woah, too fast for us

It seems that TVNZ, gearing up to provide us with content ondemand, has realised that the broadband we get isn't quite the broadband we're promised:

Introducing: Slow DSL, something between dial up and proper service.

for the people of new zealand

Once again, Peter Dunne is banging on about Waitangi Day being too political, and, once again, wants to sweep all this Maori and Treaty fuss under the carpet by replacing Waitangi Day with a shinier, less controversial day, New Zealand Day.

Despite his obvious disdain for the usual political lead up to Waitangi Day, this year taking the form of a flag, Dunne continues to politicise Waitangi Day, not as a symbol of a broken partnership, but as a political tool to capture votes.

And what would this solve? Those who exercise their right to free speech now in the leadup to Waitangi Day will see the name change as a complete insult - which it is - and politicise New Zealand Day as a symbol of antipathy against the Maori race. It won't solve the issues underlying the various protests and grandstanding from both sides, which as a nation we need to address in a frank manner, something which keeping February 6 as Waitangi Day will foster, and hopefully resolve.

Dunne's comparison to Australia Day is a bit off too - the land where genocide was committed against it's native peoples has no hallmark day that defines the birth of their nation. Instead they have a fictitious day to celebrate being Australian, good on them for that, but I don't think that is us. The Americans celebrate the birth of the United States of America on the 4th of July, forgetting the tumult of the year the Declaration of Independence was signed, instead focusing the day on a celebration of being who they are.

New Zealander of the Year isn't a bad idea, but we can do that on Waitangi Day without lessening the achievement that such an award represents.

I am, however, completely in favour of a new national holiday - a reason to feel proud of being a New Zealander, a day off to enjoy with friends and family, a day that will sit along with Waitangi Day and Anzac Day as symbols of our nation's past warts and all. So long as it's not used to bash ethnic groups, and so long as it doesn't rob me of an existing holiday.

It should be on May 29 and called Sir. Edmund Hillary Day.

tis the season

So it's been a while since I posted. Don Brash called it quits (good), John Key got the top at National (good for national) and Eden Park got the go-ahead, maybe... if something better comes along, maybe not... (so long at it's not bloody Albany).

And I left the sunny slopes of Mt Eden, for the sea views (glimpses... if you stand on a chair) and trendy takeaways of Parnell (not that anywhere can really compare to Boonchu).

And now it's Christmas time once again, which means a likely sign off for the year. Have a good time all, and merry Christmas.

short sighted

I am a little disappointed in the ARC for dismissing the waterfront stadium as an option. Eden Park is far from the best option as far as I'm concerned, and not worth the $385 million required to get it built. I also don't see a problem in investing a truckload of money the country's largest port - free to the ARC - in making it more space and cost efficient.

I do see a problem in the ARC saying we won't take your money for the Waterfront Stadium, or for investing in the Ports of Auckland, but we sure as hell won't pay for Eden Park either.

the ARC believes that any alternative to the Waterfront Stadium would be a national stadium and should be funded for both capital and operating costs, without reliance on Auckland Regional Council ratepayers.

I agree with the Herald editorial this morning, the 'City council vote should prevail'.

driving with blinkers

In today's Herald, Brian Rudman likens Steve Maharey - and the government - to George W Bush:

Auckland is fast becoming Wellington's Iraq. If we're not stoning Sports Minister Trevor Mallard for his waterfront stadium plan, we're up in arms about Government plans to make us pay tolls to finance highways that the rest of the country gets for free.

Ouch. For one, I'm not not resorting to violence over the waterfront option, and the government isn't yet making anyone pay tolls.

He goes on to claim that:

It's hard, though, to go past the fact that Auckland has long been cheated of its share of transport cash.The proportion has improved in recent years, but in the 2005 financial year, the Auckland region scored only 29 per cent of Land Transport New Zealand funding, although 34 per cent of New Zealanders live in the region.
Why should we have to pay more?

