The Greens have proposed scrapping, the ETS, replacing it with a carbon tax, and compensating for the carbon tax with a reduction in income and company tax.

Overall the policy appears to be credible, and has some merit to it. Let’s first look at the pros and cons of an ETS vs a carbon tax. Of course some people will say we should have neither, but they can go scream loudly somewhere else.

The ETS basically lets the market set the price of carbon. The idea is that as emissions rise, the price rises, and the greater the economic incentive to move to less carbon intensive activities – and the greater the incentive for tree planting etc which reduces net emissions.

But here’s the problem. With the global failure to get an agreement post-Kyoto on emissions reductions, the price of carbon has fallen significantly. Also the GFC lead to a decrease in global economic activity and emissions. So it is a fair criticism of the ETS that it no longer provides much of an incentive to reduce emissions. This is not a fault of the NZ Government, but of the reality of the international economy.

The current price is around $5 per tonne.

The Greens are proposing a simple tax at $25 per tonne, with agricultural emissions at $12.50 per tonne. This has the advantage of certainity. It will provide more of an incentive in the short term. However if there is a future global agreement, then a simple carbon tax may end up providing less of a price signal than an ETS. Also the ETS allows the allocation of free units to reduce over time, which can be an effective way to reduce emissions.

It is positive that the Greens are not proposing a carbon tax as a way to just increase revenue for the Government. Their proposed tax cuts of no tax on the first $2,000 of income and a one cent reduction in company tax to 27% is welcome and does make the package relatively cost neutral.

My concern is that Governments in the future would increase the level of the carbon tax, with no corresponding income or company tax reductions. So would the level of the tax be something that only Parliament can change (like most taxes) or something that the Greens would allow the Government to alter in future.

The other issue is the wisdom of taxing agriculture when no other country does this, and in the absence of an international agreement or any significant way to reduce emissions short of just having fewer cows. I think at some stage agricultural emissions should be priced, but if we are the only country in the world doing so – then we may just export jobs and income to other countries.

But overall the proposed carbon tax does have some merits over the current ETS. If NZ does proceed with one, then there is a good way to set the price which may please both sceptics and non-sceptics. Tie the level of the tax to the mean global temperature. That way the level of the tax only increases if the mean global temperature increases. That way future Governments can’t use it as a cash cow.

The Conservative Party ran this ad full page in the Sunday newspapers. It said:

We couldn’t be futher apart on the political spectrum.

We stand for different things, but we respect any politician that stands up for what they believe in, unfortunately they’re a bit thin on the groud at the moment.

You can change all this on September 20.

I have to say that I think this as is quite brilliant. The public like a party that can praise a politician from the other side of the spectrum, and the message the Conservatives are trying to get across is that they are a party of principle, not pragmatism.

The ad also resulted in them getting the entire Page 2 of the Sunday Star-Times, which is some very useful free publicity.

The official list is here.

ONZ

Sir Ronald Powell Carter, KNZM, of Auckland. For services to New Zealand.

DNZM

The Honourable Susan Gwynfa Mary Glazebrook, of Wellington. For services to the judiciary.

The Honourable Lowell Patria Goddard, QC, of Wellington. For services to the law.

Ms Patricia Lee Reddy, of Wellington. For services to the arts and business.

KNZM

Mr Graeme Seton Avery, ONZM, of Hastings. For services to business and sport.

Mr Richard John Hayes, MNZM, of Te Anau. For services to Search and Rescue and the community.

Dr John Antony Hood, of Shipton Under Wychwood, United Kingdom. For services to tertiary education.

Mr Robert John Stewart, ONZM, of Christchurch. For services to manufacturing and the community.

Stuff reports:

Engineering supremo Sir Ron Carter has joined New Zealand’s most elite club, courtesy of the Queen’s Birthday honours.

Carter has been made a member of the Order of New Zealand, the country’s highest honour, which recognises outstanding service to the country and its people.

