Stuff reports:
Teenage binge drinking has “dropped off the cliff” in the last 20 years but, until now, no-one really knew why.
A new paper, “What explains the decline in adolescent binge-drinking in New Zealand?”, comes up with some answers but the reasons are complicated, surprising and sometimes contradict themselves.
The data is no surprise to me as I have often blogged on it. However those who keep pushing for increasing the drinking age to 20 always portray the opposite – that youth drinking is getting worse.
Judith Collins has called for the Prime Minister to use her powers to delay the election until November, or failing that for Parliament to meet and vote on delaying it until 2021.
Collins points out that early voting is due to start in two and a half weeks and opposition parties are unable to campaign or even have their campaign launches.
It seems that following some complaints Facebook has pulled down Sir Bob Jones’ Facebook page for his No Punches Pulled Blog. If correct, just another example of the insidious politically correct censorship on social media. On Twitter you can get banned for referring to someone by their biological sex instead of their gender identity!
Anyway a reminder that if you want to read what Sir Bob writes, best place to do so is directly on his No Punches Pulled blog.
I have now profiled on Patreon the 13 general electorates in the Lower North Island and the two Maori electorates. The full profiles are here.
The summary is:
So Lower North Island is an area where Labour has several potential pickups.
This graph shows the election dates for every election since WWII. Basically up until 2014 every election was in November except for the three snap elections (and the elections just after them, as they must be held within around 38 months of the last one).
It was only in 2014 that it was held early, and that was to avoid the G20 meeting NZ had been invited to.
So if the election is delayed until November, that is not a big issue. November is the traditional month anyway.
There is a very serious question to be answered about how Covid-19 got back into the community.
I think almost everyone would agree with Dr Bloomfield that it hasn’t been sitting here undetected for 100 days, as we have had so much testing during that time.
So a safe assumption is that the virus originated with someone who returned from overseas. But they are all in isolation for 14 days until they have two negative tests. So it is unlikely they directly infected the family member – especially as there is no known contact.
So what is extremely likely is it spread though someone who works at the border or an isolation facility, who caught it from a traveller. And there have been stories by Newshub about how staff are not being routinely tested. Off memory a number of bus drivers who transport the travellers said they had never been tested.
So this outbreak (unlike the earlier ones) may well be due to a failure at the border or isolation facilities. What is concerning is they can’t even trace it back to someone there.
So the Government needs to be held to account (not the same as blame) for this, but we have a problem.
The Government is making major decisions such as locking Auckland down, with no ability for the Opposition to hold them to account.
This suggests that at a minimum Parliament should not be dissolved today. In fact it should be summoned to meet.
The wider issue is whether you can proceed with an election when campaigns have been suspended and a third of the population is locked down. National’s campaign launch in Auckland on Sunday will inevitably be cancelled or postponed I’d say.
A decision on delaying the election doesn’t need to be made today but I would say within a week max. If Auckland goes to Level 1 within a week, can possibly carry on. But if Auckland remains under restrictions for more than a few days, it would be grossly irresponsible and unfair to continue.
Ministers and MPs should be focused on Covid-19, not on campaigning. But campaigning is a vital part of elections.
As I said at a minimum the dissolution of Parliament should not proceed today, and a special sitting should be scheduled for say Friday.
Stuff reports:
Some books about the Treaty of Waitangi on the shelves of Tasman District libraries are “very right-wing extremist”, says Tasman District councillor Dana Wensley.
Some material “that I know we’ve got in our library … is by a publisher that is not academically robust,” Wensley last week told a meeting of the council operations committee.
Oh God. Politicians should not be deciding what books people can and can’t access in libraries.
The irony is that Dana Wensley is the PEN (NZ) representative for freedom of speech!!!
“There’s a number of these books in our library that are actually very worrying to me because they’re free of charge,” she said. “The academic presses are more expensive for those books to buy but I think there’s something to us having a mind to making sure that material in our library that has gone through that academic rigour of peer review is readily accessible.”
Libraries are not just for peer reviewed books. They are for books that members of the public want to read.
Wensley said she was concerned people were “picking up these books on our shelves that are very right-wing extremist … and I think we should have zero tolerance for that”.
“I’m not talking about censorship, I’m just talking about making sure that the books that are free are also academically robust because at the moment there’s a bit of an imbalance and I think that people might be getting the wrong view of our obligations to our treaty partners because of the material they could be accessing from our library, and that concerns me.”
I suspect the definition of “Very right-wing extremist” is takes a different view on what the Treaty means. And it is censorship when politicians demand books are removed because they disagree with the views in them.
