bloggers aren't lawyers, but, hey, I'll include it.
Gordon Anderson
Anderson is a Victoria University law professor (is blogging obligatory there or something?). He specialises in employment law, and his blog entitled New Zealand Employment Law covers, not surprisingly, employment law issues.
Rik Shera
Shera is an IP lawyer working at Lowndes Jordan. His blogsite law.geek.nz focuses mainly on internet law and copyright issues.
Me
You know about this blog. In my day job I’m a commercial lawyer working in the field of IP and technology for a major New Zealand IP practice. I mean to blog more about IP issues, but usually end up venting over the political issues of the day.
I didn't consider politicians who also happen to be lawyers, since they are really blogging as politicians.
I have also not included lawyers who blog under the banner of their law firm, since arguably they are not really blogging in their own right.
Is there anyone else you know of? Let me know.
Anyway, I thought it would be a useful exercise to find out who in the legal profession is out there in the blogosphere. I might even include a list as a sidebar.
Here are the ones I know about (in no particular order). (I'll update this list as I get more recommendations)
Steven Price
His blog is Media Law Journal. A barrister, lecturer and all-round media law expert. His blog posts cover a wide range of media law issues.
Andrew Geddis
Geddis is a Professor at Otago University. His specialty is public law. He contributes to the Pundit blog, and his posts cover a range of public law and constitutional issues.
Dean Knight
His blog is called Laws 179: Elephants and the Law. Knight is a senior law lecturer at Victoria University, and his specialty is public law. He blogs mostly about public law and constitutional issues.
Guy Burgess
Burgess is an Associate at Clendons, lawyers. Burgess’ blog is called Law and Technology and his blog posts cover a range of mostly IT law issues.
Cathy Odgers
Her Cactus Kate blog is well-known within the political blogosphere. Odgers is Hong Kong based and specialises in tax. Her blogging style is aggressive and forthright and she delights in furiously attacking people who don’t share her strongly-held opinions, which are firmly on the right side of the political spectrum. She blogs mainly on political and business issues. I’ve included her since most of her posts relate to New Zealand matters, even though she’s not NZ based.
Stephen Franks
Franks is the eponymous owner of this blog. Franks was the 2008 National Party candidate for Wellington Central, and is a former ACT Party MP. He has now returned to commercial law. He blogs mainly on politics and law and order issues, and has been an advisor to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. As you would expect from his political background, he brings a notably right-wing perspective to many of his posts.
Graeme Edgeler
Graeme is a regular contributor to the Legal Beagle section of the Public Address blog. He’s a Wellington-based barrister. His posts relate mostly to constitutional issues, and they reveal a deep knowledge of electoral law and our electoral system.
Carwyn Jones
Jones' blog is Ahi-kā-roa. It focuses on issues in the law relating to Māori and other Indigenous Peoples. Jones is a lecturer at Victoria University, focusing on Maori and indigenous legal issues.
John Edwards
Edwards' blog is jcelaw's posterous. Edwards is a privacy and media lawyer. His blog is pretty new, and only has a few posts so far. Hopefully we'll see more from him soon.
Various Victoria University Staff
Wellington seems to be leading the way with lawyer bloggers. Victoria University has a blogsite called 15 Lambton Quay, which is contributed to by a number of law staff. It covers law, policy and government, and some of the bloggers aren't lawyers, but, hey, I'll include it.
Gordon Anderson
Anderson is a Victoria University law professor (is blogging obligatory there or something?). He specialises in employment law, and his blog entitled New Zealand Employment Law covers, not surprisingly, employment law issues.
Rik Shera
Shera is an IP lawyer working at Lowndes Jordan. His blogsite law.geek.nz focuses mainly on internet law and copyright issues.
Me
You know about this blog. In my day job I’m a commercial lawyer working in the field of IP and technology for a major New Zealand IP practice. I mean to blog more about IP issues, but usually end up venting over the political issues of the day.
I didn't consider politicians who also happen to be lawyers, since they are really blogging as politicians.
