ACT Conference 2010

Will be attending the ACT 2010 conference in Wellington Friday to Saturday. ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and is the most liberal party in Government, with 5 MPs. I will be livetweeting the conference, #actnz.

Flawed Reasoning for Opposing the Death Penalty

ACT MP Law & Order spokesman David Garrett writes on his blog about why the death penalty would not work in New Zealand in response to an article by Cactus Kate calling for the death penalty to be introduced with recent posterboys including psychopath Clayton Weatherston who killed his girlfriend by stabbing her 216 times.

As some readers will know, I have in the past (prior to my involvement with ACT) advocated a return of the death penalty for our worst murderers – the Bells, the Rufus Marsh’s  and the Burtons.

After ten years reflection, I have now changed my view somewhat. While most people wouldn’t have much of a problem if Bell or Burton were executed, as a matter of public policy it becomes very problematic.

Having lived in a country where the death penalty remains on the books as a discretionary sentence for murder, I can say with some certainty that one of the results of having a capital sentence even as an option  is what lawyers call “perverse verdicts” by juries unwilling to convict because they know or believe the person concerned will be executed, and they cannot cope with that on their collective conscience.

The question of whether or not the death penalty would be enforceable or workable should come after the discussion on its justification. To rule out bringing in the death penalty because some juries were emotionally compromised is a pragmatic response to the issue. Garrett states that life without parole (LWOP) is probably a worse penalty than being sentenced to death, and he's probably right - but a worse penalty for who? With New Zealand's tax-payer funded prison system, incarceration is merely a no-frills holiday with a varying range of lifestyle options including low-paid work, education and drug-use. That's not to trivialise some of the abuse that goes on within prisons however the real question here is, why should society suffer twice at the hands of the offender. First when the offender commits a crime deemed worthy of LWOP, and then second when they pay for his existence until death.

Boscawen to Stall Section59 Ammendment Bill

In a clever move, ACT's John Boscawen has stated that he will be writing to the Clerk of Parliament, requesting that the first reading of his Bill to ammend the Anti-Smacking law be postponed indefinitely. He's pretty much written off any chances of getting a Christmas card from Dear Leader this year, as Mr. Key's intention in his announcement that National would kill the bill at its first reading was that the issue would go away and that he could get on with more important things. Heck, we all want the issue to go away - but the Prime Minister needs to understand that ignoring 87.4% of Kiwis is not the best way to achieve this.

Boscawen will be speaking tonight in Christchurch - all are welcome, details here.

The Herald has the story.

Voluntary Student Union Membership on the Cards

Had my second TV interview on Monday. The first was with TV3 just prior to election '08, about Jacket-gate. TV3's reporter, Sia Aston covered the issue of voluntary student union membership today, with Roger Douglas's reform bill set to go to its first reading with Government support on Wednesday. She googled "compulsory + student + union", clicked through to my article about the corruption at VUSA, followed it through to my Facebook page and messaged me, asking for an interview.

The interview went well, however Sia took just one of my comments, focusing instead on a confused NZUSA rep, and UCSA president Steve Jukes verbosely defending the current fascist structure of student politics. While I acknowledge that many student associations and their respective execs, (my own at Canterbury included), do a great deal of work on behalf of students, it is clear that there is an unacceptable level of corruption going on, among a list of other undesirable outcomes of having compulsory unions. As I said to the reporter Lachlan,

"Look at the UCSA for example. At the recent student union elections candidates were called upont to submit a photo and a summary of what they stood for, for the student mag CANTA. One candidate didn't even submit anything but still got elected onto the exec. Or the AGM which took place shortly before the election, CANTA advertised "Free hamburgers, sausage sizzle and $5 jugs of beer" for those who attended the meeting. It was held in the casual setting of an outdoor amphitheatre, adjacent to the student pub, with a quorum of 200 students from a student membership of over 15,000. And no surprises as to what was on the agenda: a move to increase the salaries of those on the exec, with the president on well over $40,000 pa. - money taken forcefully from thousands of other students who probably didn't even know this was going on."

