I’ve got details of the two latest polls at Curiablog. Sunday night’s One News Colmar Brunton poll and this morning’s Herald Digipoll. The former had little movement while the latter has a large swing to Labour.
The time and size weighted average of all the public polls has it almost neck and neck with the CR bloc on 60 seats, CL on 62 seats and the Maori Party holding the balance of power on 3 seats. This assumes no changes in electorate seats.
The Canadian Globe & Mail writes:
One reason students phone in their school assignments – and only halfheartedly copy edit and research them – is that they’re keenly aware that there’s no “authentic audience.” Only the teacher is reading it. In contrast, academic studies have found that whenever students write for other actual, live people, they throw their back into the work – producing stuff with better organization and content, and nearly 40 per cent longer than when they write for just their instructor.
Smart teachers have begun to realize they can bring this magic into the classroom. In Point England, New Zealand – a low-income area with high illiteracy rates – the educators had long struggled to get students writing more than a few sentences. So they set up blogs, had the students post there and, crucially, invited far-flung family and friends to comment. At first, the students grumbled. But once they started getting comments from Germany and New York, they snapped to attention.
“They realized they were writing for a global audience,” one of the educators, Colleen Gleeson, told me. They began closely critiquing each other’s writing, finessing it for the folks abroad, such as pondering which local references a foreigner would not understand. By the second year, this explosion of writing was evident in their test scores, some of the schools that had adopted the blogging experiment – schools that had long lagged behind the country – were making advances 10 to 13 times larger than the national average, and some had risen all way to the average.
Good to see the great advances being made by Point England getting global attention. And really smart to use blogs as a way to get feedback for students and involve extended family.
The CTU has a campaign underway calling for an inquiry into the forestry sector, due to its high accident and fatality rates. There certainly are an unacceptable number of deaths (any preventable death is of course unacceptable), but I have been unsure if there has been a sudden deterioration in the safety record in the forestry sector. So I asked ACC and MBIE for their data on forestry related deaths and injuries going back to 1990.
ACC has data back to 2002. Their data is:
So the level of ACC claims in the sector is well down on a decade ago. However fair to note that it does appear to have been trending up since 2008. However 2013 may end up below 2012.
The number of claims involving a fatal injury varies, with it ranging from 0 to 6. Note that the data ACC has is based on occupations supplied, so if a truck driver was killed in a forestry accident, they would not record that as forestry sector. However MBIE does, and we’ll now look at their data:
MBIE also has data back to 2002 only. They get notifed of any accidents which involve serious harm, which is of course more seriious that just an ACC claim for minor accidents. So their data set is probably more important and useful.
So this also shows serious injuries are lower than a decade ago, but an upwards trend from 2009. However again 2013 may end up lower.
The level of fatalities also appears fairly consistent over the last decade, except of course the horribly high level for the first eight months of 2013.
So is an inquiry the answer? I certainly share the concern of the CTU and others that the level of serious injuries and fatalities is too high.
There is a plan for reducing deaths and injuries in the sector, that was published in August 2011. Also starting from last month the new health and safety inspectorate has started a workplace assessment programme of site visits to all 330 forestry operators. I think the pro-active approach is welcome.
It’s good that the CTU are focusing on a sector with too many accidents. I’m not persuaded an inquiry would be greatly beneficial, and I think the initiatives underway will hopefully make an impact. The level of serious injury is still below that of a decade ago (when no inquiries were being demanded) but the upwards trend is unacceptable and hopefully over the next 12 months that trend will reverse.
An open letter from Chatham Rock Phosphate to Gareth Hughes:
You have publicly said you are not against mining per se and will evaluate each project on its merits. We wonder how much faith to put in that statement if the evaluation is based on so little consultation and so few facts. If you have ruled out this mining project as well as countless others, are there any you do support?
Can anyone identify a mine that has not been opposed?
We’re astonished you have formed such a negative opinion about our project given the compelling potential environmental and economic benefits it offers and its minimal environmental impacts.
To remind you:
1. Chatham Rise rock phosphate, as an ultra-low cadmium direct-application fertiliser, has proven to be as effective as processed fertilisers while reducing run-off effects on New Zealand waterways by up to 80%.
2. This resource provides fertiliser security for farming by providing a local alternative source. Most rock phosphate used to make fertiliser now is imported from Morocco.
3. Moroccan rock phosphate is high in cadmium, involves high transport costs and has a significant carbon footprint.
4. New Zealand is predicted to be $900 million richer as a result of our new industry and we’ll be generating annual exports or import substitution of $300 million, plus supporting farming, our biggest earner.
5. By area, the economic value of the phosphate resource is 500 times greater than fishing; it is expected to yield $9.1 million per km2. In contrast, bottom trawling yields less than $20,000 per km2.
