Stuff reports:

A congressional candidate from Miami can go one better: Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera says she’s been aboard a spaceship too. But this one was crewed by aliens. As in extraterrestrials.

Three blond, big-bodied beings – two females, one male – visited her when she was 7 years old and have communicated telepathically with her several times in her life, she says.

Doesn’t the Internet Party in NZ need some more candidates. She’d fit right in.

The Herald reports:

The Canadian man rescued from the Taliban after being held for five years thought his captors were playing a joke on him when they said Donald Trump was president of the United States.

Joshua Boyle, his American wife Caitlan Coleman and their three children – two boys and a baby girl – were kidnapped and held hostage by a Taliban-linked extremist network for five years.

According to Boyle, the family were rarely given any information about the outside world.

But when he was forced to participate in a ‘proof of life’ video, he was informed Donald Trump had been elected president.

Boyle told the Toronto Star he thought his captor was making a joke.

“It didn’t enter my mind that he was being serious,” he said.

He was kidnapped in 2012, so no surprise he thought it was a joke.

The Herald reports:

It has emerged a local woman has been writing and signing off emails as a district mayor.

Several Horowhenua District councillors spoke at a full council meeting on Wednesday about the need for an investigation into the allegation.

NZME understands the allegations to refer to local woman Christine Toms, although she wasn’t named in the meeting.

Toms has been openly acting in an advocacy role for mayor Michael Feyen. …

Media at the meeting were offered a copy of an email from Toms’ email address, which was sent to mayor Michael Feyen, with HDC chief executive David Clapperton copied in.

It was written as if from the mayor, and queried the qualifications held by Group Manager Infrastructure Services Gallo Saidy, who is acting chief executive while Clapperton is on leave.

Tukapua said the writing and signing off on emails as the mayor was “straight up unlawful”.

“It damages democracy, and it seriously damages confidence and good governance,” Tukapua said.

In an earlier statement, Feyen said Toms had never been paid by HDC “in any form”. He said his mayoral office set-up was “separate from the executive and administration”.

“I can have anyone I think appropriate to work for me,” he said.

“Paid or unpaid, and that includes Christine Toms as my current advocate.”

I guess the Mayor can have someone write his e-mails for him, but it does make you wonder who really is in charge.

Toms is believed to have invoiced HDC for her services as advocate and the invoice was ignored.

As it should be, unless her contract was approved by the Council.

The fine folks at AUSA are at it again. Two accepted referendums are:

• Should AUSA disaffiliate the Pro-Life Auckland Club?
• Should AUSA prevent the future club affiliation of any group with a prolife ideology?

Other major issues are:

• Should AUSA campaign for more student microwaves on campus, including a vegan-food-only microwave?

Yes thousands of Auckland students will get to vote on a vegan-food-only microwave!

Also of interest is the proposed referenda not accepted:

• Should AUSA disaffiliate the Young Nats?

They rejected this question as they say it would breach their charitable status. So it is okay to disaffiliate a pro-life group but not the Young Nats?

The one hope is this question:

• Should AUSA only allow club disaffiliation to be based on either misconduct or violation of the AUSA Constitution?

That should be the only basis for disaffiliation. Disaffiliation based on political opinion is a terrible idea.

What were the 10 best electorates for National in terms of party vote compared to 2014?

1. Manukau East +2.7%
2. New Lynn +2.6%
3. Mangere +1.7%
4. Pakuranga +1.4%
5. Botany +1.4%
6. Manurewa +1.1%
7. Mt Roskill +0.9%
8. Kelston +0.6%
9. Te Atatu +0.3%
10. Papakura +0.0%

All Auckland seats. Astonishing to be growing the vote in any seats at all at the end of three terms of Government.

Which 10 seats had the biggest falls?

1. Wellington Central -7.1%
2. New Plymouth -7.1%
3. Port Hills -6.3%
4. Auckland Central -5.7%
5. Christchurch Central -5.6%
6. Whangarei -5.2%
7. Mt Albert -5.1%
8. Nelson -5.1%
9. Ohariu -5.1%
10. Ilam -5.1%

So quite big drops in Christchurch plus central metro seats.

