Imperator Fish

Radio NZ Is Making Do

2012-02-17T08:13:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-16T08:45:00.001+13:00

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

2012-02-15T08:52:00.002+13:00

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

2012-02-13T08:06:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-12T11:23:00.000+13:00

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

My First Daily Deal

2012-02-09T20:39:00.001+13:00

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

2012-02-07T20:49:00.001+13:00

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?

2012-02-07T13:48:00.000+13:00

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...

2012-02-07T08:22:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-06T08:49:00.001+13:00

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!

2012-02-05T22:11:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-05T08:10:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-01T13:43:00.000+13:00

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

2012-02-01T08:01:00.000+13:00

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.

Shock As Labour Discovers David Farrar Is Not The PM

2012-01-31T13:59:00.000+13:00

Labour Party MPs are said to be red-faced, after discovering that prominent blogger David Farrar is not the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Mr Farrar has been the target of numerous attacks by Labour Party MPs over the last couple of years.

A source inside Labour has confirmed that party officials identified Farrar as the leader of the country shortly after the 2008 election, despite being given evidence to the contrary. Rumours that John Key was the actual leader of the National Party as well as the Prime Minister of New Zealand were dismissed at the time as mere speculation.

But this morning, in a shock announcement, Mr Key revealed that he is in fact the Prime Minister, and that David Farrar is merely an enthusiastic National Party member with a popular blog, a couple of newspaper columns, and only moderate political influence.

Commentators have observed that Labour’s obsession with David Farrar has been a distraction that has turned off many left-leaning voters.

Labour MP Trevor Mallard admitted today that the party had made an “embarrassing but understandable error” over the identity of the Prime Minister.

However, he was unrepentant over Labour's policy of giving free publicity to David Farrar by attacking everything the commentator writes or says.

Mr Mallard also vowed to keep piling the pressure onto Mr Farrar.

"He’s not fit to hold office. He’s certainly not fit to be in Cabinet,” said Mr Mallard.

“When Parliament reopens we’ll be piling the heat on David Farrar, and holding him to account. This Farrar-led government has been a disaster for New Zealand.”

Spears Into The Sea

2012-01-31T07:55:00.000+13:00

This morning’s New Zealand Herald editorial wades into the Megaupload case, opining that copyright laws need to be respected and enforced.

More disturbing than the global breach of copyright alleged in the charges is the belief among many users of such sites that the net is, or should be, a copyright-free zone.

The ability to share and exchange enjoyable material is one of the most attractive and commonly used features of the internet. Just about everyone joins in the free distribution of something everyday. When we click on a link or forward an email, we seldom pause to wonder whether the originator of the material has a property right.

Common sense should tell everyone the originator needs a copyright to be able to sustain the creation of such material but common sense appears to elude some of the internet's enthusiasts. They regard pay-walls as an impediment to virtual democracy and a challenge to their technical agility. Yet the wealth we now witness at Coatesville suggests they are not evading all tolls on their traffic.

It may be argued that sites such as Megaupload provide a service that any originator of material could provide. The issue may be the price they can charge if they face none of the costs of original creation. It seems internet users are happy to send movies, music and other works they possess to a "cyberlocker" for faster transmission to their friends. Once the cyberlocker has the material it can be made universally available for a small fee.

As the home of Hollywood, popular music and indeed, the world's leading software creators, the United States has more "intellectual property" to defend than most places. But countries such as ours should be unequivocal in their support of efforts to police global copyright.

Internet breaches should not be confused with parallel importing, which this country permits. Parallel importing is made possible when suppliers discriminate between countries and charge some a lower rate.

The internet is an instant global supply; it cannot discriminate between national markets.

The internet needs to protect intellectual property somehow. Unauthorised distributors of underpriced work can prosper only at the expense, and eventual death, of their golden goose.

I usually try to steer clear of the debate over copyright and its future. Because in my day job I deal with a range of people in the IP world, from creators and exploiters to potential infringers, I have the benefit of seeing the debate from a number of different perspectives.

