The Herald reported:

Tracey Marceau delivered a tearful plea to Parliament yesterday as she presented a 58,000 signature petition supporting the campaign, in memory of her slain daughter, to strengthen bail laws.

Christie Marceau, 18, died in her mother’s arms after a violent attack at their North Shore home in November.

Akshay Chand was arrested at the scene and later charged with Christie’s murder. Chand was on bail at the time after being charged in September with kidnapping, assaulting and threatening Christie. 

A campaign website has been set up, asking for 10 changes to bail laws, to help stop any preventable killings – such as Christie’s.

One proposed change is an unfortunate loophole in the 3 strikes laws, that if you commit further violent or sexual offences while on bail for a similar offence – then the further offences do not count as strikes. This provides a perverse incentive to offend more while on bail, as the consequences are reduced.

The reasons it works this way is that you can’t get a second strike, until convicted of a first strike, and offenders need to be aware in advance of the consequences of any further offending. But a simple solution to this is that if someone charged with a “strike” offence is given bail then they are told in court that if convicted they will get a first strike and if they offend similarly while on bail then further convictions will be their second and third strikes. This would remove the perverse incentive that offending on bail has less severe consequences.

The campaign has 10 changes they are seeking to the Bail Act, which I will outline below. The one I mentioned above may be dealt with as a private members bill. I understand Taupo MP Louise Upston is drafting such a bill.

The 10 changes are:

1. No bail for any person who is charged with a serious violent “three strike” offence, who has previously committed a serious violent “three strike” offence while on bail.
2. Judges should be required to pay particular regard to submissions made by victims, and any personal threats made against victims in deciding whether bail should be granted.
3. Fix the loophole that allows persons committing serious violent “ three strike” offences while on bail for other serious violent “ three strike” offences, to avoid the “three strikes” sentencing regime.
4. Removal of the strong presumption in favour of bail for persons under 20 where previously convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment.
5. Conduct an annual review into serious breaches of bail & serious crime committed while on bail, and reported to the Minister of Justice and publicly available.
6. Police should have powers to appeal bail decisions equal to those the defence has.
7. Implement a “risk assessment tool” to assist Judges to make well-informed bail decisions.
8. Implement practical methods of increasing judicial accountability for bail decisions, such as internal benchmarking of Judges’ performance and assistance for poorly performing Judges.
9. Serious breaches of bail to be addressed by a presumption of imprisonment, rather than fines, which are ineffective, inconsistently applied and rarely paid.
10. Offences committed while on bail should be sentenced cumulatively, rather than concurrently as they generally are at present.

With (1) I think if one has committed a serious violent offence while on bail, you should lose bail eligibility in the future.

(2) is minor, and (3) I discuss above. No (4) is debatable – it would depend on what replaces the strong presumption in favour of bail. Nos 5 to 8 are fairly minor also.

No (9) I support. Breaching bail is not a minor issue, and the best way to deter it is the near certainty of imprisonment for serious breaches.

No 10 is of critical importance. Stephen Franks has blogged on this previously. It all comes back to the fact offenders on bail are incentivised to offend further, for little consequences. If for example you are charged with 25 burglaries and you get bail. Now if you go and do another 20 burglaries while on bail, then the sentence you will get will tend to be almost the same as for the original 25 burglaries.

I do support concurrent sentencing as the norm, but not for offences done on bail. You need to have an incentive to not offend on bail – and the current set-up provides very little incentives – as we tragically have seen.

Gareth Richards reviews the Lobbying Disclosure Bill in NZ Lawyer:

As drafted, the Bill applies only to lobbyists that receive payment to carry out lobbying activities. This requirement seems difficult to justify, as in principle, there is little difference between:

• A paid lobbyist lobbying a Minister for policy change on behalf of an organisation;
• A person lobbying a Minister for policy change voluntarily on behalf of an organisation; and
• A person lobbying a Minster for a policy change for their own private benefit.

It is unclear why being paid to lobby is a threshold test that triggers the requirement to disclose lobbying activities. The explanatory note offers no clues to explain why paid lobbying has been singled out.

One reason may be that removing the payment requirement would open “lobbying activity” up to an extremely large number of interactions; absent the ‘payment’ requirement, arguably a constituent who met with their local MP seeking a policy change would meet the definition of “lobbying activity”.

Requiring a payment relationship between the lobbyist and his or her principal before the lobbying activity is reported risks an under-inclusive regime. It will catch only a subset of the influence the Bill is concerned to cast sunlight on. There are readily conceivable scenarios where individuals may seek to lobby Ministers and MPs to obtain private benefits, for example immigration or foreign investment policy changes, which would not be caught by the Bill as drafted because the lobbyist is not paid for his or her services. There are also people who will, unpaid, communicate with MPs or Ministers on behalf of influential groups and organisations.

