Stuff reports:

The Vatican “systematically” adopted policies that allowed priests to rape and molest tens of thousands of children over decades, a UN  human rights committee said Wednesday, urging the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed their crimes.

In a devastating report hailed by abuse victims, the UN committee severely criticized the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion and said it should change its own canon law to ensure children’s rights and their access to health care are guaranteed.

The Catholic Church’s position on child molestation in its ranks has been woeful, and the criticism is not unexpected.

But I note the UN report also criticises the Catholic church for its views on issues of homosexuality, contraception and abortion.

As it so happens I disagree with the Catholic Church on those issues, but I am of course ot Catholic.

What I am wondering is when this UN Human Rights committee will denounce other religions such as Islam for its views on the role of women in society, marital rape, blaming rape victims for rape etc?

Why target the Catholic Church only?

Around now I should be starting the four day, three night, Tongariro Northern Circuit. If things go well, will get out on Sunday afternoon.

I’ve pre-set a couple of posts per day. But generally expect blogging to be be light until Monday. Jadis is at the Sevens, so probably no guest posts from her either sorry!

Enjoy the long weekend – I will be!

Liam Hehir writes in the Manawatu Standard:

The United Kingdom’s Labour Party recently pledged to lift Britain’s top marginal tax rate from 45 per cent to 50 per cent.

The reaction was interesting because it illustrates the way people in politics sometimes talk past one another in political debate.

The policy has been partly framed as a deficit reduction measure and partly as an effort to create a “fairer” economy.

In critiquing the proposals, detractors have focused on the first of these, pointing out that the analysis of Her Majesty’s Treasury is that the higher tax rate only accounted for an additional £100 million in tax revenue.

In isolation, that seems like a lot. Given that the UK Budget deficit exceeds £116 billion, however, the proposal would not meaningfully contribute towards putting Britain’s public finances in order.

It’s a rich prick tax. Would plus the deficit by 0.1% only. They’re doing it to punish.

There are other factors at play, too. In a modern, globalised economy the transnational elite can easily shop around for competing jurisdictions in which to base their economic activity.

The best way to get more companies to pay tax in NZ, is to have lower tax rates.

American President and liberal icon John F Kennedy recognised this when calling for the slashing of the top income tax rate in 1962. Kennedy, no rabid Right-winger on domestic affairs, opined that: “. . . tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now”.

Yet left parties in NZ are promising to increase tax rates.

Polls show that large majorities of the British public would support the move. About 40 per cent would do so even if it raises no revenue.

An envy tax.

For the current generation of progressive leaders, stiff marginal tax rates are not exclusively (or even primarily) a means of raising money for the government to spend. Decreasing the wealth of the rich is considered a legitimate end unto itself – even if nobody else benefits.

That is so sadly true. This is what many proponents of reducing income inequality want – less rich people rather than less poor people.

Stuff reports:

A lineup of Maori leaders and top writers have made a Waitangi Day protest to the Government over the seizure of novelist Patricia Grace’s ancestral land, saying it breaches the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government has taken 983 square metres of Grace’s land north of the Waikanae River for the Kapiti expressway.

Today more than 30 writers, academics and Maori leaders – including Dame Fiona Kidman, Sir James McNeish, Witi Ihimaera and Dame Anne Salmond – have signed an open letter to Prime Minister John Key and Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee, urging the Government not “to literally bulldoze a road through the land”, which they say is of “major historical significance”.

The translation is that we think Jane Plod can have their land compulsorily acquired for a road, but not Patricia Grace because she is a novelist!

They say they are aware many people have lost land to the expressway, and they “have every sympathy for them”, but they believe “Patricia’s land is a special case that deserves to be exempt from the current plan”.

What other special rights should novelists have? A lower income tax rate?

Grace said yesterday that she was thrilled with the support, which was unprompted by her.

“The Crown, iwi and Waitangi Tribunal are working very hard to redress the past, while the Public Works Act is still able to take Maori land,” she said. “It is like compensating with one hand and taking with the other.

“Maori land should be outside the Public Works Act. No more Maori land should be taken.”