I have also not included lawyers who blog under the banner of their law firm, since arguably they are not really blogging in their own right.
Is there anyone else you know of? Let me know.
Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud
Most lawyers will happily acknowledge that reading cases is dull work. It’s not that there are no interesting cases out there; but for the most part legal judgments are dry, proper and sterile. Trawling through a case to find the ratio decidendi must rate as perhaps the most soul-destroying aspect of attending law school (and apologies to those legal academics who might be reading this), even if my own law school experience was many years ago now.
Happily, there are exceptions. Sometimes a judge can become so exasperated at the conduct of one or more of the litigating parties that he or she lifts the veil of sober and conservative propriety and issues a colourful judgment.
The Law Society’s weekly email newsletter has a link to one such case, Bruni v Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568. It is a judgment by Justice Quinn of the Ontario Family Court in a messy custody dispute.
You would think that there is nothing particularly funny about a horribly messy family breakdown involving kids, but you would be wrong. So dysfunctional are the disputing former spouses that the judge decides ridicule, rather than cold reason, is the best antidote. The judgment contains a number of gems: humorous interpretations of the parties’ behaviour, and witty remarks about the completely messed up people before him. Much of the wit is to be found in the footnotes to the judgment.
It begins:
Then there is a recital of the basic facts.
Their wedding is described thus:
The judge remarks:
On Larry the judge reports:
Happily, there are exceptions. Sometimes a judge can become so exasperated at the conduct of one or more of the litigating parties that he or she lifts the veil of sober and conservative propriety and issues a colourful judgment.
The Law Society’s weekly email newsletter has a link to one such case, Bruni v Bruni, 2010 ONSC 6568. It is a judgment by Justice Quinn of the Ontario Family Court in a messy custody dispute.
You would think that there is nothing particularly funny about a horribly messy family breakdown involving kids, but you would be wrong. So dysfunctional are the disputing former spouses that the judge decides ridicule, rather than cold reason, is the best antidote. The judgment contains a number of gems: humorous interpretations of the parties’ behaviour, and witty remarks about the completely messed up people before him. Much of the wit is to be found in the footnotes to the judgment.
It begins:
[1] Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.The judge is signalling that these people are so screwed up he can only look on with a mixture of pity and disgust.
[2] This is yet another case that reveals the ineffectiveness of Family Court in a bitter custody/access dispute, where the parties require therapeutic intervention rather than legal attention. Here, a husband and wife have been marinating in a mutual hatred so intense as to surely amount to a personality disorder requiring treatment.
Then there is a recital of the basic facts.
[9] Larry and Catherine married and had two children. Larry and Sam were close friends. They work for the same employer. Larry was the best man at Sam’s wedding. A few years later, Sam separated from his wife and obtained custody of their two young children. Larry and Catherine also separated. Their children remained with Catherine. Sam and his children moved in with Catherine and her children. Larry now has a common-law spouse. She has three children. The two households are located one kilometre apart.In a footnote to this passage the judge says:
[10] In the midst of this social stew perhaps it is not surprising that Larry and Catherine are having problems, serious problems, regarding the custody of, and access to, their children. The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred. Larry and Catherine hate each other, as do Larry and Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of separation. Consequently, the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable (hatred devours reason); and, a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has no legal remedy).
At one point in the trial, I asked Catherine: “If you could push a button and make Larry disappear from the face of the earth, would you push it?” Her I-just-won-a-lottery smile implied the answer that I expected.There are lengthy passages describing numerous instances of appalling behaviour by the parties towards each other and their children. Thankfully, at least, there is little or no physical violence.
Their wedding is described thus:
[11] Catherine and Larry were married on October 7, 1995. If only the wedding guests, who tinkled their wine glasses as encouragement for the traditional bussing of the bride and groom, could see the couple now.In a footnote to that paragraph the judge adds:
I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts.The ex-husband, Larry, claimed he had been the subject of numerous death threats. The judge remarks on evidence given that Catherine tried to run Larry over with a van:
This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart.Larry tells the judge that Catherine has demanded money from Larry and has threatened that her brother will “get the Hells Angels after me.”