ACT have proposed abolishing around half the ministerial portfolios. Their proposal is:

The Telegraph reports:

An Oxford College has banned the Christian Union from its freshers’ fair on the grounds that it would be “alienating” for students of other religions, and constitute a “micro-aggression”.

The organiser of Balliol’s fair argued Christianity’s historic use as “an excuse for homophobia and certain forms of neo-colonialism” meant that students might feel “unwelcome” in their new college if the Christian Union had a stall.

Freddy Potts, vice-president of Balliol’s Junior Common Room (JCR) committee, said that if a representative from the Christian Union (CU) attended the fair, it could cause “potential harm” to freshers. 

Well Islam historically is also a colonising religion, so will they ban a Muslim group from their fair also? We all know the answer. The only acceptable religions to discriminate against are Christianity and Judaism.

Mr Potts, writing on behalf of the JCR’s welfare committee, told the CU representative at Balliol, that their “sole concern is that the presence of the CU alone may alienate incoming students”.

In email correspondence, seen by The Daily Telegraph, he went on: “This sort of alienation or micro-aggression is regularly dismissed as not important enough to report, especially when there is little to no indication that other students or committee members may empathise, and inevitably leads to further harm of the already most vulnerable and marginalised groups.

I think anyone who refers to micro-aggression is themselves a micro-aggressor.

 The JCR passed a motion on Sunday evening condemning the JCR committees for “barring the participation of specific faith-based organizations”.

The AFR reports:

When New Zealand’s new government is formed – most likely some time in the next two weeks – regardless of political stripe, there will be one big ticket project on the agenda: “moving” the 77 hectare Port of Auckland two hours up the road to Northland.

If it goes ahead, this project will create the biggest city centre development project in New Zealand for decades. The new port will require up to $10 billion in government cash just to get off the ground.

Now imagine the opportunity cost of that $10 billion. Think what else you could do with that.

Given the politically sensitive nature of the coalition negotiations, very few key players will go on the record about the project. But what has emerged is a picture of arguably the biggest non-earthquake-related infrastructure project since former prime minister Sir Robert Muldoon’s famed the “Think Big” energy projects of the late 1970s and 1980s that just about bankrupted New Zealand. 

It’s Think Bigger!

To give context, $10 billion is half the size of the New Zealand government’s contribution to the Christchurch post-earthquake rebuild, and more than 12 per cent of the annual NZ budget revenue. 

But may be the price of power.

Peters wants to move car imports to Northport by 2019 and the containerisation by 2027. Industry insiders dismiss both of these proposals, on that time frame, as pie in the sky.

There is a busy log port at Northport and a small container terminal. But there is only about 500 metres of berth space compared with Auckland’s more than 4 kilometres. So a massive port will have to be built, reclaiming, on a rough calculation by one source, 120 hectares of land.

That is a huge reclamation.

There is only one rickety train line, already in need of upgrade, that goes to Whangarei, the closest centre to Northport. In order to deal with the increased freight requirements, it will effectively require new twin tracks, travelling at least 150 kilometres. Best estimates told to the Financial Review are that the cost of that alone will be at least $NZ2.5 billion.

150 kms of twin track!

An act of Parliament and enabling construction and overriding planning legislation will almost certainly have to be passed.

You’ll need a law to confiscate Ports of Auckland off the Auckland Council. Will be the largest theft in modern times.

Stuff reports:

Everyone who sat through Mark Lundy’s retrial will have different opinions on his guilt or innocence – if he killed his wife Christine and 7-year-old daughter Amber in their Palmerston North home on the night of August 30, 2000.

But it is safe to say they will agree on one thing – the scientific evidence was extremely complicated.

Lundy was found guilty of the murders in 2002, but the Privy Council quashed the verdicts in 2013 and ordered a retrial, which took place in 2015. He was again found guilty and sent back to prison to continue serving his life sentence with a minimum term of 20 years.  His case is once again before the Court of Appeal this week, starting on Tuesday.