The current definition is problematic. I would have to register as a lobbyist for InternetNZ (which I do little lobbying on behalf of) yet would not to have to register as a lobbyist for KeepIt18 (which I do much lobbying on behalf of).

MPs and local authorities frequently lobby Ministers and other MPs about legislative, regulatory, and policy change, yet there is no requirement to disclose these activities under the Bill.

It is presumed the response to this is that lobbying is such a core and frequent part of the role of MPs and local authorities that: (a) it does not need to be proactively disclosed; and (b) if it had to be disclosed, the volume of interactions would make the register unworkable.

If those responses are accepted, then the Bill will create two classes of lobbying – one done by elected representatives which the public must uncover in some way and another done by everyone else which must be proactively disclosed.

Also a valid issue.

The Herald reports:

Hamilton residents won’t get a vote on whether fluoride should continue to be added to tap water.

The city council has withdrawn funding for a referendum, and referred the decision to one of its committees.

The Hamilton City Council will also ask the Prime Minister to instruct the country’s chief science adviser to provide advice on fluoridating municipal water supplies.

I’m against compulsory medicating, such as requiring folic acid in bread. I think bakers should voluntarily include folic acid, but if some people want to buy non folic bread, they should be able to.

With the fluoride debate, it is slightly different. I would be against a law requiring all water supplies to include fluoride. But I’m not against a local authority saying the water we supply will include fluoride. While convenient to use the council water supply, you don’t have to.  There are other ways to get drinking water.

So I’m fine with fluoride being included in Council water supplies.

Stuff reports:

IPads and iPods are being rolled out out at Timaru’s Bluestone School as teaching tools and principal Ian Poulter says many other schools are doing the same.

Mr Poulter explained the move at a meeting last week that attracted 140 curious parents.

“A lot of schools we understand … are looking at children having devices at school like iPads and iPods to help in their learning,” he said.

The school has provided a year 8 and year 7 classroom with an iPod for each pupil. The school also has iPads that are available to all classrooms at the school, including year 1s and 2s.

A number of applications were useful in education, Mr Poulter said.

He used Puppet Pals, as an example, where users could create animated movies. It also incorporated sounds and music and had to have a clear message.

“The kids are enthusiastic because it’s modern and good fun. They actually engage the learner.

“But underlying all that is the fact that they’re doing English, reading, writing and maths.”

I think the iPad is an incredible educational tool. Kids actually like using them. There are thousands of proven educational applications from around the world, and their cost is under $1,000. I think the future is every five year old gets an iPad on their first day of school.

Last night the US Embassy celebrated Independence Day early, to coincide with the 70th anniversary of US marines arriving in New Zealand (which is today). As well as the normal contingent of Marines at the Embassy, we have 54 Marines visiting here for three weeks. It was a pleasure meeting and talking to many of them last night.

The reception was at the Town Hall, which was decorated in red, white and blue. 1940s movies were playing on the screens, and a jeep somehow got into the reception also.

The highlight was the coming onto stage of two WWII veterans – one US, and one NZ. The US veteran had not been back to New Zealand since 1944. It was very moving.

Ambassador Huebner spoke very well, and quoted Oprah of all people. But it was a good quote about how some friends want to travel in your limo with you, but the true friend is the one who will catch the bus with you.

As our men were fighting in Europe against the Nazis and Fascists, we had between 15,000 and 45,000 US servicemen stationed in New Zealand, whose job was to risk their lives defending our country should Japan invade. Thankfully the invasion never came, but we did see 1,500 Kiwi women marry a US serviceman.

Stellin

EveryTrail – Find trail maps for California and beyond

This walk is not one I am going to recommend, unless you are masochistic. At the very end of the Northern Walkway I had noted a track going up to the Stellin Memorial Park. Now I have been there before (via road from Northland) and on the map it didn’t look far up.

Most of the upwards tracks on Te Ahumairangi Hill are of moderate difficulty. They zig zag up for several hundred metres. This track basically just goes straight up the hill, with only a bit of sideways action.

On the way up I passed a couple heading down, and said I was looking forward to the downhill part. I was wrong. I did eventually get up to the lovely grass area with a great view. Rather exhausted, I have to say. Then I started back down.

The track was muddy, narrow and steep. A bad combination. Despite being as careful as I can, I managed to fall onto my backside no less than four times. My buttocks now look like an over-enthusiastic Dominatrix got let loose on them. I almost slid down the bank also.

This is not a track I would recommend unless you are a lot fitter and nimbler than me – and more masochistic.

After I got back down, I then crossed the road and did a short circuit of part of the Botanical Gardens. Went right to the southern end, which I had not been to before. Plan to do more jogs through there.

