That is how much Craig and Carla Bradley can spend to feed each of their kids each day.

After rent, power, petrol and bugger all else.

Thank you to Simon Collins for his excellent reality check on inequality in Auckland in today’s Herald – see Trevor’s post below.

Equally sobering: a “comfortable” family – Anita and Nigel’s – on $150k (an MP’s salary) is close to the top 10% of NZ households. 

Fact is, we live in a poor and divided country.

So our constituency is not just the so-called ‘underclass’; it is most New Zealanders.

No-one wants to be poor. 

Every Kiwi kid deserves good fresh food, a few treats and trips to the beach.

Being poor is grinding and demoralising. 

It takes all your time; and your gut turns when your kids go without.

Most parents strive to do their utmost. 

There is unbelievable sacrifice and heroism all around us.

But most people don’t see the point in politics – they are too busy just living.

Despite this, a  gap this big between the 1% and the rest cannot stand.  It never has…

The change we want is that of Mickey Savage and the New Deal.

Not extremism, or racism; or God forbid, another ‘Great’ War.

So we must be relevant to New Zealanders’ daily struggles:

Feeding our kids; caring for our sick and old;

Making sure there are good schools and jobs for our young;

Looking after our living earth;

Seeking out those doing good stuff in our communities and working with them.

Humble enough to know we don’t have all the answers, because no-one does…

…and going on anyway.

Free marketeers (and Rudman is not one of those) have long resorted to branding as racist anyone who opposes foreign ownership.  But I don’t buy it, and never have.

If Labour didn’t have a policy of opposition to rural land sales to foreign buyers and we opposed the Chinese bid, then yes that would look like xenophobia aimed at the Chinese. But during the last parliamentary term we adopted new policy in this area, proposing to clamp down on the sale of rural land to foreign buyers unless significant benefits to the national interest could be demonstrated. And as David Parker pointed out on Monday, we have criticised sales to German, US, Chinese and other foreign investors.

So is it xenophobic to oppose any measure that promotes the New Zealand economy and limits foreign ownership in our economy?  Is it racist of China and numerous other countries to place limits on the sale of land to foreigners in their countries? Of course not.

During the election campaign I did a talkback radio debate with National MP Jami-Lee Ross on the ethnic Indian station Humm FM. Jamie accused me of racism when I said National’s asset sales policy risked putting our most valuable SOEs in foreign hands.  Two callers responded: newly arrived Indian migrants who disagreed strongly with Mr Ross, both saying they were Kiwis and wanted the assets to stay in New Zealand ownership, and that the issue wasn’t about race at all.

Brian also seems to think that because so much of our economy is foreign-owned we may as well sell what is left:

With our banks and insurance companies and much else long sold off – $45 billion worth in the hands of Australians the last time I checked – it seems a little late in the day for Labour to espouse this particular principle.

I don’t want to sell what is left. Labour learned the lessons of the botched privatisations of the 80s and 90s. The challenge for our generation in politics is to build up New Zealand’s assets. That is why we need to make Kiwisaver universal to build our capital markets. It is why we need to build successful Kiwi firms through investing in research and development. It is why we should not be selling down our most successful state owned enterprises, nor KiwiBank. And it is why we should not be selling prime rural land to overseas buyers.

In the election campaign we have just had, the paying down of debt and the return to surplus were big issues. The “show me the money” moment was just one where John Key brandished his credentials to lead us to the promised land of surplus by 2014-15. It was a certainty, and it could happen even earlier. Yet, six weeks on, the dampners are on. Key now says its only a “reasonable probability”. Another $1 billion have been knocked off the forecast. Truth is little is different in the challenging global environment now from when the promises were made, except the PM is not campaigning any more, he is in office. Not for the first time he gave the public the message they wanted to hear about economic growth, but now its time to lower expectations.

The so-called State of the Nation speech from the PM yesterday was a dull and miserable affair. Gone is the brighter future we were all promised just a few weeks ago. What plan there is has at is centrepiece more cuts to the public service. Regardless of the wisdom of those, they will be a drop in the bucket of improving the government’s finances.

No one is underestimating the challenge in front of the government. But what’s happened to the sunny optimisim of our PM? Actually there is every reason to be optimistic about New Zealand’s future if the government is prepared to do things differently. The world has changed, will the government? There is opportunity to reset fiscal and economic policy, and make the investments that will support innovative growing companies, grow our skills base and ensure that everyone reaches their potential.

But there was none of that in the speech. Not just a lack of economic vision either. And as Pita Sharples (yes, he is a Minister in the government) points out nothing on dealing with poverty or inequality. Nothing on the issues that need to be dealt with to unlock the potential of thousands of New Zealanders.

It was a defeatist, sad and tired effort. A bit like an old joke.

Dunedin-based technology company PocketSmith is one of six finalists in the BNZ Start-Up Alley competition.

