Stuff reports:

Small listed companies have performed significantly worse under Labour governments over the past 40 years because of major policy changes, a report says.

The report, produced by Massey University economics and finance senior lecturer Dr Chris Malone and associate professor Hamish Anderson, looked at the results of about 500 NZX listed companies since 1972.

“The smaller firms have done abysmally poor during Labour terms of office,” Malone said.

So why?

“We have attempted to ask the question why that has happened and it does appear to be related to policy reform.”

Companies were classified as large or small by splitting the sample at the median capitalisation.

Small firms had average monthly returns of about 0.7 per cent under Labour and between 1.4 per cent and 1.8 per cent under National.

Monthly returns for large listed firms were only slightly better when National was in power, he said.

So a National Government doesn’t help big business, but small business.

BusinessNZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly said the research made a valuable point.

“It’s policy uncertainty and radical policy change that will tend to destroy business confidence,” O’Reilly said.

Businesses wanted policy that was well-signalled, evidence based and supportive towards business growth.

Businesses tended to hold off investing and employing until the impact of policy changes were known, he said.

Even what may appear to be a minor change such as the KiwiSaver contribution rate can have a significant impact on a small business. Your payroll software needs to change. Your employee records need to change, and you ofte then spend weeks or months correcting errors with the IRD.

Regardless of the merits of a Capital Gains Tax, it would hit small businesses badly. It’s easy for a large business to value all its assets and work out capital gains. A small business will not have internal accountants but instead have to spend tens of thousands of dollars hiring external accountants to do this.

Large businesses have HR divisions to cope with changes in employment laws. Small businesses generally will not, and again be hit hardest with any changes.

Stuff reports:

A fraudster’s victim who fought back has won a landmark battle to name and shame the man who scammed him and dozens of others.

Nearly two and a half years ago, Steve Taylor contracted Grant Norman King to build a sleepout for his elderly father behind the family home in West Auckland.

Taylor paid three-quarters of the price – $23,500 – as a deposit. The sleepout was never built and the money was not returned.

In a bid to get even, Taylor brought civil proceedings against King but when the cost of continuing the case became prohibitive, he took a different tack, setting up the website grantnormanking.com with the intention of warning others who might be drawn in.

Within months other victims were clamouring to tell their stories and it was not long before Taylor built a comprehensive timeline of King’s offending.

King then tried to turn the legal tables on Taylor by using the Harassment Act to sue Taylor and demand the website be taken down.

Taylor was forced into Auckland District Court to defend himself.

However, that was King’s mistake. “What he did was open up the opportunity for every other victim to tell their story, which was the very thing he was advocating against,” Taylor said.

Affidavits in support of Taylor’s cause flooded in and he said it was surreal to be standing in court with the public gallery full of people backing him.

In court Judge David Wilson sided with Taylor and said the website, with all its explosive accusations, could remain online. “It would be inappropriate if a man in Mr King’s position could close down postings of essentially factual material on the basis that it interferes with his commercial plans and deprives him of customers,” the judge said.

Exactly.

“I accept Mr King is distressed by the postings but in my view that distress arises because he would prefer potential customers were unaware of his history and is not such as justifies the making of restraining orders.”

Lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, who advised Taylor and has been the victim of online harassment herselft, said the judge’s decision showed free speech was alive and well.

She said the unique nature of the case, setting a new precedent in harassment laws, meant it was already being used by media law professors at Auckland University.

Taylor’s website also resulted in King being punished. Since setting up the website, Taylor said more than 70 victims had come forward, across a 32-year span, claiming losses of more than $3 million.

Nice.

Madeleine has commented:

The law appears to now stand that if someone repeatedly publishes attacks on another person online this action can constitute harassment under the act if the information is harmful, baseless and untrue. However, if the blogger has a lawful purpose for releasing the information and it is either true, or they have reasonable belief that it is true, then even if that information is highly offensive and causes distress, such conduct is lawful and does not fall foul of harassment law.

The judgement is below. I welcome it.

King v Taylor

d

I’ve blogged at curiablog the results of the One News Colmar Brunton poll and the 3 News Reid Research poll.

They are very close to each other. What they have in common is:

• National up significantly
• Labour down
• National above 50%
• Labour on or below 30%
• NZ First close to or above the 5% threshold
• National around 10% ahead of Labour/Greens combined
• Cunliffe still lower than David Shearer was for Preferred Prime Minister

There’s now only 118 days until the election.

Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe did not respond to requests for comment, but during debate in Parliament last year called the law “tawdry” and said “there is exactly the same probability of an alien invasion from Mars as there is of boat people from Indonesia or ‘Wogistan”‘.

Crystal clear. Any talk of boat people coming to NZ is rubbish Labour said. But …

Under cover of darkness last Wednesday night, eight cars containing around 50 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh slipped out of the mountain town of Cisarua, 60km south of Indonesia’s capital Jakarta, and drove towards the coast.

The tension was palpable. They’d been holed up in a villa for weeks waiting for this moment, the first step on a long, treacherous journey they hoped would end in a new life in faraway New Zealand.

The passengers, all adults, had paid people-smugglers deposits of around $US500 ($585), with the remaining $US5000 ($5800) or so due if they reached their destination.

But their dreams were dashed at the last minute. Although corrupt officials had been paid off, according to sources, it wasn’t enough – police intercepted them and the group was turned around.

They are now back in Cisarua, the disillusioned walking away, the desperate vowing to give it another go in the next few days.

The Sunday Star-Times learned of the plan to send a boat of 50 asylum seekers to New Zealand during a joint investigation with Fairfax Australia.

We obtained video footage of the boats involved in the plan, listened to secret recordings of a money-changer talking about New Zealand as the best option now that Australia is “closed”, and, posing as an asylum seeker, contacted the smuggling kingpin.

How can this be? David Cunliffe told us that boat people trying to come to NZ had the same probability as an invasion from Mars.

No asylum boat has ever made it to New Zealand but the current operation is the third attempt in recent months.

Three attempts in as many months.

Stuff reports:

Chuang said in good economic times Asians were blamed for buying all the houses, in bad economic times they were blamed for taking jobs.

This is very true.

Partly related to the issue that when lots of NZers are leaving New Zealand, oppositions call it a crisis – yet when the numbers reverse, they then also call it a crisis.

Stuff reports:

A shake-up of the Green party list sees older MPs plunge in the rankings.

Second-term MPs Kennedy Graham and Catherine Delahunty slide down the list, leapfrogged by Julie Anne Genter, Mojo Mathers, and Eugenie Sage, all elected in 2011.

Gareth Hughes scales two places into the top five. The biggest loser is agriculture spokesman Steffan Browning, plummeting five places to the 15th spot.

It may see him struggle to return to Parliament if the Greens don’t increase their share of the vote in September’s election. Denise Roche falls two places, overtaken by Wellington Central candidate James Shaw.

Co-leaders Metiria Turei and Russel Norman take out the top two spots. Co-convener Georgina Morrison said there were six new faces in the top 20, with 10 men and women and four Maori.

A draft list was put together by candidates and delegates and issued in March, and then voted on by members. Shaw, Logie, Roche, Delahunty and Hutt South-based Holly Walker were all ranked lower by the rank and file.

Somewhat annoyingly the article doesn’t give actual rankings for candidates, so one can’t tell exactly where everyone is placed. It sounds like the changes from the draft list are relatively minor. Of course even a change of one ranking though can be critical for those on the cusp.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Anyone who kids themselves that there is life after Winston Peters for NZ First only had to watch the party floundering in the absence of its leader this week.

Frantically trying to head off an attack by their former colleague, expunged NZ Firster Brendan Horan, Peters’ front bench achieved the seemingly impossible feat of making Horan look good by comparison.

They were clueless in the face of Horan’s determination to extract utu from his former party by tabling documents he claimed showed improper use of the taxpayer funded leader’s fund. …

With its leader knocking 70, NZ First is a clock that has been slowly winding down since the 1996 election delivered Peters the balance of power.

The core team around Peters back then was a new generation of swaggering and smart young Maori MPs who might have ensured the party’s survival. Peters’ greatest flaw as a politician has been his inability to hold on to any of them or, for that matter, the MPs who followed.

Since the original caucus bustup back in 1997, he has surrounded himself with increasingly eccentric and obscure MPs to fill the seats vacated by the older and wiser heads he managed to burn off over the years. Of his current caucus, only one – the nanna-like Barbara Stewart – is carried over from the 2005-2008 parliamentary term (NZ First spent a term out of Parliament).

Since the party’s return in 2011, Parliament has been collectively holding its breath waiting for the current team to implode given some of the more eccentric selections – like former North Shore mayor Andrew Williams, notorious for urinating in a public place.

