This is a guest post by Green MP Julie-Anne Genter, initiated after some questions in Parliament last session on this issue:

Let me just start with what this post is NOT saying:

1. I am not saying that people should not, or will not, continue to use cars for many trips.
2. I am not saying that all existing roads should be turned into dirt tracks for carts and horses.
3. I am not saying we should ban anything, or eliminate all car parking.
4. I am not saying that you should give up your car, if it doesn’t suit you.

 When we get past the straw man arguments, there is something you and I (and all New Zealanders) can be very concerned about: The Government is planning to spend $14 billion over this next decade — which is more than this year’s deficit and 75% of all new transport infrastructure spending — on a few new state highways with very poor business cases.

Most of that is on 6 projects it calls the ‘Roads of National Significance’. (The 7th, Victoria Park Tunnel, the project with the highest benefit cost ratio, has already been completed.)

It is truly extraordinary that the Government considers the RoNS to be a key plank in their economic strategy, because there is actually no evidence to suggest the additional motorways will have a positive impact on the economy.

A compilation of the benefit-cost ratios carried out by the Parliamentary Library show that, in total, they are projected to return just $1.40 for every $1 invested (if you excluded Vic Park, it would be less). Several of the individual projects will cost more than their benefits, most notably Puhoi to Wellsford and Transmission Gully, which cost nearly a billion dollars more than the benefits they would create.

Moreover, the Government’s numbers are too optimistic. The traditional traffic engineering approach tends to overstate the benefits and understate the costs (PDF) of motorway projects. One of the basic assumptions in the modelling is that traffic volumes will always rise — irrespective of fuel prices and the economy. The RoNS business cases are no exception: Puhoi to Wellsford assumed 4% annual traffic growth from 2006-2026, though NZTA data now shows that didn’t eventuate from 2006-2011. Traffic and freight volumes on state highways aren’t growing because of the impacts of high oil prices and low economic growth—in fact, they’re back to 2004 levels.

We all know petrol prices are at record levels — up 50% in the past five years — and are likely to go much higher this decade. This is a very strong case for deferring the RoNS in favour of more cost-effective projects that also reduce the oil-dependence of the transport sector.

Road users, ratepayers, and the economy will benefit from projects that will move the most people and goods for the lowest cost in the coming decades. And we need to be realistic about the increasing cost of fuel to cars and trucks.

There are better alternatives: Making it easier and safer for kids to cycle and walk to school is one of the cheapest ways to reduce peak hour congestion. By adding capacity to train and bus routes that are already experiencing huge (10-15%) annual patronage growth in Auckland, we can ease congestion on the roads, reduce household petrol bills, and improve the cost effectiveness of public transport. Freight priority (think truck lanes) can be cheaply implemented on key routes at extremely low cost.

Even if you drive everywhere, you benefit when we make it easier for others to leave the car at home, because it’s a cheaper way to reduce congestion (plus it’ll be easier for you to find parking…).

Resources are limited, so we must make choices. Expanding the existing state highway programme is expensive for little gain – but it also means that every other transport category will be squeezed for the next decade: including road policing, local road maintenance, walking, cycling and public transport. So it will be harder for people to get where they need to go. That’s going to mean more congestion, or more lost money in high petrol bills.

If we choose to invest in modern, smart transport solutions, we can spend less on petrol, reduce our international debt, and have a transport system that is better for our economy and better for our people. But, first, we need the Government to honestly re-evaluate its transport priorities.

I think scrutiny of an annual $1.4b spend is a good thing, and JAG makes some reasonable points around the fact some of the RONS do not have a positive benefit to cost ratio. There can be reasons to look at factors beyond the benefit to cost ratio, but Government should generally be careful not to cherry pick “winners”.

I’ve actually advocated that rather than vary the level of benefit to cost ratio which determines a transport project gets funded, we should instead set a constant ratio (maybe 1.5:1) and adjust the level of petrol tax automatically to fund projects which qualify.

On the issue of future traffic volumes, the link provided by JAG is worth reading, showing the recent change in both NZ and global traffic volumes. However I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions over future volumes as I think the three factors are petrol prices, economic growth and population growth. Petrol prices may continue to increase but population growth will remain, and eventually economic growth will be higher (but perhaps not as high as when fuelled by debt).