I will say more about the University of Canterbury Students Association in the future, but the above is a sumamry to give you an idea of why I and so many others throughout New Zealand are glad to see the VSM bill before Parliament, and to see the all-too-often anti-democratic National government pledging to support the bill to it's first reading and the select committee process.

I lol'd

I asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.
She said she wanted to be the Prime Minister like Helen Clark some day.
Both of her parents, Labour supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do?"
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed, and said, "Welcome to the Labour Party!"
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I told her.
I continued, "But you don't have to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house, mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the Dairy where the homeless guy hangs out. You can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I smiled and said, "Welcome to the ACT Party."
Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

from Get Frank

ACT Goes Offside: Takes One For The Team

ACT has sold its soul to the devil the National Government, giving three decididing votes in favour of Chester Borrows' totalitarian Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill on its third and final reading. The new law is in direct contradiction with ACT's founding principle, that of valuing and upholding individual's freedom of choice - obviously within reason. I understand the reasoning behind such a U-turn: ACT needs to swallow some of National's dead fish in order to buy their support for the likes of ACT's 3 Strikes bill, or Boscawen's ammendment to the newly repealed Section 59 of the Crimes Act. However for a party based on principle as opposed to common-sense or majority-opinion, it is unacceptable.

At the bill's first reading on 16 April 2008, Rodney Hide delivered a powerful speech against it, an excerpt of which is below,

I am so pleased that Mr Chester Borrows has relieved me of the obligation of voting for this shocking Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. I said that the ACT party would vote for the bill to go to a select committee. We could never vote for its third reading, but I thought the debate would be useful. But now Labour, in a fit of “election-itis”, is voting for the bill. So I have been to see Mr Borrows, who has kindly said I can vote against it, which I feel so much better about.

This bill is right up there with the “Let’s Get Rid of Spray Cans in Manukau Bill” for all the same reasons. It does not address anything like the problem we confront with gangs. It will not work. The promoter of the bill knows that it will not work. Members of Labour and New Zealand First, who are voting for the bill, know that it will not work. If they had any courage of their convictions that this bill will work, they would make it nationwide so that patches could not be worn from Kaitāia to Bluff. We have the absurdity that, supposedly, gang members can wear their patches everywhere in New Zealand, bar Wanganui, and that somehow that is good lawmaking...

The concern that we have about gangs is not about what they wear; it is about what they do. Our concern is when they intimidate us, threaten us, and beat us—and not just gangs or those wearing a patch do that. We have all manner of intimidation and threats to our property from all sorts of people. That is what we should be attending to in upholding our law. I see there is a by-law protecting us from gangs. Well, I will tell members about one horrible gang: it is a gang that has taken more property than any other gang in our history, that wears insignia, that threatens our rights, and that has taken away our right to free speech. That gang should be banned. That gang is the Labour Party. The good news is that at least under this bill the Wanganui District Council could ban the wearing of the Labour Party patch in its area. I would quite like to do that in Epsom, and so would the people of Epsom.

Let us have some sense, let us let Chester Borrows do his electioneering and George Hawkins do his electioneering, but in this Parliament let us please aspire to something greater for our nation than this rubbish. - Hansard, 16 April 08

At the bill's second reading (post 08 election), ACT's law & order spokesman David Garrett explained that Chester Borrows had brushed away all fears, and that considering the few ammendments (such as the lowering of the fine) that had been made, ACT was justified in making a U-turn on the bill...

