Hekia Parata announced:

The number of students leaving school with an NCEA Level 2 qualification has seen a significant increase across the board in 2013, says Education Minister Hekia Parata.

The provisional results for 2013 show that 76.8 per cent of students left school with at least NCEA Level 2, compared with just over 74.3 per cent in 2012.

That’s an increase of 10.3 percentage points since 2008.

10% more students leaving school with a basic qualification is a great result. Students who leave with no qualification have a very dim future. If you want to make a difference to poverty and inequality, then having fewer students leave school without NCEA Level 2 is an important step along the way.

The change for Maori and Pasifika students is pronounced:

• Maori students achieving NCEA Level 2 has increased 14.2% from 44.4% to 58.6%
• Pasifika students achieving NCEA Level 2 has increased 16.5% from 55.3% to 71.8%

Parata notes:

“Over the past five years we’ve focused on collecting data from across the whole education system so we can see how it’s performing at every level and where we need to target resources.

“It has helped us identify which students need what kind of support through programmes such as Pasifika Power Up, Youth Guarantee, Achievement 2013-17, and Trade Academies.

“As part of our Better Public Service Targets, we are focussed on 85 per cent of all 18 year-olds achieving NCEA Level 2 or an equivalent qualification in 2017. This target has encouraged schools and their communities to set their own targets and work towards achieving them.

Using data to target resources is sensible. Scary how so many people oppose the Government collecting any data on school and student achievement. Great to see so many schools successfully working to lift achievement rates.

Monday started off badly enough for Labour with the weekend poll showing them 17% behind National.

Then they veered towards the ridiculous with David Cunliffe saying that he thinks the National Party may be paying people to follow MPs about.

It got worse when Cunliffe attacked John Key for living in a $10 million mansion, as this shifted focus on the fact he lived in a $2.5 million mansion himself.

Herne Bay is one of the country’s most expensive suburbs. Mr Cunliffe’s road, Marine Parade, is considered the suburb’s best street.

What this means is that Marine Parade is the most expensive street in the entire country.

“We bought the worst house in the best street,” says Mr Cunliffe. “It was a do-up; it probably wouldn’t be the average of the area.

John Key is open about the fact he has been successful and is well off. Cunliffe does not help himself when he describes a $2.5 million house on the most expensive street in New Zealand as a “do-up”.

Then the news broke that TVNZ had been hosting Labour Party campaign meetings, and that a senior TVNZ manager has resigned after hosting a hui which David Cunliffe attended.

A disaster of a day for Labour. No political management. And just to make it worse, the Taranaki Daily News reports that a young photographer was asked by David Cunliffe to delete a photo she took of him.

Where was Cunliffe’s press secretary. It is their job to stop the Leader doing stuff such as asking for photos to be deleted, or expressing paranoid musings that the Government has hired spies to follow MPs about. Likewise his staff should be pointing out to Cunliffe that you shouldn’t attack John Key for living in nice house, when you live in a $2.5 house on the most expensive street of New Zealand. It really is shambolic. If they are like this in opposition, how would they go trying to actually run a country?

Patrick Gower at 3 News reported:

3 News can reveal state broadcaster TVNZ is being used as a campaign base by Labour Party activists.

They’ve even held a meeting in TVNZ’s Maori and Pacific Unit aimed at fundraising for Labour.

The unit’s manager, Shane Taurima, has held ambitions to become a Labour MP and his staff have been arranging Labour Party business, using TVNZ facilities like email.

Mr Taurima has resigned following the revelation.

Mr Taurima’s a Labour Party activist. He could be standing as a Labour MP this election.

Documents obtained by 3 News show the state broadcaster is being used to help Labour’s cause.

Labour’s electorate committee for the Auckland Maori seat Tamaki Makarau has been using TVNZ as a base.

Last year, a meeting was held at the Maori and Pacific unit’s Hobson headquarters, next to TVNZ’s main building, with Labour Party activists swiped through security.

On the agenda was “fundraising” – making money for the Labour Party.

This is appalling and there must be a full independent inquiry into how this happened. Having the resources of the state broadcaster used to help the Labour Party fund raise and campaign plan is not far off political corruption.

This is not about the actions of Taurima alone. He was a known Labour Party aspiring candidate. TVNZ hired him back after he sought Labour’s nomination for Ikaroa Rawhiti. They knew his affiliations when they hired him back. Did they explicitly tell him he could not remain politically active?

