1. Graeme Edgeler fisks Gordon Campbell multiple times
2. Stats Chat fisks Stuff for saying pet owners have a 29 fold increased risk of breast cancer

Kurt Bayer at NZ Herald reports:

Council to explain its controversial decision to remove tooth decay-fighting fluoride from the city’s drinking water has been slammed by dental authorities.

New Zealand’s only dental training school said the one-page leaflet’s oral health information is “wrong, unscientific and misleading” and residents should disregard it.

Dr Jonathan Broadbent, a public health dentistry specialist and researcher from the University of Otago’s Faculty of Dentistry, said the newly-released information needs to be corrected.

“I suggest they have a public communication problem on their hands and need to act quickly to put the correct information out there; or seek help from those that really are in the business of producing health advice that the public can rely on,” he said today.

So the Council is now trying to skew the referendum so they don’t get embarrassed if the residents vote to over-ride their nutty decision.

Laura Walters at Stuff reports:

Government agencies are more likely to write off unpaid tax than welfare debt, new research shows.

Victoria University accounting and commercial law associate professor Lisa Marriott’s research showed Inland Revenue was more likely to write off unpaid tax than the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was to write off welfare debts.

So why might this be?

“There appears to be no basis for treating debtors to the two government agencies differently,” Marriott said.

I agree, but are they treated differently when different factors are accounted for?

Between July 1, 2011, and June 2012, Inland Revenue wrote off nearly 50 per cent of interest and penalties applied to overdue tax, amounting to $374 million.

It wrote off $435m in core debt, reflecting 11.6 per cent of collectable debt, the study showed.

MSD wrote off $8.7m in core debt, or 2.1 per cent of collectable debt.

The study showed that in the same period, the average value of outstanding tax debt was $14,479 per taxpayer in debt, while the average value of outstanding welfare debt was $2523 per beneficiary in debt.

And that is the key difference – the level of debt. The more debt that is owed, the less likely it is the person owing it can pay it. Those with high levels of debt can choose bankruptcy which means almost no debt gets paid. Hence you sometimes work out a compromise.

The research is interesting, but not conclusive. What would be more useful if an analysis of how much is written off by IRD and MSD for debts of a similar level. I doubt IRD writes off many debts when say just $1,000 is owed.

MSD would collect debts from beneficiaries’ payments, she said.

That may explain some of the difference also. IRD can’t just simply deduct tax owed from money it pays you. At best it can go to your bank or employer and ask them to do it.

The NZ Herald editorial:

So awful is this country’s record of child abuse that many radical responses have been aired in the past few years. There was, for example, Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s suggestion that the courts should have the power to ban child maimers from having more children. And there was a coroner’s view that all children should be monitored compulsorily until they reach 5, including spot checks of their homes. That such flawed ideas garnered a measure of support spoke volumes of the widespread despair over the extent of the problem and the failure of policies to address it. Welcome, therefore, is Ms Bennett’s long-awaited Children’s Action Plan, which, while bound to be controversial, is generally well targeted.

I agree.

Two aspects of the new regime will be particularly contentious: the wide-ranging Child Harm Prevention Orders aimed at people considered to be a risk to children, and a requirement that parents convicted of killing or abusing their children will have to prove they are safe to care for any subsequent children. In the first instance, High Court and District Court judges can impose an order for up to 10 years if it is believed “on the balance of probabilities” that someone poses a threat to a child. It will not be necessary for a person to have been convicted of a violent or sexual crime against children.

I don’t regard the requirement for convicted killers or abusers of children to prove they are safe to be contentious. The eligibility for a CHPO is definitely contentious.

At a first blush, the latter feature appears draconian. But the characteristics of the orders and the wording associated with them are broadly in line with protection orders for domestic violence made by the Family Court and criminal courts. In that context and particularly with the presence of judicial scrutiny, they appear merited.

A key safeguard is that it would be a Judge that decides, not CYF or the Police.