Thanks to Julie Anne for the post. With $14 billion being spent over a decade, it’s an important debate.

Martin Johnson at NZ Herald reports:

The claim by New Zealand’s main tobacco companies that plain packaging will not reduce the prevalence of smoking has been dismissed by a researcher who tested the concept.

Okay, so what was tested.

One study Professor Hoek cited involved group discussions and in-depth interviews with 86 young adults, both smokers and non-smokers, about tobacco packaging including their views about sample plain white packets with expanded health warnings which they were shown.

“That just doesn’t look trendy at all … it’s just budget … it’s like, lame,” one participant said of the plain packaging, according to a paper published in the journal Qualitative Health Research last December.

Other comments included:

“There’s just nothing attractive with it. There isn’t a cool colour, there isn’t any kind of marking that would grab you.”

“For someone who’s starting smoking … it’d be a lot harder to identify with a brand if it’s just colourless.”

So let us accept that packaging can affect whether a packet looks trendy or cool.

The paper concludes that, given tobacco companies’ huge efforts to develop brands that appealed to young adults, “it is logical to assume that decreasing these appeals would, over time, reduce the behaviours they stimulate and support”.

But this is the leap of faith. It is all based on an assumption that having packets with less appeal, will lead to less people smoking.

The reverse psychology that as tobacco companies spend huge money on developing brands that appeal, then getting rid of the brands will decrease demand is also flawed. Because we do not know whether the brands attract smokers to that particular brand, or attract someone to become and remain a smoker.

That is what I’d like to see research on.

I would note that smoking prevalence has been dropping consistently, despite the more sophisticated branding compared to a generation ago.

If there is actual research showing that plain packaging reduces the smoking rate (as opposed to reduces the attractiveness of a packet), then there would be a stronger case for plain packaging.

In 2010 I blogged two tables (here and here) looking at some “performance” statistics of Labour MPs in 2009. I’ve decided to expand this to include all opposition MPs and make it a regular quarterly feature.

The three criteria are:

1. No of press releases issued, and the associated rank (1 is most, 56 is least). This is based on a search of Scoop for their name in releases from their party.
2. No of news stories mentioning them, and the associated rank. This is based on a search of Google News NZ and counting the number of hits, which roughly corresponds to number of distinct stories. The Voxy and Scoop sites are excluded as these report press releases which are covered in (1).
3. No of written questions asked by them, and the associated rank. This is based on a search of the Parliamentary PQs database. Incidentally this database is seriously stuffed. Each query takes 1 to 2 minutes. Could someone in the Parliamentary Service please fix this. I understand it has been this way for a while. Note that this covers the period from the election to yesterday as the database does not allow you to specify an exact time period.

To some degree the three categories represent inputs, outputs and outcomes. The written PQs are the inputs – the grunt work you do to find out information for your portfolio. Some MPs actually abuse the facility, but overall it is a reasonable indicator of activity.

The media releases are the outputs – how often an MP is actually putting a statement out there for the media to pick up.

The news stories are the outcomes – how often activity by that MP actually makes the news. Of course not all news stories are positive ones, but overall a harder working MP will get more news stories.

I have not surveyed the number of oral questions they ask, or the number of speeches in the House. The reasons for this is that the leadership tend to allocate these out or roster people on for these. It is not the same as MP generated activity.

People may wonder why I have only done these for Opposition MPs. Well Government backbenchers are not actually encouraged to do press releases (except on local issues) or ask PQs. It is only for an Opposition party, these stats make sense. I do plan to publish similar “league tables” for Ministers.

First looking at the parties, they seem to have a very close average to each other for press releases. For media stories the Greens lag behind Labour and NZ First. And when it comes to PQs Labour is massively higher, but that is more due to what I’d call abusive behaviour by a couple of MPs.

For press releases, the five top MPs are Winston Peters, Hone Harawira, David Shearer, Clare Curran and Russel Norman. Interesting that Peters and Harawira put out more releases than the Leader of the Opposition. Also interesting that Curran has such a high number of releases. Also Norman has put out twice as many PRs as his co-leader.