It is limited to 20 living members and with Carter’s addition there are now 17.

Carter, who was knighted for his service to engineering in 1998, is recognised in today’s honours for his contribution to infrastructure planning, governance, business and education.

His name is synonymous with Beca, a company that was tiny when he joined in 1959, but which became a major engineering force with its involvement in projects such as the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter, the Tasman Pulp and Paper Mill, and the Sky Tower.

He has served on the royal commission inquiring into the Christchurch earthquakes, chaired the Committee for Auckland, which laid the groundwork for the Auckland Council, and created a consortium in Auckland that helped position iwi as significant investors.

Today’s honours include three new dames and four knights.

Two of the dames are judges. Justice Susan Glazebrook, who serves on the Supreme Court bench and has served on many international human rights and law bodies, is honoured for her services to the judiciary.

Justice Lowell Goddard, who chaired the Independent Police Conduct Authority from 2007-12, is recognised for services to the law.

The other dame is Film Commission chairwoman Patsy Reddy, who is also deputy chairwoman of the New Zealand Transport Agency and chief Crown negotiator for Treaty settlements in Bay of Plenty. Her award is for services to the arts and business.

Knighthoods have gone to helicopter pilot Richard Hayes, businessman and sports administrator Graeme Avery, education leader John Hood and manufacturer Robert Stewart.

Hayes, from Te Anau, is one of the country’s best-known helicopter pilots, and is honoured with a knighthood for his services to the search and rescue movement and to the community.

Avery’s award recognises his services to business and sport. He has been involved with athletics for more than 40 years and with exports for more than 50 years through his former medical publishing business Adis International and his wine business Sileni Estates.

Hood is knighted for his services to tertiary education. The University of Auckland vice-chancellor from 1999 to 2004, he strengthened research throughout the institution during his time in charge and set up a new business school. He is president and chief executive of the Robertson Foundation in New York.

Stewart, the founder of Skope Industries which manufactures low energy commercial refrigerators that are exported around the world, is recognised for his services to manufacturing and the community. He has chaired the Health Research Council since 2002 and is well known for his philanthropic deeds in Canterbury.

Good to see someone who is not a politician appointed to the Order of New Zealand. Of their 17 members, seven are former or current politicians.

The Daily Mail reports:

The BBC was embroiled in an extraordinary censorship row last night after cutting the word ‘girl’ from a documentary about the Commonwealth Games, fearing it might cause ‘offence’.

Broadcaster Mark Beaumont, 31, joked after being hurled to the floor by a judo champion: ‘I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl.’

His remark was broadcast in full when the 30-minute episode of The Queen’s Baton Relay was first shown on the BBC News Channel in April.

But evidently sensitive to charges of sexism, BBC executives decided to edit out the word ‘girl’ when the programme was repeated last week, leaving an awkward pause in place of the offending word.

Asked by a viewer what had happened, Mr Beaumont tweeted: ‘Maybe the editor thought it was sexist – it wasn’t. I’m not worried about it.’

Even the judo champion involved, Cynthia Rahming, was left bemused. ‘I wasn’t offended – I didn’t find it sexist,’ she told The Mail on Sunday.

It doesn’t matter whether or not people think it was sexist. The BBC should not be censoring what someone said because it is politically incorrect. Deliberately editing a word or words out should only occur when it is a word not suitable for broadcast.

Feminist novelist Kathy Lette, 55, however, said: ‘If the athlete didn’t find it upsetting why should the BBC mount their politically correct high horse and gallop off into the sanctimonious sunset?’

Exactly.

Stuff reports:

A group of Anglicans in a small Canterbury community are vowing to take the battle for Christ Church Cathedral to the court of public opinion after a judge lifted a stay on a planned demolition of the 110-year-old building.

Justice Graham Panckhurst released findings on Friday lifting the stay on demolition of the cathedral.

However a small group of Anglicans say the fight is not over.

