Kiwiblog

Vaimoana Tapaleao in the NZ Herald reports:

Sports broadcaster Martin Devlin – the celebrity who was arrested and charged with disorderly behaviour – says he sought name suppression to protect his children from embarrassment. But doing so only made things worse, he admitted yesterday.

Yep. If his lawyer advised him to do so, he was very badly advised. The quest for name suppression generated far more publicity for Devlin, than he would have attracted for a very minor offence. And it was of course ineffective. Even though there were no blatant high profile breaches of the suppression order, his identity became well known through word of mouth.

“I sought name suppression in an effort to try and protect my children from being identified and embarrassed by my behaviour,” he said in a statement to media. “Obviously the only effective way to prevent that was not to do it in the first place.”

Indeed.

Rebecca Todd in The Press reports:

Kiwi children are running the gauntlet of fast-food restaurants every day – with outlets five times more likely to be clustered around schools, research shows.

Who would have thought – fast food outlets are situated near customers. Shock horror. This must be stopped. Who would have thought that a shop would locate near 1,000 customers, rather than on remote rural roads.

The high number of burger joints and chip shops close to schools is thought to be a factor in the childhood-obesity epidemic sweeping the Western world.

Or a lack of exercise, plus a failure of parents to provide school lunches. I was provided with a healthy lunch by my Mum almost every day, and was skinny as a rake at school (things changed alas later on). We did have a fish and chips shop opposite the school, and maybe every few weeks would buy from it – very useful on freezing cold days.

The problem has prompted the Secondary Principals Association to call for restrictions on what dairies near schools can sell during certain hours.

Oh yes. And let us have a legion of inspectors to swoop on dairy owners and arrest them for selling some wine gums at 11 am.

Mr Day studied the clustering of fast-food and convenience stores around schools in Lower Hutt, Wellington, Christchurch, North Shore and Waitakere. In poor areas, there were 24.5 fast-food and convenience stores per 1000 pupils within 800 metres of a school, compared with 9.7 in richer areas.

Now this is interesting. You would expect there to be more stores in richer areas, because there is more money available to be spent. You would think terribly expensive fast food would do badly in poorer areas, as families would be saving money by making their lunches at home.

If this is not the case, then target the real problem – bad parenting.

Secondary Principals Association president Patrick Walsh said many principals were concerned about the prevalence of fatty-food outlets near their schools.

“They work very hard to ensure that their canteens sell healthy food, but they know the dairy down the road is prepared to sell a can of Coke and pie for $2,” he said.

More like $4 I would say. And again, the cheapest lunch is one prepared at home.

I was very relieved that the abduction on Great Barrier Island ended without loss of life. I was pretty pessimistic about the outcome, as it is rare and difficult for someone to go bush fleeing the Police, and having an abductee with them.

GBI is one of my favourite spots in New Zealand, and while it is not entirely a crime free paradise, such violence leaves a horrible stain on the community. Made even worse by the fact that in such a small community, the victim is known personally to almost everyone.

Sunday News reported:

Nortessa’s alleged abductor was yesterday taken to Auckland for questioning. He had not been charged last night.

Tait said police did well to surround him as the locals were “very angry” and she didn’t know how they would have reacted if they’d found him first.

Heh. Almost a pity they didn’t.

Peter praised his fellow islanders who came out in droves to assist police and the armed offender squad in finding Nortessa.

“There’s so much love on this island, you must have seen that. You don’t get that in too many places in the world,” he said.

“There’s been two dozen Barrier boys out there the whole time. Searching non-stop.

“All night they’ve been looking, they’ve covered hundreds of acres.”

Detective Inspector Scott Beard, who led the investigation, added: “She’s a local girl, she was part of their community, they felt a duty to come out. The whole investigation team, the locals, everyone’s happy.”

One of the many things I love about Great Barrier Island – that sense of community. If I lived in Auckland and was able to travel there more frequently, I’d seriously look at buying a home there.

I wonder how successful it was? Hat-tip: Spare Room

Just saw this editorial:

Those who read newspapers and magazines during the Christmas break – most of us, surely – will have seen a series of big Post-Primary Teachers Association advertisements. They said: “Around the world, the countries that believe in investing in education understand the central importance of teachers … Attracting great teachers for our children, and keeping them in New Zealand, costs money. How can the government … not make that investment?”

