Mike Noon from the AA writes in the Herald:

The AA is one of the leading road safety campaigners in New Zealand, we support the use of speed cameras and do not condone speeding. But let’s take a step back for a moment and consider what is the ultimate aim of the cameras? The answer is obviously getting drivers to slow down.

Fixed speed cameras (the ones mounted on permanent poles) are placed in safety black-spots where there has been a history of speed-related crashes. …

The fact that some of these cameras are still issuing thousands of tickets shows the current approach isn’t succeeding and that speeds are not being managed.

Having signs alerting drivers that there is a speed camera area or camera operating ahead will ensure more drivers slow down in these black-spots, and this has to be a good thing.

The other key point in this debate is that the AA is only calling for signs ahead of fixed speed cameras. We support the continued use of mobile cameras without signage, such as vans on the side of the road.

So if a driver chooses to slow down for a signposted fixed camera and then speed back up again, they can be caught by the anytime, anywhere mobile cameras, and of course they can be caught by police officers on patrol. Our call is not about helping drivers to avoid tickets, it’s about getting drivers to slow down and to check their speed, especially in high-risk areas.

Having signs alerting drivers to a fixed speed camera is done in Australia, Britain, and most other countries we compare ourselves to for road safety best practice.

I think the AA makes incredibly valid points, and the Police and Government should reconsider their policy. Otherwise the suspicion will remain that revenue is more important than safety.

A devastating critique of Julian Assange from Nick Cohen of the Guardian:

As soon as WikiLeaks received the State Department cables, Assange announced that the opponents of dictatorial regimes and movements were fair game. That the targets of the Taliban, for instance, were fighting a clerical-fascist force, which threatened every good liberal value, did not concern him. They had spoken to US diplomats. They had collaborated with the great Satan. Their safety was not his concern.

David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro’s, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths.

Ouch, and it gets worse.

James Ball joined and thought that in his own small way he was making the world a better place. He realised that WikiLeaks was not what it seemed when an associate of Assange – a stocky man with a greying moustache, who called himself “Adam” – asked if he could pull out everything the State Department documents “had on the Jews”. Ball discovered that “Adam” was Israel Shamir, a dangerous crank who uses six different names as he agitates among the antisemitic groups of the far right and far left. As well as signing up to the conspiracy theories of fascism, Shamir was happy to collaborate with Belarus‘s decayed Brezhnevian dictatorship. Leftwing tyranny, rightwing tyranny, as long as it was anti-western and anti-Israel, Shamir did not care.

Nor did Assange. He made Shamir WikiLeaks’s representative in Russia and eastern Europe. Shamir praised the Belarusian dictatorship. He compared the pro-democracy protesters beaten and imprisoned by the KGB to football hooligans. On 19 December 2010, the Belarus-Telegraf, a state newspaper, said that WikiLeaks had allowed the dictatorship to identify the “organisers, instigators and rioters, including foreign ones” who had protested against rigged elections.

Wikileaks did some great stuff in their early days, when they were the enemies of dictators. With Assange involved it is hard to see how they can recover.

In Ethiopia, however, Assange has already claimed his first scalp. Argaw Ashine fled the country last week after WikiLeaks revealed that the reporter had spoken to an official from the American embassy in Addis Ababa about the regime’s plans to intimidate the independent press. WikiLeaks also revealed that a government official told Arshine about the planned assault on opposition journalists. Thus Assange and his colleagues not only endangered the journalist. They tipped off the cops that he had a source in the state apparatus.

What fine work.

Chris Barton had a very good article in the NZ Herald detailing how we are still spending $233 million a year on public broadcasting. That is not a small amount, for a country of our size. The challenge is that costs do not scale much to size.

We spend:

• $82 million contestable NZ on Air funding (includes $15.1 million Platinum Fund)
• $58 million for Maori television (includes $25 million Te Mangai Paho contestable)
• $36 million for Radio New Zealand
• $18 million for TVNZ 6 and 7
• $11 million for Maori radio
• $9 million for other (Pacific transmission, archiving, digital, NZ On Screen, etc)
• $5 million for Freeview
• $5 million for New Zealand music
• $4 million for commercial and community radio
• $3 million for National Pacific Radio Trust
• $2 million for Parliament TV

I’d be very interested in true viewer numbers for each. The article cites monthly and weekly cumulative audiences for some channels and programmes, but that means if you watch 10 minutes of a channel once a month, you get included. What I want is the average number of viewers or listeners during a show.