ACT voted against this bill at its first reading last year. We did so not because we supported gangs but because of a concern that innocent New Zealanders could be caught up in its provisions. I must say that I think Ms Turei makes a very valid point, unfortunately. I do not mean that sarcastically against her, but the removal of patches per se may well cause confusion, and difficulties with scarves wrapped around hands and with the other kinds of tags that are used by these clowns. If only they were clowns. ACT was originally concerned that legitimate motorcycle enthusiasts, youth groups, and even church members could fall foul of this law, and so voted against it. Following the passage of the bill through the select committee process, Mr Borrows has sought our support for this bill, and has addressed many of our concerns. - Hansard, 4 March 09

For crying out loud, how unprincipled can you get? In this speech it is impossible to differentiate ACT from National. Firstly, the law is only applicable within the region of Wanganui. Secondly, the law specifies particular gangs that will be targetted: in order to get around the law, all you need to do is create a gang and give it a different name. You'll be sweet... until the Wanganui District Council passes a bylaw, adding your gang to the list of those who are prohibited from wearing their insignia in public. (refer, page 4 of the Bills Digest 1597). Thirdly, what has happened to freedom of expression and association in our free land New Zealand, that a law should be passed, criminalizing a minority group for merely displaying their solidarity in public? Notwithstanding, all five of ACT's MPs voted in favour of the bill at its second reading.

The Hansard of the third reading of the bill has not yet been released, however the journalists in the press gallery bring us up to speed...

[The bill] passed last night only after three Act MPs, including leader Rodney Hide, reversed their earlier opposition.

During the bill's first reading, Mr Hide called it "rubbish", saying he could never support it because it would breach people's fundamental right to wear what they wanted.

Last night, he said he changed his mind after Act MP David Garrett visited Wanganui this week and was assured by local police that it would be enforced and have an effect.

The votes of Mr Hide and Act conservatives Mr Garrett and John Boscawen enabled the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to pass by 62 votes to 59. - NZ Herald, 7 May 09

"David Garrett was assured by local police that it would be enforced and have an effect."
<sarcasm>Hah, what were we so concerned about? everything will be ok if that's the case!</sarcasm>

As Samuel Dennis noted, it is admirable that ACT allowed it's members to vote according to their convictions, however it is nonetheless inexcusable that the 3 MPs who voted for the bill are voting against the convictions of the vast majority of their supporters who voted them in.

Although it is a necessary evil in Parliament that compromises must sometimes be made for the greater good, ACT on Campus along with a number of ACT members believe that supporting this bill was not an option. Nonetheless, we continue to stand by our party, acknowledging that this is only one relatively minor failing. ACT continutes to be a shining - if somewhat dulled of late, defender of liberty and stalwart for freedom of choice, standing head and shoulders and torso above the rest of Parliament.

Related post: ACTually Authoritarian, 10 March 09

Endangered Species to Run for Mt. Albert

The Kiwi Party have announced that they will be running a candidate for the electorate of Mt. Albert. Helen Clark was the MP for Mt. Albert, but once she left for her position at the UN, the electorate is up for a by-election.

"The Kiwi Party has today completed its candidate selection for the Mt Albert by-election and chosen Simonne Dyer. In the 2008 elections she was no. 5 on the Kiwi Party list... No other candidate in this by-election will be speaking about the importance of returning our nation to its foundational values. Labour, National, Act and the Greens have all played a part in passing legislation in Parliament that has undermined the 'timeless values' that have made our nation great in the past." - Kiwi Party

In it's current form, The Kiwi Party will not enter Parliament at the 2011 election. While the "Christian values" parties of New Zealand are unable to, or refuse to work together, it is folly to throw away your vote on any such party. At the last election the Kiwi Party wasted 12,755 party votes which would have otherwise likely gone to ACT or National - thereby strengthening the current Government.

Simmone had far better enjoy her retirement years and visit her 23 grandchildren rather than fight this lost battle for the electorate of Mt. Albert.

Related Reading: Christian Vote 2008 - my sypnopsis of the 5 parties Christians were likely to vote for at the 2008 General Election. The article includes extensive insight into the problems with the Kiwi Party.

Rogernomics Round II

Sir Roger Douglas comments that instead of simply identifying that we have a problem, Minister of Finance Bill English should take some serious action...

"Having managed New Zealand through difficult times, I understand how important confidence is. Consistency of policy is the only thing that leads to credibility in the Government. In turn, this creates the kind of confidence that New Zealanders need to get through this pain.

