Audrey Young rates the Greens MPs. In order they get:

• Chloe Swarbrick 8/10
• James Shaw 8/10
• Jan Logie 7/10
• Marama Davidson 6/10
• Golriz Ghahraman 6/10
• Eugenie Sage 5/10
• Julie-Anne Genter 5/10
• Gareth Hughes 4/10

Stuff reports:

Paralympian Marieke Vervoort said when the day arrived, she had signed the euthanasia papers and was prepared to end her life.
That day came Tuesday (Wednesday NZ time) in her native Belgium, her death confirmed in a statement from the city of Diest.
Vervoort, who was 40, won gold and silver medals in wheelchair racing at the 2012 London Paralympics, and two more medals three years ago in Rio de Janeiro.

In an interview attended by The Associated Press at the Paralympics in Rio, Vervoort described living with unbroken pain from an incurable, degenerative spinal disease.

She talked of sleeping only 10 minutes some nights, described severe pain that caused others to pass out just watching her, and detailed how sports kept her alive.
“It’s too hard for my body,” Vervoort said in the 2016 interview. “Each training I’m suffering because of pain. Every race I train hard. Training and riding and doing competition are medicine for me. I push so hard – to push literally all my fear and everything away.”
Vervoort spent her last evening with close friends and family, even sharing a glass of sparkling wine, which she referred to as a painkiller.

I’m glad she lived in a country where she could make such a choice.

Vervoort was a strong advocate of the right to choose euthanasia, which is legal in Belgium. Like training hard, she said it gave her control and put “my own life in my hands.”
“I’m really scared, but those (euthanasia) papers give me a lot of peace of mind because I know when it’s enough for me, I have those papers,” she said.
“If I didn’t have those papers, I think I’d have done suicide already. I think there will be fewer suicides when every country has the law of euthanasia. … I hope everybody sees that this is not murder, but it makes people live longer.”

I think this is right – the alternative to euthanasia is often suicide.

Labour promised to end homelessness. In one interview the PM said it would be done in four weeks. But I have been generous and assumed they meant by the end of their first term.

The Priority A waiting list for social housing is the best indicator of homelessness. These are those deemed in urgent need of accommodation. So how has Labour gone in reducing homelessness from 4,000?

To date they have increased it by 150%. I’ll update this series each time new data comes out.

Massey senior lecturer Steve Elers writes:

On one hand, Massey has to deal with the complexities of “free speech”, which in itself is completely subjective – even the Free Speech Coalition lists eight “categories of speech that are not included in free speech”.
On the other hand, there are economic considerations that must be taken into account. All organisations need to remain financially viable to exist. Therein lies the problem.
Massey’s 2018 Annual Report shows its revenue included $108.6 million in student fees from domestic students. In comparison, it received $84.1m in student fees from international students. The same report shows Massey had 5331 international students and that 3722 students were born in China. Of course, not all Chinese-born students are international students, but it is probably fair to say most are.
In other words, Massey, probably like many if not all of our universities, is beholden to its international full-fee paying students from China.

Elers points out Massey gets a lot of income from Chinese international students.

China can literally turn the tap off overnight. It threatened to do that to the United States a few months ago due to the trade war between China and the US, which has resulted in a “record number of Chinese students” at British universities. The Global Times, the Chinese state newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece the People’s Daily, wrote earlier this year: “American universities shouldn’t be so arrogant. By leaving China’s booming market and leaving Chinese students, those universities would feel regrettable.” 
Enough said.
So, the question becomes: Are we prepared to risk our fourth largest export earner, $5b and 50,000 jobs, for the sake of “free speech” in the form of posters?
If you follow the deontological position of ethics, you might subscribe to the view that removing posters is morally wrong, and therefore you are willing to jeopardise $5b and up to 50,000 jobs because upholding “free speech” is paramount.
In contrast, if you adhere to the teleological position, you would make a decision based on the best overall consequences – that might mean you are not willing to jeopardise $5b and up to 50,000 jobs, so you pull down the posters. What I have outlined is a simplified approach – I am not a philosopher – but either way it is definitely a “no win” situation for Massey.

