As all will have heard by now, John McCain has died of brain cancer aged 81.

I think nothing reflects his character more than his decision during captivity in the Vietnam War. He had been tortured on multiple occasions and was offered early repatriation once they realised his father was a senior Admiral. He refused to be released until everyone who had arrived before him was also released. There is a great article detailing what happened to him here.

He had two chances of becoming President but lost the Republican nomination in 2000 to George W Bush and the general election in 2008 to Barack Obama.

We will never know, but I think he would have been a better President than both Bush and Obama. I think he would have pursued a more successful path in the Middle East than Bush.

It speaks volumes to his characters that his two opponents will be the main speakers at his funeral.

He was a good friend of New Zealand and one of the most reliable pro-free trade voices in the Senate. Off memory he once said his ideal free trade agreement would be a single piece of paper saying “You can sell us anything and we can sell you anything”.

The US Senate will seem empty without John McCain. He has been a Senator for over 30 years and would easily be the most well known Republican Senator of his generation.

Tracy Watkins writes:

Unfinished business can be toxic in politics. Which is why Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern should have ripped off the plaster and stripped her beleaguered minister Clare Curran of all her portfolios, rather than allow her to limp on with her authority undermined.

Curran already had form for doing the very same thing she was demoted over: failing to be upfront about dealings with people related to her portfolios.

Ardern will keep facing questions about why she failed to cut her loose.

The risk for Ardern is if Curran stuffs up again, the PM will be the one whose judgement will be in doubt.

Speaker Trevor Mallard has also created a vacuum that would only be filled by conspiracy theories and unanswered questions.

Having announced a full-scale inquiry into “limogate” leaking of Opposition leader Simon Bridges’s expenses just this week, he pulled the rug out from under it, creating bad blood between himself and National.

It is a decision seemingly based on an assumption that the texter is telling the truth. I don’t know who the texter and leaker is, but within National there is huge skepticism that the texter is as MP, as they claim. They may well be a National staffer, but the language used in the text (such referring to themselves as a member of caucus rather than just as an MP) just doesn’t sound like an MP. One person who has seen the text told me it sounded like a millennial.

Now they may be wrong. But canning the inquiry based on an assumption the texter is telling the truth was premature by the Speaker.

But having now been informed by police that the person concerned has mental health issues, Bridges has no way of knowing for sure whether that might be one of his MPs, a staff member, or even someone from the Speaker’s office.

An inquiry might have allowed Parliament to find that person and put support around them if necessary. Alternatively, it might have found that the text was a smokescreen.

But we may never know. Worse for Bridges, the finger of suspicion is now pointed at an internal leak, suggesting cracks in National’s unity. Mallard may not have done Labour many favours either. National’s response will be to blow smoke about the Speaker’s motives.

I’d say confidence in the Speaker from National MPs is rock bottom. Worse than when Margaret Wilson was Speaker.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council is contacting hundreds of churches that received rates bills for the first time, telling them not to pay until councillors have had a chance to discuss the matter.

A review of non-rateable properties by council staff identified 402 churches requiring changes to their rating. This resulted in rates bills, some of them large, going out earlier this month.

The review found a lot of church property was not being used for religious purposes, which is not subject to rates, but instead was being used for business purposes, which is.

After complaints to councillors, it was discovered the finance and performance committee had been briefed on progress of the review, but no political decisions had been taken to approve a new rating policy for churches.

Pastor Rob Markley, of the Birkenhead Baptist Church, was surprised to receive a rates bill for $1080 after the church had previously only received a waste management charge of about $150.

There’s two issues here. The first is communication. Auckland Council should have individually contacted the churches and said we believe this is the correct level of rates, and giving them a chance to respond.

But on the substance churches should pay rates on facilities if they are using them commercially.

I’d go further and say there should be no exemption for facilities used for religious purposes.

I would support there being a lower level of rating for all charities, and churches would qualify as a charity. But why should a church not pay rates, but Red Cross does?