Akaroa resident Mike Norris organised a group of parishioners to meet and discuss what the decision meant for their battle to restore the cathedral.

“This is the beginning of the next stage of the campaign,” he said. “We have gone through the courts, which has not advanced our cause, now it is time to go through the court of public opinion.”

Again – it is not the public’s building.

It is their own church that overwhelmingly decided that the cathedral is too unsafe to rebuild. The decision is made. Get over it, and move on.

The HoS interviews Laila Harre:

Is it your purpose to destroy Prime Minister John Key, as this appears to be a motivation of your party founder Kim Dotcom?

We are determined to change the government of New Zealand come September. The global financial crisis in 2008 and the Canterbury earthquakes had a massive impact on people’s sense of security. This climate led to a rise in conservatism and a fear of change. We are now moving beyond that.

Translation: yes

What do you think of Kim Dotcom, his business practices and the charges he is facing?

He is a world expert in his field – a highly intelligent man who is serious and passionate about this party and public policy issues. I think New Zealanders feel embarrassed by our Government’s treatment of him as well as the misuse of our intelligence agency with regard to a number of other New Zealanders they have admitted to spying on. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the charges against Kim Dotcom.

Translation: He’s paying me $150,000 a year to lead his party before I jump ship to Mana. It’s great. He pays me much much more than the CTU and Greens did.

Your party is targeting young, disillusioned voters, but does a middle-aged woman have the credibility to pull this off?

I am connected to young people through my own two children, who are now young adults. 

You’re claiming a connection to young people, because you’re a parent? Oh dear. That’s exactly what old people say.

The Herald reports:

The David Cunliffe experiment has failed. Eight months into his leadership Labour is polling below what it was under Phil Goff and David Shearer.

The election is less than four months away.

The danger for Labour is that its poor polling will collapse its vote, as happened to National in 2002. Its low polling became a self-fulfilling and accelerating prophecy. Polls matter.

Labour’s unimpressive showing may well cause even more votes to drain across to the Greens and New Zealand First. …

Cunliffe has an added burden. His caucus didn’t want him. He was thrust on it by party members and the unions. That wouldn’t matter if he were succeeding. But he isn’t. There will be a lot of “I told you so” going on. The lack of caucus support makes a lonely job even lonelier.

And yet it remains a tight race. Labour could poll badly but still put a government together, with considerable concessions.

The Green’s Metiria Turei and Russel Norman would be deputy prime ministers and would dominate policy-making.

Winston Peters would be kingmaker and would demand his pound of flesh.

Hone Harawira would be Minister of Maori Affairs. The Internet Party would be in government being dictated to by Kim Dotcom.

A Labour-led Government with Labour on just 30% of the vote would be a very weak unstable Government. They would be just 60% or so of the entire Government.

It comes back to the polls. They put Cunliffe on the back foot and Key on the front. Cunliffe is now desperate. He needs a lift.

“I just need to push the polls up a bit. I need to change the story … hmmm. Immigration. That always works for Winston. I’ll give that a shot. I will dress it up as housing policy. The party’s woolly woofters will be upset. But what the hell? I’ve got nothing to lose.” It’s called dog-whistle politics. Sadly for Cunliffe, the only ones who heard it were Labour activists.

Getting desperate indeed.

That trend for Labour is very pronounced!

The newsletter summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 77, May 2014

 There were just four political polls in May – a Roy Morgan, a One News Colmar Brunton, a 3 News Reid Research and a Fairfax Ipsos.

The average of the public polls has National 19% ahead of Labour in May, up 5% from April. The current seat projection is centre-right 62 seats, centre-left 52 which would see a centre-right Government.

In Australia PM Tony Abbott’s approval rating has plummeted in the aftermath of the Budget. In one month it has gone from a net -10% to a net -29%. Two months ago he was 6% ahead as Preferred PM, and now is 11% behind Bill Shorten.

