If the winner of the Tour de France is the competitor with the best chemist, then would it be fair to say the team that wins the Louis Vuitton Cup is probably the team with the best lawyer?

News.com.au reports:

The parliamentary secretary for housing and homelessness, Senator Doug Cameron, rubbished “inconclusive research” by the Productivity Commission linking poor kids’ genes to their failure at school.

“I don’t agree that if you’re born rich you’re born more intelligent,” he told News Limited.

“You’ve only got to look at some rich people to understand that’s not the case.”

The Productivity Commission cited genetic “inherited abilities” as one of the reasons rich kids outperform poor children at school, in a provocative report published yesterday.

The federal government’s main policy advisory agency cited “parents’ cognitive abilities and inherited genes” at the top of a list of reasons why kids from poor families lag behind those from wealthy homes.

At an individual level, of course not all rich people are intelligent and vice-versa. We all know many contra examples of this.

But are there some linkages overall, on average?

Let’s be clear about the differences between correlation and causation.

Is intelligence affected by both genetics and environment? Yes.

If all other things are equal, will the children of intelligent parents tend to be more intelligent than the the children of less intelligent parents? Yes – there is some genetic basis to intelligence.

Do those with higher intelligence tend to, on average, be in higher paid jobs and hence earn more money? Yes, but again only on average – not all.

So will those born to wealthier parents tend to on average be more intelligent? Yes, not due to their wealth but the correlation between wealth and intelligence and the fact that intelligence of parents does have some causative impact on children’s intelligence.

But again this is an average, not a prediction for all or even most people. Environment and parenting skills have a huge impact also on a child’s intelligence.

Stuff reports:

Wide-ranging benefit reforms have come into force today, with beneficiary advocates voicing a mix of cautious optimism and criticism of the changes.

From today there are fewer benefit categories, as well as compulsory drug testing for jobseekers, sanctions for fugitive beneficiaries and stricter healthcare obligations for parents of young children.

A new way of dealing with hardcore beneficiaries will also be introduced, with the Government trumpeting the success of a pilot trialled in 24 Work and Income offices since October.

Work and Income says the results are “some of the best from any case management trial” in recent years, with 6000 of the 10,000 people in the pilot no longer on a benefit. More than half of those people found work, the rest opted out or cancelled benefits for reasons such as no longer meeting eligibility requirements.

Imagine if we can replicate that, on a larger scale.

The ministry also has a pilot planned in the next two months to get 2000 sickness beneficiaries with mental and physical disabilities into work, she said.

Few disabilities prevent someone from all work. They may prevent certain types of work, or full-time work.

Chester Borrows announced:

The Law Commission will review the rules governing the media’s reporting of suicide, Courts Minister Chester Borrows said today.

The Coroners Act 2006 currently restricts the information that can be made public about a self-inflicted death without the authorisation of the coroner.  Concern that some aspects of the restrictions are unclear was raised during the recent review of the Coroners Act.

The law says you can not publish the particulars of any suicide without the permission of the Coroner. But it is unclear if just publishing the fact a death was a suicide is a particular. The media generally hold that it is not, while health groups say it is.  I’ve certainly on a couple of occasions have reported a suicide was a suicide when it was widely known that it was, and there was no doubt.

The Law Commission is a good body to review the law, and I look forward to engaging on this issue. It is sensible that the law should be clear. For my 2c I think you should be able to call a suicide a suicide when there is no doubt about it – but I agree details of the suicide should generally not be revealed.

As David has previously mentioned, the 2013 Youth Parliament is to be held this Tuesday and Wednesday. I was lucky enough to be selected by the Hon. Michael Woodhouse MP to be his representative at the event this week. I am also lucky to have been given the opportunity to post here on Kiwiblog about the event.

