Stuff reports:

RadioLive hosts Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have been accused of supporting rape culture and “victim blaming” after their treatment of a female caller who is a friend of an alleged victim of the Roast Busters group.

The 18-year-old woman, who called herself Amy, called the RadioLive show yesterday to talk to the pair about the Roast Busters, only to have the hosts describe the group’s online bragging about sexual encounters with drunk underage girls as “mischief”.

Amy was asked “how free and easy are you kids these days?” when she told Jackson and Tamihere she had attended parties the teenagers involved in Roast Busters were at, and she often saw them, sober, providing drinks to girls as young as 13.

The hosts discussed underage drinking, and why the girls were at parties without their parents’ consent. “Girls shouldn’t be drinking anyway, should they?”

The segment at the link is an appalling interview. It appeared to all be Willie Jackson, than JT – I presume there is a fuller version somewhere. But talking about whether a 13 year old girl has been drinking totally misses the point – they are 13, and they’re drunk. Even worse, it isn’t that both parties are drunk – this is young guys being stone cold sober and plying girls with alcohol.

Good on Amy for speaking up against the predatory behaviour of these students.

The third quarter Household Labour Force Survey is out. Some key data points:

• Employment up 27,000
• Unemployment down 4,000
• Unemployment rate down 0.2% to 6.2%
• Maori unemployment rate down 0.6% to 12.2%
• Manufacturing jobs up 5,300 (recall the “crisis in manufacturing” claims of the opposition)
• Total hours worked up 1.6% for the quarter and 3.8% for the year
• NZ unemployment rate is 13th lowest of 34 OECD countries, which averages 7.9%

Also from other labour force surveys:

• Salary/wage rates up 0.5% for the quarter and 1.7% for the year
• Weekly gross earnings up 1.8% for the quarter and 5.3% for the year
• Average FT salary for public sector is $69,837 and private sector is $51,934

Audrey Young reports:

Labour says it will reduce the dominance of overseas-owned insurers, keep profits in New Zealand, and bring competition, flexibility and choice to New Zealanders.

Cunliffe implied that National’s opposition to the policy is because it received big donations from the insurance industry in 2005 and attempted to table the Hollow Men documentary on the Nicky Hager book.

Please tell me you are joking? Did the Labour Leader really claim that National’s policy in 2013 is influenced by some donations made in 2005? That’s just desperate.

Finance Minister Bill English said the idea of a bank taking on more insurance risk “is about the dumbest proposal that could possibly be made in the light of events following the global financial crisis.”

“We have already got the bill for $7 billion of Earthquake Commission risk. Why would we take on more?”

It was glorious day outside but English was having none of that. “Having low-income people working in the rain, paying their PAYE and underwriting financial risk is as dumb an idea was you can have in the 2020s.”

KiwiAssure, if it came to pass, would also be New Zealand 97th insurance company.

The other 96 are not good enough?

Key responded on KiwiBank. Yes it was a good little business.

“I might point out though this it has taken $860 million of taxpayers’ money and it has never paid a dividend in 10 years.”

It’s arguable that KiwiBank doesn’t even cover the cost of capital, and is effectively subsidized by the taxpayer.

He challenged Cunliffe to name another bank operating in New Zealand that had an insurance company, and offered insurance on the same property they were lending on.

“They do not do that.”

Cunliffe: “Is he aware that ASB Bank own Tower Insurance? If he is, why is he asking such a stupid question.”

Within minutes of Cunliffe’s comment, National’s research unit – or perhaps a few friends in the insurance industry – had got the message to Key that Cunliffe was wrong.

ASB did not own Tower. They sent the list of owners. Key tried to read through the list.

That’s a big fail.

Eventually Labour’s deputy, David Parker, and possibly the source of his leader’s error, did the honourable thing and acknowledged the error by asking Key: “Has he received any advice that ASB in fact own Sovereign Assurance?”

Key: “Yes it does own Sovereign and let us get to the better bit…Sovereign provides life insurance, and the way [Cunliffe] is going, he will need life insurance.”

I don’t think Labour are proposing a state owned insurer to provide life insurance. It is obviously targeted at property and contents insurance, the idea of having a bank own a property insurance company is a great way to have it go bankrupt.