In the United States little change in the US this month, despite the scandal over veterans’ care. 

In the UK Labour has a narrow 3% lead over the Conservatives but Ed Miliband continues to have awful approval ratings. The UKIP was the big winner in the Council and European elections. Scottish independence polls show the no vote ahead by 7% to 12% with an average 10% gap.

In Canada the Liberals and Conservatives are projected to be almost neck and neck in terms of likely seats won.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. A new third table has been added, comparing approval ratings for opposition leaders in the four countries that have one.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the Budget, immigration, house prices, interest rates, spending, marriage and smacking plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Someone called Geoff (note not brave enough to use his full name) at The Standard asked:

Why does David Farrar hate Winston Peters so much?

The answer incidentally, which I provide at the end of the 200 comments or so, is:

Best ever thread on The Standard. I love the side-track into astrology.

I guess it would be far too simple to ask me directly why I dislike Winston as a politician.

It goes back to the early 1990s when he defamed numerous people under parliamentary privilege, including several neutral public servants. He once made the mistake of repeating his lie outside Parliament and got done by Selwyn Cushing for defamation.

I was a member of the Young Nationals Executive that in 1992 (off memory) asked the Party’s National Executive to expel Peters from the party. So the conspiracy theories about Brendan Horan and the like are amusing, but rather off the planet.

I could also add on half a dozen other reasons for my dislike of Peters (which is rare – I like most MPs) such as his splitting up the Coalition in 1998, his lies over the Owen Glenn donations, his racist scaremongering against Asians etc. But we don’t have all day. Suffice to say my position on Peters has been rather consistent for 20 years or so.

But what I love are the various comments from the assorted commenters (again none willing to use their actual names) which include:

“Heard Farrar on RNZ today. Confirmed two things – he has a voice best suited to silent movies and he has nothing interesting to add to political debate. “

“yeah well they are all complete arseholes and we’ve all seen far, far too much of those hagged, wrinkled tory scumbags over the years so it’s entirely understandable we’ve ruled them out.
The problem with tories is they’re all psychopaths that hate the idea of people working together. Why would any sane person really care to listen to their stupid opinions??”

“Nah, it’s David Farrar. He’s a bad person. He’s working hard to make most peoples’ lives worse.”

“It is very, very simple and understandable, that David Farrar dislikes Winston and NZ First. They are the most unpredictable factor in the coming election. David Farrar is a Virgo by star sign, that means he likes order, control and such, and that is what leaves him in a situation, where “disorder’ and “unpredictable situations” just cause too much distress to him, he simply cannot cope with that.

So here we go, Winston is anyway the total “enfant terrible” in NZ politics, he may be in the game, he may not be, but for the fact nobody, least Fart(arse) aka Farrar can predict anything, it is an element that causes irritation and disturbance. Farrar better book another trip to climb another mountain, if he cannot bear the unpredictable and insecure situation.”

“Because winston is dashing and debonaire and is a hit with chicks while he farrar is a snivelling little tory kiss ass suckup with zits.”

“Farrar is a grossly over-entitled political parasite, a Wellington courtesan who loves being near power and exercising power and imaging he can manipulate the powerful. As an unelected player, he joins the Gowers and the Garners and the rest of the incestuous parasites on the democratic establishment who are drunk on the idea of being able to exercise their power without fear of any responsibility or of being held accountable by democratic means.”

“David Farrar is John Key’s Mini – Me !”

“Thanks to this thread I now have a disturbing image of Farrar being the court eunuch ‘ Varys’ aka ‘ the spider’, from the Game of Thrones ……….. just out of interest does he get around in silk robes ?”

“farrar hates everyone. thats the nub.”

The suggestion that my dislike of Winston is because I am a Virgo is my personal favourite. I also like the comparison to Varys – I take it as a compliment, even if not intended as such 🙂

Yahoo News reports:

Organic farmer Steve Marsh has lost a landmark Supreme Court damages case against a neighbour who grew genetically modified canola.