Which isn't really true. Auckland's transport spent was woeful in the 1990's, but so was everyone else's. But we haven't been cheated of dosh from the public kitty. Brian's statistical claims have several problems.

Firstly, Land Transport New Zealand are the people who do the road safety commercials, run our licensing and other peripheral matters. They have nothing to do with road funding.

Secondly, the statistics that Brian is referring to are these ones [PDF], which refer to total road funding, including Transit (the people who build and maintain roads) and Land Transport NZ.

They reveal that:

- Auckland has the highest spend per km of road ($1410 per km, versus 2nd place Wellington at $521 per km)
- Auckland has the 4th highest spend per capita, with the Waikato, Southland and Northland ahead.
- When excluding costs not allocated to any region, Auckland gets 33.6% of the funding versus 32% of population and a contribution of 31.6% to GDP.
- Including costs not allocated to any region(inc. paper pushing in Wellington, TV ads etc), Auckland has a 29% share of transport funding. The 2005 figures indicate that Auckalnd had a $245m spend on highways, and another $941m spend on highways that hadn't been allocated to any region. I suspect that a significant amount of that money went to Auckland and more still into work on SH1 in and out of Auckland.

over shining sea

So, Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson has decided that the waterfront stadium will cost $1.8 billion dollars. He bases his estimate on his dabbling with stadia building in Tauranga, where according do the Stuff

"The only MP to have experience in building a stadium ... (a) >20,000-seater which came in $1 million over budget at a cost of $21 million."

Gee, wish I could do that with my salary. I also seem to remember another National MP having something to do with, oh, this building, which with some squinting and a vivid imagination kinda looks like a stadium.

Using Stadium NZ as a shining example of NZ's clean green image would also be great. Might even get the greens in behind it. In fact, the more I think about it the few million dollars it'd cost to make the stadium carbon/emissions positive is well worth it - so long as it stays as good looking as this.

And RB is right - the couple that moved in next to a container port and now are complaining about their view possibly going. It's a bit rich to claim that 25000 people will have their views of the harbour blocked by the stadium. I'd be surprised if the number is larger than 100.

It's now time for our say, though. You can tell Mike, Dick and Trevor what you think here. I think the waterfront is the best option, and really hoping Auckland does too.

stadium new zealand images

Images from architecture firm Warren and Mahoney for the proposed stadium on the waterfront. I had a bit of trouble downloading images from here, so have posted them for all to drool/lament over.

City View:


Harbour View Day:


Harbour View Night


City Elevation:


Harbour Elevation:


Level 2 View:


Rugby Configuration:


Cricket Configuration:


Concert Configuration:

get it done

The people of Auckland have been given two choices, and only two choices, for the location of the stadium that will host the final of the Rugby World cup. And what do we do?

We complain.

City councillors complain they don't get Carlaw Park as an option, Kerre Woodham complains about it not being sorted earlier, Brian Rudman complains, and complains, and complains.

Can we please start looking at what we actually want, and how it can be done, rather than niggle over the technicalities of it all. If we complain any longer, we'll only have ourselves to blame when it goes belly up.

While I would have supported Carlaw Park, it's not going to fly. My bet is now on the waterfront. It's a far superior option to an Eden Park upgrade, and - as Tim Watkins asserts, it's doable. To all the naysayers, I say this:
- The port will cope without the space AND we have Tauranga to help out as well.
- It'll be 20 years before something interesting is done with the waterfront if this doesn't go ahead.
- So what, it blocks the view to the water. You can't see the water now, we will be able to walk around the stadium to see the water (can't do that now), and it'll block the view of the port as an added bonus.

So, can we have a decision please?

how to vote

A good night for the Democrats. California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first female Speaker of the House, laid down a challenge to the White House - "Mr. President, we need a new direction in Iraq." - and to Washington D.C in general, promising to clean up the 109th Congress, which Rolling Stone dubbed the worst ever. Video of Pelosi's victory speech is here.