Oh, it is not writers that should be exempt, but all Maori. So if you have any Maori ancestry at all, you should be exempt from the Public Works Act.

How about this for a deal. You can be exempt from the Public Works Act that allows roads to be built and utilities such as power pylons to be located so we have a national grid – so long as you agree to never use any roads or electricity.

“Her place in New Zealand literature is remarkable and unquestionably significant,” the signatories write. “She should not have to fight, particularly at her stage of life [she is in her late 70s], to retain a piece of land that is hers by whakapapa . . . she should pass it on to her descendants.”

Wait, now the argument is that if you are aged over 70 you should be exempt?

The land once belonged to her great-great-grandfather Wi Parata Te Kakakura, who gifted large sections of it to Waikanae.

Or is the argument that if land has been in your family for multiple generations, you should be exempt from the Public Works Act?

I’m not unsympathetic to Patricia Grace, or any landowner who has to sell land against their will to the Government under the Public Works Act. It is a awful thing to have to go through. The Public Works Act is a fairly draconian law. However it is a fairly necessary one, without which we would not have roads or power.

Stuff reports:

A Blenheim man who became enraged and strangled a police dog was sentenced in the Blenheim District Court yesterday.

Lee Peter Kite, 18, of Riversdale, previously admitted charges of burglary, resisting police, cruelty to animals, assaulting police and discharging a firearm near a dwelling.

Judge John Bergseng said the dog has difficulty moving and has still not returned to work after the attack on September 26.

Kite and his brother had gone to an empty house at Lucas St about 12.50am with a knife and a screwdriver.

A neighbour phoned the police because they knew the house was supposed to be vacant.

Police arrived and let a police dog into the property.

Kite became enraged and attacked the police dog, grabbing it around the neck and strangling it, Judge Bergseng said.

When the dog handler stepped in to stop Kite attacking the dog, Kite lashed out, struggling with police until he was Tasered.

The attack aggravated an existing shoulder injury of the police officer, which had to be operated on last week.

Kite was sentenced to three months’ community detention, 12 months’ supervision and $250 hours’ community work.

He was also ordered to pay $593.39 in reparations for the ill-treatment of the dog.

He assaulted police and tried to kill a police dog. And he gets community detention. Pitiful.

Thomas Lumley blogs at Stats Chat:

Stuff has fallen for an egregiously over-promoted paper on future temperature-related deaths in the UK

The story says:

Deaths caused by hot weather are projected to rise by more than 250 per cent, with the elderly most at risk, the New Zealand Doctor magazine reported today.

The increased death rate, driven by climate change, population growth and ageing, would occur by the middle of the century, according to research published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health on Monday.

…

It was found that “in the absence of any adaptation of the population”, heat-related deaths would be expected to rise by about 257 per cent by the 2050s, and cold-related mortality would decline by 2 per cent.

Where did this story comes from? The Greens!

Stuff attributes this story to NZ Doctor, but all they did was reprint an explicitly unedited Green Party press release.

So Stuff didn’t realise that it was not a news report, but a press release. Or maybe they didn’t care.

As to the facts:

Professor David Spiegelhalter has already savaged this one elegantly on his blog.  All the projected increase in temperature-related deaths in the UK is due to the increase in the number of elderly people.

If you compare people of the same age, the projections say cold-related deaths will fall by about twice as much as heat-related deaths rise, as his graph of the numbers from the paper shows.  That is, the paper actually predicts that global warming will reduce the number of temperature-related deaths in the UK.

Will Stuff run the truth as prominently as the original story.

Finally a point worth noting:

In the USA or Australia, let alone Africa, India, and other less-wealthy tropical places, there is going to be a real problem with temperature-related deaths from global warming.  In many more parts of the world, there’s a potential for weather-related deaths from drought, flood, storm, and ‘tropical’ disease.

Heat waves in the UK are not in the top ten list of things to worry about from global warming. Pretending they are is likely to be counterproductive.

Indeed.

Stuff reported:

The Government wants to override privacy laws to supply the US Government with private details about Americans living in New Zealand.

