Kiwiblog Spindoctoring on the Offenders' Levy

In response to this piece at Kiwiblog:

To summarize the situation, this offenders' levy is a $50 fee charged to all convicted offenders at time of sentencing. National introduced it (it was in their 2008 campaign) and considers it a significant and worthwhile source of new income for their victim support scheme, while Labour considers it a "gimmick" which will not raise significant new income because of the cost of collecting it. From here, it is one big argument about the numbers.

From Simon Power's announcement:

The levy is collected after reparation and before fines, and is in addition to any sentence or court order.

This is the main point that i feel Kiwiblog has willfully ignored. How many of the 55% of offenders from which the levy has been collected have outstanding fines? In my view, any money raised from such people is not new income and should not be included in the figures when working out whether the levy raises enough to cover it's own set-up and administration costs. Rather, since the offender has not earned an extra $50 anywhere, it will mean he will pay $50 less off his fines. It is simply a transfer of funds from the account to which the fines are due into the levy account.

It is the same smoke and mirrors as when Kiwiblog says things like "The government has saved $X Million in spending cuts and redirected them into higher priority areas." This is looking at a spending reshuffle and trying to sell it as a spending cut, which it is not. With the offenders' levy, DPF is looking at (specifically in the case of offenders with outstanding fines) a spending reshuffle, and trying to sell it as a revenue increase, which it is not.

Discussion on the numbers coming soon. [EDIT: or maybe not]

Re Goff's "firing squads" comment - It wasn't that bad

Kiwiblog and Whaleoil often have interesting things to say, which i appreciate when i read. Other times, they are partisan beyond sense. One example i can't ignore:

This is all about a quote from Phil Goff (source: here)

“I saw the army out in the street and I thought court mar­tial, fir­ing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minor­ity of peo­ple can get,”

Which imo means the idea crossed his mind, a normal human instinct in such a situation. DPF even admits to having this reaction here. Note what Phil Goff did not say - anything about considering such a measure, or even actively thinking about it. There is really nothing he said that DPF didn't, so it is odd that DPF said the following: (also here)

"Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?"

Now this looks like a quick joke at Goff's expense, especially considering it was only on twitter. Although it does misrepresent what was said, it's not an accusation. This is in contrast to Whaleoil's post (here) where he says:

I won­der per­haps if he will ask Phil Goff he sim­i­larly regrets his com­ments made on BFM on 28 Feb­ru­ary where he said:

I saw the army out in the street. I thought, okay, court mar­tial, fir­ing squad. You just can’t believe how low a small minor­ity of peo­ple can get. You know, to exploit people’s mis­ery in this way is just beyond forgiveness.

As you can see that is a whole mag­ni­tude worse than any­thing Judith Collins sug­gested, which was a long prison sen­tence. Phil Goff mean­while was con­sid­er­ing fir­ing squads.

The media really needs to ask Phil Goff what he meant by think­ing of fir­ing squads. I mean seri­ously they do. “Beyond for­give­ness” and “court mar­tial, fir­ing squads” for looters!

Will Grant Robert­son ask Phil to retract?

Now this also misrepresents what Goff said, although the actual quote and context was provided, and is an accusation. This is what i mean by "partisan beyond sense." DPF involves himself in this accusation by linking to it with the statement here:

"Talking of due process though, Whale Oil has a quote from a senior politician calling for looters to get court-martialed and a firing sqaud. Go check it out – you may be surprised with who the politician is."

Whaleoil then continues his behaviour here. An extract:

"It is clear that he isn’t jok­ing. And even if he was he shouldn’t have been."

I don't think Phil Goff was joking either when he suggested firing squads - his comment was never a suggestion!

I don't find it enjoyable to read such false accusations all in the name of partisanship. Stick to something i do enjoy - partisan critique of Labour's actual policies.

Borders and administration and Australia

This is an interesting point. Basically blaming copyright law for what's happening to Borders in Australia. Haven't decided whether i think it's right yet, but it's interesting. Not sure how applicable it is to NZ though, although Borders is under administration in NZ and everyones complaining about vouchers losing their value.

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/copyright-strikes-borders-au-angus-and-robertson/

Updated: Elections in Tunisia and Egypt

AFP report Reuters Interview Constitution CNN report

[UPDATE: Tunisia had their first ever free elections on October 23, 2011. This was 10 months after the beginning of the revolution and 9 months after the departure of the former dictator. Elections in Egypt start on 28/11/11, 10 months after the beginning of their revolution and 9½ months after the departure of the former dictator - and just 2 days after NZ's own election. | 01/11/11]

It has been a month now since Ben Ali was removed and escaped, with the Tunisian constitution requiring "the obligation to call for elections within 45 to 60 days".

There is still no date for an election, though there is a "proposal" to have an election in mid July - 4 months late, and some want to extend it even further. In the meantime, the caretaker government is still keeping a tight grip on the judiciary, which wants to be independent, and the main labour union is still calling the situation "explosive."