The PPTA is wasting their money. Well, not entirely. If their aim is to get a better pay deal for their members, the money is wasted. If the aim is to help Labour by painting National as anti-education, then they may feel it is a good investment.

PPTA members do not believe that an administration that has supported the Rugby World Cup, South Canterbury Finance, Warner Bros and hated private schools cannot afford to give them a 4 per cent pay rise. That they have had three successive rises of 4 per cent when many parents got nothing or lost their jobs seems to have happened in a parallel universe.

I wonder if they will keep their strike action going for all of 2011.

An irony of the PPTA’s advertising campaign is that, under Helen Clark’s Electoral Finance Act, the union would have had to think twice about mounting it. Third-party advertising was heavily proscribed throughout an entire election year.

That this highly political union can now advertise its distress about pay rates to the full extent of its members’ willingness to fund it until three months before polling day – without falling foul of an anti-free speech law – is thanks only to its enemy, the Key-led Government.

Very true.

Dr Richard Ekins has done a guest post responding to the guest post by David Garrett:

David Garrett’s defence of the three strikes legislation has not improved with the passing of time.

He says:

“As some commentators at the time have noted – with some justification – indecent assault can cover a fairly broad continuum from the “drunken grope” to near rape. In my view the relative seriousness of various forms of indecent assault is a red herring – or at least a separate debate. None of the other “strike” convictions thus far can be described as “minor offences”, although others will no doubt argue otherwise.”

I was one of those ‘commentators’ (see the Guest Paper published by the Maxim Institute.

It’s nice to see Mr Garrett now conceding we had some justification for our concerns (at the time he, together with the Hon Judith Collins MP just blithely asserted that there were no relatively minor offences) but it is wildly misleading to say that the relative seriousness of indecent assault is a red herring. 58 of the first 209 strike convictions are for indecent assault. That is over a quarter of all convictions.

It is extremely likely, if this law is not repealed in the next few years, that some persons convicted of a minor indecent assault (a drunken grope, not premeditated, no serious harm to the victim, where the offender pleads guilty, is remoresful and pays compensation to the victim) will be sentenced to 7yrs in prison, without parole. That sentence is longer than is imposed on an ‘ordinary’ case of rape, if the offender pleads guilty (and the rapist is eligible for parole).

The assertion that all the other convictions, other than for indecent assault, were “pure violence” offences is also misleading. Doubtless, some, and probably many, of them involved actual infliction of violence. But one can commit robbery or even aggravated robbery without inflicting violence – threats of violence, even if minor, are enough. Obviously many robberies are extremely violent and they are all wrong. But it is just not true to suggest that all those convicted of robbery (or aggravated burglary, which one can commit by breaking into an empty warehouse with a crowbar) have commited crimes of “pure violence”.

Mr Garrett relies on his friend the District Court Registrar, who tells him “that almost without exception, they are familiar faces, having appeared before – some on many occasions – often for violent offending.” What does this tell us? 132 offenders were convicted of the 209 strike offences. There are 66 District Courts in the country. On average then, each District Court has seen 2 offenders. The fact that the 2 offenders the Registrar is likely to have seen (or, be generous and say her District Court has seen far more than any other in the country, say 8 offenders) have been before the courts doesn’t prove that these are ‘the worst of the worst’ (as Garrett reports her, some of the previous offences are for non-violent offences, and many of the violent offences may be common assault) as the legislation was said to be focused.

The main problem in principle with the three strikes law, setting aside the practical problems (it will mean there are a great many unnecessary, expensive trials, putting victims through unnecessary anguish and making it more difficult to convict offenders, many of whom now have no incentive to cooperate with prosecutors and to testify), is that it imposes arbitrary punishments. Many offenders deserve severe punishment. The three strikes law ignores nearly everything that is relevant to deciding what punishment an offender deserves (premeditation, cruelty, impact on the victim, remorse, etc…) instead requiring severe punishments to be imposed on an arbitrary, irrational basis.

It will be interesting to observe what happens as offenders notch up a second or a third strike. If those getting third strikes are repeat violent offenders, the law will remain very popular. If people do get sent away for seven years no parole for a grope, then there will be a backlash.