Meanwhile, we don't yet know who the next Senate Pro Tem will be, but current results have the Democrats+Independents in the lead by a small sliver. With Senate seats from Montana and Virginia still 'too close to call', it's hard to say if we'll have a result soon, or we'll be forced to wait through recounts and legal battles. According to Fox News (!!)

There are no automatic recounts in Virginia, but state law allows a candidate who finishes a half-percentage point or less behind to request a recount paid for by state and local governments

and with less than a percentage point in the race, it wouldn't be advisable to hold ones breath. Scoop, however, was much more confident.

On the ticket in some states were referenda to pass laws, including:
- Arizona: YES on English as the official language.
- Colorado: NO on Legalise Marijuana
- Idaho: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Michigan: YES on Restrict Affirmative Action
- Missouri: Yes on Stem Cell Research
- Nevada: NO on Legalise Marijuana
- Ohio: No on Allow Slot Machines
- South Dakota: NO on Ban Abortion
- Arizona: TOO CLOSE TO CALL on Ban on Same Sex Marriage
- Colorado: YES on Ban on Same Sex Marriage
- South Carolina: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- South Dakota: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Tennessee: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Virginia: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage
- Wisconsin: YES on Ban Same Sex Marriage

Thankfully the ultra hard-line, dumbass and patronising abortion laws were rejected by the voters, but shame on those states banning Same Sex Marriage. In a lot of ways, America really needs to just grow up.

how not to vote

A few days ago HBO screened a doco in the leadup to today's US midterm elections, covering the controversy surrounding electronic voting machines in the US. Makes me quite glad of our cardboard booths and funky orange markers.

Well worth the watch if you're interested in such things.

on the wharf

Cabinet today deferred making a decision about the location of Auckland's new stadium, but we should have some goodies by Friday including, according to 3 News, designs from the architects Warren and Mahoney. It looks likely it'll be the waterfront option.

3 News has a roundup here.

I'm keen to see the designs - partly because I agree that the design in media circulation looks like a bedpan - partly because I want to see what the architects think the surrounds will look like. I want more to see boldness, creativity, detail and justification for the design. But above all, I want to see options. If this is truly to be a national stadium, the best minds all need to be working to think of concepts for the stadium. Some will be uninspiring, some will be over the top, but there'll be gems to find if we let NZ's architects loose on designing our stadium.

We can but hope...

under the mountain, over the water

It's game on - so to speak - in the race to decide where to play the final match of the 2011 Rugby World Cup. In the pursuit of a single game of rugby - albeit a very important game - the government charmed the pants off the IRB, promising to rebuild Eden Park to bring it up to scratch for the final. Out of the woodwork though, new proposals for stadia have springed up, variously hailing their location as superior to leafy Mt Eden.

Left now in the hands of whatever politician wants to pay for it, the cards are on the table. But with no formal public consultation process on what we think it the best option for the stadium, no place to vent our praise or frustration at whats on offer, who knows what we'll end up with. Maybe the majority of Aucklanders want a mutli-billion dollar stadium floating off the shores of Remuera, and are prepared to pay for it, but nobody would know because they haven't properly asked anyone.

For now, you'll have to do with my efforts to bring together the various options.

Eden Park Upgrade

Envisioned for the current site of Eden Park is a $320 million upgrade of the park, including new stands to take a total of 60,000 people, 38000 of whom can enjoy their favourite sport undercover. The plan will enhance the facility for patrons and neighbours alike - with areas for people to stuff around before and after the game, linking the park with Kingsland railway station before and after the game. Plus the new stands will do a better job of containing light and noise spill (if only they could keep the helicopter quiet as it circles the park). Not to mention a pretty entrance from Sandringham Road









Cost: $320 million
Pros: Cheap(!), does the job, improves existing site, railway station adjacent.
Cons: Not 'visionary', very little parking, poor motorway access, seats not very close to stadium, no roof, limited amount of fixtures per year, suburban area.
Pictures: Eden Park Website.

