I’m perplexed why the Auckland Regional Council would want to preserve a shed which only a few months ago its chair, Mike Lee, described as “old, cheap and nasty”.

People often think old means heritage and worth preserving. Very different things. Not all old buildings have heritage value. A cheap and nasty shed is not an historic building – it’s just an old shed.

God knows what the Government will do to get itself out of this cluster fuck. I bet they wish the new Auckland Council has been created a few years ago – at least that would save them from having totally contradictory stances from the Auckland Regional and City Councils.

There is now some talk of party central being at the Viaduct Events Centre. It’s not a bad idea, but time is running out to do proper due diligence on any proposals.

At the end of the day it won’t be the end of the world if there is no party central. Having such a venue will be a bonus for Aucklanders, but rugby fans will make their own fun, where ever they end up – at the game, at homes, in bars etc.

On Wednesday I did a tour of the historic Speights Brewery in Dunedin, as part of the Science Festival.

It takes around 90 minutes, which includes a very pleasant tasting session at the end.

It starts with a good display of Cooperage, which are the barrels that the beer was storied and transported in up until the 1950s. Except they are casks not all barrels. A barrel is 36 gallons of beer. You also had firkins (9G), kilderkins (18G), hogsheads (54G) and butts (162G). These terms have been used since 1854.

Saw some ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics warning people of the ill effects of drinking too much alcohol. Yes they even had Law Commissions 3,000 years ago 🙂

I learnt where the saying to “scull” your beer comes from – the Vikings who used to literally drink beer from the skulls of their enemies.

The tour is a good mix of the history of beer, the history of Speights and a look at how the beer is brewed today. We got to taste the actual barleys used in making the beer (think burnt toast).

At the end of the tour we tried the six types of beer they had on tap – the Pilsener proving the most popular.

The tour guide was very engaging, and it was interesting to learn about the history of the brewery, the three founders of Speights etc. Highly recommended tour for beer lovers if you are in Dunedin, and a good opportunity to learn a bit about the science of beer making.

The Dom Post reported yesterday:

A man who secretly filmed himself having sex with a woman used the recording to clear himself of rape suspicions.

Then police prosecuted him for making the film.

Haimona Kenneth Gardiner, 25, was charged with intentionally making an intimate visual recording of another person on May 21, court documents show. He works as a private secretary in Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia’s ministerial office at Parliament.

Although the maximum penalty for the offence is three years in jail, he completed diversion and the charge was withdrawn in Wellington District Court last month.

It is understood police began an investigation after a member of the public found a woman wandering along The Terrace one morning in May.

The woman, aged in her 40s, claims to have little memory of the night before but officers traced her back to Gardiner’s nearby home.

It is understood he argued they had met at a central Wellington bar the night before and the sex had been consensual – and as proof he handed over the recording.

Police viewed the tape and, on the basis of that evidence, decided against laying more serious charges.

I’ve had conflicting thoughts on this story. In rough order of occurrence they were:

1. Thank God he had taped the encounter, otherwise he might be facing an eight year sentence for rape.
2. Oh yuck what sort of person secretly tapes sex sessions, without consent from the partner.
3. Is taping sex sessions a good idea, to protect you from false rape allegations?
4. Possibly, but you should get consent regardless from the other party.
5. The Police probably got it about right, by charging him but agreeing to diversion.
6. Does Haimoana routinely pick up strangers in bars, have sex with them, and secretly film them?
7. If so why, if not why so on this occasion?
8. Should the act of secret filming be the offence, or should it be the act of using the secret film for a bad purpose? Is there a difference between making a secret film to defend yourself from a false rape allegation and making a secret film to humiliate the other party or blackmail them etc?
9. Nope, the act should be the offence. There is never a valid reason to film sex without consent from all parties.
10. But wait, what if you are being raped by someone in a position of authority over you. Is filming them to prove they are a rapist then okay?
11. Yeah I’d say so.
12. But not okay to film someone to prove you are not a rapist.
13. Hmmn it does get complicated, but at the end still not okay as in the other scenario you are filming an actual crime, rather than a potential defence which is highly unlikely to ever be needed.

Congrats to Victoria University Debating Society who won last night the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Champs. As I blogged previously, they have been going on at Auckland over the past week with around 100 teams from all over Asia, NZ and Australia.