Walter Read writes:

We’re already seeing a growing body of evidence that charter schools improve students’ academic performance, but a new study suggests that the benefits continue even after students leave the classroom. Researchers from Harvard and Princetontracked a group of students from the Harlem Children’s Zone’s Promise Academy and found that, in addition to having higher test scores compared to their peers, these students were also less likely to engage in risky behaviors and enjoyed lower rates of teen pregnancy and incarceration. 

So what is the data:

That focus appears to be yielding results: surveys completed by the students—who were paid between $40 and $200 to participate—show that teenage girls who won the school lottery were 12.1 percentage points less likely to be pregnant; boys who won the lottery to Promise Academy were 4.3 percentage points less likely to be in prison or jail than counterparts who didn’t land spots in the school. Lottery winners scored higher on math and reading exams; they also were more likely to take and pass exams in courses such as chemistry and geometry. They also were 14.1 percentage points more likely to enroll in college.

Charter schools are of course an evil experiment that must be stopped!

As the researchers themselves note, Promise Academy is something of an anomaly in the charter school world. It is extremely successful and makes use of a number of rarely practiced techniques, including performance-based incentives for teachers, long school hours, and data-driven monitoring of students. So it may not be an accurate gauge of the charter world overall.

Maybe not a gauge, but a model!

Then again, one of the key advantages of charter schools is that they give faculty and administrators the chance to experiment with techniques like these without running afoul of the bureaucratic red tape and union regulations that are endemic to many public school systems. Its precisely this flexibility that makes it possible for charter schools to offer better results for students.

All for flexibility, and judging them on results.

Sam Morgan tweeted this graph.It shows the huge change in out trade balance with China since the FTA was signed.

Ironic that NZ First and Greens opposed it, considering NZ First claims they are pro exporters and Greens always harp on about the current account and trade deficits. They should apologise for their opposition to it.

I just hope that Labour don’t go down the anti trade path, as the unions want them to with TPP.

Stats NZ reported marriage and civil union data.

Since civil unions began in 2005, the totals have been:

• 1,449 female couples (45%)
• 1,092 male couples (34%)
• 657 male-female couples (21%)

For marriage the data for the last quarter is:

• 61 female couples (2.2%)
• 56 male couples (2.0%)
• 2,681 male-female couples (95.8%)

However same sex marriages were only available for just under half the quarter.

The total number of same sex marriages and unions in the quarter was 139 and the total number of marriages and unions was 2,831. That means 4.9% of unions and marriages were of same sex couples. Now that was for only half a quarter but one would also expect an initial flurry. U guess we won’t know for a few more quarters what the long-term marriage rates will be for each. It would be interesting to find out if over time there was a greater or smaller marriage rate among same sex couples and heterosexual couples. But that is hard to calculate without know the population size for each group/

Yeah I know I am Godwining myself, but I couldn’t help it.

Check out the website Fizz. They aim to ban all soft drinks in New Zealand with sugar in them!!

We are a group of researchers and public health doctors who have come together to advocate for ending the sale of sugar sweetened beverages (sugary drinks) from New Zealand.

I’m all for informing people that drinking 10 litres of Coke a day isn’t the best idea in the world. But when these lobbyists start trying to ban things, that’s when they become health n***s.  They just do not think we as adult individuals should be allowed to make choices for ourselves.

Personally I don’t drink many sugary beverages, but fuck it if I want to have a glass of fanta at a birthday party, then who the hell are they to say this should be banned.

Dr Sundborn is also planning a conference in which experts will share their views about the harm from excess sugar intake and propose strategies to eliminate the products from sale in New Zealand.

They just never stop. I can accept public health arguments over supply and marketing of tobacco as that is quite unique. But the problem is they use the precedents from tobacco, and then try to apply it to alcohol, then sugary drinks, and then no doubt chocolate easter eggs one day.

We believe that sugary drinks are likely to be addictive, like coffee, alcohol and cigarettes

Coffee will be next on their hit list!

Their about section on the website is blank, but I bet you bottom dollar that 95% of them are on the taxpayer payroll, and our taxes are paying for this little lobby group – directly or indirectly. Their symposium appears to be funded by Auckland and Otago universities.