In my “By the numbers” blog at Stuff, I ask the question “When will the tide turn?”. Most people expect National to drop in the polls between now and the election, but the question is when? In 2008, National stated to drop in mid July, while in 2011 it is mid September and it has yet to begin, if it does occur.

Maxim have a handy wee paper by Steve Thomas on the five electoral systems on offer in the upcoming referendum. They don’t say which one is their preference. It’s a good guide to the pros and cons of the various systems, so I’ve embedded it below.

Their summary of the five systems are:

MMP

MMP provides well for electorate representation and the representation of interests, and can provide for reasonably stable government.21 The strength of MMP is the flip-side of its drawbacks. It enables more parties to be elected to parliament, which is great for the breadth of representation, but it also gives parties a lot of power. It can also create bargaining instead of debate among parties, and a weakened accountability of the government to voters. It can also encourage interest groups to act in unhelpful ways.

FPP

FPP is simple to understand and it usually produces clear results. FPP delivers strong, stable, single party majority government most of the time, and there is usually no confusion about which party can form a government. It is easy for voters to dump a government and elect a new one since parties generally do not negotiate together to form a government.20 But, as New Zealand’s experience indicates, instances of highly disproportionate election results weakened the legitimacy of electoral outcomes and the Cabinet’s tight control over legislation and parliament weakened the public’s trust in government.21 It can also be difficult for minorities to be represented, either because safe seats make it difficult to dislodge a popular candidate or because it is difficult for minority candidates to win enough concentrated support in one electorate.

PV

PV provides for strong electorate representation, through the election of local MPs, which usually leads to the election of single-party majority governments. That said, PV gives minor party candidates a fighting chance of winning a seat when second and subsequent preferences are used to help elect a candidate. However, it is still harder for minority candidates and parties to be represented in parliament under PV because it is not a proportional system. Further, PV can sometimes produce electoral outcomes that might not be considered entirely legitimate if the most popular candidate on first preferences does not win—although this point is debatable. While PV would enable voters to more clearly express their preferences for certain candidates it could also introduce some new ways for parties and candidates to engineer electoral outcomes, as parties would advise supportive voters how to vote to give them the best advantage.

STV

STV is an attractive system in principle since it enables voters to indicate exactly which candidates they would like in multi-member electorates. STV enables voters to choose both between and within parties, meaning that parliament ought to reflect a wider diversity of opinions within society.22 The use of multi-member electorates also means that electoral outcomes will be more proportional.

The theoretical advantages of STV have to be weighed carefully against the practical issues with using it and the way voters tend to interact with this relatively complex system. For example, it could undermine the cohesiveness of political parties as candidates from the same party would compete against each other for election. The option of voting above-the-line can also give parties more control over which candidates are elected and in which order. In this case, many voters would not actually end up individually choosing their local MPs. In short, the advantages offered by STV could be eroded by measures to make it easier for voters to understand and use.

SM

In trying to blend two styles of voting system, SM has some of the benefits and some of the drawbacks of both. It is neither a completely proportional system, nor does it guarantee that one party will win a large enough majority to be able to govern alone.

In terms of representation, SM has the potential to achieve a good balance between national and local representation of interests. Electorate representation would be strong, creating good ties between parliament and voters, but a quarter of parliament would also be made up of list MPs who tend to be able to represent minority interest groups well.

Because there would be more electorate MPs under SM than under MMP the major parties would benefit, but there is also a chance coalitions would be needed to form a government and that minor parties would have more representation than they typically do under single-member electorate systems, like FPP.

The document is below.

