The Herald editorial:

Elected members of local bodies around the country spent two days this week at a conference in Queenstown where they agreed – unanimously – that they do not need their wings clipped by a bill the Government is putting through Parliament.

How unsurprising.

Neither is inclined to leave it entirely to local voters to decide what their councils can do.

Why not? Councils in this country have a source of revenue independent of the central Government. If they exceed the wishes of their ratepayers those who receive their bill have a vote every three years. Do they need the Government to require their elected council to do more (Labour) or less (National) than they might want?

Their source of revenue is Government granted, not independent. But putting that aside, the trouble with the Herald’s argument is that rates increases are not transparent.

The central Government has to live within its means. To increase tax rates needs a special law of Parliament, and everyone sees that the Government is increasing tax rates. Generally also, any increases in taxes are flagged well before the election so voters can vote on them.

In local Government, they work out all the things they want to spend money on, and then strike the level of rates to match. And while media may report the average increase, the actual amount each property owner pays varies depending on the movement in their house value compared to the average. Plus you have the problem that a minority of voters actually pay rates. In total, there is little incentive for Councils to be fiscally restrained – hence why the average increase has been 7% annually – well beyond the ability of the economy to sustain.

What I would do is change the funding of local government from rates to taxes. Each Council can levy an income tax, which means almost all residents will pay it and hence take an interest in its level. It also means that a Council wanting to spend more money than previously, would need to openly propose that (for example) the local income tax increase from say 2.6% to 2.8%. People would be able to compare the level of local income tax between councils.

Now isn’t increasing income tax a bad thing, as the more you tax income, the less incentive people have to work. Yes. So I would balance this by reducing central income taxes significantly, and bringing in a national land tax in a fiscally neutral tax switch.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Liquor industry executives have met Justice Minister Judith Collins and urged her to quash a law change which will ban the sale of high-strength “alcopops” in bottle stores. …

In May, the minister said there was a growing concern about sweet-tasting drinks that were high in alcohol.

In the Law Commission report the reforms were based on, the commission said the most common drinkers of RTDs were 14 to 24-year-olds, in particular women.

Actually the Law Commission did not recommend any measures specifically against RTDs. They correctly said that if you did this, then substitution is likely to occur. The Government inserted this proposal in the bill – it was not recommended by the Law Commission.

I blogged last year that Curia did some extensive research work for Independent Liquor in this area. The findings (from a phone poll, two point of sale surveys and half a dozen focus groups) were that around half of RTD drinkers but 8% RTDs and around half 5% RTDs. Of those who buy 8% RTDs (and they tend to be older men, not young women), many said that if RTDs are restricted to 5%, they would substitute to other products such as spirits.

We found that the average strength of a self-mix is 13% (and that is at the beginning of the night – it increases during the night), so what the proposed law change will do is move many RTD drinkers from an 8% product to a 13% product. Stupid right? This part of the bill will, in my opinion, significantly increase harm from alcohol.

Australia tried something similiar – what they did was put a special tax on RTDs. Sure enough, RTD sales dropped. But sales of spirits increased.

Stuff reports:

 The Labour Party has appointed former Christchurch Central MP Tim Barnett as its new general secretary. …

Labour president Moira Coatsworth said Flatt had been a very strong leader during challenging times, and left the party in a stronger financial position and in good health.

“Tim comes to this role with considerable experience as a political representative and manager of organisations, at a fascinating and exciting time in our history. He will be driving implementation of our Organisational Review, forging a campaign-ready Labour machine nationwide and spearheading our fundraising. All key tasks towards achieving Labour-led government from 2014,” she said.

This is a smart appointment by Labour. Tim is a very experienced political campaigner, and I suspect will do a good job at focusing the Labour organisation on campaigning.

I worked with him a bit on the civil unions and prostitution law reform bills, and he was a very effective campaigner. He had all 120 MPs categorised by how they might vote, and notes on who is best to approach each of them, and the arguments to use. He successfully got both law changes through, when other MPs might have failed.

It was a real mystery why Helen Clark never made him a Minister – he was obviously more capable than many who were.

Stuff reports:

Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson says having identical homes could bring down the costs of building new houses but he told the social services select committee that New Zealanders might not be ready for such a culture change.

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern said the concept already existed in New Zealand. “It’s called Hamilton.”