The implosion hasn’t happened yet but there have been plenty of flaky moments. Richard Prosser launched a diatribe against Muslims that prompted hundreds of complaints to the NZ First board. The party’s Pasifika MP, Asenati Lole-Taylor, famously asked questions of the police minister in Parliament about blow jobs and has carved out a cult following on Twitter for her bizarre outbursts. Her most recent was to accuse a press gallery journalist of cyber bullying after he referred to her “shooting the messenger”. Lole-Taylor thought he was alleging she had shot an actual parliamentary messenger.

That is so so funny.

The reason the politicians are rubbing their hands in glee, however, is that nastiness on the campaign trail inevitably boomerangs on the politician pushing the button, which is why parties are tripping over themselves to accuse each other of playing in the dirtiest pool.

When Labour leader David Cunliffe told a Rotorua audience that John Key was a liar, for instance, the prime minister’s office was delighted. After the story was moved from the Stuff.co.nz home page because of concerns about a lack of balance, Key’s office complained to Fairfax.

It would have preferred the headline labelling Key a liar to remain online all day if possible. In its view, it did far more damage to Cunliffe than it did to Key.

I agree, it did.

Stuff reports:

However, some of the cases appear to be genuinely on behalf of regular constituents.

Williamson wrote to former commissioner Howard Broad in 2008 on behalf of the mother of a young constituent in his electorate.

While the details of the troubles the boy had got into were redacted from the letter, the mother had reported to Williamson that her son had experienced “a very heavy-handed approach to a not so serious situation,” Williamson wrote.

“A simple warning by the police officer involved in a case such as has been presented to me would appear to have sufficed,” Williamson said.

He would “appreciate” it if Broad would investigate, he added.

A year later in 2009, Williamson again wrote to Broad, on behalf of another constituent who had come to New Zealand hoping to join the police, but was now in a “catch-22” because of immigration rules.

“[Name deleted] has had a number of years of service … and his CV … shows that he would appear to make an excellent serving police officer,” Williamson said.

He asked Broad to investigate whether anything could be done for him.

An MP can contact Police on some issues. The examples above are Maurice Williamson doing what most electorate MPs would do. The Dong Liu case was different as that was a call on behalf of a defendant in a case under active consideration for prosecution. That was inappropriate, but these other communications are quite routine and expected,

The Herald reports:

The Labour Party has re-opened nominations for the Auckland-based Maori electorate of Tamaki Makaurau following a decision to block the nomination of former TVNZ Maori news manager and broadcaster Shane Taurima.

It has also issued a statement of regret about how its actions may have affected Mr Taurima.

Mr Taurima resigned from TVNZ after it was discovered he had been campaigning for Labour while working there.

It has re-opened nominations until next Wednesday afternoon.

Poor Will Flavell. Basically a vote of no confidence in him. This is the second time they have reopened niminations in an electorate when basically they don’t like the sole nominee.

In a statement issued this afternoon, the New Zealand council said the decision to re-open nominations had the support of the local electorate committee.

It also said: “The NZ Council has also resolved that it regrets any adverse impact on Shane Taurima’s professional reputation that may have occurred as a result of its decision not to grant Mr Taurima a waiver to contest the candidate selection in Tamaki Makaurau this year.

“We retain a high regard for Shane’s abilities and believe he has a positive future with our party.”

Sounds like he threatened to sue.

3 News reports:

Mega founder Kim Dotcom been denied access to evidence against him to be used in his upcoming extradition hearing.

Dotcom had applied for documents held by the Security Intelligence Service (SIS), Immigration New Zealand, police, Customs, Corrections and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), but a District Court decision released today has dismissed the application. …

In declining the other documents, Judge Dawson said the evidence and submissions “fell well short” of what was needed to consider granting the applications.

He also said there was “no reasonable basis” for granting the application for the documents.

“It bears all the hallmarks of a fishing expedition that would involve an extensive amount of time and resources to satisfy with a very low likelihood of it producing evidence relevant to the extradition hearing.”

It is worth quoting the judgement:

[47] To date, there is no evidence of any nexus between the Prime Minister’s meeting with the CEO of Warner Bros with Mr Dotcom’s residency applications other than the coincidence of the times of events pointed to by him. There is also an alternate explanation that could be advanced. Mr Dotcom had become impatient over what he perceived as delays with his residency application and informed INZ that his application could be withdrawn if it was not granted by 1 November 2010. The residency application was granted on 30 October 2010. It is feasible that INZ granted the residency application of a high net-worth person who was pressuring them for a decision.

