Stuff reports:

Severe deficiencies in the law are giving criminals “a simple means for identity theft” by making it easy to change their names, an investigation has revealed.

Former ombudsman Mel Smith uncovered the loopholes while investigating how convicted paedophile Te Rito Henry Miki was able to teach at six schools. …

The inquiry into the employment of Miki found he was easily able to steal the identity of a registered teacher friend, who emigrated to Australia in 2009, and to adopt his teacher registration.

Miki – who accumulated 53 separate aliases – subsequently applied to the office of the registrar-general to change his friend’s name to another identity.

Name change applicants only have to supply a statutory declaration, sworn before a court official, lawyer or justice of the peace – who needs only to ask if the contents are accurate. The applicant is not required to present verification of authentication or any other supporting documents to the registrar-general. …

The registrar-general is not required to inform the Passport Office, Customs or Immigration of a name change. If the relevant agencies had been notified, then when the friend first returned to New Zealand in September 2009 “the theft of identity would have become known and acted on at that time”, the report said.

Miki was arrested in February and was jailed for about four years.

Mr Smith said an average of 7375 people changed their name every year.

“Most of those, I’m sure, would be for perfectly proper and lawful reasons but . . . unfortunately New Zealand society is not as honest as it used to be.”

There was anecdotal evidence an official name change was available to people who wanted to get past the border “having legal obligations here, whether that’s child support, unpaid fines or even something much more serious”, he said.

I think there is a simple solution – like in the US. Every individual is assigned a unique identity number. Then you can change your name to whatever you like, but it will be linked to your UIN, which means pedophiles will not be able to get jobs in schools no matter what name they change to.

You’d need some privacy restrictions on which government agencies can access your UIN and identity for which reasons, but that shouldn’t be a reason not to allow the Government to accurately identify people for legitimate reasons.

Some people think that only liberals support same sex marriage, and all conservatives are against it. I believe there is a strong argument that allowing same sex marriage is a conservative thing to do. I’ll cite a couple of conservative leaders in this argument. The first is Theodore Olsen writing at the Daily Beast. Olsen was the United States Solictor-General under George W Bush and Assistant Attorney-General for Ronald Reagan. Incidentially Olson was also Bush’s (private) lawyer for Bush v Gore in the Supreme Court and his wife was on one of the 9/11 hijacked flights. Also he is a founding member of the Federalist Society. Olsen writes:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

So well said. And on the choice issue:

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Olsen also deals with history:

It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

And the same applies here in NZ. Does anyone think the 1986 Homosexual Law Reform was wrong? Is anyone saying NZ is worse off because we allowed civil unions? To the contrary those who fought against civil unions are now citing them as so successful, they claim there is no need for same sex marriage.

Then in the UK, we have Conservative Party Leader and PM David Cameron:

But for me, leadership on families also means speaking out on marriage. Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value. So yes, we will recognise marriage in the tax system.

But we’re also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage.

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.

Also London Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson has said:

One of the amazing things about London is that it’s not only got a declining crime rate, declining murder rate, more theatres than New York, less rainfall than Rome but it’s also one of the few places in the country where the rate of marriage is actually increasing and I see absolutely no reason why that happy state should be denied to anybody in our country. And that’s why I’m supporting the Out4Marriage campaign.

Back in the US prominent Republicans who support same sex marriage include Dick Cheney, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain.

In Australia we also have the former Leader of the Australian Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull who has said:

Families are the foundation of our society and I am firmly of the view that that we would be a stronger society if more people were married – and by that I mean formally, legally married – and fewer were divorced. …

And I have to say that I am utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy, or indeed any marriage, is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road – whether it is called a marriage or not.

Regrettably, this aspect of the debate is dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy, and the deepest pools are all too often found among the most sanctimonious.

Let us be honest with each other. The threat to marriage is not the gays. It is a lack of loving commitment – whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery, to name just a few manifestations of the loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief.

And Turnbull concludes:

If the threat to marriage today is lack of commitment, then surely other couples making and maintaining that commitment sets a good rather than a bad example.

Are not the gays who seek the right to marry, to formalise their commitment to each other, holding up a mirror to the heterosexuals who are marrying less frequently and divorcing more often?

There is a strong public interest in people living together and supporting and helping each other.