The provision which requires abusive parents to prove to Child, Youth and Family they are no longer a threat tips normal legal practice upside down. Previously, it was up to the state to prove an abusive parent was unsafe. In an ideal world, that would continue to be so. The reversal carries a strong and unfortunate implication that previously unfit parents are beyond rehabilitation, But there will be greater certainty that children will be removed to a safer and nurturing environment, and, as Ms Bennett suggests, their welfare must come first. The death from extreme abuse of 50 children in the past five years shows how the present approach is not working.

I’d be interested in any data on what proportion of parents who get convicted of killing or abusing a child, then have further children with no harm reported?

A reader writes in:

I am studying at the New Zealand Graduate School of Education in Chirstchurch. As part of out studies we have to research a contemporary social issue in schools. I researched charter schools. The first paper I looked at was a 110 page 2012 paper from Massey University. This paper started by saying that it is very difficult to get a clear picture on charter schools and their performance because almost all papers are written from an ideological perspective. Well the Massey paper itself was no exception: it was clearly opposed to charter schools. But even it couldn’t find data to damn charter schools – they will not be the cause of an education apocalypse as some hysterics might claim. But nor would an intellectually honest person be able to look at the data and conclude that they were going to be a panacea. The data is hazy and conclusions tend to fall within a few percentages here and a few percentages there. There is also the problem of comparing apples with apples as what a charter school is varies from country to country and district to disctrict. 

So what is a charter school in New Zealand? Firstly, in New Zealand Charter schools have no more freedom around the curriculum than special character schools (see s 158G of the act). They cannot just invent their own curriculum anymore than other state schools. (In fact schools do come up with their own  curriculum, it just needs to align with the national curriculum). So in that regard, what do they really offer? Second (and this is one thing that really concerns me about charter schools) is that there are no clear criteria for becoming one – it is entirely at the discretion of the current minister (see s 158B). Of course Destiny Church was declined – they’re trying to get this scheme off the ground after all. But in the future who will be approved? It’s not good enough to say that this government wouldn’t approve x or y – what about future governments? Furthermore all this talk about targeting groups of especial need is only talk. Sure the first schools probably will, but there is absolutely nothing in the act requiring this. Thirdly they are bulk-funded, with the consequent discretion around pay and conditions for their employees. A key part of this being that they do not necessarily need to have registered teachers in every class. Now the idea that any educated person can stand up in front of a class and teach is frankly offensive and ridiculuous. Two placements in (both at high-decile schools I might add) and I can tell you that teaching is HARD. Behaviour management is a genuine skill, as is the on-the-go assessment that effective teaching requires, not to mention lesson plans. The attitude that teaching is something you can just do is one that can only be held by those that never have. Fourth charter schools do not have to have an elected board. Now the idea that markets solve all our problems is one that I am pretty scornful of, but here the mechanism seems pretty sound. Charter schools will be very sensitive to their “market”, they will want to keep parents happy. I don’t see this as a major issue.

What are the issues?

Well we need to be vary wary of apparent results. My last supervising teacher told me that the parents who tend to come in to talk about their children are generally the ones that don’t need to. In other words they’re already engaged with their child’s education and consequently the child is generally progressing well. The parents of the students who need support are the ones that need to be asked to come in. Which of these parent types are going to be the ones to engage with their options, do the research and make the considered chioice to attend charter schools? The children who REALLY need to be targeted will not seek the schools out, the children who REALLY need help need us to come to them. There is no official mechanism for selection of students by charter schools in New Zealand (thankfully). (Ironically, special character schools CAN exclude students if their parents do not share their values). But there doesn’t really need to be, the students self-select. So yeah, set a charter school up in an area of high need, and yeah you might get some data to support the project, but have you really gotten to the students who have the real need? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (I should say that having got a BSc I know that statistics are our best and only way of getting to the truth for many things, but they need to be viewed critically when it comes time to interpret.)