As part of a global tax-dodging crackdown, the US is forcing banks and other financial institutions to hand over the private financial details of US “persons” and companies based overseas.

From July this year, Kiwi banks and insurers will be required to provide US tax authorities with American customers’ contact details, bank account numbers and transaction history.

The move is already deeply unpopular among banks and expat Americans overseas, some of whom have accused the US of “fiscal imperialism”.

In New Zealand, it has left banks stuck between defying the US and breaking domestic privacy laws that protect all New Zealand residents, including Americans.

But now the Government is stepping in with plans to “override” privacy laws to help banks meet the US demands and reduce costs.

And who is complaining about this:

Council of Trade Unions economist Bill Rosenberg said the US’s tax reporting requirements were another example of US interests dictating New Zealand law.

“There is clearly a breach of privacy here.”

It’s amusing to have the CTU defend the rights of US tax evaders. They are the ones that are affected by this. The next time the CTU goes on about people not paying enough tax, we should recall their support for US citizens to be able to evade tax through NZ banks.

A banking source e-mails:

The first thing to point out is that the only people with something to worry about with FATCA are American tax evaders…not the people you’d normally think the CTU would worry about. The actual number of people affected in NZ will be very, very small. If you’re a New Zealander you’ve got nothing to worry about, if you’re an American and you’ve met you tax obligations you’ve got nothing to worry about.

Secondly, it’s not as though the NZ Govt is an outlier in taking these steps. In fact as this site shows http://fatca.thomsonreuters.com/about-fatca/intergovernmental-agreement/ virtually every developed nation is in the process of taking similar steps. The brutal reality is that if NZ does not meet our FATCA obligations the U.S will put us on black list and whack a 30% odd withholding tax on any US transactions by NZ financial institutions – this will cost all NZers. This is why NZ and pretty much every other developed country is meeting its FATCA obligations.

In fact the Government has actively pushed back to protect NZers privacy as much as possible – the Bill is drafted so as to ensure that only bare minimum of data required to meet our FATCA obligations is passed over.

End story is that no one really wants to be doing this but just as in Australia, the UK, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Brazil, Switzerland, Thailand, Russia etc etc we have no choice. 

The CTU standing up for the rights of Americans to evade tax. What champions they are.

The Herald reports:

The chances of GST being applied to all overseas web-based retail purchases appear more distant after the Government changed tack on a review into tax of online shopping.

The chances are not more distant. They are zero, and have always been zero.

New Zealand consumers can avoid GST on many goods bought for less than $400 on foreign websites, such as online retail giant Amazon.

The Retailers Association wants GST applied to all online purchases to “level the playing field”, saying the current gap in the tax system makes it more difficult for local businesses to compete against their overseas online competitors, while also losing the country up to $300 million in annual GST revenue.

The Retailers Association effectively want someone to un-invent the Internet.

One can have a reasonable debate about whether the $400 threshold is at the right level, but there is no practical way to apply GST to foreign companies unless you impound every letter and parcel at the border. Even then, electronic purchases of music and e-books would not be affected.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has taken the rare step of going into bat for the Prime Minister over Waitangi Day protests, saying those who use the occasion to shout and disrupt the Prime Minister’s attendance at Te Tii Marae are “crapping on their own heritage”.

Prime Minister John Key is to be welcomed on to Te Tii Marae today and has said he expects protests, having been grabbed and shouted down in previous years.

The initial signs that this year would also be restive came yesterday when the Governor-General was shouted at and there was a scuffle between protester Hinewhare Harawira and marae elders at the door of the meeting house.

If the PM announced he would never attend Waitangi Day at Te Tii Marae again, he’d probably go up 10% in the polls.

The Herald reports:

Mr Key also ruled out any chance that a coalition with NZ First could result in its leader Winston Peters becoming prime minister for a portion of the term if he did stand down.

“To paraphrase a lovely turn of phrase I read in the paper yesterday, about as much chance as Amanda Knox holidaying in Italy. Zero.”

I love it.