If, for just a moment, I can pretend to be an economist and know the price of everything and the value of nothing, there will plainly be less demand for social services, medical expenses, hospital care if people, especially older people, like Michael and Johan [the former Justice Kirby and his partner, Johan van Vloten], live together as opposed to being in lonely isolation consoled only by their respective cats.

Study after study has demonstrated that people are better off financially, healthier, happier if they are married, and indeed, I repeat, if they are formally married as opposed to simply living together.

Personally I’m very happy to be in the same camp as Dick Cheney, Boris Johnson, Theodore Olsen, David Cameron, Laura Bush, Malcolm Turnbull and John Key. The views above I think make clear that if you put aside the religious argument, then allowing same sex couples to marry is what conservative MPs should vote for.

Tomorrow I am going to blog on the religious issue, and my ideal situation where marriage is purely a religious ceremony, not a state institution. However while it is a state institution, it should not discriminate between types of couples.

Then on Tuesday I’m going to blog on the politics of the same sex marriage issue both in NZ and around the world.

On Wednesday the vote on the first reading is expected, and I imagine you’ll hear a lot less on the issue for six months or so.

The SST reports:

Some Burger King employees say they have been working for up to 10 years on the minimum wage without receiving any performance or service-related pay rises.

If this is correct, I think BK are short-sighted as you want to give staff opportunities to earn more than the minimum wage. However I don’t think it is correct, based on the same article.

On April 1, when the minimum wage went up to $13.50 from $13, it is alleged many workers also lost a margin they were earning above the minimum wage.

How can you have spent ten years on the minimum wage, yet also lose a margin above the minimum wage? The article appears to be logically inconsistent, or very badly explained.

They were told they had to to earn back their right to that margin by completing “module” training. It is understood staff are being told they need to do the training in their own time.

And this contradicts the claim you can’t get a performance related pay rise.

The female worker said it could take months to complete all the modules and at the end of it there was no guarantee of the pay rise.

Umm, that’s because it is performance related I presume.

What would have made this a far more useful article is to state what the basic pay rate at BK is, how extra pay can be earnt and maybe compare it to the minimum wage.

Sadly thought the article just repeats a number of apparently contradictory assertions and gives us no actual hard data to decide on.

Eric Crampton inserts some facts in a Press op-ed:

I do not particularly care what the jury decides on who is or is not a wowser. But I work with and care about the numbers around alcohol policy. And the impression most readers would get from the latest reporting in The Press is a bit at odds with, well, reality.

Let us begin perhaps with Jennie Connor’s citing of “a Canadian study” on the effects of minimum pricing. Can a 10 per cent increase in the minimum price of alcohol really reduce total alcohol consumption by 16 per cent? No. …

Across-the-board increases in the minimum price of alcohol have far smaller effects: a 10 per cent price increase reduces aggregate consumption by only about 3.4 per cent, as is made reasonably clear in Auld’s paper.

But the bigger mis-use of numbers follows:

I was a bit more surprised to read of the new commissioned BERL report on the health costs of alcohol in Canterbury. …

BERL here replicated work done in Australia by Collins and Lapsley (2008). But where Collins and Lapsley added up all the costs imposed by those disorders where alcohol makes things worse and subtracted from that total all the cost savings from those disorders where alcohol reduces costs, BERL simply erased any beneficial effects of alcohol for disorders including ischaemic heart disease, cholelithiasis, heart failure, stroke and hypertension. …

I received the paper Wednesday courtesy of the CDHB. And BERL, at footnote 14, reports they’ve done the same thing again: “The Collins and Lapsley fractions indicate some alcohol use may be beneficial for some conditions. We concentrate on harmful drug use, and assume zero fractions for such conditions.”

So their measure of the costs of alcohol to the Canterbury health system relies on an assumption that there can be no health benefits from alcohol – an assumption that runs contrary to the weight of international evidence. Assuming one’s conclusions is hardly proper method.

To put it more bluntly the BERL paper is useless as a public policy tool.  Measuring harm without measuring benefits is something zealots do, but we expect better in scientific papers.

Crampton concludes:

How often do you read that problem drinking among 15-24 year olds was no different in 2006/2007 than in 1996/1997 before the change in the alcohol purchase age?

Or that per capita alcohol consumption is down substantially since 1991? Or that light drinkers have about a 14%reduction in their chance of dying from any cause than people who never drink, correcting for the host of other health-related behaviours that are usually given as reasons for ignoring the health benefits of moderate drinking?

