Man Dismisses Hero Label After Daring Tea Rescue

An Auckland office worker has been labelled a selfless hero after rescuing a colleague’s cup of tea yesterday afternoon.

Fraser Gerbest, 33, was at his computer entering data into a spreadsheet when he heard a cry of alarm.

“I knew something was up when I heard cursing from the direction of the lunchroom”, said Mr Gerbest.

“About a dozen of us raced to see what had happened.”

Mr Gerbest’s co-worker Deirdre Scrumple described what had happened.

“I had gone to make a cup of tea, like I always do at about three in the afternoon. I put the teabag in the cup, then the boiling water, and then I went to open the fridge to get the milk. I couldn’t believe what I saw.

“When I realised there was only trim milk left I let out a loud groan, and I may have even used the f-word,” said Mrs Scrumple.

“Thank God Fraser turned up when he did.”

Mr Gerbest and his co-workers hunted frantically through the fridge for blue-top milk, tossing aside lunchboxes and pots of yoghurt in a desperate effort to rescue the tea.

“We knew time was against us,” said Mr Gerbest. “The cup was sitting on the bench and we knew Deirdre’s tea would soon be too cool to drink.

"We had no more than five minutes before the tea’s condition turned critical.”

Realising there was no hope of finding non-trim milk anywhere in the lunchroom fridge, Mr Gerbest calmly walked to the upstairs kitchenette, where he found a fridge full of blue-top milk.

The crisis was over in less than two minutes, much to the relief of Mrs Scrumple.

“I don’t know what I would have done if Fraser hadn’t been there,” she said, struggling to contain tears. “I might have had to put that insipid green-top crap into my tea.

“I will never again put water into my cuppa before the milk.”

Mr Gerbest denied he was a hero, insisting he just did what any other person in his position would have done.

“Deirdre’s a real bitch when she doesn’t get her cuppa. She’s a total pig to work with, but when she hasn’t had her tea she’s even more unbearable. I thought if I just got her the stupid f**king milk she would shut the f**k up.

“I’m no hero. The real heroes are the people forced to work in the cubicles next to that cow.”

Right Thinking: Frank's Law

Hard-hitting conservative columnist Dr Frank Shizenhausen returns with a powerful new column

There’s a petition under way to demand a toughening of our bail laws.

This is timely, because it has been a long time since we last had a debate on our bail laws—at least a couple of weeks.

Proponents of “Christie’s Law” want to make it harder for people presumed innocent to get bail. If they’ve got a history of violent crime or are charged with a violent offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, bail would be automatically denied. Police would also have the right to veto a judge’s decision to grant bail, and judges would be reviewed on their performance and could be sacked if they were not protecting the public.

I am appalled by this series of proposals. What have we come to as a society when this is the best we can do to address violence in the community?

Why are these measures so weak?

If Christie’s Law were to become actual law, offenders would still be freed by judges, and some of these people would go on to do bad things, like commit robberies, park illegally, and join trade unions. If you allow any sort of bail system to exist then people on bail will occasionally do bad things.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust have said that bail needs to be regarded as a privilege, not a right. But demanding a reversal of the presumption of innocence isn’t the answer, because even presuming someone is guilty until proven otherwise would allow some weasel lawyers to get their despicable clients of the hook.

The problem is not that the threshold for granting bail is too low, but that we are letting people out on bail at all. If we simply incarcerated anyone who looked like they might one day cause trouble (and we may as well include feminists, environmentalists and Hone Harawira in this category) we would see a marked reduction in the number of offences committed while people were out on bail.

Christie’s Law is a weak attempt to deal with the problem of people being unpredictable and doing bad things despite the best efforts of judges. It’s no use just criticising someone else’s effort to deal with the problem , so I have drafted my own set of proposals, modestly entitled “Frank’s Law”. Here are the highlights:

• Bail won’t be granted for anything punishable by imprisonment. Ever.
• Everything will be punishable by imprisonment.
• Offenders can be kept locked up indefinitely if the talkback community deem them too dangerous to release.
• Judges will be given performance bonuses every time they throw someone in the slammer. This might encourage some judges to throw the book at people who don’t deserve to go down, but if we want justice for victims of crime we just have to accept the need for occasional multiple injustices.
• The police veto rights proposed under Christie’s Law will be expanded gradually, so that the court system can be gradually phased out. The cost savings will mean we all pay less in taxes!
• We won’t need to build more prisons to accommodate the vastly expanded prison population. They will just have to squeeze more inmates into the existing facilities. If this means prisoners end up sleeping five to a cell then it serves them right. Maybe if they hadn’t been caught joining a union, reading the Koran or walking on my front lawn they wouldn’t be locked up in the first place.

I expect my proposals will lead to an outcry by lawyers and do-gooder groups, which is ironic considering that under Frank’s Law inmates will have around-the-clock access to legal representation. Because under Frank’s Law lawyers and their clients will be sharing cells.

Read The Document

It was the words "it's hard not to sympathise with Bridgecorp director Rod Petricevic" that got my attention and made me read Paul Little's column in the Herald on Sunday.

Since there's a trial on, I will refrain from saying much about the Bridgecorp boss, and for now I won't be commenting on whether he deserves anyone's sympathies for the plight he finds himself in.

If I were to take pity on the troubles of a generic finance company boss in trouble with the law, though, it would not be because he failed to read a bunch of documents that he should have understood intimately.  That's what they get paid the big money for.

But Little's post is not really about finance companies. It's about legal documents. Little apparently doesn't read 'em.