There are so many questions about this, I don’t know where to start. Here’s a few.

• How did TVNZ become aware of Labour Party use of their facilities?
• Did they only take action once they became aware it would become public.
• Why was Taurima not sacked, and allowed to resign?
• Who at TVNZ knew about the Labour Party campaign meeting held at their offices, and who swiped all the activists through?
• Who decided to rehire Taurima, after he quit to try and be the Labour candidate for Ikaroa Rawhiti?
• Was Taurima explicitly warned or counselled about political activity?
• How many TVNZ Maori unit staff are Labour Party activists? At least four are known of, which destroys any notion that the TVNZ Maori Unit is delivering politically neutral programmes.
• Did any Labour MPs attend the meeting at TVNZ premises? Did they not think this was wrong, if they did attend?
• Was Labour Head Office aware that TVNZ was basically the host for their Tamaki Makarau branch?
• Did David Cunliffe not think there was anything wrong with attending a sesssion on how to win the Maori vote, run by the head of the TVNZ Maori Unit? Should this not ring warning bells?

There must be a full external inquiry into this. Either the TVNZ Board must commission an independent inquiry into how this occurred, and how to prevent it happening again – or the Auditor-General should be asked to investigate.

UPDATE: A further story in Stuff reveals:

• TVNZ only found out about this due to the TV3 story.
• Taurima only resigned once the story came to light
• TVNZ knew that Taurima wanted to seek Labour’s nomination for Tamaki Makaurau

This is a really bad call by TVNZ. They hired someone who had just weeks earlier been a Labour Party candidate, and who wanted to stand for Labour again at the next election. They never should have hired Taurima again. By doing so, they turned their Maori unit into a branch of the Labour Party.

No one would say that you can never return to broadcasting after being a candidate. Paul Henry stood for National in 1999, for example. But that was in his past when he went onto TVNZ. It is very different to hiring someone weeks after they have been a candidate – and when they are still planning to run again.

UPDATE2: Taurima has put out a press release:

It is with immense regret and sadness that I have resigned as General Manager of Māori and Pacific Programmes at TVNZ.

I love and respect the work of all my TVNZ colleagues and regret any damage that my actions may have had on them, and the incredibly important and quality work they do.

I have been a member of the Labour Party since I contested the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti candidacy in 2013.

I have attended party hui and fully accept that some of my actions in supporting Labour may be seen to have crossed the line and I apologise unreservedly.

I categorically deny that my political affiliations have had any influence on any editorial decision that I have made during this time or at any time in the more than 12 years that I have been honoured to work in many roles at TVNZ. However, questions have been raised that have brought into question the integrity of the crucial work of my colleagues at TVNZ. This is unfair and unacceptable and as a result I have resigned.

I respect that an internal investigation is underway into the actions of three of my former colleagues and my heart goes out to them at this time..

I have seen the word activist used to describe my now former work colleagues. They are not activists. They are passionate friends and people that I love and respect who committed to provide some support to me. They are wonderful people whose enthusiasm led to some poorly considered decisions. Decisions that were not to benefit them individually.. I do hope their actions do not impact on the passion, commitment and loyalty they each provide as valued employees of TVNZ.

I have made no decisions around my future and will be making no further comment at this time.

I apologise again for any damage or upset that my actions may have caused.

Taurima made some very bad judgement calls, as he admits. For me the real issue is that of TVNZ management. Did they hire him back without asking if he planned to stand again?

The recent Fairfax poll asked respondents if they support or opposed raising taxes to pay for new spending. 69% said they were opposed and 25% in favour which means the net disapproval was -44%.

I was interested in the breakdown by party vote, which Fairfax kindly supplied. The net disapproval for supporters of each party against higher taxes was:

• National voters: -59% net disapproval
• Labour voters: -23% net disapproval
• Green voters -0.5% net disapproval
• NZ First voters -55% net disapproval

No surprise National voters are against higher taxes. Pleasing to see NZ First voters just as strongly against. What was fascinating is that most Labour voters are against increasing taxes to pay for new spending. Only 36% supported that with 59% opposed. The Greens were the only party not to be strongly opposed and they were split pretty much down the middle.