Audrey Young in the NZ Herald reports:

Maori Party co-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples have revealed they are reconsidering retiring from politics next election – just as a new poll shows them potentially holding the balance of power.

Mrs Turia and Dr Sharples had indicated that the 2011 election would be their last.

But they are reconsidering after being asked repeatedly by supporters, a party official said.

Mrs Turia, 68, confirmed that last night on Prime News.

“It may well be that we stand at the next election but … we are still working those issues through,” she said.

And Dr Sharples, 70, also confirmed a rethink. “I’m giving that real consideration,” he told the channel from China, where he is leading a Maori business delegation.

I won’t be surprised if they do stay on, as retirements in 2017 would make it more likely the Maori Party continues as a semi-significant force.

It is worth noting there wil be new boundaries in 2014, with at least eight Maori seats. That may provide an opportunity for them to get a new female MP into Parliament, so she can replace Turia as female co-leader.

Flavell is up to taking over from Sharples as male co-leader, but the worry for the Maori Party may be more that they would lose Sharples’ seat if he stands down.

The Dom Post reports:

Funding for Te Papa and for shifting Wellington’s SPCA headquarters could be revived after a review of the city council’s assets.

In a series of recommendations to Wellington City Council’s strategy and policy committee, officers have approved funding for the SPCA’s move to the Chest Hospital on Mt Victoria, rejuvenation of Miramar town centre, expansions to Johnsonville shopping centre and a restoration of Te Papa’s funding.

The proposed funding will be debated by councillors at tomorrow’s committee meeting, before the final approval of Wellington’s long-term plan for 2012-22.

In March, councillors agreed to cut $1.25 million funding for Te Papa.

Council officers had found the necessary savings by stretching out the life of infrastructure around the city, mayor Celia Wade-Brown said yesterday.

This is a good outcome. I blogged a few weeks ago how 70% of the Te Papa funding came from CBD tourism businesses who were aghast at the funding cut – they view Te Papa as a major source of income for them. Maintaining the funding is a sensible economic decision.

The Press reports:

Aggrieved Christchurch red-zone residents are taking their plight to the United Nations.

They believe the Government’s buyout offer breaches their human rights and the United Nations should intervene on their behalf.

Oh yes. Send in the Peacekeepers and the black helicopters.

Kaiapoi resident and Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network (WeCan) spokesman Brent Cairns said the idea of zoning specific areas where repairs and rebuilding were allowed was a violation of civil liberties.

Yes, it is a breach of human rights to zone land as unsafe.

The “supposedly voluntary buyout offer” was structured in such a way that it was, in effect, compulsory and bypassed existing laws that regulated the taking of land by Government.

How awful – the taxpayers are offering the full GV of properties on unsafe land. That is such a breach of human rights. Some people forget that the Government was not obliged to do anything at all – they could leave it all to EQC and the private insurers.

Cairns said the Government’s threats that services would either be removed or not repaired in red-zone areas, should property owners choose to stay on in their homes, more than 7200 families were effectively being evicted.

If only 50 out of 5,000 people stay on in a red zoned area, then the funding responsibility for maintaining infrastructure services is theirs. Just as if you build a new house out in the waps, you are likely to bear the cost of connecting up services to you.

Cairns has developed a template letter he is urging people to use to write to the United Nations Human Rights Council, asking it to investigate.

Oh yes, the good Governments of Angola, Cuba, Indonesia, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Moldova, Russia, Saudia Arabia and Uganda who all servce on the HRC will be just the ones to sort this out.

Just been to the launch of Cyber Security Awareness Week at Parliament.  Was organised by Netsafe, and very good with simple messages. The four main messages are:

1. Update everything
2. Backup your files
3. Secure your wireless
4. Use strong passwords

The update and backup everything speak for themselves. I mainly backup online now, but data and storage is still too expensive to do regular total backups. Ideally I’d love real-time backing up.

On securing the wireless, they recommend you use WPA2 rather than WEP, and if using free wireless somewhere don’t do anything financial or sensitive. Also make sure the login to the router has been changed from the default.

The password advice is 15 characters with a mixture of letters, numbers and symbols – plus some upper and lower case. Also turn on the password or pin on your smart phone.

They have a number of websites people can check out, for advice.

• www.netsafe.org.nz – general online safety site
• www.hectorsworld.com – online safety world for young children
• www.netbasics.org.nz – a family site where you can see the mistakes other families make
• www.inmyday.org.nz – for parents on helping their teenagers be safe online
• www.cyberbullying.org.nz – for parents, teachers and victims of bullying
• www.theorb.org.nz – A reporting portal for cybercrime
• www.scammachine.org.nz – create your own customised anti-scam video
• www.thewhatsit.org.nz – for employers who need to develop an ICT policy for staff

Did you watch 60 minutes last night? What were your impressions?