Karl Marx’s views have led to tens of millions of avoidable deaths. But do right wingers sit around demanding his books be banned?
The Prime Minister and DG of Health are holding an emergency press conference regarding Covid-19. Details to follow.
Stuff reports:
Asked about the National’s commitment to get tough on gangs, Ardern said the best way to deal with gangs and methamphetamine in the community was to support the police. The Government had done that by adding more than 2000 police, she said.Ardern criticised the previous National government, she said that under Judith Collins – who was police minister from 2008-2011 – there was a decrease in the number of police.
Two whoppers here.
The first is they have now added on more than 2,000 Police. There are 1,260 more Police now than in October 2017. She is trying to claim every new Police recruit as “adding Police” but that is nonsensical.
Imagine a CEO who had 300 staff quit and then hired 100 new staff and claimed they had “added more than 100 staff”.
The second whopper is her claim police numbers decreased under Judith Collins. Here are the FTE sworn Police numbers from Police annual reports:
On Patreon I look at the range of outcomes are for each party and what would represent an excellent (A) outcome, a good (B) outcome, an acceptable outcome (C) and a bad (D) outcome.
The section on Labour is:
Labour
A – Over 50% of the vote and a majority Government in its own right. The dream scenario, no party has done since 1951. Preferably the Greens make it also, but they don’t need them to govern.
B – Mid to high 40s and a Labour/Green Government. The first true left Government since 2002. A very good outcome and they get to implement as much of their agenda as they feel they can carry the public with.
C – Low to mid 40s and a Labour/Green/NZ First Government again. A lot better than being in opposition, but frustrating that once again Peters would decide what policies live or die.
D -Low 40s to mid 40s and Greens and NZF don’t make it and Labour just misses out to National/ACT. Would be a terrible outcome after one term and polling so well post Covid-19.
Newsroom reports:
The National Party has announced it would scrap the Government’s target to reduce the prison population, instead reviving its “social investment” approach across the justice system in a bid to lower offending rates.
The party has revealed its slate of law and order policy for the upcoming election, with the introduction of a new category for “young serious offenders” and the expansion of mental health initiatives and specialist courts among its plans.
National leader Judith Collins said her party had shown its ability to reduce offending, improve community safety and “break the cycle of intergenerational family violence and abuse” over its years in government.
“National puts victims at the heart of our criminal justice system because we understand that, through no fault of their own, they are often left with deep physical and mental scars,” Collins said.
“Our policy is simple: victims should get justice and criminals should be held accountable for the harm they cause, while also being rehabilitated into contributing members of our society.”
A policy document outlining National’s plans said the Government’s target of reducing the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years “has the wrong focus and we will scrap it”.
Instead, National’s justice spokesman Simon Bridges said his party would put an emphasis on reducing crime and reoffending by setting clear reduction targets, primarily through the social investment approach launched by Bill English in the party’s last term of government.
“We will use data to identify the areas of greatest need within the justice system and focus on making New Zealand a safer place,” Bridges said.
National aims to have fewer victims, while Labour aims to have fewer prisoners. These can be very different things,
If your focus is simply on having fewer people in prison, then you can achieve that by relaxing bail laws, letting people out on parole earlier and reducing sentences – all without actually reducing crime.
But a focus on reducing the number of victims of crime (which means safer communities) means a sensible mixture of early interventions to stop people getting into crime, supporting rehabilitation programmes but also keeping those who are recidivist offenders in prison so they can’t create more victims.
National would expand mental health initiatives within NZ Police and widen the use of specialist systems such as drug and alcohol courts which helped offenders deal with addiction.
It would also introduce a ‘Clean Start’ policy to help recently released prisoners get a fresh start in a new community away from where their offences were committed, with community providers offering wraparound support to help provide accommodation, employment and education.
The scheme would only be open to those serving a sentence of two years or less, or who had been on remand for longer than 60 days.
Clean Start would initially be limited to a maximum of 500 prisoners while its efficacy was assessed, with an estimated cost of $30 million over four years.
In addition to rehabilitation initiatives, there is also some traditional tough talk from National on gangs and other serious offenders.
The party would provide police with funding to create a dedicated gang unit, give officers greater powers to search gang members’ homes and cars for firearms, and ban all gang patches and insignia in public places.
It has also proposed a new category for “young serious offenders” – anyone under 18 who has committed a crime with a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment or more, and who meets other criteria – to prevent recidivism.
The 150 most serious young offenders would be triaged into targeted programmes, with broader funding for specialist services and expanded powers for police and Oranga Tamariki to detain those within the YSO category.
All looks very sensible apart from banning gang patches in public places.
