The Press editorial:

The decision of a coroner not to hold an inquest into the suicide of a New Zealand soldier in Afghanistan is beginning to look unfortunate.

While it is not unusual for coroners to decide not to conduct inquests into deaths that have already been subject to a well-run and thorough investigation, this decision appears not to satisfy members of the dead man’s family that the circumstances of their relative’s death have been adequately dealt with. A coroner, having decided not to hold an inquest, is entitled to change his or her mind.

The solicitor-general, as the chief executive of the department in charge of coroners, may also overrule the coroner’s decision. One or other of them should do so and a proper independent coroner’s inquiry should be held.

I’m not convinced that the coroner has made the wrong call. As the editorial says, it is unusual to have a coronial inquest when some other body has done an investigation. The fact some family members are upset is not a reason in itself. An inquest shouldn’t be seen as some sort of appeal board.

The causes of suicide are complex and it is seldom that any one factor drives a person to it. A long and detailed investigation into the soldier’s death has been conducted by a military court of inquiry. It has reported on the immediate circumstances of the death, which involved an emotional relationship contrary to military discipline.

The soldier’s family is dissatisfied, however, claiming that questions about the wider circumstances, including allegations of continual bullying and harassment of the soldier because of his homosexuality, have not been properly answered.

It is incredibly sad that the solider killed himself, and that somehow this outcome wasn’t avoided.

However from what I have seen the major issue wasn’t the fact that he was homosexual. It was that he had an unrequited attraction to another solider and told him about it – which obviously made things difficult. The original story said:

Later in the evening, Sergeant H, who family say Hughes did not get along with, confronted Hughes about the incident where he had embarrassed Trooper A.

According to the report, Hughes broke down, admitted he was gay, and had feelings for Trooper A.

Sergeant H organised a meeting between himself, Hughes, and Trooper A, where Hughes admitted to Trooper A he had concocted the incident with the female chef and reiterated his feelings for the trooper.

This is an issue which isn’t intrinsically tied to sexuality. If the attraction was to a female solider, it would also be problematic.

Few of us can control whom we are attracted to. I certainly can’t. But you can control whether or not you act on it, or tell people about it. In a number of former jobs I’ve had colleagues I was attracted to but would never have told them that as it would have caused problems in the workplace.

This is not to say the fact Hughes was gay and the attraction was to another male didn’t make the situation more stressful. I’m sure it did, and it is of huge regret that he ended up taking his life.

The report into Hughes’ death, prepared by an inquiry team that travelled to Afghanistan and interviewed 47 witnesses, does not record any instances of Hughes being bullied, mocked or humiliated, but his family suspect that was the case.

I think you need something more than suspicion, to claim the Army inquiry was inadequate. There is no proof at all that it was.

Now the issue is slightly muddied by the fact the coroner who declined to do an inquest wrote a submission to Parliament against the same sex marriage bill. There is a seperate debate you can have about the wisdom of a quasi-judicial officer doing that. But I don’t think that means he has necessarily made the wrong decision in not holding an inquest. Unless there is some proof that the Army inquiry was inadequate or missed vital evidence, I think the decision is the right one.

Joe Bennett writes in the Dom Post:

Boffins at the University of Otago have tested the blood of 3000 randomly chosen people over the age of 15.

Seven per cent of them had diabetes. That’s over 200 people. A further 18 per cent had early signs of diabetes. That’s over 500 people. Together, they’re more than a quarter of the people tested. That’s an epidemic.

Meanwhile, across the ocean at the University of California, more boffins have been bent over the test tubes and the stats. As you’d expect, their study dwarfed the local one.

They analysed the incidence of diabetes in 175 countries. Effectively that means everywhere. And they found that if the amount of sugar in a national food supply goes up, so does the incidence of diabetes. …

As for education, every youth in the country has been bombarded with dietary advice from here to my Aunt Fanny. They’ve been told about five-plus-a-day, the evils of burgers, the wonder of veges, the joys of exercise and the way to radiant health. The result: the chubbiest generation in the history of our species.

So, if people cannot be taught to do themselves good, they will have to be forced. We need to set a date by which New Zealand shall be sugar-free: 2025 feels about right. Then we need to work towards it.

Bennett is being satirical, but I suspect there lobby groups will soon be pushing for this!

Money’s always a good place to start. There needs to be a tax on sugar, a tax that rises automatically and drastically at the start of every year. That’ll get them yelping.