Like OJ Simpson, Mr Lundy is still looking for the burglar who killed his wife and daughter.

There was never dispute that one of Lundy’s shirts had stains containing central nervous system tissue. The stains also contained DNA from the victims.

The DNA being there is not surprising, considering the trio lived together. The tissue was the issue.

The Crown said it was probably human tissue from Lundy’s wife. Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan, QC, in his closing address at the retrial, let the jury know how bad that looked. “No man should have his wife’s brain on his shirt.” 

The defence, however, said the tissue could have come from a piece of offal in a pie or a neck chop Lundy may have cooked.

No-one at the trial gave evidence about Lundy eating neck chops. There was a pie wrapper in his car door console, but no pie maker in the witness stand saying exactly what goes into a pie.

It wasn’t brain tissue from my wife, it was offal from a pie! Ingenious.

Sent in by a reader!

There are five parties in Parliament. One of them is guaranteed to be in Opposition (ACT) and one of them guaranteed to be in or supporting Government (NZ First). One or two of the other three will be in opposition also. So what do the parties in opposition need to do to prosper?

Below is my genuine best advice for each of the four parties that may or will be in Opposition as to how to best prosper there.

Let’s start from smallest to largest.

ACT

Have fun. NZ First is going to be part of Government which means it will be a big spending Government with lots of waste to target. Make yourself the party against wasteful spending. Also steer through the euthansia bill – for nine months this will be very high profile.

Effectively you want to be the opposition to NZ First. The other parties will be reluctant to do so, in case they need them in future. Don’t hold back. Use the OIA and call in the Ombudsman and Auditor-General as often as necessary.

Also keep Epsom happy.

Greens

Elect Julie-Anne Genter co-leader. Leave the door open a fraction to National, so Labour and NZ First can’t ever take you for granted again. You don’t have to ever go with National, just leave open the possibility.

Carry on the campaign on dirty rivers and climate change. They are your bread and butter issues where you can differentiate from Labour. You need to give young urban liberals a reason to vote Greens instead of Labour. Propose something inspirational for cycling.

Never ever again mention Metiria Turei. Use your new MPs Chloe and Golriz as star power on campuses and around the country.

Labour

Relax. You are going to be in Government in 2020 if NZ First went with National. You just need to do the basics right, and run a tight ship and you’ll get there.

Jacinda is uncontested as Leader so caucus infighting should be a thing of the past. Work out how you effectively oppose a National – NZ First Government while keeping Jacinda’s brand as relentlessly positive. Assign some attack dogs.

The way to bring National down will be the same as in 1997, associate them with the antics of NZ First (recall Undiegate). Make the Prime Minister every day defend what some NZ First Minister or MP has done.

You’ve got 20 more MPs, and proportionally more funding and staff. Recruit some top staff from the Clark era. They’ll want to work for you if they think you will win.

Give some decent portfolios to some of your star new MPs such as Deborah Russell and Kiri Allen. Don’t make them “wait their turn”. But be aware a couple of your new MPs can be very loose, and make sure the Whips keep a close eye on them.

National

You won the election, but Winston did a coalition of the losers. So this is very different to any other Government going into opposition. You are going to dominate Parliament as no Opposition party has since 1983.

Absolutely essential is not to have a leadership change in 2017, if at all. The stupidest thing an opposition can do is put in a new leader while the new Prime Minister has a honeymoon. It means no publicity at all for any new leader.

Yes of course senior MPs may want to consider whether or not they want to contest 2020. These are not decisions needed for 2017. What is needed is an Opposition that gets straight to work destroying the moral authority of the coalition of the losers.

Many NZ First supporters in provincial and rural New Zealand will feel betrayed if Winston goes with a Government of Labour supported by Greens. It means he has given the Greens a veto on all government legislation. So National needs to get out around the country whipping up discontent.

You have a huge caucus of 56. Don’t worry too much about the House for the first few months – what happens there is beltway. Get out into the provinces. Just have a small attack team for the House.