Also interesting to look at the demographics of opposition to higher taxes. They include:

• Under 30s: -38% net disapproval
• Maori: -50% net disapproval
• Europeans: -40% net disapproval
• Students: -32% net disapproval
• No qualifications: -67% net disapproval
• Post-grads: -22% net disapproval
• HH income under $50k: -46% net disapproval
• HH income over $100k: -32% net disapproval

So three fascinating things here:

1. More Maori than Europeans oppose raising taxes to pay for more spending
2. Those with no qualifications at all are far more opposed than the small number of people with a post-graduate degree
3. Those with household incomes below $50K more opposed than those with HH income over $100k

So if parties go into this election vowing to raise taxes to pay for more spending, they will be seriously out of touch. As we head back into surplus, I want parties to be offering tax cuts, not tax increases.

The detailed results are here, for those interested – Fairfax poll breakdown

The Herald reports:

Genes play a large part in determining the sexual orientation of men, scientists have shown.

Genetic factors account for between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the largest investigation conducted into the subject.

That sounds right. It’s not the only factor, but it is a very major factor.

The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.

But they said this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” one of the lead researchers, Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said.

One study has suggested that if you have older brothers you are more likely to be gay, as the mother’s hormones try to “feminise” you.

The research involved testing the DNA in blood samples taken from more than 409 gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives.

It confirmed that a region previously linked to male sexuality on the X chromosome, known as Xq28, is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of brothers than siblings who do not have homosexuality in common.

A second genetic region, on chromosome 8, also appeared to increase the chances of a man being gay.

The future is fascinating we we get to understand DNA better.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Fewer than two in five Kiwis want to retain the current flag, despite its defenders arguing it is the standard our troops fought and died for.

A Fairfax Media-Ipsos poll has found that only 38.6 per cent do not want a change to the current blue ensign incorporating the Southern Cross and the Union Jack.

But with almost 19 per cent “not bothered either way”, the call for a change, put on the table for debate by Prime Minister John Key earlier this month, is hardly overwhelming either.

The survey found that just under 18 per cent wanted the flag replaced with the silver fern – Key’s personal favourite – while another 23.7 per cent want a change to something other than the silver fern.

Key said the result was a strong starting point, with a narrow majority even before a campaign had begun. “My instinct would be that more coverage would more strongly make the case for change. I take a lot of heart from the poll.”

So 42% support change and 39% oppose it. That is a pretty good starting position.

Here’s what I would do, to facilitate New Zealanders being able to make an informed decision on the flag. A simple three step process.

1. Launch a design competition and panel to consider alternate flag designs and short-list four of them.
2. Have a referendum with the general election where voters vote for their preferred alternate design to go up against the current design out of the four short-listed designs.
3. Then around six to twelve months after that referendum, have a binding final referendum where the design that won the first referendum goes up against the current design

I think having two separate votes is essential. You need a clear simple A vs B choice for the final vote, where NZers have had time to consider the merits of the alternate design to the status quo.

The first referendum is also essential, as that gives the final alternate design legitimacy. You will never get wide-spread agreement on an alternate design that is foisted on people. But people will get behind the winner of a fair vote, even if they had a preference for another design.

I have a preference for the silver fern on black design. But if that didn’t win the first referendum, I’d probably support whatever design does win so long as it is an improvement upon the status quo which I find absolutely unappealing and far too similar to Australia’s.

The Herald reports:

Senior Labour MP Trevor Mallard had to pass off a packed-up bicycle as a briefcase to be allowed to carry it in a taxi from Auckland Airport.

He is furious an airport security official tried to stop his taxi driver from allowing the bike – which he strips down and packs into a hard case when flying – into the back seat of the cab.

He told the Weekend Herald the bike was too large to fit into the boots of most cabs, so he had carried it in back seats without being challenged at least 10 other times when catching taxis from the airport. But on Thursday, as he was trying to load in his bike, an airport official told him and the cabbie “that their rules didn’t allow luggage to go in the same compartment as passengers”.

What a stupid rule.

Airport spokesman Simon Lambourne said, after taking advice from other officials, that his company was simply monitoring a Transport Agency rule “in the interests of passenger safety”.

“There’s an NZTA [agency] rule that says taxis can’t have unusual, oversized or heavy items in the passenger cabin,” he said. But an agency official indicated that the rule simply gave taxi drivers the right to refuse to carry in or on their vehicles luggage that would endanger safe driving, could not be reasonably carried without causing damage, or was dirty or objectionable.