What will also be interesting from my perspectuve, is how Judges will use the “manifestly unjust” provisions. If they never use it (and it is a high threshold) then the chances of someone getting seven years for a grope will be increased. On the other hand it is possible Judges may use it too much, watering down the effectiveness of the law.

I suspect we are a year or two away from second strikes starting to accumulate, and we may not even get any third strikes for five years or so.

Incidentially I agreed with some (not all) of the changes proposed in the Maxim paper by Dr Ekins and Professor Brookbanks.

John Roughan writes:

Not much that happens in summer grinds my teeth but last weekend the Herald on Sunday reported outrage among a certain class of campers because the Department of Conservation might let private operators run its camp grounds.

Their outrage was particularly rich because the previous Sunday the same reporter, Kieran Nash, had found at Urupukapuka Island in the Bay if Islands that some of DoC’s regular customers are cheating those who would like to share the pristine places we pay for.

In case you missed it, they book out their favourite places every season by reserving much more than the tent site they need. One way they do this is by booking a site for every person in the tent.

They don’t have to be very clever, the department’s online booking clerks don’t appear to care how many sites someone takes. The sooner the place is booked out the better for the booking team. They were all on holiday when the paper sought comment.

Nor do the greedy need much money. In the hallowed principles of public ownership the department lets each site for as little as $8-$15 a night.

You could take three or four sites for the price of a night in a privately run camping ground.

No wonder DoC’s website usually has no vacancies. It is only when disappointed customers make a day trip that they find just a few scattered campers enjoying paradise.

Which is one of the reasons why subsidies often lead to inefficient allocation of resources.

In principle the Conservation Department wants as many of the public as possible to enjoy the estate their taxation maintains. In practice, it is not very good at making that possible.

Happily the department also has to minimise the public outlay and supplement its income where possible by allowing some commerce in the parks. Profit-makers are very good at maximising public use.

They have the right incentives to do so.

The department is talking to the New Zealand Holiday Parks Association about running its camp grounds and there is consternation in the wild.

A petition is circulating against roads, bollards and marked sites. The Green Party says the camps will resemble the suburbs people go on holiday to escape. Labour’s tourism spokesman predicts “canvas subdivisions”.

I camped in a canvas subdivision at a Coromandel beach last week. It was not the sort of suburb I live in – it was open to the neighbours, children played everywhere, family life was public. During the day people walked around totally unconcerned about how they looked. In the evening they socialised.

I thought people who talk of caring, sharing and social equality liked this sort of thing.

No, no, no, no. One can’t actually mingle with the masses.

So what exactly would be the problem for critics of private enterprise? It can’t be the cost because DoC’s fortunate few will pay that much for multiple sites. And it can’t be the environment because a camp operator would have an interest in helping to protect it.

Their problem, it’s very obvious, is people – too many people sharing their space and in their face. There’s no snob like a social democrat.

Exactly.

Driving around the Coromandel last week it struck me again how daft we are to lock up the mineral wealth of that whole peninsula. It is not wild and rugged like the Southern Alps, it is not covered in native rainforest like the Ureweras. It has attractive coasts, common in the north.

This country is not so blessed with economic resources that we can preserve the conservation estate for an intrepid few. Obviously a beautiful lonely landscape has to be kept that way for its economic value but there is plenty of room in our pristine environment to hide accessible resorts operated properly, profitably and fairly for the greater good.

Yep.

An interesting interview with Chris Trotter by Whale Oil.

His thoughts on Labour are especially insightful:

On Labours “Get John Key” campaign:

“Com­pletely mis­taken, did not read the man at all well”

“One sus­pects that they despair of find­ing some other way through.”

On how mod­ern Labour can become more appealing:

“It does very well when it plays to the best, in New Zealan­ders, when it booths artic­u­lates and asks peo­ple to respond to the bright side rather than the dark side of the NZ way of doing things.”

“When they find some­one who can artic­u­late them, as they did with Michael Joseph Sav­age  as they did with Nor­man Kirk, as they cer­tainly did with David Lange, then they are very hard to beat, but if those two things are lack­ing, if they lack some­one who is able to artic­u­late that appeal to New Zealand’s bet­ter angels, to bor­row Abra­ham Lincoln’s famous phrase and if they aren’t dri­ven in a sense by adverse eco­nomic winds then Labour does find it dif­fi­cult his­tor­i­cally to win.”