So while our operations will have some environmental impacts, they also offer very significant environmental and economic benefits.
The TV3 news item noted your alliance with the fishing industry is an unlikely one. I agree, given bottom trawling’s massive environmental impacts and lack of environmental oversight.
So the Greens are so anti-mining, they prefer bottom trawling to it!
Our proposed mining operation is subject to a rigorous environmental evaluation and monitoring process. The story that should be getting your attention is not the potential environmental impact of our project, but the freedom of the fishing industry to devastate as much of our EEZ as they like (currently about 50,000 km2 per year, or 385,032 km2 or 9.3% of the EEZ since 1989) with no environmental oversight or monitoring.
We wouldn’t consider extracting phosphate nodules from a very limited area of the Chatham Rise if we expected it to cause more than very minor environmental impacts. Our operations will lift the top 30cm of sandy silt and redeposit 85% of it on the same area of seabed after extracting the nodules. Modelling indicates the material returned will not be widely dispersed, and the sediment that doesn’t immediately settle will rapidly dilute to insignificant levels.
Our draft environmental impact assessment (EIA), supported by more than 30 expert reports, has identified no long-term impacts on key spawning, juvenile and young fish habitat. Any potential impacts are predicted to be confined to our limited extraction areas, and are short-term, reversible, and of low environmental risk.
But while bottom trawling – ploughing vast tracts of the EEZ seabed decade after decade – requires no environmental consents, our project needs a mining licence and a marine consent. These cost millions of dollars, require years of research, consultation and official process, and involve full public scrutiny.
Chatham’s planned 15-year extraction project will touch a total of 450 km2, far less than 1% of the Chatham Rise. In contrast, over the same period fishing will bottom trawl 750,000 km2, about three times the size of New Zealand.
This reinforces my view that the Greens tend to be knee-jerk against any new project, rather than treat them on their merits.
UPDATE: Gareth Hughes has responded in the comments.
Eddie at The Standard thinks Cunliffe has assigned portfolios in such a way to leave some of them free for the Greens in a future Labour-Greens Government.
I agree that this does appear to be the case, and is quite smart in terms of coalition relations. So what does this suggest Cunliffe has in mind for Green Ministers:
Eddie think thanks Turei could be better to remain a non-Minister so she can concentrate on being a co-Leader who is not tied down with Ministerial portfolios. Not sure she would be so keen on that.
Questions to Ministers 2 pm – 3 pm
Questions are National 5, Labour 4, Maori 1, NZ First 1 and Greens 1.
Labour is asking about housing affordability, Tiwai Point smelter, homelessness and DOC’s submission on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal. Greens are asking about the Tukituki Catchment Proposal also, NZ First is on his favourite topic of Whanua Ora and Maori Party on the RMA reformss.
The patsy of the day is No 9 by Paul Foster-Bell on showcasing aged care nursing.
Government Bills 3 pm – 6 pm and 7.30 pm to 10 pm
The Marine Legislation Bill was introduced by Gerry Brownlee in August 2012. It would amend the Maritime Transport Act and Exclusive Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act to clarify port and harbour safety, and transfer the regulation of offshore discharges from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. A further Government SOP (347) allows certain marine activities to be non-notified if it has a low probability of significant adverse effects on the environment or is routine or exploratory in nature.
The Marine Legislation Bill passed unanimously on its first reading, was reported back unanimously by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with amendments and also passed the second reading unanimously. However SOP 347 is opposed by some parties.
The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill was introduced by Craig Foss in July 2013. It would amend the Copyright Act to continue the ban on the parallel importation of films for three more years but to reduce the ban from 9 to 5 months.
The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill passed its first reading 96 to 1, with Brendan Horan voting against and Greens, NZ First and Mana abstaining. It was reported back by majority vote without amendment by the Commerce Committee. Labour supported the bill with reservations and Greens opposed it. It passed its second reading by 104 votes to 14 with Greens, Mana and Horan opposed.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced by Chris Tremain in May 2013. It would amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to enable local boards to delegate responsibilities, duties, or powers conferred or allocated to them.
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) passed its first reading unanimously, was reported back unanimously without amendments by the Local Government and Environment Committee and also passed its second reading unanimously.
The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson in June 2010 and would replace the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act, simplifing structure of arts administration in New Zealand.
The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill passed its first reading unanimously and was reported back with amendments by majority vote from the Government Administration Committee. Labour opposed the report back on the grounds that Pacific Island, Māori, ethnic and other marginalised groups such as those with a disability and children’s voices will be overwhelmed by the new structure of the proposed streamlined council. It passed its second reading by 72 votes to 49 with Labour, Greens and Mana voting against.