NZ had five teams make the octo-finals – the most in at least twenty years. Three NZ teams went onto make the semifinals, knocking out universities like Monash and Sydney who are the traditional heavyweights.

Victoria One faced Victoria Two in the semi-finals ensuring at least one Vic team would be in the final. Vic One emerged victorious. This reminded me of sporting contests in Dunedin when often the two leading teams would be Otago Uni A and Otago Uni B!

Auckland 2 defeated Melbourne I in the other semi ensuring a very rare all-NZ final!

Vic One affirmed ‘That the ICC should be able to prosecute for crimes against the earth’. They beat Auckland in  an 8-1 decision.

It is the first time NZ has won Australs since 1998 (when Vic won). It is Vic’s fourth Australs victory since 1975.

It is particularly great for Vic because they have reached the final in two of the last three years – losing closely each time (6-3 in 2007 and 5-4 in 2009).

The Vic One team is Udayan Mukherjee, Stephen Whittington, Ella Edginton.

Stephen was also the best speaker in the Grand Final and the second best speaker of the tournament (out of 300).  It is his third Australs Grand Final appearance, believed to be a record. Well done Stephen.

A couple of hard ones. Quiz here. 35 seconds – thinking is cheating 🙂

Richard Long writes:

Sir Paul Reeves, our new campaigner for tougher drinking laws, should have learnt a lesson from the ill-fated Citizens for Rowling campaign. Sir Paul was a leading member of that gathering of the great and the good who coalesced in 1975 with the aim of trying to keep Labour prime minister Bill Rowling in office by blocking the rabble-rousing National Party leader Rob Muldoon.

Mr Muldoon was indicating the combative style he would bring to Kiwi politics when he said of Rowling on the hustings: ”I can see the cold shivers moving around his body looking for a spine to run up.”

As for Labour’s Maori affairs minister, Matt Rata, Mr Muldoon declared: ”The five happiest years of Mr Rata’s life were those he spent in standard two.”

Heh.

But in spite of such raw provocations from Mr Muldoon, the Citizens for Rowling group sank in the mire of Kiwi egalitarianism.

Even though the list included such national heroes as Everest conqueror Sir Edmund Hillary, the overall view was that a bunch of elitists were presuming to tell average Kiwis how to vote.

Citizens for Rowling ended up probably doing more harm than good to Labour’s cause. As Mr Muldoon said at the time: ”The average chap doesn’t want to be told how to vote.”

I agree it did backfire. Likewise the efforts to have an Australian Republic backfired because it was seen as the elite telling the commoners what to do.

Now Sir Paul has been named as a leading member of another 15-strong group presuming to tell us what is good for us – or more precisely what is bad for us – in terms of laws governing the demon drink.

The eminent persons group is an eclectic mix, ranging from churchmen to Maori and Pacific Island spokesmen to sports stars, including the wonderful Evers-Swindell twins.

They back higher alcohol prices, reduced outlets, more restrictions on advertising, tougher drink driving limits, and an increase in the purchase age from 18 to 20 – in effect the prescription written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Law Commission.

And yes, you do recall correctly: Sir Geoffrey was also a member of Citizens for Rowling.

Maybe it should be called “The Wowsers Strike Back”

Some of the most tragic cases of liquor-induced deaths have been among under 18-year-olds. They were able to obtain and misuse hard liquor in spite of the legal purchase age. In some cases accompanying friends did nothing while they drank themselves to death.

We have heard heart-tugging pleas from relatives seeking action as a result of these tragedies, but penalising the entire community with higher prices and other restrictions will not relieve the underage drinking problem.

At some stage it has to be acknowledged that there are parental responsibilities in this as well as community responsibilities.

There are problems with alcohol abuse in NZ. Response to that problem should seek to target those who cause harm when drinking, not the entire population.

The Dom Post reports:

Anti-whaling activists appear to have struck a deal with Japanese officials allowing Pete Bethune to walk free – in return for banning him from future expeditions.

Bethune, 45, who has been in Japanese custody since February after boarding a Japanese whaling ship, was given a two-year suspended sentence in a Tokyo court yesterday. …

In June, he was banned from future Sea Shepherd Conservation Society expeditions to the Southern Ocean.