Heh. Sort of true.

Stuff reports:

Anti-abortion group ProLife has been allowed to stay as a club within the Auckland University Students’ Association despite complaints the group was harassing vulnerable students on campus.

The association had received two complaints about pamphlets containing “misinformed” health information on abortions being distributed by the group, and of students feeling harassed.

The association held a meeting yesterday to decide whether the group should be disaffiliated.

There was heated debate during the meeting, which attracted about 300 people, and students eventually voted 225 to 117 to allow the club to stay within the association.

ProLife New Zealand spokeswoman Rachel Wong disputed the club had done anything wrong in the first place.

She said the association failed to communicate with the club after receiving an “anonymous” and “unsubstantiated” email complaint.

The Right to Know pamphlet carries the slogan: “Hands up if you’ve heard this before: Abortion is a safe, simple medical procedure.”

Wong said the pamphlets, distributed for two weeks in May, were not confrontational.

“For us, the main issue is freedom of speech. Clubs should be able to voice their opinions at uni and express their ideas.”

I’m very glad AUSA members voted against disaffiliating Prolife. A university campus especially should be tolerant of unpopular speech.

Some advice for Prolife though – having the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is a good idea to do it. Personally I think handing out pamphlets on the health risks of abortions to random female students is not a great idea. You have the right to do so, but I doubt that tactic helps your cause much.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s only living recipient of the Victoria Cross, Corporal Willie Apiata, is leaving the military.

Prime Minister John Key has revealed Apiata is leaving the SAS to work for the youth charity High Wire Trust.

The Trust, which has an outdoor pursuits centre in Papakura, helps at-risk young people.

“I’m sure he’ll do a great job out there,” Key said.

“He’ll be a great role model for them.”

Willie was probably bored once the SAS finished their Afghanistans missions 🙂

Anyway what an inspired decision to work for the High Wire Trust. If anyone can make a difference, he will.

Just been debating affordable housing on Twitter. Greens and supporters are still arguing that the price of housing is awful, but whatever we do we must now allow cities to increase outwards.

One countered by saying that as so many people go to live in Sydney and Melbourne, that proves people don’t want to live in large sprawling cities.

I cheated and resorted to some facts, looking up respective sizes and populations.

It turns out that Auckland is three times the population of Auckland but 21 (yes 21) times the size in terms of area has a population density of 2,900/sq kms and Sydney 2,037 so Sydney is considerably more sprawling and less dense than Auckland. Guess we won’t be hearing again how Sydney (or Melbourne) is a case study for not increasing the urban limit.

Sir Bob writes:

The role of Minister of Education has always been a nightmare posting. If you’re Minister of Agriculture then you’re subject to intelligent dialogue with Federated Farmers. If Justice Minister, you can wallow in the ego-inflating pleasure of issuing pompous utterances, interspersed with all-night drunken sessions with the Law Society, and so it goes.

But Minister of Education; God help the poor buggers, confronted as they always have been with embittered, self-important nobodies, as teacher union representatives invariably are.

Sir Bob continues:

Readers may consider I’m being too charitable with that description. Well, I can’t help it, temperance having been my life-long practice. But I’d be a great deal more if instead of endless moaning, the teachers’ union focused on promoting English, science and history and abandoned film studies, Maori wonderfulness, gender studies, et al bogus subjects, now so prevalent.

I’ve speculated why teacher unions are so ghastly when compared with other lobbying bodies. My conclusion is that they have never left the school-room or grown up and that if we resurrected corporal punishment and delivered a daily flogging to these unionists, it might produce a general amelioration.

Bob may need t be careful. If the PPTA affiliates to Labour, they’ll get a vote in the next Labour Leader, and in exchange for their votes may insist the next Leader brings in a hate crime law, so Sir Bob is jailed for hate speech against them 🙂

In 1991, I popped over to Georgia to have a look at proceedings when the civil war broke out. One night in Tbilisi, my wife and I were guests of some university academics in an outdoor restaurant near the river. Abruptly the night erupted with explosions and for half an hour, mortars rocketed over our heads from across the river. Our Georgian friends took a nonchalant approach to this. “Relax,” they said, “it’s just the school teachers’ union bombing Parliament,” this over some trivia they were whining about.

