OnPoint by Keith Ng

“The latest annual greenhouse gas inventory report shows New Zealand’s emissions rose less than one per cent between 2005 and 2006... the increase of less a percent is an improvement on the previous year’s increase of 3 percent.” - David Parker, Minister for Responsible for Climate Change Issues

If Parker is breaking out the champagne, he'd better have the world's smallest bottle. The best news he can take out of the latest report on New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions is that our position is getting worse – though getting worse at a slower rate. But even that change is still insignificantly small.

Under Kyoto, New Zealand is obligated to bring its average net emissions between 2008-2012 down to 1990 levels, or to pay for the difference. The latest report showed that in 2006, New Zealand generated 26% more carbon dioxide equivalent emissions than it did in 1990.

As late as 2005, it was thought that New Zealand would be able to meet its Kyoto targets and then some, but now that seems highly unlikely. The last set of projections expected the current trend to continue, and that by 2012, New Zealand would have blown its Kyoto target by 45.5 million tonnes of emissions.

At the current price for carbon credits, that bill would come to a total of $943 million. That bill has risen rapidly over the last few years, mostly due to the international price of carbon credits more than doubling in the since 2006.

Another big chunk of that is, believe it or not, the price of milk. The last set of projections took into account the increase in dairy prices, which is expected to increase the number of dairy cows in New Zealand. The extra cows are expected to generate an additional 4.3 million tonnes of emissions between now and 2012. And that's just the flatulence. Processing the milk from these cows will require additional power, pumping another 1.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Altogether, the additional emissions will cost New Zealand about $120 million at the current price for carbon credits.

But the price effect works the other way as well. In the 2006 projections, the increase of the price of oil from US$30 to US$60 per barrel was expected to make more people use public transport, or simply travel less. The effect is to reduce oil usage and reduce emissions by a whooping 14.5 million tonnes over between 2008-12 (that's worth $300 million). The price of oil has nearly doubled again since then, and current is currently at US$118 per barrel.

"New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions are growing faster than almost any developed country.” - Nick Smith, National Climate Change Spokesman

That's an exaggeration, but sadly, a fairly small one. The 2006 international figures haven't been compiled yet, but according to the 2005 figures, the growth in New Zealand's net emission since 1990 is the 6th highest among the 23 developed countries that are signed up to Kyoto. If we just looked at growth in the last 5 years, New Zealand still ranks 7th out of 23. Our emissions have grown even faster than the United States, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

So does Helen Clark deserve her latest gong as “Champion of the Earth”? New Zealand is so far behind on its climate change targets that any debate about whether we should be a world leader or fast follower just plain ridiculous, but it's worth noting that the talk about New Zealand's obligation under the Kyoto Protocol is usually only referring to the first “Commitment Period”, or 2008-2012. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a very long time, and more recent climate change policies may prove their worth over the longer term. That isn't going to stop us from having to fork out a billion dollars in 2012, but at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that the money is providing other countries with the incentives to do what we've failed to do.

Musical comedy duo Mrs Peacock, featuring Jarrod Baker (also of Newtown Ghetto Anger) and Dave Smith will be featuring at the Comedy Festival, performing their brand new rock opera show – Six Feet from the Edge. It's is going to be performed for the first time ever tonight, and it will have “giant lasers”. Friggin' lasers!

This is the teaser for an interview I did with them yesterday. It's a teaser mostly because I've been a slack bastard and hadn't got around to editing it until this afternoon, and their first show is on tonight, at 8pm at BATS Theatre in Wellington. Will post the rest – an enlightening discussion on the nature of offensive jokes and other things – soon; Friday, if I can get my day-job stuff done without passing out from caffine overdose.

(Mrs Peacock were the 2007 winner of the Billy T James Award, and also worthy recipients of the NZ Comedy Guild's Most Offensive Gag award in 2005, and the identical award at the Wellington Comedy Awards in 2006.)

KN: So what's a rock opera?
DS: The Who did rock operas, where it was just a story through music.

KN: Like The Wall or something?
DS: Yeah, like The Wall, but we’ve taken the Andrew Lloyd Webber, the musical side. It’s a story, like Evita I guess.
JB: So it’s a musical, but less...

KN: Gay?
JB: Yeah.
DS: I think gay is the word.
JB: We’ll say camp.

KN: So is it going to be offensive?
DS: There will be moments, but all in all it's a nice story. It's gentle, it's fun.
JB: And relatively tame. It’s not going to lack for swearing, but it’s probably not going to have quite the same content [as Mrs Peacock's old acts], because we are trying to sell our story over the last 12 months. And that was actually a relatively tame story.