However, the Herald’s analysis strikes me as too simplistic. it doesn’t take a genius to work out that with the increasing prevalence of digital technologies in our daily lives, traditional copyright protection models have become outdated. Is the answer really just to enforce the existing laws more aggressively and expect people to stop infringing?

The rise of the internet, and the ease with which electronic material can be replicated and shared, make it more difficult for owners of content to assert and enforce copyright. How does a content owner effectively enforce their rights when thousands of people can copy that content with just the click of a button?

In the pre-internet age, the potential for mass distribution of infringing material was limited, and most copying was on a small scale. Large-scale infringers were fewer, and the traditional models of enforcement (cease and desist letters, injunctions, damages etc) were often effective in dealing to the problem.

But in today’s filesharing age, illegal content can be downloaded in an instant. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are happily sharing content created by others, in a way that violates copyright laws.

Responses to the challenge created by mass filesharing have been varied. Some industry groups argue that the law is the law, copyright infringement is theft, and people need to simply stop the illegal copying and distribution of other people’s content. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that everything should be available for free on the internet. In between are those who are happy with some form of copyright protection for creators and copyright owners, but think current copyright laws are outdated and overly restrictive.

Irrespective of where people stand, what seems clear is that mass copyright infringement will not go away soon. The Megaupload crackdown may look like a big deal, but such enforcement actions alone are unlikely to reduce the scale of the infringement problem. The actions taken by US authorities look more like Canute commanding the tides to halt; or the Roman emperor Caligula’s war against Poseidon, when he marched his army to the beach and commanded his men to throw spears into the sea.

What’s the answer? I have no idea. If I knew how to solve the copyright dilemma I’d be the richest person in New Zealand. However, it seems that a lot of people who infringe do so because the content they want is not available at a price they are prepared to pay. A lot of people have expressed frustration at not being able to access their favourite TV shows, because the official sites often prohibit downloading from particular countries or regions. In other cases users are prepared to pay something for the material, but believe the price being charged is too high. In such cases it could be argued that the biggest problem lies with traditional distribution models simply failing to adapt to meet consumer expectations.

None of this is an effort to excuse what is in the end illegal behaviour, nor is it an attack on traditional forms of enforcement. I should make it clear that I have no issue with individuals or corporations wanting to enforce their rights in content. But if copyright owners want to reduce the volume of infringements taking place, they must also understand the reasons why people choose to illegally download content. It is not enough just to enforce existing laws.

If people will continue to smoke or drive too fast, despite the very real and proven dangers to their well-being, should we really be surprised that people ignore the calls not to illegally fileshare? Especially when the technology to do so is readily available, when the chances of infringers being caught are small, and when the actual harm caused by an infringing act is difficult to quantify.

The enforcement of existing copyright laws alone will not hold back the rising tide of filesharing. The Herald’s editorial offers nothing useful to the copyright debate.

Please Rate This Post Between 1-10 For Offensiveness

2012-01-28T21:35:00.000+13:00

Robert Mugabe has spent decades beating down the people of Zimbabwe, but he still hasn't won, and opposition to his rule remains strong.

And yet the Black Caps destroyed Mugabe's beloved Zimbabwe's cricket team in less than three days.

Zimbabwean opposition, get your shit together!

Not Petty

2012-01-28T21:11:00.000+13:00

In order to prove conclusively that I'm not vindictive or petty, and that I don't hold grudges, I am reposting a piece I published in June 2011.

Medical Shock As Bomber Bradbury Runs Out Of Opinions

In a shock announcement, radio and TV host and blogger Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury has announced he has run out of opinions.

Bradbury is well known for expressing strong opinions on just about every topic. Bradbury regularly uses his radio and TV appearances to castigate right-wing politicians, and to push his strongly leftist views on multiple issues.

But on Friday morning Bradbury was rushed to hospital after experiencing a sudden opinion failure.