Heh. Probably a protest against league tables.

Anyway, after two weeks here and there, we arrived at our Blantyre hotel. At 6pm I turned on the television news. The lead item was the president of the Malawian Women’s Institute carrying on about school teachers having it off with schoolgirls.

She was followed by the Malawian school teachers’ association president.

Never have I witnessed such explosive anger. He was livid and I would describe him as being white with rage, but in the circumstances that would be pushing it.

“Do you realise how little my members are paid?” he shouted at the Women’s Institute president, who began to look remorseful.

“Are you demanding my members risk their lives with you Aids-ridden lot? This is the sole perk of the job,” he exploded

Well that is a novel rationale for a pay rise.

Stuff reports:

NZ Post will launch a free “digital post service”, YouPost, this year to let people view, manage and pay bills online and receive some mail electronically.

The initiative comes six years after NZ Post pulled the plug on its eBill service which also let people view and pay bills online, because of a lack of uptake. EBill was launched with a fanfare in 1999 and attracted support from 21 utilities and other billers but had only 14,500 users when it closed.

NZ Post’s digital head, Simone Iles, said YouPost was designed to handle mail-outs as well as bills and she believed it would be different this time round.

YouPost would have more bells and whistles, including iPhone and Android app versions, and would better integrate with utilities’ existing systems, she said.

Yet to take a look at this, but having it on smartphones is near essential. The BNZ app for the iPhone is superb. I can log in under ten seconds and pay someone within a minute.

YouPost users will set up an account with a username and password, register their home address and any other properties they are responsible for and list their desired payment methods.

They will then be able to logon to receive, manage, store and pay bills from multiple providers, and to receive digital copies of other mail from utilities in a separate mail box.

Bills will be accessible for up to eight years and a free one gigabyte “electronic vault” will let users backup documents such as legal documents and warranties and set reminders of when things like passports, drivers’ licences, credit cards and vehicle warrants of fitness were due to expire.

Iles said NZ Post later planned to open up the system so small businesses could also use it to send bills and mail to customers.

NZ Post had signed up several major “foundation customers” and was testing the system internally ahead of a pre-Christmas launch.

The service will be free to consumers and paid for by organisations that use it to send bills and mail.

If it is free, I’ll give it a blast!

Good to see NZ Post realising that snail mail is a dying business.

Union bosses are now going to be more powerful than MPs, in selecting future Labour leaders. Labour are proposing that their union affiliates will get 20% of the say in future leadership contests. They have five affiliated unions and this means all future leadership contenders will be beholden to them.

Union leaders will endorse a candidate and the vast bulk of votes from that union will go towards that candidate – if the five unions collectively endorse one candidate, then their 20% is likely to be decisive – especially if the members and caucus are split in their support.

Could you imagine the outrage if the NZ National Party said that it was going to give (for example) Business NZ, Telecom, Contact Energy, Carter Holt Harvey etc the right to vote in National Party leadership elections.

Organisations should not be eligible to join political parties (let alone vote in them). Political parties should be comprised of individuals who have individually decided to join and support a party and pay a membership fee to that party.

Sunrise Over Hoopers Inlet, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. Photography By Todd Sisson.
This image was taken from Peggy’s Hill, a few hundred metres from Larnach Castle.

Welcome to Wednesday’s window upon the world (well my world anyway)

This photo is an enduring personal favourite. Every time I find myself wondering why I lived in Dunedin for 9 years this image pulls me into line – Otago Peninsula is surely one of New Zealand’s best places to be, on a good day at least….

I have  created a permanent home for the wallpaper downloads here.  Simply follow the download instructions on the gallery page, Password = freewallpaper

Have a great week.

Cheers – Todd

[website] [blog]

Stuff reports:

ACC Minister Judith Collins begins court action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little for defamation today.

The High Court list for Auckland yesterday named Judith Anne Collins v Trevor Colin Mallard and Another for first call before Justice Geoffrey Venning.

Collins has accused the two MPs of defaming her in relation to a leaked email from former National Party president Michelle Boag.

Boag had emailed Collins about a case involving ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, who blew the whistle on ACC inadvertently releasing her details about thousands of ACC claimants.

Defamation cases often take some time to come to court with both sides jockeying to set the terms of the case.