On Tuesday, following a  formal welcome at Parliament, Youth MPs will go to their respective Select Committees to discuss the following topics:

• Social Services- How can public expectations for social services be balanced against likely rising costs for these services
• Health-Are young people taking enough responsibility for reducing and preventing substance abuse or should this be government’s role?
• Transport and Industrial Relations- What are the barriers to young people entering employment across New Zealand workplaces and how can these be addressed?
• Local Government and Environment- Should government restrict or permit private businesses profiting from conservation activities?
• Education and Science- Compulsory vs. elective subjects in secondary schools – should subjects like science be compulsory?
• Commerce- Purchasing online: supporting modern consumerism
• Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade- Where should New Zealand’s international obligations lie – Pacific or wider afield
• Justice- White collar vs blue collar offending: do current sentences reflect the economic and social impacts of these crimes?
• Maori Affairs-  As more iwi move towards a post-settlement environment, how do rangatahi see the role of iwi in supporting the development of the next generation?
• Primary Production-  Can New Zealand afford to be free range?

I am pleased to be in the Commerce Select Committee where we will be discussing a topic that is currently getting a lot of media attention. All the topics, however, are substantive and should lead to debate.

The main events of Wednesday are held in the Debating Chamber. Question Time will be held at 10.30 am and Youth MPs will have the opportunity to ask questions of Ministers.

Following Question Time, the Legislative Debate will be held (12.45pm). The Mock Bill, which would:

• reduce the voting age from 18 years to 17 years
• include electronic voting to the methods of voting
• make voting compulsory for all eligible voters
• extend the Term of Parliament from three years to four.

will be debated and then voted upon.

Following this, a General Debate on any topic of the Youth MP’s choosing will be held (3.20pm).

The day will conclude with Notices of Motion, put forward by Youth MPs (5.00pm).

If anyone wants to give feedback or ideas to the Youth MPs they can do so in the comments below, or by using the hashtag, #nzyouthparliament on Twitter or Facebook. Those in Wellington on Wednesday are invited to attend the public gallery, by following the normal process.

I will also be posting a summary of events at Youth Parliament later in the week.

One of the five pools at the Bellagio. You can reserve a chair for the day, and of course poolside service. So spent most of last two days here as too hot during the day to do anything else. Around 38 degrees.

This is at the New York New York casino. All the shops are in mall style. Made money on both Blackjack Split (up 100%) and Roulette (up 25%).

Entree at Bellagio. Yum. Very reasonably priced also.

The Bellagio Fountains from our room.

The main swimming pool.

The Bellagio Conservatory

A chocolate fountain at Bellagio.

Chris Trotter comments on Stephen Franks’ blog:

I once concluded an editorial in the NZ Political Review with the following observation:

“There is a paradox here. Conservative political culture, whose raison d’etre is the preservation of social inequality and economic exploitation (not to mention the institutional violence these things create and upon which ruling class power rests) tends to produce individuals of considerable personal charm and genuine liberality. While radical culture, which sets its face against the violence and injustice of entrenched privilege, all too often produces individuals who are aggressive, intolerant and utterly indifferent to the suffering which their relentless quest for justice causes.

“In short, the Right treats humanity like cattle and individual human-beings like princes, while the Left loves humanity with a passion but treats individuals like shit.”

Somewhere there must be an algorithm that delivers the best of both worlds.

I’m still looking.

I think there is more than an element of truth to this. It should go without saying that the above is a generalisation and of course not true for many many people. But I have observed that while the left does have much greater passion for humanity and the like, on an individual level the same passion and concern does not always come through.

The HoS reports:

The Act Party wants National supporters to save it from oblivion at next year’s election, telling them it needs not just one, but two Parliamentary seats.

I think they would be better to target the party vote. At 1.25 they get a second MP.

Now, former Act president Chris Simmons is eying the blue-ribbon electorate of Pakuranga, in East Auckland – but he has a battle on his hands.

National’s Maurice Williamson, the local MP since 1987 and now a minister outside cabinet, had considered standing down to contest the Auckland mayoral election.