The MPs who have done the least releases are Rajen Prasad (none) followed by Shane Jones, Trevor Mallard and Rino Tirikatene (one each).

For news stories, the top five MPs are David Shearer, Winston Peters, Russel Norman, Trevor Mallard and Grant Robertson. Interesting that Peters gets twice as many stories as Norman, despite being the smaller party. Also Norman has five times as many stories as Turei. Also of interest is how prominent Mallard is in the media for Labour – second only to their leader.

The MPs with the least news stories (as indexed by Google News) are Raymond Huo (1), Asenati Taylor (1), Rajen Prasad (2), Megan Woods (2).

For PQs, the top five MPs are Trevor Mallard (2,936), Chris Hipkins (1,294), Iain Lees-Galloway (428), Phil Goff (245), David Cunliffe (200). While PQs are a good resource that MPs should use, I believe Mallard and Hipkins are abusing the system with massive fishing expeditions that cost tens of thousands of dollars. I will blog later some examples of that. PQs should be used to get information an MP needs, and most MPs should use them more. But a couple should use them less.

15 Opposition MPs have not asked a single written PQ this term.

This shows the output of each MP compared to the median. The simple average is just that. The weighted average applies a weighting of 1/2 to news stories, 1/3 to press releases and 1/6 to PQs. Also to discourage abuse of PQs, the maximum number of PQs counted is 12 time the median, or 200% weighted.

So overall the top of the league table goes to Opposition Leader David Shearer, which is as expected. Second is Winston Peters, then Phil Goff, Russel Norman and Trevor Mallard.

Down the bottom of the league table is is Rajen Prasad whose activity is 5% of the median. Next lowest is Megan Woods at 21% and Parekura Horomia at 26%. Equal fourth lowest are Andrew Williams, Richard Prosser and Shane Jones at 29%.

I’ll publish in July the stats for the second quarter, and we’ll see if there has been any change. Hope to also publish the ministerial stats within a week or so.

Note that of course these stats are quantitative, not qualitative. Just because an MP is being reported in the media, doesn’t mean it is positive publicity.

Craig Mundy-Smith and Mark Robotham at Stuff reports:

Q: An employee phoned this morning saying that he was sick and couldn’t come into work. I know for a fact that he was drinking heavily last night and I think he’s just hung-over. What can I do about it?

A: While some may think that an employee who takes sick leave to recover from a bad hangover is committing an act of misconduct, this is not the case. An employee who is hung-over is just as entitled to claim sick leave as an employee with the flu. Your employee may even admit they are hung-over, without comeback.

Parliament didn’t include a definition of the term “sick” in the Holidays Act 2003.

When the Court of Appeal was last asked to define the meaning of “sick” it held that “sick” means “unfitness for health reasons of any nature and however caused”.

While there may be a moral distinction between self-induced sickness such as a hangover and other forms of sickness or injury, there is no legal distinction.

Furthermore, “sickness” caused by a hangover is a legitimate reason for a GP to provide the employee with a medical certificate.

It may be cold comfort, but by taking sick leave your employee is probably doing the “right” thing. Most workplaces deem reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol to be serious misconduct.

An employee with a thumping headache and the “dry horrors” is still under the influence of the alcohol in their system. They should not be at work in that state.

I didn’t know this, and it might be an issue for Parliament to look at in their next review of employment law. There should be a distinction between self-induced sickness, and accidental sickness.

Some employers, such as airlines, have alcohol policies that class drinking in the eight hours preceding work to be serious misconduct. Employers whose employees work in safety sensitive areas, or around hazardous materials, should consider introducing such policies.

I wonder if an employer could discipline an employee who is sick due to a hang-over – not for taking sick leave, but for their actions in causing themselves to be unable to work. The “good faith” nature of an employment agreement would suggest that an employee who is constantly sick due to drinking alcohol, would be in breach.

If this is an irregular occurrence, “suck it up” and let it pass. You do not want a hung-over person at work and everyone has the right to go celebrate once on a while.