Today’s hearing is a face-to-face conference for lawyers to plot out the case’s timetable and sort out how it is going to be run.

Both sides have retained senior and experienced counsel with Collins being represented by Queen’s Counsel Julian Myles and Mallard and Little represented by Wellington lawyer John Tizard.

Collins is not seeking damages – just a declaration that the statements made were untrue and defamed her, and of course her costs.

UPDATE: The application by Mallard and Little for a stay of proceedings until the report of the Privacy Commissioner is done was declined by the Judge. The settlement hearing is in November (the report is due in September anyway, but could of course be delayed) and the trial in February 2013.

Stuff reports:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has reacted with shock that a business award she gave was to India’s top tobacco company.

Clark, who is now head of the United Nations Development Agency, presented India’s largest cigarette maker, ITC (formerly Indian Tobacco Company) with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s (WBCSD) highest prize for improving the environment and removing poverty.

This drew an angry reaction from a leading Indian health advocate who termed it a travesty of justice.

In New York, UN watcher Inner City Press asked Clark to explain her award.

She replied with a written statement.

“I have worked tirelessly throughout my career to achieve a smoke free society in New Zealand, and was, thus, shocked to learn that a World Business Development Award, supported by UNDP, was given to a company which derives a substantial proportion of its profits from tobacco,” she said.

“Unfortunately the criteria for the World Business Development Awards did not exclude projects implemented by companies from certain sectors like tobacco. This has clearly been a serious oversight. “

Clark said UNDP would review its rules and regulations and ensure than an incident like it never happens.

“UNDP will not participate in these awards in the future unless companies like this are excluded,” Clark said.

Heh, I’d love to have seen the reaction when Helen found out. Rather unbelievable that you can present a major global prize to a company and not know what they do. A two minute check of their website or even Wikipedia would have found this out.

Anyway isn’t it a good thing a tobacco company is improving the environment and reducing poverty. While tobacco is a legal product (as it is in every country on earth), we will have tobacco companies – and isn’t it better they be encouraged to do good things such as reduce poverty and improve the environment?

A reader e-mails:

Thought I would let you know about a Wellington school choir’s success, knowing your support of Wellington culture and arts in your blog.  Wellington East Girls College auditioned choir Cantala has just achieved a fantastic achievement.  …

Last Monday, this 31 member choir won First equal place at the Summa Cum Laude International Youth Music Festival ( http://www.sclfestival.org/) in Vienna.  A phenomenal achievement competing against 20 odd other invited choirs from around the world.  There were a total of 36 ensembles (choirs and musical groups) from 19 countries.  Minister Chris Finlayson has supported the choir and been fulsome in his praise of the choir.  He released a press release last week to acknowledge their success.

There were many highlights including the privilege of singing in the Musikverein for the festival as well as St George’s Church, London and La Madeleine, Paris.  It is not often a NZ youth cultural group achieves the success that this group of young women have.

Next challenge is the Big Sing competition which is the NZ school choir competition to be held from 16-18 August in Wellington.  We parents hope they will do well.

A link to the choir’s website is http://cantala.co.nz/ where you can read their tour blog and success.

Wellington East (Girls College) is the sister school of Rongotai, which I attended. We paired up with them for dances and plays and the like. Congrats to them, and especially the choir members, for their great achievement.

To place first equal in a global competition is very tough for any team from New Zealand, as we so small. They were competing against top teams from Australia, China and the US, plus 16 other countries.

I look forward to one of their performances in Wellington.

Talking of Australian Labor, people may enjoy this attack video put together.

Photo from here. Captions should be funny, not nasty. Enjoy.

Prolife NZ has said:

Prolife New Zealand (PLNZ) is alarmed at the fact that Auckland student club, Prolife Auckland, is this week facing the possibility of disaffiliation simply for engaging in an act of freedom of expression at the Auckland University campus. …

In May this year Auckland University student club ProLife Auckland, in a peaceful and non-confrontational manner, distributed a one-page leaflet titled ‘Right to Know’.

The pamphlet advocated for the right of women to know the common health risks associated with abortion and the alternatives available to them, so that they can make truly informed decisions when faced with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. The campaign pamphlet was distributed by PLNZ clubs at universities across New Zealand and contained a link to a webpage with further information and resources.

