Bike to Work Day

Today is Bike to Work Day. One of the benefits is a free breakfast at Civic Square put on by the Wellington City Council. Some observations:

• Annette King is very skinny now! If she ever gives up politics she could be come a catwalk model.
• Trevor Mallard turned up late, and then admitted that he hadn't biked from home but "around the bays" - presumably the six ks from Evans Bay. (or the 1k from Oriental Bay?)
• Paul Bruce was the only representitive from the Green Party - normally they have a big showing but I had a good chat to him about what he could focus on to get broader support from public transport users and cyclists as he is running for regional council.
• The Cycle Aware Network Map of cycle hazards was pretty comprehesive!

The problem with Section 59

The problem with Section 59 of the Crimes Act is obvious - too many cases of obvious abuse are being sucessfully defended because Courts have to follow the letter of the law, not the intent Parliament had when they drafted the law.

The existing law is this:

1. Every parent of a child, subject to subsection 3 of this section, every person in the place of a parent of a child, is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
2. The reasonableness of the force used is a question of fact.
3. Nothing in subsection 1 of this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.

Sue Bradford's amendment to Section 59 runs too many risks of being in the same category. Her amendment is this:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:

• preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or
• preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or
• performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

I have two issues with this. Firstly, while the intent of the proposed law is to stop people thrashing their child the law is left to the Police to administer. And while the intent of Parliament will be that Police will use discretion, the law does not allow for any discretion. So the Police will naturally use an uneven amount of discretion based on factors other than how the child was treated - is the suspect already known to them, does the suspect have a bad attitude towards the officers, and so on.

Secondly, while the law prevents the use of force for corrective purposes, it allows reasonable force to be used to remove children from dangerous situations and to prevent the child from committing a crime. But like the old law, there is no definition of reasonable - is picking up a child who is on the driveway okay? Is throwing them over the fence so they can't get back into the same situation okay? Similarly, is it okay to kick away a child who is trying to steal a chocolate bar in a supermarket? Without a definitive clause to spell out what is reasonable people could still get off from cases of child abuse.

However, having said this, I prefer Sue Bradford's amendments to the existing law. It makes it impossible to defend a case of child abuse by using the way the law is written for disiplining children.

But overall, I prefer the proposed Chester Burrows amendment that will better define what reasonable force is - spelling out the intent of lawmakers more clearly to the courts.

I'm not so happy with his proposal that Judges can make a decision as to whether S59 applies - as it clearly does whenever an adult is responsible for the welfare of a child, even if they are not the parent, and they use force for corrective actions.

Overall, it's a bit of a muddle - but I do hope that Sue Bradford doesn't withdraw the bill if Chester Burrows amendments succeed. One thing just about everyone can agree on is the current law needs tidying up.

Making Low Emission vehicles more attractive

Last week, I posted on how making low emission vehicles more attractive for businesses would be a better choice for policy makers than banning car parks and cars.

I finally did the maths - and my figures support the notion that companies are better off financially choosing regular vehicles becuase of the FBT calculation - which is the lower of 20% of a vehicles purchase price or 36% of it's book value.

So for a brand new Prius, FBT is $8730 p.a. (List price $43650). For an equivilant 2 litre Ford Focus the FBT is just $6398 p.a. (List price $31990). While a Prius is more frugal at 4.4 Litres per 100km travelled it would have to travel almost 40000km per year to make up the difference - quite a lot, considering the average New Zealander only manages 12000km per year - so you need to do about 133km per day more than average to get any benefit.

But if you cut the FBT by 25% (15% of price) it wipes out the FBT cost - making low emission vehicles more attractive. Plus you get benefits of more second hand vehicles being available to private buyers.

I know this isn't easy to implement, but I still think it's better than just making everyone catch a bus.

Where's the repeal of Section 60?

While Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill makes its way through Parliament, I ponder whether anyone would be brave enough to put forward a proposal to repeal section 60 of the Crimes Act.