I have no problem with research into the ill effects of too much sugar. Don’t even have a problem with some educational programmes. But when they advocate for the banning of foods and drinks they disagree with, that is when the taxpayer should say we’re not paying the bill. Looks like the Health Research Council is also funding this symposium which aims to ban soft drinks from New Zealand. Outrageous.

Stuff reports:

A portrait emerging of the teenager at the centre of Roast Busters scandal shows a young man obsessed with group sex with his childhood friend – and who had little regard for issues of consent and respect towards women.

Police are investigating the group of Auckland men, understood to be aged 17 and 18, who allegedly had group sex with drunk teenage girls and bragged about it online. The allegations were first brought to their attention two years ago, and there has been criticism about the delay.

It’s bad enough to think there is something good or cool about having sex with people too drunk to consent (and underage), but a certain kind of stupid to also brag about it online.

Hales’ main partner in the ”Roast Busters” sex gang appeared to be his mate Joseph Levall Parker, 18, but Hales denied there was anything ”gay” about having group sex with his friend.

”We have all been very good mates for years so we are comfortable around each other, we even walk around naked? [sic]”

Psychologists could have fun with that one.

Another of the girls has told 3 News that she only had sex with the Roast Busters because she was drunk.

”I just kept blacking out ’cause I had drunken too much,” she says. ”You could say I got raped. I had sex with three guys at one time.”

Under the law, someone does not consent to sexual activity ”if the activity occurs while he or she is so affected by alcohol or some other drug that he or she cannot consent or refuse to consent to the activity”.

If she was blacking out, there is no doubt she was unable to consent.

I think there is always a good question to ask if you in a situation where alcohol is involved. It is whether you think the other person in the morning will be happy about what happened, once they are sober. If you have any doubt about the answer being yes, then don’t go there.

It’s very sad that these young guys had a culture of acceptance of predatory behaviour (at best) or rape (at worst), and that it has taken so long for them to get the message how unacceptable it is.

If some victims come forward to complain, that will be a good thing – and send out a strong message.

Stuff reports:

Chorus says it could default on its loans and may not be able to complete construction of its share of the ultrafast broadband network, following a ruling by the Commerce Commission this morning.

The NZX-listed company issued the dire warnings after the commission released a “final determination”, which ruled that the company should be allowed to charge $10.92 a month for its copper broadband connections.

Its shares have plunged 8 per cent this morning, and were trading down 21 cents at $2.42 within minutes of the NZX opening at 10am.  

Chorus has a contract with the Crown to complete its work on the UFB network by 2020 but the company said that if the Government didn’t intervene, it would be left with a $1 billion “funding shortfall”.

Chief executive Mark Ratcliffe said Chorus would “simply not be able to borrow the money we need” to complete its UFB contract.

The company had notified its bank lenders that unless the Government intervened, the ruling would have a “material adverse effect” on the firm.

“If this did occur lenders would be entitled to trigger an event of default,” the company said in a statement.

Chorus would also “discuss with the Crown whether Chorus is still a credible UFB partner” and how it might still deliver on its contract, the company said.

No one wants to see Chorus bankrupt or defaulting on its loans. But wise politicians would do well to remember the words of Mandy Rice-Davies who basically said “Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?”

The price set by the Commerce Commission is almost half way between the draft determination and the price the Government indicated in its discussion document it might set.

Now I can totally understand that the Government doesn’t want the UFB project derailed, or worse Chorus to go bankrupt or default on its loans.

But please please please I hope they don’t just take Chorus’ words for it, and make a decision based on a press release. This is not to suggest that Chorus is wrong. Just to say, that a very high level of certainty should be required before you intervene. It should be the last option, not the first option.

If the Government really thinks there is a risk of that magnitude to Chorus, then it should hire the best accountancy or financial analysis firm in New Zealand to go into Chorus, and do an independent review of its income, spending, profitability, debt and the like and have them report back on whether they concur with what Chorus has said. Release that report publicly and allow people to peer review it.

As Chorus is asking the Government for a special law change, that would benefit it by hundreds of millions of dollars, surely they could not object to an independent review?

I understand the Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to make a decision. My plea is for them to make a decision based on the best independent data there is, not on the basis of a press release from a monopoly provider.