His attitude is the sort that keeps lawyers like me in gravy:

Modern life is so complicated that no amount of terms and conditions can possibly do what they claim to. Consequently, the world stumbles along as it always has - relying on trust and human nature, not Clause 39b, to get things done.

If someone wants to break a contract they will do so. No matter how thoroughly you try to shield yourself with the armour of small print, what matters is whether the parties involved can be relied on. Most people can be. Others cannot. 

There's only one word that does justice to Little's analysis: utter bollocks. Okay, two words then.

Most legal disputes I've been involved with (hint: more than a couple) have not involved someone trying to do the dirty on someone else. In most cases one of the parties to the contract has just failed to understand what the other expected from the deal. More often than not this is because someone didn't bother to read the contract. Or they decided they didn't need a contract. They figured it would save them a few dollars.

This is a false economy, which is why in these lean economic times lawyers still manage to do okay.  Fixing a legal f**kup can cost 50 times what avoiding the f**kup in the first place would have.

When you're online buying movie tickets or even clicking to accept Apple's latest set of terms and conditions you're unlikely to run into bother, because thousands if not millions of people have also clicked them, and if these corporations were going to come to your door demanding your first-born it's a fair bet that some consumer advocate would have blown the whistle by now. It just isn't practical to read all of these terms we're asked to accept daily.

But if as part of a job you're doing for someone you get asked to sign their terms and conditions, you're not being particularly clever if you just shrug your shoulders and say "well what's the worst that could happen?"

Paul Little is a writer. I work with writers, artists and other creative people. For obvious reasons they usually want to protect their copyright and other rights in the work they undertake for others. Even if they choose to assign the copyright to others, it will usually be with some conditions.

And yet those "standard" terms and conditions writers and artists are frequently asked to sign, and that Mr Little can't be bothered reading, will more often than not assign all copyright to the commissioning party, require the author of the work to waive all moral rights in the work (such rights include the right to be identified as the author of the work, and to object to derogatory treatment of the work), and give the author no right to themselves copy or publish the work (this means that if the author puts a copy of the work on their personal website or online portfolio, or wants to reuse it for some other project, they might be infringing copyright).

Despite Mr Little apparently never bothering to read the legal documents he is presented with, he claims that legal documents are meant to be misunderstood by the lawyers who draft them. The idea that lawyers deliberately write things in an obscure and unreadable style so that nobody can understand a word of it might appeal to the broad prejudice people have against lawyers, but it is mostly false. Contrary to popular belief the legal profession is not made up entirely of rogues and scoundrel, and (shock!) most lawyers do at least try and do their best for their clients.

Unfortunately, for a lot of lawyers their best isn't good enough. Plain English doesn't come naturally to some of them, because they way they write was beaten into them at law school, and the longer you are in the game the more difficult it is to change your writing style. Most don't set out to baffle or befuddle.

Now lawyers who don't draft in plain English should no longer expect to get away with it. There's no excuse for being pompous, 100-plus word sentences are not okay, and there is never a good reason to use "whereas" in a legal document.

If your lawyer doesn't get it then dump them. Don't assume they are being tricky and clever. There are times when a particularly obscure form of words has to be used in a document, because it will have a particular legal meaning. Generally, though, people who draft in "legalese" are not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The wooliness afflicts them as much as their readers.

Villain Or Fool?

Sir Doug Graham has now joined the criminal ranks, but he need not adjust to a life in Chokey.  The judge whose verdict put an unseemly blemish on Sir Doug's CV has said that he and his co-accused won't get jail-time.

People who invest the money of others should be held to a high standard, and when they fail to live up to that standard they should expect to suffer the consequences.

On the other hand, the court was not required to make a finding of intent to defraud or dishonesty, or to even determine whether Graham or his co-directors were competent. The offences were strict liability ones, meaning intent or competence were irrelevant.

There have been a number of dishonest and unscrupulous finance company people before the courts in the last few years. The latest quartet didn't really fit that description. If I were an investor in Lombard I would probably want to see all four men in jail. But for all the faults of those in the dock today, it would be a stretch to call them dishonest. Incompetent and foolish, certainly. 

People are now clamouring to strip the knighthood from Sir Doug. This is something of a surprise, since being a bumbling incompetent in charge of other people's money has never been a problem for knights of the realm in the past. What has changed, and why aren't we also demanding that certain other Sirs also have their knighthoods taken away?

As an avid republican, I'd sooner abolish the entire knighthood system, but that doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon. So I'll settle for the stripping of a few knighthoods so that only "good" people can hold them, provided of course I get to choose who those people are.

But why just Sir Doug? I am not excusing what he did, but I would rank a couple of knightly villains much more highly than Sir Doug on my secret  "will flog to death when I am God-emperor" list.

I'd better not name them though, pesky defamation laws and all.

Teaching The Heartland Controversy

US libertarian think-tank the Heartland Institute has been at the forefront of climate change denialist activities for some time. It has a history of lobbying in support of causes even when (or, more accurately, especially when) those causes run counter to established scientific knowledge.

The Institute has been in the news recently as a result of an embarrassing leak. The leak provides evidence that the Institute is actively promoting its anti-science agenda and is targetting schools. The think-tank has spent considerable sums trying to push onto teachers the idea that the topic of climate change is controversial and that they should instead “teach the controversy”.

The leaks have revealed that the Institute receives millions of dollars from various US donors, including alcohol and tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, General Motors, and a range of wealthy individuals that include the oil billionaire Koch brothers. One anonymous donor has contributed millions of dollars to the organisation.

Of more relevance to New Zealand is the fact that the Institute has been funding local denialist groups.