Section 60 gives air crew a legal defense for using violence to subdue passengers who are posing a risk to others on aircraft. Obviously, "timeout" is not an option sometimes.

Anyway, I hope the law is passed with Chester Burrows amendment. It will achieve what most supporters of Sue Bradford's bill want, which they state is to prevent criminal convictions of serious assaults being avoided in the name of discipline.

Finally, (to my surprise) when I worked at Parliament, Sue Bradford was one of the nicest people there - contary to my view of her from earlier media coverage from her pre-MP days. So those who threaten violence against her prove that they are the ones that are being irrational in this debate.

Banning cellphones in cars

Normally I'm not one for outright bans - I prefer that the full costs of the risks are transferred to the risktaker - but I support the ban of using cellphones while driving.

My own experience of using cellphones while driving I did notice an impact on my concentration. How unsafe my driving became would be hard for me to judge.

Just last week I was following a driver on a busy highway in the Waikato who was competent and predictable until they answered their cellphone. They then drove erraticly - slowed to 80km/h, the sped back up and weaved about on the road. The worst thing is that they didn't realise how bad their driving was as they finished one call and then made another.

And it would be terrible for all involved if an otherwise safe driver killed another person while distracted. We ban driving under the influence of alcohol primarily because of the danger it poses to other drivers - it's about time we banned driving and using cellphones.

The Panmure Roundabout

I see Local Body Politicians are scrapping over changes to the Panmure roundabout.

Having used it twice in my life -the second time was last weekend - I can confidently say the recent changes are a vast improvement on the lottery I had of trying to enter it the first time - which involved picking a car on the roundabout with good brakes and pulling out in front of it, a lane at a time.

Nutty Teachers

When I was a first former the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 when it strayed off course and into Soviet airspace.

The following day at school, our teacher gave us a lecture about the secret American Government that is supposed to be controlled by the real Government but frequently ignores it, and that it had arranged for the jet airliner to fly over Soviet airspace and we should feel sorry for the Soviet fighter pilot who shot the plane down.

Seems little has changed.

An Open Apology

Dear Craig,

I'm sorry I doubted you. Congratulations.

Loves and Kisses.
Michael.

Environmental Vandals

The fire on the Nisshin Maru shows one thing - If Sea Shepherd had rammed and sunk a Japanese whaling ship there would have beena major environmental catastrophe.

Are Sea Shepherd really willing to destoy a pristine Antartic environment to save a few whales?

Off to Auckland

Off to Auckland this weekend with Chaucey and Bevan and then staying on for work on Monday - So probably no posts until Tuesday.

How much for Biofuels?

Remember in "Yes, Minister" when Sir Humphrey or some other civil servant wanted to hide embarassing or unpopular information they would insert it well into a document that they knew Jim Hacker would probably not read and bury it almost at the bottom of his 'red box'.

So, when I went through David Parker's press release on introducing Biofuels I found that no mention was made of the need to replace the fuel filters in older vehicles.

You have to go through the 14 paragraph press release and then 11 more paragraphs in the questions and answers section to find the first mention of it. And it's couched in terms like "would normally not exhibit any problems" and "most modern vehicles are compatible".

To find the details of the estimated cost of upgrading fuel systems for cars that do 'exhibit any problems' are not 'compatible' you then have to go through 12 pages of technical discussion on whether vehicles can comply and then you find:

"The estimated cost of this replacement is $600-$800."

And how does this report define what vehicles are compatible?

It uses only Japanese vehicle manufacturers for reference - not the Australian companies (Ford are the biggest selling new car brand and Holden sell the most popular model of car) - and you find out that while Toyota and Honda say most cars built from the mid-80s are fine, Mitsubishi vehicles that are just over one year old and Nissan over three years old are not compatable for blended fuels.

It then uses overseas information for the remaining brands - right after saying overseas models may be different to New Zealand models.

Finally, there is a table (copy below) which stated potentially half the vehicles in New Zealand - 1.4 million of them - could require upgrading or replacement to use Biofuels!