The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill was introduced by Chris Finlayson in October 2011. It would replace the Historic Places Act and make changes in the governance structure of the Historic Places Trust, adjust competing values, introduce new archaeological provisions and new emergency provisions.
The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill passed its first reading unanimously, and was reported back unanimously with amendments by the Local Government and Environment Committee.
While I don’t agree with all their views, I think Wellington City is well served by having a dedicated blog covering Wellington local government issues, WCC Watch. I do wish they were transparent on who runs the site (even if they with-hold names, they should disclose some information about who they are, their affiliations and motivations), but I find them reasonably balanced and less left-leaning than they were in 2010 (maybe different people in charge now).
Anyway they make it easier for me to review the Council candidates, as they have done it for me. So I can point to their reviews, and add in my own comments.
Let’s start with my ward – Lambton Ward.
I had previously said I would be voting for Nicola Young and Rex Nicholls and was undecided between John Dow and Iona Pannett for my third preference. Since then I’ve met John Dow and have to say am hugely impressed with what he has already achieved for Wellngton. He’s been involved in over a dozen major events and activities for Wellington ranging from the Wellington Gold Awards for business, the NZ International Arts Festival, the Wellington Phoenix, to events such as the a Vietnam Commemoration. He’s also worked on attracting businesses and visitors to Wellington.
While Iona has been a hard working Councillor, I reflected after meeting John that Iona’s list of achievements will probably include a fair number of things she has tried to stop such as better roads. I think there is a real contrast there.
So I’ll be ranking Nicola Young 1, and my top three preferences will go to Nicola Young, Rex Nicholls and John Dow. If you want a team of Councillors who can make things happen, rather than stop things happening, I’d urge people to give them your top three preferences.
I will still give Iona my fourth preference, which may still help her if one of the others does not make it.
Ian Apperley at Strathmore Park has also endorsed Young, Dow and Nicholls.
Next, we have Onslow-Western Ward.
Incumbents Jo Coughlan and Andy Foster should get returned. I think Jo is excellent, and she has done a huge amount around the Council’s economic strategy. Andy’s politics seem rather flexible at times, but one can’t deny he is hard working and effective.
WCC Watch suggests the third place is between Labour’s Malcolm Aitken, Simon Woolf and Hayley Robinson.
I prefer to keep party politics out of the Council. Those who stand on the Labour ticket are constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with directions of the Labour Party – either their policy manifesto, or their local body caucus/committee decisions. I don’t want Councillors who place the interests of their party ahead of the community they serve. Party politics is a necessary part of central Government, but is best kept away from local Government in my view.
I don’t really know Woolf or Robinson, but Woolf business background (the iconic Photography by Woolf) appeals to me, along with his very significant service to charities and sports. I know little about what Robinson has done or even her current job if she had one. However Ian Apperley has endorsed her as “Sweet and a little nutty” but genuinely caring.
He has also endorsed Phil Howison, and I share that endorsement. I know Phil, and think he would be very fiscally responsible Councillor. A very smart guy who would be able to deal with pretty much any portfolio area.
Third is Northern Ward.
WCC Watch thinks the likely winners are Lester, Ritchie and Sparrow with Toner and Gilberd being contenders.
Justin Lester has generally been a good Councillor, and deserve re-election.
Helene Ritchie first got elected to Wellington City Council in 1977, the same year I believe Apple Computers was formed. I think it is well and truly time for some fresh blood there.
Malcolm Sparrow has a strong background with the Tawa Local Board and I agree is likely to win a place.
My pick for a new Councillor, and the one I would rank No 1, is Jacob Toner. Jacob has the benefits of youth and enthusiasm and as well as being sound on the core stuff such as keeping rates affordable, being job-friendly, has some nice lateral ideas such as the proposed hitching posts which I have previously covered.
Ian Apperley endorses Jacob Toner as No 1 and Malcolm Sparrow as No 2.
Fourth is Eastern Ward.
All three incumbents are standing again. I know Simon (Swampy) Marsh and Ray Ahipene-Mercer and endorse both of them as 1 and 2. Ray is a left-winger but a great example of someone who can work with people of different political persuasions. WCC Watch labels Simon as active and accessible and I think that are spot on.
The third incumbent is Leonie Gill. A very nice person who has been active in many campaigns in the past. She is standing for Labour though which as I say above, I don’t see as useful in local body politics. I think with her health challenges, retirement could be a blessing in disguise for her, but if she wins again am sure she will work as hard as she can.
Karuna Muthu is standing for Mayor also, and may get a boost from the profile associated with that, as is Rob Goulden. Muthu is very engaged with ethnic community groups, but also has a good business background.