Elers concludes (and I agree) that Massey pulled down the posters to appease Beijing, as they were scared of losing revenue.

But I disagree with his analysis that this was a hard decision and a no win either way.

First of all, you need to consider than China is like Rio Tinto – a good bluffer. Are they really going to boycott Massey University because they refused to take some posters down? Where will they send them instead? Otago? Auckland? Oxford?

Keith Ng makes this point:

But even if there are economic consequences, the decision is clearly the wrong one. Just consider where this ends if a NZ university decides to trade free speech for appeasing the Chinese Government. If we’re okay with them taking down posters supporting the HK protesters then what next would they be willing to do?

• Ban campus access to the Wikipedia article on Tiananmen Square?
• Ban protests in support of the HK protesters?
• Refuse to publish any academic research critical of China?
• Refuse to allow academics or students from Taiwan to study or lecture?
• Allow the Chinese Government to approve any textbooks used in classes about China

The only reason that China even bothers to pressure universities is because they have shown in the past that they will succumb to pressure.

NZ universities should follow the lead of the University of Chicago.

Stuff reports:

We are beginning the perennial dance between the Crown and Rio Tinto, majority owners of the Tiwai aluminium smelter.
Last time we did this tango John Key ignored Treasury advice and tipped $30 million from the public purse into the welcome mittens of the smelter’s owners.
Now, we have the usual hand-wringing from the great and the good decrying the threat of more corporate welfare.
Even my comrades at the Taxpayers’ Union have started a petition against propping up this foreign-owned smelter.

They are wrong. Tiwai is important and if we need to swallow a dead rat to keep it we should sprinkle a bit of sugar on the deceased rodent and make the best of it.

I disagree.

First of all, we should not assume some corporate welfare is what will keep Tiwai open or not. Rio Tinto are masters at pressuring money out of the Government, but I personally do not believe they would have closed the smelter last time without the $30 million.

What matters most to Tiwai is the price of aluminium. We have no control over that. It is not up to taxpayers to subsidise Tiwai when the global prices falls, anymore than we subsidise other global commodity companies.

The NZ Herald reports:

The foreign affairs branch of the New Zealand Government says it continues to share its concerns about the “human rights situation” in China’s Xinjiang province.
This comes after New Zealand and 23 other countries last week co-signed a statement to the head of the United Nations Human Rights body, condemning the treatment of the Uighur Muslims in China.
The statement, delivered by the UK’s Permanent Representative to the UN Karen Pierce, was co-signed by the likes of Japan, Germany, the US and the UK.

I’m pleased New Zealand signed this, despite our relationship with China.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Transport’s $1.3 million rideshare experiment in upmarket Devonport is the city’s most heavily-subsidised public transport service, needing a top-up of $11.72 per trip.
The council agency has decided to extend the 12-month trial for a further six months, declining a management recommendation that it become permanent.

Auckland has huge public transport needs. But what it doesn’t need is a Council loss making Uber style service. There are multiple ride sharing companies competing in Auckland.

Fare revenue is just under half the $187,200 annual forecast, due to the “introductory” $2.50 fare never being raised to $3, and only 36,533 trips taken versus the 62,400 forecast used in estimates.

So the number of trips is half forecast. They’d be bankrupt if not owned by ratepayers.

AT said the service had replaced 10,750 private vehicle trips, although 48 per cent of the electric shuttles’ trips have been with just one passenger.
The service has also been attracting people who previously walked, cycled or caught a bus to the ferry.

If there were 36,000 trips and it replaced 11,000 vehicle trips, then the conclusion is that 26,000 of those trips were people who would have been walking, cycling or busing.

It is highly likely that it has led to more congestion, more greenhouse gas emissions and had made a loss. A lose-lose-lose.

Brent Norling writes:

Dear Jacinda,
As an insolvency-specialist lawyer, I see a high volume of business owners who are really struggling and many who ultimately fail and lose everything. 
These hardworking New Zealanders often do everything for their businesses. 
They are their own product/service developer, finance department, marketing department and sales department. 