On Phil Goff:

“He hasn’t demon­strated to date, either the rhetor­i­cal skills nec­es­sary to make that appeal, and cer­tainly to date he hasn’t been able to emote in a way that New Zealan­ders can believe.”

On Labour entic­ing bet­ter candidates:

[They need] “life expe­ri­ence which you cer­tainly don’t get in any great breadth on the ninth floor of the beehive”

A guest post by former MP David Garrett on the Three Strikes law:

This week, figures on convictions since the “three strikes” legislation came into force were released. 132 offenders were convicted of 209 “strike” offences. 151 of the convictions were for “pure violence” offences –including aggravated robbery (59), robbery(29), wounding with intent (33) and injuring with intent (20). There were also 58 convictions for indecent assault.

As some commentators at the time have noted – with some justification – indecent assault can cover a fairly broad continuum from the “drunken grope” to near rape. In my view the relative seriousness of various forms of indecent assault is a red herring – or at least a separate debate. None of the other “strike” convictions thus far can be described as “minor offences”, although others will no doubt argue otherwise.

These early results are entirely to be expected. At the time the Bill was being debated, there was all manner of ill informed – and downright dishonest – claims that “three strikes” would see people locked up for minor offences including theft. It seemed not to matter how often it was explained that the Bill was carefully drafted to target only repeat violent offenders – the misinformation campaign went on.

All of the convictions since June 2010 were first strikes, meaning the offenders who were actually sent to prison are still eligible for parole as before. The only thing that changed was those offenders now have a first warning on their file – which will have real consequences when they appear again for a violent offence – and most of them will.

A registrar of my acquaintance runs a District Court in a provinical area. She has paid particular attention to the “strike” offenders appearing for sentence in that court. She tells me that almost without exception, they are familiar faces, having appeared before – some on many occasions – often for violent offending.

She also tells me that most of those sentenced appear to pay little attention to the warning, although if their lawyers are doing their jobs, the offenders will have been told that as a result of it, a further conviction for a strike offence will have a significantly different outcome. Next time, any custodial sentence will have to be served without parole, and even in our ridiculously liberal justice system, a second conviction for a strike offence will almost certainly result in a prison sentence.

The debate about whether three strikes “works” will continue regardless of the results. I have no doubt that even if in three years time violent crime has dropped significantly, the liberal left will refuse to believe that a more punitive approach has anything to do with it. Sadly the left are like that.

The late Dr Dennis Dutton told me a few years ago of his great amusement at the disquiet in American liberal academia when homicides in New York City plummeted in the early 1990′s. Those in the ivory towers embarked upon a feverish search for “the real reason” homicide had declined from about 2500 in 1990 to about 450 per year at the end of the decade. They simply could not accept that something as “simplisitic” as more police on the street with a different attitude, and sentence enhancement measures similar to a “three strikes” approach could have been the reason.

New Yorker’s didn’t care what the reason was, they were just happy to be able to take their kids to Times Square on a Sunday afternoon without being hassled by drug dealers or robbed. Most New Zealanders will be similarly happy that 132 violent offenders now have their first strike, and that within a few years a good proportion of them will be locked up for a long time.

Like David, I’m looking forward to the legislation leading to some repeat violent offenders getting locked up for a long time, so they can’t continue to offend.

Like many, I watced the first episode without Simon Cowell last night. It was pretty good.

While Cowell had become famous through American Idol, J-Lo and Steven Tyler have literally been idols to many of the contestants, and it showed.

J-Lo managed to become the nice one, but without being annoying like Paula Abdul, and resisted telling crap singers they are not crap.

Tyler seemed to join in half the acts, which was probably equally terrifying and awesome to the prospects. He makes some very off the wall comments.

They didn’t show as many “bad” auditions in the first episode. There were a few, but most of the show was on a few memorable auditions – memorable for the personalities more than the singing to a degree.

I suspect ratings for Season 10 will be as high as the other seasons. How did others find the first show of Season 10? Any favourite performers?

The Dom Post reports:

A Wellington judge has told a doctor appearing on child exploitation charges that he was “extremely sad” to sentence him because there was a worldwide shortage in his profession.