Stuff reports:

Kiwibank’s shareholders could be headed for court, with the Super Fund and ACC filing legal notices to NZ Post over  troubles in the state-owned bank’s IT systems.

The Guardians of NZ Super and ACC and understood to have filed a notice of claim with NZ Post, alleging NZ Post breached its obligations by failing to make available information which would have disclosed risks with a major upgrade of Kiwibank’s core IT systems, known as CoreMod.

By bringing in NZSF and ACC as shareholders, it has meant the company now has obligation disclosures. This is a good thing, as problems can’t be swept under the carpet.

Problems with the Kiwibank IT upgrade have been slowly unfolding, however the scale of the issues were made clearer in September 2017 when it wrote $90m off the value of its investment in the project.

At the time Kiwibank’s then chief executive, Paul Brock, appeared to blame changing customer preferences, as he announced a strategic review of the project.

Blaming the customers is rarely a good strategy.

An article in The Spinoff on whitebait gets it wrong almost every time.

Whitebait season is here, and Forest and Bird is steaming mad about it. Why are we serving endangered fish in home kitchens and cafes alike?

They are not endangered. That is the 2nd most threatened category. They are declining, which is not even one of the three threatened categories.

Set the nets and get out your gummies – it’s whitebait season, and nothing tastes better than an endangered fish.

Again they are not endangered.

Whitebait stocks are at critical levels.

They are not critical either. That is the highest threat level (nationally critical). They are not in any of the threatened categories.

Of the kōaro, giant kōkopu, banded kōkopu, shortjaw kōkopu and the īnanga, four species are in danger of extinction. 

They are not assessed as being in danger of extinction.  The categories at risk of extinction are critical (immediate high risk), endangered (high risk short term) and vulnerable (medium term risk).

The four species are declining which is at risk, but not threatened. At best you can say they might be at risk in the future.

We’re “sleepwalking towards a collapse”, freshwater ecologist Mike Joy told NZGeo last year.

Whitebait is the only endangered species you see on the average menu, something Forest and Bird’s Cohen says is morally and practically wrong.

They are not endangered. That is a specific category which they are not in.

“We can’t expect to profit off of these fish in a sustainable way. Profiting from an endangered species is just not sustainable.”

Again they are not endangered. That is not my view. That is DOC’s official classification.

I’m not actually against greater protection for whitebait. It just annoys me when terms are used incorrectly that have a specific meaning in conservation circles.

Russell Brown writes:

It also seems lost on those involved that all this crowing comes off the back of the same ratings numbers Lee’s bill presumes are being witheld. It is, frankly, a piffling use of Parliament’s time to pass a law requiring a minor change to the reporting of information that almost every stakeholder has anyway. 

Every stakeholder, except those that pay the bills – taxpayers.

It is a minor change. But a worthwhile one. If NZ on Air proactively wants to release the information without a law change, that would be great also. I am sure they could negotiate a licence with Neilsen to do so.

The law change isn’t about requiring every episode of every show to have the ratings released. It’s about the public being able to see how many people are viewing a show they fund.

And the public aren’t stupid. Take the example:

Indeed, programmes like the long-running disability TV show Attitude are funded precisely because in a wholly commercial system they would not be made. 

And no one would expect a show like Attitude to have the same ratings as say Q+A. Let’s now assume the public can’t be trusted with data.

Stuff reports:

The mother of a murdered three-year-old girl said she could not hold back the tears after hearing about a Māori woman saying Europeans could not know what it was like to be victims of crime at the Government’s criminal justice summit.

In 1997 Luke Frederick Sibley – then 18 – suffocated and strangled Brittany Crothall, 3, while she slept at her home in New Brighton, Christchurch.

He then entered the bedroom of the toddler’s mother, Jayne Crothall, and attacked her with a hammer and a knife.