But yesterday, he said he was not going anywhere and would not stand aside for anyone.

“I welcome any challengers,” he said. “Rumours that I won’t be standing are completely baseless.”

Entrepreneur Simmons told the Herald on Sunday he hoped to stand again in Pakuranga, despite coming sixth with only 816 votes in 2011. Simmons denied rumours of backroom talks with National to run a soft campaign, allowing Act to take the seat.

News to me. I expect National to retain Pakuranga easily.

Banks agreed National’s backing in Pakuranga would help both parties, but would not say if he was seeking another Epsom-style arrangement.

“I wouldn’t even enter into a conversation about that because I have no knowledge of such things and there’s no anticipation that would be the case.

So ACT isn’t asking and National isn’t offering. A bit of a non-story.

CNN reports:

George Zimmerman is not guilty of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, a Florida jury decided late Saturday.

The fact that Zimmerman fired the bullet that killed Martin was never in question, but the verdict means the six-person jury had reasonable doubt that the shooting amounted to a criminal act.

The verdict caps a case that has inflamed passions for well over a year, much of it focused on race and gun rights.

The six-person jury — all women — had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

The jurors deliberated for 16½ hours total, including 13 on Saturday alone, before delivering their verdict.

While the death of Martin is very sad, I thought this was more self-defence. Some of the initial reporting of this case regarding Zimmerman was highly prejudical and flat out wrong.

Also it appears the prosecutors with-held significant evidence from the defence, and may face sanctions for this now the trial is over.

The NZ Initiative writes:

Nick Cater, Chief Opinion Editor at The Australian newspaper, thinks that a new ruling class is threatening New Zealand’s tradition of egalitarianism.

The New Zealand Initiative is bringing Nick Cater to New Zealand to launch his book The Lucky Culture on 15 July in Wellington, 16 July in Auckland and 17 July in Christchurch.

The Lucky Culture and the rise of an Australian ruling class, published by Harper Collins, is a bold and provocative book about Australia’s national identity and how it is threatened by the rise of an aspiring ruling class.

This controversial book has been launched by former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, Australian Labor Treasurer Chris Brown, and is being launched in Queensland by Australian Prime Minister, The Hon Kevin Rudd, on Friday.

Being launched by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd – that is impressive!

The controversial new book argues that since the 1970s a new tertiary-educated class of people have emerged. Cater claims that they form ‘a new ruling class’ who genuinely believe that they are better equipped, intellectually and morally, to tackle the problems facing society. Their views are now shaping public debates from climate change to poverty alleviation, genetic engineering, aspiration and even the notion of progress itself.

Though his book is written in an Australian context, many of Cater’s observations have resonance in other countries, including New Zealand. And his questions are as relevant here as they are on the other side of the Tasman: Are we witnessing the emergence of an exclusive political class with little experience outside of university and politics? What does this mean for our social and political debates? And are we losing our egalitarian spirit?

I think this is very relevant for NZ. We are seeing more and more MPs who have no life experience outside student politics, working in Parliament and then becoming an MP.

The book launch details are here.

The Waikato Times reports:

Hamilton voters will get to decide in October whether to quash a controversial tribunal decision that last month ended fluoridation of the city’s water supply.

The council has voted 7-6 for a referendum at the October elections, with the wording of the referendum to be decided at a special meeting early next week. The decision includes a request for a voluntary spending cap to prevent the referendum being skewed by any district health board information campaign.

It is good they have voted for a referendum. But having the DHB tell the truth about the scientific research around fluoride is not skewing the referendum. It is balancing it.

Ken Perrott at Sciblogs notes:

 I communicated with all the councillors asking them to support a referendum and was shocked at the response of a minority (3). This was rude (extreme in one case), accused me of being involved in some sort of internal political infighting, and discounted any reply I made to their claims on the science of fluoridaiton. In effect these 3 councillors seemed to think that the “science” stories they got from the activists groups was of higher value than any comment made by a scientist. Not just me but also other people expressing concern and those on the District Health Board and Ministry of Health teams.