Bledisloe Wharf / Tank Farm
No pretty designs yet, but the stadium by the water idea has captivated the government as worth of consideration. Potentially the crowning jewel on Auckland's waterfront, the design will be a very hot issue, lest it turn out to look like Wellington's Cake Tin. Sydney hit a winner with their Opera House, so there is no reason for us not to be able to do it. So long as it's not designed by committee. Te Papa was panned as a monstrosity when it opened, but today looking at it (and surrounds), it really is a striking building that seems to feel at home in Wellington.

Either site potentially will provide a bookend to a rejuvenated waterfront area, placing much needed fireworks up the ARC and City Council to get on and turn the area into a place of civic pride. I'm not holding my breath, however.

Being a greenfields development, the stadium can also be whatever we want it to be. We can forget dithering around with boring design constrained by existing facilities and build a stadium with all the bells and whistles that a millionaire city deserves.

Cost: Hopefully less than $1billion.
Pros: Exciting opportunity to do something bloody fantastic for the City, away from suburbia, it can have a roof, host wider variety of events more frequently, close to Brittomart.
Cons: $$$$, getting it done in time.


Carlaw Park
City Councillor Richard Simpson recently corresponded with RB around using the dilapidated Carlaw Park, at the city edge of the Domain, for the stadium. His surprisingly passionate PowerPoint, outlines his vision for the park.

This is my favourite for the stadium, practically being a greenfields site, having the best potential for public transport and greater use as a multi site venue.

As Cr. Simpson points out, if it's covered the Carlaw Park option can serve as a wet weather alternative for activities in the Domain.

I'd go further and insist that if we were to build a stadium here, it'd have to be covered - partly because if we don't cover the next stadium we build, Auckland will never have a covered stadium of it's size, partly because it rains all the time here and partly because Parnell residents are close by, and having this as a concert venue would rock.

And carparks... lots of lovely carparks to use when vising the Domain, Parnell and the University. Carlaw park has this over most of the other locations around - it and it's facilities will be used 7 days a week by Aucklanders of all persuasions. Eden Park wont.




Cost: ???, possibly up to $1b
Pros: Great use of crappy area, close to SH16 and railway network, close to CBD
Cons: $$$$, getting it done in time.

Images: Cr. Richard Simpson & wises (via Public Address)

Stadium Over Water
This has to be the most visionary of proposals yet. It has style, it has viable public transport options, it has longevity, and it has oodles of space. The elegant design of the stadium really is something we can admire, and can admire in 50 or 100 years. Even if this isn't the site, the architects who came up with the plan must be the architects to design the new stadium.

Peter Bossley and Bary Copeland - the pair behind the plan - are touting their proposal as a National Stadium, and setting their sights high to match.

If I didn't have a fondness for Central Auckland, this would definitely be my favourite.












They key advantages, according to the pair are:

- The site over water is a “blank canvas.” ... does not have to be purchased, existing facilities demolished, or the impact considered on surrounding buildings;

- It is close to a major transport corridor, with easy access to rail, motorways and Auckland International Airport;

- It is close to one of the fastest growing regions in Auckland: Counties and Manakau

- The close proximity to major transport connections and the relative lack of site restrictions will assist with the intended completion of the purpose-designed world class stadium in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011.

They also put their case forward in the Herald, outlting the practical features of the stadium, as well as the asthtetic

Sunlight reflecting off the sea would animate the sloping sides of the bowl, making it an object of great beauty and lightness. Artificial lighting would make it a dramatic object appearing to float over the water.

Cost: ???
Pros: Visionary, close to SH1 and railway network, potential to grow despt onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">ressed area, leaves waterfront free for other things
Cons: $$$$, away from city, tsunami prone.
Images: Bossley Copeland Architects (via Scoop)

North Harbour Stadium
Mostly called for by reistdents north of the bridge, no serious proposal has been put forward so far. Some reports however, mark this as very cheap.