This is now the third story from the Herald that has mentioned this fantasy scenario. I am awaiting the stories where they ask the Prime Minister to rule out genocide in Invercargill, if that is demanded as a coalition condition. They are equally credible.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council wants more power to ban and penalise windscreen washers at intersections.

The washers are already banned under a bylaw, and offenders can be fined up to $20,000.

But the council says the sanctions are costly, complex and ineffective, and it wants the Government to change the law so it can issue infringement notices – possibly in the form of spot fines.

Under the present law, it must get police to confiscate washers’ equipment or prosecute them.

Councillors yesterday unanimously backed a proposed law amendment that would allow the council to specify bylaw breaches that would result in an infringement notice.

I’ve got a better solution. Tasers. Just taser any windscreen washer that enters an intersection. That will solve the problem.

The washers are a sophisticated form of intimidation. They provide a so called service you did not ask for or want, and then intimidate you into paying for it.

Trevor Mallard has said:

New Zealanders are the fourth biggest gamblers per head of population in the world – a shameful figure that Peter Dunne must take action to remedy, says Labour’s Internal Affairs spokesperson Trevor Mallard.

Why is that shameful?

If we were the 4th biggest spenders on coffee in the world, would that be shameful?

Around 0.3% to 1.8% of the population are problem gamblers. But that doesn’t mean all gambling is harmful, and that NZers spending a lot of money on gambling is bad.

80% of the population do enjoy buying a lotto ticket, taking part in raffles, the odd bet at the TAB, a night out at a casino, playing some pokies at a pub, sports betting at the TAB etc, and are not problem gamblers

Does Labour now regard all the enjoyment several million NZers get from gambling as shameful?

It is quite legitimate to say we should reduce the level of gambling harm. It is nanny state paternalism to however condemn all gambling as shameful and claim that NZers overall should be spending less.

Stats NZ reports:

The labour market continues to grow and unemployment has fallen to 6.0 percent, Statistics New Zealand said today. There were 24,000 more people employed in the December 2013 quarter, following an additional 28,000 in the September quarter.

Over the December 2013 year, the number of people employed rose 3.0 percent in the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS). Demand for workers from established businesses rose 1.9 percent in the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES).

“We’re seeing strength across the labour market, particularly in the industries that provide services,” industry and labour statistics manager Diane Ramsay said. “The unemployment rate has been falling and employment rising for the last 18 months, with both now at levels last seen in early 2009.”

The global financial crisis and recession devastated the NZ economy in 2008 and 2009. It’s great to see unemployment tracking down. NZ now has the 12th lowest unemployment rate out of 34 OECD countries, which is one place better than last quarter.

Some stats:

• 24,000 more people in employment in the last quarter
• Unemployment drops from 6.2% to 6.0%
• The under 20 unemployment rate remains high at 24% (they’re priced out of the market) but the percentage of under 20s not in employment, education or training is 8.3%
• The manufactured manufacturing crisis continues with an extra 6,100 jobs in the manufacturing sector
• Average ordinary-time weekly earnings (by FTE) rose 2.8 percent from a year ago

The Presss reports:

The Christchurch City Council is under pressure to find extra money to ensure all its employees get paid at least $18.40 an hour but its finance chairman is warning it cannot afford it.

“We are going through a process of cutting costs, not adding to them,” Cr Raf Manji said yesterday as councillors met to consider a report on the implications of introducing a Living Wage.

By law, workers must be paid a minimum of $13.75 an hour, but $18.40 is what the Living Wage movement believes a family of two adults and two children, where one adult works fulltime and the other works part-time, needs to meet basic living costs.

That is the key point. It is a calculation for one specific family type. That type of family is only around 10% of families earning under $18.40 an hour. Claiming that a 16 year old boy living at home must be paid $18.40 an hour because that is the income needed to support a family with two kids is ridiculous.

A report prepared for the council’s chief executive and employment matters committee, which met publicly for the first time yesterday, estimated the cost of increasing their hourly rate to $18.40 an hour at $1.1 million, excluding KiwiSaver, overtime and penal pay.

It also warned that introducing a Living Wage was likely to have a knock-on effect for other staff as the council would need to maintain relativities in remuneration.

That could add another $1 million to the council’s wage bill.