A controversy has erupted after respected climate scientist Peter Gleick admitted he was responsible for the leak.  Critics have accused him of acting unethically, because he used a false name to obtain the information. He is also accused of forging one of the documents, a claim that is being hotly debated.

Gleick's defenders have pointed out that his wrongdoing pales in comparison to the insidious way in which the Institute has sought to poison public debate on climate change. There is also a double standard at play, because many of the people now maligning Gleick over his "fraud" were more than happy to throw in the faces of the climate scientists information illegally hacked from the University of East Anglia servers a couple of years ago.

In any event, it appears that the authenticity of only one leaked document is under a cloud. The others appear genuine.

All those things aside, it is difficult to see how the theft of documents helps the cause of climate scientists already struggling to convince a sceptical public that they might know more about science than the corporate lobbyists and oil company executives opposing them. If forgery has been involved it would make their task even harder.

Still, climate change believers are not one hive-mind, and the misguided actions of one scientist do not suddenly render invalid the masses of research and data available that shows that the Earth is warming. Nor do they show that scientists cannot be trusted. The horror and indignation being expressed by Gleick's fellow scientists over his actions demonstrate just how badly he has erred.

Outrage over the leak has spread to New Zealand. Blogger David Farrar has been active recently in denouncing environmental groups and their tactics, and earlier this week he took a swipe at Gleick's "dirty tricks". Farrar's post is unbalanced and provides a distorted view of the issue, as it fails to mention the genuine debate over the document's authenticity, and fails to mention that the other documents appear genuine. One cannot help but see the irony in Farrar's failure to "teach the controversy".

Farrar also conflates climate scientists with the political left when he writes in his post "What is it with the left in the US and forged memos".

While there's nothing to suggest Farrar's a paid shill for the climate denial movement, it's fairly clear where his sympathies lie. Danyl Mclauchlin has suggested Farrar has been writing posts attacking the environmental movement because he has seen the National Party's internal polling, but I suspect Farrar just likes to write about the stuff that interests him. He is clearly interested in attacking at every opportunity environmentalists and climate scientists. If he has ever written posts openly attacking the tactics of the denialists then I have certainly never read them, although I would be happy for someone to post a link showing otherwise.

It is all rather depressing. I would not tell a brain surgeon how he/she should go about operating on me, nor would I tell a Formula One driver how he should handle his car. And yet for no explicable reason a vast number of people who are most definitely not climate scientists, and who in many cases aren't any form of scientist at all, seem perfectly happy to tell the scientists that they are fundamentally wrong on matters of science.

This Is Your Day Too

I have nothing much to say about today. I have family who were caught up in the earthquake this time last year, but they emerged from it mostly unscathed. I know for many people it will be a long and trying day, and they will be thinking about those they lost, or will still be in despair over their wrecked houses or businesses.

An air of uncertainty hangs over Christchurch, and while we could use this day to criticise the slowness of the recovery and the actions of various bureaucrats and insurance companies in making life difficult for those trying to get back on their feet, that can wait until tomorrow.

For those of you who simply can't help but make everything political, do not stress. Today is your day too.  You have a chance to express your faux outrage over the party colours in display on the ties worn by John Key and David Shearer at today's memorial events.

Kicked Into The Right Net

Cactus Kate claims that Labour’s politicising of a study highlighting a rise in infectious diseases is an own goal.

A study by the University of Otago has found that the hospital admission rate for infectious diseases rose 51% between 1989 and 2008.

The study also note that between 2001 and 2005 there was an improvement, before the rate again rose.

The study found that Maori and Pacific peoples are more than twice as likely as European people to be hospitalised with a serious infectious disease. It also found that people who live in the most deprived neighbourhoods have almost three times the risk of being hospitalised with an infectious disease when compared with those living in the most affluent areas.

The main contributions to the increase have come as a result of a rise in the number of respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal infections. They include illnesses like childhood pneumonia, rheumatic fever and meningococcal disease.

Many of these infectious diseases are linked with poverty and the problems of poor housing, overcrowding and a lack of access to affordable medical care. They are most certainly not “middle class diseases”, despite what Cactus Kate claims. That is not to say that middle class people can’t contract these diseases. The reality though is that most sufferers are poor. This cannot be a coincidence.

So is Labour to blame? In part, yes. The reforms of the Fourth Labour Government started New Zealand down the road towards rising inequality, but the drunken joyride to neoliberal nirvana in the ‘90s was National’s doing. Despite some progress being made by Labour in the 2000s to alleviate poverty, most Labour people would agree that not enough was done. What we did as a nation in the 1980s and 1990s left so many people on the scrapheap that even with the best will in the world and the desire to actually fix these problems (something entirely lacking in the current government), it would probably take a generation to turn things around.

Cactus Kate can blame Labour if she wants, but if anyone is to take the blame for starting us out on this ruinous path it is surely ACT founder Roger Douglas, with the policies he introduced in the 1980s to shift the nation’s wealth from the many to the few.

Saturdays Just Got Shorter

With Paul Holmes on between 9am and 12pm, and with Tony Veitch now to be on air from 12-6pm, exactly what demographic is Newstalk ZB targetting on Saturdays?

Closing The Incompetence Gap

Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard has said that the income gap between New Zealand and Australia may not be as wide as first thought.

But there are concerns that the incompetence gap between the two countries may be widening.

Unlike the income gap, levels of arrogant ignorant shortsighted stupidity within government have traditionally fluctuated, making it difficult to measure whether New Zealand or Australia leads the way in having the most appalling self-serving venal politicians.

