TVNZ report:

Two cases linked to the recent Valentines Day outbreak broke the rules and went to work, despite being told to stay home. And an unusual pairing – the National Party and the Greens – both believe it is proof more support is needed.

National Party leader Judith Collins has been pondering on whether there is enough financial support available to those ordered to stay home.

Her party is now calling on the Government to pay 100 per cent of a person’s wages for two weeks if they have been told to self-isolate.

“The idea really is to make it easier for people to do the right thing and recognising that a lot of New Zealanders are living week-to-week off their wages and they don’t really have any spare cash to get them through.”

This is common sense. If the Government orders you not to go to work, then the Government should pay your wages for that period you are self-isolating.

Fulltime workers who need to self-isolate are eligible for almost $1200 and part-time workers $700 as a lump sum for a two-week period, paid directly to employers.

$1,200 is $15 per hour so Labour is saying that if you are forced to stay home and not work, they won’t even pay you the minimum wage, let alone a living wage, let alone your actual wage!

Stuff reports:

Former high-ranking National MP Jami-Lee Ross is behind a company planning to sell a nutritional supplement claiming to protect users from electromagnetic radiation.

They work also with a 100% guarantee. Not a single person who has taken the supplement has died of 5G poisoning.

The supplement, called Praesidium, was developed by Dr Marco Ruggiero, an Italian microbiologist known for promoting pseudoscientific treatments. His other products include a probiotic yoghurt said to treat a range of conditions including autism and AIDS, and a pill purported to reverse ageing and “extend life to unimagined lengths”.

I’d be keen for the yoghurt, but only if it is strawberry flavoured.

On an associated website called Natural Solutions, the clinic sells a range of products, several of which are linked to Ruggiero. They include a course of probiotic yoghurt that cost $695

Less keen now.

In February we replaced our 2007 Honda Civic for a 2016 30G Nissan Leaf. It is a fully electric car.

I’ll be honest and say financial motives were more of an incentive that the environmental motive. But both were factors.

The reason the electric car is so much cheaper to run than a petrol car is because petrol cars pay petrol tax and electric cars are currently exempt from road user charges. This won’t last forever, but I doubt they will bring in charging until a much higher proportion of vehicles are electric. So buying now rather than in five years makes financial sense.

If you travel 20,000 kms a year (suburban commuter according to EECA) a typical petrol car will cost $4,480 in fuel.

The Nissan Leaf will do around 6 km per kWh. So 20,000 kms is 3333 kWh and an average cost at 15c is $500. If you get night rates, even lower.

On top of that the Nissan Leaf engine is much simpler, and servicing costs tend to be significantly lower also.

So financially the higher purchase price should be compensated for after a few years of lower running costs.

In terms of driving it, I find it great. I love not having a noisy engine. In fact the hardest part of driving it is working out if the car is actually turned on or not, as it is so quiet. Accelerates and handles well. Possibly need a slightly firmer touch on the brake.

For a small fee, the inhouse Japanese system can be modified to English and include Apple Carplay, which is excellent.

Charging is a lot less hassle than I thought it would be. It is literally as simple as push a button and plug it into a wall socket.

We still have a second car, which we use for longer trips as you don’t want to tell young kids they have to wait 20 minutes while we get a fast charge. But for 95% of our activities, the Leaf is working well. For a one car family, it could be a challenging purchase, but for a two car family we find it is working well.

Battery degradation was my big concern before purchasing but there’s a lot you can do to slow this. The big lessons are:

• Avoid fast charges unless essential. The overnight charge at home is best
• Only charge the car when the remaining range is not enough for your next day’s activities. I will try and charge it only when it is at 30 km or less.
• Using economy mode can extend range significantly
• Turning off the air conditioning and opening the window can give you an extra 7 km or so per charge
• As the battery degrades you don’t need to replace the entire battery but can just replace individual cells

Our battery State Of Health was 90% when we brought the car which is pretty good. That means the maximum range should be 160 km rather than 180 km. But I’ve actually found we are still sometimes getting 180 kms off a single charge.

So I’m an electric car convert. I like having a gauge that tells you kms of range left rather than an fuel indicator that is very approximate. They are undoubtedly going to be the main cars around in a couple of decades, or less. Especially as the technology for batteries will only get better, and the costs will come down.

The recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science study results for New Zealand are a two-pronged problem. New Zealand students being the worst placed among English speaking nations is problematic for both their employment futures and also their ability to be an effective actor in the modern economy. The second problem is that those results will have a huge and ongoing effect attracting international students to this country. If New Zealand is seen to be the worst English speaking STEM nation it will affect both the quality and quantity of students who come here – and have a major impact on schools and Universities in terms of funds. That again will reinforce the negative cycle for domestic students. We need to do things that are urgent, effective and internationally credible/visible.

There are three keys even before the need for the Royal Society panel appointed by the Ministry look at the complexities of classroom practice.

Firstly, as a society we need to massively reinforce the role of parents as first teachers. Aspects like – the reading of many books to children, increasing the amount of conversation between the humans in the house, and significant use of positive language for effort children put in. In the home the subjects of Maths and Science also need to be supported and spoken of well. Many parents imply that if they were “useless” at Maths and couldn’t see the point that the children will follow suit. Parents need to learn with the child and speak of possibilities and progress. All parents should also consider how much screen time their child engages in.

Secondly; every teacher from Year 1 – 8 should have at least NCEA Level 2 Maths and NCEA Level 1 Science. If you don’t have proficiency in those subjects, even when teaching the youngest school students, you do not know how to set up the foundations for effective learning. We have a life-long qualifications structure. Those teachers without those levels could be required to get them within three years.

I enjoyed Maths as a student up until thirteen years of age. All of my teachers had assumed that ability was intuitive and those in my stream were taught very little of method with no emphasis on being rigorous. My attitude was also poor. By Year 13 I had quit the subject so chose what I hoped would be a descriptive degree major – Economics. My despair and desperation at the level of statistics, calculus and algebra drove me to go right back to the beginning of Maths learning and build a new foundation brick by brick. I therefore ensured an “aha” type understanding and ability to apply concepts up to the needed level.

Therefore, the third intervention is that if you are a student of the subject (or guiding one at all levels) there is a very trusted method that works and makes the subject much easier than many currently experience it.

1. Be well organized for every school day. Sleep well. Eat breakfast. Have all books and equipment you need for school. Dress well. Start the day with a great attitude.

2. Be positive towards the subject and teacher regardless of the approach of others.

3. Pay MASSIVE attention in every class. Make good notes. When you don’t understand – ask questions (during or after class). FOCUS is everything!

4. Take all of your books home each night and, with pencil in hand, review the lesson for the day. Practice the hardest problems until you go – “uh ha!”

5. Once a week write summary/study notes for the past week and practice some more.

6. Always do your set homework.

7. Always aim for excellence/100%! This doesn’t mean getting things right first time. It involves seeking help, correcting, doing it again, and again. When each level gets MASTERED move onto the next one.

If students follow this process then what they are learning will be increasingly locked in. When they get towards exams/assessments they will know things well. Many children consider themselves “bad at Maths” but genius is about effort!  

Alwyn Poole

Villa Education Trust (NZ)

New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom writes:

And so we now turn to Wellington, where Andy Foster, a centre-right career local government politician, was elected mayor of a council with an established Labour-Green voting bloc.​

I’d describe Foster as more centre than center-right.

Rumour has it that, within days of his win being confirmed, the Labour-Green bloc walked into Foster’s office, laid out their demands, including the appointment of a deputy mayor, and effectively signalled their intentions to dominate the next three years in office with their party political manifesto.

The Local Government Act requires elected members to keep an open mind right up to the point of making a decision, based on the proven theory that the highest-quality decisions are achieved by considering all available information right up to the last minute.

Those who make decisions early tend to disregard information that doesn’t align with their thinking and often miss a trick. But the bloc within council that confronted Foster wasn’t there to be open-minded, they were there to project political power and drive their agenda, regardless of the information from management about the actual issues they might face, or the views of their peers or the wider community.

Holdom highlights a good point.

I certainly think there are many areas in which Foster can be a more effective Mayor. There are very different skill sets to being a Mayor and a Cr.

But it has to be recognised that there is a bloc of Councillors who are devastated that Justin Lester was defeated by Foster, and their priority is to get Eagle or Lester (or another Labour person) elected Mayor in 2022.

This means they don’t want WCC to generate good stories. That will help Foster. They want there to be an unrelenting series of bad headlines about the Mayor, so they can take it back next year.

This is what happens when party politics enters local government. Blocs of Councillors act more as an opposition party than part of the Government.

The structural fix for this would be the London model where the Mayor has huge executive powers and basically appoints all they key people, and the Councillors act more as a Parliament scrutinising and checking.