Next comes plain packaging. We all know the sophistication of the marketing buggers, how they hook kids on to brands by association. Well, brands will be dead.

In the fizzy-drinks business, for example, there’ll be no more Pepsi or Coke or Fanta or Mountain Bloody Dew, with their pretty colours and their brand insignia. No, they’ll all just come in plain metal tubes labelled “Flavoured Sugar-laden Poison”.

Schools will become sugar-free zones. In the period before abolition, lollies will be hidden from view in dairies and sold only to over-18s. Anyone supplying sugar to minors will be liable to a fine or a term of imprisonment.

Parents eating icecream in front of their kids won’t just get a finger-wagging. They’ll have their kids taken into care. And it will all be enforced by us, the sugar cops.

Joe shouldn’t write the Green Party manifesto for them!

Miles Godfrey from AAP at Stuff reports:

If you’ve ever viewed Twitter as a gauge of public opinion, a weathervane marking the mood of the masses, you are very much mistaken.

That is the rather surprising finding of a new US study, which suggests the microblog zeitgeist differs markedly from mainstream public opinion.

“Twitter users are not representative of the public,” Washington DC think tank, Pew Research Center, concluded.

Experts in Australia, where Twitter comment is regularly used in media reaction to major new stories or a method of interaction for television programs, agreed with the US findings.

“While Twitter can give you a good idea of the extremes of how people feel about certain topics, when it comes to measuring opinion of the general public about major issues, it’s pretty useless,” Laura Demasi, of marketing firm IPSOS Australia, told AAP.

Pew Research’s study examined eight major US news events, including November’s presidential election, and compared views expressed on Twitter with national polling. …

The study highlighted a decision made in California’s Federal Court which ruled that laws barring same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Almost half of the Twitter conversations about the verdict were positive, eight per cent were negative and 46 per cent were neutral.

But wider public opinion on the decision was more mixed – with 33 per cent saying it was a positive ruling, 44 per cent negative and 15 per cent neutral.

The reason, Pew Research Center says, is that only a “narrow sliver” of the population use Twitter.

A recent study by French social media analysts Semiocast showed there were 140 million Twitter accounts in the US – more than one third of the population.

But users tend to be younger and lean more toward the political left than right, the study said.

This story is a useful reminder, with relevance in NZ.

I enjoy Twitter, and you get some great humour there. But it is not a proxy for the overall population.

It’s one thing to take a few quotes from Twitter, but media should be careful about generalisations such as saying “The decision was heavily criticised on Twitter”.

The other area media should be careful about, is choosing whom to quote. I recall one episode of Seven Sharp where the tweep they quoted on a Christchurch issue was the local campaign chair for Labour. Of course, there was no mention of that.

The NY Times reports:

Unemployment in the 17-nation euro zone climbed to 11.9 percent in January from 11.8 percent the previous month, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.

For the 27 nations of the Union, the jobless rate in January stood at 10.8 percent, up from 10.7 percent in December. All of the figures were seasonally adjusted.

Even though the EU is not that major a trading partner for us anymore, their woes will impact us. If Europeans are unemployed they are not spending money on imported goods from China. If the Chinese economy doesn’t grow as quickly as previously that impacts us both directly and via Australia.

The official stats say:

Compared with a year ago, the unemployment rate increased in nineteen Member States, fell in seven and
remained stable in Denmark. The largest decreases were observed in Estonia (11.1% to 9.9% between
December 2011 and December 2012), Latvia (15.5% to 14.4% between the fourth quarters of 2011 and 2012),
Romania (7.4% to 6.6%) and the United Kingdom (8.3% to 7.7% between November 2011 and November 2012).
The highest increases were registered in Greece (20.8% to 27.0% between November 2011 and November 2012),
Cyprus (9.9% to 14.7%), Portugal (14.7% to 17.6%) and Spain (23.6% to 26.2%).

The NZ unemployment rate is 6.9%. Too high, but better than most of Europe.

Energy News (paywall) reports:

It’s official – Max Bradford is the best Minister of Energy this country has seen in 45 years.

The eponymous architect of the 1998 reforms – which famously separated networks from retailing and completed the four-way split of ECNZ – received 23 per cent of the vote in our recent poll.

We asked readers to name the `best’ energy minister going back to 1977, when the former mining and electricity departments were combined into a single ministry.