Governments must be consistent to ensure that the market can predict what the Government will do. All this talk of bailouts and the like undermine certainty. It suggests to business that the Government may begin to actively pick winners and losers...

...the Government is stuck in the past; wedded to the idea that Governments can actually deliver these services through the monopolies they have set up. To put us back on the path to growth, we need to make several quick changes in policy.

1) We need to immediately abolish those departments that deliver no social benefits. Who has ever heard of an earth-shattering report from the Families Commission? What does the Charities Commission even do? Why do we need a Ministry of Economic Development when we did alright without one until the fifth Labour Government - and that's without even looking at the political correctness that has led to the Ministry of Youth Development or the Ministry of Women's Affairs...

...It is not about whether we have a duty to the poor - ACT agrees that we do. It's about how we make good on that duty."
- Press Release, ACT Party, 26 March 2009

It's good to have Sir Roger back in Parliament.

Boscawen Introduces Ammendment to S59

Press Release, ACT, 19 Mar 2009: Amendment To Fix Broken Anti-Smacking Law

ACT New Zealand MP John Boscawen today announced that he will introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend the controversial Anti-Smacking law inflicted on New Zealanders by Labour and the Greens in 2007.

"My announcement coincides with yesterday's release of a poll that shows widespread support for the law to be altered," Mr Boscawen said.

"This poll, commissioned by Family First NZ and conducted by Curia Market Research, surveyed the views of 1,000 everyday New Zealanders - 83 percent of whom felt the law should be changed, with a total 77 percent of respondents believing the law would not help reduce our child abuse rates.

"While addressing the concerns of those who felt that the original section 59 of the Crimes Act was too vague, my amendment to the law will protect from criminalisation those parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction.

"The amendment will change the Act so that: it is no longer a crime for parents or guardians to use reasonable force to correct children; there are clear statutory limits on what constitutes reasonable force; parents and guardians have certainty about what the law permits; it is no longer reliant on police discretion for the law to be practical and workable.

"In an attempt to curb child abuse, this law has simply criminalised law-abiding parents and removed their freedom to decide how best to raise their children - something that ACT has consistently opposed.

"The Labour we know best' Government is out and National is now in. Perhaps we will now begin to see an end to the madness of the past nine years - where politicians saw fit to tell New Zealanders how to live their lives," Mr Boscawen said.

----------------------------------------

This is what we've all been waiting for. Now National has a reason to support a major ammendment (won't be full repeal) of this flawed anti-parental-authority law. ACT, one of the two major parties in their confidence and supply Government will be pressuring National to give their support to this bill.

hat-tip: Constant Joy

ACTually Authoritarian

"This isn't an agreement cobbled together out of self-interest, but one developed through our shared vision to create a better and brighter future for New Zealand." - Rodney Hide in ACT's press release, National-ACT Confidence & Supply Agreement Announcement, 16/11/2008.

In a 4 March press release, Rodney Hide says "Garden centres can open on Easter Sunday but the Mitre 10 hardware shop nearby, which also sells plants, cannot. That is ridiculous... People just want to get on with their lives unhindered by silly rules." That's a classic ACT position - government should keep out of people's lives.

The Prohibition of Gang Insignia Bill...

Lindsay Mitchell notes that both Rodney Hide and Heather Roy were strongly opposed to the gang-patch ban as late in the game as September 2008 - and yet today, both are singing a different tune. The ACT party is supporting National's Chester Borrows' gang-patch ban, presumably to buy National's support for ACT's 3 Strikes and You're Out policy. It's a given that some compromise is necessary if you want to get anywhere in Parliament - however ACT's support of National's bill is unacceptable. There are two major problems with the proposed law. Firstly, it is restricting the freedom of citizens; in their freedom of expression. They will not be allowed to display gang-patches on their clothes or vehicles. Secondly, the bill is unjust because it will only apply to people living within a certain area of New Zealand. Only those living in the Wanganui District will be subject to this law currently being pushed through back down in Wellington.