However, Australia has historically outperformed New Zealand in allowing dangerously incompetent people to hold office.

New Zealand closed the incompetence gap in recent years, due to the Key government's efforts in dealing with unemployment, reforming the education sector and encouraging economic growth.

Australia responded strongly to New Zealand's challenge by dumping the elected PM late in his term and replacing him with someone only marginally less toxic, and by then almost electing a village idiot as Prime Minister.

The Key government had remained confident of drawing level with Australia, thanks to Treasury's ongoing inability to accurately forecast anything beyond what its analysts plan to have for breakfast.

It was also expected that standout performances by ministers Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman in recent days would build on the solid foundation of dizzying ineptitude laid down by Pita Sharples.

But these hopes were dashed over the weekend, with political moves under way in Australia to replace Julia Gillard as Prime Minister with Kevin Rudd.

Experts say that the growing likelihood of Rudd once again becoming the Australian PM will mean a considerable widening of the incompetence gap. The move goes beyond merely proving that senior Australian Labor Party members have grown deranged and need to be euthanised for the good of their nation. It also shows that in terms of sheer arrogant incompetence the Australian ruling classes are still in a league of their own.

Radio NZ Is Making Do

Radio New Zealand bosses yesterday assured a parliamentary select committee that the broadcaster would cope with the ongoing funding freeze.

The broadcaster’s chairman Richard Griffin and chief executive Peter Cavanagh were appearing before the Commerce Select Committee.

Radio New Zealand’s funding was frozen for five years in 2008, but Mr Cavanagh told committee members that he was confident the organisation would make do.

He told the committee that the broadcaster was committed to providing quality public broadcasting, but well understood the constrained financial environment public sector organisations had to operate within.

“We are a lean and mean fighting machine,” said Mr Cavanagh.

Mr Cavanagh said every effort had been made to cut costs and reduce wastage, while maintaining programming standards and quality.

“Some of it’s the simple stuff, where we can make easy savings. For example, the Auckland office’s one tea-bag can be shared with the Wellington office.

“People also sometimes need reminding about the need to make the most of resources and to reduce waste. It’s so easy to forget that A4 paper has two white sides. So for that matter does toilet paper.”

Mr Griffin said the biggest challenge was in ensuring staff remained motivated and felt rewarded for their efforts.

“It’s true we haven’t been able to give pay rises in recent years,” said Mr Griffin. “But we’re responding well to the needs of our staff. We recently moved to pay people in bags of potatoes and rice, because that way we could be sure our workers had enough to eat and didn’t come to work too emaciated.

“In 2011 we introduced a bonus system, to incentivise staff to perform. Staff members who achieve their annual targets receive a pat on the back, while standout performers receive a 'good work' or 'well done that man' remark from their superiors.

“At the end of last year we were also able to give staff a Christmas bonus. We were delighted to inform them that when they returned from their holidays there was a better than even chance they would still have a job.

“Our Auckland staff are also fortunate that the City Mission is located just across the road from their offices.”

Mr Cavanagh assured members of the select committee that Radio New Zealand remained committed to providing the highest quality and broadest range of programming.

He accepted that budgetary constraints would force a reduction in the number of documentaries and pre-produced shows aired by the broadcaster. Instead there would be a greater emphasis on live interviews and commentary from the studio. But the overall quality of the network’s output would remain high.

Radio New Zealand would also have to look realistically at different ways of raising revenue, but in a way that was tasteful and preserved the integrity of the Radio New Zealand name.

“We’re making changes to some of our most iconic shows, but in a sensitive and respectful way. So Nine till Noon will now be The State Insurance Five till Noon, and Jim Mora’s Afternoons will be renamed The Panel of One, in which David Farrar will offer his views on opinions of the day and read posts and comments from his influential blogsite Kiwiblog.

“This will free up Jim Mora to man the Auckland reception desk and answer the phones, thereby saving thousands of dollars.”

Mr Cavanagh said the organisation was learning to be smarter and more innovative in the way it utilised its resources. He cited Radio New Zealand Concert as an example.

“Next month we will be breaking new ground by offering listeners a tribute to the American composer John Cage.

“2012 is the sixtieth anniversary of Cage’s famous work 4’33". So to celebrate we’re going to play it back to back until the end of the year.”

Mr Griffin refused to address comments by Labour committee members that the ongoing budget freeze was evidence of National’s contempt for public broadcasting.

“I don’t want to be drawn into a political debate. But I would like to ask you, Mr Cosgrove, whether you have finished with that tea bag on the side of your saucer. The Christchurch office lost their one during last February’s quake.”

I'm Happy To Help

John Key is a lucky politician. Just when it seems nothing is going right for him, along comes a media storm involving an Opposition MP.

Key has had a bad start to the year. Winston Peters has been making life for National difficult in the debating chamber, National’s unpopular asset sales programme continues to dominate the news, and on top of that Key had to yesterday endure the embarrassment of the Crafar Farms decision being overturned.

The Radio Live debacle also won’t go away. The PM is now claiming that to the best of his knowledge he knew nothing about emails from his office to Radio Live, when in fact not only did Key choose the guests, but his office also provided the wording Radio Live were to use to request advice from the Electoral Commission about the show.

On top of that Foreign Minister Murray McCully has had his email account hacked. Lest we forget, Mr McCully is one of National’s most senior strategists and a master of the “dark arts”. I imagine his email correspondences would make a good read.

And the Speaker’s handling of Green MP Mojo Mather’s request for funding to enable her to participate in Parliament has made him look petty and mean.

It is no wonder John Key’s cheerful smile has disappeared.