EMBARGOED Kicking the Tyres

Key Points:

* National at record high, expected to govern alone
* Dr Pita Sharples now predicting to re-take Tamaki-Makaurau
* Trevor Mallard expected to increase majority in Hutt South while Clare Curran’s majority in Dunedin South expected to fall
* Inflation, current account deficit, unemployment, OCR and future Fonterra payout forecasts all down this week

Commentary:

Following last week’s World Cup wobble, John Key’s National Government has recovered with its forecast party vote reaching a record reported high of 49.0%, this week’s snapshot from New Zealand’s prediction market, iPredict, suggests. Maori Party Co-Leader Dr Pita Sharples is now expected to retain Tamaki-Makaurau, although the gap with Labour’s Shane Jones remains narrow. Labour’s Trevor Mallard is expected to improve his majority in Hutt South while Labour’s Clare Curran is expected to reduce hers in Dunedin South. In economics, forecasts for inflation, the current account deficit, unemployment, the OCR and future Fonterra payouts have all fallen.

Continue reading »

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

ETS—ENVIRONMENTAL TRADING SLOW-DOWN?: The new Caygill review of the ETS puts agriculture equal to other industries but will the Government be letting farmers off the hook? The review panel says we should stay on track to bring agriculture into the ETS scheme by 2015 but Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said that farmers would only be included if there were “practical technologies…available to enable farmers to reduce their emissions,” and if other countries reduced their emissions, too. So what does this mean for our ETS? Does Nick Smith have a point? Is it fair to omit those responsible for nearly half of our emissions? Does tiny New Zealand need to be leading the world on bringing farmers into the ETS if the trading partners won’t follow suit? Is not putting farmers in the ETS–just another form of a Government handout?

HAVING IT ALL? This week we mark Woman’s suffrage. It’s been 118 years since women secured the right to vote but are they any better off? Can women have it all? Pay equality? Jobs and families? Or does suffrage also mean sacrifice? Does the Government need to do more to close the gap between men & women?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 21st of September. Our Panel: Green Party MP Keith Locke, Labour MP Annette King and National MP John Hayes.

Craig Sisterton at NZ Lawyer writes:

Now, a recent Canadian judgment has ignited discussion about how the law of defamation applies, or not, to such blogging debates, and whether ‘anything goes’ in the blogosphere. Baglow v Smith, 2011 ONSC 5131 was a summary judgment decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dismissing an action in defamation involving political bloggers on the Internet.

The plaintiff, a left-wing blogger known by the moniker Dr Dawg (a retired bureaucrat and former executive with the Public Service Alliance of Canada), claimed that the defendants defamed him by making statements that exceeded the boundaries of their normally acrimonious political debate on the Internet. He complained that the defendants, a right-wing blogger and the owners and operators of the right-wing FreeDominion message board, defamed him by branding him “one of the Taliban’s most vocal supporters” on the message board. The words referred back to an ongoing discussion, on the plaintiff’s own blog and other websites, where the parties had vigorously debated the validity of the detention for seven years in Guantanamo Bay and subsequent military trial of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who was captured by American forces as a 15 year old during the ‘War on Terror’.

The Court noted that the parties had aggressively berated each other, and often employed colourful derogatory language about the other and their beliefs. Although the plaintiff had the opportunity to respond to the ‘Taliban supporter’ comment, he chose not to do so, other than by way of a different online persona, Ms Mew, commenting that the defendants had crossed the line and that it would serve them right if Dr Dawg sued. The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action on the basis that the statements were not defamatory or, alternatively, that the defence of fair comment applied.

Judge Annis held that the comment was not defamatory, and said his conclusion was bolstered by the location of the debate, “namely that the alleged defamatory words were made in the context of an ongoing blogging thread over the Internet” (at [58]).

“Internet blogging is a form of public conversation,” said the Judge at [59]. “By the back and forth character it provides an opportunity for each party to respond to disparaging comments before the same audience in an immediate or a relatively contemporaneous time frame.” Blogging is distinguishable from other forms of publication of defamatory statements, and is more akin to live debate, he added at [60]-[61]. Such a context should be “considered as a contextual factor” when determining whether a statement is defamatory

I blogged on this case previously. It may turn out to be a significant one in future.

Judge Annis noted, at [85], that there was “nothing in the blogging threads which would suggest that there was any personal or inherent express malice on the part of the defendants directed at the plaintiff, as opposed to the mutual contempt of the parties for each other’s opinions and actions as evidenced by their postings”.

So, does this decision mean that it might be ‘game on’ for bloggers and commenters when it comes to slagging off those with a differing political opinion?