“Good lord,” Bradford said by phone from Bangladesh last week, where he is leading a World Bank project to help improve the effectiveness of the country’s parliament. “I would have thought I would have been the most infamous.”

What is interesting is when you look at power prices in the last 20 years.

The Bradford reforms clearly worked. Power prices dropped for around three years – something that had never happened before. Then Labour’s policies started to impact and prices soared.

Most select committees of Parliament have limited power. They have an important role but hey report back to the House or the Executive, which tends to make the final decisions.

But one committee is different – the Regulations Review Committee. This committee has been given some special powers. It tends to be non-partisan and chaired by an Opposition MP (Maryan Street currently).

The Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 has a s6(1):

If, at the expiration of the 21st sitting day after the giving in the House of Representatives of notice of a motion to disallow any regulations or any provisions of any regulations (being a notice of motion given by a member of Parliament who, at the time of the giving of the notice, is a member of the Committee of the House of Representatives responsible for the review of regulations),—

(a)the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been moved; or

(b)the motion has been called on and moved and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of,—

the regulations or provisions specified for disallowance in the motion shall thereupon be deemed to have been disallowed

What this means is that rather than requiring the House to debate and vote on disallowing a regulation, the disallowance is automatic if moved by a members of the Regulations Review Committee unless the Government agrees to debate and vote on the motion to disallow within 20 sitting days.

This happened for the first time on the 27th of February. The regulations partially disallowed were the Road User Charges (Transitional Matters) Regulations 2012 as they were found to “make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which they are made and that they contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment”.

Charles Chauvel was the MP who placed the motion on the order paper, and got them disallowed. This would have been with the support of the Regulations Review Committee. Presumably it also had the tacit support of the Government.

I suspect in the past the Government itself has merely amended regulations when the Regulations Review Committee has recommended they do so. It is a first to use the automatic disallowance process.

Greg Ansley reports at NZ Herald:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is spending much of this week in western Sydney, trying to win back support in the vast suburbs of two million people that could destroy her Government in September. …

Chifley is one of Gillard’s key battlegrounds: it recorded an 11.6 per cent swing against Labor in 2010, and is now among a series of former blue-ribbon Labor seats under real threat of falling to the Opposition on September 14.

If polling is accurate, an exodus of voters across western Sydney could alone be sufficient to bring down the Government.

Losing West Sydney is like losing West Auckland for NZ Labour. They have nine seats at risk in Sydney, and they really can’t afford to lose any seats. They have 71 seats in Parliament and the Coalition has 72. They only remain in power through the Independents anyway.

What voters are making abundantly clear is that, at this stage at least, anything is better than Gillard: Abbott may also be heartily disliked, but a rush from Labor in the opinion polls points to a landslide for the Coalition..

The latest Morgan poll, reflecting recent findings by Newspoll and Nielsen, said the Opposition held a crushing 9 per cent lead in the two-party preferred vote that determines Australian elections.

New allegations about the depth of corruption involving former Labor ministers, rolling out daily from hearings at the state’s Independent Commission Against Corruption, continue to stain the party brand.

The level of corruption in Australian unions and Australian Labor is staggering. We have nothing like it (so far) in NZ. The Coalition have promised a judicial inquiry into union corruption if it wins the election.

News.com.au has a poll of 11 electorates in West Sydney:

If given the choice of four prime ministers, 39.2 per cent of voters would choose Mr Abbott, followed by Mr Rudd at 26 per cent, Malcolm Turnbull at 22.1 per cent, and Ms Gillard at just 13.2 per cent.

It is rare for an Opposition Leader to be ahead of an incumbent Prime Minister as Preferred PM. To be ahead in a Labour stronghold is even rarer.

If you add the two Liberals up they have 61% support and the two Labor contenders have 39%.

Yay. Now under 85 kgs so have lost 25 kgs and 5 to go.

The pace of loss is increasing as I get fitter. Now doing three runs a week, two gym sessions and one long walk. Wednesdays are my day off 🙂

The first 10 kgs took around 5 months to get to under 100.

Took seven months to lose the next 5 kgs to get under 95. A week of election parties didn’t help 🙂

A further six months to lose the next 5 kgs to get under 90.

And just six weeks to lose a further 5 kgs to get under 85. The end is in sight! The aim is to get under 80 by end of June when I head to the United States for five weeks.