But the model at the moment is the worst of both worlds, now we have entrenched party politics in the major cities. Councillors are both Governors but also opponents of the main Governor. It doesn’t work.

So sure you can blame Foster for some of what has happened, but you shouldn’t overlook there is a bloc whose job is to try and make negative headlines for him so he loses the Mayoralty.

This recording of Far North Mayor John Carter doing a radio interview while he evacuates his neighbours is classic John Carter.

John has always been one of the most hands on politicians I’ve met. I once gave him a lift from Auckland to Whangarei and he spent the entire time on his phone talking to constituents about their issues.

Great to see he hasn’t changed.

Ayesha Verrall is seen as one of the potential stars of Labour. She authored the independent review into Covid-19 tracing as an infectious disease specialist (incidentally the Government is absolutely failing to meet the targets she said they should meet) and she became a Minister immediately after being elected to Parliament last year.

The only two other major party MPs who have done this in the MMP era are Steven Joyce and Margaret Wilson. And the question is whether Verrall will be a Joyce or a Wilson.

Joyce served nine years and was Minister of everything, having been Minister of Transport, Comms, Tertiary Education, Economic Development, Infrastructure and Finance etc. He was seen as one of the best performing Ministers.

Margaret Wilson looked great on paper with her background as a Law School Dean, but she struggled so much with parliamentary processes etc that she ended up being shifted sideways to Speaker after just four years as a Minister.

An early issue for Verrall (she is Associate Health Minister with responsibility for public health issues) is the Government’s commitment to have NZ smokefree by 2025, which is defined as fewer than 5% smoking tobacco. This target was actually championed by the Maori Party under National and if Labour doesn’t make the target, I have no doubt the Maori Party will make it an ongoing issue.

It is almost non controversial to state that reduced harm products such as e-cigarettes and vaping are essential to hitting the target. Even ASH says so.

Yet the Government is promoting regulations that are so flawed that they will actually make it harder to achieve the smoke free target. The suspicion is the Minister didn’t get into the detail.

The proposed regulations are here. Some issues with them:

• The draft regulations have accidentally banned nicotine salt. This is despite their own consultation document saying there is no evidence nicotine salt is more harmful than other nicotine and they think it should be available
• The draft regulations accidentally ban mint and menthol flavored vapes which means dairies can only sell tobacco flavoured vapes
• The draft regulations accidentally ban heated tobacco products by applying the same compound limits on them as e-cigarettes

None of this is deliberate as the consultation document doesn’t say it wants to ban these. It’s just the details are so badly drafted that they have huge unforeseen consequences. The end result might be an Associate Minister passing regulations that doom any chance of meeting their smokefree target.

So this is going to be a good test of the Minister, as to whether she is a Joyce or a Wilson.

A guest post by my good friend Ele Ludemann:

When you’re pregnant you have  hopes and dreams for your babies and their futures that you probably aren’t fully aware of unless you lose them.

Some of ours were dashed when our sons were diagnosed with degenerative brain disorders and died, Tom aged 20 weeks, and Dan 10 days after his fifth birthday.

Life with the boys who had multiple disabilities and passed none of the developmental milestones wasn’t easy, nor was coming to terms with their deaths.

Many people who learn about Tom and Dan say they couldn’t cope if that happened to their children. I’d probably have thought the same until I had to. Then, the only alternative to coping was not coping and through necessity, I coped.

That doesn’t mean I always did it well. There were some very long nights and some very dark days; nights when I fell into bed exhausted but couldn’t sleep, days when it felt like I was stuffed full of dark clouds and was ready to burst. But even at the very worst of times I had the love and support of my husband, wider family and friends, shining light against the darkness of despair.

And our sons, who could do so little, taught us so much: how blessed we are to have that support; that people are people regardless of what they can or cannot do and that ability isn’t a right it’s a privilege

Our response has also been governed by the knowledge that it would only compound the tragedy of our son’s difficult lives and early deaths if being bitter and twisted and focusing on what we’d lost stopped us appreciating and enjoying all we still had and could have.

And we still had their older sister who gave us the joys and challenges children provide.

None of those challenges were major until nearly four years ago when she was diagnosed with low grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC), a type of ovarian cancer that is frequently incurable.  Jane, at just 32 years old, was told with current treatments her life expectancy was likely to be only five to 15 years. 

Not letting what we’ve lost with the lives and deaths of our sons, blind us to what we still have is, of course, easier in theory than practice and it has been harder still to focus positively in the wake of Jane’s diagnosis.