Speaking from his hospital bed, Bradbury explained what happened.

“I was in the midst of typing a scathing blogpost eviscerating John Key’s evil National government for the steaming pile of dog-turd it has become, and explaining why we needed a Mana Party world government, when suddenly my hands dropped from the keyboard and I felt an overwhelming sense of numbness.

“I knew something was wrong, because I felt this sudden release, as if all the seething righteous indignation was being voided from my body. That’s when I called 111.”

There is little doubt that the experience has changed Bradbury immeasurably. When shown a photograph of the Prime Minister, Bradbury said “he’s got a nice smile.”

And when asked what he thought about the Business Roundtable, Bradbury visibly shrugged, saying “I’m sure they’re a decent bunch of blokes.”

Doctors say there is no cure, and treatment options are limited. Bradbury’s condition, known as Opinion Deficit Syndrome, is seldom fatal but is difficult to treat.

But sufferers of the disease can be managed back into the community, and can lead fulfilling lives.

Dr Sinead Erbeck of Auckland University Medical School said that the best treatment for Opinion Deficit Syndrome was an opinion transplant.

“The medical literature shows that the most effective course of treatment is for the patient to be encouraged to take the opinions of others and adopt them as if they are their own," said Dr Erbeck.

“The risk of opinion rejection can be extremely high in the early days of the operation. However, given time, patients can look forward to a full recovery and a rewarding new career as a politician, PR consultant or lawyer.”

Bradbury said he had not thought much about a career outside opinion-based broadcasting.

“I never thought I’d feel this creeping sense of numbness, of nothingness. It’s like someone has taken my soul.

“Public relations, you say?”

He May Be Half-Right

2012-01-27T20:47:00.000+13:00

Bomber Bradbury writes:

Terrible news that 'The Standard' has terminal cancer. I don't read 'The Standard' much, so appreciate I am coming to this issue late, but it is terribly sad that they now have the tedious and dreadfully dull Imperator Fish as a regular columnist in their attempt at a broadening humor that will appeal beyond their fetish with Farrar and Slater (for the record Farrar and Slater are supposed to be mocked, not taken seriously).

Why The Standard thinks it needs more of a sanctimonious whiney tone by bringing on Imperator Fish is anyone's guess, next they'll be appointing Tim Watkins as Editor and anyone who wrote for The Listener post Findlay McDonald.

Eeeew.

The Standard will be sadly missed.

I don't make a habit of feuding with other bloggers, and Bomber is perfectly entitled to consider me "dreadfully dull" (and if you met me in real life you would probably concur).

But I do wonder how someone as hectoring and opinionated as Bomber can describe The Standard as having a "sanctimonious whiney tone" without a hint of irony.

Sonny Bill Has No Plans To Sleep With You

2012-01-27T13:57:00.000+13:00

The stock market dipped sharply in trading today, after no stories appeared in any of the major newspapers about Sonny Bill Williams for almost two hours.

There were some signs of a rally early in the afternoon, as traders took a punt that one of the television current affairs shows would run a story about the sportsman before the end of the day.

But the rally was short-lived, after it was revealed TVNZ’s current affair show Close Up would run stories about transgender traffic wardens and the affordability of methamphetamine for many struggling families, and after TV3’s rival show Campbell Live announced plans to run a 30 minute promotion on its latest talent-reality-survivor-traffic-accident show.

The NZX 50 closed down 421 points, as traders abandoned previously solid stocks and threw their money into safer investments such as gold, overseas bonds and disposable diapers. Media stocks took a particular hammering. The absence of any reports today on who Sonny Bill Williams had coffee with, is sleeping with, or is about to use as a punching bag, led to intense anxiety across financial markets, and speculation that the dearth of Sonny Bill stories would drive a number of media organisations into insolvency.

Late this afternoon New Zealand Herald editor Shayne Currie issued an apology to readers for his newspaper’s lapse.