I tend to agree with that.  Sometimes a week night turns a bit messy, and you are affected the next day. They key thing is this should be rare.

I can’t recall ever taking a full day off due to a hang-over. Once I didn’t make it in until 10.30 am, but to be fair we had only stopped drinking at 6 am. Usually a hang-over is worn off by midday.

Andrea Vance in a lengthy article looks at three controversial conscience issues which are unlikely to be debated by Parliament unless a member’s bill on them is drawn. They are euthanasia, gay adoption and abortion.

My positions on the three issues are:

• Euthanasia should be legal under strictly defined circumstances
• Abortion should be legally available on demand (which is the practice but not the law) up until the point where the foetus or unborn child could live unassisted
• Same sex couples should be able to adopt

The two latest polls will increase the pressure on David Shearer. I actually think it would be silly for Labour to panic over polls just six months after an election. Rebuilding and changing a brand takes time. Their biggest challenge is not their leadership but defining what they stand for.

However it is clear there are rumblings in Labour. The Standard and Tumeke have both run posts openly disscussing whether there will be a leadership challenge. It is also clear from reading comments that many Auckland activists still think that the caucus erred in not choosing David Cunliffe, who arguably was the party’s preferred candidate.

Also Steve Gray has blogged (in less diplomatic terms than expressed here) that the Wellington gay community has been discussing that Grant Robertson will challenge Shearer in the near future.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that anything will happen this year. But neither is Shearer guaranteed to the election, as Goff pretty much was. I think the danger zone would be early next year, if Labour stay flatlined all year.

The problem for Shearer is that he may now be in a vicious cycle. The more speculation over the leadership, the harder it is to get resonance with the public. However it is worth noting he is still being given a fair chance by the public. Only 26% say they think he is performing poorly, while Goff’s comparative figure peaked at 54% performing poorly.

The headline in the Sunday Star-Times, at Stuff is “Mr Unpopular?” above a photo of John Key, and a story by Anthony Hubbard proclaiming “People are getting angry, John”.

Rather ironic timing then that tonight’s 3 News Reid Research poll (blogged at Curiablog) has National increasing its support since February by 2.3%, to reach 49.8%.

Personally I think this shows what a small bubble some (not all) of the media live in. Just because their Grey Lynn friends are all up in arms over something, doesn’t mean most of New Zealand is.

As for the Labour wet dream headline of “Mr Unpopular” I should point out that the big movement in the poll was a 9% increase in those saying David Shearer is performing poorly. Those saying Key was performing poorly increased by just 2%.

I really do wonder sometimes whether or not the Sunday Star-Times should just be renamed “The Standard”.

Normally an allegation of a gay sex scandal involving someone elected as a Liberal Party MP would not concern the Leader of the Australian Labor Party and Prime Minister.

But it does when the MP is Peter Slipper. He was first elected to Parliament in 1993 and re-elected in 2010. But in November 2011 the Speaker of the Australian Parliament resigned, and Slipper became Speaker against the wishes of his own party to help the Government’s majority. He then resigned as a Liberal MP, and is now an Independent.

At the 2011 Federal Election both Labor and the Coalition won 72 seats. Gillard retained power by gaining four votes from the six cross-party MPs. They are:

• Adam Bandt, Greens
• Andrew Wilkie, Independent (former Green)
• Tony Windsor, Independent
• Rob Oakeshott, Independent

After losing the Speaker, The Government can only pass laws 75-74. When Slipper became Speaker, the numbers became 76-73. But Gillard renenged on a deal with Andrew Wilkie, which made the numbers 75-73-1.

If Slipper resigns and a Labor MP replaces him, then Gillard has just 74 seats and the Coalition probably 74 seats and Wilkie hold the balance of power. Does not guarantee the Government falls, but would be very unstable.

An in depth interview with John Key on Campbell Live on the issues of the Crafar Farms sales, and the Sky City convention centre.

12 minutes in total.

It would be interesting to count up how often this Prime Minister has done one on one television interviews compared to his predecessors. I may be wrong, but my impression is he does do a reasonable number.

Damien Grant writes in the HoS:

Parata is talking about performance pay for teachers and publishing league tables for schools based on National Standards. This is, as Sir Humphrey would say, courageous.