Sir Humphrey would be proud of you, David!

Why do I have to pay for Party Pills?

Greymouth man Ben Rodden has been hospitalised after taking Party Pills. Thankfully, it looks like he will survive, although he may have permanent brain or organ damage. (Let's hope not.) But in the meantime it's taken a lot of effort by the public health system to keep him alive.

One of the arguements put forward by those opposed to a ban on Party Pills and other substances is that it's the personal choice of the pill taker/joint smoker/shooter to ruin their lives. (And their choices can ruin the lives of others when they have irrational reactions while their mind is fried - but that's another matter.)

But I choose not to use drugs and I drink moderately - I didn't become an All Black so I rely on my brain to make money - but I'm left picking up the tab for people like Mr Rodden who have bad reactions or overdose on drugs.

If drug users had to pay for all the medical costs they incur from their choices, and if their brains fogged up so much they wouldn't get a Sickness Benefit, I could have some sympathy for the personal choice arguement.

Positive steps to removing vehicle emissions

I realise yesterday I criticised the Greens for offering a non-viable solution to vehicle emissions by playing around with FBT and didn't offer any better alternatives. So, here's what I came up with:

The base model of the low emission, 1.5 litre Toyota Prius has a RRP of $43,650, about the same price as the base model 6 cylinder, 4 litre Ford Falcon ($43,290) or 3.6 litre Holden Commodore ($44,590).

Because a large component of the FBT charge on company vehicles is not the fuel cost but the depreciation, that makes the low emission cars too expensive to provide to staff instead of a much cheaper standard 2 litre car.

If the Depreciation and FBT rules were changed for low emission cars, then cars like the Toyota Prius would become more attractive to businesses that provide cars for employee work.

While the change would initially only effect cars, low emission hybrid commercial vehicles aren't too far off according to several articles I found on reliable newssites on the web.

So, instead of putting forward an unworkable idea (that suits the Green extremist world view that sees only bicycles and trains as transport options), here's an idea that can satisfy the needs of companies to provide vehicles to staff for work related activities and helping reducing emissions from motor vehicles.

When is the next bus to Kikamaukau?

The Greens are promising to give tax breaks to business that don't give cars and carparks to employees and instead give bus passes and bicycle racks, instead of the signalled drop in the corporate rate.

While that might be fine for a Big Auckland Legal firm it completely ignores small trade businesses - you can hardly expect a roofer to carry ladders on a bus or the plumber his tools on the back of a bike. And those in small provincial and rural centres don't have regular bus services (or buses for that matter) that can catch out to see their customers.

Just shows that the Greens are not in touch with reality - they think all "businesses" are in big towers on Queen Street, Lambton Quay and Cathedral Square. Or if they are, they are biased towards big city business at the expense of the little guy.

Finally, a message to that well known Green organisation who sent a person with poor english to my home to try and sign me up for being a member. I don't want to give you any money, I don't care that you think whales are so important, and I don't want you on my property! Just stay away from me and I'll do the same.

Someone pinch me ...

Last Friday, I saw Ian Botham on the sports news confidently predicting England will win the Commonwealth Bank Series finals in two games. "Ha! Yeah, right", was my reaction. Bugger me, but England went and won in two games.

We always knew they were a better team than the 5-0 drubbing they got in the Ashes Test Series, and they finally proved it against the best One Day team in the world.

Well done England.

The Problem with Ahmed Zaoui

Ahmed Zaoui is not giving up the fight to live in New Zealand with his family. I won't welcome him here - not for personal reasons, I just won't welcome anyone with a serious criminal conviction made in a competent tribunal.

I know that the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority found his conviction in Belguim (hardly a tin pot country with a corrupt judiciary) for being "the instigator or head of a criminal organisation" was shaky, but claims that it was a result of post 9-11 hysteria are a bit hard given this was in 1994. And if it was so shaky, Zaoui could have appealed and won. (I would.)