Also the Government could do worse than play a bit of hardball themselves. If Chorus is going to threaten the Government by saying it may default on the UFB project, then maybe the Government should open talks with Vector and other UFB bidders and see if they would be willing to step up if necessary. Use the same tactics that Steven Joyce used with Novopay – keep the pressure on the company, by looking at backup options.

Personally I think it is almost beyond belief that Chorus would seek to default on its UFB contracts, considering that would leave the company with almost no long-term future – being a copper provide only in what is a fibre future world.

Maybe the price recommended would cause them issues with their debt. If so, let’s have the details.

As I said I understand the difficult position the Government is in. But this is a decision they should take great care about. Both because it may set a precedent, and also because it will affect almost every Kiwi household.

Questions for Oral Answer 

Questions to Ministers 2.00 PM -3.00 PM.

1. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme supporting New Zealand families, particularly those on low incomes and with dependent children?
2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the insurance industry is “a highly efficient market”?
3. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Transport: How will the construction of Transmission Gully benefit the Wellington region?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with IAG’s submission to the Commerce Commission that “there is real potential for major banks to begin underwriting their own general insurance products, and to compete directly with the incumbent insurance companies at the underwriting level as they already do at a retail level of the insurance market”?
5. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Economic Development:Did his office withhold information about the harm caused by the SkyCity convention centre deal because it was considered sensitive by SkyCity; if so, why?
6. NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made in the rebuild of the University of Canterbury?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the advice his Ministers receive from Government departments?
8. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister of Justice: What has been the outcome of his review of the 2002 Youth Offending Strategy?
9. JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Justice: Will she reconsider an alternative trial process for sexual abuse cases following Police statements that girls targeted by the Roast Busters group have not been “brave enough” to bring a complaint; if not, why not?
10. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement on Q+A in relation to child poverty that “So why do an official measure that then by very definition still has, quite frankly, you know, it’s, sort of, wherever you put the measure, you’re always going to have people in poverty …”?
11. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in growing the community housing sector?
12. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Will the Government abide by the final Unbundled Bitstream Access Service Price Review determination issued by the Commerce Commission today?

Today Labour are asking four questions. These are two questions about the New Zealand insurance market, one about child poverty and finally a question about Ultra Fast Broadband. The Greens are asking two questions, these are about Skycity Casino and the Roastbusters group. New Zealand First is asking whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the advice he receives from government departments.

Patsy of the day goes to Mike Sabin for Question 8:  What has been the outcome of his review of the 2002 Youth Offending Strategy?

Government Bills 3.00 PM – 6.00 PM and 7.30 PM – 10.00 PM

1. Human Rights Amendment Bill – First Reading (Interrupted)

2. Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill – Third Reading

3. New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill – Second Reading

4. Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill – First Reading

The Human Rights Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill enables the establishment of a full-time Disability Rights Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission, and makes changes to the role and structure of the Commission.

The  Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill  is being guided through the house by the Minister for ICT, Amy Adams. The bill seeks to repeal and replace the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act 2004

The New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is being guided through he house by the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to an agreement between SkyCity Entertainment Group Limited and the Crown called the New Zealand International Convention Centre Project and Licensing Agreement.

The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce. The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill makes the amendments required to implement the findings of the industry taining review undertaken by the Government in 2011 and 2012

As fun (and necessary) as it is to mock Luigi Wewege for his appalling behaviour, it is important not to let that distract from the more important issue of whether Len Brown has abused his role as Mayor to help his mistress.

There has been some uncertainty about whether they were in a relationship when he agreed to be the referree for her for a Council CCO job. There is no more, after the Sunday interview:

IAN: And what about your application for the job, um, at the art gallery? Were you in a sexual relationship with him when you applied for that job and he wrote the reference?

BEVAN: He’s one of five referees that I have put on to the list.

IAN: At the time, though, Bevan, at the time when he wrote the reference, was he in a relationship with you? A romantic one, I mean?

BEVAN: Yes.

IAN: He was? Yeah, and at the time when it went forward to the shortlist, was he still there?

BEVAN: Yes.

IAN: But you did use your relationship with him — and it was a romantic relationship — to help gain, get backing for a job, did you not?

BEVAN: Um, he was a referee for the art gallery job, and probably you can say that. I mean, I have got— I’ve got the job, and, of course, the referees are important. Um, and, yeah, that could be the advantage, but I obviously have lost more now than I gained.