Cost: $200-250m.
Pros: Lots of space for development, less residents, motorway adjacent.
Cons: Too far from Manakau city, no rail access, traffic nightmarish already, plans to expand commerical and residential development in area, sports teams with North Harbour as home ground tend to loose a lot.

Mt Smart
Again, has no serious push behind it. Shares most of the cons of Mt Eden and North Harbour, without taking too many of the pros. Current stadium is mega ugly, so could do with a facelift though

Avondale Racetrack
Ditto, plus they have those horrible spiders.

Victoria Park
Or, we could sober up and not.

As we wait for the Government to make up it's mind, we'll just have to twiddle our thumbs and hope they come up with something good.

trade aid

In response to my post on global white band day, iiq responded that people can,

Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices.

Agreed.

The distinction between free trade and fair trade is important when considering third world countries. People trade and nations trade - rather, all people and all nations trade in different ways and at differing levels of status. Googling Fair Trade will get heaps of info on the minutiae I'm sure - but IMHO, China's the problem.

The astonishingly low prices that an item can be made for in China is just nuts (take the NZ price, divide it by 8 and that's the cost in US dollars to get it made, packaged AND to a port of your choice in China). Global trade has to be about open access (USA and EU not doing very well) and reasonable prices paid for goods. The price of Chinese goods is, simply, too low. The single biggest action any government can take to make fair trade happen is for China to float the Yuan.

I suspect that, unfortunately, would cause a global financial crisis. I don't know the answer to that whopping problem.

The depressing reality is that global poverty isn't going to end in my lifetime. Prove me wrong and I'll be happy - but I'm not wrong on this one.

NGO's like Oxfam, and campaigns like Make Poverty History will make a difference - but only to some, and only slowly. It doesn't mean that individual actions should be ignored as irrelevant. It's up to consumers to make change happen slowly with their wallets. It's hard to make those choices - in fact it's a bitch (Foodtown Mt Eden, in particular, should be able to keep Scarborough Fair coffee in stock more often).

white bands

Tomorrow is global white band day, the big push so to speak for the Make Poverty History Campaign. Idiot/Savant provides a to the point summary of how NZ is doing here - and it's not good news.

I'm not sure where you can get a white band offline, but if you're keen on getting one delivered to you after Tuesday, look here. Otherwise, anything white is a sign of solidarity. Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.

aect

Handing my cheque to the teller last weekend made me reflect on the good things about living in central Auckland. In particular,

• There are banks that open on Sundays
• Once a year, the people who run the company that takes my money year round gives some of it back.

And the teller got to add to her growing pile my cheque from the Auckland Energy Consumer's Trust. Well, I'm sure she wasn't that thrilled - it was a big pile, and apparently was even larger the previous weekend. I hope she got one too, and didn't get it stolen.

Also, it's another good reason not to live on the Shore - you don't get a cheque on the Shore. Add that to the list... the roads are laid out in an incredibly stupid way... nobody can drive properly (about as bad as Ponsonby Road drivers) .... peak traffic in Albany South...

I quite like the AECT/Vector model. It's public ownership of a key asset without the political landmines that SOEs can bring, combined with a corporate model that is that maximises the return and value of assets to the owners. This year the trustees of the AECT are up for election.

Matt McCarten writing in the HoS, gives his personal precis of the three candidate blocks. It's unsurprising that he favours the left candidates over the current right wing bloc who sold a quarter of the company. McCarten notes the hypocrisy of those candidates who promised to keep the company in the Trust's hands, before doing the opposite. He predicts that

if the right-wing politicians grab control in this election, it won't be long before Vector assets of nearly $6 billion go on the international auction block. Of course, the corporation that buys Vector then ups the price to a captive customer base to pay off the loan raised to buy it. The new foreign owner makes a bomb, the foreign bank makes a bomb, and the local people pay the bill.