I hope voters are made aware of which Councillors voted against a referendum.

Calwatchdog reports:

The radical feminists are on a roll. They continue to make gains in their attempt to make “man” and “men” officially unacceptable terms in government.

The latest weird politically correct idea to make it into legislation seeks to remove alleged “gender bias” from the language — at taxpayer expense. Using the word “man” is no longer allowed.

Washington state is now actively replacing “gender bias” words with new gender-neutral references, and requires the use of such words as “handwriting” instead of “penmanship,” “signal operator” for “signalman,”  ”fisherman” with “fisher” and  ”freshman” with “first-year-student.” There are no more “journeyman plumbers”; now they are “journey-level plumbers.”

I’m not sure what a “journey-level” is. This ridiculousness proves that gender-neutral language is ungrammatical, and not allowed in AP Style. How will I write?

And further:

When I was in college, I worked at a grocery store as a “box boy,” also known as a “bag boy.” During my two-year stint, the offensive term was changed to “courtesy clerk.”

“Nearly 3,500 Washington state code sections, out of a total of about 40,000 have been tediously scrubbed of gender bias, although most involve adding pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ to augment the existing ‘he’ and ‘his,’” the Huffington Post reported recently.

Washington’s Legislature,  controlled by Democrats, recently passed the bill outlawing these manly words and ordered the state’s law books to be painstakingly edited to reflect the new man-free law.

According to the Huffington Post, Washington is the fourth state to eliminate gender “bias” from its official lexicon. Florida, North Carolina and Illinois preceded Washington.

Some think this is a proper use of lawmakers’ time, and taxpayer money because of their belief that we must eliminate gender “bias” from the language.  ”Nearly 3,500 Washington state code sections, out of a total of about 40,000 have been tediously scrubbed of gender bias, although most involve adding pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ to augment the existing ‘he’ and ‘his,’” the Daily Mail UK reported.

I recall when I was on the Otago University Council the OUSA SRC passed a resolution demanding the university rename Chairmen of Departments, Chairpersons. I told the SRC they could pass what they wanted, but I wasn’t going to undermine my credibility on Council by wasting their time with such trivia. It wasn’t that I was against a name change, but that it ranked around 99/100 on my list of priorities after lecturer assessment, fees, facilities etc etc.

The HoS reports:

A young woman was refused the birth control pill because she had not yet done her “reproductive job”.

Melissa Pont, 23, said her family practitioner, Dr Joseph Lee, would not renew her pill prescription, instead lecturing her on a baby’s right to live and on using the rhythm method, an unreliable family planning technique that involves having sex only at certain times of the month.

That’s appalling.

I’m all for the right of doctors not to be involved in abortions, on conscience grounds. But to refuse a patient contraception as you think she should be reproducing is appalling behaviour.

The NZ Medical Association said doctors can refuse treatment in non-emergency situations if their beliefs prohibit it – but they are required to refer the patient to another doctor.

Lee was initially reluctant to do that, Pont said, and she was concerned other women in her situation might not have had the confidence to argue back.

Prospective patients should be aware that if you see Dr Lee he may refuse to help you, so best to see another doctor.

Lee, a doctor at Wairau Community Clinic in Blenheim, stood by his views and actions. “I don’t want to interfere with the process of producing life,” the Catholic father-of-two told the Herald on Sunday.

Lee also does not prescribe condoms, and encourages patients as young as 16 to use the rhythm method.

Teen pregnancy might be a girl’s “destiny”, he said, and it was certainly not as bad as same- sex marriage.

Oh Good God. He wants 16 year olds to be getting pregnant, because it was their destiny.

Most Catholic doctors have no problems at not letting their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs. Sadly Dr Lee is not one of them.

The only circumstances in which he would prescribe the contraceptive pill would be if a woman wanted space between pregnancies, or had at least four children.