They are the HR department, the general manager, the mentor, the quality control officer, the IT department, the administrator and bookkeeper… 
The list of tasks they perform each week to keep their companies going is endless. 

And we have a few hundred thousand of them.

What I’m getting it is, being in business is hard. 
But you may not appreciate that. 
Because if you did have a basic understanding of SME (small-to-medium enterprise) life, there is no way that you would be acting the way that you are. There is no way that your Government would have the policies that you do.
For example, you are making it difficult for New Zealand SMEs to employ foreigners for roles Kiwis don’t want anyway. You are increasing employee costs for business owners who aren’t even paying themselves a living wage.
You are making it harder for employment relationships with changes to the trial period provisions. You are increasing costs to business by tampering with fuel costs. There is uncertainty over the tax position of SMEs and how that could play out. 

Almost no Ministers have ever worked in business, let alone a small business. So no they don’t understand.

Business owners have an extremely stressful role. They literally risk everything. Their assets, their time, their physical health and their mental health. They do it because we are great optimists in New Zealand. They do it for the nest egg. The better future for them and their loved ones. 
And if they are successful, they will contribute in a very important way to our economy and they will provide employment to many New Zealanders who don’t want to or can’t run a business. 
So, why do you and your party wish to make life even more difficult for hard working Kiwi business owners? 

Because unions fund the Labour Party and vote in Labour Party selections.

Newshub reports:

A heated debate broke out at a select committee considering changes to abortion law, after some submitters asked for the legislation to say “pregnant person” instead of “pregnant woman”.
The Abortion Legislation Bill – which would bring abortion out of the Crimes Act and remove the need for a doctor’s approval before 20 weeks – currently uses the term “pregnant woman”. 
But some submitters have asked the committee to consider replacing “pregnant woman” with “pregnant person” or “pregnant women and people” in the legislation to represent diversity.

Yes it is critical than pregnant men are also able to have abortions.

You might consider this a trivial issue but imagine you’re a man who got pregnant. Would you want to carry the baby to term?

Reuters reported:

Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has “utterly failed,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, adding fuel to a debate over immigration and Islam polarizing her conservative camp.

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel said allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating had not worked in a country that is home to some four million Muslims.
“This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, south of Berlin.

The key is integration. Immigration done well, like in NZ, is a very good thing. But it is important that we control both the rate and “quality” of immigrants. Our points based system is an excellent system. And we have secure borders so can decide how many people enter our country.

That is very different to countries which have insecure borders and get swamped with illegal immigrants and/or asylym seekers. In those situations, it is much harder to integrate.

Merkel faces pressure from within her CDU to take a tougher line on immigrants who don’t show a willingness to adapt to German society and her comments appeared intended to pacify her critics.

This is also key. People should adapt to the country they move to. That doesn’t mean give up on their own culture, but it does mean adapt and integrate. If I moved to Singapore, I would adapt to Singaporean society.

Average Thief blogs:

I was one of the thousands of people who made a submission relating to the Abortion Legislation Bill.  Like many people, I oppose abortion on demand, and my submission gave reasons.
Sometime later, the Parliamentary Select Committee considering this bill emailed submitters.  The email included:
The committee has agreed to hear from as many submitters as possible, focusing on submissions that will most help it consider what, if any, changes should be recommended to the bill.
Select Committees consider –
whether to recommend that a bill should proceed; and
if they recommend that it should proceed, what (if any) amendments to recommend.
This committee seems to have skipped step #1.  And public hearings are yet to occur.
I emailed the committee secretariat describing the usual practice and asking, “How on earth has the committee decided in advance that the Bill will proceed?”
The response:
Detail of the committee’s consideration is confidential to the committee.
In other words, “We’ve made up our minds before public hearings and we’re not prepared to discuss it”.

It does seem unusual to only be asking for improvements to the bill, and not to be asking for submissions on whether or not the bill proceed.

The doom merchants would have you believe everything is getting worse and poverty etc is increasing. The opposite is of course the case.