The Herald reports:

Yesterday, the Catholic church in Scotland quoted O’Brien as saying that there had been times “that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal”.

I would have thought any sexual conduct at all was ipso factor below the standards of being a Catholic priest?

The ban on Catholic priests having sex of course didn’t apply at the beginning. St Peter, the first Pope, was married.

The ban appears to have been first promulgated in the Synod of Elvira in 305 AD. Here’s some of the other canons or laws it laid down:

• If a woman beats her servant and causes death within three days, she shall undergo seven years’ penance if the injury was inflicted on purpose and five years’ if it was accidental.,
• Christian girls are not to marry pagans, no matter how few eligible men there are, for such marriages lead to adultery of the soul.
• Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to happen shall not commune for five years.
• Christians are to prohibit their slaves from keeping idols in their houses.
• Landlords are not to allow Jews to bless the crops they have received from God and for which they have offered thanks.
• If any cleric or layperson eats with Jews, he or she shall be kept from communion as a way of correction.
• Christians who play dice for money are to be excluded from receiving communion.A woman may not write to other lay Christians without her husband’s consent.

I think it is fair to say that the Church has dropped some of their other edicts from 305 AD, and one day may do the same with the ban on priests marrying.

I always enjoy the quotes in the Southpark episode 6-08 where Father Maxi tries to persuade the Cardinals to stop priests sleeping with young boys.

FRENCH CARDINAL

What exactly do you suggest we change,Father Maxi.

 PRIEST MAXI

Well, for one, no sex with boys.

ANOTHER CARDINAL

The Holy Document of Vatican Law states that a priest, bishop, or cardinal cannot get married, so where are we to get our sex?

There’s some wisdom to those words.

And in case people say it unthinkable to change the church law, interestingly in 1970, nine German theologians wrote a letter calling for a discussion on the law of celibacy for priests. One of those nine was Joseph Ratzinger, now the Pope Emeritus.

Today is census day. However several hundred thousand people have already done their census online. I’m one of them, and it was very quick and easy to do.

The Herald reports the online system can only handle 200,000 an hour so there may be some delays today.

The census data will be used for all sorts of decisions in the future, such as population funding. One use of it also wil be in deciding electorate boundaries.

The law basically states there will be 16 South Island electorates. Their average population is used to calculate the number of North Island electorate and Maori electorates. There are currently 16, 47 and 7 respectively.

We won’t know until the census is done, and the Maori option is done, but there could be up to three new North Island electorates and one new Maori electorate. If so, that would mean 74 electorate MPs after the next election and 46 (down from a target of 50) List MPs.

I blogged on the 20th of February on Colin Craig’s call for MPs to vote on same sex marriage in accordance with the wishes of their electorate. He was reported as saying:

Mr Craig said that if he was elected, he would vote for gay marriage if his electorate demanded it, in spite of his strong opposition to the law change.

I asked:

Okay so does this mean if Colin Craig was an electorate MP and a poll showed the majority of his electorate support abortion on demand, Colin Craig would vote for the law to be abortion on demand – no matter how strongly he personally feels it is murder?

I’d like to see an answer to that question. Would Colin Craig vote for abortion on demand if a majority of the electorate backed it?

Colin has kindly responded to the question and sent in a guest post, where he outlines his views on the role of referenda and what should happen if an MP and their electorate do not agree. His response is:

This question, of course, could be proposed for various controversial socially liberal pieces of legislation, and is really a question of “how do I see democracy working, and how does representation happen”. So in a nutshell here is my view:

Government initiated referenda: (including general elections). The people vote and their will is done even if there is a single vote in it.  I believe these should be limited to major issues such as elections, constitutional/ electoral arrangements, and major social changes (such as redefining marriage). However, as this is at the discretion of government, it could be used more extensively if the government saw fit.

Citizens initiated referenda: Such referenda are proposed by the citizens themselves. Our party policy is that where such a referenda achieves two-thirds support from the voting public it should be binding on government.  Existing legislation needs amendment not only to bring in the binding aspect, but also to limit proposals to simple questions in the affirmative. 

Vote in Parliament by List MPs: In my view a list MP should always vote consistent with the Party Policy. If no policy exists (such as on redefining marriage for National MPs) then the best option would be for them to consult with members of the party and thereby accurately represent the membership. As our Party has three clear policies on abortion (“Proper Application of Existing Law”, “Free and Informed Consent”, and “Parental Consent for Minors”) which are all aimed at reducing the number of abortions, no Conservative Party List MP would vote for abortion on demand.