“I can assure you that we take very seriously our responsibility to readers to provide the very best in news and current affairs,” said Mr Currie.

“On this occasion there has been a regrettable lapse. However, we have reviewed our internal systems and can assure the public that, as well as providing the very best in shark news, the New Zealand Herald will from this day forward provide wall to wall coverage of everything Sonny Bill says, does or excretes.”

Mr Currie said he could not talk any more about the lapse, as it was now an “employment issue” for the staff-members concerned.

It is believed that Sonny Bill William's
management team is not at this time
considering the remilitarisation of
the Rhineland by their star.

Update: Fears that international markets might plummet overnight eased, as it became clearer that Sonny Bill Williams is unlikely to contest the US Presidential contest for the Republican Party.

Pundits have been speculating on whether a latecomer would join the Republican nomination race, but an expert in US electoral law said Sonny Bill would not be eligible to become President.

“Sonny Bill wasn’t born in the US, so he can’t stand for the highest office without a constitutional amendment,” said Dr John Wainburger of the Washington Freedom Institute.

“In any event, Republican voters would never support a Muslim candidate. Even one as hot as Sonny Bill. Don’t tell my wife I said this, but I’ve seen pictures of the guy with his shirt off, so please tell him that if he ever decides to try out an alternative lifestyle I would be happy to, er, put him through his paces.”

A Prediction

2012-01-27T08:25:00.000+13:00

I'm usually wary of making economic predictions, but here's one I am happy to make.

We will not have a budget surplus in 2014/5.

Here's another prediction: over the next 12 months Treasury growth forecasts will continue to trend downwards, and Bill English will continue to blame every government failure on what is going on overseas.

If this government is so powerless to influence the course of our own economy, why did Key and English so boldly pronounce a return to surplus in 2014/5?

President Newt?

2012-01-26T21:14:00.000+13:00

Spare a thought for our US friends. Their economy may be a powerhouse (even if at present it is staggering a bit), but when it comes to "government of the people, by the people, for the people", they are little better than animals.

That one of the current group of Republican crazies running for office may become President in a year or so is difficult to imagine. Yet it remains a possibility. It would be like Don Brash becoming PM here. Oh, wait, that almost happened...

Previously the Republican nomination race was regarded as being a non-contest. Mitt Romney was supposed to have it sorted and was a sure thing. However, Newt Gingrich's victory in South Carolina has upset most predictions and given the former House Speaker huge momentum. There are plenty of reasons why voters ought to dislike Romney, not the least being his evasiveness when queried over tax matters and his insistence that being a cut-throat businessman would make him a good leader of the nation.

But the thing his Republican rivals seem most fixated on is the fact he's a Mormon. Go figure.

Maybe hardcore Republicans are wired differently. That might explain their inability to see what seems to be in plain view. Take Newt Gingrich as an example. He's now being billed as a "conservative revolutionary", as if the two concepts aren't contradictory, and the "grassroots" candidate. But Gingrich is as Establishment as they come, having been Republican House Speaker (before being dumped after an ethics scandal), and he's been a Washington insider for the better part of 30 years.

That ethics scandal would be enough to send most politicians into permanent disgrace, but not Gingrich. Nor does it seem to matter that during the period when he was attacking Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair he was himself engaged in an adulterous affair. I guess some people can forgive any sort of dishonesty and hypocrisy in a candidate, so long as he's not a Mormon.

Right now it would be easy to dismiss the entire Republican Party as a joke, and assume that Barack Obama will clean the floor come November. This would be a mistake. How many of us were convinced that the village idiot by the name of George W. Bush would never be elected, or re-elected?

The Republicans have a got shot at winning because, for all his grand eloquence, for all his stirring oratory, Barack Obama has been a colossal disappointment. He promised change and a new approach, but has delivered precious little. Washington is run by corporate lobbyists, and the House representatives who make the laws spend most of their time either campaigning for office or fundraising. The two-yearly electoral cycle contributes to corporate capture of the political system and makes it difficult for politicians to enact policies harmful to big business.