Thankfully, it is always darkest before the dawn. Judy O’Callaghan of Farfax explains:

Labour MP Trevor Mallard has been accused of scalping tickets to a Wellington music festival.

The tickets to Saturday's sold-out Homegrown festival have a face value of $95 each.

Whitireia music student Laura Signal, 19, and her three friends were desperate to attend so they bid for four tickets on Trade Me, paying a final price of $656.

Miss Signal was surprised when the trader turned out to be the Hutt South MP, who used his parliamentary email address for the auction.

She and her friends went to Mr Mallard's Naenae office to collect the tickets from him in person.

"He came out and gave us the package really quickly and he kept saying: 'It's not what it looks like; it's not what it looks like,' to random passers-by."

The students said they asked Mr Mallard about a "buy now" price during the auction, but he replied that he would let the auction run.

In November 2006, Mr Mallard initiated legislation – now the Major Events Management Act 2007 – to protect event sponsors from people making money out of major events with which they had no formal association.

He said at the time: "When there is bulk-buying of tickets to such events simply for the purpose of profiteering, scalping is a ripoff that could deny many people the opportunity to see an event."

If you were going to come up with the dream media storm this would be it. A politician being caught out and a Trade Me story, combined into one. It doesn’t matter that Mallard’s only doing what tens of thousands of other people have been doing since the day Trade Me was launched, that he says he always intended to go to the event, and that selling the tickets wasn’t illegal. Instead of focusing on National, Labour must now go into damage control and defend Mallard's behaviour.

We have become accustomed to these sorts of Opposition own-goals. They always seem to happen at the worst possible time for Labour, just as pressure is beginning to mount on the government. They frequently involve the same people.

It doesn’t matter that in the end there really is nothing in the story. Most people form their impressions about politicians and their parties not by what goes on in the debating chamber or what various self-important bloggers write, but by what they see on the front page of the paper or hear on the radio.

If help is needed to draft a private member’s bill to ban Trevor Mallard from the internet, I’m happy to volunteer my services.

On The Urewera Trial

A public service announcement to fellow bloggers

There's a lot of chatter on the interwebs about the "Urewera Four" case.

Some of it is fine, but some of it is potentially putting the writers at risk.

The sub judice rule prohibits media from discussing anything other than the facts of a case once someone has been charged. There are some thresholds that have to be met before a blogger will get him/herself in trouble, but if a blogger with a wide audience begins commenting on the evidence of a case they may get themselves into bother.

I will not be commenting on the case. I would recommend other bloggers show suitable restraint if they wish to avoid legal complications.

If Political Journalists Wrote Sports News

Rumours are swirling of an imminent leadership challenge within the All Blacks camp.

Speculation began that Richie McCaw may face a challenge to his captaincy of the All Blacks, after the team’s near-loss in the Rugby World Cup final.

While the All Blacks won the final, the victory was narrow, and concern is growing that the team may be in need of fresh leadership and a new direction.

The near-loss in the October final has already claimed a number of victims, including the head coach Sir Graham Henry. Sir Graham resigned shortly after the game, although he denied reports he was being forced out by unhappy players and NZRU officials.

Sir Graham admitted shortly after the final whistle that the team had not played as well as it could have on the day. However, the full All Blacks spin machine was quickly into damage control, as both he and McCaw later claimed to be delighted with the result.

Rumours of a challenge have been fanned by observations that McCaw has been largely absent from the game since late last year.

McCaw has barely been seen on the rugby field since the final, prompting speculation that NZRU strategists are well aware of the public’s declining support for McCaw. Officials have all but admitted publicly that McCaw’s ongoing absence from the rugby field in recent months is a result of fatigue and weariness, and the need to freshen him up before the new season begins.

McCaw has appeared in a number of television commercials recently, but one insider said this was a sign McCaw was looking beyond a life in rugby and was attempting to obtain some financial security for himself in the event of a leadership challenge.

It is also understood that McCaw’s teammates have become sick of his ongoing criticisms of the team and his generous praise towards opponents of the All Blacks.

In a number of after-match speeches last season McCaw admitted that his team had not performed as well as it could have. In one notable speech McCaw acknowledged that his team had lacked composure and discipline at crucial times and had thrown away too many chances to win the game.

McCaw also praised the spirit of opposition teams on a number of occasions, observing that a good deal of credit was due to them for the way they played.

It is unclear whether these speeches demonstrate a move by McCaw away from the core values that once made him such a winning force for the All Blacks. There has been concern in some quarters that McCaw may be trying to drag the All Blacks in a different direction and force them to play more like their opponents.

Long-time All Black activists are unlikely to tolerate any such attempt. Since international rugby went professional in the 1990s numerous die-hard supporters of the team have bemoaned the direction the game is going in. Their grievances include the absence of rucking, the proliferation of muscle-bound giants on the playing field, and the fact that someone with the build of Terry Wright might as well nowadays just play soccer.

A move to replace McCaw may come as soon as this week. It is understood that a number of players were infuriated at McCaw's Sportsman of the Year award at last week's Halberg Awards.

It is unclear whether a challenger would have the numbers to roll McCaw, but a number of All Black players have strong support from their teammates and from the general public. They include Piri Weepu, Dan Carter and Conrad Smith.

Even if McCaw survives a leadership bid, his difficulties may not be over.

Polls had the All Blacks as overwhelming favourites to win the final game of the Rugby World Cup, but their stumble almost cost them victory. If McCaw survives this challenge, it is unlikely that team players and management will tolerate such a poor performance from McCaw again.

Dear Paul

You're clearly ill. Hope you get well soon.

