Murray Laugesen is a prolific researcher in the tobacco control area. He writes with two others in the NZ Herald:

Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are likely to avoid at least 95 per cent of the major smoking-related risks for cancer, heart disease and respiratory illness, according to Public Health England.

They will also experience significant short-term gains in health and, in high tobacco tax jurisdictions such as NZ, they are likely to be financially better off.

• It is unethical to deny a smoker access to products that are much safer than the dominant product on the market, cigarettes.

• The availability of e-cigarettes is not an alternative to conventional anti-smoking policy but complementary. By providing smokers with an easier way of responding to high taxes, the overall tobacco control policy will become both more responsive and more humane. This is particularly important where smoking is concentrated at high levels among Maori and Pacific Islanders.

• There is no credible evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes induce young people to smoke, or reduce the rate that adults quit smoking. The evidence shows what a neutral observer would expect: people use much safer products to reduce their health risks or to quit smoking.

• E-cigarettes pay their own way in switching from smoking. The individual bears the cost, at no cost to the public purse.

• A widespread switch to e-cigarettes would cut exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke as they pose no material risk to bystanders.

• The quality of products available from reputable manufacturers is now very high and they are on widespread sale in the Europe, North America and throughout Asia without any major problems.

And on the issue of where you can buy them:

But government consultation with the public did not ask who should sell them. University of Otago researchers have asked for vape shops and pharmacies to do so. This we disagree with: if you want cheap toothpaste, do you go to the pharmacy or to a supermarket? Similarly the first-choice e-cigarette in NZ, the cig-alike, is most likely to be sold in a supermarket in future.

So they advocate allowing sales in supermarkets.

With respect to advertising, e-cigarette retailers (who are mostly anti-smoking) have a problem – they are selling a product which does not kill, yet they need advertising space to show the shape and size of the scores of products they sell. There needs to be a provision to separate those who sell smoking products (no advertising) and those selling vaping products (under a voluntary code).

This sounds sensible. I don’t think you want say television advertising of vaping products promoting them as “cool” etc but you do need to allow manufacturers and retailers to communicate what products are available, how they work etc.

As for what spaces should be vapefree, we would say “yes” to places like airlines, operating theatres and wards where people are being kept alive with difficulty: e-cigarettes should be banned, just as if people were drinking alcohol. And we would say “no” to places where the place is smokefree, as in bars, but where smoking an e-cigarette would be permissible if the manager permitted it. We also say a firm “no” to making the streets of Wellington smokefree. Denying e-cigarette users the ability to vape would be wrong.

The object is to get tobacco smokers to transfer to e-cigarettes, as it is a product 95% less harmful. Making it illegal to use e-cigarettes outdoors would be counter-productive.

Shalom Kiwi points out a few facts as a Green MP is about to fly to the Middle East (never mind the greenhouse gas emissions) to protest the marine blockade of Gaze.

1. Jews are indigenous to Israel
2. Gaza is ruled by Hamas, a fundamentalist terror organisation with a genocidal purpose
3. Human rights are not high on Hamas’ agenda – women are not allowed in public without a male relative
4. Aid is often diverted to terror or misappropriated by millionaire Gazans
5. The blockade is legal and attempting to breach it is reckless: UN
6. Egypt borders Gaza and blockades more restrictively than Israel
7. Israel is working to help Gazans
8. This is not the path to peace or helping Palestinians
9. The Greens are keeping bad company

Stuff reports:

Five people have been prosecuted for illegally washing windscreens at Christchurch intersections since a bylaw allowed police to prosecute offenders.

After several reports of anti-social behaviour associated with the window cleaners, the Christchurch City Council voted unanimously in October last year to give police authority to seize windscreen washers’ equipment and prosecute them under a public places bylaw.

The bylaw change made windscreen washing at intersections largely cease overnight throughout the city, a council report into the issue said.

Business people, who had previously reported intimidating or threatening behaviour, vandalism, fights or graffiti being conducted by the windscreen washers, said there had been virtually no instances of these issues since the council’s decision.

Business works best when a willing buyer and willing seller. But intersection window washers don’t work on willing buyers – they generally work on intimidation when you are too scared to not pay when someone starts washing your windows without your permission.

Doug Bailey writes at Stuff:

A few years ago, former British Foreign Secretary, now Lord, Douglas Hurd, spoke to a Wellington audience about the erosion of western parliamentary democracy. One cause of that decline, he said, was the raw and untested character of an increasing number of MPs.