There’s been a lot of tears, a lot of prayers and a lot of swears. There are nights of restless sleep when I wake to find the nightmare is real, and days when I cry easily and often. But again we’ve got wonderful support from family and friends, and just as she gave me a reason to not just survive but live a full life when her brothers died all those years ago, Jane’s example is providing an inspiration for me now.

If it’s hard for me as a mother, how much harder must it be for her,  a young woman living under the cancer sword, facing what it’s already cut from her life, the pain of that and the knowledge that it could take so much more?

She could have sunk into depression and stayed there. She could have chosen to focus only on herself. Instead she is doing much, much more.

She is fighting not just for herself but for all the other women around the world who share her cancer, many of whom are young like her.

What will determine whether women like our daughter live or die is research. Rare cancers like Jane’s, account for almost half of all cancer deaths yet receive just 13.5% of research funding.  The limiting factor isn’t science, it’s the money for the scientists to study it that’s lacking.

When Jane was diagnosed there wasn’t any way to donate directly to her cancer anywhere in the world. She knew that had to change if she and other women were to survive. She liaised with doctors,  researchers and charities around the world and founded Cure Our Ovarian Cancer – a registered charitable trust, that facilitates donations for low-grade serous cancer research in New Zealand, and internationally.

Jane spends most of her days connecting with women and researchers around the world, fundraising for research into her cancer. Through COOC and it’s partner charities, she’s helped raise more than $300 000 in less than three years.

She’s humbled by the public’s generosity, but also overwhelmed by how far is left to go. Tens of millions are needed if change is to happen in time for women living with he disease now. But as Jane says, “How can I do nothing? Knowing that in 10, 20, 30 years time, women will continue to die in droves without research. You just have to try.”

We’re in awe of everything Jane is doing while living with this awful cancer. It’s heartbreaking but as a family we are committed to helping in every way we can. We’ve funded four research projects in the US and NZ and continue to do what we can. But this problem is too big for one family to solve by ourselves. That’s why Jane founded COOC and is putting so much effort into advocating for the changes needed to get earlier diagnosis and better treatments.

Ovarian cancer strikes one in 70 women and is the 5th most common cause of female cancer death in New Zealand. Yet we  knew almost nothing about the symptoms. For two years Jane was told by doctors her symptoms were not serious, until she required emergency surgery from cancer complications. This experience is far too common, leading to too many late diagnosis and much poorer life expectancy.

Ovarian cancer kills 182 New Zealand women a year – that’s more than die on our roads. The government spends $1 billion annually trying to reduce the road toll but most years spends nothing to reduce the toll that ovarian cancer takes.

Each week about eight women are diagnosed with the disease and they will learn their outcomes will probably be no better than those for women diagnosed with breast cancer 40 years ago.

Changing that requires increased awareness among women and GPs, better access to tests, treatments and clinical trials and more funding for research.

Jane is fronting a petition seeking that change. It is nonpartisan and has the support of Cure Our Ovarian Cancer, Ovarian Cancer NZ, Talk Peach and the NZ Gynaecological Cancer Foundation.

Please sign to help bring about the changes that are needed to save lives: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petitions/document/PET_99389/petition-of-jane-ludemann-for-cure-our-ovarian-cancer

You can read Jane’s story at janehascancer.com and learn more at cureourovariancancer.org 

If you’re like me, you’ll probably cry as you read this post. And hopefully you’ll also do what I did and sign the petition. It’s a great cause, so feel free to share the petition with your friends and networks.

Donald McNeil is the award winning NY Times reporter who was sacked in 2021 because of his alleged behaviour in 2019 as a scientific expert on a student trip to Peru.

He has blogged in four parts what happened. It seems clear he is guilty of not being woke enough for a group of students who see the world in black and white.

His posts are lengthy but worth reading if you have the time.

Also the woke cancel culture didn’t end with McNeil.

One of the issues around McNeil was whether it was appropriate for him to have used the N word in a non derogatory sense (he was asked a questions about a 12 year old being suspended from school fur using it in a video).

Over at Slate, an award winning podcast host Mike Pesca has been sacked or indefinitely suspended. What was his crime? On an internal slack discussion channel for journalists he expressed the view that in some circumstances a white person can use the N word. Now Pesca never used the N word. He merely expressed a view that sometimes it can be appropriate to use it, such as a direct quote from someone. Anyway that was enough to get him effectively sacked.

This (now deleted) tweet from Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi proclaims caucasians as an archaic species that is becoming extinct.