My First Daily Deal

Dear readers

I have decided to monetise this site, to cash in on my celebrity. I'll start by offering a range of fabulous daily deals that you just won't be able to resist!

First up, I have a great deal for you. Check out my new CURRENCY TRADING SERVICE!

It's fast, it's friendly, and best of all it's SIMPLE!

All you have to do is send me a big bagful of cash. You can do that, can't you? A great big bag full of notes. Not coins, because I can't be doing with all that metal. I don't care if it's not your money. Your secret is safe with me, you gorgeous little thief!

In return, not only will I convert your money, I will even spend it for you! No more having to pay the rent or mortgage. Once I have taken your last cent you will find life in a cardboard box suits you very well.

Just let me know whether you're buying or selling. It's that simple! No paperwork, no fuss!

Here are my current exchange rates (updated randomly) for converting NZD to NZD:

I Buy $1.00:  $00.01*

I Sell $1.00:   $100,000.00**

* Plus administration fee of 15%, handling fee of $1000.00 for every $100 exchanged, and plus actual expenses incurred to bribe local officials to look the other way.

** Currency sold may or may not be Monopoly money.

Terms and Conditions: All currency trades are subject to the Imperator Fish Currency Trading Standard Terms and Conditions. To access these Terms and Conditions please write to:

Imperator Fish Currency Trading
The Large Wooden Box
The Alley Behind 54 Vlotnyoshk Lane
Bucharest 243-988
Romania

One lucky entrant will go into the draw to win a copy of my Terms and Conditions. Unsuccessful entrants will be notified by armed thugs turning up at your door in the middle of the night, who will beat you senseless and rob you blind.

I reserve the right to amend these Terms and Conditions without notice to you. By trading with me you agree that I can do anything I like with utter impunity. You indemnify me and hold me harmless against any and all losses, damages, costs, expenses and liabilities that I or any other person I nominate may incur or suffer at any time arising from basically anything. You also agree to sign over to me your car and your iPad, because I really want an iPad.

If you reside in a jurisdiction that allows human trafficking, then you grant to me a security interest over all of your dependants situated in that jurisdiction, and you agree to execute all instruments and to do all things that I may request at any time in order for me to take possession of those dependants and utilise them as slave labour.

By trading with me you agree to be bound by the laws of the Principality of Sealand. All disputes under these Terms and Conditions will be determined by the toss of a coin: heads I win, tails you lose.

Privacy policy: Rest assured that I take privacy very seriously. You will never track me down once I have all your money and women.

I will sell your personal information to fraudsters and disreputable mail-order companies. 


I can promise YOU WON'T GET THESE RATES AT ANY HIGH STREET EXCHANGE!

You'd be MAD not to take this offer up! Mad. Actually clinically insane. Utterly nuts. So off your rocker that your only hope for recovery would for intensive 24/7 psychiatric care and the administration of dozens of powerful prescription drugs.

So if you're not in the grip of some profound psychosis, please send cash. And if you are, no problem! Send cash!

IF YOU DON'T SEND ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY YOU ARE GOING TO BE VERY SORRY!

Each Time We Say "Protect The Environment" Steven Joyce Eats A Baby

Steven Joyce writes in the Herald that the answer to our economic woes is to open up resources to entrepreneurs, and to hell with the social cost or environmental impact.

Joyce attacks the people who say:

... "we want jobs" but then in the next breath say "but you can't do that ... you can't build that there ... you can't expand that ... you can't explore for that there ... you can't live here ... you can't invest in property here - you just can't do that!"

as if the only thing preventing us from being an economic powerhouse is our reluctance to dig for minerals and dirty coal.

Joyce also blames the early onset of the recession on the Labour government, while at the same time taking a swipe at an area of industry where we have the potential to be world leaders.

Through the 2000s, as a country, we progressively boxed ourselves in more and more to depend on fewer and fewer industries based on what the "can'ts" said. At the end of it the government of the day was pretty much down to talking only about two of the ingredients - skills training and subsidising entrepreneurs that don't use resources (the so-called clean-tech sector) - as the bits the "can'ts" were most comfortable with. The rest was off the table.

That attitude made it much harder to pay our way in the world and, as a result, we went into recession before the rest of the world in early 2008.

New Zealand's economic problems have been around for a few decades now. They weren't created by Labour alone, and both Labour and National are guilty of failing to seriously tackle these problems. Moreover, if Joyce really wants to attack environmental laws for stifling development, then he should be focusing his ire on the Bolger government of the 1990s, which passed the Resource Management Act.

It is simply wrong to blame a lack of diversification on the Labour government, because that lack has been there for decades. It is a sign of National's lack of imagination and paucity of ideas that Joyce and other ministers continue to blame Labour for everything that is wrong with New Zealand, in the hope that voters won't realise that National is doing next to nothing to address the problems and in fact is probably worsening them.

Selling our assets, stripping our conservation estate and ignoring environmental best practice will not make us rich. A clean, green economy based on smart technologies is the only future for this country, because of our distance to markets and our modest physical resources. Digging holes in the ground and building more and more roads (as Mr Joyce appears determined to do) will do harm to the "clean and green" image we have managed to establish for ourselves. Whether or not that image is justified is another debate entirely, but the image is something we can and must trade on.

The clean-tech sector that Joyce sneers at may well be our future. One need only look at the success of a company like LanzaTech to see the potential for exporting clean technologies to the rest of the world. Consumers are being driven more and more by environmental considerations when they choose which products or services they should acquire, so Joyce is on the wrong path when he portrays environmental protections as evils that must be minimised as much as possible.