Vote in Parliament by Electorate MPs :

A challenging situation could arise if a Conservative Party candidate is elected as the MP  for an electorate. He is then being sent to parliament to represent an electorate (not a party). I do believe that an MP is required to faithfully represent those who sent him even if he does not agree with them. A simple servant-master situation.

If the electorate required the MP to vote in a way that was against his conscience (and “yes” abortion on demand is against mine), he has in my view the following options:

1. To vote as directed by the electorate (against his own conscience)
2. To abstain on the issue
3. To go back to the electorate and negotiate with them. If there is an impasse then to offer his resignation.
4. To ignore the electorate and vote as he pleases

The first and last options (1 & 4) I believe to be incorrect choices. The first, because it breaches conscience, and the last because it usurps the servant role of the representative (it would be unfaithful to those who sent him). This leaves only 2 & 3 as options in my view. Personally I would elect the third option.

To close then, “no” I would not vote for “abortion on demand” but I would recognise that as an electorate MP this might require my resignation. If so then I would be pleased to stand aside so that a representative who was “more in tune” with the electorate could take my place.

A simple case of the people wishes being done and that my friend is democracy.

It’s a thoughtful nuanced response. I understand the attractiveness of (3) but I wonder about the practicality. How do you determine what is the opinion of the electorate? Is is through random polls like my company does? Is it based on write in responses? What is the response is 51% one way and 49% the other? do you take into account intensity of feeling? And how exactly do you negotiate with an entire electorate?

But it’s good to have had Colin elaborate more fully on his views of how referenda and MPs consciences and electorate wishes should work together. Lots of stuff to consider there.

Very amusing.

Hat Tip: Whale

I was sitting at home waiting for poll data to come in and my computer reminded me I was due at Beep Test* in half an hour. I thought to myself “What the hell is Beep Test*” and then remembered it is a Fringe Festival production I had been invited to attend and review.

So I quickly headed down to the Thistle Hall on Cuba Street and entered the hall. The first thing I noticed is that (apart from John Smythe) I was possibly the oldest person there. This is quite different to many theatre outings when I am almost the youngest 🙂

As I sat down I couldn’t work out who and what was or was not part of the show. There were drinks for sale, and also people making sandwiches next to them. Were the sandwiches for sale also or part of the show? (was the latter) There were a group of people doing exercise warm ups. Were they actors or audience or both?

So I sat down reasonably confused, and having no idea of what it would all mean.

At the end of the night, I’m not sure I was any wiser about what it all meant, but I did enjoy a cool night of frenetic fun. It was classic fringe festival where you are equal parts amused and bemused.

If you spend too much time trying to work out why she is wearing a gold cocktail dress on top of her gym gear, you’ll go mad. You just enjoy that she is, and somehow it works.

Normally in a review I’d give an outline of the production, but I don’t want to give too much away as the fun is in finding out what happens next. But a few details.

The main event so to speak is seeing the two actors (Simon Haren and Isobel MacKinnon from Binge Culture) run from end to end of the hall as the robotic voice tells them to. The pace gets faster and faster and you get quite enthralled at seeing how long they can last. But it isn’t just them, audience members are encouraged to take part also and around 20 start off doing it. And they don’t just run – they bounce off the walls, they do high fives, and more.

That wasn’t the only audience participation (the whole show is about audience participation). One unlucky soul gets picked to go up onto the sofa for a multi-choice interview, again against an ever quicker count down. I was unfortunately the chosen one in this case and had to answer a dozen questions such as whether at school I was popular, weird or other (I said all of the above). Then as the clock runs out, the two hosts end up leading the audience in dancing and somehow Isobel and myself spend a couple of minutes doing a Tom Cruise impression holding hands and jumping up and down on the interview couch in best Oprah style. Very hilarious and surreal. Luckily for the couch this production wasn’t a year ago 🙂

There’s other fun segments also such as the maths tests and the stand up comic routines. The whole show lasts an hour, and was an excellent way to live up an otherwise boring weeknight.

Not everyone is into fringe humour, but if you are this is a great fun show to go along to.

I enjoyed it so much, I am almost considering going back on Thursday. Not so much to see the show again, but because I regret not taking part in the running segment. I reckon I could have lasted until the final few. Mind you they were saying that one of the guests at a future show is a marathon runner so best you don’t try to keep up with him!