Wellington trainee radiologist Andrew Jeremy Dunkley, 35, was sentenced in Wellington District Court yesterday on six charges of possessing objectionable publications after police discovered 50,000 images on his computer.

Dunkley’s house was raided in September and his computer seized after a tip-off that resulted from an international police operation.

Crown prosecutor Alice McCobbin-Howell said Dunkley had admitted to police that he had been accessing images of children on the internet for the past 10 years.

The international investigation had led to three children in Britain being identified and removed from sexually abusive homes, she said.

“The children depicted in the images are real children and this is not victimless offending.”

Defence lawyer Greg King said the 50,000 images had not been downloaded and stored but accumulated on the computer’s cache after visiting websites.

No jail when you have 50,000 child porn images is getting off lightly. Now if it was true that he had never deliberately downloaded them, but they were just all cached images, that could explain such a light sentence.

But how credible is it? Let us say that each image is 100 KB. So to have 50,000 images in your cache, the cache would need to be at 5 GB – and that is if you had not looked at any other sites.

Vernon Small in the Dom Post reports:

Meanwhile, Labour has announced its nominees as candidates for the Botany by-election with a virtual concession of defeat.

Labour Party president Andrew Little said Botany was a safe National seat. “So we don’t expect to win.”

The party would use the by-election, forced by the resignation of National MP Pansy Wong, as an opportunity to promote policies, issues and values it believed were important to the electorate and the country, he said.

Its nominees are former Botany Community Board member Roy Bootle, electrician and Howick Local Board member David Collings, and Michael Wood, a former unionist and candidate for Pakuranga and current Puketapapa Local Board member.

Interesting that Raymond Huo is not seeking the nomination. I guess the Tizard factor is still concerning them, as if Huo won the seat, Tizard would be offered his list place.

Stuff is running an NZPA story:

The tragedy at the Pike River Coal mine would not have happened if New Zealand had maintained a mining inspector programme canned more than a decade ago, a mining specialist says.

A chief inspector would have noticed the dangerous levels of gases pooling at the West Coast mine, and the 29 men who died in explosions from November 19 on would still be alive.

Safety officials do monitor mines around the country, but the system was inferior to the inspector system that was used until the late 1990s, Dave Feickert said.

I am automatically suspicious of any so called expert who without any evidence at all claims the mine explosion would not have happened if x had been done. Considering we have a Royal Commission about to hear actual evidence on what caused the explosion, you wonder about the motives of someone who states opinion as fact.

It was not right that Prime Minister John Key was making decisions about mine safety because he was not an expert in the area, Mr Feickert said.

“No wonder the families of the 29 dead are furious. So they should be.”

I get even more suspicious when this expert makes a personal attack on the PM which is factually incorrect (Key has not made any decisions), and is encouraging the families to blame John Key.

Then a birdie from Whanganui tells me that Mr Feickert is in fact the Chairman of the Whanganui Labour Party. Suddenly it all makes sense.

A google search has not verified he is currently a Labour Party Chairman, but what it does reveal is that Feickert is:

• a former top official in the militant British National Union of Mineworkers
• the CTU unions Wanganui secretary
• a member of the NZ Labour Party
• supported Arthur Scargill in 1984 UK strikes

This is not to say that Feickert does not know a lot about mining. He does. But by not reporting he is a militant unionist and labour party office holder, then people don’t understand the context of why he is attacking John Key on false grounds.

UPDATE: Now confirmed that Feickert is (or at least was earlier this year) Labour’s Whanganui chairman.

The first poll of 2011 is out by Roy Morgan. It was taken from 4 to 16 January. The seats based on this poll would be:

• National 69
• Labour 36
• Greens 9
• Maori 5
• ACT 2
• United 1

It is broadly in line with the two TV polls in December. The sample size is 1815 which gives a very small margin of error.

Ironically I understand Phil Goff is in fact hosting a BBQ at his place next week.

Hat Tip: Whowuddathort

news.com.au reports:

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen will star in a new film based on a novel by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Paramount Pictures announced yesterday.

The inspiration for the project is Hussein’s 2000 romance novel Zabibah and The King – the story of a wise monarch who falls in love with a commoner. Written under the pseudonym The Author, the book was one of four works authored by Hussein.