Be skeptical of the moral crisis around alcohol.

Amazing to see the comments at The Press attacking Eric personally or attacking things he never said. Very few able to engage on the actual issue.

Got two wrong that I should have got right – was trying to set a time record. 8/10 in 42 seconds. Quiz here.

The HoS reports:

A filmmaker who posted inflammatory comments online about a woman soldier killed in Afghanistan has gone into hiding following a barrage of death threats to her and her family.

Barbara Sumner-Burstyn’s remarks on Facebook, accusing Lance Corporal Jacinda Baker of “killing innocent people”, attracted a vitriolic attack from some army colleagues.

“Oh, so fallen soldier Jacinda Baker liked boxing and baking – did they forget she also liked invading countries we are not at war with, killing innocent people and had no moral compass” Burstyn wrote on her Facebook page.

“She 100 per cent does not deserve our respect for her flawed choices. We are not at war. We are helping America invade another country for their oil. No more than that.

“Go to war expect to be killed. You can’t have it both ways – oh nice little career with the military and shock horror when you get blown up.”

The post went viral around the internet and last night 19,000 people had joined a Facebook group called “Sumner Burstyn give back your NZ Passport!”.

Sumner-Burstyn seems to be a very stupid person, as she repeats a manta “war for oil” without even understanding it. Afghanistan is not an oil producing country.

More to the point, one can have a legitimate view on the conflict in Afghanistan and express it in the context of deaths. But Sumner-Burstyn crossed the line by making claims about Jacinda Baker personally, and almost expressing satisfaction that she had died. She seems to lack any empathy for fellow human beings such as Jacinda’s familiy, friends and colleagues.

It goes without saying that while of course people will get angry at Sumner-Burstyn for her vile remarks on Jacinda Baker, that anger should never become threats as a few did. That just allows Sumner-Burstyn to portray herself as the victim.

It‘s a shame such a talented film-maker is so lacking in basic human empathy and decency.

Neil Armstrong has died aged 82. His name and his achievement as the first man on the moon must be one of the most well known on the planet. His quote of “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” will remain with us for generations.

Michael Schofield writes in the SMH:

Before Janni was born, we were given baby toys by family and friends. Most of them are for six-, nine- or even 12-month-olds. I didn’t expect to use them for months, but if I can get her focused on something, she stops screaming.

One toy has three shapes on it: a red square, a blue triangle and a yellow circle. When switched on, the toy asks, “Find the red square.” I still remember sitting in our easy chair, half-asleep, holding my three-week-old daughter as she bats away at the toy. “Find the yellow circle … Correct. Find the red square … Correct.” Through the fogginess of my exhaustion, I become aware that she’s hitting the right shapes and colours. I look down, thinking it must just be coincidence.

“Janni, where’s the yellow circle?” I ask, watching her arm stretch out, fist closed, as if struggling to make her body do what she wants it to do.

“Correct,” the toy announces.

No. It can’t be. She’s not even a month old. “Janni, press the blue triangle.”

“Correct,” the toy announces.

Oh my God.

At 13 months, Janni can recognise any letter in the alphabet, even upside down or sideways. By 18 months, she’s speaking in grammatically correct sentences and learning basic addition. Plus, she’s sleeping now, but that’s because we discovered that taking her out every day, all day long, gets her tired enough to sleep through the night. It’s not enough for us to wear out her body. We have to wear out her mind.

But the genius, was masking something. Follow the link and read the story. I doubt you will be able to claim it didn’t affect you.

The Daily Record reports:

LOTTERY millionaire Adrian Bayford shunned fine dining yesterday – to wolf down two bacon rolls followed by a pint of Guinness.

The £148million jackpot winner and his Scots wife Gillian soaked up the sun on the veranda at four-star Carnoustie Golf Hotel overlooking the famous championship links.

But the down-to-earth couple were not tempted to test the chef at the hotel’s AA Rosette-winning Dalhousie Restaurant.

Instead Adrian, 41, ordered two £2.15 bacon rolls from the bar for brunch.

A very lucky couple. But get how they got together:

Gillian and Adrian have been married for eight years since meeting by chance after Adrian dialled her number by mistake and fell for her Scottish accent.

That is pretty cool.