On the basis of one single anonymous, unsubstantiated email allegation, claiming that the pamphlets contained ‘misleading health information’ and ‘lies about health procedures’, the AUSA called a Special General Meeting (SGM) to disaffiliate student club Prolife Auckland.

Not only was this allegation never properly investigated by the AUSA, and the AUSA deliberations regarding this matter conducted in secrecy, but Prolife Auckland were never even informed that an SGM had been called to disaffiliate them – they found this out by sheer chance a week after the decision had been made by the AUSA.

More importantly, the claims of ‘misleading health information’ still remain completely unproven, in fact the medical statements in the pamphlet are supported by reference footnotes to a number of reputable medical journals.

Since Prolife Auckland’s inception it has come up against unwarranted resistance and intimidation at the University of Auckland. This is in contrast to PLNZ’s other branches at Victoria, Canterbury and Massey University in Palmerston North, which have been permitted to peaceably contribute to the free exchange of ideas on campus without fear of reprisal – the cornerstone of academic freedom.

This attempt to ban ProLife Auckland and the complete disregard for natural justice in this case, only serves to further highlight the prejudice of an intolerant minority against the affiliation of pro-life clubs at the University of Auckland. Most alarmingly, it shows that certain members of the AUSA Executive are willing to deny students their human right to freedom of expression simply for peacefully expressing themselves on campus.

I am pro-choice, not pro-life (to use their term). If I was on campus and someone handed me a flyer informing me of the health risks of abortion, I would probably politely suggest they should procreate with themselves.

However I absolutely defend their right to not just hold their views, but to promote them. On a university campus especially, freedom of speech should be the paramount value.

AUSA should not be deciding if the pamphlets have “misleading health information” any more than they should decide if political party pamphlets are misleading. Would they disaffiliate (for example) Princes Street Labour if someone complained about one of their pamphlets. If material is misleading, there are a number of regulatory bodies that can be complained to. It is not a decision for a small group of student politicians.

I would comment to all AUSA members the words of Noam Chomsky:

“with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards”

I hope that all those who disagree with the views of ProlifeNZ still defend their right to express their views and be able to operate on campus as an affiliated club.

Professor Jeff Bennett has published “Little Green Lies: An exposé of twelve environmental myths“.  The very very very abbreviated summary of them is:

Proposition 1: ‘Peak Oil’ has been reached.
The annual production of oil, while rising over the last century, is about to fall because of growing scarcity. Such is our dependence on oil and the fast rate at which we are using it that we now need to take active policy measures to save what we have left.
BUT
No-one knows for sure what petroleum reserves are available. As known reserves are depleted, price rises stimulate more exploration and technological advances that will expand the available supply of petroleum as well as substitute energy sources.

Proposition 2: Renewable energy production should be stimulated.
Non-renewable energy supplies are being depleted so quickly that we will soon experience power shortages. Non-renewables are also ‘dirty’ sources of energy. Renewables must be stimulated to ensure the on-going supply of clean energy.
BUT
Renewable energy sources are limited in their short to medium term potential to meet demand. Picking ‘winners’ to be stimulated is likely to be mistaken given rapidly evolving technological change. Renewables have their own environmental downsides.

Proposition 3: Consumption choices need to be informed by products’ ‘food miles’/’ecological footprint’/’embodied energy’/’virtual water’/’carbon footprint’.
People need to be aware of the impacts they have on energy/the ecology/water/climate etc. when they buy goods and services so that they can reduce their impact on that resource. Each of these resources is scarce and we need to conserve them, especially for future generations.
BUT
By focusing on just one scarce resource (water, energy etc.) in their consumption decisions, people can ignore their impacts on other scarce resources and result in a ‘false economy’. What happens when the ‘virtual water’ index goes against the ‘embodied energy’ index? Which index is ‘trumps’?

Proposition 4: World population should be capped.
More people mean more pressure on the world’s scarce resources, including the environment. The only way to protect the environment, stop starvation and ensure that there are enough resources for future generations is to stop population growth.
BUT
People are a resource. They have the capability to develop innovative technologies and institutions to deal with growing scarcity in specific resources. New ways to satisfy peoples’ wants and new sources of scarce resources can be discovered.