“Where once the ladder to Parliament lay at the end of a career in commerce, public service, or the union movement, today it runs direct from the University Common Room.”

A problem not just in the UK.

A stint in student politics, a journeyman apprenticeship as a go-fer in the office of some well-placed MP, then sponsorship to a party’s administrative cadre, followed by nomination to a seat as safe as internal manoeuvring will allow. And then the succession of political prizes: election, recognition on the back benches, a junior ministry, and, for the stayer, the particularly able or the outright ruthless, the premiership – first (but most definitely not) among equals.

More and more MPs are following this path.

And what of Cincinnatus?

In the early days of the Roman Republic the Senate, confronted by military disaster, appealed to Cincinnatus, a colleague fallen on hard times. Going to his small farmstead, they offered him the position of dictator. He accepted, took military command and won their victory. Two weeks after assuming power he resigned and returned to his fields. A few years later, threatened this time by a coup, the Senate once again offered Cincinnatus the dictatorship. Again he accepted and again, having resolved things, he downed tools and went home.

In the process he became legend, not for his prowess as politician and general, but for his consistent placement of service to the Republic above self-interest. His was an ethos that we recognise, still hope for in our politicians and applaud when we see it. 

To some degree Washington is our modern Cincinnatus. He could have kept power for a very long time, but decided eight years was enough, setting a precedent only one US President has broken.

The Australian reports:

I’m sorry but this is hysterical bullshit.

I believe it would be preferable for the Australian Parliament to decide the issue, rather than a referendum (as happened in NZ), but the Coalition was re-elected on a policy of letting the public decide via referendum.

In Ireland the matter was decided by referendum. There are pros and cons to deciding by referendum, but Shorten is just getting hysterical by talking about how a referendum could lead to suicides. From all accounts the debate in Ireland was robust but respectful.

However the matter is decided, there will be a public campaign and debate. Shorten almost seems to be saying that one can not legitimately express a view against same sex marriage – which is a repulsive view. I campaigned strongly for marriage equality in NZ, but that didn’t mean I thought those who had a different view were not entitled to that view.

Stats NZ reports:

New Zealand’s trade relationship with China has nearly tripled over the past decade, with two-way trade rising from $8.2 billion in the year ended June 2007 to $23 billion in the June 2016 year. Annual exports to China have quadrupled and annual imports from China have doubled since the June 2007 year.

This is of course also roughly the period since NZ and China agreed a free trade agreement. It was Labour’s finest foreign policy achievement and Clark and Goff should be very proud of it.

But remember that Greens and NZ First voted and campaigned against it. When they claim to be on the side of exporters, they voted against a deal which has seen exports increase 400% – way beyond the most optimistic projections or even hopes.

The Press Council has upheld a complaint from broadcaster Miles Davis against The Spinoff over an article in which he was labelled homophobic for his on air jokes.

For my 2c I think you can label a particular statement or action as homophobic/racist/xenophobic/sexist but I am very cautious about then applying that label to the entirety of a person as if you know what motivates them and what they think.

Also for the other side Graeme Edgeler argues against the Press Council decision but I think Graeme conflates a fact “John Key is Prime Minister” with an opinion “X is homophobic”.

Stuff reports:

The cold war for thousands of Waikato-Tainui voters has turned hot with tribal heavyweight turned Maori Party president Tukoroirangi Morgan accusing Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta of being a traitor.

The Maori Party president is labelling Labour Nanaia Mahuta’s call to open his personal finances to scrutiny as ‘desperate and misguided’.

It did seem rather desperate.

This is the same kupapa behaviour that the Pakeha colonists used so effectively against us 150 years ago,” Morgan said.

Kupapa were pro-government Maori who, in the mid-1800s, were paid to fight against other Maori the Crown branded as rebels. Despite the word meaning to take a ‘neutral’ position in a conflict, in modern usage, it is used to brand someone as a traitor.

Mahuta, Labour’s Hauraki-Waikato MP said Morgan is muddying the waters and confusing the core business of the tribe with politics.

There is a perception, she said, money earned by Morgan in his roles as spokesman for the Maori King Tuheitia, Kahui Ariki representative on the tribe’s governance arm Te Whakakitenga, and as a Tainui Group Holdings director is funding his party political work.

“The only way to fix this growing negative perception is for Tuku Morgan to disclose the honorariums and fees paid for the work he purports to undertake on the tribe’s behalf,” Mahuta said in her Friday statement.