I don’t think it is game on, but generally you don’t want people running to the courts over a flame war. Hell I could have sued a number of blogs for defamation over comments they have made about me – especially those seeking to attack my business. But at the end of the day most of those making the defamatory comments have so little credibility it is hard to imagine it being worthwhile.

In a practical sense, says Price, we should bear in mind that bloggers defame each other (and other people) all the time and very rarely sue over it. So the judgment’s practical effect “may not be terribly great”, even if it was adopted here in New Zealand. However, the case is “a marker laid down” showing that the Courts are prepared to consider whether there is something distinct about speech on the Internet, at least in the context of political threads. “It revolves around the idea that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech rather than legal liability,” says Price. “It can be seen as reflecting the importance of political speech. It incentivises rights of reply. It recognises that defamation suits seem a disproportionate response to online bun fights. I suspect that these ideas will continue to affect the development of the law, though I suspect that the solution in this case (‘it’s not defamatory’) is not the best way to address them. Better would be a form of qualified privilege for people participating in such debates in good faith.”

There’s some comments from me, as well as those from Steven Price.

Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Labour would actively “intervene” to kick-start the Christchurch recovery, including entering the land development and insurance markets if it felt that was necessary, leader Phil Goff says.

Mr Goff this morning launched his party’s quake recovery policy package.

“The next Labour Government will intervene to give Cantabrians affordable choices to help rebuild their homes, businesses and lives after the devastating earthquakes”, he said at the launch in quake stricken Kaiapoi just north of Christchurch.

“These are extraordinary times for Canterbury and the Government must respond accordingly. Business as usual won’t cut it.”

Mr Goff said the government needed to take a more active role in the rebuild.

Goodness, you would think the Government had done nothing, rather than actually commit billions of dollars from taxpayers towards rebuilding Christchurch.

Ring-fence a maximum of $100 million from the Canterbury Earthquake Fund to ensure home improvements to houses in the Red Zone are reimbursed up to a maximum of $50,000

As someone said on Twitter, this is a repeat of their 1957 policy of “Do you want 100 pounds or not”? I’m surprised Labour haven’t made the same offer to everyone in New Zealand who has sold a house for less than they think it is worth.

The Department of Labour has published a report they commissioned on the impact of the decision by Parliament in 2008 to replace the youth minimum wage (set at 80% of adult minimum wage) for 16 and 17 year olds with a new entrants minimum wage that lasts for 200 hours only (5 weeks full-time).

They found:

This research found that this minimum wage increase accounted for approximately 20–40 percent of the fall in the proportion of 16 and 17 year olds in employment by 2010. Overall, this implies that the introduction of the NE minimum led to a loss of 4,500- 9,000 jobs for 16 and 17 year olds (employment of 16 and 17 year olds fell from 61,400 to 39,500 between 2007 and 2010).

I want readers to quote that figure to both Labour and National MPs and candidates if they ever talk about wanting more young people in jobs. Tell them you don’t want platitudes but will they reverse a decision that put up to 9.000 young people out of jobs.

The change did not just affect 16 and 17 year olds though. It also led to some people working fewer hours and earning less money than before the change.

The research also found that, relative to 20 and 21 year-olds, average hours worked by 16 and 17, and 18 and 19 year olds fell after 2008, as did their earnings and total incomes.

This study is based on the 100,000+ pieces of data collected in the Household Labour Force Survey over the last few years, so it is not just a “view point”, but a rigorous study based on extensive research.

I hope National has the guts to do the right thing, even if not the popular thing, and announce they will at a minimum reintroduce a youth minimum wage. They could even grandfather current rates in, so leave the current youth rate at $13/hr until it hits the floor of 80% of the adult rate which would take several years to occur, being $16.25 an hour.

Or they could be really ballsy and just announce that the minimum wage in future only applies to those aged 18 and older rather than 16 and older.

Elizabeth Binning in the Herald reports:

Schools are being accused of going too far in what they teach children about sex.

Children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts as long as “she’s okay with it”.

In other cases, 14-year-old girls are being taught how to put condoms on plastic penises, and one female teacher imitated the noises she made during orgasm to her class of 15-year-olds.

Well hopefully it was just an imitation.

One concerned father, who did not want to be identified, phoned Newstalk ZB to say he had taken his 12-year-old son out of a sex education class at his all-boy school after he came home upset about what had happened during one of the lessons.