This is why the Democrats blew the once-in-a-generation opportunity they had in 2008 to reform the entire system. They controlled the House and Senate, and their man was in the White House. But the Democrat Party are so compromised by corporate lobbyists and so divided that they couldn't organise a brawl in a Mongrel Mob vs Black Power rugby league game.

So why would people vote for the party that promised change and delivered more of the same? They may as well give their vote to that other party of snake-oil salespeople. Or just stay home and not vote at all.

There's plenty of time to go, and maybe the Republican nominee will turn out to be the campaign trainwreck we all expect him to be. But I'm not willing to put my money on an Obama victory, and I can well imagine that come this time next year they'll be inaugurating President Mitt. Or President Newt.

Buying Our Land

2012-01-26T13:52:00.000+13:00

David Shearer brings many things to the role as Labour leader, but one thing he doesn't bring is baggage.

Shearer has been in Parliament for less than three years, and has never been a Government MP. So attacks by John Key on Labour's record in office, like this one, ought to bounce right off him.

With the Crafar Farms sale Shearer has found an issue that resonates with the public. Many people fear we are in danger of losing our best productive assets to overseas buyers.

But it isn't enough for Shearer just to grandstand. Labour needs to set out clearly what sorts of foreign investment and foreign capital are wanted, and what sorts we can do without.

New Zealand businesses are often starved of capital, and foreign investment can help fund their growth. Overseas companies will also often have expertise and networks that can help New Zealand businesses to expand. So we should be wary about any campaign generally against foreign ownership or investment.

What we need to encourage is the right sort of investment.

But what exactly is the right sort? For example, do we insist on retaining land ownership as part of any deal? Do we exclude strategic assets of national importance from any foreign investment? If so, what do we regard as "strategic assets"? Power companies? Telcos?

If we look back at what took place with the sale of government assets in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see that some of those sales (often at bargain-basement prices and to foreign companies) offered little to New Zealand and were manifestly bad deals. The Government is at risk of repeating those same mistakes with its asset-sale programme, and in all likelihood a large number of the shares to be sold in our state-owned assets will end up in the hands of overseas companies.

New Zealand's overseas investment laws are quite liberal, and most foreign investment doesn't require any sort of approval. The Overseas Investment Act 2005 currently provides that the purchase by overseas persons of certain categories of land (referred to in the Act as “sensitive land”) needs the consent of the Overseas Investment Office. Farmland is generally subject to the consent process. Some investments in New Zealand businesses also need consent, generally being those where 25% or more ownership or control is being taken and where the value of the transaction is over $100 million.

The rules about the sorts of transactions requiring consent are reasonably clear, but it might be time to have a debate about whether they are too permissive, and whether they strike the right balance.

We should also recognise that wherever we set the bar, any consent process will involve a good deal of subjective analysis by OIO officials. The criteria by which applications are to be assessed are set out in the Act and its regulations. The process requires applicants to establish, among other things, that they have good character, business experience and acumen; and that there will be a benefit to New Zealand from the investment. There seems a good deal of scope for questionable investments to be signed off, because one person's incompetent rogue will be another's upstanding and experienced businessman.

Even if the OIO recommends the acceptance of an application, the relevant Minister/s can always turn it down, although they risk a judicial review by an aggrieved applicant if there are not good grounds for their decision.

I'm not entirely sure that we could ever design a system that avoided the need for officials or ministers to exercise judgement, but it may be possible to design clearer legislative and regulatory guidelines.

I don't profess to have a magical solution, and I'm not sure what the right balance is between protecting our economic sovereignty and encouraging overseas investment. But it feels wrong to see large sections of good farmland going to overseas companies. How is selling our land going to benefit us in the long term? We have only a finite supply of the stuff. As Mark Twain famously said, they're not making it anymore.

What would you do?

Am I Underselling Myself?