She said that Morgan’s combined annual income was close to that of the Prime Minister.

Mahuta has some support in Tainui in fighting Morgan. Morgan is far from universally popular, but their problem is that he is appointed by the Maori King. Hence there are rumours that the only way to remove Morgan is to remove the Maori King. That could only be done by another member of the Royal Family, such as Princess Nanaia.

She said the charitable status of Waikato-Tainui could come under scrutiny.

“Someone’s footing the bill and it shouldn’t be the tribe,” she said.

A Party President is normally an unpaid volunteer. Is she saying Morgan should not be able to be a volunteer for the Maori Party because of his roles with Tainui?

Otago University political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards said Mahuta’s question is legitimate, although, “a bit rich” as all party presidents have jobs on the side.

The comments are an indication Mahuta is still smarting over Maori King Tuheitia’s Koroneihana speech in August, where he his pulled support from the Labour Party, Edwards said.

“It illustrates just how rattled she is over this king’s speech and what it all means. She is fighting back,” Edwards said.

And he’s sounding a warning – the battle for the Maori seats in the run to the 2017 election is going to be ugly.

“We are not going to see a lot of warmth between these players because there really is a fight to the death going on.”

The majorities in each Maori seat are:

1. Hauraki-Waikato 7,695
2. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti 4,673
3. Waiariki 3,889
4. Te Tai Tonga 3,554
5. Te Tai Hauāuru 1,554
6. Tāmaki Makaurau 1,462
7. Te Tai Tokerau 743

Stuff reports:

Parliament is defending its computer security that is screening and blocking MPs emails if they contain words like “sensitive” or “classified”.

An urgent investigation has being called for by Labour’s Chris Hipkins after an email he was trying to send to a Fairfax journalist was blocked on Monday night.

In an email exchange between Hipkins and Parliamentary Service, which provides administrative and support services to MPs, Labour’s chief whip was told his email was blocked because it had “trigger” words in it.

Parliamentary Service told Hipkins the email he tried to forward was picked up by the secure system because he “sent it to a domain that does not use SEEMail” – in this case, Fairfax.

SEEMail is the agency used by Parliamentary Service for MPs and staff emails.

“SEEMail is an all of government secure messaging system that we subscribe to. SEEMail classified messages can only be sent to-from approved government departments and agencies,” Parliamentary Service wrote.

Parliamentary Service went on to confirm they had blocked the email because the attachment he was trying to send contained the words “SEEMail” and “sensitive”.

Hipkins says this is a “clear breach of parliamentary privilege”.

On the substance of the issue I have to agree with Hipkins. The Parliamentary Service is not a government agency. It is a parliamentary agency. No security system should interfere with outgoing e-mails from MPs.

“That’s outrageous, they have no right to be screening the emails being sent by Members of Parliament. It shouldn’t matter where I got the information from, they’ve got no right to monitor my emails in the first place.”

They are not screening or monitoring in an active sense. It is an automated filter, just as you might also have to prevent malware or spam. However one based on keywords is inappropriate.

“I know that National is now cosying up to (Fiji Prime Minister) Frank Bainimarama, but that doesn’t mean they can adopt his dictatorial, anti-democratic methods here in New Zealand,” he said.

This is where Hipkins gets hysterical. It is nothing to do with the Government, and he knows it. He is in fact a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission that oversees the Parliamentary Service. He has a very valid issue, but spoils it with his desire to paint John Key as a dictator. Labour still think the same failed tactics of the last ten years will work.

Parliamentary Service says the SEEMail system which scans MPs’ emails was introduced prior to 2007.

— Claire Trevett (@CTrevettNZH) September 13, 2016

Oh dear. If correct this means that Chris Hipkins is saying Helen Clark adopted Frank Bainimarama’s dictatorial, anti-democratic methods!!

There are seven candidates seeking three positions. All seven have kindly completed the Kiwiblog candidates’ survey. The candidates are:

• Diane Calvert
• Ray Chung
• Paul Douglas
• Andy Foster
• Thomas Morgan
• Matthew Plummer
• Simon Woolf

What is the maximum average annual rates increase, if any, you would vote for over the next three years?