Proposition 5: Economic growth and trade are bad for the environment.
Economic growth, fuelled by international trade, means more pressure on scarce resources including the environment. To protect the environment and to save resources for the future, trade should be restricted to cut growth.
BUT
Trade and growth bring wealth to people. Wealth increases peoples’ demands for environmental protection and the ability of society to provide environmental protection, especially through technological development.

Proposition 6:No waste should go to landfill.
Waste should not be wasted. It is a resource that can be re-used and re-cycled. Sending waste to landfill means that more ‘virgin’ resources must be harvested/mined. Waste in landfill can also be a source of air and water pollution.
BUT
Recycling and re-using ‘waste’ is a process that uses scarce resources. Policies that prevent landfill disposal can cause more resources to be used than they save and do not necessarily reduce virgin resource use. Landfills need not be pollution sources.

Proposition 7:Water and energy should be used ‘efficiently’, whatever it costs.
Water and energy are scarce resources. Their use needs to be minimised so that future generations will have enough. Governments should invest in technologies that ensure the least amounts of energy and water are used in producing goods and services.
BUT
Investing in ‘efficiency’ measures means using other scarce resources as substitutes for energy and water. A ‘false economy’ results because the other resources including labour and capital may well be scarcer than energy and water.

Proposition 8: The environment is of infinite value and must not be harmed.
The environment provides us with our ‘life-support-system’. Without it we cannot survive and so we should protect it at all costs. We should make absolutely sure that rare and endangered species are cared for so that their numbers increase.
BUT
Without the environment we could not exist and so its absolute value is infinite. However, that is not the relevant question for policy. Changes to the state of the environment yield finite benefits and costs that need to be traded off.

Proposition 9: We must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to avoid global climate change.
Human induced global climate change is a serious threat to the continued ability of the planet to support humanity and current ecosystems. The damage caused by climate change will be so large that GHG emissions must be reduced now.
BUT
Reducing GHG emissions would be costly. The decision to bear those costs should be made with reference to the expected benefits reduced GHG emissions would yield. Reducing GHG emissions will not eliminate the risk of climate change.

Proposition 10: The care of the environment cannot be entrusted to the private sector.
The environment provides ‘public goods’ that should be available to all for free. That means the government has to be responsible for caring for the environment. The private sector will either destroy it or try to profit from it.
BUT
The public sector will face problems in managing the environment. Information for decision making is costly. Incentives for politicians and bureaucrats can conflict with public best interest. Private solutions can be lower cost and better aligned with society’s well-being.

Proposition 11: Agriculture and mining are always in conflict with the environment.
Agriculture and mining are extractive industries which deplete our stock of natural resources, often irreversibly. They also cause environmental degradation including soil erosion, biodiversity loss and chemical contamination of water and air.
BUT
While there are some trade-offs between agriculture, mining and the environment these can be reduced through the use of management techniques and technologies. Offsets and remediation work on farms and mines can improve the environment.

Proposition 12: Decisions regarding the future of the environment should be made using the ‘precautionary principle’.
If there is a risk that a proposed action will harm the environment, the precautionary principle requires policy makers to place the burden of proof on those proposing an action that it will not cause environmental damage.
BUT
There is always some risk of environmental harm resulting from human action. Demonstrating that there is no risk of harm is impossible. There are also uncertainties associated with not taking action which the precautionary principle ignores.

On proposition 1, George Monbiot has conceded that the peak oil claims were wrong, and that supply is increasing and has not peaked.

The book is only $30. Professor Bennett is speaking at the CIS in Sydney on the 1st of August.

The NZ Herald reports:

In another of the rulings Thursday, the justices said online music stores will not have to pay royalties on song previews to publishers and songwriters.

The high court ruled song previews what a customer would listen to before purchasing digital music from online retailers such as an iTune constitutes research under copyright legislation and thus the consumer should not pay a royalty.

“Short, low-quality previews do not compete with, or adversely affect, the downloading of the works themselves. Instead, their effect is to increase the sale and dissemination of copyrighted musical works,” said the ruling.

I’m not sure what is more scary – the stupidity or the greed of the music studios in trying to get people to pay for previews. I often listen to a song preview before buying it – it helps me decide whether to buy it. The previews are never the entire song, and I’ve never heard of anyone copying the previews, as they are incomplete.