“I think they’ve already done their reproductive job”.

Hear that women? Don’t stop at three!

A reader e-mails in:

I was wondering if you could ask your legally qualified readers if they could shed some light on a recent series of bizarre decisions by the High Court. That court twice ruled that smoking bans for criminals in prison were illegal. The judge in the latest case (5 days ago) also said that the smoking ban prisoners was “inhumane”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10894606

Meanwhile in a decision released yesterday the High Court ruled that a smoking ban for mental patients in hospital is legal.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbhea/422965313-waitemata-dhb-wins-smoking-battle

Ok, so the High Court is saying that if you commit a crime and are sent to prison then it is inhumane to stop you smoking. But if you suffer a mental illness through no fault of your own and are hospitalized then it is perfectly legal for the hospital to stop you smoking.

Can somebody please explain to me how these decisions are even remotely consistent, let alone fair?

A fair point!

Phil Kitchin at Stuff reports:

A Wellington couple lost $1.3 million after their financial adviser exhorted them to pour money into a start-up business he claimed couldn’t fail – but did.

Any claim a business can’t fail should be laughed at, especially a start up.

The couple, who were close to retirement, were persuaded to invest the money to recoup another $1.5 million they had already lost in failed finance companies.

So they wanted a 100% return on investment, and thought it was guaranteed? Do they believe in the Easter Bunny also?

I’ve made a huge return on buying into Xero at the IPO. But I knew it was a start-up and might fail. Hence I only invested the amount of money I could afford to lose.

McPhail also recommended recouping their losses by investing more heavily in a start-up, Zeroshift – an opportunity he said was unlikely to be replicated “in our lifetime”. His “worst estimate” was that they would at least triple their money.

If McPhail did say that, then they could have a case. Was this in writing?

McPhail told the Sunday Star-Times he had “every sympathy” for his former clients and regretted the losses they suffered – but rejected an attempt to blame him for the losses.

The couple knew Zeroshift was a start-up company which offered big investor profits if successful, but success was not guaranteed.

He said he had cautioned against buying more shares at one stage because of Zeroshift’s lack of liquidity and uncertainty about when it would be publicly listed.

This is a he said, she said type case. But regardless of what McPhail may have said, it is unwise to invest a huge proportion of your wealth in just one company – especially a start-up. The higher the possible return, the higher the risk.

The Herald reported:

New Zealand’s education system has been treading water and its students will lose out in the global race for the best jobs unless change is embraced, a visiting expert warns.

Andreas Schleicher has been dubbed “the world’s schoolmaster” by international media – and he advises a shake-up of New Zealand’s system.

The German scientist and statistician is a pioneer of using hard data to analyse what was traditionally thought of as a “soft” subject, previously dominated by tradition, theories and ideology.

The change in approach helped him become one of the world’s most influential education experts.

It’s depressing that some parties and unions spend so much energy fighting against the Government and parents having some standard data. There is huge power in data. Even more depressing that they are now boycotting a tool that will help improve moderation and consistency.

A parent questionnaire which ran with the PISA test was used to see what factors were most important in terms of test results.

It found that parents showing a consistent interest in a child’s education is the most important factor in raising his or her achievement.

“It is not the hours of homework that you spend with your children, it is not about the degree that you have,” Mr Schleicher says. “It is simple things – when parents ask them every day at the dinner table, ‘How was school? What went well? Did you have any difficulties?”‘

Good advice.

New Zealand must deploy its best teachers to the most challenging classrooms, Mr Schleicher says. Data clearly show the highest performing countries prioritise and target the quality of teaching.

Overseas examples include Shanghai, which topped the 2009 results, where vice-principals at successful schools can only become principals if they show they can turn around one of the lowest-performing schools.

What a great idea.

Mr Schleicher supports National Standards data as a way for educators to identify success and failure.

The standards are descriptions of what students should be able to do in reading, writing and mathematics as they progress through levels 1 to 8, the primary and intermediate years.