Sarah Free is running an active campaign, and is standing for the Greens. I don’t object to their being Green voices in Council but if Labour and Greens get anywhere near a majority I think we’d become a backwater. However Ian Apperley endorses Free as well-balanced and pragmatic.
John Coleman looks quite promising also and WCC Watch rates him as in with a chance. He has been involved in the Wellington Wine and Food Festivals and is a well known restaurateur.
Finally we have Southern Ward.
Paul Eagle is one of their two Councillors, and gets great reviews from almost anyone Despite the Labour affiliation he should be returned. He will no doubt in time turn as as the next MP for Rongotai.
My main priority is getting rid of Bryan Pepperell who seems unable to play a constructive role in anything, and is quite ineffectual as a Councillor (rated lowest by the Wellingtonian). He also describes fluoride as poison.
So it is a choice between Ginette McDonald and David Lee from the Greens.
I would vote for McDonald. No, not because she was Lyn of Tawa and has a high profile (ut that will help her). But she is a very active member of the Southern community has done more fundraisers etc than probably anyone else who lives there. Her heart is clearly in the right place. There are concerns over how good a fit she will be in a Council that can spend hours on complex regulatory hearings and the like and Ian Apperley thinks she’ll hate it if she gets in.
I’d rank them Eagle 1, (Ginette) McDonald 2, and Lee 3 and Pepperell last or not ranked at all.
I will do separate posts on the Mayoralty, the DHB and the Wellington Regional Council.
Brian Rudman writes:
Having failed to get elected in two earlier campaigns, the candidate previously known as Cheryl Talamaivao has wisely rethought her tactics. But deciding to elevate her position on the ballot paper by tacking her great-grandfather’s surname in front of her own may turn out to be something of an own goal in her bid for election to the Henderson-Massey Local Board.
As Brown-Talamaivao, she is now number six on the ballot paper, instead of the second-to-last at number 27 she would have been as plain Talamaivao. But the experts, in what in Australia is referred to as the “donkey vote” advantage, reckon that being second to bottom is a good place to be, and argue that candidates at the tail end of a long list of contenders share a similar advantage to those at the beginning, over the poor suckers stranded in the middle. …
The unfair advantage, in particular to those at the top of the ballot paper, is well studied and proven. The Local Government Commission examined the outcome of the 2007 New Zealand local elections and found that those listed alphabetically at the top of the ballot papers and candidate profile booklets “were up to 4 per cent more likely to be elected than those whose names were later in the alphabet”. Names like Anae, Brown, Brewer, Casey and Coney.
The commission also noted “a significant bias in favour of candidates in the left column of voting documents”.
A similar effect was found in an analysis of the 2010 Greater London local elections by City University researchers. After examining the fate of 5000 candidates, they found that “ballot position did indeed strongly influence the number of votes received by candidates”. There was evidence that “the strength of this effect is sufficient to overcome voter preference for party …”
I strongly support random ordering on ballot papers, and note that the online voting option to be trialed in 2016 may allow random ordering also, which would be beneficial.
Sadly far too many of our local body elections are not truly informed democratic votes. We need more wards, with fewer candidates per ward. I’d have every ward as a single Councillor ward so people are voting for just one Mayor and one Councillor.
The Dominion Post editorial:
He prefers a Vatican guesthouse to the luxurious papal apartment occupied by his predecessors, he’s swapped a bulletproof limousine for a battered old runabout with 300,000km on the clock and he ducked a symphony concert organised in his honour because he had more urgent business. “I’m not a Renaissance prince,” he said.
The big tests are still to come, but six months after cardinals chose 76-year-old Argentinian cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to succeed Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Catholic Church, it looks as if they made an inspired choice.
I agree.
Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, might just be that rarest of creatures – a holy man. Not for him the trappings of wealth or the layers of intermediaries that separated his predecessors from the real world. One of his first actions as Pope was to call his newspaper vendor in Buenos Aires to cancel his delivery. Another was to call his shoemaker. “No red shoes, make them black as usual.”
And it is not just his personal style:
He has said he is not interested in judging people on the basis of their sexuality and has opened the door to a discussion about the possibility of married priests. He has also said the church’s focus on abortion, marriage and contraception is too narrow and is driving people away.
That does not mean the church is about to change its position on any or all of those issues, but it does indicate a new willingness to consider issues of importance to Catholics.
That can only be good for the church and a world desperately in need of goodness and compassion.
I don’t see a change in doctrine, as much as emphasis. But even a 2,000 year old institution does change with the times to some degree. In fact one of the massive design faults in religions like Islam is an inability to modernise because there is no central authority in the religion. Christian churches can and do modernise to reflect the changing world, hence why the Catholic Church no longer bans reprinting Galileo’s works.