The judge remarks:
The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice).The judge reports a number of other threats by Catherine that she will have her family kill Larry. On these threats the judge says:
As can be seen, Catherine and her relatives are one-dimensional problem solvers.The couple have a habit of making rude gestures towards each other and their new partners:
[71] Larry, who regularly drives by the residence of Sam and Catherine, “often shoots the finger” at Sam and, on about three occasions, has yelled: “Jackass, loser.”In footnotes to that statement the judge states:
A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words.And:
When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter.And the judge notes:
[82] Sandra testified that Catherine “gave me the finger while driving on Bunting Road.”To which he remarks:
I am uncertain whether this would be considered a hand-held communication device, now illegal while operating a motor vehicle, under recent amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.Larry comes across as utterly lacking in any parenting and social skills, while Catherine’s manipulation of her daughter Taylor is described as “evil” and “brainwashing”.
On Larry the judge reports:
[90] On another occasion in July of 2009, Larry said to Taylor: “You put shit in this hand and shit in this hand, smack it together, what do you get? Taylor.”The judge says:
I gather that this is Larry’s version of the Big Bang Theory.The trial took place after a lengthy hiatus in proceedings, which the judge had agreed to. He explains:
I confess that I sometimes permit a lengthier hiatus than the schedule of the court might otherwise dictate, in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reflect on the trial experience, come to their senses and resolve their difficulties like mature adults. It is touching how a trial judge can retain his naivety even after 15 years on the bench.There’s also a deeply uninteresting discussion of the law on separation agreements and spousal support, but if you skip those bits the case is still well worth a read. Especially if you’re familiar with how dry and tedious most judgments are.
Changes Needed In Police
A report this week identified problems within the culture of police. The reactions of the police hierarchy and Police Association have revealed another undesireable cutural trait: an inability to accept the validity of any criticism.
Stuff reports:
According to the Stuff report:
It could be mere coincidence that Pope was ordered to announce his retirement in the same week that the damning report on police culture was released. But my guess is that the timing was deliberate.
There are clearly problems within the leadership of the police force, and it makes sense to start the cleanout from the top. Pope is going, and a new Police Commissioner is being sworn in later this year.
I hope that these personnel changes begin the much-needed culture change within the force. But if the New Zealand Police are to regain the respect of the wider public, changes need to be made within the Police Association.
Most people recognise that the police on the whole do a demanding and important job, and that the vast majority of police are hardworking and honest. But no organisation is perfect, and any large group will contain problem people. Greg O'Connor doesn't get this. Sometimes criticism of the police is valid and necessary, and an accountable and transparent police force is an essential component of a genuinely free and democratic society.
The members of the police force deserve better than to be represented by people who don't understand the need for transparency, and who won't accept criticism.
Stuff reports:
Deputy police commissioner Rob Pope was told not to reapply for his job – prompting his decision to "retire".
The contract of the 36-year veteran is due to expire on April 3 and he had wanted to stay on until August 2012 to make the most of his superannuation scheme.And yet the Police Association and police hierarchy continue to claim that Pope's retirement announcement had nothing to do with the damning report. How can we trust a word they say any more? Admittedly, O'Connor's reputation for reliability is already at rock-bottom, since he almost never accepts that police are to blame for anything. So we can hardly be surprised by his ostrich-like behaviour.
But Police Minister Judith Collins declined – and told him that to agree would make her "a corrupt minister".
Mr Pope said this week he would not seek another term, in the wake of a damning report into persistent problems in police culture.
According to the Stuff report:
It is believed [Pope] was told before Christmas not to seek reappointment. He was ordered to make an announcement this week as the job is being advertised tomorrow. The timing saw his departure linked to the release of the independent report criticising senior management for not making bold moves to "change the DNA" of the force. The report said people were being wrongly promoted and senior management were out of touch with frontline policing.Who ordered Pope to make the announcement this week? The Minister? Not directly, since she is not supposed to be directly involved in employment matters. But she could have made her wishes known. If so, was this because the Minister knew the report was due out and wanted to have a ceremonial victim to display to the media? The issuing of a job advertisement might have been a convenient pretext.