As of 8 am Thursday I have not seen it reported in a single media outlet.

Now imagine an ACT MP had sent a tweet where he or she said Maori are an archaic species that is becoming extinct. Do you think there would be no reporting of that?

On the contrary media would be camped outside the ACT Party offices demanding to know if the MP has yet been sacked. It would be leading every news bulletin in the country.

Now to make it clear, I think Waititi’s tweet is stupid, not harmful. My issue is the double standard.

UPDATE:

Hilariously the tweet is now being blamed on a junior staffer. When National used that line around a petition being removed from a website (and staffers are far more likely to be running a website than tweeting on behalf of an MP) it led to weeks of stories mocking them, and demands that the staffer be identified etc.

But it’s now almost 11 am and still not a single story on the tweet.

Stuff reports:

The Government’s own Unite against Covid-19 page appears to contradict the prime minister’s claims a worker at KFC Botany broke the rules when she was required to isolate.

Case L, who is a sibling of a Papatoetoe High School student (Case I) who tested positive, went to work at KFC in Botany Downs on February 22 and 23, then tested positive three days later while in quarantine.

She believes she was unfairly singled out by the prime minister for not self-isolating, and said she was given official advice to the contrary. …

But when the subject was raised on the Unite against Covid-19 Facebook page on February 26, a response in the comments section from the Covid-19 team said Case L was not required to isolate at the time.

This was because there was no advice at that stage for household members of casual plus contacts at the school to self-isolate or get a test.

“The family complied with the advice they were given at the time,” the post read.

The Unite Against Covid-19 page is run by the Department of PM and Cabinet.

So DPMC says Case L did not break the rules while the PM says she did.

Who do we believe?

Stuff reports:

A Hutt City councillor found in “material and serious” breach of standards has been sent a letter signed by nine others around the council table calling for his resignation.

“We have completely lost confidence in you as a Hutt City councillor, and ask that you resign from your role as a Hutt City councillor immediately,” the letter, obtained by Stuff, sent to councillor Chris Milne said on February 24.

Responding on Tuesday, Milne said he would not resign.

Mayor Campbell Barry, as well as Deputy Mayor Tui Lewis and seven councillors – Simon Edwards, Josh Briggs, Andy Mitchell, Naomi Shaw, Deborah Hislop, Brady Dyer, and Keri Brown – all signed the letter calling for Milne’s resignation.

Milne on Tuesday sent Stuff the response – signed by him as well as councillors Leigh Sutton and David Bassett – denying the claims against him and calling for Barry to stand down, so an investigation could be made into allegations about him.

This is basically a group of Crs trying to bully off Council a Cr whose politics are different to them, because he seeks to hold the Mayor and Chief Executive to account.

Cr Milne’s letter is on his Facebook page and raises serious issues.

Personally I think code of conducts for Councils should be abolished. They just allow one group of Crs to sanction what others can do or say. Let the voters decide if they like how a Cr behaves.

If voters in his ward in Lower Hutt don’t like how Cr Milne does his job, then they won’t vote for him. But having a group of Crs trying to force another Cr off Council looks self serving.

A guest post by Melissa Lee MP:

There is an elephant in the room right now for the media and I’m not sure they want to talk about it. They have just received $55 million towards ‘sustainable public interest journalism’. This is in addition to the extra $50+million in different pots received last year during the pandemic for Government contracts and transmission fees as well as of course the ongoing access to increased crown funding already in place prior to the pandemic from both National and Labour Governments towards NZ on Air, RNZ and other community broadcasting and media initiatives.  This is putting aside normal COVID-19 relief options to businesses at large, additional funding for the screen sector which will inevitably cross over to wider media organisations as well as countless other sources of opportunity to take a turn at the chisel hacking into new streams of Crown Revenue as opposed to seeking that revenue from audiences.

The clarion call sounds straight forward enough. Digital media (whatever this means in 2021) is taking away audiences and reducing revenue leaving media organisations without the means to carry on without Government intervention. Those from ‘Private media’ (whatever this means in 2021) claim they don’t get fair standing compared to that RNZ as a non-commercial state broadcaster and TVNZ, as a Crown-owned entity can achieve and I think they do have a fair point particularly when RNZ has been stepping into media spaces some would see as outside it’s remit even a decade ago and TVNZ has an, at best, ambiguous justification for continuing in its current state being owned by the Crown. We know the Minister is working on an RNZ/TVNZ merger which is of course going to end in tears, a lot of wasted money and no real solution for the question of what public broadcasting and media should look like in Aotearoa and that is just a small part of the landscape.