Teacher unions are opposed to both policies. To bolster their argument the NZEI recently brought Australian academic Professor Margaret Wu to our shores. Wu was quoted in the Otago Daily Times as saying that “we need to look at education more broadly than just students’ academic results”.

It is hard to imagine a more incredulously stupid comment. We pay teachers to teach – not to eat their lunch. We can and should assess success by comparing what the class knows at the end of the process from what they knew at the start. A competent principal will know which teachers are effective and which are not.

Not just the principal. As a pupil, we knew who were the good teachers. Not necessarily the popular ones, but definitely the good ones. It was common knowledge. Our chemistry teacher was teased mercilessly by students and parodied as a robot. But almost all his students knew he was a good teacher and they learnt chemistry.

A system that does not reward success encourages failure. Poor performers stay, talent leaves, children remain uneducated. Our education industry has become a sheltered workshop for useless teachers and a frustrating workplace for good educators.

The problem with the NZEI and the PPTA is that they are unions masquerading as education think-tanks. Unions exist to advance the cause of their members. This is honest work in a free society and teacher unions have been remarkably successful at shielding their members from any form of performance scrutiny. They are so good I suspect they have convinced even themselves that it is not possible to tell a good teacher from a bad one and that students learn by osmosis rather than by anything a teacher actually does or does not do.

The job of the education unions is not to improve the education system. Their job is to look after their members, specifically to keep them in jobs, get them pay rises, reduce their hours worked, and get them more funding. Now there is nothing wrong with that – so long as one realises their arguments are about self-interest, not about improving educational outcomes.

Matt McCarten writes in the Herald on Sunday:

As you can appreciate, it’s a highly political environment these operators and the casinos live in.

Consequently, political donations to candidates and parties are rife. Both mayoral candidates, Len Brown and John Banks, received generous financial backing from SkyCity and last general election National and Labour picked up $60,000 apiece from them.

This is massively incorrect. The donations of $60,000 to National and Labour (and $12,000 to Progressives, ACT and United each) were not at the last election, or even the election before that but three elections ago in 2005.

The Dom Post editorial:

No application by a foreign investor looking to buy New Zealand land has attracted more attention than Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar farms.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that opposition to the deal, approved yesterday, is mostly driven by the nationality of the purchaser.

Of course it is. Not all of it, but much of it.

When Canadian film director James Cameron purchased more than 1000ha of Wairarapa land, including a 250ha dairy farm, the news was generally welcomed, even though the residency requirements he must meet mean he has to live in New Zealand for only 44 days in each of the final two years of a three-year investment period. The sale of the Crafar farms, on the other hand, has met howls of protest, despite Shanghai Pengxin having to satisfy 27 stringent requirements.

These include establishing a farm school on one of the properties, to be run by state-owned enterprise Landcorp, which will also manage the farms, and providing $5000 university scholarships to two students. It must also provide public walking access across two of the farms, protect Maori archaeological sites and undertake significant conservation requirements.

The company has also, apparently on its own initiative, undertaken to spend at least $100 million over five years promoting New Zealand dairy products in China and elsewhere in Asia, a key developing market. The increased trade that could flow from that will benefit all New Zealand dairy farmers and, with it, the wider economy.

As I have said for some time, I see this sale as having huge opportunities for New Zealand.

Stuff reports:

The annual EPMU Press Freedom Debate will be held on Thursday at Wellington’s Backbencher Pub. MPs Winston Peters, Simon Bridges, Annette King and Lianne Dalziel, comedian Pinky Agnew and journalist Patrick Gower will debate whether politicians should be hacked off with hacking journalists. Proceeds go to the Media Solidarity and Safety Fund. Last year, former Labour MP Darren Hughes was in fine form during the debate on whether politics was a dirty business. Soon after he quit amid claims he took a student home after a night out drinking.

Last year’s one was hilarious. Well worth attending.

Stuff reports:

Alleged internet pirate Kim Dotcom may be able to breathe a little easier after a landmark Australian High Court ruling that found internet provider iiNet was not responsible for illegal file-sharing by its users.