I’m always interested in the people who get involved at an early stage in politics, and what roles they may hold in the future. Over the last month I’ve chatted to a number of people in Labour about who might be the people who make up the 7th Labour Government. Clark was the 5th Labour Government. The next Labour Government will be the 6th Labour Government. This is about the one after that – so think in the 2020s.

Marcus Ganley, currently working for ALP Senator Penny Wong he was previously Goff’s research unit lead and also a former Clark and Tamihere staffer. Marcus signalled his desire to be in Parliament by dipping his toe in the water with his run for Wellington City Council in 2010.

James Caygill has already stood for nomination once and the proud Cantab is waiting for a Christchurch seat to be made available – Christchurch Central could be on the cards. His biggest hurdle is probably his name and the irrational response of many members to a past that James had little control over.

Deborah Mahuta-Coyle – after a disappointing election result, Deb has impressed by not taking the easy route to redemption via a union and has taken on a PR role in the energy sector and will be all the better for spending some time out side of Parliament. The other half of the Mahuta-Coyle combo, Hemi (or James), has also signalled he may one day look to run in his turangawaewae, Rotorua. James is also a former staffer in the Labour Research Unit – he is a popular guy and has paid his dues. They could be the first husband and wife team in Parliament.

Kaine Thompson, young, Maori and smart, he shouldn’t have too much trouble getting selected. A former staffer for Rick Barker and Mallard he remains tight with Cunliffe, Moana Mackey and Charles Chauvel.

Stuart Nash, although apparently quite bruised by his time working for Shearer and probably very disillusioned with his former boss, he remains determined to win Napier and did well against the swing last year. Nash will grow and if elected is a likely Revenue Minister.

Alastair Cameron, the man who replaced Nash, is also a former political advisor to Marian Hobbs. A Wairarapa boy, he had previously signalled a desire to run and while that is probably on hold until 2020, his future candidacy now rests on whether he can deliver the strategy and campaign tactics for Labour to be the biggest party and win in 2014… which surely must be the key metric for him?

Jordan Carter has arguably done more hard-yards than anyone having run in two unwinnable spots in 2008 and 2011 and an almost ridiculous number of Party positions. He is at the core of shaping the current Party policy and his time is rapidly approaching. He will be a key figure in the 7th Labour Government, possibly serving as its Finance Minister.

Conor Roberts has made a name for himself as Len Brown’s strategist and has impressed many along the way. Ideally he will spend some time outside of City Hall and will be a significant force in the Party. In Cabinet, he could be the Steven Joyce type campaign supremo.

Michael Wood is focused on being the next MP for Mt Roskill and remains highly regarded… despite marrying a (former) Alliance activist and being a Christian… could only be because he hasn’t done the cringe-worthy double-barrelled name schtick. He has done his dues within the Party as a local board member in Auckland and candidate in the Wong by-election. A likely Minister of Labour.

Paula Gillon is determined to win back the Northcote electorate, and it does tend to be held by the governing party. Paula is often remembered for her ‘naked politician’ routine from a previous run at City Council, and while this undoubtedly helped get her elected by getting attention, it put her at odds with the staunch feminists who have maintained their dislike of her. May not be a Minister, but could be Chief Whip.

David Talbot had once looked destined to enter Parliament – why else would you take on the thankless task of working for Mike Smith and then Phil Goff as well as standing in Clutha-Southland? Not a natural campaigner though and it seems he may be more focussed on the inner workings of Labour rather than standing. If not an MP, maybe Party President.

Carmel Sepuloni lost Waitakere and any sympathy any thinking person might have had when she laid into Paula Bennett when it looked (for a brief moment) like she had won. Still popular in the party and will be back. Won’t be a front bencher, but will be a Minister.

Tony Milne hasn’t been as visible in recent times in the wider Party but is very active at a grass roots level in Christchurch. He will likely pop up again when the swing heads back towards Labour and would relish a Christchurch seat.

Darren Hughes will likely be rehabilitated and could well be Minister of Health, as well as Leader of the House.

Max Harris could be the country’s Attorney-General. A Rhodes Scholar who is a law clerk to the Chief Justice, and solid Labour supporter. A talented legal mind, and top debater.

Kate Sutton. Has been building up good private sector experience, while still flying the Labour flag. Will be a Minister, probably Women’s Affairs but something more challenging also.

Glenn Riddell. Current Labour Youth Vice President. A rarity in Labour – an entrepeneur, and at a young age. Can work across the political spectrum. A future Minister of Business and Innovation.

Nick Leggett – the young Mayor of Porirua with a background in commercial property stands out who joined the Labour Party when barely out of nappies. Of course the main criticism of Nick from within Labour is that he attracts support from across the entire spectrum… including the dastardly right. A sensible centrist, he could present the best opportunity for Labour to win and then hold Peter Dunne’s seat. The other factor for Nick could be the possibility of being Wellington’s super city mayor in 2019. If an MP, a reforming Local Government Minister.