National at the 2020 election proposed to start afresh on a comprehensive review of our media sector, something that in the Ministers own briefing papers barely got a paragraph of mention, astonishing considering it was a keystone of their Broadcasting policy during the last Parliament and several more reviews, working groups and Ministerial Advisory panels around this sector have since been appointed and I am sure they are all talking across each other and not going anywhere.

I am also sure this is all happening on your tax dollars.

I’m actively beginning my own review of the media sector this year and hoping to get to communities like yours soon to talk face to face with everyone from industry stakeholders to ordinary kiwis about how they think our sector should operate because as much ‘fun’ as it can be talked about the problems in our public and private media sectors we also need to be aware there is so much potential, expertise and vision there too. Our Media agencies are winning awards globally in both private and public media spheres and this should not be discounted. We have to uplift and sharpen those talents and ensure if your tax dollars are used, that they are used competently, to provide the services all New Zealanders expect.

We also need to have a frank discussion about media independence. When too many people talk about ‘Red Radio’ on one side, and wanting to see key media and public figures de-platformed in private media on the other, we are at an impasse as New Zealanders decide on what we agree should be allowed ‘on the air’ and actually whether we want it taxpayer funded. We are actually at an impasse on what we consider ‘public interest’. A lot of the grievances recently are that our public media isn’t listening to all public voices, that it is leaning in one political direction and it’s not just RNZ. Concerns are being raised that NZ on Air isn’t funding or interested in public interest media from all partisan spheres. I raised these concerns directly with their CEO and we had a good and constructive conversation. I honestly don’t think the issue necessarily lies with NZ on Air itself. Coming away from that meeting, it feels more systematic as to whether those who NZ on Air work with are willing to raise those public voices and indeed whether those voices want to access the large pots of taxpayer dollars that both National-led and Labour Governments alike have provided to support diverse kiwi content from music to script to factual stories and more. What doesn’t help this situation is the effective politicisation of the NZ on Air Board and for that matter other Public Media Agencies.

Questions have been raised about the political activities of members of the board of NZ on Air and other media entities and these are fair questions when dealing with crown entities and Ministerial discretion exists for their appointment. It becomes even more disquieting when those appointed have a Governance role in the agencies that ultimately are funded to tell our stories and evaluate the news, let alone write it. The issue isn’t isolated either to Governance roles, the issue has shown in recent years also in senior executive roles or prominent media figures (I disclose in a past life some kind-hearted soul may have considered me in this category) seeking high office or positions of political influence. Earlier this week I read about David Farrar’s concept for an independent commission and consultation on appointing public broadcasting leadership in consultation with the opposition, I’m unsure if this is the best approach as it would lead to us all paying for yet another regulatory authority in all likelihood with the same result but I’m open to the conversation. When I say National wants that comprehensive all-encompassing media review we mean it, no holds barred.

So the questions really I want to put to you are will the $55million being offered for public interest journalism be ring-fenced from some, will there be interference or even the inference of interference like we saw in the last Parliament; and, when they say [The fund] will be open to all media entities; from large media organisations through to small, local entities, Māori, Pacific and ethnic media do they mean it and how fairly will it be given. Is this and the $50million during the Pandemic enough to make any media agency second-guess themselves before committing to a story, is this enough to scuttle or even delay through backchannels or in-house bureaucratic processes a story or a project that could impact the hand that feeds or perhaps the future of the pot of gold itself. I don’t like putting these questions and I am reluctant to do so because I do believe in the core good of the concept of an independent value for money crown supported public interest media. The reason I’m sharing this opinion is because I’m not hearing these questions being raised from the media itself.

I wonder if they’ll have the strength to ask them themselves, I’m keen to hear the answers.

Naku noa na,

MELISSA LEE MP
National Member of Parliament
National Spokesperson for –
Broadcasting & Media| Digital Economy and Communications | Ethnic Communities

A US legal blog writes:

We all realize what a catastrophe it was for RBG to choose to try to hang on until 2021. This isn’t 20/20 hindsight: many people said back in 2014, when the Democrats still controlled both the presidency and the Senate, that she was making a huge and selfish mistake, and indeed she was.

There’s remarkably little attention being given at the moment to Stephen Breyer’s failure to resign immediately upon Joe Biden’s inauguration, which is arguably an even bigger and more selfish mistake.