Stuff reports:

The mother of murdered teenager Jane Furlong was stunned to learn blood samples taken from her daughter at birth were later used by the police to identify her body.

Police are able to seek access to the blood samples of more than two million New Zealanders under “exceptional circumstances”. …

For Judith Furlong, it felt like another betrayal to find out that a sample from her only daughter had been used by police without her consent or knowledge.

“Forty two years ago they certainly didn’t say they were keeping it. I had no idea.

“It’s invasive because they didn’t inform you of anything.

“I’m gobsmacked by it all, 42 years on and suddenly they’re using it.”

How is this a betrayal? They used it to identify your daughter’s body. Would you rather the body had never been identified?

The Herald reports:

The Green Party has put the stalled Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary on the table as part of its deal with Labour – a rare leak of details from negotiations to form the next government.

It is understood progress on the 620,000 sq km ocean sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands has been considered as part of the Greens’ deal with Labour should NZ First opt for Labour to form the next government.

It is the first policy detail to be leaked from the talks, which have been held under strict confidentiality.

This is how weak the Greens are. They have to ask Labour to ask Winston if the sanctuary can go ahead.

If they had negotiated with National, this would have been a no brainer. It was only the Maori Party stopping National from progressing the legislation further, so Greens wouldn’t even have to ask to have this one agreed to.

I did a very unscientific Twitter poll (430 responses) yesterday asking people if they voted left or right and if they wanted Winston to choose National or Labour.

Now normally you’d expect say 90%+ of people who voted left to say they want Winston to choose Labour and ditto for right and National. The reason you vote for a party is so they can get to form Government.

The results however were:

• Left/Labour 19%
• Left/National 17%
• Right/National 43%
• Right/Labour 21%

Now again this is unscientific but I think still telling. Only 62% want Winston pick the side the voted for and 38% want Winston to choose the other side.

What this indicates is over a third of those responding think that going into Government with Winston will be worse in the long-term for the party they support than going into opposition.

This is why when he makes the decision I won’t be happy or sad.

Stuff reports:

The United States plans to withdraw from UNESCO, citing financial reasons, as well as what it said was an anti-Israel bias at the UN’s educational, cultural and science organisation.

The decision to withdraw from UNESCO, which the United States helped found, was announced on Thursday morning (Friday NZ Time) by the State Department, which said the United States would remain involved as a nonmember observer. It will take effect at the end of 2018.

Some UN bodies do a good job. UNESCO is not one of them. The US has pulled out before in 1984 and the UK in 1985.

UNESCO has been captured by anti-Israel countries and passes resolutions so extreme that its own Director-General and the UN Secretary-General have condemned them.

Eric Crampton writes:

It is difficult to see what good purpose was served by this study.

The Otago people (in conjunction with Auckland’s public health group) put cameras on kids that would take snapshots every six seconds. Then they poured through the footage to see how often the cameras, and presumably the kids, saw things that Otago people have long wanted to have restricted, like ads for food they don’t like or alcohol. They counted the number of times things were seen. And then published the numbers in (at least) two separate studies expressing horror at the number and calling for bans on the things that they counted.

$800,000 of our money went on this.

Is there any number that would have been low enough? Almost certainly not.

Is there any context for the number that might assist in anyone telling whether a number is low or high? Heck no. The news story on it talks about kids being bombarded with 27 junk food ads per day. Would there be fewer than 27 ads for candy in any 80s kid’s daily bundle of comic books? I’m not the only one who remembers being bombarded with ads for Life Savers, am I?Is there any number that would have been low enough? Almost certainly not.

This was research with a pre-determined outcome. To establish a numeer that would be higher than zero, and them condemned as too high, allowing for a ban to be argued for.

I don’t think the 1989 legislation that allowed sales in supermarkets said anything like “Oh, and we totally expect that parents will cover their kids’ eyes as they go past the wine aisle, so it’s ok, but if anybody ever shows that kids might actually see what’s down the aisle, then we totally need to re-think this.”