The case, which pitted Mr Marsh against Kojonup neighbour Mike Baxter, attracted worldwide attention and today’s judgment is expected to have major ramifications for farming in Australia.

Justice Ken Martin dismissed Mr Marsh’s claims. A decision on costs was reserved.

Mr Marsh claimed he lost certified organic status on his farm because Mr Baxter failed in his duty of care to prevent contamination from his GM crop. He sought damages of $85,000 and an indefinite ban on Mr Baxter planting and harvesting GM crops.

In his judgment summary, Justice Martin dismissed both causes of action against Mr Baxter – common law negligence involving the breach of a duty to ensure there was no escape of GM material, and the tort of private nuisance.

Evidence at trial was that Roundup Ready (RR) canola swathes were harmless to animals, people and land unless the canola seed germinated in the soil and cross-fertilised.

“There was no evidence at the trial of any genetic transference risks posed by the RR canola swathes blown into Eagle Rest at the end of 2010,” Justice Martin said.

The full court judgment is here.

I quite paragraph 326:

First, as is now established, it has not been shown from any evidence led at this trial that GM canola per se is in any way physically dangerous or injurious to persons, animals or to property.

A win for science. A loss for hysteria.

The NZ Initiative continues it series:

Try to envisage a world in which you wake up every morning from your bed, manufactured by Kiwibed, prepare your breakfast of Kiwibread and Kiwicoffee, and put on your clothes – made by Kiwiclothes, no less.

Oh my God, they’ve been leaked a copy of Labour’s manifesto!

This may sound like a nightmare to some, where practically all goods and services are produced by nationalised and monopolised industries, and are shielded from the price-reducing effects of private competition. And yet, this was the reality under Soviet style communism, and not too dissimilar to many major OECD countries up until the early 1980s.

Nationalisation refers to the purchase of privately owned corporations, industries and resources by a government. Often, it occurs with the intention of maintaining wealth-generating assets in public control, preventing labour exploitation and large-scale layoffs, or trying to ensure the fair distribution of income generated by a state’s national resources. Whether this always works in practise is an entirely different question.

In New Zealand, there have been a number of high-profile nationalisations including the purchase of the Bank of New Zealand in 1945 by the Nash government, Tranz Rail in 2001, Air New Zealand in 2003 and the remaining rail network in 2004. Most recently there was the 2008 purchase of the rolling stock and ferries from Toll New Zealand.

Historically and globally, industries that have commonly been subject to nationalisation have been those in the transport, communications, energy, banking, utilities, and natural resources sectors.

Nationalised industries are meant to operate in the public interest. Unfortunately, the consequences of nationalisation have, in practice, often resulted in greater inefficiency, reduced productivity, limited consumer choice, poor service and higher consumer prices. Those who remember the 1980s can probably recall the exorbitant costs of a long-distance call under the state-run model.

Privatisation on the other hand – the opposite of nationalisation – opens a company to private competition, encouraging the offer of better service, more choice and lower prices, all the while realising a decent profit margin. However, not all privatisations are entirely successful on all counts.

A notable case was that of British Rail between 1994 and 1997, which did not reduce ticket prices as predicted, instead creating one of the most expensive train systems in the world. It did, however, result in improved safety, timeliness and increased patronage.

Nationalisation and privatisation will always illicit vigorous public debate on whether one or the other is right or wrong. However, when it comes to where we sleep, what we eat, and what we wear at the very least, we would all much rather have more and better choices at lower, more competitive prices.

To say it with a famous advertising slogan: there are some things that markets can’t do. But, for everything else, there is capitalism.

And we have proposals for KiwiBuild, KiwiPower and no doubt one day KiwiFood!

The Greens have announced:

The Green Party today launched a $29 million plan to improve the health of young people aged 13-17, including making GP visits free for this group.