It’s simply delusional to think that the Democrats are certain to control the Senate for the next 22 months. If you look at American history, it’s not at all unusual for the party makeup of the Senate to shift over the course of a Congress. At the present moment, when Democrats have a numerical advantage of zero senators, and the average age of the caucus is approximately 107, the possibility of a disastrous sudden shift in the makeup of the body is greatly magnified.

The average age isn’t quite 107 but it is a good point that the one seat majority in the Senate may not last two years.

 DTGstl314 points out in comments that there are seven Democratic senators over the age of 70 representing states where Republicans would pick a successor in the case of a pre-election vacancy!

Breyer is 82 years old.

In the Senate there are five Senators in their 80s and 22 in their 70s.

But of course no one can make Breyer retire. So the ball is in his court.

Stuff reports:

A single mum from Tauranga still can’t find a place to call home, despite applying for more than 130 rentals.

A reader writes in:

Stuff/ SunLive from the Bay of Plenty covers the story of a young solo mum’s frustration at not being able to find a rental property, with properties becoming unavailable for unknown reasons after she was shown the flat.

It’s especially saddening because the young lady is a solo mum, and obviously would like to give her baby boy a better chance at life instead of living in a spare room at her parent’s place.

It all seems very strange that she is getting short shrift, and the media can’t seem to shed any light on the reason why she isn’t getting very far with landlords.

But a quick amount of homework, the kind a landlord might do, shows us that the young mum’s Facebook page has photos of a person who looks like her standing next to a motorcycle gang member (judging by the patches, the gang is The Greazy Dogs, located in the BOP)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155806733671493&set=pb.672431492.-2207520000..&type=3

Now, maybe that photo isn’t the young woman, and maybe the photo is random and the people in the photo are unknown to her, but it’s perhaps not wise to post random photos of patched gang members on your Facebook page if you are looking to get hired for a job, or looking to put your best foot forward with a landlord.

It would also be unwise to suggest landlords could be bigoted against solo mums when maybe they are more worried about people having gang connections.

So could the media please do some basic homework when a sob story comes in the door complaining about how hard it is to rent a property?

It does seem common sense not to have photos of gang members on your social media, if you are trying to rent a flat.

I hope she is successful at finding a flat soon.

This post is about what is the best way for New Zealand to achieve its stated goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

It is not about whether temperatures are rising (they are).

It is not about whether greenhouse gas emissions are principally responsible (they are, but there is some doubt over the strength of the relationship)

It is not about whether we should have a target of net zero by 2050 (highly debatable, and depends on if big emitters reduce emissions).

It is purely about having had Parliament vote for a target of net zero by 2050, what is the best way to get there. By best way, I mean the way that has the lowest economic cost of New Zealand families and businesses.

There are broadly three paths you can choose:

1. An Emissions Trading Scheme
2. No ETS, and lots and lots of policies for every sector of the economy
3. An ETS and lots and lots of policies for every sector of the economy

In my opinion, they are in order of desirability. The best option is an ETS. The worst option is an ETS and policies. The middle option would be no ETS. I’ll explain why.

ETS

The detail of an Emissions Trading Scheme can be very complex. But the principle is very simple. Another name for them is a cap and trade scheme.

You require people to purchase “credits” for any significant emissions of greenhouse gases. You cap the number of credits and reduce that cap over time.

In 2018 NZ had 56 Mt of CO2 equivalent. By 2050 it needs to be zero. So you reduce the cap by 1.75 Mt a year. As you reduce the cap the price goes up.

They key aspect is the trade. By allowing businesses to trade, it means that each and every business (and household) can make a decision about how best to respond to the increasing cost of emitting greenhouse gases.

Individual businesses will make decisions on issues such as whether or not to use electric cars, to travel by plane as often. Individual households will also decide on when it becomes economic to get an electric car, to insulate their house to reduce higher power bills etc.

The benefit of the ETS is certainty and flexibility. If you set a cap and have it reduce, then you will be on track to meet your target, so long as it includes all sectors. But you don’t have the Government deciding for every business and household how they meet that target.

By say 2035 I would expect the cost of petrol to be very high due to the ETS. The majority of New Zealanders will probably be purchasing electric cars. But if a family decides they still want to use a petrol car (say because they only have one car in the household and do shift work and don’t have time to charge an e-car) then they can still use a petrol car – they will just be paying more for it, and elsewhere in the economy someone else will reduce emissions because there is a cap.