Their introduction has been controversial, with opponents saying they will lead to “league tables” of schools, and give parents the false impression that a school can be judged by its results alone. “I can see the challenges,” Mr Schleicher says.

“But in the dark all schools look the same, and all students look the same.

“Unless you have some light to illuminate the differences, there is very little you can do about it.”

Absolutely. Some data is better than no data.

How is this for bad luck turned good. Arrive at Bellagio Casino and Hotel around 1 am. We get the swipe card for our (standard) room and head up there. I swipe the door open and in front of me is a half naked woman getting changed. Profuse apologies, and we head back to reception rather grumpily to tell them they issued us a room that was already occupied.

They are most apologetic and arrange a new room for us. We get up there to find it is a 29th 1500 square foot floor suite!!!

The main bedroom.

The living area. There’s even a bar just put of sight.

The view from the room on the 29th floor.

Another view of the main living area.

Goes without saying we are rather happy. Is going to be a great three nights and days here.

This is the wreckage of the plane that crashed last week at San Francisco Airport. I’m in transit here, and it is very visible from the terminal.

Trans-Tasman has a useful item on NZOG and Pike River:

NZOG has been named in last week’s Greymouth District Court decision of Judge Jane Farish as a party capable of contributing to the orders for $3.4m in fines and reparation, since Pike River Coal’s husk, in receivership, has nothing like enough in kitty to pay its fines.

Even though NZOG was in the process of quitting its unfortunate experiment in underground coal mining when the Nov 2010 blasts occurred, and even though Pike had already chewed through half of a $25m credit facility from NZOG by then, the Wellington-based oil and gas explorer gave the destroyed company access to the balance of those funds to tide it over. It also contributed $1m to a crisis fund and, perhaps most tellingly, allowed unsecured creditors – an array of third party, often West Coast contractors who faced potential ruin – access to $7m in claims NZOG might legitimately have had first dibs on. Pike River’s bank, the BNZ, took no such generous action.

This is a point worth making. NZOG have already gone well beyond what they legally had to do in helping families, suppliers and the wider community.

NZOG received an insurance payout of $42m on its losses from holding a 29% share of the illfated venture in which 29 miners died. One could even argue the company should treat the remaining $110,000 compensation per family as chump change, cheap at the price to preserve NZOG’s social licence to operate and to prevent more mud more sticking to the politically contentious oil and gas industry. NZOG may yet decide this is it’s best bet. Yet the company has every right to feel aggrieved by Judge Farish’s as yet unpublished decision. NZOG was neither a party to nor a called witness at the Pike River prosecution. The company was not named in the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the disaster as a culpable party.

Again a key point.

Now, with the written judgment not due for another week or so, NZOG is in a no-win holding pattern of saying it can’t respond without seeing the judgment. It’s not even clear there’s a right of appeal for NZOG. Another question arises – why just single out NZOG? Some 13.1% of Pike was in the hands of two Indian coal companies, Saurashtra Fuels an Gujarat NRE Coke, both attached to billionaire families, neither of whom has uttered so much as a public word of condolence to the Pike families. If NZOG is judged in the court of public opinion to owe the Pike families more, then why not every other out-of-pocket shareholder?

A fair point.

Stuff reports:

Te Ururoa Flavell has been elected co-leader of the Maori Party, replacing long time leader Pita Sharples.

No-one voted against Flavell in a vote at the Maori Party’s annual conference in Whakatane today.

An MP for Waiariki since 2005, Flavell was the only person nominiated in the vote, which took place at the annual conference in Whakatane today.

An emotional Flavell fought back tears as he thanked about 300 party members for electing him.

“I want you to know that i am up for this…I will give it my all.”

Flavell had been engaged in a long running powers struggle with Sharples, who announced earlier this month that he would stand down as party co-leader at this weekend’s conference.

Naida Glavish has also been elected president of the party, replacing Pem Bird, who announced recently that he would not stand for re-election.