The group’s chief executive, Chuck Swift, said at the time that the ban was because Bethune broke Sea Shepherd policy by taking a bow and arrows on to the protest boat Ady Gil, which sank in January after colliding with the Japanese fleet.

However, there are now suggestions that the ban was Sea Shepherd’s part of a bargain that saw Bethune walk free.

Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson said last night that the organisation knew what the sentence was several days ago, “because we’d already arranged for Pete Bethune’s air ticket”. He was relieved at the sentence and said the ban on Bethune joining Sea Shepherd’s campaigns was because of “a deal” with the Japanese.

He did not elaborate on the terms of the deal and Sea Shepherd would not confirm last night whether the ban was in return for a suspended sentence.

The outcome is a good one. Having Bethune in a prison would have just made him a martyr. Pleased to see the Japanese Government was pragmatic.

I am not surprised there was a deal. I never thought it likely that Sea Shepherd banned Bethune from future expeditions because he was too violent, considering their long long history of violence.

My first festival event was When Yes Means No, or how females control male reproductive success, with a presentation by Professor Neil Gemmell of the Centre for Reproduction and Genomics. It was out at Invermay in Mosgiel.

He talked about the costs of sexualmating such as the time and energy and how competition hinders finding a suitable mate, plus risk of disease, and risk of homozygosity of dangerous recessive genes.

Almost enough to put you off sexual mating, except for the benefits of which are genetic recombination helps create variety, and sexual reproduction produces gene combinations better able to cope with parasites and predators. So overall seems a better deal than asexual reproduction (no that isn’t what you do in hotel rooms with adult movies).

Females in most species invest more in offspring due to eggs, gestation, lactation and infant care. This means that women’s sucess tends to be dependent on resources for offspring and their prospects are not enhanced by mating with multiple males.

However males (not just humans) increase their success by mating with multiple partners.

Females tend to value heterozygosity in their offspring and under some conditions in their males also. They are more attracted to mates who have different genetics.

One study has shown that symmetry in faces is important for short-term mating when females are fertile. Also females prefer more masculine faces when they have a partner and they are fertile.

Being on the pill affects woman significantly. For example pill users more affected by dis-similar odour.

Another study has shown that human couples share fewer MHC genes than expected by chance – there are higher miscarriage when similar. Also those with similar genes are more likely to be unfaithful. So you might ant to DNA test your partner.

One amusing throw-away line was about how ducks are basically rapists – and you should shoot them.

The female’s body favour certain types of sperm and bias in their favour. They will reject sperm of sub-dominant male but retain high status male.

Back to the pill, and how use of the pill can disrupt the mate preferences such as odour and symmetry but also attractiveness to men, so disadvantaged compared to women not on pill. This means that if you are on the pill, not only will you find fewer men attractive, but fewer men will find you attractive.

This was confirmed by a study of lapdancer tip earnings based on ovulatory cycle – the results were significant when fertile – $350 vs $200 earnings for those on the pill vs those not on the pill.

Was a fascinating lecture with some good q+a afterwards. The person next to me at the lecture is engaged, so I told her she should go DNA check her partner before the wedding, to see how likely he is to cheat 🙂

The Herald headline is:

Ex-National MPs deluging Citizens & Ratepayers card

I think the sub-editor is getting a bit excited here, as the deluge is in fact just two ex MPs, and as one is an ex Mayor also, that is the more relevant I would say.

Former National MPs are filling the ranks of the Citizens & Ratepayers ticket with the announcement that Marie Hasler will contest the Waitakere ward for the Super City.

The former Waitakere MP and Cabinet minister joins former National Cabinet minister and Auckland City Mayor Christine Fletcher seeking a position for C&R on the Auckland Council.

But the real focus is on Mr Brewer:

Meanwhile, speculation is growing about Newmarket Business Association chief executive and National Party member Cameron Brewer.

The Herald understands Mr Brewer has been approached about standing for C&R in the Waitemata and Gulf ward for the Auckland Council if Auckland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett does not contest the seat.

Mr Barnett was selected as the C&R candidate but withdrew in May after being diagnosed with throat cancer.