I’ve been trying to think of the last time a NZ Prime Minister (and their family) was invited to stay at Balmoral, and I can’t recall it ever happening before.
The Queen has had 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers during her reign, and according to media reports Key is the first to ever be invited. He even had the 87 year old Monarch drive him around the estate!
The UK PM does get invited regularly, but it is a first for a NZ PM, and I think possibly for an Australian or Canadian PM also.
The question is why was Key invited, when no other NZ PM has been? He is not the longest serving.
I think it is purely the strength of their personal relationship. I recall when in 2008 the Herald profiled Key and spoke to former colleagues and competitors. Despite working in a cut throat industry, no one had a bad word to say about him. Likewise in the job as PM, he has struck up warm personal (on top of the purely professional) relationships with Julia Gillard, David Cameron and it seems the Queen (and Prince William).
Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:
The work history of new Labour leader David Cunliffe has come under scrutiny after claims from National party-aligned lobbyist Matthew Hooton.
In an interview with Fairfax Media this weekend Cunliffe said that as a business consultant he had “helped with the formation of Fonterra”.
However, Hooton, who was a communications consultant working on the merger, angrily rejected this, saying: “That was untrue.”
“David Cunliffe had nothing to do with the foundation of Fonterra.”
Cunliffe responded to the allegations this morning by tweeting: “Bollocks.”
So when was Fonterra formed?
The multinational corporation was formed in 2001 from the merger of New Zealand Dairy Group, Kiwi Co-operative Dairies, and export agent New Zealand Dairy Board.
Before entering politics in 1999, the New Lynn MP worked for Boston Consultancy Group in Auckland.
Hooton conceded the firm was involved in the early stages: “It is true that Boston Consulting had a supporting role.” He claims it is “deeply implausible” Cunliffe was involved.
However, he said: “It’s absolutely true that sometime earlier in the 1990s, he might have done some dairy industry analysis. That’s entirely plausible, but to say that he helped with the formation of Fonterra is quite obviously a lie.”
Announcements about deregulation and reform of the dairy industry were made in the 1998 Budget. There were secret negotiations throughout 2000 at a hotel in Auckland airport before the Fonterra proposal was made public.
“By that time David Cunliffe had been in Parliament for more than a year…and he’d been a Labour candidate for two years,” Hooton pointed out.
An industry player close to the deal, who did not want to be named, said that BCG had carried out early work for the dairy board in 1998 around creating a single company and Cunliffe may have been involved in that.
But he said they were “shunted to one side” after that and were not involved in the 2000 talks. He said it was “embellishing” to say that Cunliffe was involved in the formation of Fonterra.
NBR also has some details (paywall) and says that any work done on models in the 1990s was quite different to the Fonterra model decided upon in the 2000s.
On the face of it, it looks like another case of padding. This is not where a claim is false, but exaggerated to make yourself look better. Many people of course do this on their CVs, but when you are auditioning to become Prime Minister of New Zealand, you face additional scrutiny.
Some people have suggested that the scrutiny is unfair and part of an attempt to knock Cunliffe down. I think they forget that John Key went through exactly the same thing in 2008.
The NZ Herald had reporters spend months investigating John Key’s background. They talked to former colleagues and acquaintances of Key’s from around the world. They eventually published their findings in a multi-page feature.
No Naughty Bits is a play about a copyright lawsuit, specifically Gilliam v. American Broadcasting. Now you might wonder why anyone would see a play about a copyright dispute, but when you realise Gilliam is Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame, and the lawsuit was about ABC editing their shows in such a way that they were basically no longer funny, and hence it damaged their reputations, then the appeal becomes clear.
Monty Python were the comic geniuses of my generation, and their influence on comedy has been compared to the influence of The Beatles on Music. I can recite the script of Life of Brian almost word perfect, having viewed it over a dozen times.
Andrew Foster plays Michael Palin, the lead character in the play. He nails the part, as you can almost believe it is the real Michael Palin there at times. A wigged Gavin Rutherford plays Terry Gilliam to some great comic effect.
The other stand out actor for me was Stephen Papps as Judge Lasker.
Photo by Stephen A’Court
The play is an engaging exploration of comedy, US vs UK differences, creative types vs executives and more.
It isn’t a recital of famous Monty Python lines, even though a fair few of them do make an appearance. It is about the right of a bunch of iconic comedians to say to a network that if you edit us so we no longer think it reflects our work, we want the right to withdraw permission to use our work. Through that you get to hear of the many edits ABC tried to make, and why. You are of course always on the side of the Pythons as they fight for their gags to remain. You do also however have some sympathy for the studio as dealing with a bunch of stubborn creatives can be a challenge to put it mildly.