So proponents want ratepayers to pay an extra $2 million a year. Are ratepayers in Christchurch not already struggling enough?

Also the Councils seem to ignore the very serious flaws in the calculation by Rev Waldegrave, which include:

1. Only 12% of low income households are two adults and two dependents, which the Waldegrave calculation is based on
2. They assume you need 10 hours of childcare a week, even if the children are aged over 14
3. They calculation of level of “basic necessities” is not based on any empirical measurement of the lowest cost of necessities, but merely a proportion of the average expenditure in deciles 1 to 5 (this one is key – it is a calculation based on the Browns should be spending as much as the Jones, and is not a calculation on how much income the Browns need)
4. The calculation doesn’t account for some sources of household income such as trade-ins, sales, teenagers income (yet does include their costs) and school donation tax refunds
5. The calculation double counts some expenditure such as childcare costs
6. The calculation includes as a basic necessity costs such as Sky TV, pets, international travel and video games
7. The calculation includes insurance for dwellings and mortgages, despite assuming they are renting

Any politician that advocates the living wage calculation as a serious way to do policy should not be trusted with finances.

Pat Pilcher writes in the NZ Herald:

Back in the 70’s Cambodia descended into chaos. This was thanks to the Pol Pot regime, whose crackpot ideologies saw some brutal policies put into practice. The upshot is now well known, many died and Cambodia is recovering.

Sometimes political madness starts from a single crazy idea with little thought given to issues such as feasibility or what the impacts are likely to be.

I raise this because of a bizarre policy idea floated by Labour (who’ve also since stomped the policy out of existence). The proposed policy would have involved a Labour government preventing tax avoiding multinationals from accessing the Internet in New Zealand.

Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple – all banned. Maybe even the NZ Herald and Stuff as their owners are arguably tax avoiding multinationals!

Even though the thought of multinationals setting up shop locally and not paying their fair share strikes me being somewhat repugnant, the proposed policies really gave me pause for thought, leaving me wondering if Labour had really thought through just how it’d work or if they’d finally lost the plot completely.

To be fair, it was probably a brain fart. But what is worrying is they defended the policy for a full 24 hours before ruling it out.

Facebook would also continue to operate Facebook.com anyhow, as it is hosted offshore. Because of this, a Labour government would have to block access to Facebook from within New Zealand. Odds are that any such move would be a double-edged sword for Labour in that most voters would take a particularly dim view of any attempt to block sites such as Facebook.

They’d be slaughtered.

If the whole concept strikes you as being just plain wrong, you’re not alone. Internet New Zealand have also strongly objected, saying that “InternetNZ does not support filtering of the Internet in any kind”.

Absolutely. That’s a slippery slope that ends badly.

Should multinationals begin to leave, the number of skilled jobs is guaranteed to shrink pretty darned quickly. The really crazy thing is that under this scenario, that not much more corporate tax would be paid anyhow.

Worse still, the governments of the nations where these multinationals are headquartered are also likely to be lobbied and could in turn react unfavourably, and this would jeopardise trade.

So there you go. Had Labour actually decided to implement this madness and been elected, we could’ve ended up with unworkable Internet censorship, disgruntled voters, corporate flight, unemployment and deteriorating trade. 

As I said, the amazing thing is it took them more than 60 minutes to disown David Clark’s statement.

Stuff reports:

Scientists are supporting the Government’s plan to use targeted 1080 drops to protect native birds from an expected rat and stoat plague.

An abundance of beech seed this year is expected to cause a population explosion among stoats and rats in forests.

Under the “Battle for Our Birds” predator control programme, announced by Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith last week, the Department of Conservation will treat up to an extra 500,000 hectares of conservation land with aerial 1080 application this year and next, should predator numbers increase.

The additional 1080 drop will increase the area of public conservation land treated for pests from 5 per cent to 12. The work is budgeted to cost $21 million over the next five years. DOC’s annual budget is $335m.

Landcare Research scientist Dr Andrea Byrom, who leads the invasive weeds, pests and diseases portfolio, said an increase of predation on native species was not the only effect of increases in stoat and rat populations.

