I'll put my evidence against your allegations anytime Mr Williams

Yesterday on Agenda, Labour Party President Mike Willams accused John Key of registering in an electorate he didn't live in, and then voting in that electorate. Mike Williams said:

"[Y]ou're looking at a honeymoon period for John Key and what happens after honeymoons of course is the cold light of day when the journalists start really looking at people and the question will be asked of John Key you know for example why did he maintain and electoral address and vote at a place he didn’t live at, and he did that for a long time."

Okay, no evidence, just an allegation.

So looking at the Leader of his own Party, proven beyond all possible disbelief is that they:

• Passed off an artwork they hadn't painted as their own work, allowing it to be sold.
• Defamed a man by calling him a convicted murderer (he was convicted only of Manslaughter), then used taxpayers funds to settle the subsequent defamation suit.
• Fired a Minister who committed no crime on the basis that he acted immorally with a teenage girl.
• But appointed a Minister who has several convictions for Fraud.
• And defended then promoted a Minister who acted inproperly by making poor judgement with his acts of discipline while a teacher.
• Illegally used over $800,000 of taxpayers funds to promote her Party during the 90 days before an election.
• Created a whitewash inquiry into serious allegations against a Minister to appease the public, but when a police investigation is launched they find enough evidence of criminal activity to lay a charge.

Mike Williams is really scraping the bottom of the barrel if he thinks he can make John Key look corrupt by saying he voted in the wrong electorate without providing evidence that he was not entitle to.

And personally, he should be more worried about the ambitions of Phil Goff.

Bloody Buses!

This afternoon a Cityline bus rear ended our car, parked legally outside our home. According to a witness He got out, inspected the damage and drove off, leaving bits of our car and his bus all over the road.



You can see the light green debris at the bottom of the picture - the same colour as Lower Hutt buses.

Note that the rear wheel is at a very odd angle. The amount of damage - panels from the rear right down to the rear passenger door will need repair - and the fact that the car is old enough to vote probably mean it's a write-off.

The witness asked the bus driver if he'd hit the car, he said "No". But here's the collection of bus bodywork amongst the debris:



One person who saw the accident left their details, plus the registration of the bus.

The bus driver left the scene with bits of his bus and our car all over the road. If you drove down Waiwhetu Road and ended up with a puncture today it was the bus drivers fault!

When I rang the manager of the local bus depot, he wasn't aware of the accident (this was three hours later), promised to "look into it", and then call back later. Still haven't heard back!

So it looks like I'll be doing a lot of walking and cycling for the next week or so!

UPDATE: Managed to talk to someone more helpful at Cityline. They've given me the details of their insurer and I've made contact. The insurer is waiting on the paperwork from Cityline (which Cityline said to me they would send) and then we can get the car either repaired or a payout to replace.

In the meantime, we're having to re-organise our lives so that we can manage without the Toyota.

Job Interview, circa 2011

As David Farrer points out, Labour's reduction in the rate of tax businesses pay is more than wiped out by the compulsory contributions employers have to make to Kiwisaver.

So, in a few years time we can expect interviews to go something like this:

Employer: "Are you in Kiwisaver?"
Interviewee: "Yes."
Employer: "Thank you, we'll let you know."

That sucks.

Michael Cullen just Nationalised my Superannuation Savings!

I have considerable disquiet over the decision by Michael Cullen to force employers to subsidise retirement savings through Kiwisaver. In effect, he has nationalised the Retirement Savings Industry by stealth.

Now that an employer is going to provide matching for my retirement savings up to 4% of my salary, you would be crazy not to switch your own retirement scheme into Kiwisaver - unless your employer already offers a subsidised scheme. Only the very stupid and those who think the Government cannot be trusted not to confiscate their money won't. (I must confess to being borderline on that one!)

But to get 4% of my salary subsidised I have to invest my savings into a scheme that Michael Cullen controls and approves of - so my range of choices is limited to the choices the Minister of Finance makes for me.

What's the bet not one of the large retirement savings companies will risk upsetting Michael Cullen by criticising the scheme?

Government's can't be trusted to maintain consistent policies over the long-term - every now and then a radical Minister will change everything similar to the way Muldoon abolished the compulsary scheme instituted by Roger Douglas in the 1970s, and then how Douglas abolished Muldoon's Polish Shipyard economy.

If Cullen was serious about getting us to save for our retirements he'd just cut personal taxes and advise us that we have two choices what to do with that money - reduce debt and save for retirement; or work til you drop and starve in retirement.

I guess Cullen doesn't trust me enough to make my own choices - which is why I don't vote Labour.

Nightmare on Every Street

Spot the difference:

Own Goal!

In February, Prime Minister Helen Clark said:

"I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life. I believe that in the years to come, the pride we take in our quest for sustainability and carbon neutrality will define our nation."

Yesterday, John Key said:

"I will set the achievable emission reduction target for New Zealand. Here it is: A 50% reduction in carbon-equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. In shorthand: A 50% cut by 2050. 50 by 50."

Today, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said that the 2050 target is an easy one to promise, but harder to deliver.