Crothall said Brittany, who was part Māori, would have turned 25 on Wednesday making the underlying prejudice all the more painful to hear. 

She said another victim – whose sister was murdered – was told she was “white and privileged”  – both messages leaving Crothall in tears and her blood boiling on day one of the summit in Porirua on Tuesday.

“This is a horrendous summit for victims – we’ve been re-victimised. There’s been a lot of racist comments,” she told the 500-odd gathered experts, academics and advocates, victims, ex-prisoners and frontline justice workers.

The talkfest appears to have been even more dismal than expected.

Stuff reports:

Thousands of science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts are set to transform Wellington into a sci-fi metropolis.

The capital has been selected to host the 78th World Science Fiction Convention in 2020, an event that celebrates all aspects of the science fiction and fantasy genres.

It will be the first time that New Zealand has hosted the event, which will feature Game of Thrones author George R R Martin as the toastmaster.

This is very exciting. The convention will be huge, and the chance to meet the great GRRM amazing. I just hope we have at least one more book by then!

CoNZealand co-chairs Norman Cates and Kelly Buehler have fought to host the convention in Wellington since 2010.

They have had the support of Tourism New Zealand and the Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency (WREDA) in this year’s bid, which received 643 of 726 votes cast. …

The event, which also hosts the renowned Hugo Awards (the sci-fi literary equivalent of the Grammy Awards), was first held in New York, 1939.

Tourism New Zealand’s chief executive Stephen England-Hall said the event would showcase New Zealand as a place where creative thinking is embraced.

Award-winning speculative fiction writer Lee Murray considered New Zealand’s connection to Middle Earth, and other films, a huge draw card for the sci-fi visitors.

“Someone has even asked whether there would be a What We Do in the Shadows tour,” she said.

Wellington is a great location for fans. So much to see and do.

Stuff reports:

The Government is stripping public service bosses of their performance bonuses, a move it expects will help save the country $4 million.

State Services Minister Chris Hipkins announced the end to performance pay on Tuesday, a day after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced a year-long freeze on MPs’ salaries.

Until now public service chief executive remuneration packages have included the potential to receive a discretionary payment of up to 15 per cent for “exceptional performance”. …

Hipkins said research showed individualised performance pay was not an effective incentive for higher performance for complex roles.

Hipkins is sort of right. At CE level getting $550,00 vs $500,000 is not the motivator. It is being seen to perform well. If done well, performance pay can be a useful tool for employers. It allows you to clearly signal what you want the CE focused on, by tieing their at risk to it. But you can do that also without performance pay.

Performance pay tends to work best in organisations where profit is the main driver. If you make the company more profitable, you get paid more. In non-profits it is more challenging.

National MP Nuk Korako responds to a column by Simon Wilson:

It takes a lot to shock this Māori from Rapaki but I was shocked by the New Zealand Herald’s Leftist opinion writer Simon Wilson. In his opinion piece of 18 August, Simon Wilson referenced the Kahurangi National Māori membership group who attended the National Party conference and then bizarrely stated that we weren’t ‘…well represented’. 

The only way he could have made that assertion would have been by looking at the colour of our Māori people in attendance and then deciding some of us weren’t brown enough in hue to be counted.  How else do you explain well over 60 Māori in attendance as ‘not well represented’?

Nice calling out of Wilson for judging on skin colour. And conferences normally have 500 or so attendees so 60/500 is not under representation.

Simon Wilson’s assertion is a continuation of an unfortunate tendency by people who should really know better, that Māori must be measured either by blood percentage or by skin colour.  How else can Simon Wilson’s assertion that not many Māori were in attendance stand any measure of scrutiny.

Maybe Wilson did a survey?

I’d normally consider giving Simon Wilson a bit of a pass on this given his long history as a journalist.  But unfortunately Simon’s disregard for the Māori of National continued with his snide little dig at the word ‘Kahurangi’ likening it to ‘cheese’. And quite frankly we’re not there to have a left-wing political commentator try and score points off us.