However, a law professor has warned millions of dollars of assets seized by police may never be returned to Dotcom, even if a bid to extradite him to the United States fails.

The chief executive of iiNet, Michael Malone, said the unanimous ruling by five judges, who dismissed an appeal by Hollywood studios that iiNet was a party to internet piracy by its customers, had ended three years of legal argument costing A$9 million (NZ$11.4m).

The Australian Financial Review said it was a test case of “global significance”.

Auckland lawyer Rick Shera said the ruling would be influential in New Zealand and was a positive development for Megaupload founder Dotcom and his co-accused.

“At its heart, Megaupload is about the responsibility of an online service provider for its users’ activity and that was exactly the core issue in the iiNet trial,” he said. While evidence in the two cases as to whether the companies encouraged piracy was not the same, Dotcom’s was a criminal prosecution, so the burden of proof needed to be stronger, he said.

However, Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis was cautious of drawing parallels between the cases, noting that while internet providers such as iiNet were essentially only conduits for file sharing, Megaupload hosted files on its servers.

The outcome of the Australian court is excellent. It is worth noting that the MPAA had lost the original case, the appeal and now this second appeal.

However like Prof Geddis I would be cautious about thinking what impact it may have on the Meagupload case, as there is a difference between merely providing access to the Internet, and providing a file upload and download service.

Andrea Fox at Stuff reports:

Maori are promising the “biggest hikoi New Zealand has ever seen” following the Government’s second green light for a sale of the 8000-hectare Crafar dairy farming estate to Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin.

I do wish the term “Maori” would not be used when talking about presumably one person or Iwi.

Meanwhile, central North Island iwi who are part of Sir Michael Fay’s court action against the sale have confirmed they are talking to Pengxin in the hope of buying three of the 16 farms from the company.

As one can see, there is far from a common view.

Nigel Baker – who represents a group within the Taupo region’s Ngati Tuwharetoa iwi, which is part of Fay’s group and has met Pengxin twice seeking to buy the 1700-hectare Tauhara Crafar farm – considered ancestral land, said there would be a “very strong” Maori backlash against the latest land sale to foreigners.

But details of the protest action, which would be against the wider sovereignty issue of the sale of land to foreigners, were still secret, he said.

“This is an issue for all New Zealanders. It will be the biggest hikoi this country has ever seen.”

What a wonderful idea. A hikoi to allow Sir Michael Fay to buy up farms on the cheap.

1. We investigate John Key’s role in the machinations surrounding the Auckland Convention Centre – and we explain why the current Gambling legislation does not work.
2. Phil Holden from the Lion Foundation and Alex Swney from Heart of the City on the convention centre.
3. Labour Leader David Shearer on crony capitalism.
4. Tibi Ram, Fred and Bob Narev — holocaust survivors — as we prepare to remember the ANZACs they remind us what Nazism was all about.
5. Colin James on the political events of the week.
6. Bill Ralston and Jane Clifton on the way the media saw the week. (Brian Edwards is away).

Saturday 0930 – Sunday 0800 – TV3

On Q+A this Sunday, the government has big plans for our two biggest cities – a rebuild of the Christchurch CBD and a convention centre for Auckland. Both are facing big obstacles.

Greg Boyed sits down with the two ministers leading the charge. First, Economic Development minister, Steven Joyce, on the Sky City convention centre deal. Does he have an ace left to play? Is National playing a losing hand in the face of public opposition?

Then, Earthquake Recovery Minister, Gerry Brownlee, on his 100-day deadline for a new Christchurch CBD blueprint. Is it action at last or a rush job?

And later, a New Zealand exclusive, as Paul Holmes talks to former Republican Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman about what it was like on the inside of these wild Republican primaries. What does he make of the Republican Party nowadays? And how can Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama?

Joining Dr Claire Robinson of Massey University on the panel are former Deputy Prime Minister and Progressive leader Jim Anderton and former ACT deputy leader Heather Roy.

PAUL HOLMES’ INTERVIEW WITH JON HUNTSMAN WILL BE PRE RECORDED ON SATURDAY. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN A TRANSCRIPT PLEASE CONTAC T ME.