The competition is to help grow New Zealand’s web and technology start-up businesses.

Pocketsmith has a competitive personal finance management tool that allows users to track their expenses.

Pocketsmith is part of the University of Otago’s Centre for Innovation Distiller community.

I first visited Pocketsmith at the Distiller about two year’s ago. They were starting to make an impact then. The Distiller is a group of people (they call themselves technopreneurs) who work on their own projects, but work co-operatively and sometimes collaborate. They share space, ideas out of their creative enviroment comes great ideas. They call it social entrepeneurship.

NBR wrote about them mid last year;

PocketSmith co-founder Jason Leong told NBR his company’s success was all down to the power of open source development, the software-as-a-service (or SaaS) model for delivering your product over the internet, and the viral power of social networking and professional community sites.

Read more about how they have become a success story here.

Good on them.

California congressman Darrell Issa, an opponent of Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, said he had been told by House majority leader Eric Cantor that there would be no vote unless there is consensus on the bill.

Congressional leaders are preparing to shelve controversial legislation aimed at tackling online piracy after president Barack Obama said he would not support it.

The tech community has fought hard to stop Sopa and a rival bill, Protect IP, also known as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, or the e-Parasite act. Websites including Reddit and Wikipedia are planning to “go dark” on Wednesday in protest against the legislation. Issa said he remained concerned about Protect IP, which will go before the Senate on 24 January.

But both bills now look severely damaged after the White House came out firmly against their biggest proposals at the weekend.

“Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs,” the White House said in its first official comment on Sopa and Protect IP.

However, the White House said it would not support legislation that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.”

Though it doesn’t get a lot of coverage in mainstream media, and it’s not a well understood issue, the battle between the entertainment industry and the technology sector has been raging for some time. (Rupert Murdoch has weighed into it in the last few days as well).  The biggest manifestation of that battle has been the row over online piracy and the punitive laws  that countries across the world are being pressured to comply with. Laws that include a provision to disconnect people from the internet from infringing copyright. Laws concerning patents are also under the spotlight.

In New Zealand, there’s a law waiting to complete its passage through parliament which excludes computer software from being patented. The Commerce Committee recommendation, which was accepted by the then Minister Simon Power, believed this would free up NZ software developers to be innovative without fear of being trampled on by big patent suits. Copyright was seen as the appropriate form of protection for software (which is built on code), along with music, books and other creative endeavours. But that law has sat on our books for more than 18 months.

There have been worrying signs for a while that New Zealand’s creative and innovation sector could get caught up in the international battle being waged.

In December, Paul Matthews, the head of the NZ Computer Society wrote a column about how how changes to NZ’s patent law could be caught up in the negotiations going on for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

I’ve been watching the SOPA issue develop over the summer with concern. Others may have views about the implications for NZ and our part of the world.

Thankfully Obama has stepped into the fray. The issues are complex. Online piracy is an issue. But it’s mostly an issue because ordinary people can’t access the material they want easily through legal means. Sensible laws are required to protect creators and their intellectual property. Laws and policies are also required to help promote new business models that use the enormous power of the internet to give people more access to services and material and to help spark innovation.

What lies behind this is about who controls the internet. Thankfully the White House seems to understand that.

The two bills aim to tackle online piracy by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials. The bills would also allow people and companies to sue if their copyright was being infringed.

The White House expressed concern about both these elements and about passing legislation that threatened the openness of the internet. In the online statement it said any new legislation must be “narrowly targeted”.

Vikram Kumar, the CEO of InternetNZ, a respected and thoughtful think tank, also wrote about the two US laws in yesterday’s NBR. He warned of threats to our national interest by:

laws written by powerful corporates and expeditiously passed into law word-for-word.

He was echoing the sentiments of internet guru Lawrence Lessig,  who spoke at last year’s Nethui in NZ about the corruption destroying the United States’ democratic foundations.

Chris Keall from NBR wrote about the streetfight battle in yesterday’s NBR.

These issues aren’t always easy to get your head around. But like most things they have some principles at their core. Ownership of intellectual property is one. Intellectual property  means exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions.

Yesterday I got a tip off that the mysterious visit to our shores by a high powered US delegation of congress and senate reps last week wasn’t just about a first-hand look at Christchurch’s earthquake damage. Talks were also being held about the TPPA. Who with? and what was the substance?

I think New Zealand needs to consider its own best interests and the importance of our intellectual property and innovation to our own economy. Quantifying that should be a priority. We can’t sell ourselves short.

We are a lot more than a high protein export nation.  I’d like more discussion about this issue across the parliament. The copyright debates we’ve had in the last few years are just a subset of a much bigger economic discussion. What is the value of our IP to our nation?

Li developed Educa with input from early childhood teachers and parents, and launched the web application in April last year.

22 pre-schools using it so far. They are hoping to expand  into Australia.

Wish this was available when my kids were in pre-school.

We need more Nathan Li’s.