• Diane Calvert – A modest increase of 2-3% if there is added value. We are just not seeing this added value and we are seeing core services and projects underway slipping in the meantime. The Council will be more effective long term if it addresses the causes of the rate increases rather than just focus on the level of rate increases (which is always a populist eye-catching election topic) I am more concerned with a likely 5-10% already being lost to start with through poor governance & leadership; and projects that don’t have the support of the community. If we dealt with this, rate increases would be minimised without the loss of services or planned projects
• Ray Chung – Zero
• Paul Douglas – 5%
• Andy Foster – 3% and will work to reduce that if elected Mayor
• Thomas Morgan – 7% Its either progress or further decline…
• Matthew Plummer – Frozen at inflation, but ideally cut by 10%
• Simon Woolf – 4.5%. There are cost efficiencies which could be made, and especially how council and officers manage time. We also need to be more savvy in the way Council uses technology, and being more agile in capturing great opportunities for Wellington. If we can increase our rating base, grow our economy, and take care with how we spend, we should be able to keep rates increases at a reasonable level.

DPF comment – Plummer and Chung are the candidates promising the lowest rates increases followed by Foster and Calvert. Woolf, Douglas and Morgan could all vote for large increases.

Continue reading »

There is a bill going through Parliament called the Judicature Modernisation Bill. It is a technical and reasonably innocuous reform of New Zealand’s judicial administration.

It was supported unanimously at first reading and second reading.

One of the interesting features of the Judicature Modernisation Bill was that it would require (Clause 401) final judgments to be published online of District Courts.  At present, only the judgments of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are published online as a matter of course – on Judicial Decisions Online.  So this reform would mean District Court judgments would now be routinely published online. This would be great as it would lead to much more open justice.

As present you have to request release of a district court judgement from the Judge and provide reasons for your request.  This is highly unsatisfactory. Courts should not be secret.

But something very unusual has just happened.

The Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, has recently published an SOP (Supplementary Order Paper), an amendment if you like, to the Bill before Parliament that completely strikes out the section requiring judgments to be published.

The explanation in the SOP says the publishing of judgments will remain at the discretion of the Judiciary – as is now the case. This is a major backdown, considering it was in the bill at first and second reading and at select committee.

Let’s be clear, if the law does not require judgments to be routinely published online, they won’t be – except for those already being published for the “Senior Courts”.

It is bad enough to remove this clause, but worse to try and do so at committee stage which means it bypasses the select committee.

I hope that Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, ACT and United Future vote against deleting Clause 401 and vote in favour of open justice. We’ve had widespread Internet for around 20 years now. Having all court judgments online is well overdue.

The original Clause 401 allowed some judgments not to be published if met certain criteria (Family Court, Youth Court, suppression) but set a presumption in favour of publication. This is the correct setting. It is sad to see the Government backtracking on this.

UPDATE: The Office of the Chief District Court Judge has helpfully pointed out that some District Court judgments are now published online at their website.  They announced last month:

A new website, www.districtcourts.govt.nz, has started publishing judicial decisions from the District Courts. The website is run from the Office of the Chief District Court Judge and marks a significant milestone in the modernisation of New Zealand’s District Courts. About 200,000 criminal, family, youth and civil matters come before the District Courts every year, where 160 judges make about 25,000 decisions, sentences or orders. Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue said that from now on, a Publications Unit working under an editorial board of senior judges, will select for online publication those decisions considered of high public or legal interest and which meet criteria for publication. This calendar year, the website expects to publish about 2500 decisions, rising to about 4000 next year.

It is good to see this occurring. However 4,000 out of 25,000 decisions is a small minority. Fundamentally I think the default setting should be opt out, not opt in. That is the decision should be published unless there is a strong reason not to, rather than it only get published if someone thinks it is of interest.

I still hope Clause 401 is retained. If there are worried about the capacity to cope, then one could delay the date it comes in, rather than remove the requirement.

UPDATE 2: A statement from the Minister:

“The Justice Ministry has advised me that each year the District Court (excluding the Family Court and Youth Court) delivers 15,300 final decisions that would fall within the scope of the requirement in the Bill.

 They are made up of:

*       300 written decisions (reserved judgments), mainly delivered in the civil jurisdiction; and

*       15,000 transcribed oral decisions, including civil and criminal judgments, and sentencing notes.

 The District Court doesn’t publish its judgments online, because it does not have the judicial resource that senior courts have in the form of Clerks and other judicial staff.

 The sheer volume of decisions by the District Court alone make it difficult for every decision to be published, especially due to the fact 15,000 oral decisions would need to be transcribed, checked, and for each Judge to sign off on each decision before they are published.