Simon’s article had a tone.  He opened with an attack on Māori by refusing to count any who didn’t fit his measure of ‘dark enough’ and then continued the attack by mocking a Māori word in the article. On top of that he went as far to suggest an Opposition doing its job of holding the Government to account and pointing out the real flaws in the Government’s policy was verging on sabotage. 

Yep. It is now sabotage to oppose the Government.

I’m wondering therefore if it would be more helpful to Simon Wilson if those Māori in attendance at National party events could wear grass skirts and sing Māori songs at the same time to make his count a little easier?  Let us know what works Simon.  We’re here to serve, apparently.

Heh.

Stuff reports:

As Wellington’s Island Bay cycleway saga drags on, more dairy owners claim the debacle have put them out of business.

Mersey St dairy co-owners Sanjay and Jayshree Patel say they will be closing their business in November because of a lack of parking outside their shop.

Last year Chappies Dairy on Dee St closed, with the owners saying the removal of parking outside the store for the cycleway proved to be the “nail in the coffin” for their business.

Well done Wellington City Council. You’re slowing killing off the community’s shops.

The Mersey Street dairy was my local dairy as a kid. Lovely owners whom everyone knew. They even extended credit to an eight year old, knowing they’d see me tomorrow, if I had no money on me. Purchased many wine gums from that store.

Very sad to see it become a victim of the Council’s arrogance and incompetence.

Sanjay Patel said his business had plummeted by 60 per cent since the cycleway was built.

What business could survive that?

Daksha and Thakor Gopal, who own the Hy-Grade Dairy across the road from the Patels, said they sympathised with their plight and agreed the parking problem would have had a big impact on business.

Thakor said no-one was listening to dairy owners’ concerns and that within five years all Island Bay’s dairies would be closed.

The Council has just done over the Island Bay community.

USA Today headline:

51% of school violence incidents flared in just 10 states last year.

Sounds terrible. Which are these awful states?

Fifty-one percent of all incidents of violence and threats against schools took place in just 10 states during the 2017-18 school year, a report released Monday finds. 

California, Florida, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia, which are ranked the top 10 “states of concern,” accounted for 1,851 threats and episodes of violence out of 3,654 nationwide, according to the Educator’s School Safety Network. 

Hmmn so what is it about those states which causes such violence and threats.

Hmmn, aren’t they all quite large states in terms of population?

Yes, those 10 states of concern make up 53.6% of the total US population so by comprising 51% of threats and violent episodes, they actually are slightly less than the average.

Though this year’s states of concern are located around the country and have varying gun-control policies, a few factors link them together, said Amy Klinger, director of programs at the ESSN, an education-based non-profit focusing on violence prevention in schools. 

I’d say one factor links them together – population.

This story is stupid. It would be like a story in NZ revealing that a third of school violence in New Zealand occurs in Auckland.

Stuff reports the PM:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has removed Clare Curran from Cabinet and accepted her offer to resign her Government Digital Services portfolio and Open Government responsibilities, following a second failure to properly declare a meeting.

Dr Megan Woods will take over as Minister of Government Digital Services and Ms Curran’s delegated responsibilities in relation to Open Government will revert to Chris Hipkins, as Minister for State Services. Minister Curran will retain her responsibilities as Minister for Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media, and as Associate Minister for ACC, but will now sit outside Cabinet.

So covering up secret meetings is okay for a Minister outside Cabinet, just not inside Cabinet. That’s mighty low standards. A meaningful sanction would be removal from the Ministry.

The undisclosed meeting was just as improper as the Hirschfeld one, namely:

• It was a conflict of interest as Derek Handley was an applicant for the CTO job that the Minister appoints
• The meeting was not in the Minister’s diary
• The meeting was kept a secret from the Minister’s own staff and officials
• The meeting was not disclosed to a written parliamentary question

If that is not enough to be removed from the ministry, what is?