He also will be arrested if he ever went back to Belgium as he broke the conditions of his sentence by running away to Switzerland. The Swiss (with a reputation of being fair with refugees) rejected his request for asylum and arranged permanent residence in Burkina Faso and a monthly allowance - it was to get rid of him without deporting him to Algeria.

It would take Zaoui lodging and winning an appeal in Belguim for me to believe that he is an actual refugee and be allowed to stay. And given that is the way to prove his innocence once and for all, you have to wonder why a man who claims to be innocent hasn't ever taken that course of action?

Taxes on Fixed Rate Mortgages

I know Cullen has probably had a severe dressing down from Head Girl over this, but what Cullen is proposing in adding a Government levy on top of mortgages isn't too bad an idea - just far off the mark of a better scheme.

You see, the main problem with the New Zealand Economy is that too many people are borrowing against the equity on there ever increasing house values.

The other side of the coin is this - too much spending is the result of not enough saving. And here's where Cullen is going wrong. Instead of punishing us more to stop us spending, he should reward us more for saving.

The incentives on savings are all wrong - while you can get up to 7% return on low/medium risk investments, you lose up to almost 40% of the return in tax, and another 40% in inflation - giving a real return of about 1.5%. Not very exciting. Hence the rush to buy investment residential property, which is a low risk/high return option.

If Cullen was to slash (or remove) tax rates on all long-term investments (not just for Kiwisaver) then the incentive would be to invest in other low risk/high return options - not just residential housing. And with the heat taken out of residential housing and property values increasing more modestly, less people can borrow and spend.

But reducing taxes is too much of a leap of imagination for our Labour Minister of Finance - maybe we need to replace him with a more blue version?

Banning Fun!

Doctors and safety experts want to ban private trampolines because kids are hurting themselves when they fall or jump off.

When I was five, I managed to fall from play equipment at a public park and break my wrist. (Look closely at my photo on the right - you can see the cast on my right forearm.)

I've broken bones in my fingers, ribs and hands playing rugby. And I broke a rib when a horse I was riding was startled by a stray possum and bolted. (And I rode on for an hour in agony, then more agony while I was driven for two hours to Wellington Hospital.)

I ended with a nasty gash (requiring eight stiches) on my right elbow when I was playing in long grass at school, right where some idiot had left a broken bottle.

Not to mention hundreds of small cuts, bruises, sprains and strains over the years from activities kids, teens and adults do ranging from cricket, soccer, softball, running, jumping, playing, bicycling, etc.

(Quite a catalogue of injuries over the years!)

So, if this is a typical list, (and I'm sure it is) we should then ban:

Public Playgrounds;
Sport;
Horses;
School;
Physical Activity.

These are all the rough and tumble of growing up and doing things kids and adults like to do. If we were to ban everything that could cause injury, none of us would be able to get out of bed in the morning.

Politicians - Watch the Deeds, not the Words - Part 2

John Key yesterday went to McGehan Close to meet the residents and talk to them about finding solutions - not the most welcoming reaction was recieved, but after talking over with the residents, he left having apoligised for any offence, explained his position better, and with more understanding of the problems they face and what to do about them, and everyone was more statisfied. The most vocal critic when he arrived even promised to vote for him!

Two days earlier, Helen Clark snubbed an invitation from John Key to join him, saying she regularly visits such streets and schools that John Key highlighted in her speech.

If so, then what John Key heard was old hat, and she would have implement programmes to fix the problems of Youth Gangs, Government Department hinderance in helping find employment, empty state houses being trashed, regular flooding of the houses by the nearby creek, and youth with so little hope they commit suicide.

But she hasn't done it after seven years! Perhaps the residents living in the what they proclaim "misery" should be confronting Helen Clark - after all, she claims she knows about all these problems and does nothing.

Politicians - watch the deeds, not the words.

Back in June 2006, Trevor Mallard announced an end to most Race Based Funding.

Today, TVNZ reported that the Tasman Regional Sports Trust that mentors talented Maori students can't get funding - Not because the participants are only Maori, but because it's not run by a Maori organisation.