“There is also the indirect impact of competition: the predators will chomp their way through the seeds, fruits and invertebrates that are food for native birds and lizards.”

University of Canterbury mathematician Associate Professor Alex James, who was involved in research modelling of high beech seed years, said “the planned 1080 drops are the best way to manage the predator outbreak”.

Without predators, native birds would flourish on the beech seed, she said.

Ecotourism operator and Forest & Bird ambassador Dr Gerry McSweeney last year called for DOC to use more of its money to increase application of 1080 across the conservation estate.

McSweeney said he was pleased to see the department actively seeking to increase 1080 use. “It’s a really exciting redirection of the department back to its basic function, which is to look after the land that it holds in trust for us.

“We’re seeing a recognition that this is the only really effective tool we’ve got in the tool box for protecting and restoring big areas of wild New Zealand.”

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright released a report in 2011 concluding that 1080 use should not only continue, but increase.

In response to last week’s announcement, Wright said she was “delighted” by DOC’s response to the predator threat.

“1080 is the only tool we have to control the plagues of rats and stoats,” she said.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Spurred on by an aggressive Buy Australia campaign, the big Australian supermarkets are systematically stripping their shelves of New Zealand-produced goods sold under their ‘‘house brand’’ labels, in a move that threatens hundreds of millions  of dollars worth of exports.

Now hands up all those who have been saying that we should have a Buy NZ campaign, and that the NZ Government should only deal with NZ companies?

Protectionism is bad for New Zealand. Consumers pay more, and exporters get shut out.

Key will raise the issue in his meeting with Abbott in Sydney this week and it is understood the Government has received advice the move could be in breach of the decades-old Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia.

One option would be for the Government to lodge a formal objection but sources say the situation is complicated by the fact that CER is a government-to-government agreement, and it is not ‘‘straight forward’’ whether supermarkets are captured by that process.

With respect, I think it is straight forward. Private supermarkets are not captured. CER is an agreement between Governments.

Labour’s economic development spokesman Shane Jones said  it was ‘‘essential’’ Key raise the plight of New Zealand food producers who were being ‘‘monstered’’ by the Australian supermarkets, who controlled 80 per cent of the market.

‘‘They are victimising Kiwi businesses and have created a culture of fear and menace. I have been told New Zealand food producers were warned not to complain about their poor treatment publicly or they would be blacklisted.’’

Is this the same Labour Party that has spent five years insisting that the New Zealand Government should discriminate against Australian businesses, and only let NZ companies win tenders? Isn’t it hypocrisy to complain when Australian businesses do exactly what they advocate?

My consistent view is that quality and price, rather than country of origin, are what you should decide things on. Only if the quality and price are identical or at least similar, should you then take into account country of origin.

But Woolworths Australia is a private company. If they think their customers want to pay more for inferior Australian food, then they can decide to use Australian suppliers only. I think it is a bad business decision, but it is their decision to make.

Where there could be an issue under CER is if the Australian Government is encouraging such protectionism. But I’ve not seen any details in this story that states they are.

Andrew Geddis tries to compare my statements on Labour cancelling the selection of Lesley Soper in Invercargill with National cancelling the Selwyn selection in 2007.

Andrew glosses over the key difference. No one at all has suggested that Soper’s selection in Invercargill was done improperly. The simple truth is that no one else wanted to stand, nominations closed with just her, and then once Eric Roy retired they decided they wanted a different candidate.

The 2007 selection for Selwyn was very different. Disgruntled candidates complained about the process and made allegations of favoritism. There were threatened law suits. If a selection has had procedural failings, then it is quite right to re-open it.

But if there were no procedural issues at all, then an uncontested selection shouldn’t be overturned.

Simon Wilson at Metro reports:

The cost of the EY report into mayor Len Brown’s affair with Bevan Chuang has come in at around $250,000. That’s the word from reliable, well-placed sources close to the council.

It’s an outrageous amount, and the reason it is so high can be traced directly back to the council’s then-CEO, Doug McKay. It was McKay who ordered the inquiry and then allowed it to blossom into an investigation far in excess of what was originally intended.