Skyline

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in California and beyond

The Skyline Walk is one of the best walks in Wellington as you get a near continual view of not just the city and harbour, but also of the Western coastline.

The 12 km walk starts at Johnsonville and finishes at the South end of Karori at the saddle of Makara Road.

There is an initial climb up to Mt Kaukau, but after that it is a fairly easy walk to Karori (with the exception of one further steep climb). Very well signposted and the track varies from 4WD paths to narrow goat like paths. Fun when someone comes the other way!

The continual views make this a great walk. Took just over three and a half hours.

This was walk no 11 of the 13 walks over summer. Just two to go.

Dave Armstrong writes in the Dom Post:

And then there was the library. Every Friday night the four Armstrong kids would troop down and get our books. The librarians were friendly and though the library was small, it had a copy of my favourite book – Mike Mulligan and the Steam Shovel. It’s about a steam shovel operator who digs a great big hole but forgets to create a path out. Little did I know that Mike Mulligan would provide me with a perfect metaphor for the Wellington City Council in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

I grew up in Island Bay, and the Island Bay Library was an important part of my childhood. I was a fast reader and would visit there almost every fortnight to borrow more books. Because it was in my neighbourhood, I could walk there on the way home from school. There is no way I would have gone to the central library in town.

But if you investigate further you find that this pillar of the Brooklyn community is at risk from a far greater natural disaster than earthquakes – city councillors. Brooklyn Library’s services have been deliberately run down by cutting staff hours and stock circulation. Though Brooklyn is categorised as a District Centre, which entitles it to a library, this apparently conflicts with the council’s recent Centres Policy, which sees Brooklyn as a Neighbourhood Centre. And under this policy, because Brooklyn is (just) less than 3 kilometres from the city library, then it doesn’t qualify for a library. To think our rates pay for this ridiculously bureaucratic way to define a community. You wouldn’t read about it – especially now that they’re wanting to close libraries.

Wadestown’s excellent library is also under threat, though community facilities portfolio leader Justin Lester said recently that closing Wadestown Library would not be worth “the amount of hurt that you go through trying”. I would prefer that the councillors I elect to say things like “Wadestown Library will close over my dead body” than to tell me that they don’t want to engage in a bitter public fight over its closure.

I doubt there is a lot Dave Armstrong and I agree on politically, but community libraries may just be one of them.

I think it is vital that kids can easily access a local library and borrow books at no or low cost. The benefits of having kids be enthusiastic readers is massive. I do regard this as a clear public good, which should be funded by ratepayers.

Kids should be reading as much as possible. Few families can afford to buy scores of books a year. That is very libraries are so brilliant, with temporary borrowing. They make it easy for all families to have kids who read. Of course there are other barriers such as parental attitudes, but libraries at least remove the barrier of cost.

Bill English and Tony Ryall have announced details. They are:

• Pre-registration period will begin tomorrow
  
• Pre-registration period ends 22 March
• Offer document in mid April
• A 3 week offer period after that when individuals can apply for shares
• After the individual offers, institutional investors can apply
• Main listing on NZX and secondary listing on ASX, because some institutions with NZ investors could not apply without an ASX listing
• Sale process to conclude mid May
• minimum share application will be $1,000
• All NZers guaranteed at least $2,000 of shares without scaling back if they apply
• The loyalty bonus for NZ retail investors will be detailed before the share offer opens

I’m looking forward to buying some MRP shares, especially as I was banned from being able to buy Contact Energy shares when they were floated.

Likely to but Meridian shares also. Not so sure about Genesis, and also unsure about Air NZ.  Air NZ is one of the more successful airlines, but it is a very temperamental industry.

A for Solid Energy, I suspect I could buy it with my collection of loose change – a good reminder of why the Government shouldn’t own risky competitive businesses. Their jobis to regulate not own.

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

I know I would have a lot to learn if I wanted to teach in a school. But I don’t understand why the Teachers Council gets to demand that prospective teachers attend Auckland University for a full year to get a Graduate Diploma in Teaching before doing so.

I already have three degrees, have taught science and economics at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, have worked in a successful merchant bank and have some knowledge of government and its operation.

In some capacity I would have something to teach students. But I can’t. The Teachers Council declares I must complete a diploma that includes a course called EDPROFST 612, which “explores questions relating to … the Treaty of Waitangi and the socio-political influences that shape the interconnections between learning and context”.