Ana Coffey, an ally of Leggett on the Porirua City Council of Maori and Pacific Island descent. She is switched on and smart, ‘Ana and her husband are small business owners having run a furniture business she polled ahead of the Deputy Mayor and uber-unionist Ken Douglas in her ward. With her Taranaki roots and home patch of Titahi Bay being the biggest population base for the Te Tai Hauauru, she could be a strong challenger to take that seat in the future.

Paul Eagle a Wellington Southern Ward councillor reintroduced the Wellington Labour Party to the art of door knocking and canvassing as he romped home to victory in 2010. Hugely popular, he was recently rated the most effective councillor by the Wellingtonian. He is sure to rise through the Labour ranks.

Yani Johansson a Christchurch City Councillor who has positioned himself relatively well as the quasi ‘leader of the opposition’ on Council following the quakes. Could succeed Dalziel in Christchurch East.

Adrienne Staples is the Mayor of South Wairarapa and while not overtly Labour, many believe she represents the Party’s best opportunity to win the Wairarapa seat back eventually. Another sensible voice from a regional area would be hugely valuable and she could become a much needed rural voice in a Labour Government.

Aldo Miccio is the young Mayor of Nelson who has handled the pressure of office well. While he is the type who could fit easily into either major Party, he could relish the challenge of winning Nelson for Labour and would be a great addition to Parliament.

Meng Foon has been Mayor of Gisborne since last century and is probably the one person who could turn the East Coast electorate around for Labour. Foon would be a credible potential Minister from day one and would also provide the all important ethnic diversity in the caucus without clogging up a list seat.

Anton Oliver – while Labour doesn’t have a great record with former All Blacks, there seems to be a natural political synergy between Oliver and Labour and the Oxford University graduate could actually be a decent caucus member for Labour if he doesn’t stand for the Greens.

Ross Robertson will still be there, and will finally be Speaker!

Grant Robertson will have had a leadership role in the 6th Labour Government, but will eventually make way for younger blood. Robertson in the 7th Labour Government will be the distinguished Foreign Affairs Minister.

Jacinda Ardern will be leader, and Prime Minister. Leaders need safe seats so like her mentor, she will be the MP for Mt Albert. Ardern has many of the attributes of a young Helen Clark, and will inherit the Clark machinery from Robertson when her time comes.

Stuff reported:

FBI agents who copied data from Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom’s computers and took it overseas were not acting illegally because information isn’t “physical material”, the Crown says.

That is hilariously ironic.

One of the stats that should never see the light of day is monthly cumulative audience. It is a meaningless figure which counts someone who watched 15 minutes of a programme once during a month the same as someone who tunes in for three hours a day, 30 days a month (watches 360 times as much).

Cumulative figures mean almost nothing, except to get very large numbers. The cumulative unique audience for Kiwiblog is 2.78 million people. That is double the 1.4 million monthly cumulative audience for TVNZ7.

What matters is actual shows, and how many watch a show. People watch shows, not channels. I have long said that I think there were some good quality shows on TVNZ7, but the idea of a separate non-commercial channel as part of a commercial broadcaster was incredibly stupid. Those who really care about public broadcasting should be trying to get a better model going forward, not trying to preserve a failed model. TVNZ was never going to promote shows on TVNZ7, which might take people away from TV1 and TV2. What you actually want is to get those shows on TV1 or TV3 or Sky, or even on the Internet.

Now to provide some hard data on viewership, I’m going to blog the ratings for most of the shows that were broadcast the week before last in the evenings, so people can see the audience differences. Now note TVNZ7 is so small it does not even get rated seperately, it comes under “Others”. So the viewing figure for others is the maximum TVNZ7 shows got.

The channels Neilsen reports on are TVOne, TV2, TV3, Prime, Maori TV, Sky, Others.

Viewer numbers for Tuesday were:

• Tuesday One News 773,000
• Shortland Street 712,000
• Masterchef 619,000
• Tuesday Close Up 487,000
• Intrepid Journeys 452,000
• The Middle 429,000
• 3 News 411,000
• Target 388,000
• NCIS 371,000
• Suburgatory 331,000
• NCIA: LA 303,000
• Campbell Live 270,000
• Funny Roots 270,000
• Coppers 249,000
• GCB 230,000
• Friends 164,000
• Bee Gees 164,000
• River Cottage 123,000
• Necessary Roughness 123,000
• Neighbours 90,000
• Others (incl TVNZ7) at 9.30 when Good Word is on) 82,000
• Deal or No Deal 78,000
• Crowd Goes Wild 37,000
• Whose Line is it 29,000