The current ETS is not massively effective because politicians have wanted to shelter businesses and households from costs so you have issues around initial free credits, whether all sectors are in, can you trade internationally etc. But these can be changed. A comprehensive ETS with a continually reducing cap will reach net zero, and do so in a way which lets individual businesses and households decide what to do.

Non-ETS Policies

If for some reason a country doesn’t want to have an ETS, then an alternative is to have scores of policies to reduce emissions. In every sector the Government will decide what should be done. It will ban petrol car imports. It will ban coal burners. It will ban natural gas exploration. It will mandate a reduction in dairy cow numbers. It will require every source of electricity to be non-emitting etc etc.

These will reduce emissions. But not as well as an ETS. Sometimes they may even increase them, due to unforeseen consequences. If you ban natural gas, then coal imports go up. If you ban petrol car imports from a certain date, there might be a huge increase in car imports just prior to then.

Another problem with sector policies is it has the Government deciding centrally for everyone.

Also the cost of reducing emissions can be far far higher with pick and mix policies than an ETS. One estimate is that the cost of reducing a tonne of emissions under the ETS is $38 while some non-ETS policies will have a cost of $1,500 per tonne of reduction.

So a pick and mix of policies will reduce emissions in the absence of an ETS. It will cost more, have less flexibility and less certainty of hitting your target, but it will have some impact.

ETS and non-ETS policies

This is by far the worst option, and not even close. If you have an ETS with a reducing cap, then by definition all these other policies will not reduce emissions any further – not by one gram. If you ban petrol cars, then suddenly there is a surplus of credits and other sectors will emit more as there are more credits available.

Doing an ETS and non-ETS policies means you will not reduce any emissions beyond what the ETS is capped at, but you will impose much higher costs on the economy and remove choice and flexibility from businesses and households.

Sadly this is what both the Government and the Climate Change Commission is saying what we should do.

Politicians like to be able to announce policies so it looks like they are doing something. Just having a well functioning ETS that reduces emissions doesn’t get you into the media every week. But the reality is all these announcements will not reduce emissions any further than the cap in the ETS.

Now again this is not a debate about the temperature, the science or even the target. It is purely about how best to meet the target Parliament has agreed.

A properly functioning ETS is the equivalent of going hard and going early. It will achieve greater reductions at an earlier stage and for less cost.

This is what the the Government should commit to. Everything else is basically window dressing.

Newshub reports:

The COVID positive KFC worker, known as Case L, has told Newshub she’s upset the Prime Minister told the country she should have been self-isolating, as the official advice she got was that she didn’t need to.

She says she and her family have been ridiculed online, and wants an apology.

Case L tested positive on Friday February 26 after being shifted to quarantine with her family. She had attended work on Tuesday February 22.

When asked whether Case L should have been isolating rather than working, the Prime Minister answered: “Look, yes they should have”. …

Case L, the KFC worker said not only did she not receive any information from anyone instructing her to isolate, the information her sister, Case I, received was the complete opposite of what officials have claimed.

On February 14, Case I, received a text message stating: “casual contacts to isolate and test – their families don’t need to”.

Case L saw this message – so went to work. They’ve since been harassed online. …

The Prime Minister’s Office said letters from public health were sent to the family on the 17th and 19th telling the household they needed to be tested. 

But case L’s family said such advice was never received. 

“If they tried to contact us multiple times and send us letters and stuff, where is this evidence?” She said.

It is concerning that the Government is saying something very different to the Case L.

I wouldn’t jump to assumptions over who is correct. Surely what should occur is a public release of all communications between government agencies and Case L and Case I. Then we can judge for ourselves.

Heritage NZ said:

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has recognised the exceptional significance of three Wellington historic places. These noteworthy buildings, built throughout the 20th century, are now Category 1 historic places on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (‘the List’). …

McLean Flats and Gordon Wilson Flats, built in 1943-44 and 1957-59 respectively to provide state rental housing, are of outstanding significance for the way they exhibit how Modernism became a characteristic approach in New Zealand’s mid-20th century public architecture, and together reflect the evolution in Modern design before and after World War Two. They represent a period of optimism and determination to transform society through architecture. The Gordon Wilson Flats is the country’s sole remaining example of 1950s high-rise state housing and is therefore uniquely placed to demonstrate that chapter of New Zealand’s response to the need for housing. As examples of the state exploring different models of housing density, both blocks of flats make interesting contributions to current debates about provision of housing and urban spatial planning in New Zealand.

The flats listed are ugly eyesores. They look like they were imported from the former Soviet Union.