If you are a Monty Python fan, you won’t want to miss No Naughty Bits. And if you are not a Monty Python fan, well you don’t know what you have missed out on!
Threatreview also has a review.
Okay, here’s the full list, with the changes from current rankings:
| MP | Rank | Change |
| Cunliffe | 1 | +23 |
| Parker | 2 | +1 |
| Robertson | 3 | -1 |
| King | 4 | +2 |
| Jones | 5 | +2 |
| Ardern | 6 | -2 |
| Cosgrove | 7 | -2 |
| Hipkins | 8 | 2 |
| Mahuta | 9 | +2 |
| Moroney | 10 | +3 |
| Twyford | 11 | -3 |
| Street | 12 | -3 |
| Shearer | 13 | -12 |
| Sio | 14 | 0 |
| Goff | 15 | 0 |
| Wall | 16 | +15 |
| Little | 17 | +2 |
| Mackey | 18 | +7 |
| O’Connor | 19 | -2 |
| Clark | 20 | -8 |
| Lees-Galloway | 21 | +5 |
| Faafoi | 22 | +7 |
| Beaumont | 23 | +7 |
| Woods | 24 | -4 |
| Fenton | 25 | -9 |
| Robertson | 26 | +7 |
| Mallard | 27 | -6 |
| Dyson | 28 | -5 |
| Curran | 29 | -11 |
| Prasad | 30 | -2 |
| Huo | 31 | -4 |
| Tirikatene | 32 | +0 |
| Whaitiri | 33 | +1 |
| Dalziel | -12 |
Okay so who are the winners and losers.
Winners
Losers
Overall not a huge shakeup in terms of rankings. Four biggish winners, four losers and a few move about a wee bit.
I’ll do a separate post on the portfolio changes.
The full list is not online, but here’s what I have as the major changes:
Will do a more detailed post tonight.
The Herald reports on a very sad family dispute. I wouldn’t normally comment on it, but there was one line that got me going a bit.
The background:
Sympathetic well-wishers have contributed nearly $25,000 to help two young girls whose mother was killed in a drink-drive smash, but the money is sitting untouched in a bank account because of a family dispute.
It was raised on the Givealittle fundraising site for Brooke and Caitlin Todd 10 months ago.
The girls’ mother, TV3 graphic artist Rebecca Todd, was killed by a drink-driver just before Christmas last year.
Donations flooded in for the two girls, who were seriously injured in the crash.
Friends set an initial goal of $5,000 to “support the family and get these beautiful girls back on their feet”. But the money kept pouring in, eventually reaching $24,548.
The webpage said the extra would go to the girls’ family to “set them up for the future”.
Brooke and Caitlin’s father Richard Todd is in a dispute with Rebecca’s brother-in-law, Shane Newlove, about which trust account the money should be transferred to.
Richard, who separated from Rebecca 15 months before the crash, has custody of his daughters – now aged 7 and 6 – and gave up work to care for them after the accident.
He wants the money put into an independent trust.
But after Rebecca died, her two sisters and a cousin set up a trust called the Brooke and Caitlin Trust, with Rebecca’s siblings and cousin as trustees.
Newlove wants the money to go into that trust.
Reasonable people can disagree on who should be the trustees etc. It is sad they can’t agree among themselves.
Newlove said he wanted the money put into the trust that his wife, Rebecca’s sister, had set up.
“We want to quietly grow those funds throutgh memorial dinners and other fundraisers,” he said.
“Who better to be guardians of the girls’ future than their mother’s sisters?”
Umm, the father?
This is the quote that just got my gander up a bit. I am sure all are operating out of love for the girls’, but to proclaims the aunts as a better guardian that the actual father (who has custody and has given up work to care for them) seems arrogant.
Pam Corkery writes:
The full horror of the Psychoactive Substances Act has landed.
More than 100 retailers are selling 28 brands of synthetic highs – with the blessing of 119 MPs who voted for insane legislation now implemented by the Ministry of Health.
This makes it sound like no retailers were selling no synthetic highs before this law change. Every drug being sold, was available with basically no restrictions prior to the law change.
Bowden has been allowed to buy a temporary licence to retail, import and manufacture synthetic highs, and is planning a pioneering factory on Auckland’s North Shore to keep them coming.
The rationale behind the interim legitimacy of the drugs is that working with Bowden and his fellow travellers will be more effective than prohibition at reducing harm.
No the rationale is that you just need to allow some time to get the testing done. Any new drug can not enter the market until tested, but those drugs which had already been selling legally for the last few years have a few months in which to get tested. This is much more preferable to the old law which meant they never ever got tested.