 The resourcing of staff alone to begin publishing final judgments would result in an increase of at least 10 FTE publication staff, at approximately $1 million. This does not take into consideration other staffing increases, training, overhead costs, equipment, and increases in workload. The vast majority of these decisions are also oral, meaning transcribing services would need to be resourced and serviced.

 Considering there is essentially no precedent value (i.e. decisions do not bind the higher courts, and they are often just a straight declaration of sentence rather than reasoning) in the decisions made by the District Court, the time, effort and resource that transcribing would take would add little value to access to justice.

 To argue that all 15,000 final decisions should be made online simply for the sake of it would require significant funds and resources. That would mean less money for supporting victims, putting police on the beat, and keeping our communities safe.

 It’s worth noting that the judiciary have launched a new website (www.districtcourts.govt.nz<http://www.districtcourts.govt.nz>) which has started publishing judicial decisions from the District Courts. Criteria for publication in the criminal jurisdiction include sentencing notes and reserved decisions from judge-alone trials in cases of more serious offending, or cases where there has been discussion of high-level principles. All decisions resulting from proceedings brought under the Harmful Digital Communications Act will be published automatically because this is a requirement of that legislation.”

I think $1 million a year is not unreasonable for open justice. Also if it was such a bad idea to publish all these decisions online, why was it in the bill in the first place? Why was the cost not flagged at the select committee so MPs could consider fully whether the benefits are worth the cost.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Goff is not ruling out a job for outgoing Auckland mayor Len Brown if he wins the mayoralty, but says it is very unlikely in the short-term.

Goff told the Herald he has had no discussions with Brown and made no promises “full-stop”.

“I have not given consideration at all to any employment for the outgoing mayor,” he said.

But when pushed about a rumour he had promised a post-election job to Brown in exchange for stepping down, Goff would not definitively rule out a job in the future for the mayor.

Goff said if a job came up during his time as mayor he would choose the best person based on merit, including former mayors.

I’m pretty sure every other candidate would rule him out. I’m not aware of any major Council where a new Mayor has hired or appointed the old Mayor to a job. So why not just rule it out?

Certainly he should not rule out a job where it is appointed by the CEO, not the Mayor. If Len Brown wants to apply to be a town planner or ethnic community liaison officer he should be treated on his merits. But in terms of political appointments by Goff, he could state it won’t happen.

A rather desperate Andrew Little has released their internal polling from UMR to try and convince people they are really winning.

UMR is a very good company and I often refer people to them, if I can’t do the work. But I will comment on this specific poll as it is vastly different to every other poll published.

They have National at 40%. National has not polled 40% in any public poll since 2006.

They have John Key with net favourability of +6% and Andrew Little with net favourability of +16%. You have to judge this against every public poll than has Little massively behind Key as Preferred Prime Minister and even behind Winston.

The differences between this poll and the other polls is outside the margin of error for National. For those interested here are the four most recent polls for National and Labour

Something I often advice when polls differ is to average them. If you did that with these four National would be at 45% and Labour 29%. But note they are done over different time periods.

John Key announced:

“New Zealand’s rate of family violence is unacceptable. Police currently respond to 110,000 family violence call-outs a year. Children are present at nearly two-thirds of these incidents.

“There are too many Kiwi households stuck in a life of fear and despair. They need help to stop the violence and repression so they can lead healthier, happier and more fulfilling lives.”

Mr Key said today’s announcement comes after a two year review of family violence laws by Justice Minister Amy Adams. It will see more than 50 changes to the current Domestic Violence Act.

“The new measures announced today are focused on faster and more effective intervention.  We have to get better at identifying dangerous behaviour that can escalate into more serious violence much earlier.”

Some of the new measures include:

• Making the safety of victims a principal consideration in all bail decisions, and central to parenting and property orders.
• Flagging all family violence offending on criminal records to ensure Courts and Police know when they are dealing with people with histories of family violence.
• Creating new offences of non-fatal strangulation and assault on a family member, with tougher sentences than common assault. Coercion to marry will also be criminalised.
• Enforcing tougher penalties for people who commit crimes while subject to a Protection Order.

The new measures will cost around $130 million over four years.

I really like the focus on bail decisions being focused on victim safety. There is a huge need for tougher penalties for protection order breaches and the new offences should help also.

The PM’s full speech is here and worth a read. Some extracts:

For most New Zealanders, home is a sanctuary.

But for some, home can sometimes be the opposite.