It included a question-and-answer session that focused on, “I have learned that my girlfriend has a thing called a clitoris. I really want to play with it. Is that okay?” The answer was: “Yes, if you ask her and she’s okay with it.”

Goodness. The most we did as 12 year olds was play spin the bottle.

I wonder if the teachers giving the sex advice, also tell 12 year old girls that their boyfriends have penises and that if they want to play with them, it’s okay so long as you ask them first?

Mind you, I learnt the hard was some time ago never to under-estimate how much kids know. When I was a youth group leader (in my 20s) two ten year olds were talking openly about how one of them was going to get his girlfriend to give him a blowjob that weekend. I told them off of course for the inappropriate conversation but made the mistake of saying he shouldn’t use a term he doesn’t fully understand just to shock people. Before I could finish, the 10 year old had rushed out a very good technical description of oral sex and all the female leaders laughing at me as blushing I explained that yes I knew what it was also. Since then I have never assumed that kids don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to matters sexual.

On the main topic, I would hope that any sex education would discourage kids from touching each other’s clitorises and penises until they are 16, even if they do ask for permission. Sure many won’t wait, but it would be useful to point out to them that they may be breaking the law if they do not wait until 16.

An interesting press release from Joseph Bergin:

A member of the youth panel set up by Auckland Council is speaking out about wasteful spending and the concerning direction the panel is heading in.

This comes as a report is due out from the Auckland Council today which recommends local boards adopt a “youth board model” that could cost the Auckland ratepayer upwards of $330,000, this on top of a further $90,000 revealed to have been wasted by the current panel earlier this week.

I am a fan of youth involvement in politics, and I think it is a good idea that the Auckland Council has a youth panel.

However recommending that each local board also has a youth panel at a cost of $330,000 is tokenism gone wrong. The issues for young people will not differ that greatly from board area to board area.

The panel came under fire this week on social media following the release of an Official Information request by the New Zealand Young Nationals revealing that almost $90,000.00 was being spent by the current Foundation Youth Advisory Panel, on taxi rides, phone top ups, petrol reimbursements, flights and food for panel members.

I think the youth board would be best advised to provide some useful outputs for its funding, rather than just trying to clone itself 20 times over.

An interesting article in Business Insider on whether Palin may leave the Republicans and run as an Independent:

Palin has stated that she will (finally!) announce whether or not she’s going to jump into the Republican primary race by the end of this month.

Expectations were high that she might just announce her intentions a week ago, at an appearance at a Tea Party event in Iowa. Once again, Palin declined to do so.

Palin’s got three options, in essence. Number one, throw her hat in the ring and vie for the Republican presidential nomination against the field.

Number two, announce it’s been a big tease all along, and she won’t be running — and, likely, that she’s going to hold off endorsing any candidate “for now,” in a naked effort to keep her teasing of the media going strong for months to come.

But there is a third option she might opt for, which seems (upon examination) to have a lot of potential upsides for Palin, and relatively few downsides: running as a third-party candidate.

Running as an Independent would seem — to most political commentators and Washington establishmentarians — as a huge mistake for Palin. This is yet another upside, seen from the point of view of Palin herself. She can’t standthe pundits and the insiders, remember. She isn’t afraid of bluntly letting them know this, either. Confounding these two inside-the-Beltway groups would be a source of continuing delight for Palin. She would revel in the opportunity to play the cat among the pigeons, once again. Defyin’ the lamestream media, and defyin’ the Washington bigwigs would be lotsa fun, oh, you betcha!

Matthew Backhouse in the Herald reported:

Families of suicide victims have urged Prime Minister John Key to consider a review of the “abusive” coronial inquest system.

The meeting comes after a spate of youth suicides have rocked communities in Masterton and the small Bay of Plenty logging town of Kawerau in recent months.

Suicide prevention group Casper, and victims’ families and supporters from Kawerau, yesterday presented Mr Key with its latest strategy on tackling suicide. It calls for shifting suicide prevention efforts from mental health clinics to families and communities.

Casper spokeswoman Maria Bradshaw said the group asked Mr Key to conduct a review of the coroner’s court, which is tasked with identifying lessons to be learned from individual suicides and making recommendations to prevent further deaths. …

The group called on Mr Key to consider a Royal Commission of Inquiry into suicide, which he said he would consider.