For Wednesday it is:

• Wednesday One News 725,000
• Shortland Street 618,000
• Fair Go 593,000
• Animal rescue 585,000
• Big Bang Theory 507,000
• Two and a half men 495,000
• Wednesday Close Up 470,000
• 2 Broke Girls 454,000
• Undercover Boss 427,000
• 3 News 338,000
• Castle 327,000
• Campbell Live 258,000
• The GC 245,000
• Road Cops 221,000
• Hell’s Kitchen 221,000
• Friends 192,000
• Almighty Johnsons 166,000
• Breakout Kings 150,000
• WWII in Colour 82,000
• Deal or No Deal 78,000
• Wuthering Heights 70,000
• Others (incl TVNZ7) from 9.00 to 10.00 when Backbenches is on) 65,000
• QI 41,000
• Whose Line is it 33,000
• Crowd Goes Wild 29,000

Now recall again that Others is actually for all channels outside the main TVNZ ones, TV3, TV4, Sky and Maori TV. This includes TVNZU, TVNZ kidzone24, TVNZ7, TVNZ Heartland, Trackside, Choice, Parliament TV, Cue, Te Reo, ShineTV, CTV8, Ch9, Centre Stage, 33 TV, Channel North, Triangle TV. So the actual TVNZ7 numbers may be just a small fraction of “others”, which is already tiny.

Even all grouped together, the only shows on that evening which rate lower are those on Prime. And it not just just about the time of night. At 9 pm and 9.30 pm you often have 35% to 30% of New Zealanders still watching TV.

Now again the issue is not the quality of the TV shows. The issue was placing them as part of TVNZ on a non-commercial channel within a commercial company. It was never going to work.

Taxpayers spend $150 million a year on public broadcasting. There is no reason some of those shows which were on TVNZ7 can’t be funded, if a broadcaster is willing to host them. Setting the shows free from TVNZ7 might be the best thing which could happen to them.

The Montreal Gazette reports:

The Conservative government voted late Wednesday to repeal controversial sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act banning hate speech over the telephone or Internet.

 In a vote of 153 to 136, the majority Harper government supported a private member’s bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth that would scrap Section 13 of the human rights code, which deals with complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.”

This is a good thing, and the excesses of what happened in Canada should be top of mind if we consider any initiatives to “control” speech on the Internet here. People should face consequences for speech that causes actual harm such as economic or reputation loss (defamation), violence (Crimes Act) but trying too regulate political opinions – even extreme ones, is not good.

Storseth said the current human rights code allows too many frivolous cases to proceed against citizens, when the Criminal Code already covers hate speech that could generate harm against an individual or group.

Exactly – the focus should be on speech that generates actual harm.

Acts of hate speech are serious crimes that should be investigated by police officers, not civil servants, he said, and the cases should be handled by “real judges and real lawyers,” instead of a quasi-judicial body such as the human rights commission.

I’m not quite so sangine about the Police investigating. In the UK there have been some horrendous cases where school kids are prosecuted for using racially insensitive language.

New Democrat public-safety critic Randall Garrison said Wednesday that, due to the large number of hate crimes, the human-rights commission needs to have the power to combat the issue online and force individuals and groups to remove websites containing hateful speech.

I’m against this, even a ban on “hate speech” would see certain left blogs be banned 🙂

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the results of the 3 News poll tonight. National is down, Labour is up and the Maori Party would hold the balance of power.

Being just 2% down from the election night result, for a poll taken during the week of non stop headlines about class sizes is not that bad a result. Imagine what they could do, if they get their game together!

What people will be looking at is whether they rebound after the u-turn (which happened after this poll was conducted), or not.

A very good article in the Herald on the impact on families of victims, having to go through annual parole hearings. Extracts:

Aynsley Harwood wakes up screaming. Her nightmares are vivid, relentless and painful. The daughter she lost 26 years ago is ripped away from her night after night by a monster named Peter Holdem.

The nightmares get worse around May when the monster usually appears in person.

Holdem murdered Harwood’s 6-year-old daughter, Louisa Damodran, in 1986. He became eligible for release about 10 years later. Like many crime victims and family members, Harwood has been fighting to keep him in prison since that day.

To do this she must endure a hearing by the Parole Board, which decides whether a prisoner eligible for parole is safe enough to re-enter society or is still a risk who must stay behind bars.

The system sounds simple enough. But the process, which is repeated regularly until the prisoner is freed or dies, is far more complicated for victims and their families.

Some killers can now be sentenced to life without parole, which will mean the families of their victims won’t have to relive their loss by having to argue why so and so should not be released.

In cases where there are multiple offenders, victims have to attend multiple hearings.

Leigh-Anne Mullins knows that all too well – and struggles with it.