And let us remember that the party saying "we can't" most often is the government. A central rail loop to take pressure off Auckland's roads and reduce gridlock? A good public transport system that reduces our addiction to fuel? A broadband rollout that won't create new blockages and entrench monopolies for existing players? Steven Joyce's answer is always "we can't".

Whose Holocaust?

Matt Rilkoff reports on Stuff:

A Taranaki Maori academic has compared colonisation of New Zealand to a holocaust.

Language lecturer Keri Opai told a Radio New Zealand panel discussion yesterday that Maori were suffering from post traumatic stress disorder following the "holocaust" of colonisation.

The words that have got Mr Opai in trouble are:

"If you really knew what went on, all the awful stuff, that really does break down to a holocaust. I know we might get in trouble for saying those words but it is absolutely true. That is what happened, we are still recovering from that".

There is no question that Maori suffered terribly as a result of colonisation. They are still suffering, as the statistics on crime, health, poverty, life expectancy and education show. But a holocaust?

It probably matters little that Opai described Maori suffering as a holocaust, and didn’t directly compare it to The Holocaust. The word "holocaust" derives from the Greek word holokauston, meaning "burnt offering", but since the end of World War Two the word has been appropriated by the Jewish community to describe the horrors inflicted on them by the Nazis.

So any use of the word "holocaust" in any context other than one involving industrialised mass slaughter was always going to incur the wrath of Jewish groups.

All the same, the response from Stephen Goodman of the New Zealand Jewish Council could have been more diplomatic and less dismissive.

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to attempt associating European colonisation of New Zealand with the Holocaust. This is not the first time that Maori have trivialised the Holocaust by trying to associate it with their own perceived grievances. There is absolutely no valid comparison between the settlement of the country and the organised, state sponsored, genocide that was the Holocaust. As a language lecturer Mr Opai is obviously totally ignorant of world history; as an “academic” he should know better. His words are extremely offensive to the Jewish and other communities that were the target of the Shoah.

Note how Mr Goodman dismisses historical Maori suffering as mere "perceived grievances", refers to "the settlement of this country" rather than colonisation, and deliberately demeans Mr Opai by using speech marks to describe his profession (I am assuming Goodman's statement came from a written press release, otherwise the use of speech marks would be curious).

Goodman has a point that nothing that occurred to Maori can match for sheer organised brutality the crimes of the Nazis against the Jews. No sensible person would dispute that the Holocaust was an appalling event, and that the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis is one of history’s most infamous crimes. Thus, Mr Opai’s use of the word "holocaust" can legitimately be criticised for leading to an inevitable comparison with the Nazis’ act of state-organised mass murder.

But dismissing utterly the historical suffering of Maori as "perceived grievances" is also insulting and wrong.

Update: It must be a quiet news day in Britain. The story made the Daily Mail

When In Rome...

An ex-pat travel agent has expressed outrage over seeing dozens of Kiwis being obnoxious and drunk and pissing in public places during a London pub-crawl.

It sounds to me like a Friday night in any New Zealand city.

But it’s not that abnormal for the UK either. When I lived in London there would always be a mad scramble to catch the last tube ride home if I was out on the town. The alternative was to pay a taxi fare that would leave myself and future generations of my family in debt-bondage. I used to hate taking the last tube ride home, because there was always a good chance of being spewed or pissed on, and I was lucky if I was not forced to listen to conversations conducted by inebriates at a shouting volume, involving language that would make a sailor blush.

And in many high streets in the UK you would struggle to find a doorway or wall that hadn’t been spewed or urinated on after a Friday or Saturday night, or after a big football game. Lest we forget, Britain is the nation that gave the world football hooliganism.

I don’t condone boorishness, but displays of boorishness in far-away public places by tanked-up young men do not deserve the status of top news billing in our two biggest dailies. Especially when there is news of greater note to be reported. How about the actual Waitangi Day celebrations, for example?

This is another reminder about the insecurity we feel as a people. If a bunch of Australians went on the lash and left all of London-town swimming in urine, the reaction in Australia would probably be “so what?” or “good on ya boys!”

But so eager are we Kiwis to be respected by our cultural superiors that we dare not do anything that might lead others to think poorly of us.

How ironic is it that events occurring on the day when we celebrate our nationhood should only highlight our desperation to have Mother England’s approval?

This Is Your Day, So Make It Hurt

Waitangi Day is the day on which we celebrate our nationhood.

However you choose to mark the day, I hope you make it a special one. Whether you plan on jostling and shoving strangers in public places, yelling abuse at passing delegations, or taunting people for being Uncle Tom figures, I hope you take time to appreciate the importance of this day in the history of our nation. A day when Maori and Pakeha came together in a spirit of amity and concord to sign a solemn agreement that bound two peoples.

We can't all be at Waitangi today. But we can all, each and every one of us, mark the day in a special way.  We get to behave unpleasant towards each other every day of the year. But on Waitangi Day this unpleasantness is elevated to the status of national ritual.

So make it count. Go over to your neighbour's house today, knock on their door and then, when they greet you with a smile, make sure you scream "you racist pig!" in their face. Cook a nice romantic dinner for your beloved, and then bombard them with invective and spittle, as you tell them that the natives should just stop whingeing and that they're just lucky the British decided to sign a treaty with them rather than shoot them.

Ring your elderly parents to remind them that Maori have been subjected to decades of Pakeha oppression and then, when they express surprise and confusion, berate them for being so apathetic towards the struggle against colonialism.

Whether your day involves erecting protest banners, screaming "racist! racist!" at people you have never met and have only distantly perceived on television, or bitching on talkback radio about uppity natives, make sure you make the most of our national day.