Mr Key has already indicated his commitment to tackling the issue, having instructed his department to launch a review of the youth suicide rate, which is the highest per-capita in the developed world for girls and the third highest for boys.

I recall the first time a teenage friend of mine killed themselves. I still think of her quite often, and think about what could have been done to prevent her suicide.

But there is no one view on how best to change things, even amongst families of those who killed themselves. A different view to that of Ms Bradshaw and Casper can be found at the Vendetta on Suicide blog, specifically this post:

Steve Hopkins at Stuff reports:

The leader of the Conservative Party, Colin Craig, has confirmed he will stand as the Rodney electorate candidate.

The announcement today ends speculation he would stand against John Banks in Auckland’s Epsom.

Craig says he was attracted to the challenge of taking on Banks, his former mayoral campaign rival, but he’s ”followed his heart by standing for the people” of Rodney.

”I’ve lived in Rodney and my business involvement here has spanned more than 20 years. Many of my family live here and I’m passionate about getting things moving for everyone in the region,” he says.

Craig’s father Ross Craig was a Rodney district councillor until the Auckland super city council was formed last year.

This is a much more sensible decision, than standing in Epsom would have been. Standing in Epsom would only have benefited Labour.

Craig appears to be seeking the same sort of voters as NZ First – socially conservative, and economically centrist. If NZ First does not make it back in, then in 2014 Craig has the possibility of picking up many of his voters. In 2011, it will be harder.

The Conservative Party claims polling in the area shows Craig is ahead of his nearest rival.

Meanwhile, further polling by the party claims to show Banks is struggling to win over Epsom voters.

Of those who had decided who they were likely to vote for as an electoral candidate in Epsom, 35.3 per cent say they would vote for the National candidate, 31.4 per cent would tick Banks, and 27.4 per cent say they would give their vote Craig if he was on the ballot paper.

So the Conservative Party claims it is ahead in Rodney? I’d love to see the name of the polling company they use for these polls, and what he exact questions were.

UPDATE: Act on Campus point out Craig was polling against the retiring MP, not the actual National candidate. He must literally have money to waste.

Personally I’m even more doubtful of a poll that says Craig would beat Lockwood if he was standing again.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reported:

It is a brave woman who takes on a government alone.

But with her professional reputation in tatters and a successful communications career hanging by a thread, Erin Leigh felt she had few options left.

It also takes a rich woman to challenge the establishment and, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling in her favour, Ms Leigh has had to abandon her defamation suit against the Environment Ministry and former deputy secretary Lindsay Gow. …

Ms Leigh has been caught up in the Christchurch earthquakes and felt financially unable to carry on the legal battle.

While happy with the result, she regretted not being able to carry on her own fight.

We should all remember the Leigh case in future, in case Labour tries to position itself as a champion of whistle-blowers.

Ms Leigh says his claims of her incompetence were completely untrue. She also laughs at accusations of being a National lackey.

“I’d always been a Labour Party voter. The first MP that I voted for was actually Trevor Mallard.

“It was beyond my imagination at that point that they would actually make up a whole lot of stuff that wasn’t true.”

That was the culture of the times. If you spoke out, you were dealt to.

I was interviewed as the first guest pundit yesterday for the Slightly Correct Political Show hosted by Jeremy Elwood and Pat Brittenden. You can listen to the podcast at their Facebook page, plus I think it will be on Pat’s ZB show.

Anthony Hubbard in the SST writes:

Many people think women have taken their full place in our national politics. In fact, the number of women MPs has plateaued at a bit over 33%. Every second Kiwi is female, but only every third MP. This is the persistent pattern, despite the blip that brought four women to the top for a short while last decade. It won’t do.

MMP has helped. In 1993, the last election under the old first-past-the-post system, one in five MPs were women. The figure shot up to 29% at the first MMP election, but in the four since then it has sort of stuck. Is this as good as it gets?

Hubbard looks at the National party list and includes some comments from me.

Some say the problem runs deeper: that women are more reluctant to stand for office. National Party presidents have grizzled for decades that the party wants more women candidates but that women won’t put themselves forward.