[48]The respondents need to prove some nexus between Mr Dotcom being granted residency and his claim of untoward political pressure being placed upon immigration officials to grant his residency other than hypothesised coincidence. In addition, they would need to show links between the INZ, NZSIS, the Prime Minister, the CEO of Warner Bros and the Applicant [the US government, my brackets] which showed the Applicant’s involvement in the actions of the New Zealand agencies. They would then need to show some illegal action by the Applicant indicating there was an abuse of process that would lead this court to provide some sanction against the Applicant in this case. To date they have not done so. Nor has it been shown that INZ and the NZSIS were acting as agencies for the Applicant at this time.”

[49] The Respondents’ applications are based upon Mr Dotcom’s theory which is based upon evidence which has a plausible alternative explanation. They lack any “air of reality” as they rely upon a perceived coincidence. These applications are in the nature of a fishing expedition, made in the hope of flushing out evidence which may be useful to the Respondents. Even if it was successful it is highly unlikely that it would be evidence that might assist the Respondents to counter any of the Applicants’ evidence in the ROC. If evidence of improper political involvement was found, it would not impact upon the extradition hearing. It may or may not impact upon other court proceedings, but it is not the role of this court to grant discovery orders that may or may not be relevant to other proccedings.

The Judge must have missed seeing the Campbell Live programme!

This is a major setback to Dotcom. His defence seems to be based on this conspiracy theory, and the court has said it has no air of reality. That’s strong language.

The extradition date is set for 7 July but one of the parties (I suspect Dotcom) has asked for a deferral – maybe hoping for a delay until Russel Norman is Minister of Justice!

Photo sent in by a reader. Have fun below with your captions. As always they should be funny, not nasty.

Whale Oil blogs:

Earlier today I busted Fairfax with their radical censorship of an article that was published yesterday.

Huge amounts of the original article were expunged and replaced with additions that made no sense. So much was removed that it shows clear manipulation of the story by someone.

WOBH contacted Labour and received an emphatic denial that they were involved in censoring the story. The spokesman for David Cunliffe said “We aren’t that powerful”.

Contact was also made with John Key’s people who as predicted said it wasn’t them.

I stand by my statement earlier that John Key probably laughed out loud when he saw David Cunliffe was calling him a liar.

It is worth following the links to the original story.

The Stuff article, here, originally had as its lead paragraph David Cunliffe saying the Prime Minister is a liar and his word can’t be trusted. They also had a direct quote from him saying “John Key tells lies”.

Now my reaction when I saw the original story was that it just made David Cunliffe look shrill and nasty, and that the more people who saw the article the better.

When Fairfax changed the story an hour later, I assumed they had got the quote wrong and Cunliffe never said what they reported.

However it seems Cunliffe does think it is a good strategy to go around NZ, and call John Key a liar. That’s fine. But why did Fairfax change the story to hide that? Did they think it was defaming John Key? Or did they think it made Cunliffe look too shrill?

Answers to those questions would be welcome.

It also raises the bigger issue of the practice of some media to significantly amend a story, and not note that have amended it. I think significant changes should always be noted.

A guest post by William Reid:

It is increasingly obvious that the prohibition of what legal highs attempt to replicate is shortsighted. People will continue to do whatever it is that they choose to do, which in this case is experimenting with a plant that has grown naturally for thousands of years. Whether or not this plant is illegal is irrelevant to them.

As it stands, the prohibition delivers three hits to New Zealand. The first is the cost of fighting violent cartels and this cost will only increase. This is a ‘war’ that will not end, so would it not be a better state of affairs if New Zealanders did not break the law and fund violent cartels every time they indulged?

The second hit is the lost revenue because of non-taxation. Instead of giving violent cartels an enormous revenue stream, why does the government not collect tax on the product so as to pay for its detrimental effects? A similar state of affairs exists with both alcohol and cigarettes, both of which would be illegal if judged by the same criteria as marijuana. There would be boosted revenues for the government in G.S.T, income tax and company tax, aside from the thousands of jobs that would be created for those in the industry.

The third hit is the lost entrepreneurial nous from a vast array of pragmatic, cunning and intelligent businesspeople. Skeptics please bear with me, but, from an objective standpoint, they run highly organized businesses that must continuously adapt to a rapidly changing and highly competitive business environment. Three regions in particular would benefit from these businesses becoming legitimate, Northland, Hawkes Bay and the West Coast of the South Island.