Her father, Raymond Mullins, was murdered in 1999 by three teenage girls – Natalie and Katrina Fenton and their cousin Daniella Bowman.

They were sentenced to life in prison in 2000 for stabbing and beating the Papatoetoe engineer to death. The trio have had numerous parole hearings and been declined each time.

For Mullins the hearings have been too many and too often. Each time, she has to relive the horror of her father’s murder.

I never thought of a case like that. You’d face three parole hearings a year. Awful. This was a shocking crime. One of the girls was only 15, but did the murder while on bail for aggravated robbery. They stabbed Mullins 19 times and carved letters into his chest.

Changes to the parole system announced earlier this year by Justice Minister Judith Collins and aimed at making life easier for victims, could help.

Those changes include pre-screening inmates to postpone unnecessary parole hearings and extending the maximum interval between parole hearings from one to two years.

The maximum postponement period for offenders serving indeterminate sentences and fixed sentences of 10 or more years would be extended from three to five years.

“Victims of crime will no longer need to face the very stressful prospect of parole hearings year after year, when an offender is clearly not safe to release into the community, and has made little or no effort at rehabilitation,” Collins says.

It will be interesting to see if Labour and Greens vote against this.

On October 15, 1986, little Louisa Damodran, just days shy of her 7th birthday, was walking home from school and just 100m from home when Holdem – who was on parole after serving time for the 1982 attempted rape of a 10-year-old in a Christchurch park – kidnapped her. He drove her to the Waimakariri River, throttled her and drowned her. Her body was found downstream three weeks later.

Holdem was sentenced to life but became eligible for parole in 1996. He has been declined each time and Harwood has made a submission at each hearing.

He will appear again in April 2013 and she is already on tenterhooks.

“I have to emotionally bolster myself up for hearings. I want to be taken seriously, to get my message across.

“As Louisa’s mother, it’s my job to defend her and make sure no other child goes through what she went through.

“There is a lot of anxiety but I push myself to do it. It’s usually scheduled around May and it means the entire month’s kind of up-in-the-air. It’s miserable. I can’t sleep. In the middle of the night I started to feel guilty over him being kept in prison for 26 years. I’ve helped keep him from his own children … I feel guilty about that. But I shouldn’t.

“It’s all a bit dismal. I’m just stressed all the time, preparing myself in case he gets out, preparing myself for the board, wondering if I am doing the right thing keeping him in there. And then I have to rehash it all every year … It makes my life harder.”

I doubt she is unusual, in the pressure such parole hearings place on her.

An excellent interview with Professor John Hattie on Q+A. You can watch it here. And no, he did not “lash out”, as the NBR headline states. It was a calm insightful interview. Some extracts:

PROF JOHN HATTIE – University of Melbourne

Well, we’ve certainly done many, many studies looking at the effects when we reduce class sizes, certainly by the one or two that were suggested in New Zealand, and it’s very, very hard to find that they make that much of a difference. The major question is why is it that a seemingly obvious thing that should make a difference doesn’t make a difference, and that’s what’s beguiled a lot of people over the last many decades. I think we have some good answers for that, but the bottom line is it hardly makes a difference.

 SHANE                      Why is that?

PROF HATTIE           Well, I think the major argument seems to be when you have teachers in class sizes, like, of 26, 27, 30 and you put them in the class sizes of, say, 18 to 23, and they don’t change what they do, that seems to be the reason why it doesn’t make a difference. So could it make a difference? Yeah, it probably could if we changed how we went about our teaching. But that doesn’t seem to happen. When the many, many thousands, tens of thousands of teachers have gone from one size to another, they don’t change how they teach. So, no, that’s why it doesn’t make much of a difference.

So reducing class size may be beneficial if the teachers then teach differently.

SHANE                      So they did a terrible selling job?

 PROF HATTIE           Well, I think the selling mistake was concentrating on the class size. I know when the minister announced it, she talked mainly about staff-student ratios. But I certainly didn’t hear a very clear mandate of what the $150m, $200m over the next few years was going to be used for. Saying it’s going to be used for teacher quality is a little bit too ephemeral for me. I would have liked something more specific. But if they’d said it’s this rather than that, I think that’s the sale job they should have done, rather than whether it’s smaller or larger classes.

This is the exact point I made in my Herald column. The lack of any deatils around what they would do to improve teacher quality.

SHANE                      So are you saying that it was worth changing the ratio to be able to spend, as the government said, $60m to improve teaching quality?

 PROF HATTIE           Oh, absolutely, provided they were much more clear about what that investment in teacher quality is. I think it’s a very reasonable decision. It’s one that should be made. It’s one that principals are asked to make all the time, and I certainly think the government should also have done what they’ve done and kept to it.