We need more companies like Jade. Hopefully who think it’s worth it to stay based in NZ.

A year ago, Jade Software was preparing to invade Silicon Valley and California. After battling through the Christchurch earthquakes, unprecedented travel and successfully establishing a beach-head in California, Jade Software has earned the title of the Otago Daily Times Southern Business of the Year.

Opening an office during the year in San Francisco paid dividends for Jade Software, but there is much more to the company than just establishing a beach-head in the United States.

The US was seen as the big unknown for the Christchurch-based company which has a significant operation in Dunedin.

The product at the forefront of the big push into the US was JOOB, with which jade had previously been successful when presenting at a huge technology fair in Berlin.

US comedian Louis CK (I hadn’t heard of him, but he seems pretty popular) decided to produce a good version of his latest live show and make it available online for $5.

Nek Minnit (well 12 days later) he made $1 million.

The Age reported today:

Comedian Louis CK has proved a point: People are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for DRM-free content from a performer they love, even though it would be trivial for them to pirate the same content for free.

Twelve days ago, Louis CK decided to skip the distribution, DRM, ads and everything else that goes into marketing and sale of a video, and simply offer the video of his latest performance on his website for $US5.

It took four days for Louis to earn $US200,000, and another 8 days to earn a whopping $US1 million.

It  blows out the water the view that content has to be locked up with laws to enforce it because too many people will only steal it. In fact people will pay money to get access to new content. If the price is right and the product is what they want.

Louis CK posted a blog saying he would keep just $220,000 from his $1m.

He said:

So I’m breaking the million into four pieces.

the first 250k is going to pay back what the special cost to produce and the website to build.

The second 250k is going back to my staff and the people who work for me on the special and on my show. I’m giving them a big fat bonus.

The third 280k is going to a few different charities. They are listed below in case you’d like to donate to them also. Some of these i learned about through friends, some were recomended through twitter.

• The Fistula Foundation
• The Pablove Foundation
• charity: water
• Kiva
• Green Chimneys

That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.

I had a quick look at Louis CK’s stuff. Here is is a clip on Youtube (not the $5 version). Pretty out there, but worth paying for. I think the business model is pretty obvious. It’s just a pity that he had to spend the money himself upfront to develop the tools to distribute his work.

Imagine if that technology was readily available to artists for a small fee. Imagine if the New Zealand tech industry was encouraged to go for it.

Another point to end on. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the technology used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale.

Companies such as Amazon, AOL, Apple Inc., the BBC, Microsoft and Sony use digital rights management. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the United States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available technologies whose primary purpose and function is to circumvent content protection technologies.^[1] The use of digital rights management is controversial. Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and that it can help the copyright holder maintain artistic control^[2] or ensure continued revenue streams.^[3] Those opposed to DRM argue that there is no evidence that DRM helps prevent copyright infringement and that DRM helps big business stifle innovation and competition.^[4] Proponents argue that digital locks should be considered necessary to prevent intellectual property from being stolen, just as physical locks are needed to prevent personal property from being stolen.

I thought it was interesting that I learnt about Louis CK’s online  business endeavours through twitter via the ABC’s managing director Mark Scott who tweeted:

“The comedian (is) providing lessons in the future of digital rights management”.

Prescience from the head of Australia’s public broadcaster. It would be good to have a bit more debate about it here.

Today Labour released our plan for jobs. Its six points and it brings together some key strands of our policy that we believe will drive job growth. The six areas are

• A savings scheme that will provide new investment for New Zealand businesses;

• Support innovation to develop new products to sell to the rest of the world;(including restoring the R and D Tax Credit)

• Change monetary policy to support exporters against a volatile New Zealand dollar;

• Help unemployed youth into training and apprenticeships;

• Stimulate the economy by putting money into the pockets of those who need it;

• Making Kiwi jobs a consideration when issuing government contracts.

The details behind each of these policies is in the attached document. This is about an active government that works with business to create jobs instead of sitting on the sidelines. Its an important building block to owning our future.

The main points to note

• Labour will return the country to surplus in 2014/15 and will clear debt in 10 years – all without the sale of assets.
• There is slightly more borrowing in the short term because we need to invest in our children and our country. We are willing to pay that price because we will not  trade away the assets that will be valuable to those future generations to make that investment.
• 2013/14 is the only year in which Labour will have a larger operating deficit than National. After that the CGT kicks in, and we can move more quickly to clear debt than National
• National’s predictions on Labour’s fiscal framework are plain wrong. They failed to factor in the asset created by re-investing the Super Fund, and they have conveniently forgotten that the CBD Auckland Rail Link is funded by cancelling the holiday highway

Labour’s numbers have been under the microscope. Fair enough. Now let’s hear from John Key how it works to bank the sales of the assets in their accounts, but not factor in the lost dividends from those sales?   What kind of calculator lets you do that?  Time for show and tell John.