Samuel Dennis saliently observes, "This gang patches law is not only unprincipled, it makes life a lot harder for the police. Currently the gang members make policing easy by wearing nice uniforms saying in effect "Check me, I probably did it". If they are forced to wear civilian clothes, crime fighting will be far harder."

What is the argument against displaying gang insignia on your person, or on your vehicle in public? Surely any such argument is one that will lead down the slippery slope of restricting people's freedom of expression - for the greater good. ACT is letting itself down by supporting this authoritarian bill.

"We accept that allowing the Wanganui District Council to make these bylaws could be perceived to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but we think for the safety and security of the residents of Wanganui these powers are desirable." says the select committee looking after the bill. Ahem, excuse me... did I hear that right?

What's next? Is ACT going to support a move to ban t-shirts that have a Christian message on them, or that say something along the lines of "Abortion is Murder"?

EFA Threatens Rodney's Wardrobe

"Act leader Rodney Hide's canary-yellow jacket has fallen foul of the Electoral Finance Act.  The Electoral Commission wrote to Mr Hide yesterday, saying that under the act the jacket might be an "election advertisement" and therefore required an authorising statement." - NZ Herald, 4 Nov 08

The article in the Herald continues... "The letter quoted the query as saying the garment that "contains the Act logo [and] the slogan 'the guts to do what's right' was worn in public by you in Newmarket and does not contain a promoter statement". The person who made the query also gave the commission a newspaper article about the jacket and two photos of Mr Hide wearing it."

Huh.  Now, who could that have been?

ACT Number 5 Announced

Scooping the story of the announcement of ACT's mysterious number five on the list, I have just got word in thatt he is Auckland Lawyer David Garrett, also a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.  This is a good move by the ACT Party.  With "law and order" campaigner Aaron Keown running in Christchurch Central, the addition of this "hard-line on crime" list member with such a high chance of getting into Parliament is another boxed ticked for a large number of Kiwis.  Below is a short excerpt from David's speech to the meeting,

"Our forebears didn't fight and die so that we would be too afraid to walk freely on our streets and in our communities.  They fought and died so that their children - your children and my children - could be safe.  If that's what you want too, then Party vote ACT because ACT is the only Party that will continue the fight to keep Kiwis safe." - www.act.org.nz

Update (22 September, 1:30am): David Garrett advocates non-association laws as opposed to banning gangs in The Herald, 17 September 2008

ACT: The Guts to Decry Climate Change

Who else but Rodney Hide, leader of the ACT party would have the guts to stand up and decry the Emissions Trading Scheme on the basis that Climate Change is a pack of lies? Here are some highlights from his speech delivered to Parliament on Tuesday...

"I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.

It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle...

...The problem for the first two Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now.

Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis - the hockey stick - that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times.

Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered this: any numbers fed into that model would produce the hockey stick.

We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the hockey stick that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it."

Click here to read the rest of Rodney's speech

Hat-tip: Political Animal

National's New Billboard

The kiwiblog-right ;) are excited about their new billboard.

Remember when you go to the polls: National does not care what you think. 83% of Kiwis opposed the Anti-Smacking Bill, but they made a deal with Labour and shoved it through anyway, riding roughshod over the rights of the vast majority of New Zealanders.

Also, notice what the original National billboard actually says: "wave goodbye to higher taxes". That is a typical National statement. It looks good at first glance; it seems to be saying "lower taxes", when in fact it is saying: "let's keep the status quo". Whereas ACT is committed to lowering income tax and scrapping the two-tiered tax-rate, National is simply saying "hey, let's stick with Labour's policy".

Minimum Wage Must be Lowered

A recent Kiwi Party press release set my teeth on edge. I sat up straight, stared at the screen and then held my head in my hands. "No, not this". Yes, the Kiwi Party wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour...

"...the Kiwi Party backs a policy which would raise the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.” The party leader said.

Mr Baldock’s suggestion to Government would be to offer a tax credit to employers which will offset the extra cost, thereby making the policy fiscally neutral to business. The increased wage will then be inflation adjusted.