It can be a place of fear, anxiety and danger. …

Today I want to focus on how we intend to address the harm in our society caused by repeated family violence.

This is usually, though not exclusively, perpetrated by men on their partners or former partners, and on one or more of their children.

I am going to outline for you changes we will be making to reduce this kind of cruelty. …

New Zealanders generally resist government interference in their private lives, and I get that.

But let me say straight up that in households where anyone is being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, belittled or deprived, the perpetrator has no right to expect privacy so they can go on being a bully.

If they won’t stop that behaviour, and the victims can’t stop it, then we must ensure that someone else stops it.

This is why we have Governments. To protect those who need protection.

First, I want to say to victims: you are not alone.

You deserve and are entitled to a life free from fear, and your children deserve and are entitled to that too. Help is available.

Secondly, to the perpetrators of this misery I say this: recognise what is going on in your home and take responsibility for it.

A good father, a good step-father and a good man does not hit, intimidate or control his spouse, partner, ex-partner or her children. The same goes for women who are abusers.

You do not create a better family by hitting them, belittling them, or by making them live in fear of you.

You do not own your spouse, your partner, your ex-partner, your children or your step-children.

If you act in a violent and controlling way, you can change that behaviour.

Own the problem.

Nothing will get better until you do.

A great speech, in my view.

Also the $132 million investment is well worth it, if it reduces the level of family violence we have.

There is a useful fact sheet here. Some further details:

• Non-fatal strangulation will have a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.
• Coercion to marry will have a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
• Assault on a family member will have a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

Not clear though what the penalty will be for breaches of protection orders.

The Herald reports:

Duane Tawhai does not subscribe to the claim that the Far North is winterless.

He was close to tears last week when he told the Northland Age that he was struggling to cope, almost four months to the day since Contact Energy cut off the electricity.

Mr Tawhai has lived at his rented Ahipara address at 150 Takahe St for four years.

Throughout that time Contact had been billing 148, an address that did not exist. With his debt having reached $6500, the company pulled the plug on May 3.

So is he saying that he hasn’t paid a power bill for four years, and that he just thought power was free?

Is he saying he had no idea he owed them money, that none of the bills got through? NZ Post is pretty good at getting mail through, even if the address is slightly wrong.

I can’t imagine Contact Energy let him have power for four years, without any bills being paid.

He had had numerous meetings with Work and Income, He Korowai Trust, MP Kelvin Davis and the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, but none of them had been able to help. (Mr Davis said yesterday that his office had no record of any approach by Mr Tawhai, but was trying to contact him yesterday).

Also suspicious that he says he has contacted Davis, but Davis has no record.

He was raising three children on $199 a week, which he spent on food, he said, but if the power was restored he would find a way to pay the bill. The debt, however, was totally beyond his means.

No he won’t be. At a minimum he gets $326 in benefit and $221 in family tax credit which is $547 a week. Highly likely there is accommodation support also.

Contact Head of communications Shaun Jones said Contact appreciated the difficulty of Mr Tawhai’s situation.

“We have been in contact with him a number of times over the past few years in relation to his account, and while it appears there was some initial confusion relating to the address, we had worked with Mr Tawhai to clarify and resolve this matter,” he said.

What would be useful is for Mr Tawhai to give permission for Contact to release the full details of their contact with him.

Stuff reports:

A wine-making rich-lister’s son has sworn off alcohol since assaulting a female police officer in “serious violent attack”.

Nikolas James Posa Delegat, 19, appeared for sentencing before Judge Kevin Phillips in the Dunedin District Court on Monday.

The first-year University of Otago student told a female officer “get off me, cop” before punching her in the face, and several more times after she lost consciousness. 

“It nearly destroyed her life,” Judge Phillips said.

It was “a serious violent attack”, the judge said of the alcohol-fuelled incident outside the popular Dunedin student haunt, Starters Bar, about 11pm on March 26, 2015.

The court heard Delegat “became enraged” at a comment made by a male associate about his girlfriend, and punched a hole in the bar’s window.

That led to an argument, with Delegat punching a University of Otago Campus Watch officer, after he tried to intervene.

A passing police patrol noticed the disturbance and stopped to help.

Constable Alana Kane, who was in court for the sentencing, suffered a black eye and serious swelling to her face after being punched by Delegat.

She spent 15 hours at Dunedin Hospital after the incident, was off work and could not drive for two months and still suffered headaches.