So, if cutting net carbon emissions by 50% is easy to promise, but hard to deliver - what does that mean about a goal to cut net emissions by 100%. Is that impossible, and therefore proves that Helen Clark's aim is all feel good spin?

I think Michael Cullen should find an important engagement to attend at 2pm tomorrow.

Who now for Labour in Rimutaka?

EMPU leader Andrew Little has confirmed that he is not standing for Labour in Rimutaka next year. So I wonder who else will be standing? Here's my shortlist of potential candidates.

Moana Mackey: Labour list MP, unsucessfully stood for East Coast seat last election - which her mother held previously - losing to National's Anne Tolley. She has been on the Petone Community Board and worked in Lower Hutt previously, so has links to the Hutt Valley. Also a member of the EMPU. Hardly set the world of politics alight in her four years in Parliament since replacing another unknown MP, Graham Kelly.

Charles Chauvel: Another Labour List MP who stood unsucessfully at the last election in Ohariu-Belmont, lives in Oriental Bay. Another who entered Parliament when an existing list MP quit (Jim Sutton).

Paul Swain: Current MP, well respected by the locals, may decide to hang on for one more term. Supposedly quitting to have more time with his family, although widely beleived that he is being eased out for new blood. Could he plan to stay on one more term for Andrew Little to take over in 2011?

Paul Tolich: Wellington Region Representative to the Labour Party Council and also Andrew Little's deputy at the EMPU, known to attend a few Labour Party Caucus meetings.

Of course, this is all academic as National are winning Rimutaka at the next election!

Zero Alcohol Limits for Drivers?

Police are calling for a lower alcohol limit for drivers in New Zealand. Obviously, just one death or injury in a vehicle accident is one too many and moves to reduce this are to be applauded, although I think this is not the right step to take.

When comparing road deaths and legal alcohol limits to other countries, there is no discernable pattern for lower road deaths and lower limits.



From my own experiences, I think that the issue is not so much the law but the culture of driving. There is is a mentality of ownership of the road - that "other" users should be subserviant to our needs while on the road. What needs to be changed is the underlying attitude to driving - not so much the laws governing road use.

Those who prove they are irresponsible should not be let loose again - it's my view that if you can't drive a car safely, a court should be able to order that you are not to drive a vehicle above a certain power (not engine size - as you can make a 1300cc car quite powerful with the addition of turbos and other performance equipment).

I also think that the current system of assessment for drivers is woeful - you just need to prove you can control a car for thirty minutes when you are fifteen and then you're set for life.

There is nothing original left on Television ...

First there was Monty Python ...

Then there was Red Dwarf ...

Now there is Cold Case.

About time they came up with new names for TV characters.

I'm not boycotting Subway

Management at a Subway in Dunedin sacked an employee using what is alleged to be a procedurally unfair process over a trivial matter of a two dollar cup of coke. The staff member was also arrested and charged with theft.

If true, the staff member involved can lodge an unfair dismissal claim and receive compensation for the actions of the (former) employer. Even if the case proceeds, the Judge would likely not enter a conviction, or would order a diversion scheme, in the criminal case.

Boycotting Subway is lynch mob tactics - they deserve to have their say in court, and if they acted unlawfully be punished by considered decision in that forum.

Besides, as a franchise business it's not the fault of the other owners if one of their colleagues treats an employee badly. Would anyone support a boycott of the entire Union movement if the case involved one Union?

Advice you should never follow ...

Remember how people tell yuo to live your life like it might end tomorrow? Well, here's the story of someone who was (wrongly) diagnosed with a terminal illness and lived recklessly for the next twelve months, only to be re-diagnosed with a non-terminal treatment.

He quit his job, ate out every night, drank expensive wines and went on holidays for a whole year - and is facing having to sell his house to make ends meet.

The lesson is - don't live every day as if it were your last, because if it isn't the debt collectors come calling!

National Party Regional Conference

Have been away in Palmerston North for the National Party Lower North Island conference. Good to hear John Key set out the policy initiatives that he wants to see in National's first budget in 2009 - "real tax cuts ... into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders"; "substantial investment in infrastructure across public transport, roading, telecommunications, water and energy"; and "[reducing] the costs, delays and uncertainties of the RMA while reaffirming National's commitment to high environmental standards".

A much better perscription than Michael Cullen's platitudes. Just what does "grasping the nettle of sustainable development and climate change" and "changing the nature of the debate on taxation away from an obsession with self to one on Labour’s terms of the interests of New Zealand" actually mean!

Was a very interesting conference - one of the policy sessions involved listening to representatives of various groups working with under-privileged young people, mainly those that work at turning teenagers in trouble with the law away from bad influences. Interestingly, they all had the same challenges with Government policy when it came to securing recognition that their programmes worked better than Government Programmes and how they found securing funding overly bureaucratic.

I also made a policy pitch which was well received - a couple of senior Nats commented favourably on it, so I'm hopeful it will get accepted for National Conference.

Would Michael Cullen make up his mind?

According to Michael Cullen, I am poor enough to need state assistance. But according to Michael Cullen, I am one of John Key's rich mates who will get tax cuts.

Confused? I am.

I don't mean to brag ...

But I'm smarter than David Farrar.



Update: Okay, maybe not as smart as I thought - have corrected the obvious error.