Brown maintains he did nothing wrong in writing her a reference, because he has written them for other people.  His failure to admit any lapse of judgement around the reference is disturbing. The difference is he was not in a relationship with the other people. Helping your mistress get a job is different to helping an acquaitance get a job.

Also what is important is that it was for a job at a Council CCO. The influence of a Mayoral reference will be far far greater at a CCO, than say in the private sector.

Labour insisted Nick Smith resign over him writing a letter on behalf of a friend. Strange that they don’t seem to think the same standard should apply to politicians who are Labour Party members.

The Herald editorial:

Nothing in the policy announced by Mr Cunliffe at the weekend dealt with any of the real insurance policy issues arising from Christchurch. The announcement was little more than a replay of a commercial for KiwiBank which, like it or not, could be saddled with the insurance company. “KiwiAssure will work for all New Zealanders,” Mr Cunliffe declared. It would be “a service-focused, state-owned company that has their best interests at heart”. It would “keep profits from this crucial industry in New Zealand”.

Wisely, he did not quite claim it would offer cheaper premiums than existing companies. Christchurch had an insurance company that did that. AMI had come to dominate the local market by undercutting competitors and the earthquake exposed its inability to meet all of its liabilities.

KiwiAssure could well fail in the case of another large earthquake, and it would do huge reputation damage to NZ Post and Kiwibank if it did.

The AMI experience is salutary for national taxpayers, too, when they hear Labour’s assurance that its company would not carry a government guarantee. The present Government quickly came to the relief of AMI’s policy holders, taking over the worst liabilities and selling AMI as a going concern to the multinational IAG. It is hard to imagine a Labour Government acting any differently if a state-owned insurer fell into the same trouble.

Of course it would have to be bailed out, if it is touted as a state owned insurance company.

Insurance is almost the last business that should be nationalised. Its purpose is to share risk internationally.

That is the key point. It’s incredibly dumb to set up an insurance company that will have all its exposure in one market.

Gerry Brownlee announced:

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says Cabinet has agreed to lower the legal blood alcohol limit from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood for drivers aged over 20.

“Legislation to bring about this change will receive its first reading before the House rises for the Christmas break,” Mr Brownlee says.

“Alcohol impairment is a major cause of road accidents in New Zealand, with an average of 61 fatalities, 244 serious injuries, and 761 minor injuries every year caused by at-fault drivers who have been drinking.

“The social cost of these injuries and fatalities is $446 million – a huge sum in a country of our size.”

A two year review of the impact of lowering the legal blood alcohol limit by 30 milligrams suggests 3.4 lives will be saved a year and 64 injury causing crashes avoided – and save $200 million in social costs over 10 years.

“Data collected by Police over the past 22 months shows 53 drivers were involved in fatal and serious injury crashes with blood alcohol readings of between 51 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood,” Mr Brownlee says.

It’s proposed the new regime will impose civil infringements on drivers with between 50 and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Drivers testing positive for this lower limit will receive a $200 fine and gain 50 demerit points.

This is a typical John Key compromise, but as it happens a pretty good one.

You get the benefits of a lower drink driving limit, but you don’t risk turning people into criminals who (for example) share a bottle of wine over dinner and then drive.

I note the research found that the lower limit will save three to four lives a year. While not insignificant, it is massively lower than the hysterical claims from some that it would reduce the road toll by 33 lives a year. The actual data is just 10% of that.

I think it is entirely sensible that the Government actually gathered data on how many accidents are caused by people with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and also how many drivers drive at that level. You can’t make a sensible decision without that data, and it annoys me that Labour who refused to raise the limit for nine years, have demanded that National do so immediately without the benefit of NZ research.

The data on how many people drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 is slightly more than those who are above 0.08. So around twice as many people will be found over the limit with a 0.05 limit. I don’t think the relatively minor reduction in the road toll would be worth a change, if it meant you would be doubling the number of New Zealanders who are getting criminal convictions for their blood alcohol level.

But the compromise of lowering the limit, yet having the penalties be a fine and demerits, rather than a criminal record, is an elegant solution.

NewstalkZB reported:

Cabinet Minister Gerry Brownlee’s Catholic background has been brought up at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Christchurch.