Ronald Bailey at Reason blogs:

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions at 20-Year Low Thanks to Fracking 

In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. …

Both government and industry experts said the biggest surprise is how quickly the electric industry turned away from coal. In 2005, coal was used to produce about half of all the electricity generated in the U.S. The Energy Information Agency said that fell to 34 percent in March, the lowest level since it began keeping records nearly 40 years ago.

It is fracking that has opened up the shale gas. The Greens should be promoting fracking, not trying to ban it.

InternetNZ has announced:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) is pleased to announce that it has approved the creation of a new second level domain in the .nz domain name space – .kiwi.nz. This expands the range of choice New Zealanders have in the domain name market and means that people will soon be able to register personalised domain names ending in .kiwi.nz.

The implementation of .kiwi.nz is being managed by InternetNZ’s subsidiary company the Domain Name Commission Ltd. Authorised .nz registrars will be able to take registrations for these names from 10am on Tuesday, 11 September 2012.

I might apply for blog.kiwi.nz 🙂

The threshold set for kiwi.nz to be established is 500 registrations in the first month. So from 11 September to 11 October you will be able to pre-apply for a kiwi.nz name – if you want one. If more than 500 applications are received, then kiwi.nz will be created. It is effectively a market mechanism, to establish if there is suffucient demand.

Liam Dann writes in NZ Herald:

For capitalism to work properly the companies that bring us wonderful shiny things such as smartphones, or services like insurance and banking, need to have security about the rules for doing business. Property rights and the security of intellectual property are crucial to provide a platform for a healthy, thriving economy.

Agreed.

British American’s New Zealand general manager, Steve Rush, says plain packaging proposals create a “disturbing precedent” for other industries.

They don’t.

Here I disagree. Health officials overseas are already advocating plain packaging for other products such as fast food. It is naive to think otherwise.

But nothing, no free trade deal or international treaty will ever trump the right of a society to protect its young from harm.

I agree also.

We should include tobacco with the other legal highs being regulated out of existence by Peter Dunne’s new legislation. That legislation puts the onus on distributors of legal highs to prove their product is safe.

If someone invented tobacco today and applied to sell it, it would be declined. But we live in the real world where people have been smoking for hundreds of years, and no country in the world prohibits the supply of tobacco – mainly because such prohibition would not work.

On the one hand it claims that branding and design are of little significance with regard to making smoking more attractive. On the other hand it lobbies at huge cost to maintain those brands.

There is the old argument that packaging is all just inter-brand warfare – that the Marlboro red appeals to one kind of consumer and the Benson & Hedges gold to another. That sense of self-identification with a brand is important in advertising.

It might convince us to choose one kind of jeans over another. But it is the combined effect of all the stylish advertising from the apparel industry that keeps denim cool and hip for each new generation.

As there is little evidence that denim is more dangerous than, say, corduroy – other than in a fashion sense – it would be wrong for a government to get involved in regulating trouser advertising.

If there was clear evidence that denim was deadly, it would be wrong for it not to.

Here Dann misses the point. Look if there was proof that plain packaging reduces smoking rates, I’d have little issue with it. But there is zero proof.

Rather than make decisions to confiscate property rights on close to blind faith, why not do a trial? Have plain packaging in one area of NZ (maybe the SI) and over three years monitor the change in their smoking rates to the rest of NZ.

Shouldn’t decisions be based on science?

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

The Government is under pressure to allocate Maori shares in the part-float of state-owned companies to keep its assets sales on track.

But a delay seems inevitable after the Waitangi Tribunal announced yesterday that Maori have proprietary rights in water and said the partial sale of state-owned energy companies should be put on hold to protect their interests.

Going ahead with the part-float of Mighty River Power, Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy without allowing for Maori rights would be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, it said.

Prime Minister John Key said the Government would consider the findings in good faith and respond after taking advice from officials and Crown lawyers.

“We’ll go through the merits of the argument and in the fullness of time we’ll come back with a response.” He has also promised to discuss the Government’s response with the Maori Party before making it public.

There’s two issues here. In my view the Tribunal has one issue right and one totally wrong.

There is little dispute that Iwi have some rights when it comes to water in certain areas. This has been recognised in settlements made by the Crown, and in fact the Government has been negotiating with the Iwi Leaders Forum on these rights for some time. The extent and nature of the rights is not clear cut (hence the negotiations) but no Government has ever said there are no rights.