Ve Are Under Attack! Release Ze Killer Robot Army!

If this Herald on Sunday report is to be believed, officers involved in the raid on the house of overweight internet geek Kim Dotcom behaved as if they were auditioning for roles in a Hollywood action film.

An alternative explanation is that they were expecting to have to confront a team of trained killer-jihad-suicide-ninjas, and decided to take no chances.

Another possibility is that they got so aroused while playing with their toys (helicopters! guns!) that they forgot to behave the way we expect our law enforcement officials to behave: with restraint, humility and commonsense, and in a manner commensurate with the presumption of innocence.

Bottle Is Fine

Kathryn Powley of the HOS reports:

Images of All Black hero Piri Weepu bottle-feeding his baby have been cut after protests by breastfeeding crusaders.

La Leche League, a pro-breastfeeding organisation, has taken offence from a few seconds of film showing the All Black tenderly feeding a bottle of milk to daughter Taylor. The brief scene has been cut from an anti-smoking ad, due to complaints from the league.

One email said: "The damage that this shot of a celebrity All Black will do to breastfeeding in New Zealand Aotearoa will be significant."

This does not surprise me.  Parents who bottle-feed have for some time now been subjected to an ongoing campaign of vilification. People who bottle-feed are not child-abusers, even though they are often treated as if they are the worst parents imaginable. For a large number who choose the bottle it is a simple choice: either watch your baby starve, or have a happy healthy child. For some people breastfeeding just isn't medically possible.

In many cases the message is pushed on parents despite their own medical professionals counselling bottlefeeding.

La Leche League director Alison Stanton said the trouble wasn't with Weepu bottle feeding but with the overall message.

"It's really important that those messages are consistent across the board. It's been resolved and was really a storm in a tea cup."

Asked what was wrong with Weepu cuddling and feeding a baby, she said: "You've got the healthy eating message, exercise, breastfeeding, smoke-free environment, wearing safety belts and this is about making sure that we give consistent health messages."

The difficulty with comparing a breadsfeeding campaign with one targetting smoking or wearing safety belts is that for many people they have no choice but to bottle-feed. Nobody has to smoke.

And there is no evidence that bottle-feeding is actually harmful, given the high quality of the formula products available—at least in New Zealand.

What is harmful is the ongoing campaign by some breastfeeding campaigners to make parents feel like abusers.

Call Me, John

John Banks says Catherine Isaac is qualified to oversee the trial of Charter Schools because the ACT list candidate "loves education", and spent six years on a school board of trustees.

I love cricket, and I spent several years playing the game in my youth. Should I take over John Wright's job when he retires?

I am also a fan of the All Blacks, and have played a bit of club rugby in New Zealand and England. Clearly I can do just as good a job as Steve Hansen.

I've also watched quite a few films over the years, and I did a film appreciation paper at University, so Sir Peter might as well hand over The Hobbit directing duties right now.

And I'm a big fan of education. I spent several years in various schools and universities, so I would also like a role in setting up these Charter Schools. Give me a call, John.

This Should Not Have Surprised Anyone

The Maori Party is threatening to walk out of government, over National’s plans to exempt partially-sold SOEs from section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986.

It sounds as if the section, or a provision similar to the section, may yet survive as a result of yesterday’s threats by the Maori Party co-leaders Turia and Sharples to walk out.

Yesterday John Key claimed that the section, which says:

Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

was “largely symbolic”, but this is demonstrably false. The well known and important case New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 considered the section, and as a result of that case the government of the day amended the SOE Act. If section 9 was a mere symbol then why was that action considered necessary?

It’s not clear whether Key was dissembling or just badly-advised on this point. It is certainly easy to see why the government would want to remove from the ambit of section 9 the state assets to be partially-sold. Any limitation on the activities of a business has the potential to impact on its market value, and the government will be aiming to get a good price for the shares to be sold.

The most surprising thing is not that John Key was palpably and egregiously incorrect, but that the Maori Party leaders let it get to this point before throwing a tantrum. How is it that something as fundamental as section 9 of the SOE Act was never discussed when the Maori Party were negotiating their support arrangements with National?

Why did nobody in the Maori Party think to ask John Key about National’s intentions regarding section 9? Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Maori-Crown legal interactions over the last 30 years ought to have been able to figure out that the provision would create issues that needed to be addressed.

So why do Sharples and Turia now appear shocked at National’s “surprise” move? Does nobody advise them? Any first year law student could probably have warned them about the section 9 problem.

And what exactly do Sharples and Turia want? From some of the confusing and contradictory waffle emitted by Sharples yesterday, it seems he may be expecting section 9 to be expanded to cover private shareholders of the partially-sold SOEs. If that is indeed what Sharples expects from National (and I cannot be certain what Sharples expects, as I suspect he is making it up as he goes along, having never turned his mind to the issue until now), then anyone with the remotest understanding of our nation’s political history would have been able to figure out that such a move would be a bit controversial to say the least.

So why weren’t these things discussed? I am tempted to look for some ulterior motive behind the reaction by Sharples and Turia, some strategic reason why the Maori Party may be trying to distance itself from John Key’s government.

But I keep coming back to what I think is really behind this whole shambles: incompetence and ineptitude. In its dealings with Hone Harawira to date the Maori Party has proved adept at making the worst possible decisions, and this fiasco merely continues a trend of bad decision-making, disorganisation and poor leadership. Supporters of the Maori Party really ought to be asking Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia some tough questions about their performance, because over this issue it has been embarrassing.