Some may argue we should have had a period of total prohibition before the testing regime starts, but consider that it is the fact that cannabis is prohibited that has led to demand for synthetic highs. Try banning those also, and God knows what you will end up with people using.
I firmly believe that the 119 MPs who voted for this law did so to show that they were liberal-minded, well-adjusted, down with the peeps, almost groovy.
How ridiculous. They voted for the law as they thought a law which decided if a drug was safe based on scientific testing was better than a law where whether a drug is banned is dependent on how many media headlines it generates.
They’re not. New Zealand doesn’t want these drugs. We’ve got more than enough already.
Who is this we? The fact there is such demand for them suggests there is a market for them. Now the irony is that it is because drugs like cannabis are banned, that you have created a demand for synthetic highs.
An interesting profile of David Cunliffe by Andrea Vance. Some extracts:
Massey University’s Dr Claire Robinson served with him at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the late 1980s. “He was very open about the fact that he wanted to be prime minister,” she recalls.
“All of us knew that then. In fact I had an email from a former colleague just the other day who recalled he wanted to be prime minister then.”
“I don’t recall that,” Mr Cunliffe says again.
It’s been his stock stance, since asked in 2007 as health minister, if he had ambitious to run the country. “No, it’s a bastard of a job and I have a young family,” he insisted at the time.
To be fair, no one who is not the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader is meant to confirm openly they want to be PM.
“He was a very good student,” Mr Wilson recalls.
“He was a bit of a show-off, if it’s not being too hard. I think some of them were a bit sick of his lack of modesty. But he was accepted well enough . . . I’m sure everybody was sort-of his friend.”
His mother, 89, says he was a “loving boy” but “quite independent”. She says he enjoyed being the centre of attention – even playing Jesus in a school play.
I think he liked the role!
His first experience of inequality – standing behind the counter of his local takeaway – also influenced his political leaning.
“The locals would buy fish and chips and the skiers, driving through from Christchurch and Timaru, would get burgers – more expensive, healthier food. I learned that food was a class issue from the fish and chip shop.
Burgers are healthier? 🙂
The job paid for a Honda 185 farm bike, which he rode “very slowly to Dunedin in a really strong north west gale” for his first term at Otago University.
Useless in the icy southern winters, it was later pawned to pay for an engagement ring for girlfriend Karen Price. The couple met in their first year, and were friends at first.
Law faculty dean Professor Mark Henaghan saw the romance blossom in his second-year legal systems tutorial.
“It was nice to see them moving closer to each other and the little glances back and forwards. They were pretty keen on each other right from day one . . . they were the strongest arguers against each other.”
That’s very cute.
AFTER graduating, he was offered jobs with the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. But he chose diplomacy, after a chat with current Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade deputy secretary Chris Seed.
“We constantly blamed Chris for inflicting David Cunliffe on us,” says Dr Robinson, who sat next to him in the European division.
“He was awful to work with, actually, in those days. He wasn’t interested in being part of a social group. What he was keen on doing was identifying who in the ministry who was going to get him places and he would just schmooze away.”
Cunliffe’s great challenge is his colleagues.
“There are many faces to David Cunliffe and he tries them out to see what works.”
Dr Robinson says his ambition to be prime minister was naked. But she and her colleagues assumed his affinity was to National.
“He was such a conservative person. It was the time of the anti- nuclear legislation and Rainbow Warrior bombing. If you were a Labour person you were hip and cool and David was anything but.
“We thought he was going to join the National Party so were all completely shocked when he turned up in Labour.”
Mind you I understand some in Labour assumed Tim Groser would stand for Labour one day, which is why they were so furious when he stood for National.
His old teacher believes he has it in him to be prime minister.
“He just might, if he can just get himself a bit more popular with his caucus,” Mr Wilson says.
“He’s popular enough with the general public and the media. But the caucus, they are a bit frightened of his ability, I think.
“That’s his major challenge. I don’t think John Key is his major challenge.
“And if he can just get those good ones on his side . . .”
His old teacher is wise.
Stuff reports:
A Hawke’s Bay man has had a “miraculous escape” after being shot in the back as he lay on the floor while dozens around him were mowed down and killed at a mall in Kenya.
Napier mum Elaine McLaren said her son, Andrew McLaren, was “very, very lucky” after being shot during the Westgate mall massacre in Nairobi.
Mr McLaren, 34, was one of about 150 people wounded when al Qaeda-linked militants opened fire inside an upmarket shopping mall in the capital of Nairobi on Saturday (local time). At least 59 people were killed.
A horrific terrorist attack.
The NYT reports on the rationale for the attacks:
The Shabab, an Islamist militant group based in Somalia, took responsibility for the attack, saying it was revenge for Kenya’s military operations in Somalia, which began nearly two years ago. “Kenya will not get peace unless they pull their military out of Somalia,” said Ali Mohamoud Rage, the Shabab’s spokesman, in a radio address.