The Guardian reports:

For the millions of people who descend on Munich for the annual bash, Oktoberfest is a celebration of beer, bands and bratwurst.
But as the dust settles for another year on the world’s largest folk festival, and die Bierleichen (“beer corpses”) return to the land of the living, environmental scientists have released the first analysis of methane emissions from the 16-day party.
Researchers at Technical University in Munich walked and cycled around the perimeter of the festival last year with mobile sensors aloft. The instruments found the event emitted nearly 1,500kg of methane – 10 times the amount that wafted off Boston, Massachusetts, in the same period.

Well obviously Oktoberfest must be banned to save the planet. Bags not going to Bavaria to explain though.

A guest post by Alwyn Poole:

A positive future is an anchor for all young people. Doubt, anxiety and addictions create cycles that are very hard to break and adults and politically oriented interest groups are superb at exploiting children and young people.
An implied helplessness keeps all ages awake at night. Our mortality is our greatest mental health challenge and when we lump the mortality of the entire human race on the shoulders of young people – it is unbearable.
I was recently in the New York State museum and they had a display on “climate change” through the millenniums with a graphic explaining that where I was standing would have been 2.4 km beneath ice 24,000 years ago and a brilliant explanation of cooling and warming patterns for the earth.
The protests of young people can morally be a very good thing. Practically, with regards to climate change, they are a spectacular waste of time and do far more harm than good. Ill-informed people telling youth that the world has 15 – 20 years left and there is little we can do may be the greatest Chicken Little story ever.
A couple of decades ago Julian Simon bet scaremonger Paul Ehrlich that the price of many key resources would decrease and, effectively, that the world would become a better place through human innovation. Simon won. Since then, by any measure (e.g. life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, etc) the world has simply got better and better. For anyone who would state that the world situation would become catastrophic in the next 15 years I would make a similar bet. I will pay $100 per annum to the first 10 people who contact me to say that they believe that human life is all but over in 15 years time if they will put up $100,000 worth of assets at the end of that period. If they truly believe what they are telling young people it should be a no-brainer for them. They will have $1,500 risk free dollars, by their reasoning to eat and drink and be merry. I am happy to negotiate the measures of human well-being that we should take into account and put my $15,000 towards it into safe-keeping.
The comments about not having children, not flying, seeing no point in study or a career by definition are creating sleepless nights for those that need sleep and positivity the most. The world has got better and better and this is the best time ever to grow up – including what many historians call the “long peace”. For those that need a crisis to claim their funding and place in society this is clearly untenable – but the truth is there is no “climate emergency” and almost every IPCC prediction so far has massively missed the mark.
One of the great tragedies of the climate change extremism, including student “strikes” and especially the ridiculous performances of the “extinction rebellion” people is that the wonderful idealism of young people is being massively misdirected and exploited. Striking and taking to the streets is ineffective and also creates resentment and opposition from people trying to go about their day-to-day lives.
There are very needy environmental concerns that the idealism of young people can help solve. Instead of striking have nationwide beach and waterway clean-up days. Teach people how to trap harmful animals and work on eradicating invasive plants. Advocate for a sensible fishing quotas in all regions. Throw away all heavy metal articles (e.g. mobile phones) for the sake of developing nations. Plant riparian trees en masse. Consider that nuclear energy is now very safe and in many countries they would allow damned rivers to be returned to their natural flow that would enhance flora and fauna as well as recreational uses.
The exploitation of naivety is a great crime while the passion of youth is a great attribute. The generation currently growing up can both be positive about their future and truly bring good to the world. I very much look forward to hearing from 10 individuals who will take my bet and aim to extract $15,000 from me.