Bad enough to assault a police officer, but to keep punching her after she was unconscious is incredibly serious.

Name suppression was initially sought for fair trial and personal hardship reasons, and was declined on both grounds.

Good.

His Auckland-based lawyer, Mark Ryan, applied for a discharge without conviction but it was declined.

You have to be kidding!

Ryan argued a conviction would stop Delegat pursuing a Financial Markets Authority career and he would be unable to race in yachting competitions in the United States.

Oh poor diddums.

The judge sentenced Delegat to 300 hours’ community service and ordered him to pay a $5000 emotional harm repayment.

I’m not exactly a social justice warrior but if Delegat was say a young Pacific Islander in South Aucklander who had punched a cop unconscious and then kept punching her, I’d say he’d probably be serving a significant jail term.

Ryan said his client had done everything asked of a young man following this “one-off fall of grace”.

“This incident was completely out of character.”

I don’t buy that. We all can do stupid stuff when drunk. But most people would never ever assault a police officer, yet alone keep punching them while unconscious. You either are the sort of person who can do that, or you are not.

Ryan said his client wanted to work alongside authorities with young people involved in the “out-of-control drinking culture” at the University of Otago.

This comes across to me as blaming alcohol, rather than blaming himself. The problem is not the drinking culture, but that Delegat got violent when drunk.

Stuff reports:

Wellington mayoral candidate Justin Lester has vowed to simplify the city council’s “unnecessarily difficult” consents process with a “one-stop shop” and individualised case managers for major projects.

But one developer has expressed doubts, saying Wellington’s consents process is already much smoother than in other cities.

Lester, the capital’s deputy mayor, said the existing process for both resource and building consents was not user friendly and did not give adequate feedback.

Some people were waiting weeks before having to make a raft of time consuming changes, he said.

“I’ve had personal experience in being a business owner and having to negotiate the processes. It isn’t hopelessly convoluted, but it is more complicated than it needs to be.

“I’ve already had three people come and complain to me about it in the past week alone.”

If elected mayor in October, Lester said he would fix the problem by establishing a one-stop shop for consents, providing individual case management and support for major building and resource consents.

Wellington developer and engineer Maurice Clark said consents processing was often a tricky area, and one that would be unwise to rush through.

“I kind of hate to say it, but I generally feel that there are good reasons for things being the way they are,” he said.

“On one hand you could say yeah, simplification sounds good, but on the other hand, council consents can be extremely technical and complicated.

“With these you’ve got to be careful not to oversimplify – you don’t want to end up with, say, a leaky buildings situation and have to pay out millions of dollars.”

Here’s what I think would make a difference.

A Council that set its planning rules so you can apply online for a consent, and in most cases be granted it online automatically.

The planning rules should be objective and code-able so that you can fill in the details, and at the end of the process, literally print out your resource consent.

This would not be suitable for major projects, or say building a new house. But for the vast majority of consents, you should be able to do it quickly, cheaply and online without human interaction. The planning rulebook should be objective.

I’d love to see a Mayoral candidate pledge to do the above and implement it within say three years.

Stuff reports:

The Government is set to sign off on a major revamp of the parliamentary precinct, including the option of a new office block to house MPs and staff.

Parliamentary Service confirmed it has been reviewing Parliament’s accommodation options, with the lease due to expire in 2018 on the 22-storey Bowen House on the corner of Bowen St and Lambton Quay.

A spokeswoman said Cabinet has asked the service to investigate “a number of options” and report back by the end of this year.

But Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee has been sounding out other parties on their preferences with a proposal expected to be put to Cabinet for approval in November.

Although no final price tag has been put on the plan, the new purpose-built block is considered the most cost-effective.

It is understood Opposition parties are keen on the option, but the Government is concerned at a possible public backlash.

In the 1990s a proposal to put the Beehive on wheels and move it to the site of the planned new building, to allow Parliament Buildings to be completed with an East wing in line with its original 1911 plans, was scuppered after a public outcry at the cost.

ACT lead the campaign against it, calling it The Parliamentary Palace. I worked in the PMs Office at the time and realised the proposal was doomed when at a staff meeting, even we were internally referring to it as the Palace. Once the name stuck, it was all over.

My preference was the next proposal which was to move the Beehive and extend Parliament House to its original design of a symmetrical building.

The land cleared for that, by the demolition of Broadcasting House on Museum St, is now a public park and would likely not be touched by the latest plan.