Even if there is such a rule (and it seems there is not), it is no business of Auckland Airport. The airport is merely the location where a passenger gets picked up. It is not their job to act as NZTA officials.

“Auckland Airport wants every passenger to have a safe taxi journey to and from the airport and we support the traffic marshals raising luggage safety concerns they have with the drivers.”

I’d say they could do with fewer traffic marshalls.

Mr Mallard said it was nonsense for the company to suggest the official was looking after his safety, as his bike was wedged in behind the front seats, making it more secure than if a seatbelt was used. “Of course drivers should be able to refuse unsafe or dirty stuff, but it’s totally lacking in logic and sounds like someone who’s got nothing better to do, trying to rationalise a stupid decision.”

It is up to the driver and the passenger. On this issue my sympathy is with Trevor, not the airport company. They should tell their traffic marshalls to be less zealous.

The Green solar energy policy of a slightly lower interest rate on loans for solar power would reduce loan repayments by around $2 a week.

I am very sceptical that a huge number of people will decide to take out a $10,000 to $15,000 loan to save $2 a week.

But let us be generous. Let’s say that the $2 a week saving will result in twice as many people deciding to install solar power. What sort of increase is that?

Well currently there are 40 to 50 installations a month. So we will be generous and say an extra 50 a month or 600 a year.

Yet the Greens claim there will be an extra 10,000 a year. Yes they claim their $2 a week reduction in interest rates will result in a 2000% increase in solar panel installations.

If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

The Dom Post editorial:

John Key’s Government came into office in the midst of the global financial crisis. Nobody was expecting things to improve quickly. Most people expected them rather to get worse. Mr Key made no promises of instant gains.

On the other hand, his Government’s management of the economy was a moderate one and did not go for a hard dose of austerity. It reduced the deficit over two terms rather than bringing it back to nothing with a bump. The result was that our economic pain was relatively mild, at least compared with Britain and the United States.

The Key Government’s response to inheriting a structural deficit wasn’t to slash and burn with a frenzy of spending cuts. It was very moderate and middle of the road. Initially some infrastructure spending was accelerated to help soften the recession, and then new spending was slowed down. The extreme response came from Labour who went on the record opposing every single measure of fiscal restraint. They said a cap on public sector employees would be a disaster. They opposed saving money through efficiencies in back office functions.  I can’t think of a single act of fiscal restraint that they haven’t opposed.

Now the Government is signalling a less stringent approach to the budget, with increased spending in areas like paid parental leave. It recognises that the voters feel they have done their penance and a modest pay-off is in order. 

As we head back into surplus, we gain choices again. Deficits do not give you much choice. There are broadly three things you can “spend” a surplus on – debt reduction, extra spending and tax cuts.

A moderate balanced party will propose all three. I expect parties may disagree with each other about the exact proportions, but the extremists will only push those that fit with their ideology. Will Labour go against the 70% who don’t support tax increases and go into the election only promising tax increases, and not offering any tax cuts?

Labour leader David Cunliffe has not produced a big turnaround in the party’s fortunes, and time is running out.

National’s slogan this year will be some version of “Don’t put it all at risk”, and at present the signs are that it will work. There is not yet a deep-rooted feeling of economic dissatisfaction. There is not yet a widespread dislike of the Government. So the basic competing slogan – “it’s time for a change” – is not decisive.

Labour are promising to expand welfare payments to families earning up to $150,000 a year. Policies like that are what will put it at risk.

NewstalkZB reports:

David Cunliffe has suspicions the Government’s paying someone to keep tabs on other Party leaders, following revelations of Winston Peters visiting the Dotcom mansion.

Oh dear God. This is almost comical. Look at the nice political party jump over the horrible shark, like Fonzie did.

John Key has admitted he heard about the visits from right-wing blogger Cameron Slater.

A big surprise, as Cameron wrote about the visits a couple of weeks ago.

Mr Cunliffe doesn’t believe it’s as innocent as that.

“More likely it’s some form of private individual and one can only speculate of the relationship between the National Party, that blogger and whoever else is doing the work.”

David Cunliffe wants to know where the information came from in the first place – and if MPs have been tailed.

People gave Colin Craig a lot of (deserved) shit for not ruling out moon landing conspiracies on the spot. Well how much worse is it when the Leader of the Opposition openly muses paranoid conspiracy theories about MPs being tailed by Government paid spies.