Radio NZ reports:
Four people have been granted border exemptions to enter New Zealand for work on an all-weather horse-racing track in Cambridge, sparking questions from the Opposition about what the government is prioritising during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is obviously critical that an all-weather horse-racing track be completed in time for summer!
Delighted to report that local delegates have selected Emma Mellow as National’s candidate for Auckland Central.
If I had to describe Emma, it would be as a young Nikki Kaye, but even more determined and driven (if that is possible!).
The reason Nikki beat Jacinda Ardern twice in Auckland Central isn’t because she was the National MP, but because Nikki was known for giving 110% to the electorate – there was no project large or small she wouldn’t support, and help make happen.
Previous MPs basically ignored Great Barrier Island, except maybe visit once during the campaign. Nikki would visit many times a year and was constantly advocating for better infrastructure, educational services etc. She had high approval ratings from all voters (including Labour and Green voters) for her work as a local MP.
This is what Emma will offer the electorate also. Not someone who wants to win the seat so their party doesn’t have to worry about its party vote. Not a union lawyer. But someone who will work day and night to get results for families and businesses in Auckland Central.
It is going to be a very exciting campaign in Auckland Central. I hope Emma wins, because Auckland Central deserve an MP who will deliver for them.
Damien Grant writes:
Few myths are as damaging, however, as that surrounding Franklin Roosevelt and his ‘New Deal’ of the 1930s. Most readers, guided by legend and popular wisdom, will believe that FDR’s big government programmes were responsible for ending the Great Depression. …
Hoover was quick to action, pushing large scale capital works and imposing step tariffs as unemployment reached eight million. This had little effect, so he increased government lending to favoured industries and banks, ran large budget deficits and doubled the debt to GDP ratio from 20 per cent to 40 per cent.
None of it worked and he was evicted from the White House in 1933 after a single term, in favour of Roosevelt.
The new president wasted no time in expanding Hoover’s programmes. The ‘New Deal’ wasn’t new; it merely continued the failed policies of the previous three years and achieved the same result.
By 1933, some four years after the stock market failure the US hit its economic nadir. Unemployment was at 23 per cent. Industrial output was barely half of what it had been and foreign trade was reduced by an appalling 70 per cent.
Roosevelt established a slew of new public works, building dams, roads and federal buildings. He poured new billions into propping up the banking system, introduced deposit insurance and dramatically expanded the federal social welfare net.
For a decade the US ran deficits, raised taxes and had the federal government intervening directly and indirectly into the country’s economic life to an unprecedented extent. Yet by 1939, unemployment remained at 15 per cent and many of those who had jobs were poorer than they had been a decade previously.
Six years on and the New Deal still had unemployment at 15%!
The counter to my argument would be that had it not been stimulus provided by both Hoover and Roosevelt, the economic pain would have been worse. This would be a fair response were it not for a similar shock nine years earlier, in 1920.
This occurred in the aftermath of the Great War and an economic contraction in response to the Spanish Flu. Some estimates have unemployment exceeding 10 per cent and prices falling by as much as 18 per cent. The Dow Jones was almost halved.
With the US economy still adjusting to peacetime production and struggling to accommodate millions of demobbed soldiers, the potential for economic ruin was great.
Yet, by what some economists unkindly refer to as a ‘stroke of good fortune’, President Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated. In response to the looming depression, Wilson did precisely nothing. His successor, Warren Harding, continued this hands-off approach. There was some unemployment relief, but the reaction by the federal government was muted.
The market, that great evil so demonised by contemporary commentators, was left to work out how to re-allocate resources, prices and labour.
Within 18 months the US had recovered and successfully absorbed millions of former troops.
So the best response is allowing the economy to expand in new areas, creating jobs, rather than huge amounts of government spending.
Stuff reported:
Most agree Māori Parliament seats should be kept
That was the headline but their own data contradicts that. Now it was an unscientific survey so doesn’t represent the views of all NZers but the headline should reflect their own data.
Here’s what the six main identity groups said on the Maori seats:
Now if you weight those results by the numbers in each group in the survey you get an overall result of Keep 35% and Abolish 39%.
Another interesting aspect of the survey was those who identify as Pakeha were less likely to want colonial statues to remain up as Maori themselves were. 41% of Maori want the statues to remain (34% to go) and only 28% of those who identify as Pakeha.
Stuff reports:
In questions from the floor Peters’ was asked if there are plans to have an even playing field for health care as the woman felt there is preference given to those injured rather than those with an illness.
While he wouldn’t divulge his full policy he did say, “there would be a full review of all the DHB’s and a full scale look at ACC”.