I don't think the decision to sell a quarter of the company was necessarily incorrect - at least from a corporate point of view. Vector is the best placed power company in the country, having the best market helps with that, but also having as your only shareholder a Trust - asking only for a consistent level of profit - has enabled Vector to leverage its revenue to grow. But to grow past a certain point needs money - and the AECT isn't in a position to demand cash from it's beneficiaries. The float helped Vector expand, and that move paid off. The fact that the dividend was significantly larger than what it had been in previous years is testament to that.

However, I don't think more should be sold off. Having more than a quarter of your shares floating in the market is a risk from governance point of view. In fact, I think it folly for the dividend to be so large. The AECT not only has a responsibility to deliver short term dividends to its beneficiaries, but a long term obligation to retain the company in public ownership and grow its profitability over time. Part of that money could have been used to reinvest in the company, in exchange for more shares, or to buy back some of the shares in the market to increase its asset base.

McCarten's article is a must read for everyone in who is eligible to vote for the trustee election - even if you are on the right of the spectrum. I don't think we're going to see another article that summarises what's at stake. Most importantly, everyone who can vote should. You can't whinge if you didn't.

dear bomb

I think DPF summed it up best with

This is not a good thing at all. This is very bad, and there will be consequences down the road.

North Korea today issued the a statement claiming that they had

successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9, 2006

adding that the test

will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it

I'm not holding my breath.

The msm are variously reporting that the test took place at either the Yongbyon nuclear facility, located 100km north of Pyongyang, or at Hwadaeri (CNN citing Hwaderi, a place that doesn't exist) near Kilju City, while seismic data indiicated the only activity of it's type today located here.

I'd like to say that I hope this is just North Korea puffing itself up with lies, but - like others - I'm scared of not only the crazy North Korean leadership, but of how their neighbours and the world reacts. We haven't had any problems out of India and Pakistan yet, granted, but I'm not as confident with Kim Jong IL behind the wheel.

Big discussion over at Kiwiblog - Matthew Webster has a good summary of the problems with both military and economic solutions, concluding that

I think its pretty close to an intractable problem, internationally speaking, and it maybe that this problem is only "solved" (in as much as is possible here) by the reactions of countries who feel their security is threatened.

shiny & new

So I've spent a very long time updating the design of the blog rather than any real work or useful posts - mostly because of the change to blogger in beta - which was worth it, but if you want to do anything remotely interesting with your blog, set aside the weekend.

(n.b. the change is really done in two stages, one to shift everything over, the second to update the template. It's the template change that can take a while if you like a custom template)

Also put some shiny new pictures from around Auckland to liven things up a bit in the header. Ooooh...

And to give credit where it's due (esp if you're after the funky drop down label box), here is the copyright & credit notice from the HEAD section of the blog template.

---
urbancast.blogspot.com (c) 2006

Images & text (c) 2006

Template based on Minima by Douglas Bowman (www.stopdesign.com) 26 Feb 04, updated by Blogger team and modified by urbancast with (hacked) labels hack from hackosphere.blogspot.com
---

wage inflation

After calling for employers to exercise moderation in giving wage and salary increases, the Reserve Bank's wage bill has grown by 18% in the last year. The Herald points out that the rise

takes into account a rise in staff numbers to 223 full-time equivalents from 218 in 2004/5, it still represents a 15.4 per cent average rise in remuneration per employee to $96,860 from $83,944.

Which, compared to the NZ Income Survey is well above the 4% pay rise given to the average worker this year. In real terms, the average wage is only just keeping in line with inflation, the CPI for the year to June 06 was 4%.

That the RBNZ isn't keeping inflating between 1-3% - missing it's targets - clearly doesn't have any relation to how the reward their staff. It demonstrates that workers at the top end of the wage spectrum are treated spectacularly differently from those at the bottom. As the RBNZ forks out 15% extra for their staff without blinking, those wanting just over half that are punished for daring to suggest it.