KN: Why does the story of your lives include lasers?
JB: We’ve believed for a long time our stage show needs to be a lot more spectacular. Comedy clubs, they can’t contain the rock that we have.
DS: Yeah we’ve wanted lasers, flashy lights for a long time.
JB: And it gives us the rock element of it. Yeah, but also we went to see We Will Rock You, and that was a big production.

KN: That had lasers?
DS: Lasers. Definitely lasers. With lots of smoke.
JB: We don't quite have their budget.
DS: No.
JB: But I do have contacts to get me a free laser, so...

KN: So it’s just one laser?
JB: We’re not sure what we’re getting yet. We’re hoping it will be one of the ones that fires it through a prism and does exciting things. But, you know, it could be a laser pointer on a string.
DS: That’s alright, a cat playing with a laser pointer is fine too.

KN: As long as there is laser in it?
DS: Well there is laser, yeah, there’s definitely going to be laser.
JB: We wouldn't want to be accused of false advertising. There will be a laser.
DS: If we have to put laser pointers on an oscillating fan on the side of the stage, we’ll do that.
JB: I don't think it will come to that.
DS: No, I don't think so.

KN: So you reckon lasers are going to give you a leg up over Flight of the Concords, I mean they don't have any lasers?
DS: They don't have lasers. But they do have a guitar from the future which is a little unfair.

KN: But that doesn’t have lasers does it?
JB: We’ll see, when we get a TV show, we’ll talk about who’s got a leg up. Certainly, we’re aiming for something quite different. More like a play, or a musical.

KN: So it’s kind of theatrical?
DS: Yes very theatrical. We both started out as actors, you know.

KN: Really?
DS: That’s what we studied as and then found out that I don't like actors very much.

KN: What’s wrong with actors?
DS: I don't know, they’re weird. They’re a different kind of insecure to comedians. Comedians have their own special kind of insecure, and self esteem issues. It’s hard to explain the difference. But there are different issues between comedians and actors.

KN: Do musical comedians fit into a third category?
DS: Yes, definitely.

KN: Do musical theatrical comedians fit into a fourth category?
JB: Possibly, I think, it’s a bit all over the place. Bret's a dancer.
DS: Oh really, I did not know that.
JB: His mum’s a dance teacher.

KN: Who's mum?
JB: Bret's mum.

KN: Oh.
JB: So we don't have that to offer.
DS: No, I did do two years of dance, jazz, ballet, but it’s probably not appropriate for a rock.
JB: There will be some slow motion drum and base dancing. We’re covering a broad musical spectrum this time.

KN: So is The Flange your most offensive song?
DS: Oh no, nowhere near.

KN: What would be your most offensive song, on an objective scientific basis?
DS: From a scientific basis I would say it has to be one that we don't play often. It’s called Phantom of the Days of our Lives. We won the most offensive gag in 2005 with Walking the Line, which is a very offensive song.
JB: So let's write one that’s worse...
DS: And we did, we put our entire filthy efforts into it and came out with a horrible, horrible song.
JB: That year, we didn’t even get nominated. I think the one that won that year was a joke involving the Kahui Twins.

KN: Domestic violence trumps sexual innuendo?
DS: That actually does offend me, physical violence towards anyone. Just talking about someone crapping on someone’s chest doesn’t bother me.
JB: If you talked about bum sex, is that really offensive? Unlike say... I don't know, genocide?

KN: Are you guys secretly not offensive?
JB: Well I have a theory to that. Because most of it is more silly, and making fun of ourselves rather than, say, advocating bizarre sexual practices.
DS: Having said that there are people out there doing it, so they should have music too, you know? We’ve just found a song that we wrote that insinuates horse intercourse, which is fine. People do it, I've seen it on the internet. It must happen.
JB: It's still legal in some states in the US, so...

KN: Not in New Zealand though.
JB: But travel is good, the global horse sex tourism trade...

KN: New Zealand has some good horses and we export them all over the world.
DS: Yeah, beautiful horses...
(More later...)

Ah, lawyers. Sometimes, I wonder if they're so super-clever, that they're actually being hilariously ironic with a straight face and laughing their arses off behind our backs.

Take, for example, this correction and apology penned with sincerity and conviction by HotTopic, by his own free – completely uncoerced – will.