It could be mere coincidence that Pope was ordered to announce his retirement in the same week that the damning report on police culture was released. But my guess is that the timing was deliberate.
There are clearly problems within the leadership of the police force, and it makes sense to start the cleanout from the top. Pope is going, and a new Police Commissioner is being sworn in later this year.
I hope that these personnel changes begin the much-needed culture change within the force. But if the New Zealand Police are to regain the respect of the wider public, changes need to be made within the Police Association.
Most people recognise that the police on the whole do a demanding and important job, and that the vast majority of police are hardworking and honest. But no organisation is perfect, and any large group will contain problem people. Greg O'Connor doesn't get this. Sometimes criticism of the police is valid and necessary, and an accountable and transparent police force is an essential component of a genuinely free and democratic society.
The members of the police force deserve better than to be represented by people who don't understand the need for transparency, and who won't accept criticism.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Legal Case For Hone Harawira
A few people (including Cactus Kate) are suggesting that Hone Harawira might have a case against the Maori Party if they expel him. Maybe so, and I’m hardly an expert in the area of unincorporated societies (nor is Cactus Kate, I suspect). All the same, there is case law to lend general support to the rights of the National Council of the Maori Party to get rid of Harawira if they wish to, so long as they follow the procedures set out in the Constitution.
The case of Peters v Collinge is one such case ([1993] 2 NZLR 554). In that case Winston Peters sought a judicial review of the decision by the National Party not to select him as a candidate for Tauranga. It was not an expulsion case, but some of the reasoning by Justice Fisher may still be relevant. Peters lost that case because the court determined that the principles of judicial review don’t apply to most unincorporated organisations. Instead the principles of contract law apply. The constitution of an unincorporated society is effectively a contract between the members, and those members agree to abide by the constitution. So long as the procedures set out in the constitution are followed an aggrieved member is likely to have no right to challenge the result of a disciplinary hearing.
In the Peters case Justice Fisher also made it clear that the courts are reluctant to review decisions made by political parties about their members. He said:
The Maori Party Constitution provides:
The grounds for disciplining a member are set out in clause 11.2 above. The reasoning in the Peters case would seem to suggest that the body hearing the dispute will have wide discretion to determine whether those grounds have been established. So the courts are unlikely to interfere with a decision provided the decision is made in a procedurally correct way.
In this respect the Constitution does require members to:
So, assuming the correct procedure is followed, the decision as to whether there are grounds to discipline Harawira is likely to be entirely in the hands of the relevant disciplinary bodies. It would probably be difficult for Harawira to claim that any decision made by any disciplinary body was incorrect.
Andrew Geddis, who (unlike me) is an expert in this area, still sees potential risk with some of the sloppy drafting of the Constitution. And he may be right in his interpretation. There may be enough ambiguity in the wording to at least give Harawira a sniff of a chance in legal proceedings. But I don't think I'd be backing him if this ends up in the courts, unless the party leaders do something procedurally stupid. With Chen Palmer now advising them that seems unlikely.
Of course, this all assumes that Harawira would lodge a legal challenge in the first place, and only he knows the answer to that question. He may consider that he is better rid of the party if it gets to that point. Only time will tell.
The case of Peters v Collinge is one such case ([1993] 2 NZLR 554). In that case Winston Peters sought a judicial review of the decision by the National Party not to select him as a candidate for Tauranga. It was not an expulsion case, but some of the reasoning by Justice Fisher may still be relevant. Peters lost that case because the court determined that the principles of judicial review don’t apply to most unincorporated organisations. Instead the principles of contract law apply. The constitution of an unincorporated society is effectively a contract between the members, and those members agree to abide by the constitution. So long as the procedures set out in the constitution are followed an aggrieved member is likely to have no right to challenge the result of a disciplinary hearing.