Interesting to note also, from the Income Survey that while females still lag behind their men on average incomes ($473 for women vs $754 for men av p/w), they are closing the gap faster than they have for many years (up 7.1% for women vs 2.1% for men). Let's hope it's even closer next year.

exclusive nonsesnse

What I don't get about the the Exclusive Brethren's exemption to labour laws is this:

If you run a business in New Zealand, it's safe to assume that you're going to have contact with people who you disagree with politically and religiously. Some of your employees and contractors will hold different beliefs, the employees of your suppliers are bound to be of different faiths - especially if you source raw materials offshore (i.e. China) - AND they're going to change as people leave. Customers in particular - regardless of whether you are a wholesaler or retailer - are going to be varied to a very strong degree.

So it's fine for the Church to insist that it's members not associate with outsiders, that they lobby (to outsiders) for laws allow for them to be treated above the law, but if they need to make money, all that doesn't matter. Preventing your followers from accessing modern civilisation while engaging in capitalist behaviour for the benefit of the Church is on par with with the plight of North Korea's citizens and the indulgences of Kim Jong-il.

I don't believe that the EB's pleas to get Union officials off their workplaces is about remaining separated from others. Sue Bradford quoted someone from the EB in her speech in favour of the law (Hat tip: RB):

Separation is maintained from all groups, unions or associations of a business, shareholding, property, political, pleasure, social, medical, or superannuational (sic) nature. We have found in Jesus a satisfaction nothing in this passing world can compare with. Additionally, we are also governed by the scriptures as to employing or being employed. There is special concern to maintain inviolate the direct employer to employee relationship.

Which is to say: our employee's aren't allowed to join unions, which of course would be illegal even for the EB. But for employees of small and medium businesses, it's extremely difficult to join a union. Mostly because unions don't have the resource to bargain collective agreements for a handfull of employees - compare Progressive stores (one company, unions are involved) to Foodstuffs stores (many owner operated companies, little union involvement) .

The EB isn't an organisation that has the betterment of it's members at it's core (see RB again), it's an organisation devoted to power, money and control of it's members. They're not in the politics game to protect their right to practice their religion. They're in it to advance their cult.

Section 24 of the ERA needs to be repealed - not becuase Labour wants to hit back at the EB - but because no group should be exempt from the law because of their beleifs.

marfat et prieur

Today the Supreme Court rejected a vexatious leave to appeal an Appeal Court decision bought by Alain Marfat and Dominique Prieur to prevent TVNZ from screening footage they recorded of the pair pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Fernando Pereira. The Supreme Court in delivering its verdict was very unimpressed in the appeal, summarising that

We have not been satisfied that this is a proper case to be heard by this Court, directed as it is to a discretionary decision which has already been reviewed and confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The decision below turned upon a balancing exercise that involved the application of settled criteria to the particular facts. This is a very unusual case, which, an appeal on the merits having been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, no longer raises any question of general or public importance. We are satisfied that we would not be assisted on the question of leave by having an oral hearing. We are also far from persuaded that the Courts below have erred in their assessment, let alone that it is arguable that they were plainly wrong.

Which is the correct decision. That someone who has pleaded guilty to manslaughter (and being responsible for the attempted murder of 11 others, not to mention terrorism) can claim any rights to privacy is idiocy. I'd accept their augment if they were innocent - but to commit an act of espionage against a country whose only crime was to allow freedom of expression of its citizens and visitors is reprehensible. The pair - while possibly being only accessories to the crime - served only 2 years out of a 17 year sentence thanks to a UN negotiated release.

They got off light.

The least they can do is stop complaining. Ultimately Marfat or Prieur were not responsible for the decision to attack the Rainbow Warrior, but their Government. Their ludicrous action formed part of our history, and that is the most important reason why we should see those tapes.

The Supreme Court was right in dismissing the leave to appeal, which I feel is an example of the robustness of the newly formed institution. It's fantastic that their cases and decisions are available for anyone who cares to look. To have the Privy Council decide cases of national importance for New Zealand is silly today. I'm glad that they're getting a new building, and pleased that the plans are to create an impressive building to serve as the symbol of the institution as in other countries.