Local Labour MP Megan Woods has noted Mr Brownlee’s St Bede’s education while discussing the potential demolition of the city’s historic Anglican Cathedral.

“So if you get the chance, delegates, I’d like you to remind Gerry that they stopped giving out papal knighthoods for destroying Anglican cathedrals several centuries ago.”

That’s so sad. Trying to stir up resentment against Gerry because of his religion, but even worse trying to blame him for a decision which was not his. It is the Bishop of Christchurch who made the decision.

Is Ms Woods stating that if she was in Government, she would have legislated to over-turn the decision of the Anglican Church? Is that what she thinks Gerry should have done?

Con is a New Zealand play, written by Gavin McGibbon and directed by Danny Mulheron.

The plot is simple, yet complicated. It’s about two con-men, a girl and a victim. But who is conning who? Without giving too much away, prepare for double, triple and quadruple crosses. Nothing is quite like what it seems.

The two con-men are Earl and Stevie, played by Paul McLaughlin and Mike Minogue respectively. You get introduced to them as Stevie is on the phone to some elderly householder convincing her that her computer is infected with a virus, and telling her how he can help her fix it for a small fee. As she is thanking him profusely for helping save her from a non-existent problem, I reflected how sadly accurate and common that scenario is.

The playwright got the inspiration for this play when his Facebook account got hacked and a scammer posted to his page that he had been mugged and robbed in the Philippines and needed money to be deposited into a bank account to help him get home.

But Earl and Stevie have plans well beyond a common Internet scam. They planned to rip off a charity for a six figure sum of money, and not just any charity but CanTeen – can anything be worse than scamming a charity to help teenagers with cancer.

Photo by Stephen A’Court

Complicating things is the entry of Holly, played by Acushla-Tara Sutton. At first she’s just a pick up in a bar, but it gets more serious. And what does it mean for Stevie when he finds out something personal about her? And how did Stevie end up a scammer? He was once a hero. What was his fall from grace, and is there a path back?

Jason Whyte completes the cats playing the victim, Jeffery, and a couple of minor roles.

The play kept you guessing throughout. There were numerous twists and turns, and not all of them easy to predict. Who was putting on and act, and who wasn’t? The characters were likeable, despite their activities, and you wanted to see how it all ends.

Quite rarely for me, I did think the play could have benefited from being a little longer. It’s 90 minutes long, and I would have liked to have seen more of Stevie’s background, but also more of how the main scam went down and the reaction to it.  It was a bit disjointed at times.

But that didn’t take away from it being a very enjoyable play, which kept you engaged throughout. The acting was excellent, and a nice satisfying ending – for some!

Stuff reports:

A man linked to the failed Auckland mayoral campaign of John Palino has again denied being in a relationship with a woman who had a two-year affair with Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

Luigi Wewege today issued a statement denying he had been in a relationship with Bevan Chuang. It follows a TV appearance by Chuang last night in which she said she was in a “love triangle” with Brown and Wewege, who was a worker in the Palino election campaign.

I’m confused.

There seem to be only two possibilities here:

1. Wewege is claiming he has never had sex with Chuang, despite the sexual tones of his numerous texts, and is calling Chuang a liar
2. Wewege is saying that he was having sex with her, but that doesn’t make it a relationship

Not sure what good he thought he was doing by putting out that statement.

Chuang also said she was in love with Wewege and he was a “sweet talker”. He had offered her a marriage proposal and offers to go on romantic holidays

Either Chuang is lying or Wewege is lying. There doesn’t seem a lot of common ground there.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s new rule to ensure at least half of its MPs are women by 2017 is likely to lead to increased pressure on males such as Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard to quit Parliament to make way for fresh male talent.

Under the rule, passed at the annual conference in Christchurch, Labour will seek to ensure at least 45 per cent of its caucus are females after the 2014 election, rising to 50 per cent after 2017 – meaning most of the new candidates likely to get high places on the party list or selection for safe electorate seats will be women.

That will mean the only way to get a significant intake of new male MPs is either by dumping some sitting male list MPs to unwinnable places on the list or pushing electorate MPs to retire from politics to open up more seats.

Among those likely to come under pressure to allow that to happen are Mr Mallard, the Hutt South MP, and Mr Goff, the member for Mt Roskill.