I mean seriously. This is even more demented than the GCSB being the source of the info on Winston’s visits.

Stuff reports:

Maya Croll-Wright, 19, has several years of experience in hospitality, strong motivation and an outgoing personality. Yet, she struggles to find a job. Why? She has tattoos, blue hair and describes herself as overweight.

“I have had countless job interviews after applying for every job I can find. But as soon as they see me in person, it all goes downhill.”

In the past two months, Croll-Wright says she had about 20 interviews for jobs in cafes, shops and restaurants around Christchurch. She has been rejected from every one.

Then change the hair colour, and maybe you should have fewer visible tattoos until you have more work experience. In front line customer service roles, presentation is a fact of life. If that is where you want to work, then you may need to compromise on how you wish to look. It is less of an issue in back room roles.

The health ****s are gathering today. Stuff reports:

Health advocates are drawing battle lines against “Big Food”, claiming drastic intervention is needed to stave off a diabetes crisis in New Zealand.

As adult obesity nears a third of the population, individual responsibility for diet and exercise is clearly not enough, said Dr Gabrielle Jenkin, an Otago University of Wellington health academic who is co-ordinating a seminar today in Wellington.

Government policymakers were reluctant to legislate against “Big Food” – industry powers such as Fonterra, Coca-Cola, Heinz Wattie’s, fast food chains and Foodstuffs and Progressive supermarkets, she said. Many so-called nutrition research bodies were sponsored by Big Food, she said. Dietitians New Zealand, for instance, stated on its website that it is backed by Unilever and Nestle.

How terrible. I’ve got a rule of thumb which is often correct. When so called researchers are more focused on the companies involved in an industry, than anything else, they’ve lost perspective. They just want to damage the companies they personally disapprove of.

Jenkin said “tainted” research was presented at select committees as unbiased fact. “They’re corrupting science.”

The translation here is that anything I disagree with is corrupt.

She claimed Big Food was more powerful than Big Tobacco, and likely to be more aggressive if policy turned against it.

The industry put the onus on individuals to fight obesity, so governments tended to promote diet and exercise rather than legislating against unhealthy food, she said.

Of course it fucking is, because there is nothing wrong with so called unhealthy food in moderation. I almost never eat chocolate due to its very high calorie and sugar count. But when I go tramping, then I buy some chocolate to make up scroggin for energy during the tramp.

I don’t want any fucking busy bodies legislating to tell me I can’t buy chocolate because it is unhealthy.

However,some governments had stood up to Big Food. In Britain, manufacturers have been forced to reduce fat, sugar and salt, and New York’s governor attempted to restrict portion sizes and introduce nutritional information in restaurants.

Including nutritional information empowers choice. That is a good thing. But having the state try to regulate portion sizes and dictate food composition is barking mad. These researchers seem to think that individual choice and consequences have no role in society.

Over 20 years I became very large. This was not due to advertising, or sugar in fizzy drinks or anything like that. It was simply because I ate too much food. It wasn’t the type of food as much as the amount of food. And then a couple of years I lost most of it by simply eating less and exercising more. It is that simple. Not easy, but simple.

In New Zealand, politicians remained cowed by Big Food, she said. In deprived towns and suburbs, fast food outlets were so numerous as to be unavoidable.

So effing what? It isn’t compulsory to go in. And even if you do, one can actually get quite healthy food in them. It’s about balance, not about banning food.

The Herald reports:

Government will loan households up to $15,000 at low interest rates to help them install solar power if the Greens are elected.

Party co-leader Russel Norman launched the new energy initiative this afternoon in Auckland, estimating that it would save a family $100 on electricity bills a year.

“Power prices have risen 22 per cent since National came to power, which means energy companies are making big profits while ordinary New Zealanders struggle to pay their bills,” Dr Norman said.

Under the proposed scheme, New Zealanders would be able to borrow the full cost of installing photovoltaic panels and then pay it back via their council rates over 15 years.

Greens had a target of 30,000 installations in three years, and hoped that the boost for the solar industry would create 1000 jobs and also make the technology cheaper by increasing demand.

The party said that a typical solar-powered system cost $10,000, and households would be able to get loans of up to $15,000.

Interest on the loan would be charged at the Crown’s low sovereign interest rate – currently 4.1 per cent. This rate was not fixed, and could increase over time.