Bjorn Lomberg in The Australian writes:

Internationally, very few politicians have admitted the inherent failings of the Paris treaty, but the truth is that it was always oversold.

This begins with the treaty itself, which includes the fiction that pledges under the agreement will somehow keep the planet’s temperature rises to 2C or even 1.5C.

The 1.5C target is a fantasy. Studies show that achieving it would require nothing less than the entire planet abandoning the use of every fossil fuel by February 7, 2021. Given our reliance on fossil fuels, that would mean we stop cooling and heating our homes, stop all air travel, and the world’s farmers stop making half the world’s food, produced with fertiliser almost exclusively made from fossil fuels. The list goes on.

So keep that in mind when people demand a maximum rise of 1.5c. It means an end to basically all travel and farming by 2021.

As for the less stringent 2C target, keeping the global temperature rise below that requires a reduction in emissions during this century of almost 6000 billion tonnes. The UN body that oversees the Paris Agreement has estimated that even if every single country (including the US) were to achieve every national promise by 2030, the total greenhouse gas cut would be equivalent to just 60 billion tonnes of CO2.

I’d not seen this analysis before. So the Paris agreement will only see cuts by 2030 equivalent to 1% of the total needed by 2100.

The Paris treaty, fully implemented, would achieve one-hundredth of the reduction to 2C (a level at which there are still significant impacts), and hence achieve benefits worth perhaps only one-tenth of 1 per cent of global GDP 100 years from now.

So implementing Paris may boost global GDP 0.1% in 100 years!

The policy costs, often downplayed, can be vast. The EU is widely lauded by environmentalists for its bold carbon cut promises. Taking into account the total cost to the economy, the EU’s bill for cutting 20 per cent by 2020 runs to about €209 billion ($328.5bn). Its much more ambitious policy of cutting emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 will likely cost €574bn a year.

Yet the benefit will be vanishingly small: my peer-reviewed, published analysis shows the EU’s Paris promises for 2030, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout this entire century, would reduce global temperatures by 0.053C by 2100.

So 500 billion to reduce temperatures by 0.05C. The problem is not the science (which is sound), but the economics.

Nobel laureates for the project Copenhagen Consensus on Climate found we shouldn’t just double R&D but make a sixfold increase, to reach at least $100bn a year. This would still be far cheaper than the proposed Paris cuts and it would actually have the prospect of making a significant impact on temperature rises. It would do so without choking economic growth, which continues to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Science is far more likely to provide solutions, rather than politicians.

Fixing climate change requires boosting innovation so green energy eventually will become so cheap it will outcompete fossil fuels — not making fossil fuels so expensive that everyone suffers.

Innovation, not bans on oil and gas exploration.

Scott Morrison is the new Prime Minister of Australia, beating Dutton 45-40 in the second round of voting.

He has some chance of uniting the party as Dutton and Bishop were both considerably disliked by the left and right factions. But the reality is he will probably be PM for just a year at most.

Morrison actually worked in NZ for two years as the director of our Office of Tourism and Sport. He is 1/4 Kiwi through his maternal grandfather.

The Herald reports:

Parliament’s Speaker Trevor Mallard has called off the inquiry into the leaking of Simon Bridges’ expenses.

Mallard has ruled it is a National Party matter and therefore not something Parliament needs to be involved in.

Mallard said he had told Bridges the inquiry was off and the National leader did not agree with the decision.

“He disagrees with it,” Mallard said.

“He wants the inquiry to continue. I have indicated to him that the Parliamentary Service will co-operate if he decides that he wants to proceed with an investigation and appropriate consents from MPs are in place.

“The general manager will make any relevant staff emails available.”

The National Party is expected to comment shortly on Mallard’s decision.

Mallard also said: “The existence of, and part of the detail of, a text both the Leader of the Opposition and I received last week has been reported on. It has now been confirmed to me that the person who leaked the details of the expenses and the texter are the same person.