Where the Tribunal has it wrong is saying that the partial sales should not proceed, as it may limit the ability of the Crown to settle such rights. With all respect (in fact little respect), this is nonsense. The Crown is the the Crown.  Parliament can pass a law on pretty much anything – as it does with other settlements. The Crown can allocate money for a settlement.

And in this particular case, the mixed ownership model arguably makes it considerably easier to settle any claims over water rights. You can simply buy some shares on the NZX and use them in a settlement. You can’t do that if they remain an SOE.

There is no barrier to settling any claims, by implementing the Mixed Ownership Model.

The Press reports:

Christchurch mayor Bob Parker will seek another term in office.

Speculation was rife that Parker, whose two terms in office have been marred by controversy, would step aside at next year’s local body elections, but in an interview with The Press the former television presenter confirmed he would seek re-election.

No-one else has publicly signalled their interest in the mayoralty yet, but behind the scenes the hunt is on among Christchurch’s movers and shakers for a candidate to challenge Parker.

Christchurch East Labour MP Lianne Dalziel was tipped, but ruled out standing because she has her eyes on Gerry Brownlee’s job as Canterbury earthquake recovery minister.

She is believed to be pushing prominent businessman and rich-lister Humphry Rolleston to stand. Rolleston is on the board of several listed companies and was for many years a business partner with the late Timaru financier Allan Hubbard.

Former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore is another who could be persuaded to stand. He has been outspoken of late about the loss of democracy in Christchurch and the stranglehold Wellington has on decision-making here.

Rolleston would be a very formidable challenger. Moore was a popular Mayor, but I’m not sure people will want to be seen to turn the clock back.

Among the city councillors there are three who stand out as possible contenders – Burwood-Pegasus councillors Peter Beck and Glenn Livingstone, and Hagley-Ferrymead councillor Tim Carter.

Carter is a first-term councillor and, at 35, could be considered by some as too young, but Vicki Buck was just 33 when she became the city’s first female mayor.

Beck has been on the council for a matter of months, but his former role as dean of Christ Church Cathedral means he has a high profile in the city and is widely respected.

Livingstone is in his first term, but has proved to be an effective councillor and has recently led council moves to get an insurance advisory service set up in Christchurch to help those locked in insurance disputes.

I’m not sure any sitting Councillor would win against Parker, as people were unimpressed with all the infighting. However Beck being new may be an exception to that.

Blair Ensor at Stuff reports:

In a rare move the former head of the Anglican Church in Wellington has surrendered his licence as a priest.

Bishop Tom Brown told The Dominion Post yesterday he voluntarily gave up his right to officiate earlier this month “to be loyal to the church and maintain the church’s integrity”.

The announcement comes amid speculation surrounding the 69-year-old’s split with wife Dwyllis Brown.

You don’t give up being a priest because you separate. You give up, because you were having an affair, I’d say. I have no first hand knowledge – but what else could it be?

“I have a private life and I’m endeavouring to get on with that to deal with the difficulty of separating from my wife.

I think it is the private life which as been the problem!

Retired priest Sir Des Britten said church members were struggling to come to terms with Dr Brown’s decision to surrender his licence.

“It’s deeply shocked a lot of people and we feel a bit let down,” Sir Des said.

“There’s lots of gossip circulating and this will go on for a while, I suppose.”

What will be interesting is what period of overlap there was, with his role as Bishop.

Aaargh – I wanted to leave this topic alone until next week, but Colin Craig opens his mouth again. He has responded to an article by Josh Drummond in the Waikato Times:

So to help Mr Dummond out and set the record straight here are some facts.

First Fact: I do hold the view, based on research, that adopting a gay lifestyle is a choice.

Is adopting a gay lifestyle like adopting a pet? Or is it more like adopting a favourite sports team?

And can someone tell me Craig that him holding a view is not a fact!

I have absolutely no problem with people who do not agree with same sex marriage. I disagree with them, but respect the fact they place greater emphasis on tradition than others do.

But what I do not respect is someone who says such ignorant stupid and false stuff, such as people choose to be gay.  It reflects a detachment from reality, and is like arguing that the earth is flat.

I have said that to believe that all gays were born that way is narrowminded and ignores the facts and research.

This is a fallacious argument, and a red herring. It is not a binary choice between “born that way” and “choice”. I have constantly said that most gay people have no choice about whom they are attracted to, and fall in love with. Research shows it appears to be a combination of genetics and environmental factors at a very very early age.