How do we address the tail. Well let’s look at the OECD rankings. Sweden, USA, and Britain all have charter schools and all consistently rank lower than New Zealand. Should we really be emulating them. Out of western nations New Zealand ranks highly consistently. We don’t need to be copying this model. Who ranks the highest does a few simple things. They provide meals, health services and counselling in schools for free. The key thing about this is that both the Left and especially the Right talk about not so much equality, as equal opportunity. Now a five year old who arrives at school hungry, and in poor health does NOT have an equal opportunity to succeed. School is the perfect opportunity to set up equality of opportunity. Now you can talk about the responsibility of the parents all you like, you can say they should do this and should do that till the cow come home. This does absolutely nothing to address the problems faced by a five year old kid. The other thing they do is set an extremely high bar for becoming a teacher in the first place. You have to have a masters degree and something like 10% of applicants are accepted into teacher training. These are just a couple of things. Obviously Finland is richer than us, but they are actually spending an ever-shrinking percentage of their GDP on education.

 Either side of this debate can cherry-pick data about results. Let’s raise the level of the debate. I come to Kiwiblog as someone of the opposite political persuasion to the one that dominates at Kiwiblog. I come to Kiwiblog because I want to make sure my views will hold up to the best arguments the right has to offer, You’re just not doing that on this issue I’m afraid.

I don’t think charter schools are a silver bullet. However I do believe that there are a number of states where charter schools have had a very significant improvement in student outcomes – especially New Orleans and Washington DC.  I think the charter school model in NZ does provide more flexibility than character schools, which if implemented well will make a difference.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Sexual violence survivors are launching a push for alternatives to jury trials in a bid to avoid retraumatising victims.

Speakers at a seminar in Auckland yesterday said fundamental changes were needed so raped and abused women were not “revictimised” by lawyers’ cross-examination of their sexual histories in front of juries, while offenders could stay silent.

Many victims of rape do have to undergo an appalling process in court. At least with almost no deposition hearings now, they only go through it once.

However not everyone accused and charged is guilty. They have a right to have the evidence of their alleged victim cross-examined by their lawyer. There would be a risk of more innocent people going to prison, if they don’t have a right to challenge evidence fully.

Also as I understand it the sexual history of the victim is generally off-limit in court – unless it relates to the particular person or incident.

Justice Minister Judith Collins has halted work on proposals in a Law Commission issues paper last year to change the adversarial court system to an “inquisitorial” system where a judge controls what evidence is presented and how it is given, questions witnesses before letting lawyers fill in the gaps, and requires defendants to give evidence first.

She said last September that it would not be practical to have an inquisitorial system for sexual offences but not for other cases, because sexual offenders might also face other charges.

An inquisitorial system has its pros and cons. I wouldn’t mind having it more fully considered – but I agree it would be difficult to do for some offences only.

A very interesting chat at NZ Herald with Peter Lineham who has written a book on Destiny Church. His comments seem very balanced. A few extracts:

The benefits to families are usually that they get huge support for children and (women especially like that) drunken gambling husbands are called to account. It’s a very supportive movement if you are on the inside.

Destiny lives in the Old Testament a lot of the time, Kate. A lot of their language has this flavour. Tamaki is treated like a king. No animal sacrifice, but its give them a great feelingof being a people together like a tribe.

If we must have charter schools, then Destiny would be a great providor. they do a very good job in their college and school, and they have a non-nonsense approach to knowledge. Not a bad start for a not very satisfactory idea!

One of my big concerns with Tamaki is his claim to be an apostle and to speak authoritatively from God!

No, I think more good than harm. No-one is forced to join. Anyone can walk out without restraint. i think it is an entirely dodgy form of Christianity, but people choose to be in it.

As I said above, I appreciate that he is blunt with his criticisms, but also praises the good stuff he sees the church as doing.

Isaac Davidson at Stuff reports:

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says his scepticism about electric cars has all but disappeared after he took a spin along the Los Angeles coastal freeway in an electric sports car.

Mr Brownlee investigated alternative transport options while on a trip to the United States and also took Google’s driverless car for a 16km trip around San Francisco’s freeways.

In LA he test-drove the Tesla SP85, which is considered one of the world’s most advanced electric cars with a range of nearly 500km and a top speed of more than 210km/h.

I didn’t realise the technology has improved so much that the distance and speeds were now comparable to other cars.

Not surprised, as technology is always improving. Look at the power of a smartphone compared to 15 years ago.