“He or she has details of events that it is unlikely anyone outside the National Party would be privy to.

It’s curious that the Speaker says he has had confirmed the texter and the leaker are the same person. Who would know this and be able to confirm this? Newshub I guess.

It is worth noting that an inquiry can still go forward – but an internal inquiry by The Parliamentary Service, rather than an external one.

I don’t think it is tenable for the leaker not to be identified. It’s a slur on the rest of the National caucus to just let it ride. And also it is still not certain it is an MP.

The Herald reports:

The Government will cap clamping fees at $100 in a crackdown on predatory practices, with clampers who charge more subject to police enforcement

New measures to address “cowboy” wheel clamping and exorbitant fees were announced by the Government today.

Pressure has been mounting for tougher penalties on clamping contractors over the past year in particular, following a number of complaints from the public largely relating to one west Auckland retail complex.

Today Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi and Transport Minister Phil Twyford announced that a maximum of $100 will be able to be charged for removal of a wheel clamp, enforceable by police if clampers try to charge more.

Infringement fees of up to $1000 for an individual and $5000 for a company will be charged by police, and a fine of up to $3000 for an individual and $15,000 for a company can be imposed if the matter goes to Court.

Faafoi said he had heard the concerns of the public who were being targeted by clampers charging as much as $700 for removal of a wheel clamp.

I think this is a very good move. The fee should be proportionate and reasonable.

I’m not even convinced one should allow clamping at all.  If someone is on your property, just get them towed.

Olivia Pearson writes:

I am now in the process of fundraising for an upscale forum to hold in-depth and entertaining debates in Auckland.  New Zealand speakers for a New Zealand audience.

Dear Cicero Debate Forum seeks to become New Zealand’s liveliest platform to debate ideas.  They will be intelligent debates to indulge in our democracy’s gift of freedom of speech and self-expression. A place where people can ride into battle, but only with their wits!

This will be a platform for clear thinkers and strong speakers to engage in classy, civilised debates and discussions on matters which are important to New Zealanders, both culturally and politically. Two or three debaters on each side of a stated motion will be hosted by an objective moderator. Well known speakers will be sourced from New Zealand’s media, political landscape, academia and also from our speaking circuit.

The debates are to be filmed for internet & television (Face TV: Sky Channel 83), these will be in-depth debates with an interactive audience, created to enlighten, to inform and to entertain. They’re to be done in a similar style to Intelligence Squared Debates overseas. First one to be held in early 2019.

Money raised will be spent on: venue hire, expenses pertaining to the speakers and moderators, security, filming for internet and for Face TV screening, ticketing and front of the house ushering and also for sound/audio expertise and live streaming.

Money left over from crowdfunding the first debate will go towards the second debate.

So please head on over to my PledgeMe page, and if you can contribute via crowdfunding to help me get this forum off the ground and regularly running amazing debates, I would be most grateful!

Why the name “Dear Cicero?”  To find out more about who Marcus Tullius Cicero was, click here. 

This is a great idea. We need more debating of big issues, not less. A project well worth supporting.

About Olivia:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I value the principles which became the hallmarks of Western democracy, made possible by the Age of Reason; religious tolerance (a wall between religion and state), 

a commitment to scientific inquiry, the emancipation of women and children, a free and un-coerced media, and individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

These core ideas are the beating heart of our civilisation and what make it a place worth thriving in – and dying for, as so many of our recent forefathers took it upon themselves to do. – www.oliviapierson.org

d

Radio NZ reports:

RNZ revealed this morning a person who claimed to be the National Party leaker pleaded in an anonymous text for the inquiry to be called off. They warned they suffered from mental health problems in the past and said being exposed publicly could push them over the edge.

This may or may not be true. If the texter is the leaker, they may be just trying to close the inquiry down to stop their identity being discovered. Or they may genuinely be mentally ill.

Mr Bridges said the text made clear to him that it was from the leaker.