Baron Cohen’s film adaptation, The Dictator, will tell “the heroic story of a dictator who risked his life to ensure that democracy would never come to the country he so lovingly oppressed,” according to a release from the production company.

Oh this could be great. I can’t wait for it.

A guest post from Michael Cash:

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once stated that, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart – if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” However, American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein claimed that “A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future.”

Obviously, the definition of “liberal” can change depending on the country and the time period being discussed. It is often thought that classical liberalism is European and modern liberalism is American; however, graduates of political science schools will tell you that both areas of the world contributed to the development of both forms of government. Both classical and modern liberalism advocate personal freedoms and limited governmental power. The essential differences lie in the beliefs concerning the role of government in economic and social issues.

Foundations of Classical Liberalism

Classic liberalism is a political ideology that arose in the early nineteenth century in Europe and America. Its principles began to develop in the eighteenth century as a reaction to the new type of society that was being formed due to the industrial revolution. Whereas classical conservative principles included maintaining the traditional governmental institutions of the time and only seeking gradual change in society, classical liberalism advocated progress, natural law, economic freedom, limited government and liberty for each individual.

John Locke, one of the most famous philosophers of the enlightenment era, provided the foundation for many of the principles of classical liberalism. He suggested that a human, rather than living in the fear inherent in an anarchistic environment, gives up some sovereignty and enters into a “social contract” with a government in exchange for property protection. While Locke never specifically defined what he meant by “property,” this idea led to the core belief that legitimate authority must only come from the consent of the governed.

Another important person in the development of classical liberalism was Adam Smith. Through his book, The Wealth of Nations, he described how a free market economy that relies on individual competition and capitalist principles is the most productive and beneficial for a society. These ideas helped form the liberal principles regarding economics.

Some of the ideals of classical liberalism can be clearly seen in two famous American documents:

1. The Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These statements derive from the classic liberal principles of individual freedoms and restricted government.

Development of Modern Liberalism

While the ideas of classical liberalism were met with some dissent in Europe, it became the prevailing political ideology throughout much of the western world in the nineteenth century. Many countries that adopted this ideology were economically prosperous at this time, and while there were many causes for the prosperity, it was partly due to the free market economy supported by classical liberal ideals. However, economic principles in both Europe and the U.S. started to come into question beginning with the Panic of 1873, which led to a serious economic depression in Britain. A series of further economic panics including the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, in addition to escalating civil rights and labor movements, caused many politicians to rethink the role of government, leading to modern liberalism.

Modern liberalism is based on classical ideals, but it accepts the notion that government should be less limited in order to provide social justice. This means that a modern liberal government can address and influence economic issues as well as social issues such as health care, unemployment, education and civil rights. Proponents of modern liberalism suggest that there are inadequacies involved with the laissez-faire capitalism of a strictly classical liberal government. These inherent problems prevent poor people from having as much liberty as the more fortunate. A modern liberalism government strives to assist every individual in the acquisition of his or her maximum amount of freedom and to “level the playing field.” This, in turn, leads to more government involvement and control in the lives of citizens. Modern liberalism has been a predominant political ideology since World War II.

Social and Economic Policies

While the principles of classical liberalism would prevent a government from getting involved in economic or social issues, many famous policies and initiatives have been developed by modern liberal governments. In the U.S. for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt is famous for initiating the large-scale New Deal, which was an initiative that created jobs for the unemployed and regulated economic policies in order to recover from the Great Depression. Other examples of modern liberal actions include the development of welfare, social security, child labor restrictions, minimum wage laws, worker safety regulations, affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act. More recent examples include the 2008 U.K. bank rescue package and the 2010 South Canterbury Finance bailout in New Zealand.

The sweeping policies enacted by modern liberalism governments have certainly not gone unquestioned. Many countries contain political parties that attempt to shift the government back towards classical liberalism principles. With the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the U.S. government aimed to lessen its regulation of economic matters dramatically. The resulting policies, known as “Reaganomics,” were echoed in similar actions taken by other world leaders such as the “Rogernomics” enacted by New Zealand Finance Minister Roger Douglas in 1984. These policies did not mark a complete change back to classical liberalism by any means, but they were influenced by those ideals.