Yesterday, he said he was halfway through treatment and his position had not changed.

The Herald understands Mr Brewer, 37, is also considering going head-to-head with C&R’s Doug Armstrong in the blue-ribbon Orakei seat to provide a young and energetic alternative to the 67-year-old retired engineer.

He is polling to assess his name recognition and see if he could get elected as an independent councillor.

It will be very interesting to see what Cameron does.

Like many, I watched the documentary on the Bain case last night, which took a view that it was impossible for Robin Bain to have killed his family and himself.

For those who have followed the case closely, little in the documentary was of surprise. I have always thought it incredibly improbable that Robin Bain did it.

Murder trials are not about balance of probabilities, but about beyond reasonable doubt. If the Bain compensation case goes ahead, then we will hear from an investigating QC whom, on balance of probabilities, was the killer.

The documentary had new evidence about whether someone who claimed to sell Robin Bain a photocopier, actually did so. I didn’t regard this as being a huge issue, and the Herald story has further on this.

The forensic evidence, especially the lack of blood on Robin, is what I consider the most persuasive.

As I said, the report from an investigating QC may prove to be the final word on this case, which has always had some people arguing that Robin was or was not the killer.

I’m in Dunedin for the next couple of days, attending the New Zealand International Science Festival. I’ve got little spare time between events, so there will probably be fewer posts during the day.

A reader sent this into me. The culprit was a South Island National MP.

The Dom Post reports:

A binge-drinker who started drinking when he was four is an example of why New Zealand’s drinking culture needs attention, a district court judge says. …

Hakaraia, who was an alcohol and drug addict by the age of 12, was an example of why Parliament was trying to tackle the youth binge-drinking culture, Judge Oke Blaikie said.

“There is a photo of you on files drinking a can of alcohol when you were just age four.

“From 13 to 18, you would drink four bottles of straight bourbon or gin with a few mates on a Friday and Saturday alone,” Judge Blaikie said.

When he was 12, Hakaraia was smoking cannabis twice a day. During his teenage years, it was costing $400 a week to feed his addictions, which led to a life of crime and years spent behind bars.

This is an awful tale, and is a sterling example of the harm that can be caused.

However I note that very few of the Law Commission proposals will have any impact on what happened, so that a four year old is drinking alcohol.

Certainly lowering the purchase age from 20 to 18 will have zero impact on this situation.

Neither will forcing bars to have a one way policy.

What will have an impact is making it an offence for youth to be supplied alcohol irresponsibly.

What would have an impact is having a drinking age, not just a purchase age.

I’m at the initial hearing of the Judicial Conduct Panel, hearing the complaints against Justice Wilson. It started shortly after 10 am.

One of my media benchmates asked me if I knew about the 30 minute delay on live reporting. I thought they were kidding, but in fact they were saving me from a contempt charge, as the rules for the hearing do specify no live broadcast or reporting, including over the Internet.

So I’ll only be able to start reporting the substance at around 10.40 am, and am going to have to try and keep in my head how long ago something was said!

We wondered if it would be like a normal court, and we should stand when the panel entered. The clerk removed the need for us having to guess by saying “All Stand”.

Justice Wilson had failed last week to injunct the panel before his judicial review hearing, but the panel decided (as all counsels agreed) to delay the substantive hearings until after the judicial review which is set down for 1 to 3 September.

They mentioned that Sir Ted Thomas had also written in urging a delay. After his evidence was found to be largely incorrect hearsay by the Commissioner, I’m surprised he is still offering his opinions on the issues.

The next meeting of the panel is set for Friday 1 October.

The former wool board is represented by counsel, but mentioned that if no other parties apply to be represented, they will not continue to attend. Hence it will be just the counsel for Justice Wilson and the Special Counsel.

One significant problem is that it seems the Acting Attorney-General has not formally referred the exact issues around Justice Wilson to the panel as required by the Act. The Special Counsel will seek a formal referral letter through the Solicitor-General, and then use that to effectively place “charges” against Justice Wilson. The use of “charges” does not mean criminal behaviour, just alleged misbehaviour for a Judge.

The panel recessed at around 10.30 am and will come back shortly to record a formal minute, and it should all be over by 11 am.