This might explain a lot!

I am amazed we have the many good teachers that we do. But I wonder how many potentially good teachers the Teachers Council and their asinine courses and processes have driven away.

I like the Teach for America programme where top graduates spend two years or more working as teachers, after a five week summer training course.

Bail should be granted to most people awaiting trial, as  they are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously not for the most serious cases such as murder.

But when someone has a history of offending on bail, or multiple previous convictions – then sticking them out on bail is just a recipe for creating further victims of crime. Especially that often any additional offences while on bail will not lead to greater punishment.

Now look at this case reported by Anna Leask:

A teenager on bail when he robbed an 81-year-old woman, breaking her hip and wrist and disabling her for life, has been sentenced to home detention.

But Darren Fidow’s elderly victim wants him jailed and is demanding a harsher sentence.

Patricia Sutcliffe’s hip and wrist were badly broken when she was robbed in 2011. She was in hospital for more than three months, is in constant pain and can no longer walk without a crutch.

Auckland Crown Solicitor Simon Moore, QC, is considering an appeal. The Crown originally sought a sentence of more than five years’ jail.

The sentence is bad enough. But look at the history.

Fidow was on bail facing a burglary charge when he robbed her.

In June 2011, Fidow was charged with aggravated robbery. He appeared in court and was released on bail.

1st time.

Fidow was arrested again in February last year for breaching supervision conditions and was warned and re-bailed.

2nd time.

He was also arrested in June after failing to appear in court. He was remanded in custody after evading police for several months, but released again in July on electronic bail.

3rd time.

Days later, after a scheduled court appearance, Fidow was caught burgling another house. This time he was remanded in custody, but in October, he was bailed again to Odyssey House, for alcohol abuse treatment.

4th time.

What is the bet he breaches his home detention?

Stuff reports:

It’s another case of she said, she said. Labour MP Jacinda Ardern was yesterday bemoaning record benefit numbers during National’s reign.

DPB, sickness and invalid beneficiary numbers were at the highest since records began in 1940, she said.

It didn’t take long for Social Development Minister Paula Bennett to respond with her own gloating statement.

The number of people on the DPB, unemployment and invalids benefits all decreased last year, she said. It seems statistics are everyone’s friend.

Rather than just report that both MPs are claiming different things, it would be nice if the media actually provided the full data and allowed people to decide for themselves.

I blogged yesterday that the numbers cited by the HoS and Ardern were over a year out of date. That’s not opinion – it is fact.

The excellent Stats Chat site also gives people the full data, in graph form. Sadly the number of people who read that site is far far less than those who read newspapers.

Lindsay Mitchell also has some useful fisking of Ardern’s claims.

Ironically Anthony Robins at The Standard is also unhappy with the article. Not for the misleading claims, but because a Labour MP is suggesting that it would be a good thing to have fewer people on welfare!

Hamish Rutherford reports:

Housing New Zealand is planning to ditch three-bedroom homes on quarter-acre sections in favour of one-bedroom units.

Details of the department’s plan to reconfigure its portfolio are revealed in a briefing for new Housing Minister Nick Smith.

The owner of more than $15 billion worth of state housing, the government department openly admits that barely half its portfolio properly meets the needs of its tenants.

While 43 per cent of its 69,000 homes are three bedroom houses, only 16 per cent of its “priority demand” requires a property of that size. And only 10 per cent of its portfolio is one-bedroom units, meeting 33 per cent of its highest demand.

I suspect when most state houses were purchased or built the typical tenants were working families with several kids. Today I’d guess that most tenants are not in work and have smaller families.

This is one of the problems of attempting to deliver housing assistance through state houses rather than through accommodation subsidies. If the profile of those most in need changes over time, you end up with a mismatch.

Catherine Harris at Stuff reports:

A former adviser to the Reserve Bank and World Bank says the cost of bringing in tougher tests for earthquake-prone buildings would far outweigh the benefits.

Economic consultant Ian Harrison said he had analysed proposals put forward by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on building standards, and it showed the cost of the tougher regime would be 50 times the benefits.

In Auckland the cost was 1762 times the benefit.

Harrison said his research was based on the ministry’s own expert analysis.

“The proposals will save only 0.25 lives a year at a cost of over $4 billion,” he said.