There are plenty of possible reasons. One is that women candidates still get a lot of flak that men candidates don’t. People want to know how women MPs will care for their children, but not male MPs. Women MPs have their looks, dress sense and sexuality discussed more commonly than men.

I think this is sadly, true. It is very tough for female candidates.

It’s possible that women are less likely to want to be MPs, and not just because of the sexism they face. Perhaps the whole lunatic life of the politician is less likely to appeal to them. Perhaps fewer women have that particular kind of ambition. If this is true, why? There are a library of PhDs waiting here to be written, and a lot more hard thinking needs to be done by the parties.

Research I would like to see done, would look at the barriers in stages:

1. How many men and women indicate their interest in being candidates to a party
2. How many go on to contest a selection
3. How many win a selection
4. How many then get elected to Parliament

My gut reaction is that once women get to be candidates, they get elected in the same proportion as men. The challenges are now around the selection stage.

Michael Field in the SST reports:

National party president Peter Goodfellow denies there is a conflict of interest between his investment in the fishing industry and the ministerial inquiry into allegations of slavery at sea.

The University of Auckland Business School and the Sunday Star-Times have both uncovered stories of around 2000 Asian men working in slave-like conditions on foreign charter vessels (FCV)s.

The revelations have prompted the inquiry into the pay and conditions on board these boats.

It can now be revealed that Goodfellow has a substantial interest in the fishing company Sanford, which last year held 23.54% of the allowable catch under the Quota Management System. The company uses four Korean FCVs and five of its own boats.

In its latest report Sanford said it would “work with officials to counter the ill-informed and politically motivated demonising” of FCVs.

Goodfellow and his brother William are on the Sanford board, each receiving an annual fee of $47,500, and 37% of Sanford stock is held by Amalgamated Dairies Ltd, a Goodfellow family-controlled company.

Goodfellow, in his own name, owns Sanford stock worth, on Friday values, $623,000.

The latest issue of Professional Skipper magazine said the ministerial inquiry should not amount to a “quick sweep under the table” and the magazine called for Goodfellow to “now step aside [as National Party president] and distance himself because of a potential conflict of interest”.

What nonsense. We have so many idiots who do not know what is and is not a conflict of interest. If Peter had been lobbying Ministers not to undertake an inquiry then you might have a conflict. If Peter had been appointed the the inquiry board, then there might be a conflict.

But being a director of a firm, which might be impacted by a ministerial inquiry is not a conflict.

One former party president was a lawyer. Does that mean the Government couldn’t make any changes in the justice sector?

Was walking around Christchurch this morning and passed a sidewalk cafe. Just as I walked past I heard one woman saying to another “so was it 15 to 9” and I said “15 to 6” as I passed them, knowing that there was only one possible game they could have been discussing.

Today

• Wales v Samoa – 3.30 pm. Hoping Samoa do an upset.
• England v Georgia 6.00 pm. All behind Georgia.
• France vs Canada 8.30 pm. Can Canada do it again?

No games tomorrow but there is one on Tuesday.

David Fisher at the HoS reports:

Grey Power is studying a proposal to take the pension away from retired people who earn more than $80,000 a year.

Studying is probably a euphemism for ritually burning.

The proposal, leaked to the Herald on Sunday, was written by Grey Power’s Coromandel representative, Mac Welch, and distributed by the organisation’s president, Roy Reid.

Welch described national superannuation as “unaffordable” and said the Government was “under pressure”.

He wrote of hearing Grey Power members referred to as “old greedies” and it was time to consider means testing.

He said he wanted to start discussion around a $40,000 income trigger for reducing pension payments and completely cutting the payment at $80,000.

Earnings of $80,000 a year work out at $1180 a week. Welch’s proposal would mean someone on that money would no longer be able to collect the $340 a week pension payment as well.

I believe all welfare benefits, including super, should be both income and asset tested.

Has the Herald on Sunday sacked all their staff and now just sit there reading social media? Probably too harsh a call, but look at just today’s stories:

• The Raybon Kan story – based on a tweet by him
• The Labour wife story – based on her blog
• A “glass of wine” story – based on a tweet by Cameron Brewer
• A “English rugby” story – based on a tweet by Rachel Smalley

I’m all for reporting on news-worthy stuff found in social media, but there is a balance.