The panel chair has read out a minute, and this initial session is concluded. The next stage is the judicial review. I’m too busy to spend three days in court covering it, but may pop in for the opening and closing.

Two interesting quotes from Andrew Little on The Nation (TV3 Sat 10 am) which I have to challenge:

Oh I think if you look at parties that are freshly in opposition, where we are polling is actually very good.  If you have a look at Labour in opposition during the 1990s, we were polling in the low to mid 20s.  We’ve been hovering around 30 or just a fraction above it.  I think in only one or two polls we’ve come in just under 30, but around about 30 is not bad for a party freshly in opposition.

I’m not sure if Andrew actually believes what he is saying, or if this is just spin, but let us look at the reality.

First of all one has to remember that in the 1990s there were other large leftwing parties such as the Alliance and NZ First.In 1996 Labour got 28% and could have governed with the Alliance and NZ First. Today they only have the Greens so anything below around 40% probably means opposition for them.

But in 1991, Labour’s average poll rating (TVNZ polls) was 42%. Their average for 1991 – 1993 was 40%. Since the 2008 election the average has been 32%.

From 1994 to 1996, Labour did only poll in the 20s. But both the Alliance and NZ First were polling up to 30% each (not at same time). The centre-left was well ahead of the centre-right.

From 1997 to 1999, Labour averaged 41%.

After National lost office in 1999, National averaged 38% in both 2000 and 2001. It was only in 2002 that National dropped down to a 32% average, and we know how that election went.

So Labour’s ratings in opposition are not historically high. They are significantly lower than any other Opposition, apart from the period when the Alliance and NZ First was splitting up the left vote.

Well we have to work with our Maori constituency, our Maori members, our Maori MPs and with the Maori electorate, the wider Maori electorate out there, who still vote for Labour in droves in terms of the party vote.  So we still have that support out there.  Ideally you would like to think that given the issues that the Maori Party typically deal with, what their kaupapa are, that we would have a constructive relationship with them.  But it’s a two way street, if they don’t want to have that relationship, if Te Ururoa Flavell’s statement is correct that he doesn’t particularly care, there’s not a great deal that the Labour Party can do about that, but what we can do is continue to work on those issues that are important actually to working Maori people, working Maori families, and to lift their living standards.  That’s what we’re committed to doing.

I thought this statement came across as rather arrogant, almost blaming the Maori Party for the bad relationship.

If Andrew was smart, he’d talk to Phil about reining in Shane and Trevor’s attacks on the Maori Party. Shane Jones has said he sees his job as to destroy the Maori Party and wipe them out. So, any surprise that Mr Flavell is not feeling too warm towards them.

And need one be reminded of Helen calling them haters and wreckers and the last cab off the rank.

I sometimes think Labour is deliberately trying to lose the election, or to make it as hard as possible to win. They rank Chris Carter higher than Steven Joyce, they fail to get any of their deadwood to retire and they still treat the Maori Party as unworthy supplicants, despite the fact it is almost impossible for them to form a Government without them.

The only thing left for them to do is to announce their policy of increasing income tax on rich pricks, bringing back all the best memories of the last Government.

The Herald reports:

How much should a digital book cost? The answer is more complicated than you might expect.

In the United States, the popularity of the Kindle has been driven largely by Amazon’s US$9.99 deals for ebooks. But many publishers feel bullied by Amazon’s dominance of the market, and resent the huge cut it takes – which can be up to 65 per cent of the sale price.

When Apple came along and agreed to a much lower cut, publishers cheered. The industry is keen to see even more competition, but what that will mean for prices remains to be seen.

Last year the New Zealand Digital Publishing Forum conducted an online poll, asking members how much the digital edition of a $30 book should cost here. The most popular answer was $15.

That sounds about right to me. If the costs are much the same, you feel ripped off. Plus one can get hard copies relatively cheaply off Amazon.

I’m thinking of getting some sort of e-book reader in the next week or so, as I have a month long trip coming up and the sheer weight of a dozen or so books makes e-books worth considering even though I prefer the paper versions.

Any recommendations out there as to what people have found best?

The Herald reports:

More than 200,000 people in Howick and Manurewa will have just eight staff between them for local matters under the Super City set-up.