Kids probably see alcohol at home a lot. In my home Benjamin crawls past the wine rack often so he is obviously going to become a problem drinker. The answer surely is to ban alcohol being stored in private homes, by the logic of this research.

Did they count how often the kids at home saw alcohol? Did they see their parents have a wine over dinner? Surely that has to be stopped also.

I don’t know if this is the stupidest study in the world. Otago also had that one where they recruited 13 people, mostly from Facebook, interviewed them about their smoking, then called for a ban on smoking outside of bars on the basis of those conversations.

Hard to decide which is more stupid. I think the one that costs taxpayers the most.

What would be sufficient basis for a call to ban alcohol sales at supermarkets? Strong evidence that the substantial inconvenience cost imposed on shoppers would be outweighed by reductions in external harm imposed by drinkers as result of the ban.

Exactly. That is what good research would look at and try to quantify.

The Herald reports:

Venezuelans have been told expired passports are valid for another two years because they have run out of paper and ink to print new ones.

President Maduro has signed an emergency decree to extend their validity because of chronic shortages at the national passport agency.

Who says socialism doesn’t work. Thanks to the wonders of socialism, lucky Venezuelans get passports that last two years longer.

A guest post from a reader:

Have each party list ranking order determined by voters rather than the political parties.

To do this, each prospective MP would be required to stand in an electorate. The list ranking order is then determined by the proportion of votes each prospective MP secured in their electorate.

Consider a party which secured 15% of the party vote which entitles them to 18 seats in parliament. Assume they won 12 electorates; they are therefore entitled to another 6 List MPs. Rank all their unsuccessful prospective MPs by the proportion of votes each won in their electorate (i.e. their personal vote, not the party vote). If the top six secured proportions of 23%, 22%, 20%, 20%, 19% and 18% then any other prospective MP who secured less than 18% would not be in parliament as a List MP.

 

Each prospective MP then has an incentive to campaign in an electorate; the more successful they are at doing that, the greater the chance they have of becoming a List MP. It would also encourage prospective MPs to work hard in their electorate between elections and not just at the time of an election.

d

Stuff reports:

Political parties should be required to use consistent, independent methods to give firm details of the financial cost of the policies they promise, think tank NZIER says.

Principal economist Peter Wilson said the public needed to understand the impact of parties’ fiscal promises before they went to vote.

He said much of the recent election campaign was tied up in arguments about how the costs of various policies and pledges were determined, not whether the parties’ intentions had merits.

 “New Zealanders deserve better that. We propose that before the next election, New Zealand establish a transparent system that will allow voters to judge the costs of promises based on independent and consistent information.

“We also propose that each election a Parliamentary Commissioner for Policy Costings should be appointed. The commissioner would be an eminent person appointed for a limited period who would have the assistance of experts from the Treasury to undertake detailed costings.”

A great idea. The Greens support this, to their credit. National and Labour should do the same. Voters deserve to know how much a party’s promises will cost.

In the absence of official costings, the Taxpayers Union did ballpark estimates of costs and they were eye wateringly large – especially for NZ First.

He said the fact there is no official requirement for political policies to be costed by anyone independent made New Zealand something of an outlier. In Australia, details of the costs of parties’ promises are provided on a website.

“Larger parties sometimes will get things costed by outsiders but then you get, like Labour did, debate about how their spreadsheets were put together.”

New Zealand had world-class systems to hold the government to account for its fiscal policies once it was elected, but no requirement for how political parties made election promises, he said.

“New Zealand isn’t at the cutting edge of best practice… New Zealand has a Rolls Royce system with what the government is doing but a tricycle with what happens at elections. There seems to be quite an odd disparity.”

It’s too late to have this in place for 2017 but would be great for 2020. Could be a great members’ bill from a Green MP.

This analysis by Text Ferret is interesting. It analyses articles from the NZ Herald and Stuff to see what were the major issues covered.

It shows how much of an issue tax became for Labour while Bill English got coverage on social investment.

Text Ferret by David Farrar on Scribd