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats of Q&A will screen on TVNZ7 at 9pm Sundays and 9am and 1pm on Mondays.

I’ve blogged the latest Roy Morgan poll at Curiablog. Quite a change from the previous one.

Earlier on Friday 20 April 2012 Kiwiblog reproduced excerpts from a reader’s e-mail which related to Hon Lianne Dalziel. Kiwiblog now understands that the contents of that e-mail misrepresented the actions of Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is is accepted they were injurious to the reputation of Hon Lianne Dalziel and they are unreservedly retracted.

Kiwiblog apologises to Hon Lianne Dalziel for any distress or inconvenience caused by the error.

Andrea Vance reports at Stuff:

The government is to forge ahead with a ban on branded cigarette packets.

Cabinet has agreed ”in principle” to introduce a plain packaging regime alongside Australia – but only after public consultation.

Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia announced the move this evening, calling it ”a significant to our goal of making New Zealand smokefree by 2025.”

The open display of cigarette and tobacco packs in all dairies and other shops is banned from July 23 July this year.

”Plain packaging is the next step to ensure that once they are in the hands and homes of smokers, the packs don’t promote anything other than our serious health warnings and quit messages,” Turia said.

I’m not convinced that plain packaging does much to reduce smoking rates. If having a health warning and photos of diseased organs do not put people off smoking, I don’t see how removing (for example) the Rothmans logo will have any impact.

The arguments for plain packaging are here. Having read the review of the literature, I couldn’t see anything that was near conclusive. At best it seems to be “This might make them less appealing”.

I think the most effective measure is to keep hiking the excise tax.

I also worry about the precedent value. The wowsers want to already ban all alcohol advertising and sponsorship. Is the next step then to have plain packaging for alcohol? No brands for beer!

And then you have that lethal Coke substance. Will that be next for plain packaging?

As I said, I’m in favour of sensible measures which are effective in reducing smoking rates. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that plain packaging has a significant impact, and the precedent it creates may be one we regret.

Vernon Small reports at Stuff:

Rather than slam the Government over paid parental leave, he talked compromise. Labour would look at phasing it in or lowering the costs in “a sincere effort to move something forward”.

Consensus, he said, was his first instinct.

It is a style Mr Shearer is making his brand; a reasonable man talking in a measured tone that rejects the politics of charisma.

This is one reason I like Shearer. I do think he is a reasonable man.

To the political media present – and in a warning to Labour, only three reporters made the short hop from Wellington – it was about as dull as a leader’s speech can get.

With the Government on the ropes over issues from the pokies deal with SkyCity to Crafar farm sales and asset sales, the soft-shoe approach is not without its critics.

There is no crisis yet, but there has been some internal arm-wrestling.

Chief of staff Stuart Nash has quit after just a few months in the pivotal role, mostly for personal reasons – a new baby and the commute from Napier. But insiders say he was ill-suited and clashed with chief press secretary Fran Mold over strategy. She pushed for a (relatively) higher profile, arguing the Greens and NZ First leader Winston Peters would fill the vacuum if Mr Shearer left one.

Finding the right replacement for Mr Nash is crucial, especially with the key party secretary job expected to be vacant soon when Chris Flatt leaves.

There is no clear favourite for either job, although policy guru Jordan Carter is tipped as secretary, while the Wellington rumour mill favours Wellington lawyer Alastair Cameron as chief of staff.

Both are closer to deputy leader Grant Robertson than Mr Shearer.

And arguably also closer to Cunliife.

It is too early to say Shearer will be rolled, but it is obvious from reading around the left-wing blogs that there  is significant discontent amongst the activist base – especially in Auckland.

What is interesting is that the Auckland activists are trying to lump Robertson in with Shearer, so that if Shearer falls, Cunliffe will be able to win a leadership battle against Robertson.

Cunliffe has come back from his leadership loss revitalised and has been impressing many in Labour. I think Robertson would still beat Cunliffe in a contest, but the “Anyone but Cunliffe” faction has diminished in recent months.

If there is any change, I would expect it to occur either late 2012 or at the latest February 2013. If Shearer makes it past that, then I think it would be too late for a change.