Greens’ policy document said that a 3kW solar-powered system would produce $1000 of electricity a year.

Because households would be paying off the loan at $900 a year, it was expected to save families $100 each year for the first 15 years.

Solar power is a great supplemental power source. However it costs a lot more than other power sources. It can make sense to borrow to install a solar power kit, but you need to be damn sure you’ll be at the place you currently live in for at least the next 15 years.

Also the slightly lower interest rate may not result in much greater take up than at present (and remember the more the Government borrows, the more that rate of borrowing will increase).

A $10,000 loan for 15 years at 4.1% according to Sorted is $74 a month or $888 a year. So yes in theory you can save $2 a week under this policy – but that is not much for a 15 year commitment. But at 6.0% current floating rate, is it only $84 a month so are people going to flock to solar power being it is $10 a month cheaper for a 15 year loan? I’d be amazed.

And what if costs of solar installations increase, if demand does increase? If they cost $15,000 not $10,000 then the cost is $111 a month for 15 years.

This isn’t a terrible policy. There are far far worse policies around. Greater uptake of solar power would be a good thing – but mass uptake will only occur when the costs of solar power becomes comparable to other power types.  I just don’t think a 4.1% interest rate compared to a 6.0% interest rate will make much difference to uptake.

The Herald reports:

A woman watched her grandmother die over the internet after a custody order prevented her from leaving New Zealand with her young son.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, wanted her son to see his great-grandmother in Malaysia before she died.

But the Family Court banned the pair from leaving the country because the boy’s New Zealand father believed his ex-wife was a flight risk.

“I had to watch her pass away over Skype. It was the most horrific thing because people who are dying respond to touch and she couldn’t even hear me,” the woman said. “I just wanted to be there with her. We were very close.”

So why didn’t she fly over without her son, and have the father look after the son for a few days?

The woman who missed her grandmother’s death said she had been to Malaysia with her son once before and had returned without issue. “I am not a flight risk. I just wanted to see my grandmother and wanted my son to see her as well.”

The previous time may not have been when they were separated. I don’t know. But the reality is that she chose to stay in NZ, rather than travel without her son.

John Roughan writes in NZ Herald:

To my astonishment I have passed the age of 60. In fact two more years have passed since that milestone flew by. In no time at all, I’m going to wake up one morning to realise I can claim the public pension and Winston’s card.

This is ridiculous. It really is.

Babyboomers have begun to declare 60 the new 40 because it’s true. It’s not just that we feel as fit and well as we were at 45, but human longevity has visibly rocketed in our lifetime.

My grandfather died at 66, my father is now 86. At this rate, unless the age of entitlement is raised I could be receiving the pension for a quarter of a century.

I have no need to stop work at 65 and I know I am not unusual.

I believe the age of eligibility should increase. Also a case for means testing, so long as the administrative cost of doing so wasn’t too high compared to the spending saved.

John Key has not made many political mistakes but even on his side of the fence there is a feeling he went too far when he solemnly promised the terms of national superannuation would not be altered while he was Prime Minister.

It was a mistake. No one should ever make a promise beyond the next term. We have elections to allow parties to offer different policies in the future. It is unfortunate that Labour’s scaremongering over superannuation in the mid 2000s resulted in Key going too far with his promise. I suspect he regrets making such an commitment.

But he did. He not only promised no change while he is PM, he pledged in writing that he would resign as both PM and an MP if he broke his word. I do not want him to break his word, because it would result in a Labour/Green/Mana Government. I suspect Labour would ever have signed up to increasing the retirement age except for the political benefit that it puts pressure on Key to break his word, which would politically cripple him.

It should be a lesson for future leaders that they should never be pressured into making a commitment beyond one election.

One of my most common gripes is that content producers make it so difficult for you to actually pay them money for their content. They use geo-blocking to stop you paying them money for their content – and then wonder why so many people resort to file-sharing.

You used to have to be a bit of a technical guru to get around geo-blocking and the like, but for those who want to pay for their content, it is now a lot easier.

House of Cards Season 2 has just come out of Netflix. All 13 episodes. They look just as great as the first season. So if you want to legally view Season 2, here’s how.

1. Go to Hola
2. Install the plugin for your browser
3. Click on the Netflix site and change your country to US
4. Sign up for Netflix (US$7.99 a month)
5. Add a zero onto your credit card zip code so it is a five digit code like the US, but so that your credit card company still counts it as a match
6. Start viewing

Ridiculous that you have to jump through such hoops to force someone to take your money.