Current Political Parties

There are numerous political parties throughout the world that advocate different forms of classical liberalism or modern liberalism. For example, the Libertarian Party in the U.S. supports strong civil liberties, unregulated markets and a foreign policy of non-interventionism. The style of limited government that the party promotes is one of the closest options to classical liberalism that a voter in the U.S. has. The two predominant parties, Democrats and Republicans, can both arguably be called modern liberal parties.

Some political parties undergo many changes throughout their existence. The New Zealand Liberal Party for example started as a modern liberal party that advocated women’s suffrage and aid for small farmers, among other issues. After roughly 20 years of dominance around the turn of the twentieth century, the party dissolved. However, a faction of the Liberal Party went on to create the United Party, which eventually became the New Zealand National Party. This party is now considered to be generally conservative.

I self-identify as a classical liberal, and it is a pity it does get confused with US modern liberalism. As Michael points out they do have some aspects in common – but differ greatly on economic issues.

Brian Rudman mocks Len Brown’s list of achievements, and tells him to focus on buses:

Mayor Len Brown’s curse is self-inflicted – a rash promise before his coronation last November to within 100 days unveil 100 projects he would complete.

“We will see things really fly,” he promised.

With less than 20 days to go, Mayor Len’s immediate problem is not so much getting things airborne, it’s struggling to come up with bright ideas to launch.

This week, he and his retinue managed to scrape together a list of just 52. And many of those belonged in the “got up,” “brushed my teeth” category.

Claiming credit for setting up various advisory panels required by law is rather cringe-making.

So is “recommending the budget”, “monthly town hall meetings”, “regular engagement with local boards” and “spatial plan initiative”, all nuts-and-bolts functions that were going to happen regardless. …

Of course he’s not the first politician to bathe in the glory of tasks initiated by his predecessors. But few are quite as bare-faced as this.

With 48 to go and desperation setting in, what next? No 53: Sun Rises

I can’t wait for the full list of 100 to be published. Maybe once he has, then Len will focus on the important issues and forget the PR stuff for a while.

My suggestion to Mr Brown is that before ordering new ferries for Takapuna or musing about the wonders of the new electric train services, he should, as his first priority, sort out the workhorses of Auckland public transport, the buses.

As Josh Arbury in his Auckland transport blog reminds us, 49 million of the trips on Auckland public transport this year will be on buses, and if the mayor wants to hit his 2021 target, that’s where the main growth will have to occur.

He also notes how little bus patronage has increased this decade, up from 45 million trips in 2002 to 49 million this year.

Why is that? For me, the biggest turn-off is lack of punctuality.

Waiting for the missing bus is a killer. You can’t even fill in the time reading a book for fear that when the bus does appear it will speed past unless you’re kerbside, waving your arms like a windmill.

I always look at the public transport systems of overseas cities when staying in them, to see how well they work and why. Punctuality is an absolute must. Ideally you don’t even want route timetables – you want a train or bus to be frequent enough that you know you will never have more than say a 10 – 15 minute wait.

As important is integrated and electronic ticketing. No cash Everyone just swipes in and off.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Labour’s proposal offers no real advance on the present policy while increasing welfare spending. The paid leave period would be extended by just a month, from 14 to 18 weeks, and more parents would be eligible for it, mainly, it seems, to match Australia’s new scheme.

This desire for comparability in spending is somewhat odd in itself. Hasn’t the same Labour Party scorned the Government’s goal of achieving pay parity with Australia by 2025?

More than that, however, an extra four weeks would offer little in the way of inducement or message. The money would still cover only a tiny fraction of the financial cost of a child.

More problematic still is Labour’s plan to make Working for Families more generous for parents of children under 2. Already, that scheme is too benevolent in both its sum and reach. Many middle-class families have been able to arrange their financial affairs to qualify for unwarranted payments.

But all Labour can do is promise to spend more and more money, meaning higher income taxes or more borrowing.

Bernard Orsman reports:

It is undemocratic and untenable for unelected members of the Auckland Council’s Maori statutory board to have voting rights on council committees, says Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman Phil Twyford.

I agree with Phil Twyford on this point.

It is worth noting that the Royal Commission actually recommended having an unelected (appointed by Iwi) Councillor sit on the main Auckland Council itself. Labour criticised National for not following the Commission’s recommendations.