One factor is how many older brothers you have. It seems the mother’s body tries to feminise a male foetus, if the previous children were all male.

Let’s finish with a quote from Cynthia Nixon (Sex in the City). ‘‘I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ’I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice’’. 

Yes, for bisexual people, it is a choice as to whether or not they partner up with men or women. But there is a difference between being gay and bisexual.

As I said earlier, one can have a legitimate view against same sex marriage on the grounds of tradition etc etc. I disagree with that view, but understand it.

But arguing being gay is a lifestyle choice is ignorant bigotry, and I detest it. I can understand people having that view 30 years ago – but not today. It is simply degrading to gays and lesbians who have never ever had the slightest degree of choice about their sexual orientation, to have Colin Craig insist it it.

Argue against same sex marriage on the basis of marriage is a religious ceremony, or marriage should remain in its traditional form – fine. I’ll argue back, but as they say still respect you in the morning. But if you argue against same sex marriage on the basis that all gays and lesbians can merely “choose” to stop being gay or lesbian – then you are deluded.

Stuff reports:

More than 300 state housing tenants were evicted in the past year for lying about their circumstances, including one couple that ran an internet business from their property which turned over almost $400,000.

New figures show the number of tenancies ended for dishonesty has been steadily rising over the past few years. In the past year 312 tenants were terminated, up from 241 last year and 114 in 2010.

This is one of the problems if having state house rentals so much more generous that the accommodation supplement for private rentals. It creates an obvious incentive for people to try and get the maximum benefit – including lying about their circumstances.

Of course the previous policy of market rentals for state houses, and delivering all support through the accommodation supplement also had drawbacks. It’s one of those areas where all policy options have significant problems.

Good to see that Housing NZ is being vigilant at detecting fraud.

This may be the most ignorant fact challenged Herald editorial yet.

It says much for the burgeoning market for ready-to-drink alcopops that the liquor industry reacted so urgently to a threat to their popularity. A Government proposal to ban off-licence stores from selling alcopops with more than 6 per cent alcohol content had industry heavyweights beating a path to Justice Minister Judith Collins’ door. 

If the Government proposed to ban something, of course companies will resist that, especially when the ban would actually increase harmful drinking?

The fruits of their labour became obvious this week when for no good reason the Government backed down on its plan …

No good reasons, means the Herald doesn’t think readers deserve to hear the other side of the argument. That prohibition was not going to work, was unenforceable, and substitution was highly likely to increase harm from alcohol. Now you can debate those propositions, but the Herald decides they do not exist and their readers don’t need to be informed of them.

The Government had planned a tough line on alcopops because they are particularly harmful. Sweet-tasting, cheap and with a typical alcohol content of 8 to 10 per cent – twice that of most beers

This is such a stupid comparison – and one taken as a quote from certain lobby groups. Wine is three times the strength of most beers. Baileys is four times the strength. Spirits are eight times the strength. Absinthe is around 12 times the strength.

Beer is not what many RTD drinkers would substitute to. It is wine and self-mixed spirits – which are av average 13%.

they have become the favoured drink of many young women

Yes, and most young women don’t substitute to beer – they substitute to wine. Also young women tend to drink the 5% RTDs, not the 8% RTDs. The proposed ban would have not impacted them greatly. It would have impacted the older males who like their Woodstocks.

The Government’s original plan, incorporated in the Alcohol Reform Bill, was based on the belief that a mandatory lower alcohol level would persuade many drinkers to abandon alcopops and reduce their overall consumption of liquor.

Yes, many would abandon alcopops. But to think they would abandon liquor is about as sensible a belief as Scientology. There is empirical evidence from Australia that spirits consumption went up, as RTDs were singled out for tax increase. Does the Herald not believe in evidence based decision making? Surely the Herald thinks the Government should commission research on what should happen if they banned RTDs over 5% rather than merely make decisions based on a “belief”?

I’ve stated previously Curia did a stack of research on this issue for Independent Liquor NZ. Now some may say well you can’t trust it, because of whom commissioned it. Now I in no way accept that – but my response to that was always to plead that the Government through the Ministry of Health or Justice should go away and commission its own research amongst drinkers of RTDs as to what they would do if RTDs over 5% were banned. I am very confident they would get the same conclusions – there would be significant substitution to even higher alcohol products.