It will take a decade or so, but eventually almost all content will be made available in all countries on the day of release.

A gentle quiz this week.

Stuff reports:

A 47-year-old man’s 18th drink-driving conviction has sparked calls for a radical law change that would allow judges to sentence the worst offenders to preventive detention – effectively locking them up for life.

Preventive detention is a step too far, but I certainly agree that there should be a threshold at which recidivist drink drivers start to get automatic imprisonment terms.

Darren Corey Newport, 47, has now racked up 18 convictions for driving over the limit – two of them in back-to-back drink-driving episodes this year alone.

Newport joins four other men who each have 18 drink-driving convictions, sharing the dubious title of New Zealand’s worst drink drivers. Newport is the youngest of the bunch.

The scary thing is he has probably driven drunk over 1,000 times. You only get checked around one in 100 times when out driving. To have 18 convictions, you must have driven drunk almost every week for a decade.

Statistics from the Ministry of Justice show that while the number of people convicted of drink driving has fallen in the past three years from 27,518 to 23,377, the number of repeat offenders has remained virtually unchanged.

I think once a drink driver is onto say their fourth or fifth conviction, then jail should be basically automatic and increasing. The recidivist drink drivers (who are no doubt alcoholics) need to know that if they jump in a car drunk, then they will be in jail for years, not months. It may be hard for them to stop drinking, but it is not hard to decide not to drive home.

Patrick Smellie writes 10 things he says TPP opponents don’t want you to grasp:

1. The secrecy surrounding TPP negotiations is typical of any such exercise.
2. The bogey of corporations being able to sue governments is not only overblown, but corporations can do that now, without a TPP.
3. Corporations might try to sue but they’ll be whistling if the government is acting in the public interest.
4. United States corporate interests are obviously among those seeking influence on the TPP agenda, but that doesn’t mean the US Senate and Congress are on board.
5. US politicians know less about what’s in the TPP negotiating documents than US corporate lobbies.
6. No-one knows what the TPP could be worth to the New Zealand economy
7. The US on the backfoot on many of the most contentious issues
8. This is the end of Pharmac. Balderdash.
9. The deal will be done behind closed doors. It can’t be. Every Parliament of every country involved will have to ratify any deal signed by leaders.
10. There’s no guarantee TPP will come in to land.

It is quite legitimate to oppose some of the things that the US (especially) is asking for in the TPP, I am strongly opposed to many of their proposals for the intellectual property chapter. But there is a difference between opposing some of what the US is asking for, and demonising the TPP negotiations as a whole.

Matthew Hooton makes a similiar point in his Cunliffe’s Four Fails:

Some interesting data in the breakdown of the Fairfax poll. Now note that these can be small sample sizes with high margins of error. But still some value in them.

I’ve listed National’s support from the strongest to weakest demographics:

• 65+ yr olds 55.5%
• Men 53.6%
• 45 – 64 52.6%
• Lower NI 50.6%
• Auckland 50.2%
• Upper NI 49.8%
• All 49.4%
• South Island (rest) 49.1%
• Canterbury 47.8%
• Wellington 47.3%
• 30 – 46 46.1%
• Women 45.7%
• 18 – 29 40.6%

The interesting thing about those breakdowns is that older voters always turn out in much greater proportions than younger voters. Also interesting how strong Auckland is for National.

The Herald reports:

A 16km expressway north of Wellington has had resource consent granted by a Board of Inquiry.

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) had proposed the expressway be built between Peka Peka and north Otaki.

The road was part of the Wellington Northern Corridor, a development considered to be of national significance, so was referred to the board by Environment Minister Amy Adams last April.

The decision followed the Board’s consideration of the application, submissions, evidence and a two week hearing.

Its decision could be appealed to the High Court on points of law only, and it could not be overturned by ministers.

NZTA’s state highway manager Rod James earlier said the road was expected to be open by mid- to late-2017.

I spent close to 90 minutes stuck in traffic at Otaki and Waikanae last Sunday. This expressway can not come quickly enough. Having SH1 go through the middle of shopping centres with intersections and traffic lights is madness.

My big hope is that all these developments get underway before the end of the year, as a change of Government could well see them scrapped.