This is on top of their promise of $100 million for health hubs in schools, $100 million for “retaining health care capacity” and $50 million for higher wages.

That’s $280 million a year just on one policy – which is basically the entire surplus gone. So are they going to raise taxes, or have us stay in deficit?

TVNZ reports:

The statistics have sparked debate on whether plain packaging for sugary food products should be introduced, like that being argued for tobacco products.

Speaking to TVNZ’s Breakfast, Auckland University marketing expert Dr Mike Lee says plain packaging for sugary drinks could come into play over the next ten years.

The proposal for plain packaging for tobacco products has caused an uproar with concerns it could spill over into fast food and alcohol products, says Mr Lee.

“There is the worry from companies that we are going to become more and more of a nanny state,” he told the programme.

That is the game plan. Anything they disapprove of will be banned, or plain packaged.

David Cunliffe has been careful to not rule doing a deal with the Mana-Dotcom Alliance to form a Government.  And despite the public statements about wanting to win te Tai Tokerau, multiple sources say the Matt McCarten is battling to give Mana the seat (and Matt helped set Mana up, and took over the Alliance from Mana)

What is fascinating is the number of Labour MPs who are going against the leadership, and condemning what Mana and Dotcom have done – in quick strident language.

First you had Chris Hipkins:

The good old days, when political parties formed from movements. Now all it takes is a couple of million and some unprincipled sellouts.

— Chris Hipkins (@chrishipkins) May 29, 2014

So Chris is calling Hone and Laila unprincipled sellouts. Then Kelvin Davis says what he really thinks:

@AndrewRiddell1 @NzMorningReport Bro, I think of the people of Te Tai Tokerau, not Sergeant Shultz. — Kelvin Davis (@NgatiBird) May 30, 2014

Interestingly Kelvin appears to have now deleted the tweet, but he calls Dotcom by the name normally used by Whale Oil.

Then we have former Labour Leader Phil Goff:

Goff says (correctly) Dotcom is trying to buy the political system. His Facebook post also appears to have now been deleted, so it looks like the leadership is trying to whip the caucus into line and stop them criticising the Mana-Dotcom Alliance. Because the more they criticise it, the harder it is for Cunliffe not to rule them out of a coalition.

I’ll be very very interested to see a poll in Te Tai Tokerau. I’m not sure voters there will be any more keen on Kim Dotcom purchasing a political party, than these Labour MPs are. David can win the seat by just campaigning on this issue. The question is – will he be allowed to?

Also of amusement is that the Internet Party Leader’s new press secretary is Pam Corkery, so it really is the Alliance being reunited. But what is very amusing is that Laila Harre only found out that Corkery was her press secretary while on radio:

And then after she got off air, Laila Harre made a phone call and found out that it IS true and pam IS her new press sec. lol.

— Jessica Williams (@mizjwilliams) May 30, 2014

Can’t make this up.

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

A return to 10-year passports appears to be on the horizon after the Prime Minister said the Government was considering the issue and advice was that modern biometrics technology was strong enough to address passport fraud security issues.

Mr Key said yesterday he would not rule it out after a select committee report recommended 10-year passports almost a decade after New Zealand moved to 5 year passports. That was in response to security concerns after the New York Twin Tower attacks on September 11 2001.

He expected the cost of a 10-year passport would be more than a 5-year passport, but for many people it was an issue of convenience rather than cost.

Mr Key said New Zealand had expected most other countries would also move to shorter term passports. However, that had not happened – countries including Australia and the United States were still at 10-year lengths. “I think the general view of officials has started to be that if you really wanted to move to 10 years, you wouldn’t be out of step with other countries.”

He was waiting for Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne to report to the Government on the matter, which he expected to happen soon.

That sounds encouraging. As many countries won’t let you travel within six months of your passport expiring, a five year term is really too short.

Temptation to refer to the Opposition as "David Cunliffe and his Gimps" (Greens, Internet, Mana, Peters) nearly overwhelming.