2012-01-25T20:29:00.000+13:00

Debbie Mayo-Smith has a regular column in the Herald. and she offers tips on business performance. She describes herself as an “international speaker and bestselling author”. Additionally, her website boldly states:

If you want significant improvements in business performance from minimum effort or cost, you must get Debbie Mayo-Smith now.

Note the imperative. Have you called her yet? Have you? Have you? Do it! Do it now!

From New York to Borneo, Perth to London, she’s one of the most sought after inspirational, motivational, practical results oriented 'How-to' speakers.

Borneo, no less! Perhaps she was there up-skilling the native Dayak people on their telemarketing techniques, and inspiring them to better manage their email in-boxes.

I confess to having never read any of Mayo-Smith’s books, but then maybe that’s the reason why my life is collapsing around my ears. I sit here in the relaxed comfort of my happy existence, casually churning out blogposts for amusement, safe in the knowledge that there will be enough money to feed the kids and pay the mortgage. This complacency is crippling me, when I should be sending you unsolicited text messages or cold-calling you while you are eating dinner.

I am deeply impressed by the ability of Mayo-Smith to talk up her attributes. You may call it hyperbole, or something even less flattering, but it’s a style that works for some. Personally I find such forms of self-promotion as appealing as being scratched to death by a feral cat, and I make it a personal mission to run a mile from anyone in the business world who describes themselves as a “bestselling author”. This style of “positive self-esteem” is what we expect from US evangelists or motivational speakers, and it’s something we don’t see that often in New Zealand unless we’re trapped in a room being sold Amway.

Does it work, and do people buy this sort of thing? I’ve no idea. I can only report on my own feelings about such over-the-top self-promotion.

But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, and maybe it's time I "blew my own trumpet" a bit more loudly. You may have noticed a new look to my blog, but I’m also thinking of adding the following under the blog title:

A powerful blogger and radio star who moves in spheres of influence and whose finger is always on the national pulse, Scott’s work will astound and overwhelm you, leaving you gasping for air and needing fresh underwear. Scott knows all the secrets, is never wrong about anything, and is a very handsome and well-dressed man who is so highly-regarded by the ladies that he has to literally run from one sold-out speaking engagement to the next to avoid being mobbed by beautiful women. If they ever get around to writing a sequel to the Bible Scott will be its main character. If you are not reading Scott’s blog or listening to his wisdom on the radio then you are a failure, a profound failure who deserves scorn, if not to be killed outright for the good of humanity, you worthless scum!. You must, must, must, read Scott’s work!

What do you think? Am I still holding too much back?

Nats Must Act Urgently To Save Us From The Sun

2012-01-24T14:00:00.001+13:00

In the Herald they’re reporting that the sun is bombarding us with radiation from the biggest solar storm in more than six years.

Six years! And what is John Key’s government doing about this crisis? I'll tell you. They’ve all buggered off to Ratana to kowtow to the locals there, even as the radiation from the sun bombards each and every one of us!

Still, it’s just what I’d expect from this radiation-friendly government. Forget the whole anti-nuclear policy that Key claims to now support. The Nats have always been lukewarm on keeping us safe from the effects of radiation, and this just provides further evidence.

If you think “so what, nothing much happened to us when this last occurred in 2005”, then you’re woefully wrong, and your profound ignorance should be placed on a pedestal so that generations of children to come may see it and be amused.

So you think 2005 wasn’t bad? Think again!

George Bush was inaugurated for his second term as President of the US
Hurricane Katrina struck
An earthquake in Kashmir killed tens of thousands
Ronnie Barker died
The Backstreet Boys re-formed.

And as if that wasn’t awful enough, the pestilential evil that was Star Wars Episode III was released that same year. I suppose the only shining light was that Episode III brought to a merciful end one of the most overblown, overrated and underwhelming movie series in cinematic history.

So the question I want answered, and that we should all be asking, is this:

John Key, what is your government doing to blot out the sun?