“The Kiwi Party’s policy is to uphold New Zealand’s tradition of all workers rights. We want to see the people of this nation being paid a fair wage. This is a huge step towards creating a stable living environment for all Kiwis”

When the minimum wage is raised to a level above what employers on a whole are prepared to pay their workers, then it becomes artificial. At some point, that higher pay-rate will come back and hit the employee in the stomach like a sack of spuds. Because if the employer is not truly getting his $15 per hour worth of value out of his employee, then he has to soak up this extra expense somewhere in the business, and he will most likely accomplish this by raising the price of his goods.

Whether the Government reimburses the employer or not is irrelevant, because it's not their money to give - it's the money they stole from the employer in the first place.

What is meant by these terms "fair wage", a "stable living environment", and "worker's rights"? A wage can be determined to be fair if the employee and the employer are agreed on it. A stable living environment - at the end of the day, why should the employer have to make sure that his employee has a "stable living environment". Of course I completely agree that worker's have rights, and these must be upheld. But, ahem, where is the mention of the employer's rights?

Why is there this fascination with the Government running our everyday lives? How can it be a good thing for them to force employers to pay their employees $15 an hour, and then (mind the red tape), offer them a tax-credit.

Patricia Schnauer, Justice Spokeswoman for ACT and Member of Parliament talks some sense in the article ACT's Approach to Employment Law (1999). Below are a few comments relating specifically to the concept of a minimum wage from her article...

"...You cannot help workers by legislating for a minimum wage, compulsory unionism, or a national award system. Such policies increase unemployment and reduce living standards because workers and employers are prevented from coming together to make deals that suit them best.

Minimum wages impact particularly negatively on low-skilled workers, since it is these workers who are often denied a chance in the workplace as a result of the mandated minimum. The huge number of Maori in our dole queues is in large part due to this misguided policy."

"Income adequacy is far more effectively addressed through the tax-and-benefit system than through a minimum wage. Consequently ACT supports repealing the minimum wage, thus providing a major boost to job creation."

"...Mainstream economists have long recognised that a minimum wage costs jobs: no employer will hire a worker if the extra value produced by the worker is lower than the mandated minimum."

While I strongly disagree with a minimum wage as high as it is at the current time ($12.50 per hour), there is a place for a minimum wage, but it should be set far lower, perhaps around the $7 per hour mark. This would be for the sole purpose of ensuring that workers were not persuaded, forced, or left with no option but to work for a ridiculously low pay-rate, for instance $2 per hour.

With a nice low minimum wage ($7 per hour), Employees would be empowered to get the best possible job at the best possible pay. Because if they were putting in the effort - and their employer was not rewarding them for this by paying them at a good rate, then the employee could simply move on.

And from the other side, with a low minimum wage, the employer would be able to afford to pay his workers what they were truly worth. Instead of having the slack eighteen-year-old and another hard-working, long-serving and trusted employee on the same (or very similar) pay-rate, the employer could reward each worker accordingly.

Performance-Based-Pay is the only way.

Acting up in Auckland

Andy, Rodney, Simeon

The 2008 ACT Conference was excellent, heard from some great and knowledgeable speakers who have been in the political game for a very long time. Had a good sit down and a chat with Rodney Hide just before we all headed back home at the end of the conference. Caught up with John Boscawen and Muriel Newman for a few minutes which was a treat.

Met some intelligent young people at the conference - and some not so intelligent young people who for the present will remain nameless. Fish and Chips and a discussion on who was in what electorate sorted out Friday night - we left the big shots to their Chinese meal, and then for Saturday lunch it was Red Rooster "it's gotta be red", which wasn't worth writing home about, just a KFC rip-off.

For an overview of the conference, check out Rick's blog. And for a more in depth look at the speeches, check out the No Minister blog, where Fairfacts Media has liveblogged on the conference. Stayed the first couple of nights at Fairfact's place in Orewa on the outskirts of Auckland. He distinguishes himself by not having any milk for the weet-bix, but "a couple of bottles of wine chilling in the fridge" as he put it. Great guy, and good of him to put Rick and I up.