Other options are to extend the lease on Bowen House or move into a refurbished Bowen State building on Bowen Street – which is much further way from the main complex.

The $5m a year price tag on Bowen House, leased by Parliament since 1991, is considered too expensive to continue long term.

Bowne House is expensive but the politics sadly tend to be that it is more acceptable to pay a lease than to build.

The nondescript Beehive annex, housing the press gallery, which has an earthquake prone “yellow sticker”, could be demolished and rebuilt potentially for those ministers who cannot fit into the Beehive – and are currently housed in Bowen House.

In that case the press gallery would likely be returned to offices adjacent to the debating chamber that it occupied before Parliament building was refurbished and earthquake-strengthened in the early1990s.

That would guarantee favourable media coverage of the proposal! The gallery oldtimers hate that they lost their premier location.

Although no final price tag has been put on the plan, the new purpose-built block is considered the most cost-effective.

Having been through this once, that doesn’t mean it won’t be attacked.

I’ve blogged the latest poll (One News Colmar Brunton) at Curia.

It has Labour dropping 3% to 26%.  This is 8% lower than they were at in September 2013. It is the equal lowest score in this poll since the 1990s.

One News reported:

Labour has been quick to attack the poll, leader Andrew Little saying the poll is “bogus” and he doesn’t accept it.

Is he accusing Colmar Brunton of fraud or TVNZ? What does he mean the poll is bogus? He sounds very angry.

At the last election in September 2015 this same poll had Labour at 25.2%. They got 25.1%. They were very accurate for Labour. In fact it was National they got a bit wrong with a poll of 45.1% vs an actual election result of 47.0%

He says he has seen other polls that tell a completely different story.

Roy Morgan has had Labour under 30% in every poll since September 2015 and currently have Labour at 25.5%.

The reason Little is so upset may be that on this poll Labour would get only four List MPs. If they drop another couple of per cent, he won’t get back into Parliament himself on the list.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

It was with anti-National rhetoric that he targeted Labour’s vote in 1996, which he then used to back Jim Bolger and anti-Labour rhetoric with which he targeted National voters in 2005 before becoming Helen Clark’s foreign minister.  A sub-20% result for Labour looks increasingly possible.

Now you might just say that is Hooton being Hooton and he would say that. But look at Chris Trotter:

Assuming that NZ First’s support sits at around 10 percent at the outset of the 2017 election campaign, its election-night Party Vote could conceivably rise to around 20 percent. If half of those extra votes came from National, and half from Labour, then it’s entirely possible that Labour’s Party Vote could fall below 20 percent.

So Andrew Little said his aim was to get Labour polling over 40%. Then the definition of success became 35%. Now it is 30%. Soon they will claim being above the 25% they got last election is being successful. And maybe after that it will be getting higher than the 21% National got in 2002 will be their new measure of success.

The Herald reports:

Thousands of New Zealand smokers’ lives could be saved by legalising domestic sales of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine, a leading vendor says.

The claim by Cosmic, which is selling the devices comes as submissions close today on a legalisation plan and has some backing from public health experts, both here and overseas.

Public Health England, which has helped to revolutionise official views on e-cigarettes in New Zealand, has said the nicotine delivery systems can help smokers quit, and they carry only a small fraction of the risk of smoking tobacco.

Auckland University’s Professor Chris Bullen, who led the world’s first high-quality trial to compare the quit-smoking rates of e-cigarettes and nicotine patches, said: “I don’t think they are a magic bullet.

They’re not the sole thing that’s going to get us there [to the Smokefree 2025 goal], but I think they will help some population groups where we haven’t seen a breakthrough before.

“There could be some real potential for Maori smokers.”

His group’s trial found in 2013 that nicotine e-cigarettes were as good as patches, but he said the e-cigarettes sold today were superior to those in the trial, which delivered less nicotine than a cigarette.

“Experienced users can [now] get nicotine equivalent to smoking a standard cigarette.”

What is important to remember is that the nicotine is what is addictive but generally speaking is not what kills you – that is the tar and associated combustion.

A group of Otago University researchers are pushing for dairies, supermarkets and petrol stations to be prevented from selling e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine, saying instead that the permitted vendors should be limited to pharmacies or licensed “vape” shops.

This makes little sense to me.

E-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes. So why would you make them header to purchase than cigarettes?

They should either be easier to purchase than cigarettes or be on the same regulatory settings, but it is nuts to have a product far far less harmful, far far header to buy.