Decriminalisation would prevent ordinary, otherwise-law-abiding citizens from consuming public resources. The next step to legalisation would prevent violent cartels, with no respect for any laws, from controlling an enormous market that is currently off the books and has the potential to provide an economic boost to the regions of New Zealand.

None of these arguments are original and many may dismiss them, but these are discussions that are required. It is apparent to even those who do not partake in recreational inhalation that the current laws are in need of revision. 

People will continue to put anything they can find into their body, managing a problem by treating the causes is far better than reacting to the symptoms.

I think the results of what happens in Colorado and Washington states, which have legalised, will be influential. If those states do not have an increase in drug consumption and drug related harm, then other states and eventually countries will follow suit.

The Herald reports:

He’s thought to be the worst drink-driver in the country, yet there’s little keeping him off the roads.

Brian Mitchell Hart, 58, from Hawkes Bay, has 20 convictions for drink-driving and 11 for driving while disqualified, and has been sent to prison 33 times for these and other offences.

But every time he gets out, he gets his licence back, drinks again and gets back behind the wheel.

He has twice been disqualified from driving “indefinitely”.

On one of those occasions, in 2002, he underwent counselling and treatment for alcohol addiction and after an assessment by a government-approved counsellor, was approved to get his licence back by the New Zealand Transport Authority.

Under the law, the toughest sentence for repeat drink-drivers is indefinite disqualification, which can be imposed only under a specific set of circumstances.

Driving without a licence is obviously of no concern to Mr Hart, as is driving drunk.

I think you need an escalating penalty regime. But the problem is that the maximum sentence is just two years. Maybe we need a law change that says after perhaps your 10th drink driving conviction, then the maximum penalty increases by a year for each conviction up to say seven years.

Otherwise how else can you stop him?

I don’t think the question anymore is whether Tony Abbott has lost the next election, and the Coalition will be a one term Government.

I think the question is now how many terms in opposition will they have?

The only way they might recover is a change in leader. The trouble is Hockey is equally damaged and most of the caucus hate Malcolm Turnbull (but the public love him). Could Turnbull end up Prime Minister? Let’s see how bad the polls go in the next six months.

Photo from Judith Collins on Facebook.

The Herald reports:

A photo op of Justice Minister Judith Collins firing a pistol has led to a complaint to the police watchdog.

The National Shooters Association said Mrs Collins had broken the law because was not licensed to the use the weapon and had shot a pistol outside of a gun club.

A picture of the minister firing the gun at an ESR testing facility last month was placed on her Facebook page.

Association spokesman Richard Lincoln complained to Police Minister Anne Tolley, who referred the matter to police.

When police said they would not intervene because Mrs Collins had been supervised at the time, Mr Lincoln wrote a letter to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

He said he had laid the complaint because he wanted “one law for all”.

“We, as civilian gun owners, don’t want to have these laws imposed on us with what appears to be politicians taking liberties and exemptions that they’re not entitled to.”

How silly. She was under Police supervision. I don’t have a license but I’ve shot a gun under the supervision of someone who does.

He was also asked about Mrs Collins’ ownership of a taser, which usually required a special licence.

“You’d have to ask her. She’s never used it on me, so I’m not aware of her having one.”

Mrs Collins, a former Police Minister, said the taser was non-operational and was stored in a perspex box.

She said it could not be charged up, “although it would be tempting occasionally to be able to”.

Heh.

UPDATE: I understand the complainant, Mr Lincoln, has filed a previous complaint against Judith Collins. He alleged she was wielding a taser without authorisation. In fact she was wielding a powerpoint projector remote control. Oh dear.

The Herald reports:

Hostilities between independent MP Brendan Horan and his former NZ First colleagues have taken up yet more of Parliament’s time as Mr Horan made allegations of bullying behaviour under protection of Parliamentary privilege this afternoon.

Mr Horan today welcomed news Speaker David Carter was following up his allegations of misuse of Parliamentary funds by NZ First, but continued his attack during Parliament’s Question Time with a series of questions directed to Labour Minister Simon Bridges about bullying which appeared to thinly veiled references to MPs from his former party.

He asked Mr Bridges whether anti-bullying guidelines for the workplace would “provide protections to ensure that a member of Parliament or Party Leader cannot bully or intimidate a Parliamentary Service employee into conducting unlawful activities, for example accessing the emails of another member without that member’s permission?”.

With NZ First Leader Winston Peters still in Auckland this afternoon, it was up to his MP Richard Prosser to run interference on Mr Horan.