The minister, who owns a diesel-powered Hyundai Sante Fe, raved about his zero-emission joyride. “I’ve been somewhat of a sceptic around electric vehicles. I don’t want to say I’m a total convert but I’ve been incredibly impressed by the technology that I’ve seen.

“When you’ve got a car that can perform to the sort of specifications that I saw at the Tesla factory you could just see that we’re not too many years off there being quite a significant percentage of electric vehicles in our fleet.”

Price will be a key factor, but that tends to take care of itself. As oil got scarce, then fracking became economically viable and bang you have a huge increase in the amount of energy available. Likewise as petrol costs more, demand for electric cars will increase.

He pointed to Tesla’s plan to have battery change stations across the US by 2016.

Mr Brownlee said he did not expect the number of electric cars to rapidly increase on New Zealand roads, but said it was important to make sure regulations encouraged low-emissions vehicles. There are believed to be fewer than 100 here now.

The main policy designed to encourage growth in electric car use was the exemption from road user charges, which was introduced in 2009 and last year extended until 2020. 

And you pay no petrol tax!

Mr Brownlee said driverless cars were also likely to one day play a role in reducing congestion on motorways.

The minister road-tested Google’s prototype, which uses a combination of sensors and GPS to get commuters to their destination as efficiently as possible. He described it as “a very advanced form of cruise control”.

Even a small increase in the proportion of driverless cars was expected to cut congestion because all aspects of human error were eliminated. The cars were allowed on some US roads, but had not been developed for commercial production.

We have drone aircraft flying around the world all the time, so drone cars are inevitable.

News.com.au reports:

The court verdict follows today’s Daily Telegraph report about a NSW Police internal affairs investigation uncovering evidence Osborn allegedly saw up to 33 women at the same time, meeting four of them on any one day as far apart as Sydney and Newcastle.

Having 33 girlfriends at the same time, with none knowing about the others, is a logistical achievement – as is managing four in one day!

I wonder if he ever worked in NZ for the Rotorua Police in the 1980s?

The Herald has the results of an online survey of whom readers thought was the best Dr Who. The results are:

1. Jon Pertwee
2. David Tennant
3. Tom Baker
4. Matt Smith
5. William Hartnell
6. Christoper Eccleston
7. Patrick Troughton
8. Peter Davison
9. Paul McGann
10. Sylvester McCoy
11. Colin Baker

My personal rankings would be

1. Jon Pertwee
2. Patrick Troughton
3. David Tennant
4. Matt Smith
5. Tom Baker
6. William Hartnell
7. Peter Davison
8. Paul McGann
9. Christoper Eccleston
10. Colin Baker
11. Sylvester McCoy

Paula Bennett has announced details of law changes to try and reduce the terrible rate of child abuse we have in this country. Not only is child abuse a tragedy for the kids abused, but almost inevitably those abused have terrible outcomes in terms of health, education, employment and crime – in fact many become child abusers themselves. Breaking the cycle of abuse is incredibly important, and incredibly difficult.

The key details are:

• New legislated responsibilities for Police, Justice and the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Development
• Screening and vetting of every person in the Government Children’s Workforce will be introduced
• People with serious convictions will be permanently restricted from working closely with children
• Parents who seriously abuse or even kill children will have to prove they are safe to parent again; if they go on to have another child, reversing the current onus of proof
• Child Harm Prevention Orders to be placed on adults who pose a serious risk to children
• Courts can curtail and define guardianship rights of birth parents in extreme cases

There is a q+a here.

I welcome the Government taking these bold steps. Just saying “Oh it is all too hard, and all the result of poverty” is a cop out.

The principle of Child Harm Prevention Orders I have no problem with. But I think there is a legitimate debate about whether they should only be available against people who have already been convicted of crimes against children. If the Government wants wider eligibility they would need to have very persuasive data to back up their case. But that is an excellent issue for a select committee to consider.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

The Electoral Commission has re-registered UnitedFuture, effective from Thursday, but leader Peter Dunne is planning to introduce a Bill to change what he calls “a cumbersome process” he had to go through.

He said he was pleased with the decision and would now seek to have Speaker David Carter restore it as a recognised Parliamentary party – a move that would bring with it extra funding of more than $100,000.