The fifth ruling found that photocopying textbooks for classroom use in public schools does not infringe copyright laws, and should not be subject to a tariff

I’m not sure if this means entire textbooks can be copied, but it should allow chapters to be photocopied for academic use.

Australian Labor has had a ferocious campaign against their technical ally the Greens in the last week or so.

The Australian reports:

IF you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas, the saying goes. It appears this past week there has been an outburst of violent itching within Labor ranks, attributed to the notion that lying down with Greens will result in a similar infestation.

The SMH reports:

LABOR’S recent declaration of war against the Australian Greens is a very public concession that the minor party has moved from political fringe dweller to a credible electoral threat.

The Daily Telegraph:

 OH dear, the marriage of Labor and the Greens is heading for the rocks.

A close friend of the couple, the NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari, wants the split formalised this weekend with a motion to the party’s state conference proposing that Labor no longer provide the Greens with “automatic preferential treatment in any future preference negotiations”.

Things are so bad, that in some seats Labor preferences Family First ahead of the Greens.

“Because I believe they are an extremist party and I do believe they have some very loony policies and what I think they are very effective at is portraying themselves as a kind of peace, love and mung beans party, that all cares about wombats and the trees and the grass and the environment, without exposing themselves to any critique of some of their very wacky policies.

Someone should look hard at some of the Green policies here.

The quote above is from Paul Howes the national secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union, a member of Labor’s ruling council.

But if you want an example of a loony Green policy in Australia, Mr Howes provides it:

If the Greens had their way, I doubt NSW would ever win the State of Origin.

There probably wouldn’t even be a State of Origin – we’d just sit around with Queenslanders and play pass the parcel. After all, the Greens in NSW have a policy of promoting “non-competitive sports” such as yoga, dance, trampolining and tai chi over the traditional sports that Australian children enjoy playing.

As their policy explains, the Greens “believe too much emphasis is placed on full body contact sports often causing unnecessary physical damage and confining opportunities for participation to the athletic elite.”

Sorry kids – no more rugby, no more Aussie rules, no more hockey or netball. Let’s all go meditate instead.

I’m not sure if the Greens who wrote this ridiculous policy have kids, or ever were children themselves, but expecting children not be competitive is just bizarre.

As far as I know the NZ Greens don’t have a policy against contact sport – but they do want to kill 1 in five cows to save the planet. Howes continues:

Labor has an obligation to stop extremists who threaten our democracy. We’ve done it before and we need to do it again.

Because make no mistake; the Greens pose as much of a threat to working people as Tony Abbott. They just hide it better.

Ouch.

I saw the Beat Girls for the first time in 2010. They were great. So how do you beat the Beat Girls? Simple – you add in Jason (Jay) Chasland.

Chasland was a rock and roll star.  At first glance you might think he is an unlikely star being not very tall and slightly chubby. But my God he was a great performer. He sang and crooned the songs marvelously, and had a real charisma and presence about him. His Ray Charles parody was side sidesplittingly funny. Chasland alone would be worth going to see.

The Beat Girls themselves (Andrea Sanders, Carolyn McLaughlin and Kali Kopae) performed just as well as last time. They have a great combination of singing ability, and facial expressions. You enjoy the music, and laugh out loud at their antics.

The performance is effectively a recital of the life of Phil Spector – from his early genius success through to his conviction for murder. In between numbers, they tell you about his various groups and songs. He may have been a demented misogynistic bastard, but he was a hell of a talented one.

The set was highly effective in its simplicity – dozens and dozens of white paper-lantern lampshades hanging from the ceiling, and three small circular stages they performed from. The costumes fitted the set well, and captured the 60s.

The audience participation in the show was high. Many were laughing every few seconds, and a lot of songs had the audience clapping along. Those seated on the front row were often targeted by the performers, with one woman being pulled onto stage and   well let’s just say it was lots of fun.

They perform a total of 21 songs. There were a few hic-cups, as you often get on opening night, but they were skilled at recovering from them. Kali hit her teeth with the microphone at one stage, and managed to turn it into a gag.

It was a 90 minute performance with a short interval. We stayed around for an hour or so after the show, with the cast mingling with the audience. It was a great night’s entertainment and I just can’t imagine anyone not enjoying the performance, unless they have been genetically modified in some way.

A review by Virginia Kennard at Theatreview is here.