Correction and apology to The Listener and its editor Pamela Stirling
On 16 April 2008 we published on this site an article written by Gareth Renowden entitled “Climate cranks claim a scalp”. That article suggested that Dave Hansford had been sacked by The Listener as a result of views that he expressed on climate change, and that The Listener had caved in to pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition, or had sacked him because his views did nor coincide with those of The Listener’s editor, Pamela Stirling. The article also questioned The Listener’s commitment to environmental issues and its editorial integrity and independence, and was critical of its conduct with respect to Mr Hansford. In fact Mr Hansford was not sacked by The Listener, and nor did The Listener seek to censor or suppress Mr Hansford’s views. Hot Topic and AUT Media Ltd accept that The Listener and its editor have a strong commitment to environmental issues, and that there was no basis for any of the criticisms expressed on this site of either The Listener or its editor, or of the editorial integrity and independence of The Listener. Hot Topic and AUT Media Ltd unreservedly withdraw those statements an apologise to The Listener and to Pamela Stirling for the distress caused by our publication.

Clearly, there's some very sophisticated irony at work here. A climate change publication is accusing a media organisation of shutting down a voice on climate change. The media organisation then gently convinces said climate change publication to STFU, and to announce (in the manner of those convicted by Soviet show-trials) that the media organisation is in no way shutting down voices on climate change.

Steven Price, over at the Media Law Journal, hopes that “the [original] post receives exponentially greater attention as a result of this legal threat.”

I don’t say that because I’m a free speech absolutist, or because I think the internet ought to be a law-free zone. In general, I think people who defame others online deserve all they get. I doubt this is the first time internet material has been removed in NZ as a result of a legal threat, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. Nope, I object to this because I think the Listener has used a tenuous legal claim to bully a blogger into retracting some moderate and reasonable criticisms. I don’t like it when anyone does this, but it’s particularly ugly when the heavies are acting for the media.”

Not me. As a satirist, I just think it's beautiful. So, so beautiful. The perfect symmetry of irony, the flawless technical delivery. I appreciate it, simply, as art.

Speaking of silly things you can do with a lawyer, suing your way onto the ballot is, apparently, not enough. You also have to declare:

'The people in the electorate of Selwyn deserve someone who is of immediate Cabinet material, I am able to offer that opportunity,' Mr Payne told the court.”

Well done, Mr Payne. I wish you all the best in filling Brian Connell's large, red, floppy shoes.

For your future legal needs, you might wish to try:

(Or, if you prefer, in Spanish.)

“Since the election of a Labour-led government in late 1999, any widening in the wages gap [with Australia] has been stopped in its tracks. The latest available data shows that in 2007, the wage gap was just 0.4 per cent wider than it had been when Labour first came into government.” - Trevor Mallard

Those numbers are calculated using the average exchange rate for the last 17 years, which doesn't take into account the real changes in purchasing power between Australia and New Zealand that occurred during that time. Nitpicking? Not at all. Though it looks like – and is – a dry technical detail, the difference which results is massive.

Mallard's calculations show that the Australia-New Zealand gross wage gap rose by 0.45% during Labour's time in government. The same figures, when adjusted using using Purchasing Power Parity figures from the OECD (which takes into account the real purchasing power of our respective currencies) show that the average weekly Australian wage was 21.6% higher than New Zealand's in 2000. By 2007, that had risen to 25.9%.

It's risen 4.3% during Labour's time in office – nearly 10 times what Mallard originally claimed.

That's hardly good news for National, either. The last time that they were in government, the wage gap rose by 12.2%. Year for year, that's more than twice as fast as the gap rose under Labour.

When taxes are taken into account, the gaps has grown faster under Labour. The reason is simple – tax cuts introduced in Australia. For example, the top tax rate in Australia is 45%, and the top tax bracket used to be $60,000 a decade ago. It's now at $180,000. While the government counters with its own Working for Families, in fact, the Australian family tax benefits are even more generous.

“Gross wages have moved apart and tax policies have amplified that growth,” says Dr Patrick Nolan from the NZ Institute of Economic Research.

The bottom line is that wages in Australia are higher than New Zealand, the gap is growing, and that neither government in the past 17 years has had success in catching up.

“People have come around and recognised that that is factually correct, that taxes are higher in NZ on most incomes,” says Nolan, “and they're getting higher – more and more people are paying higher taxes in New Zealand, whereas in Australia it's going a different way.”

“When you've got a country like Australia, which has got the attraction of bigger cities and better weather and beaches, you're already in a position where you're behind the 8-ball. So if you have higher taxes, it makes it harder to attract people. It's one of the few things we can actually compete on, and we just haven't been competing on it.