Manukau City councillor Michael Williams says the agency designing the Super City is under-resourcing local boards, which politicians from the Prime Minister down have promised will have real teeth in shaping their communities.

Howick, the largest of the 21 local boards with a population of 128,100, will share staff with Manurewa, population 86,800. They will each have a manager and share three secretaries and three policy advisers.

Hamilton City Council, with a similar population to Howick, has 862 staff. Palmerston North City Council, with 10,000 fewer people than Manurewa, has 469 staff. …

I’m not sure comparing number of dedicated staff for a board, to the number of total staff for a Council is particularly useful.

In an article prepared for the Herald, Sir Harold Marshall, an architect, engineer and physicist who is on the committee of the Mt Albert Residents Association, said local boards required staffing levels comparable to cities with comparable populations and staff who knew their area and preferably lived in it.

That is just wrong. Boards do not have call centres, accounts sections, IT sections etc etc.And if one goes with Sir Harold’s advice, then the new Council would need massive rates rises to pay for it.

The Botany-Clevedon ward councillor has suggested 12 staff between the two boards.

Now Mr Williams may be right that 12 staff, rather than eight staff, would be a better number for the two boards. That is a reasonable debate to have.

The comparisons to city councils is unhelpful and misleading, and I am a bit disappointed the Herald repeats it unthinkingly, without asking the more relevant question.

How many dedicated staff does the current community board have?

When the Mayor complains about the lack of staff for the proposed new boards, I’d like to know how many dedicated staff the current community boards have.

I meant to  blog on these last week before they closed on Monday. Sadly I got distracted with other stuff in Auckland and didn’t blog much, and in my catch up only got to it today.

Anyway, while it is too late to enter, still check out the Plain English Awards.

The awards will be announced on 3 September. Their categories are:

1. Plain English Champion
2. Best Plain English Document
3. Best Plain English Website
4. Best Plain English Sentence Transformation
5. Best Plain English Technical Communicator
6. People’s Choice

Some of the awards have sections for being “brain strain” or “gobbledygook”, so should be lots of fun.

The Herald had this story last week:

BLOG HEAVEN

Kiwiblog has increased unique users 43 per cent in the past two years _ a much bigger increase than that recorded for Public Address.

Figures released by Nielsen Online research for June 24 show the National Party friendly blog increased from 33,548 in May 2008 to 48,067 for the same date in 2010.

The liberal and Labour friendly community Public Address increased from 16,471 to 18,545, an increase of 13 per cent.

Kiwiblog dominates the mainstream right of centre political market, while Public Address shares the left with several bloggers.

Kiwiblog owner David Farrar said that commercial returns from political blogging were small unless they were international in scope or focused on the US market.

What I found funny is I was totally unaware of this stat until the NZ Herald rang me asking me for comment on it. I leave pretty much all the advertising to Scoop and Ffunnell and just have a browse through the quarterly reports every three months.

I used to follow my stats monthly, but look at Google Analytics rarely now. So I had no idea that traffic had increased by 43% over two years. Especially pleasing is that it hasn’t dropped away with the change of Government, but has in fact grown.

Parties of the left tend to rely more on sticks (keep your workplace safe or we will fine you) and parties of the right more on carrots (keep your worksafe place and your workplace insurance premiums will drop).

John Key reinforces his centrist tendencies, by utilising both the carrot and stick in this story in the Dom Post:

All Blacks captain Richie McCaw should watch his back – because Prime Minister John Key says he risks getting tasered if he fails to win the Rugby World Cup next year.

Mr Key this morning addressed an audience of Kiwi businessmen in South Korea’s capital, Seoul.

He joked he had given Mr McCaw the hard word about clinching the World Cup when New Zealand hosts the tournament next year.

“I’ve tried to tell Richie McCaw that it’s very important – it’s an election year,” Key said.

If Mr McCaw won the cup “he may well become Sir Richard McCaw”.

“Now I’ve encouraged him to get to know the minister of police, because I’ve decided that if he doesn’t win the World Cup, maybe we could consider tasering him as well,” Key said.

“There is sort of an option either way there – we are an incentive-based political party.”

If this incentive based scheme actually works and we win the Rugby World Cup, then maybe John should be appointed Olympics Coach after his parliamentary career!