Meanwhile in Egypt, there still not been so much as a mention of planning elections, but only a request that the people respect the police again. Thousands of Egyptians were in a still electric Tahrir Square yesterday, vowing to stay there until, as one protester put it, "Egypt is ruled by a civil government, not a military one."

Many people have been celebrating "victory" in Egypt recently, but this victory is still many months away, and even then it is not guaranteed. This is not the time for people in those countries to go home or become complacent.

Economics of the Queensland Flood

Seen here:

The Government will also save A$1 billion by deferring work on road projects in Queensland and other states, releasing skilled labour for rebuilding.

This is something normally only seen on libertarian and Austrian blogs, so i was quite surprised and pleased to see it coming from Julia Gillard.

It is a recognition that government spending crowds out and has a negative effect on other activity(though arguably not always a net negative effect). Because of this, a billion dollars of government spending is being deferred, specifically work in areas which use a lot of the same resources - in order to crowd out the rebuilding less.

There's seemingly only one step left before they think about government spending crowding out the private sector, and the implications that "stimulus" government spending does more harm than good, and that government projects in general - including broadband network spending -come at a higher cost to the country than is currently accepted, and that in many cases these projects are simply not worth it.

People who don't know the difference between "contribute" and "facilitate"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10700427

Auckland Airport could contribute nearly a fifth of national gross domestic product

And how do they justify that statement?

The Market Economics study, commissioned by Auckland Airport, said [...] The airport was projected to generate and facilitate 14-19 per cent of national GDP

Well, all that means is that 14-19% of businesses will use *something* that gets flown in or out via the airport. Hardly surprising. The journo makes it sound like 1/6 of GDP will be made just operating the airport.

The whole study appears to be an exercise in vanity, and the article appears to be a repeated press release with nothing of substance.

On a lighter note, things look promising for Tunisia. I just hope they can work through things peacefully and resist the desire to get revenge. Congratulations particularly to the new secretary of state for the youth.

John Campbell and Samoa

I was watching TV3 this arvo, Campbell Live (video here) was pretending to investigate what happened to $152 Mill of money donated to the Samoan government by the likes of the IMF after the tsunami. Now i DO believe that this money trail is an issue worth investigating, but what John Campbell did is a shocking abuse of his viewers.

About 7.35 minutes in, he visits a new house (shack really) built from government money, in a small village in rural Upolu. He makes a big point of there being "no toilet, no bathroom, no kitchen, no running water, no glass in the windows" - the point being that the government should have given them all these things as part of the tsunami response.

My problem with this piece, is that he makes this point by taking the situation completely out of perspective. He knows that most of his viewers in their cozy western houses in New Zealand will compare this shack to what is normal in New Zealand. Now i have been to Samoa - I have seen normal samoan villages, where people live in fales. There are no toilets, bathrooms, kitchens, windows made of glass, water pipes. We are talking about Samoa here - a third world country. It is normal in Samoa to have none of these things. In Samoa, if you have these things, you are rich. Here is a building somewhat similar to where a lot of samoans outside the capital live. Note the polas mats which are used basically as window shutters. In actual fact, the shack built by government money looks roughly similar to the normal standard of living in Samoa.

Contrary to my initial thoughts, the people here did have these things before the tsunami - they had western style houses financed by overseas relatives - they were rich samoans. Nevertheless, once put into perspective, the question is "When a rich person get's their uninsured property destroyed, should the government provide them with everything they had before?" In a New Zealand setting, imagine there's a tsunami on the former North Shore, and a row of $10 million cliff-top mansions fall into the sea. A few in particular did not have any insurance. What would you expect the government to build for these people? a normal house, or a brand new $10 million mansion?

I am not trying to provide an answer one way or the other on that question, and yes there are questions to answer about the Samoan governments bookkeeping, but John Campbell's angle on this - that these are appalling conditions for anyone in Samoa to be living in - is completely illegitimate and he has done a disservice to his viewers by intentionally misleading them in this way.

He also comes off as extremely arrogant at about 12.15 minutes in when he approaches and harasses the samoan prime minister - in english - when he had said the previous day that something more important had come up than talking to John Campbell. I just have to imagine what we would think of some foreign journalist accosting John Key while he was carrying out his duties and harassing him in french.

This piece was worse than fluff news - it was a "story" created out of thin air by intentionally misleading their viewers, with a meek attempt to attach legitimacy to it by association with the question about missing donation money (which he never answered). The real shame is that there was a good topic right there which he could have spent his time investigating. I consider what he did do to be an abuse of Campbell Live viewers.

UPDATE: Here is a perspective from someone with much closer ties to Samoa than me. Like he says, John Campbell's story did do some good by shining a light on the missing money, given the legal limitations of homegrown Samoan media. I just wish he had done more of that and less of the off-topic misleading sensationalism about the houses.

Cheers also to Samoa News and Cafe Pacific for mentioning NWBW.