“My big concern is that it's going to be a debate around who benefits and by how much, and we're going to get into a bidding war, when it should be about what's the most economically sensible approach. What's important is that we design a tax system that encourages a strong economy and that rewards people when they make decisions about working and looking after their family, and when we have a strong system and a strong economy, then that's when people will stop migrating, when we'll be able to attract people back.”

“The balance of payments will worsen as a consequence of [the FTA with China], not improve, because the growth of their exports will be greater than the growth of ours – which are limited anyway – and one of the key, fundamental elements of an unsound economy is a serious balance of payments deficit.” - Winston Peters

No. According to the National Interest Analysis conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Zealand exports to China is expected to be 20-39% higher over the next 20 years as a result of the FTA with China. That's US$180-280m worth of additional income for New Zealand exporters each year. Chinese exports into New Zealand, on the other hand, is only expected to be 5-11% higher during the same period. That's worth an additional US$40-70m each year.

The maths is not hard. New Zealand exporters will benefit more than Chinese exporters from this deal, which will help improve the balance of trade in New Zealand's favour.

I've been asked recently to comment on NZ First's latest stab at the Yellow Peril (the race, not the blog). My response? Give the man a hug. Not in a condescending sort of way, but seriously, give him – and all those whose alienation he's appealing to (and exploiting, to an extent) – a big hug.

If I sound like a hemp-wearing hippy, that can be attributed to my recent conversion to the Church of Obama. (Amen.)

What Brown said was pretty straightforward. He cites the StatsNZ Ethnic Population Projections, which show that the proportion of Asian New Zealanders are going to go from 10% in 2006 to 16% in 2026.

He drops in a quarter-century old red herring – that Asians will outnumber Maori, therefore dislocating them. This is a red herring because Asian New Zealanders are as Pakeha (and as much Her Majesty's subjects, if you will) as European New Zealanders. It doesn't matter that Asian New Zealanders are not related to the original signatories – or, more crudely, of the same stock as them. The Treaty's power comes via the lineage of the nation which it created, not the literal lineage of the people who signed it.

But that's just a sideshow. The main point that he makes is that Asians can't integrate into New Zealand, that Asians “will form their own mini-societies to the detriment of integration and that will lead to division, friction and resentment.”

NZ First first hawked this message in 1993, when I was 11 then. Times have change. A lot.

We see integration at the most fundamental levels. In schools, in workplaces, at the coffee shop, in the noodle bar. We chat, we hang out, we laugh, we play, we pray, we hook up, we breed. Race has not been a boundary for a long time.

We see this. But Peter Brown – and the people his message is directed at – don't. Brown is right that the face of New Zealand is changing. Of course it is. But even as many New Zealanders have grown more cosmopolitan, formed genuine connections with the once-mysterious Orient, taken in the breadth of cultures which have grown with – and into – each other, many others haven't. This change has not been as inclusive as it could've been.

Brown's is a voice of genuine alienation. (Even if his motivations were less than genuine, the alienation that he's trying to tap into is.) There are people in this country who don't understand the changes that are happening. It's a gap that comes with age, wealth, location and education as much as it's about simple outlook and open-mindedness. And if our goal is to build an inclusive multicultural society, it's not just us, it's them that we have to include.

My conversion to Obamaranity came at the very point when so many howled with outrage – when he talked about his grandmother in his speech on race:

I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

“These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

It was the antithesis to the politics of shame which characterises racial politics: to call people racist, and to demand that they feel ashamed of themselves. He was unashamed of the parts of her which can be described as racist. He was unashamed of her. It wasn't just an open embrace, but also open eyes – he was acknowledging the racial tensions that exist, as manifested in Reverend Wright's sermons, as manifested in his grandmother. It's real, it's there, it's part of society as it is now, but it doesn't have to be part of the future.

It was a recognition that these dynamics are complex – more complex than “right vs wrong” – and that ultimately, it's the embrace, not the rebuke, that will break down those barriers.

My own experience of this came in 2004, when the National Front marched on Parliament. When the National Front were on their way out, the assorted anarchists and punks chased them near the Law School, whereupon fearless leader Kyle Chapman and others jumped into their cars and drove off.

One National Front member, Cale Olsen, was left behind. A quick scuffle ensued, Cale got smacked and was left alone and bleeding, surrounded by a angry, jeering crowd. They chased and hounded him down the street. The look on their faces said it all.

I felt myself wanting to help him. I still remember thinking how powerful, how utterly life-changing a helping hand would have been, and how all that venom and bile changed nothing. I missed my chance, and remained on the sidelines. Cale was there, once again, in 2006.