Two Maori representatives from the nine-member Maori statutory body will join up to 20 council committees with full voting powers under a Super City bill passed last year in the name of Local Government Minister and Act leader Rodney Hide.

If the council committees are actually making decisions, not just recommendations, this is a quite serious issue. Non-voting representation would be more appropriate.

It is worth remembering that three of the 20 Councillors are of Maori descent – and elected through wards.

Mr Twyford said hand-picked representatives exercising a full vote alongside elected representatives on council committees went against a fundamental principle of democracy and the Government should amend the law to make the positions advisory only.

I agree. But is Twyford representing what Labour said at the time. Here is a press release on 14 May 2009:

“Labour believes the Government should have adopted the Royal Commission’s proposals to include Maori seats on the council, but it hasn’t.

One of those Maori seats as an un-elected one, appointed by Iwi. So in 2009 Labour seemed to argue for un-elected Maori representation, but now they argue againgst it.

Mr Horomia said the relationship between the Auckland Council and mana whenua is important and it is essential they have a voice in local government decision-making.

“Just how that is reflected and how potential mana whenua seats might complement elected Maori seats is an issue which the select committee will hear submissions on and we will pay attention to this.

Again, Labour were not saying they were against appointed Maori representation back then.

“Imagine how people will feel in a really heated debate on some important issue, a committee is evenly split, and these non-elected, hand-picked advisers have the casting vote. People will be furious,” Mr Twyford said.

Again I agree.

Last night, Mr Hide, who is overseas, on his honeymoon, issued a statement saying the decision for Maori to be members of committees was made at the select committee state.

Labour was on that select committee. In their minority report they said:

This bill introduces a Māori Advisory Board. While we have worked hard to ensure this board is more effective, we have not altered our position. Labour believes there should be Māori seats on the new Auckland Council.

Working hard to make it more effective doesn’t sound like arguing they should not have representation on council committees.

He did say he was surprised the board would appoint people to sit on all council committees when the legislation required it to appoint people only to committees that dealt with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.

This is correct. So it is a decision of the Auckland Council itself that gave voting rights to the non-Councillors on all the other Committees. So will Phil Twyford call on Len Brown to restrict these appointments to those few committees dealing with natural and physical resources.

Giles Brown in The Press reports:

A Christchurch doctor had to treat a woman after she was partially paralysed by a lovebite from her amorous partner.

Dr Teddy Wu, who is currently working in the neurology department at Christchurch Hospital, said he believed it was the first time someone had been hospitalised by a “hickey”.

An article on the case has appeared in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

Wu said he saw the woman over a year ago while he was working in Middlemore Hospital in Auckland.

The 44-year-old Maori woman went to the emergency department after experiencing loss of movement in her left arm.

It happened while she was sitting watching television.

The only injury was a lovebite on the right of her neck near an artery.

I just hope this doesn’t mean there will be a public health campaign warning against the dangers off hickeys!

Keith Lynch in The Press reports:

Christchurch has been rattled by its 10th aftershock in 24 hours after a magnitude 4.4 quake struck this morning.

GNS Science said the quake hit at 2.12am and was centred 10km south-west of the city at a depth of 7km. There were no initial reports of damage.

A flurry of quakes hit Christchurch yesterday, including a magnitude 5.1 shake at 6.03am and a magnitude 3.9 aftershock at 11.10am.

GNS Science seismologist John Ristau warned people to expect aftershocks of up to magnitude 5.0 every month to six weeks.

He said aftershocks could go on for “months, a year or maybe even over a year”.

GeoNet had recorded more than 3900 aftershocks since the magnitude 7.1 quake on September 4, he said.

I’m not sure what the data is for other quakes, but the sheer number of aftershocks plus the length of time (almost five months) they extend out for seems very high.

Omori’s Law which predicts frequency of aftershock’s says:

According to these equations, the rate of aftershocks decreases quickly with time. The rate of aftershocks is proportional to the inverse of time since the mainshock. Thus whatever the odds of an aftershock are on the first day, the second day will have 1/2 the odds of the first day and the tenth day will have approximately 1/10th the odds of the first day (when p is equal to 1).

10 aftershocks 140 days after the main quake falls well outside the norm I’d say.

So how long could the aftershocks last? Well the 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes are still producing aftershocks!