When asked what his stance was on 1080 he said that he was opposed to 1080 on the grounds that it has been banned everywhere else in the world because they know something we don’t know.
This is both factually wrong and misleading.
1080 (a brand name for sodium fluoroacetate) is not banned everywhere else in the world. It is used in a number of countries including Australia, the US, Israel, Japan and Equador.
Peters implies they know something about it that we don’t. This is wrong. NZ has done more research into 1080 than any other country.
The reasons 1080 is more widely used in NZ than most countries is because we have no native land mammals (apart from bats) and a huge number of destructive mammalian pests. So that makes it very suitable for NZ and unsuitable in countries with native land mammals. Nothing to do with them knowing something we don’t.
At the end of the day, it is just Peters desperately trying to win votes through ignorance.
In NZ we tend to think Australia has Covid-19 out of control, but in fact it is really only Victoria. In fact most Australian states and territories still have a lower infection rate than NZ.
| Cases | Deaths | Population | Cases/mil | Deaths/mil | |
| NT | 33 | 0 | 244,761 | 135 | – |
| QLD | 1088 | 6 | 5,129,996 | 212 | 1 |
| WA | 642 | 9 | 2,639,080 | 243 | 3 |
| SA | 459 | 4 | 1,759,184 | 261 | 2 |
| ACT | 113 | 3 | 427,419 | 264 | 7 |
| NZ | 1569 | 22 | 4,886,000 | 321 | 5 |
| TAS | 229 | 13 | 537,012 | 426 | 24 |
| NSW | 3861 | 50 | 8,128,984 | 475 | 6 |
| VIC | 14659 | 210 | 6,651,074 | 2,204 | 32 |
So five states and territories have a lower infection rate than New Zealand.
Queensland has a large population than NZ and fewer cases and deaths.
This is not to say we shouldn’t be very happy with out stats. They are much better than the rest of the world. But most states in Australia have managed to get just as good a result.
Delighted to see Megan Hands win National’s nomination for Rangitata. I am confident she will retain the seat for National and become an MP in October.
Megan was elected to the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) in 2019, topping the ward vote for Christchurch West as an Independent, beating incumbents and candidates on the Labour-aligned People’s Choice ticket. A remarkable achievement for someone from a rural area to win election in an urban ward.
Megan has a rural dairy farming background and has a Bachelor of Environmental Management and Planning. She has worked for LandPro as a planner, for Dairy NZ as an engagement leader and for AsureQuality on the M.Bovis response. Since 2017 she has been self-employed as a rural environmental consultant.
She is very focused on how the route to enhancing the environment is working with farmers, not demonising them.
Megan has also been a two time regional finalist in the FMG Young Farmer of the Year Contest.
I’m delighted she is going to be a National MP.
The Auckland Central selection for National is on Monday. Here’s a quick summary of the three candidates.
Nuwanthie Samarakone
Nuwi was born in Sri Lanka. She had her early childhood in Scotland and moved to Auckland as a teenager. She has a degree in health sciences and after working in the public and private health sector set up her own consultancy firm which operates in six countries.
Rob Thomas
Rob is well known through his work in local government. He is a former Chair of the Auckland Youth Council and was elected to the Waitemata Local Board in 2010, 2013 and 2016. He’s been involved in numerous community projects. He stood unsuccessfully for the Auckland Council in 2016.
Emma Mellow
Emma had a tough time growing up. Her mother was a solo mum and died when Emma was 16. This very sad event led to Emma being incredibly determined and driven from a young age. Emma studied at Auckland University as well as the London School of Economics and the University of California.
Emma has been working for almost a decade in communications and public relations. She’s worked on behalf of companies such as HP, Symantec, General Electric, Telstra and Mastercard and more recently had senior roles with Sydney Airport and ANZ Bank.
On Patreon I analyse what I see as the pros and cons of the three candidates.
The poll results for Northland show that not only isn’t it close, but Shane Jones is a distant third. Northland are showing they can’t be bribed.
I’m not surprised by the result. It has been my view for some time that Jones will come third and his previous electoral record shows this.
I imagine the impact of this poll is NZ First will get more desperate and start saying more outrageous stuff. But most people know it for what it is.
Interesting data from the Stuff/Massey survey. It’s self selecting so you can’t put much weight on the top line data but you can get something out of the difference between various groups.
Specifically I am interested in the differences between those who say they are NZ European, New Zealander and Pakeha. Technically all the same group in terms of ethnicity but which term you identify with reveals a lot.
The data isn’t surprising in that people who embrace Pakeha as a label tend to vote left and those who see themselves as a New Zealander rather than Pakeha or European tend to vote right, but having some numbers around it is useful.