This speaks volumes.

Risk must always be balance against cost. Far from clear that the Government has it right in this case.

UPDATE: Have just had clarified that the Government has made no decisions on building standards, so ipso facto don’t have it wrong or right.

The proposals are from the Royal Commission on the Canterbury Earthquakes. MOBIE are consulting on those recommendations, but the Government itself has made no decision on any changes. They are just doing what a Government should – consulting on what the Royal Commission has recommended.

Incidentally submissions close this week on 8 March on them.

While I think a lot of deference should be given to the Royal Commissions, I don’t think that means what they recommend should automatically be accepted. I think the balance of cost and risk has to be carefully considered, and at this stage it doesn’t appear the Commission has got that balance quite right. We’ll see in time what the Government itself actually proposes.

Some commenters and others have alleged that the Government is “rushing” the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill through Parliament. This is incorrect, and in fact isn’t even possible. The Government can control the order and timing of Government bills, but has no ability to speed up or slow down Members’ Bills – especially ones that are conscience issues.

The process and timing for Members’ Bills is controlled by Parliament’s Standing Orders. I thought it would be useful to take people through what these are, and how they have worked in this case.

1. An MP submits a proposed Members’ Bill to the Clerk – SO 274. Louisa Wall did this on 1 June 2012
2. If at any time less than eight Members’ Bills are awaiting a first reading, a ballot is triggered under SO 277(1). This occurred on Wed 27 June and Wed 25 July when the House had a Members’ Day and considered a number of other Members’ Bill that were awaiting first reading.
3. Ballots were held on Thu 28 June and Thu 26 July. On 28 June four bills were selected out of 65 submitted and on 26 July five bills were selected out of 63 submitted. The Marriage (DOM) Bill was one of those selected on 26 July.
4. The bill was introduced to Parliament that day – SO 277(3)
5. The bill is set down for a first reading three sitting days later – SO 281(2), which is Thu 2 August 2012.
6. In every two weeks of House sitting, Govt bills are debated on five of the six sitting days, and Members’ bills are given priority on every second Wednesday – SO 74(1). Generally there will be four and a half hours available.
7. On Members’ Days, any local or private bills take precedence – SO 63. This means that a Members’ Bill will not be debated until any local or private bills scheduled for a reading or committee stage are dealt with first.
8. If they get to Members’ Bills, any bills awaiting third reading, committee stage or second reading are given priority over a bill awaiting first reading. S70(1)
9. There was a Members’ Day on 15 August which did not see the Marriage (DOM) Bill got to, but on Wed 29 August its first reading was held. There are 11 speeches lasting 65 minutes under Appendix A. The vote was 80-40.
10. At the conclusion of the first reading, the MP in charge nominates a select committee for it to be referred to. SO 283(1). It was referred to the Government Administration Select Committee.
11. The Select Committee is required under SO 291/1 to report back the bill within six months, which in this case is 28 February 2013. The only way this deadline can be extended is if Parliament unanimously (or near unanimously consents.
12. The Select Committee called for submissions on 12 September, and allowed the normal six weeks until 26 October.
13. They received 21,533 submissions with 10,487 in favour and 8,148 against. 2,898 of the submissions were individual ones, not form letters.
14. The Select Committee starting hearing oral submissions on the 7th of November and the last submission was heard on 30th of January. They heard 220 submissions in person with hearings in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The final day for oral submissions was only 4 weeks before the bill had to be reported back.
15. The Select Committee then considered the bill, the submissions, proposed amendments, had a report drafted and voted to accept the report. They reported back on 27 February 2013 – the second to last day possible.
16. The bill is then set down under SO 292 for a second reading three sitting days later. This is Thu 6 March.
17. The second reading will occur automatically on a Member’s Day once any local or private bills on the order paper are dealt with, and any committee stage or third readings of Members’ Bills. There are three such bills ahead of it on the Order Paper which will take place on Wed 13 March – the next Members’ Day. This is all automatic under Standing Orders – the Government gets no say on it.
18. If the second reading passes on 13 March, then the committee stage is likely to be on Wed 27 March when amendments can be considered.
19. After the committee stage, the third reading is likely to be Wed 17 April.

All this timetabling is basically automatic. The rules of Parliament are binding. Only with unanimous leave can dates or timing be changed. This is deliberate. It is important that the Executive only controls its own bills, but doesn’t control Parliament as a whole.