So it is nothing to do with Israel, the Middle East or the US.
The Shabab, who have pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, used to control large parts of Somalia, imposing a harsh and often brutal version of Islam in their territory. They have beheaded civilians and buried teenage girls up to their necks in sand and stoned them to death. But in the past two years, the African Union forces, including the Kenyans, have pushed the Shabab out of most of their strongholds.
They sound worse than the Taliban. Politico reports:
Gunmen stormed the mall about noon local time armed with grenades and assault rifles. They asked cornered victims if they were Muslim or non-Muslim, witnesses told the Associated Press. Non-Muslims were held, while Muslims were allowed to go free.
Sounds like the Nazis asking if people were Jewish or not. The rise of Islamofascism is one of the world’s biggest threats today.
Colin Espiner writes:
I’d thought that centrally-controlled, one-size-fits-all approach to education policy had disappeared with the introduction of Tomorrow’s Schools more than 20 years ago. But I reckoned without the teacher unions.
The vitriol spouted by the Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and the Educational Institute (NZEI) at the Government’s announcement last week that it would fund five privately-run Partnership Schools took me back in a flash to my early days as a reporter covering teacher union rallies and marches.
Back then, it was bulk funding and the devolution of central control to community boards of trustees the teacher unions didn’t like. Oh, and Lockwood Smith.
They went on to oppose NCEA, National Testing, religious schools integration, private school funding . . . in fact pretty much anything that threatened the status quo and the teacher unions’ privileged position within it.
NZEI specially seem incredibly reactionary. They have fought a four year campaign against simply having an extra page in a kid’s report cards that states where they are at compared to a national standard for their age in literacy and numeracy. Incredible.
What’s so wrong with trying something a little different? With offering students failing in the mainstream education system an alternative? A little military training wouldn’t go amiss with some of them. And is a spot of faith-based teaching and some Maori immersion learning really going to do any great harm?
Apparently. According to the PPTA, these schools are so evil the union is considering asking its members to boycott all cultural, sporting, and professional events involving Partnership Schools. Marvellous – that’ll help those kids already alienated from the mainstream feel like they’re wanted.
Matthew Hooton describes how the planned boycotts will work:
In practice, it means that if students from one of the five schools enter a netball team in their local competition, the PPTA will order its members to stop their students from playing against them.
If partnership-school students qualify for the regional swimming sports, the PPTA will prevent other students from entering the pool for fear of political pollution.
The same goes for the local debating, kapa haka or Mathex competition.
Who would have thought that unions would be pushing for effective segregation of students, like the US had in the 1960s.
Espiner concludes:
No one is suggesting the state education system should be dismantled. It provides a mostly adequate, sometimes excellent, service. But even the bureaucrats in Wellington admit they don’t have a monopoly on good ideas. So what are the unions so afraid of?
Possibly more flexible working hours, fewer holidays, a greater range of pay rates, and non-unionised workers. A system outside state control, where commercial success is actually encouraged. A bit like the world the rest of us live in.
At worst, these schools will not live up to their potential and will be shut down, probably by Labour. But what if they succeed? It won’t just be the students who stand to benefit. It’ll be all of us.
And unlike state schools, not one student or parent will be forced to attend a charter school. There are no zones for charter schools. Every pupil who attends will be there because they and/or their parents have decided they think they will do better at that school. That choice, is what the unions are trying to prevent.
The Auckland unions have put together a list of candidates who will vote to increase rates, increase debt and even further destroy the productivity of Ports of Auckland. So if you don’t want any of the above, then you should treat the list as an excellent guide as to whom not to vote for. The candidates to avoid are:
They also have a list of local board candidates not to vote for. Very useful for Aucklanders who don’t want big rates increases.
The Herald reports:
Sugar-sweetened beverages should be regulated like tobacco as a first step to combating New Zealand’s obesity epidemic, the Public Health Association Conference was told today in New Plymouth.
Gerhard Sundborn, from Auckland University, has proposed an ‘end-game’ strategy for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in New Zealand.
There seems no end to the desire of some people to remove all choice in people’s lives. Now they want to eliminate soda drinks.
Can you just imagine it as their ideas get hold. You bring a small bottle of coke to work and you’re told that you can’t drink it inside. Then in a few years you’re having a coke in a park, and you get told you can’t drink coke in a park as it may get seen by a kid and influence them.
Eventually they ban the consumption of soda drinks in bars and restaurants, and of course all soda drinks are sold in plain packaging and advertising has long been banned of them.
All this to because the master class know what is good for us, and must protect us from our own choices.