I expect United Future will also be re-recognised as a parliamentary party.

The bigger issue for United Future if whether Peter decides to contest Ohariu in 2014.

The NZ Initiative has three debates coming up, where some of NZ’s best debaters will argue on topical issues. They are:

• That NZ should be going for population growth, Wed 14 August, Ernst & Young, Auckland
• That alcohol should not be taxed more than soft drinks, Thu 15 August,  Mac’s Brewery, Wellington
• That if you’re young and ambitious you should leave NZ, Thu 22 August, City Gallery, Wellington

I’m on the post debate panel for the alcohol debate, where we comment on the arguments made by the teams, and offer some observations of our own. The debates are free to attend.

The Guardian reports:

The office of the Prince of Wales has said he had a right and a duty to communicate privately with the government “on any matter he chooses”, after the extent of his private meetings with ministers came under renewed questioning.

An analysis of palace records showing that Prince Charles has held private meetings with cabinet ministers at least 36 times since the 2010 general election was seized on by campaigners for a republic who said it showed he was “a political operator and businessman with direct access to government”.

Charles has met the prime minister, David Cameron, seven times and in many cases held meetings with ministers who have responsibility for areas in which he has taken a particular interest, according to the Daily Mail.

The idea of having a Monarch, is that they are politically neutral. When a monarch is more of a lobbyist than a politically neutral figure, then the rationale for remain with the monarchy weakens. Why should one hereditary lobbyist get unfettered access to Ministers to push his personal views?

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

The Government plans to force a largely forgotten five-year-old bill through Parliament in three weeks to allow a short, sharp “Government inquiry” into the Fonterra botulism scare.

The move to expedite a Government investigation into the food safety scare comes hard on the heels of three other investigations into the incident which Fonterra says could cost New Zealand tens of millions of dollars in lost export earnings.

The Inquiries Bill, introduced by Labour in 2008, gives ministerial-level inquiries new powers to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath but has been left on Parliament’s Order Paper for years.

But Prime Minister John Key yesterday said it would be passed, possibly within three weeks and under urgency, to allow a fast, effective investigation into how botulism-causing bacteria got into Fonterra whey concentrate which was then used to produce infant formula.

It makes sense to do the inquiry under the new law, as it would give the inquiry more extensive powers.

The Inquiries Bill was reported back from select committee in November 2009. It has to go through a second reading, committee of the house and third reading. That should be quite possible within three weeks, unless there is a filibuster of the committee stage – which I would have thought unlikely.

Someone give that ram a Tui!

The Herald reports:

A Nelson trailbike rider has become an internet sensation after posting a video showing him being attacked by an angry ram.

 

Marty Todd’s YouTube video, in which the surly ram known as Rambro prevents him from riding up a dirt track, has gone viral after being featured on CNN and Britain’s Daily Mail website.

 

“I was riding my trailbike up a hill when I came across this grumpy old ram with huge horns,” Mr Todd said. “It charged my bike then started attacking me, [he’s a] surprisingly powerful animal.”

 

Mr Todd said he couldn’t turn his trailbike around as he was on a steep hill and if he did the ram would have charged him side-on, which could have broken his leg

“This guy is known for his aggression and attacks for no reason, he’s even attacked a group of pig-hunting dogs. In the end I had to pick up a branch and wave it in front of him, he didn’t like the noise and backed off enough for me to make my escape.”

Maybe he needs to ride with a shotgun!

Michael Fox at Stuff reports:

Suspected child abusers could be banned from being around children for up to 10 years without being convicted of a crime under a proposed law to be announced today.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the restrictions could mean up to 80 people a year are slapped with orders preventing them from working, living and socialising with children, with penalties of three years imposed on those who break the ban.

If police or Child, Youth and Family believe “on the balance of probabilities” someone poses a threat to a child, High Court or District Court judges could impose the ban, similar to restraining orders in cases of domestic violence.

“The court can consider a pattern of behaviour, so it might be that in some cases police have high intel on an individual and their behaviour has been considerably concerning, they don’t have enough evidence to take them to court but they might ask that the courts put a civil order against them.”