In the Peters case Justice Fisher also made it clear that the courts are reluctant to review decisions made by political parties about their members. He said:
Politics is a notoriously volatile, not to say fickle, business. Just as ideas and policies change, so must there be room for changes in allegiance and loyalties. Those who enter politics must surely do so in that knowledge… Whether a political party is so out of sympathy with its Member of Parliament that it no longer wants him as a candidate is something which one would expect the party to be free to decide from time to time with relatively little constraint. It is essentially a political question in which one would expect a robust level of discussion, lobbying and preconception.The fact that Harawira might enjoy the support of the majority of grassroots members is likely to be irrelevant to any decision made by the National Board. In the Peters case Fisher made it clear that the National Party could act or express itself through the mechanisms created by its own constitution. Thus the National Board would have the right to make decisions on behalf of the party, so long as the rules were followed. It may thus be irrelevant that many or even the majority of Maori Party members back Harawira. If the leadership don’t, then his only option may be to fight within the rules (e.g. muster enough members to call a special national hui in order to attempt to pass resolutions favourable to him or to change the Constitution), or leave.
The Maori Party Constitution provides:
11.1 All financial members agree to work together to support the Constitution of the Party and to treat each other with respect and are expected to act ethically and with integrity in their party work. Differences that may arise from time to time shall be resolved at the earliest opportunity by those involved.The complaint must first go to the Electorate Council, and then if not resolved it goes to the Disciplinary and Disputes Committee of the National Council. This raises an interesting question: what if the Electorate Council (being mostly made up of Harawira supporters) decides there is no case to answer and throws the complaint out? Does that mean the complaint is "resolved"? Or must a resolution involve the complainant receiving some sort of satisfaction? In that case the complaint could well go to the next level, the Disciplinary and Disputes Committee. It seems unlikely that a complaint can be regarded as resolved if nothing comes of it, but supposing the complaint is accepted but the Electorate Committee gives Harawira a mere telling off? Where does that leave matters? Is the complaint now "resolved"? I don't know, but it seems unlikely that a complaint can be regarded as resolved if the complainants (being the party's own leaders) remain aggrieved.
11.2 Disciplinary action may be brought against a member who:
• refuses to comply with the Party Constitution;
• improperly deals with any party funds;
• in any other way wilfully brings the party or its members into public disrepute.
11.3 A serious complaint against a member for any of the above reasons shall first be communicated in writing to the relevant Electorate Council. If it cannot be resolved at this level, it shall be referred to the Disciplinary and Disputes Committee of the National Council who shall act swiftly and with discretion to seek resolution of the matter; and that the dispute is resolved on the basis of the kaupapa of the Party.
The grounds for disciplining a member are set out in clause 11.2 above. The reasoning in the Peters case would seem to suggest that the body hearing the dispute will have wide discretion to determine whether those grounds have been established. So the courts are unlikely to interfere with a decision provided the decision is made in a procedurally correct way.
In this respect the Constitution does require members to:
- work to support the Māori Party kaupapa and tikanga;
- act within the Māori Party constitution; and
- abide by lawful decisions made in accordance with the Māori Party constitution,
So, assuming the correct procedure is followed, the decision as to whether there are grounds to discipline Harawira is likely to be entirely in the hands of the relevant disciplinary bodies. It would probably be difficult for Harawira to claim that any decision made by any disciplinary body was incorrect.
Andrew Geddis, who (unlike me) is an expert in this area, still sees potential risk with some of the sloppy drafting of the Constitution. And he may be right in his interpretation. There may be enough ambiguity in the wording to at least give Harawira a sniff of a chance in legal proceedings. But I don't think I'd be backing him if this ends up in the courts, unless the party leaders do something procedurally stupid. With Chen Palmer now advising them that seems unlikely.
Of course, this all assumes that Harawira would lodge a legal challenge in the first place, and only he knows the answer to that question. He may consider that he is better rid of the party if it gets to that point. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)