— BK Drinkwater (@BKDrinkwater) May 29, 2014

Superb.

The Herald reports:

John Banks made every effort to keep “politically sensitive” donations to his failed 2010 Auckland mayoralty bid secret, the Crown says, but Banks’ lawyer argues the politician had nothing to gain from that and is a victim of Kim Dotcom-orchestrated lies.

The nothing to gain is a significant aspect to this. Banks was the loser, not the winner, of the campaign. When he filed the return he was not planning a political future. Revealing the Dotcom donation and the Sky City one would not have damaged him in any way.

Mr Jones pointed out inconsistencies in prosecution evidence ? Mrs Dotcom said she was present when donations were discussed, Mr Dotcom said she was not.

Now the pair were separated, Mr Dotcom couldn’t rely on her to support him so took her out of the picture, Mr Jones said.

But Mrs Dotcom went along with the earlier agreed version of events and that “proves the lie”.

And former Dotcom accountant Grant McKavanagh originally said he travelled down to Queenstown and posted the cheques there, when they were actually deposited into Banks’ account at a North Shore Westpac.

When that was pointed out Mr McKavanagh couldn’t explain his “fairytale” evidence, Mr Jones said.

That piece of evidence is bizarre. How could you get wrong a claim that you travelled to Queenstown to post the cheques?

The Crown had failed to put forward a motivation for Banks to falsely declare donations and Mr Dotcom wasn’t even on the public radar in 2010.

Mr Jones said Banks’ campaign was financially transparent.

His team had chosen not to use a secret trust to channel payments, as was allowed, and on one occasion when Banks was handed a cheque, he banked it and informed Mr Hutchison of the situation.

Banks should have done what Len Brown and David Cunliffe did, and set up a secret trust. However he didn’t, and he should have taken more care with his donations return. It isn’t good enough to rely on someone else, when you are the guy who signs it.

Also of interest is the court judgement against TV3. Extracts:

In the present case, I am in no doubt that the footage of Mr Banks broadcast by TV3/Media Works in the 6 o’clock news bulletin on 22 May 2014 was neither fair, nor balanced. It did not respect Mr Banks’ rights. It was gratuitous and tasteless. The justifications advanced by Ms Bradley were, in my view, disingenuous. The footage broadcast did not show Mr Banks’ reaction to the interview being played in court. Rather, it was a sideshow broadcast seemingly to entertain. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the broadcast was intended to expose Mr Banks to ridicule and/or derision. There was, in my judgment, no news value in the footage at all, and no public interest was served by broadcasting it. In my judgment, TV3/Media Works’ decision to broadcast the footage was irresponsible and it reflects no credit on the organisation.

What makes this worse for TV3 is the decision was not taken by some junior staff member. The decision was made the the general counsel and the deputy head of news and current affairs.

It seems TVNZ may also be in some trouble. They were responsible for the camera and it was meant to be turned off after the first 15 minutes of the day. The Judge has asked TVNZ to also explain why it was left on.

The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security has published two reports, both interesting.

The first report is into the incorrect data in the GCSB annual report. It had previously been disclosed and corrected. This was a pretty serious error, and to be honest if it occurred again you’d expect the responsible staff to resign.

Frustratingly we are not told how the error occurred. The IG says “any worthwhile account of the processes involved carries severe security risks”.

The second report is about the SIS and their interactions with a resident whose house they had a warrant to search. The resident is not named, but it has been widely reported to be Rajesh Singh – a former Fiji Minister who was suspected of being involved in a plot to kill Commodore Frank Bainimarama. It is somewhat ironic that the official policy of the NZ Government is that the Commodore is an illegitimate traitor, yet they also help protect him from assassination plots (which is the correct thing to do).

Anyway Singh has multiple complaints about the SIS behaviour during the raid. The Inspector-General dismisses all but one of them, noting that the evidence of Mr Singh is less credible than those of the two SIS agents and two police officers.