Mrs Bennett admitted the law would be controversial but said she was putting the welfare of children first.

It will be interesting to see the details of the law.

NewstalkZB reports:

Labour believes ministerial staff are looking for better options.

Figures released under the Official Information Act shows 150 ministerial staff have left since National came to power, 47 of them went last year

Labour Leader David Shearer isn’t surprised at the turnover and believes the departures are about self interest and self preservation.

” A number of people that I’ve spoken to have said that they felt it was time to get out before this government came to an end – I think a lot of people are looking after their own careers and getting out while they’ve got the chance to get out.”

You know. If I was advising the Leader of the Opposition, who was onto his third chief of staff in 18 months, I’d suggest he doesn’t comment on a story about staffing.

I’d also suggest that trying to claim credit for Ministerial staff leaving because they are despondent over the Government’s chances would open you up for ridicule when you are at barely 30% in the polls and the Government is at 49%.

Finally I’d also point out the story is meaningless without knowing how many staff in total work in ministerial offices.

As it happens it is around 275, so 150 staff leaving over four and a half years is around 33 staff a year.  That’s around a 12% annual loss rate. I’d say that is lower than many employers. Also considering working in a ministerial office is often a 50 – 60 hour a week job with huge stress and less pay than comparable private sector jobs – well a 12% annual loss rate is actually quite remarkable.

I survived a total of eight years in Parliament, and I was one of the longer serving staff.

Blair Ensor at Stuff reports:

Finding out someone’s criminal history could soon be as easy as clicking a button, under major changes to improve public access to court documents.

Justice Minister Judith Collins told the Sunday Star-Times the current system, where people often have to apply in writing to the courts for access to information, is “completely insane”.

She wants all decisions online once the courts have completed a move to an electronic operating model next year. The documents would effectively act as a public register of criminals and improve public safety, she said.

It would also make the court process more open.

“If a matter is heard in open court that anyone can attend, why is it the next day they strangely can’t access that information? People have a right to know about what goes on in their courts.”

This would be so great if it happens. Court decisions are a matter of public record in theory, but in practice have been difficult to access. Having all court decisions online will be great for transparency and great for improved public safety.

Collins has an ally in Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue who believes it is important the public understand the reasoning behind court decisions.

“We welcome any development which would enable the decisions of the District Court to be available in a timely fashion,” Doogue said.

“This would enable transparency and accountability.”

Well said Judge Doogue.

Massive Magazine reports:

MASSIVE has seen a copy of the yet-to-be-released society budget that estimates the student president, Jeanette “JV” Chapman, is earning more than $53,000 for her part-time position, more than any other staff member in the society except for the student services manager, who also works as the society’s advocate.On top of the $23,000 honorarium Chapman receives for her services as president, she had a newly co-opted executive approve $10,000 for media and communication, $10,479 for group advocacy, and $9521 for office operations service delivery.

 Chapman has responded that she is not an employee of the society and that any additional costs going to her above the honorarium is an “allegation”. She also said she is not a staff member of the society, but the “duly-elected president of EXMSS and that gives me the authority to take on the role”.

According to the current society constitution, the president shall be paid, on a quarterly basis, an honorarium set by the executive committee at the beginning of her/his period of office.

An affiliate of the society approached by MASSIVE, who did not want to be named, said Chapman “shoulder-tapped” people she knew to join a co-opted executive board, after she removed the majority of the original executive members, including the vice-president, earlier this year.

That removal was covered here.

Chapman would not answer whether or not she was taking money from the media grant from the university. Asked whether media grant money from the university had been accessed for other purposes, she said, “an allegation is not a fact”. She would not disclose who wrote the reports to the university regarding the expenditure of the grant.

In regards to receiving wages for other roles within the society, Chapman said: “I daresay I have more expertise in the area of business and management than the other student presidents.”

Massey University Students’ Association president Steven Christodoulou, however, said this was hard to believe. “The presidents from Albany Students’ Association, Massey Wellington Students’ Association and Palmerston North Massey University Students’ Association all have the ethic to work together as a team for a better outcome. We do this for the students.”

Christodoulou, who is paid a $22,500 honorarium, said he saw no reason why Chapman should be earning more than her honorarium payments.