But as there was no clarity around what the investment in teacher quality would be, a reversal was inevitable. I don’t think it was just an issue that the Government did not communicate the details – as far as I know, the specifics are not even developed yet.

PROF HATTIE        Well, I think they were wrong because… They kind of had to back down, given the heat on class size. Like, it’s a very easy hot-button issue. Everybody thinks it’s obvious that reducing class size is a better thing. No one seems to understand, and they certainly don’t accept the research evidence, that it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just an emotional reaction that of course it should.

I was debating this on Twitter. The funding decisions should be based on peer reviewed research as to what is most effective – not on emotions.

Eastern Walkway

EveryTrail – Find hiking trails in California and beyond

Ever since DC Girl moved to Seatoun, have been keen to do the Eastern Walkway as so close to her place. We started at the Pass of Branda and it is a steep climb up the hill.

Once you get to the top, there are some excellent views of the harbour and hills.

Moving along coastline, you might think it is all flat once you are at the top. But actually you go up and down several more times, until you reach the Ataturk memorial at Tarakena Bay. A very nice grassed area with great views.

The walk is just under 5 kms, but the number of climbs means that it does take around 90 minutes to do the return trip, so you feel like it has been a longer trek.

A popular walk, with heaps of joggers and dog walkers. Rugby came along also, and did his best to trip me up while going down the steps.

There’s a number of side-routes one can do also, so plan to explore them at some stage.

Jo McKenzie-McLean writes in The Press:

Christchurch’s Sam Johnson has hit international headlines in a gay blog praising the young leader’s achievements.

The Huffington Post, a United States internet newspaper, features an article on Johnson headed, ”Why Kiwis Love This Gay University Student”.

Huffpost blogger, James Peron, refers to the results of a poll conducted by The Press newspaper last month, which show the 23-year-old’s leadership performance is regarded head and shoulders above others – including Prime Minister John Key and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority boss Roger Sutton – with a staggering 98 per cent of the 359 surveyed considering he had done a good job.

”All of these celebrities were bested by a gay, 23-year-old student from Canterbury University named Sam Johnson. The Press survey showed Sam’s approval rating to be an unheard of 98%,” Peron says.

Johnson, a board member of the The UpRising Trust, a local gay community organisation, is quoted in the article saying, ”A lot of people meet me and don’t realise I’m gay.”

But being gay has been little obstacle to Johnson, Person says as he recounts a long list of Johnson’s achievements including his community board election in 2010, his role in the earthquake recovery, setting up the Student Volunteer Army, and being named 2012 Young New Zealander of the Year after being given the Sir Peter Blake Leadership Award.

”After reading about Sam’s accomplishments, and his 98% approval rating, you have to wonder: ‘Who were the 2%, and what’s wrong with them?’ When the first openly gay prime minister of New Zealand is elected, there are decent odds his name will be Sam.”

Sam has a fine political career ahead of him, but I suspect he will not be in any rush. He’s smart enough to know the more real world experience you have, the better.

A couple of commentators have been predicting the proposed changes to Police pay could end the Government up in a similar situation to the class size issue. I do not believe this is the case, because of the unique law around how Police pay, terms and conditions are decided.

Schedule 2 of the Policing Act 2008 sets out an arbitration procedure between the Police Commission and the appropriate Police unions if they can not agree amongst themselves to any changes. A three or five person committee arbitrates any disputes. Each side appoints one or two members, and the Labour Dept CEO appoints the Chair.

The decision of the committee is binding (this is in return for no right to strike), but more significantly it can not agree to any compromise or partial solution. It’s sole job is to decide between the offer from the Commissioner and the claim from the union.

This has a very significant impact on how reasonable each side is. The more hardline you are about your offer, the less likely it is that it will be chosen. This is different to normal negotiations where you try and budge as little as possible.

So it is unlikely there will be significant changes to Police pay and conditions unless they can convince the Police unions of their merits, or the independent committee is convinced they are fair, will help recruit and retain constables etc compared to the status quo.

The Ashburton Guardian reports:

Former cabinet minister Nick Smith has hinted about a possible return to the top table after Prime Minister John Key this week indicated such a move was not out of the question. …

Mr Key was asked about Dr Smith’s future in Cabinet in light of the police decision and he said that while he could not rule it out, it depended on the outcome of other inquires.

Dr Smith, who was in Ashburton yesterday at a Federated Farmers water forum, was asked whether he would be back in Cabinet.

He quoted Winston Churchill in reply: “Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times.”

Heh, Nick has used that quote many times.

My expectation is that Nick will return in October, when Lockwood Smith will become High Commissioner to London and probably David Carter the new Speaker.

The benefits of Nick returning are an experienced and capable Minister. The risks are that if he makes another error of judgement then it will be the PM held responsible, not the Minister.