It also casts an even greater focus on the difference in approach to the liquor and tobacco industries. The tobacco giants have been under unrelenting assault, including, most recently, a ban on retail displays and a plan to follow Australia’s lead and introduce plain packaging. The comparison with the content and snail’s pace of alcohol reform could not be starker.

That is because tobacco, taken in moderation, still kills you. Alcohol does not. If you drink too much coke, it will kill you. Too much water will kill you. It is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem – not alcohol per se. With tobacco, it is entirely different.

The Law Commission will forever remain perplexed that several of its key recommendations after a painstaking inquiry, notably on minimum pricing and an increased excise tax, have not been included in the Alcohol Reform Bill. The Government’s timidity can only have encouraged the liquor industry to think it could take the sting out of a perfectly reasonable attempt to limit the damage caused by alcopops. 

In a final act of confusion the editorial wails that the Law Commission recommendations have not all been agreed to by the Government – yet doesn’t see fit to mention that Law Commission did not recommend the 5% limit on RTDs. To the contrary, it cited evidence that substitution would occur and said the focus should be on alcohol as a whole  not just a particular type of product (unless unsafe).

And the attempt was not reasonable. It was an attempt that was likely to actually increase harm, or even deaths, from alcohol. An 1125 bottle of vodka is far far more dangerous than a six pack or even a dozen RTDs. By the end of the night, people often self-mix at 50/50 which is over 20% alcohol – and sometimes you even up drinking spirits straight at 40% alcohol. It was ridicolous to try and target a 6% or 7% or 8% drink, which might push people onto drinking 13%, 20% or even 40% strengths drinks. And if you think that would not have happened, then I suggest you actually go out and talk to some young drinkers.

The Herald reports:

The Labour Party has asked tough questions about the state of KiwiRail after it won a temporary injunction preventing the publication of sensitive material from a leaked business plan.

The state-owned company yesterday won a temporary High Court order after it was leaked to Radio New Zealand.

But parts of it were read in Parliament yesterday by Labour MP Phil Twyford under the absolute privilege MPs have, without the source document being identified.

Kiwirail should dump the injunction. It won’t work. Inevitably the document will end up on a website somewhere, not hosted in NZ. The injuncion just increases interest in it.

On the substantive issue, it is no surprise that Labour’s “sale of the century” purchase of Kiwirail is proving to be a disaster. They paid almost $700 million for a business that is incapable of coming even close to covering its capital and operating costs.

Despite the massive deficit the Government has, it has committed $3 billion towards rail. Labour, Greens and NZ First cry out this is not enough. They would no doubt throw even more at it, hoping that they can fill up the black hole that is Kiwirail.

The solution is not to keep throwing money at it. The solution is to auction it on Trade Me with a $1 reserve and hope there is someone stupid enough to bid for it.

This is a common native spider, and its brown, furry appearance does prompt my daughter to regard it as ‘cuddly’. It’s our native Nursery-Web spider. In this shot the arachnid has emerged from hiding to position herself by the nursery at night. So this is a nocturnal picture (late summer). These spiders are still about. They’re common in the bush areas around our house, and one was even sunning itself on the bricks by our garage this morning.

Mum

Click for larger, higher res image

Stuff reports:

A Northland deputy principal who has admitted sexually abusing pupils was flagged as a potential predator in 1999 as a student teacher but signed off as suitable anyway.

Despite a further warning in 2009 – that time by police – he was allowed to continue as a teacher for 11 years until his arrest last month.

Concerns about James Parker were first lodged with the Teachers’ Council when he was a provisional teacher, having newly started in the profession.

Parker pleaded guilty in Kaitaia District Court this week to 49 charges of indecent assault, performing an indecent act and of unlawful sexual connection.

The attacks, on boys aged under 16, occurred over nearly eight years at Pamapuria School.

A decade later police received a complaint from a child via a parent and investigated Parker.

They could not gather enough evidence at the time to prosecute Parker and instead wrote to the school to alert the board of trustees about concerns.

However, the board did not act on the letter, did not advise the Education Review Office and did not advise the Teachers’ Council.

What a sad preventable case.

I understand that Parker was the staff rep on the Board of Trustees, which may have discouraged their discussing the issue, and that most of the current Board were not there at the time of the Police letter. The principal has to take the bulk of the blame for not acting on it, and making sure the new Board members were aware of the issue.