“In my view, unless the president’s wages are fully disclosed, there should be no additional payments other than those approved by the students.

“The president should be there for the students and the honorarium payment is not a wage.”

Acting ASA President Arlene Frost agreed. “As I do not receive an honorarium or a wage, I do not think that $53,000 is appropriate for a student president.

This is pretty simple. It is outrageous for the President to get paid additional payments on top of their honorarium.

MASSIVE put multiple questions through to the university about their responsibilities in ensuring the grant money is spent for its allocated responses.

The response from Massey was simply “Massey University takes its responsibility for delivery of students’ services seriously. We carefully monitor all our contracts and agreements for performance and compliance. The students associations are independent entities. The university is always happy to provide advice and support but the students associations are independent entities.”

That is not good enough from Massey University. They are the ones who decided to hand over great wads of student cash to EXMSS. They have a fiduciary duty on behalf of their students to put a stop to this. They can, at a minimum put a clause in the contract that no office will receive income beyond that approved by EXMSS members at a general meeting.

Of course if the university had not subverted the VSM Bill, and EXMSS had to convince students to find EXMSS, I’m damn sure a situation like this would not occur.

The Economist writes:

AS THE world’s drug habit shows, governments are failing in their quest to monitor every London window-box and Andean hillside for banned plants. But even that Sisyphean task looks easy next to the fight against synthetic drugs. No sooner has a drug been blacklisted than chemists adjust their recipe and start churning out a subtly different one. These “legal highs” are sold for the few months it takes the authorities to identify and ban them, and then the cycle begins again. In June the UN reported more than 250 such drugs in circulation.

An unlikely leader in legal highs is New Zealand. Conventional hard drugs are scarce in the country, because traffickers have little interest in serving 4m people far out in the South Pacific. Kiwis therefore make their own synthetic drugs, which they take in greater quantity than virtually anyone else. The government shuts down more crystal-meth labs there than anywhere bar America and Ukraine. But the business has adapted. First it turned to benzylpiperazine, which a third of young New Zealanders have tried. When that was banned in 2008, dealers found plenty of other chemicals to peddle. Today the most popular highs are synthetic cannabinoids, which pack a harder punch than ordinary cannabis.

Sick of trying to keep up with drugmakers, the government is trying a new tack. Last month a law was passed which offers drug designers the chance of getting official approval for their products. If they can persuade a new “Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority” that their pills and powders are low risk, they will be licensed to market them, whether or not they get people high. Drugs will have to undergo clinical trials, which the government expects to take around 18 months—much less than for medicines, because the drugs will be tested only for toxicity, not for efficacy. Drugs that are already banned internationally, such as cocaine and cannabis, are ineligible. Only licensed shops will sell the drugs, without advertising and not to children.

The approach NZ is taking in regards to what I’d call “soft drugs” will be watch around the world with great interest.

The arguments for legalisation—that it protects consumers, shuts out criminals and saves money while raising tax—are familiar to readers of this newspaper. Yet it requires careful regulation to ensure that its outcome is not worse than widely ignored prohibition. New Zealand must now get the details right. The government has yet to define “low risk”. Set the bar too high and the policy will be prohibition by another name; too low and potentially lethal products will be on sale legally. (They are already, in the form of alcohol and tobacco, but consistency is hardly a feature of drug policy.) Nor does anybody know what level of taxation will most effectively deter consumption without encouraging a black market.

And why this approach is a good one:

These tricky questions may look like weaknesses in the policy. In fact, they are its strength. While New Zealand and Uruguay are discussing what level of toxicity or what dosage is acceptable, every other country is leaving the matter to drug dealers, who do not care about quality control and who peddle to children on the same terms as adults. As New Zealand ponders what rate of tax to levy, in the rest of the world the business is tax-free. A hard road lies ahead for New Zealand and its fellow policy innovators. But every dilemma they face is a reminder that, unlike other jurisdictions, through government they are regulating the drugs business, not the gangs.

The new policy is no silver bullet. But it is a better way of approaching the problem than simple prohibition.

Most of these are absolutely spot on.