An advisor to the Auckland and Waitemata district health boards and the New Zealand Police, she is a former commissioner of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. She is chair of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua.

Glavish earned fame as the “kia ora lady” when in 1984 working as a phone operator at New Zealand Post she was demoted for answering the phone with the now widely used phrase. After controvercy she was returned to the role and allowed to continue to answer the phone with kia ora.

Congrats to Flavell and Glavish. Now the leadership issue has been settled, they have a foundation they can build on. Their party vote support remains at three times the level of Mana. I don’t think there is any prospect they won’t be back in after the next election. The question is how many seats will they have. They could even gain a list seat if they lose an electorate seat.

Audrey Young writes:

At the start of the week, I would have put his chances of surviving at 80/20. Now they would be closer to 50/50.

I still have money on him seeing out 2013, as I don’t think they want to risk Cunliffe as Leader. However if those wanting a change do a Rudd type destabilisation, it may force the caucus to act.

The coverage of the whole “man-ban” issue has exposed the party’s fundamental flaws: its factions, the tensions between the caucus and the party, and the perception that the party is overly concerned with issues of identity.

Amid the leadership issues, there has been a serious debate internally in Labour this week about the wisdom of Maryan Street promoting her euthanasia private members’ bill.

Labour is terrified it will be drawn out of the ballot.

I hope it does. This law reform is badly needed and overdue.

Would the party go with the candidate that could get them closest to Government but risk further disunity in the party, Cunliffe?

Or would it risk going with the lower profile deputy, someone less likely to get them into the Government, someone with less public appeal (nothing to do with him being gay) but more likely to unify the party?

This is the Robertson dilemma. He might be ready but is the public?

Don’t rule out Little!

But replacing Shearer with either Cunliffe or Robertson would be as risky as the move was to put in Shearer.

In the event of failure, the party could be forced to contemplate a second leadership contest closer to the 2014 election with a wild card such as Shane Jones, Little or even back to Goff as leader were Robertson or Cunliffe unable to steer the party away from a disastrous result akin to Bill English’s in 2002 of just over 20 per cent. None of these scenarios is out of the question.

I think going back to Phil Goff is an excellent idea. Please do that.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

New Zealand notched another historic world “first” this week in its relationship with Greater China with the signing of the Taiwan free trade deal. Have you heard about it yet?

Forging the deal with the politically isolated island will enable our dairy, beef, kiwifruit and apple exporters to gain greater access to what is already New Zealand’s 12th- largest trading partner. John Key also launched the Asean strategy, which was well overdue given the ink on that particular deal is long dried. …

For political reasons – China’s sensitivity over “One China” – the Taiwanese deal goes by the humungous title of “Agreement between New Zealand and the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Co-operation (Anztec)”.

It’s an extraordinary mouthful.

But New Zealand can’t simply sign a straight-out free trade agreement with Taiwan, because mainland China already has one with us and while New Zealand has a closer economic partnership with the special administrative region of Hong Kong, in China’s eyes Taiwan is a mere province.

Key is correct to say the deal is “momentous on a number of fronts”.

Not only is New Zealand the only country in the world to have a free trade agreement with all parts of China – Hong Kong, Taiwan and the mainland; it is also a good opportunity for our exporters as bilateral deals with South Korea and India are still way down the pipeline.

It is a coup to be able to get an FTA with both China and Taiwan.

The drum out of Wellington is that the deal was signed at a low-key ceremony at the local university to avoid upsetting Beijing. But who (seriously) believes that the ink would ever have been applied without Beijing’s tacit approval.

New Zealand’s trade negotiators, led by former diplomat Charles Finny, deserve congratulations.

Pity our politicians couldn’t break out the champagne in public – but they have secured another deal where some of New Zealand’s competitors can’t.

The benefits to NZ of FTAs has been huge. As a remote trading nation, they are our lifeblood. Very sad that two parties in Parliament consistently oppose them.