“The text stated that the leaker was in the National caucus.

“It also made quite clear that this person had a prolonged serious mental illness … and their very clear view in the text message that there would be significant harm to them if the investigation by Speaker Mallard proceeded.

The text has made things worse for them, if it is true. You’re not going to get an inquiry called off by sending anonymous texts. If there are genuine mental health issues, then you need to own up to what you did, and see if there is a way it can be resolved without naming you.

In terms of who it might be, there seems to be three broad options:

• A National MP, as claimed
• A National staffer
• Someone hostile to National

Radio NZ said:

In the message, the author said they had leaked the expenses because they disagreed with Mr Bridges’ leadership style, describing him as “arrogant”, and wanted him to be held to account for his spending of taxpayers’ money.

To me this seems a weird argument to make if they are a National MP. Having a new party leader do a tour of the provinces is pretty much exactly what any new leader should do.

And the tone of the text is without contrition. It is basically attacking Bridges further. If the text was along the lines of “I made a terrible mistake under pressure. I was angry about x, and gave the spending figures to Newshub, and regret it” then that is more plausible. But having a National MP try to screw over their party leader using data which is going to be public in a few days anyway is not a logical thing to do.

But if the person is mentally unwell, then you don’t always think straight.

It may of course not be a National MP. The Herald reported:

Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper has told Mike Hosking Breakfast that he understands it isn’t a National Party MP.

“It could be anyone with a burner phone,” Soper said.

“To me it’s a storm in a teacup.

“Some National MPs are on their way to Wellington today, but not for a spill. It’s a show of support for Bridges for when he speaks to the media this morning.

“It was quite a detailed text but, as I understand it at this stage, it isn’t a National MP – but we’ll have to wait and see.”

It is a mystery.

RNZ said it had not seen the text, which is believed to have detailed a number of conversations and pieces of information from National caucus meetings over a period of weeks in an attempt to prove the author was a National MP.

National MPs are known to talk to non MPs about what happens in caucus.

I hope the issue can be resolved quickly. If the leaker does have mental health issues, they need to get help. But they also need to understand there are consequences for actions. The public hate disunity, and if this is someone within National they are screwing over all their colleagues and friends.

Garth McVicar writes:

I was born in 1951, a time when New Zealand’s crime and prison numbers were incredibly low — in fact, the country was averaging one or two homicides a year until the early 1960s.

So what went wrong? How did one of the safest countries in the western world end up spiralling to a totally unacceptable level of crime? Why is it that even locking people up doesn’t stop new criminals emerging? What is different about our country now that is creating this new breed of criminal?

The one common denominator that Little and his colleagues won’t dare talk about is the traditional family. I’m talking about a stable family unit — two parents and the children they bring into a loving, cherished relationship … where the child grows up being taught right from wrong to become a law-abiding, contributing citizen.

Criminals are made, not born. Of course some people do commit crime despite growing up in a loving family. But most of those in prison did not have a good childhood.

In 1961, 95 per cent of children were born into a traditional family with married parents. By 2015 only 53 per cent of children were brought into the world by parents who were married.

A child that grows up without a father is five times more likely to commit crime.

The evidence shows more children are abused in de-facto-type households and a child who has been abused is 20 times more likely to end up in prison when an adult.

I don’t think the focus should be on married, as much as the parents being in a committed relationship. The problem is kids that grow up with no Dad.

The evidence is clear that a child needs a father who wants and loves them. This is the best way to raise a child to become a law-abiding, contributing member of society.

Little’s justice summit won’t dare say anything like that. They fear they might offend the left-wing liberals who have been at the forefront of breaking down the family unit.

These liberals would rather focus on the problem of prison numbers than face the reality of what their social ideology has created.

We have a lot of people in prison because we have a lot of criminals. Reducing crime should be the focus, not reducing the prison population. If you reduce (serious) crime and reoffending, then the prison population will fall.

Sorry for the delay