The one thing the IG does ping the SIS for is Agent A saying:

“would not tolerate [redacted] whether in New Zealand or not. Anyone involved in planning would be dealt with by the NZ police … A told [the complainant] he should be careful who he spoke to about the topics which had been discussed.”

The IG says that the role of the SIS is to gather intelligence only, not enforce security.

Basically the SIS agent should have got the Police officer to tell Mr Singh not to get involved in assassination plots, rather than tell him directly. It’s not a huge issue, but it is important to have the roles clearly defined.

From DC’s Twitter account. As always go for funny, not nasty.

Nicotine Policy reports:

Over 50 leading scientists from 15 countries have written to Margaret Chan Director-General of the World Health Organization to ask WHO reconsider its intention to classify e-cigarettes the same as regular cigarettes, warning that they risk missing an opportunity to drastically reduce smoking and the illness and death associated with it.

Ahead of the WHO sponsored Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) meeting in Moscow this October, the scientists have reacted to aleaked document from a FCTC preparatory meeting indicating that the WHO considers e-cigarettes a “threat” to public health and intends to sideline their use as an accessible alternative to regular tobacco and cigarettes. Snus is already included in the FCTC.

In their letter to WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, the 53 signatories argue that tobacco harm reduction products could play a significant role in meeting the 2025 UN objectives to reduce non-communicable diseases. E-cigarettes and other safer nicotine products are part of the solution, not part of the problem, they say.

This is an incredibly significant letter. The signatories to the letter (includes two NZers) are all highly respected specialists in public health and anti-smoking policy.

Anti-smoking activists tend to fall into two categories. Some, like the letter signatories, are focused entirely on reducing harm from smoking. They want (as I do) to have fewer people smoking, and getting lung cancer and other diseases from smoking.

The other category of activists focus on trying to damage the companies that sell the products they don’t like – whether it be tobacco, fast food, soft drinks, alcohol or whatever. They like, for example, plain packaging, because it may hurt companies they don’t like – even if there is no evidence it reduces smoking rates.

So this group of specialists is telling the WHO that it would be a very bad mistake to treat e-cigarettes the same as tobacco. They are an alternative product that causes far less harm and can get people off tobacco.

Ironically in New Zealand, e-cigarettes are currently banned.

As I said, the letter from the public health specialists is very significant. The two NZ signatories are Dr Murray Laugeson and Associate Professor Chris Bullen (Director, National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland). Dr Laugeson is spent 18 years as the principal medical officer for the Ministry of Health and his CV states he is NZ’s most experienced researcher on smoking policy and cigarettes.

Perhaps the Government would do better to look at allowing e-cigarettes, as promoted by the signatories, rather than pursing measures that have not been found to be effective?

The Herald reports:

In four months, Green MPs could become government ministers for the first time in their party’s 24-year history.

The final make-up of a Labour-Greens government would depend on several factors, in particular the role of NZ First in a possible coalition.

But if Greens are part of the government and portfolios are divided proportionally, they could expect to have up to seven ministers.

Maybe even more. They could be a third of the Government caucus, and hence get say nine out of 28 ministerial slots.

The Greens want significant portfolios in three areas – economic, social issues and environment.

Doesn’t leave much! I suppose we should be grateful they don’t want Defence!

Labour has ruled out giving Green co-leader Russel Norman the finance portfolio. He is expected to fight for the economic development role.

But he might not be trusted to manage a portfolio which includes oil exploration and mining. Instead, it could be split between two people, and Dr Norman put in charge of green investment or green innovation.

The Greens have unveiled a proposal for a $120 million Green Investment Bank, for which Dr Norman could be made responsible.

Co-leader Metiria Turei would seek a prominent social issues portfolio. It is understood that she has her heart set on being minister of education.

Shudder. The Greens in charge of the country’s education system.