He earlier stated the inquiry would cost around $75,000. Then in December, he told the council the final figure was not yet known but it would be “over $100,000”. The final figure of a quarter of a million dollars is so far above these estimates, it begs the question: why did he provide such low earlier estimates?

The answer to that is obvious, and I suspect Simon is being spun a line from Len’s office.

Len lawyered up and hired QCs and the like to try and derail the report.  Because Len was refusing to co-operate initially and threatening legal review, the Council was forced to hire a top QC also.

This inquiry would not have been needed if Len kept his private life away from the Council. If his affair had not occurred with a Council board member and contractor, had not used Council resources, had not involved liaisons in Council offices, and not had him getting free hotel rooms for the affair – then there would have been no Council investigation.

If Brown’s affair had been with Mrs Smith-Jones of Papakura and they met in their own time, in private residences or hotel rooms they paid for, then there is no way there would have been a Council inquiry.

Having Metro blame the poor Chief Executive for trying to save the reputation of the Council is obvious spin from Camp Len.

The only question now is how much of the $250,000 cost will Len pay, and how much will be left for ratepayers to pay. I think 50/50 would be equitable.

Stats NZ reports:

Auckland had the largest percentage of religious people in New Zealand at the 2013 Census, results from Statistics New Zealand show. The region also had more religious people than at the last census, in 2006.

Across New Zealand, the number of people who affiliated with a religion in 2013 fell 5.5 percent since the 2006 Census. Regional data released today shows that this trend was reflected in every region except Auckland, which had a 1.2 percent increase in the number of religious residents.

“Auckland was the only region with more religious people in 2013 than in 2006,” Government Statistician Liz MacPherson said. “It also had the highest proportion of people with a religion, at 59.6 percent, though this fell from 63.5 percent in 2006. Nationally, 55.0 percent of the population had a religious affiliation in 2013.”

I wonder why this is. A few theories.

1. Most new immigrants come to Auckland, and new immigrants are more likely to be religious than those already here
2. Auckland is home to more evangelical churches and they are being successful in converting people, especially in South Auckland
3. Religious types are moving from other areas to Auckland

I think No 1 is most likely.

In November, David Cunliffe invented a new convention. He claimed there was a convention you did not have royal visits in an election year.

I labelled this “Making Shit up“, pointing out there were royal tours in 1954, 1963, 1981, 1990 and 2002.

This invented convention has now been modified to a claim made this morning in the Herald:

Labour leader David Cunliffe said the G20 invite was a “nice to have”and should not be a factor in determining the election date. He said he was more concerned about the timing of the Royal visit.

“New Zealand is not even a member of the G20 so the G20 is not going to bat an eyelid whether we are there or not.

First of all that isn’t the point. It’s a privilege and opportunity to attend. Anyway back to the main point:

A more important factor was the timing of the Royal visit in late April – the usual convention was that any such visits should be at least 6 months before an election. “I’d really challenge him to say whether he was going to abide by that convention.”

This convention is also invented.

The 1981 visit was just two months before the 1981 election and the 2002 visit five months before the 2002 election. David Cunliffe was a Government MP in 2002 so should know this.

The Herald reports:

Going cheap – a ticket to the Wellington Sevens (costume not included).

With four days to go, the rugby tournament has not sold out – and bargains are available as many fans try to offload spare tickets at well below cost price.

Increased competition from the likes of the newly established Auckland Nines – to be held at a sold out Eden Park the following weekend – has led to a fall in demand this year.

In previous years, tickets to the annual sevens tournament have sold out in a matter of hours, with scalpers able to command inflated prices to those who missed out. …

Sevens Wellington general manager Marty Donoghue said only about 1750 tickets remained, and they would be sold by Friday.

That’s astonishing. I recall some years the tickets all going within 20 minutes or so. To have almost 2,000 unsold the week before the Sevens suggests that demand is greatly reduced.

I’m still a big fan, and would go if I could. However I’m tramping the Tongariro Northern Circuit this weekend. Incidentally that means there will be little blogging from Thursday to Sunday.