However his attempts to have Mr Horan’s questions ruled out of order were knocked back by Mr Carter.

While Mr Bridges said it was difficult to answer abstract questions, “I suspect that the matter the member refers to, if it was made out, is one for Parliamentary Services”.

Mr Horan followed up by asking whether the anti-bullying guidelines “mean that an employee who made a complaint to her employee who made a complaint to her employer about abusive emails and text messages from her boss should be able to respond to that person’s public denials without fear of legal action? If not why not?”.

It will be interesting to see what further information emerges.

The Dom Post editorial:

Immigrants are easy prey for political vultures. Demagogues can win votes by using foreigners as scapegoats, as has happened repeatedly in New Zealand’s history. So the argument about the effect of immigration on housing could easily turn poisonous. It’s important not to let that happen.

The Budget’s big surprise was the revelation of a turn in the usual tide of migration. The outward flow has turned into a net inward movement, mainly because fewer Kiwis are moving to Australia. Now there is concern that the inflow will push up house prices.

Panic measures will not help with this problem, as Labour seemed to realise soon after pledging a cut in net immigration. Asked exactly how big the cut would be, Labour faltered and fudged.

It was almost comical. David Cunliffe said they’d reduce it from 40,000 net to under 15,000. Phil Twyford went further and said it would be 5,000. Then Cunliffe claimed he’d never said what he said and said Twyford had it wrong.

Immigration flows cannot be turned off and on like a tap. The present trans-Tasman inflow could quite quickly reverse as the rebuilding of Christchurch reduces, our growth rate falls, and Australia’s economy rebounds. Big cuts in immigrant numbers would then exacerbate the renewed outward flow.

The country is entitled to control immigration and there might be room for some temporary reduction in immigrants. 

Maybe Labour will campaign on reducing the quota numbers for the Pacific Islands, around South Auckland.

Winston Peters’ anti-Asian campaigns in the 1996 and 2002 elections also caused unnecessary alarm. There is always a receptive audience for this kind of trouble-making, especially among the older, the frightened, and the bewildered.

All the loose talk about the “Asian invasion” and the predictions of racial trouble turned out to be hollow. Auckland now has a large Asian population, but there has been no bloodshed, no ethnic violence, no outbreaks of hatred. New Zealand has shown that it is on the whole a tolerant and welcoming society which copes well with change.

One can debate the size and pace of immigration. These are legitimate topics. But as I pointed out several days ago the number of residency visas is actually lower today than in 2008. The big change is fewer Kiwis are leaving NZ, and more Kiwis and Aussies are deciding to live here rather than in Australia.

The Herald editorial:

In theory, Labour’s policy of managing immigration seems eminently sensible. The party would, said David Cunliffe, aim for “a steady, predictable, moderate flow that’s at a level that addresses skill shortages”. In reality, however, such an approach is impractical. New Zealand has had enough experience with stop-go immigration policies to know that while it might be easy to turn off the tap, it can be extremely difficult to return the flow to the desired level. …

Labour says that threat could be defused by restricting the annual migrant intake to between 5000 and 15,000. It did not dwell on how that would affect the external perception of a policy that could no longer be said to be stable, sage or welcoming.

To reduce net migration to that level, you would need to abolish all residential visas and almost all work visas. Christchurch construction would of course come to a halt.

Additionally, Labour’s policy is based on a false premise. The latest net migration statistics reflect not so much a flood of immigrants as far fewer people being lured across the Tasman, in particular, and an increasing number of New Zealanders returning from Australia. 

I’m glad the leader writes read my blog 🙂

Last expedition to China was a success in many ways.  While it was mostly about the legal and illegal ivory markets we got a break up north to do some tiger-time.  The early Spring thaw had started so some of the local cats were happy to get some sunshine. Amur (or Siberian) tigers tend to have a thicker coat than the subspecies located further south…

Click for larger, higher res image

Stuff reports:

The Government will move to open up aspects of suicide reporting, in an effort to bring numbers of self-inflicted deaths down.

The bill comes after the Law Commission recommended changes to the way suicides were reported in the media.

The Government asked the commission to review the issue, including the role of social media in discussing suicide.

Courts Minister Chester Borrows and Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne announced today that the Government had agreed to all the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report.

Among those recommendations was that the media could report a suicide or a suspected suicide had occurred, but talking about the method or the place in which it occurred, if they suggested a certain method, were still off limits.

As I previously blogged, I think these changes are sensible, and am glad the Government has agreed to them.