But both are digging their heels in and their local electorate committees are likely to protect them against any move from head office.

If Mallard and Goff resist the push, then its curtains for male Labour List MPs, possibly including Shane Jones and Andrew Little.

I just ran the New York Marathon in around 4 hours 29 minutes. Hardest thing I have ever done, but also the best. Can currently crawl only at a very slow pace and am unconvinced I will ever walk normally again. However I am very happy!

Will blog more on it when I recover, which may take a couple of days! It’s an amazing experience and the energy you get from the crowds and the bands make a huge difference.

Welcome to this new spot on Kiwiblog – your Monday Motivator – a landscape photograph usually in the panoramic format from New Zealand or overseas designed to bring you a little inspiration for the week ahead.

I thought I would start with a classic New Zealand scene taken on the road between Twizel and Lake Tekapo which has a certain element of ‘kiwiana’ about it. Very rarely does it occur that you happen to be driving by when all the elements (especially the light) for a photograph are present at that very moment. But that was the case with this image and after a quick u-turn and setting up the tripod in the middle of the highway I set about capturing what has become a very special photograph.

Enjoy Free Wallpaper – Desktop or ipad

I hope you enjoy – you can download this photograph as a free Desktop Wallpaper HERE and please share with your friends.

Many thanks to David for adding me amongst the fine photographers on Kiwiblog.

Cheers Richard [richardhume.com]

Darien Fenton announced:

It’s time to consider implementing working-hours regulation in New Zealand to ensure all workers have sustainable incomes and are able to meet their family commitments, says Darien Fenton, Labour’s Associate labour issues spokesperson.

“I am proposing a new bill, the Employment Relations (Hours and Wages Protection) Amendment Bill (attached) to help provide more certainty for workers. The Bill would require the actual hours a person is expected to work to carry out their duties to be specifically written into employment agreements, whether individual or collective.

This would basically abolish casual employment contracts, and also shows a total lack of understanding how difficult it can be to set hours in advance. Sure it is easy in a 9 to 5 office. But what if you are an employer where the number of hours of work you need done is totally dependent on how much work you have from clients?

Will the next step be to set a maximum 35 hour working week as in France?

This sort of bill could only be written by someone who has never worked in the private sector. Labour regards flexibility as an evil bad thing. But it isn’t.

UPDATE: Some clarification from Labour:

The ERA already requires an indication of hours of work to be included in individual contracts. It is not required for CEAs and the bill changes that. You are misleading your readers by saying casual contracts would not be allowed. The bill is designed to ensure such agreements are recorded in writing. 

I still think it is a solution looking for a problem. I think better to rely on good faith than what can be inflexible legislative provisions – the same goes for tea breaks. They worked fine for 100 years without legislative backing up until a few years ago when they were suddenly deemed necessary.

Incidentally I’m informed Darien has worked in the private sector and been a small business owner.

Stuff reports:

Labour apears to be inching closer towards republicanism, with delegates at its annual conference in Christchurch giving the green light to a proposal to hold a binding referendum on whether to ditch the monarchy on the death of the Queen.

At yesterday’s conference the party agreed to send a remit on the proposal from prospective Wairarapa candidate Kieran McAnulty, who is also treasurer of the Republican Movement, to a full vote from delegates today. Sources say it is likely to pass without dissent.

That’s good to see. Whether we retain the monarchy or have a New Zealand Head of State is a decision that should be made by the people through a referendum – not by politicians.

The move comes as a new poll shows a small majority of New Zealanders are in favour of such a referendum.

The Republican Movement poll, conducted by pollsters Curia, showed 47 per cent of New Zealanders supported the idea of a referendum on the Queen’s death, with 44 per cent against and 9 per cent uncertain.

A poll in June on support for a republic found 40 per cent support to 53 per cent against.

Note they are two very different questions. The latest poll is on whether people think there should be a referendum. The June poll was on whether people think we should move to a republic. One could well support remaining with the monarchy, yet also support there being a referendum to decide the issue.

Personally I think there would be a vote to change to a republic, if there is a referendum. The recent debate on The Vote showed a dramatic change in preferences from the studio audience after they had listened to the issues for an hour. They started in favour of retaining the monarchy and ended up fairly strongly backing moving to a republic.