NewstalkZB reports:

People who think they’re “politically woke” and who cast stones at others for petty mistakes need to get over themselves, according to former US president Barack Obama.
Speaking at the Obama Foundation’s annual summit in Chicago, America’s 44th leader was quizzed about the state of politics and activism in the country and the trouble with its growing ‘woke’ culture.
Being ‘woke’ — or being aware of and attentive to all the injustices in society — became somewhat of a catchphrase in the lead up to the 2016 presidential elections.
But Obama said those who believed being woke made them superior and untouchable were kidding themselves.
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re politically woke, and all that stuff — you should get over that quickly,” he said.
“The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting with may love their kids and share certain things with you.”
Obama said he was particularly concerned by young people thinking they could spark change by calling out people in power for petty mistakes, such as spelling and grammar errors.
“One danger I see among young people particularly on college campuses is that I do get a sense among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, that the way of me making change is to be as judgemental as possible about other people and that’s enough,” Obama said.
“Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I consider that I can feel pretty good about myself because, ‘man did you see how woke I was, I called you out’,” Obama said, prompting laughter in the crowd.
“That is not activism, that is not bringing about change.

Great advice. Sadly I think it will fall on deaf ears.

Radio NZ reports:

Newly-released emails reveal Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s staff tried to keep secret Treasury’s criticism of a government proposal, but were unsuccessful. …

Earlier this year, RNZ revealed Treasury had rubbished the so-called “feebate” scheme aimed at promoting electric cars, warning it would have virtually no effect on carbon emissions over two decades.
That advice was obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, but fresh correspondence reveals Mr Robertson’s office had tried to stop Treasury from releasing it.
The documents show Treasury initially intended to release its advice in full with just the names and contact details of certain staff redacted.
But officials in the minister’s office were quick to try reverse that decision, first suggesting it be withheld because the advice related to a draft Cabinet paper.
Treasury staff pushed back, saying the draft was “near-final”, so Ombudsman guidance indicated it must be made public.
“We therefore believe the release should remain as it is,” the email said.
The minister’s economic advisor, Alastair Cameron, then tried a different tack, asking Treasury to consider withholding its advice on the grounds of confidentiality.

Cameron is a former Chief of Staff for Labour and longtime activist.

Bravo to Treasury for standing up to the Minister’s office and obeying the law.

Sentenced to Preventive Detention today at Wellington High Court for attempted murder, Stephen Williams is New Zealand’s 11th Third Striker and joins an even rarer club – those sentenced to Preventive Detention on two separate occasions – barely separated in time by just 18 months.

Williams is a child killer – of 6 year old Coral-Ellen Burrows in 2003.  But that wasn’t his first strike – as Three Strikes came into effect 6 years later – in 2010, and was not retrospective.

All three of Williams’ subsequent strike offences have been attacks on fellow prisoners – either attempted murders or very close to it.  The sentences have been as follows:

1st strike – wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – 5 years, 8 months imprisonment

2nd strike – attempted murder – Preventive Detention with a 10 year minimum non-parole period

3rd strike – attempted murder – Preventive Detention with a 14 year minimum non-parole period

Had the Judge not imposed Preventive Detention, the Three Strikes law would have required the Judge to impose the 14 year maximum term for attempted murder.

Williams has at least 98 criminal convictions. He is virtually irredeemable. He is one of a few small number of prisoners whose chance of release is close to zero – until he is too old to hurt a paper towel – even by New Zealand’s soft-touch Parole Board, which seems to try its best to release offenders from prison as early as possible.

Even at today’s sentencing, he was threatening to kill journalists and guards.

He remains where he belongs for a very, very long time – in prison.

This chart shows the number of seats the three main national parties have had in the House of Commons since 1945. The 2019 figures are a projection based on the latest polls. It will no doubt change as the campaign continues.

But at this stage Labour is looking at its lowest number of seats ever and Conservatives on a par with the Thatcher 1983 and Blair 1997 results. But again early days.

Stuff reports:

Development plans at Shelly Bay have been given the green light, but there could still be problems.
After months of deliberations, independent commissioners have granted resource consent for the controversial $500 million development on the western edge of Wellington’s Miramar peninsula.

Good. I think the proposed development is great. Shelly Bay at present is a rotting monstrosity. It is a perfect location for apartments, cafes and bars and more.

I hope the Council doesn’t block the development, as that will just mean the awful status quo will remain indefinitely.

Amusing. Of course the resource consent was decided by independent commissioners.