One month after the voting, we finally have a final result in the Australian election for the Senate. The results are:

• Coalition 30 (-3)
• Labor 26 (+1)
• Greens 9 (-1)
• One Nation 4 (+4)
• Team Xenophon 3 (+2)
• Lib Dems 1 (nc)
• Derryn Hinch 1 (+1)
• Family First 1 (nc)
• Jacqui Lambie 1 (nc)
• Palmer United 0 (-2)
• Dem Labour (-1)
• Motorists (-1)

There is a chance Turnbull may be able to get the union corruption bill through a combined sitting. You have 150 MPs and 76 Senators so he needs 114 votes.

The Coalition has 106 MPs and Senators. So he needs eight more. Where might they come from:

• One Nation 4
• Lib Dems 1
• Derrin Hinch 1
• Family First 1
• Cathy McGowan (Indi)
• Bob Katter (Kennedy)

So at best they have 115 votes. It will be very close.

The Herald reports:

Thousands of employers have been failing to pay Kiwisaver contributions building up more than $20 million in KiwiSaver debt to workers.

Labour wants them chased down with the urgency used when workers or beneficiaries owe money.

Inland Revenue figures show 11,241 employers had KiwiSaver debt totalling $24.9m at the end of June.

That debt includes $12.32m in contributions taken from workers’ pay packets, $9.34m in employer contributions and $3.24m in penalties and interest.

Employee contributions not passed on to Inland Revenue by employers are guaranteed by the Government.

However, the $9.34m in unpaid employer contributions must be chased up by Inland Revenue and there are no guarantees of payment.

Labour’s finance spokesman Grant Robertson said the entitlements were hard-earned.

“Employers not paying their fair share threatens to further undermine confidence in the retirement scheme after National has spent years hacking away at it.

“It is not a small amount to workers and will grow considerably after decades earning interest.

“Inland Revenue is quick to chase workers and beneficiaries that owe money. [Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse] should direct it to chase defaulting employers with the same rigour.”

I agree that IRD should vigorously pursue employers who fail to pass on to IRD deductions taken off their staff. Here’s one example of an abusive employer from 2010:

One of New Zealand’s largest unions, Unite, owes IRD over $130,000 including over $36,000 in tax meant to be paid on behalf of its employees.

The union’s accounts, which can be publicly viewed through a Government website, shows Unite’s liabilities exceeded its assets by over $170,000 for the year ended March 2009.

A further $57,630 is owed to the Government tax collector for GST.

Unite head Matt McCarten admitted to BusinessDay this afternoon that the union owed money to IRD and said the union was “keen” to pay.

He said it was “not that much in the great scheme of things”.

I’m sure Grant would agree this is a great example of a bad employer who should be pursued by the IRD. They trivialise their offending by saying $170,000 isn’t much in the great scheme of things.

Incidentally isn’t this bad employer in another job now? Who is he now working for?

The Herald reports:

New Zealand judge Dame Lowell Goddard has resigned as head of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said.

According to ITV Rudd confirmed Dame Lowell offered her resignation as Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

“I want to assure everyone with an interest in the inquiry, particularly victims and survivors, that the work of the inquiry will continue without delay and a new chair will be appointed,” Rudd said.

“I would like to thank Dame Lowell Goddard for the contribution she has made in setting up the inquiry so that it may continue to go about its vital work.”

Unless the resignation is for medical reasons, this is a bad look. I presume it is connected to this story:

A Kiwi judge tipped to become the United Kingdom’s highest paid public servant spent three months on holiday or overseas during her first year in the $660,000 job.

Dame Lowell Goddard, a former High Court judge, is leading the UK government independent inquiry into child sex abuse (IICSA).

The IICSA was announced in July 2014 by then British prime minister David Cameron to interrogate previously covered-up cases of child abuse in hospitals, care homes, churches and schools.

Goddard’s basic salary is around £360,000 (NZ$660,000) a year, topped up with perks such as free business class flights home, a £110,000 a year rental allowance, and a car and a driver, all paid for by the Home Office. 

She spent 44 working days in New Zealand and Australia after becoming chair of the inquiry, the Times reported.

The time spent abroad was on top of her annual leave entitlement of 30 working days, an entitlement arranged when she was appointed by Theresa May, the British home secretary at the time.

What a shame for the victims of child abuse as her resignation will delay progress even more than all her holidays.

For the first time in decades we have someone standing as an official Labour candidate to be Mayor of Wellington. This is very significant as there is a huge difference between someone standing as an independent (who is a party member) and someone standing as an official Labour candidate to be Mayor.

There are two rules in the Labour Party constitution that people should be aware of. The first is 110d:

I will faithfully observe the Constitution and policy of the Party and the policy of the Party

This means that a Labour Mayor will be constitutionally obliged to vote in accordance with Labour Party policy, regardless of the individual circumstances before Council.

But that isn’t the major problem It is 110e:

If elected, I will vote on all questions in accordance with the decisions of the Caucus of the ticket

Caucus in this case means the members of WCC who are Labour candidates. There are currently two Labour Councillors and could well be two again.

So what this means is that the two Labour Crs and the Mayor (if he is elected) will caucus on every issue and the Mayor would be bound by those decisions. Regardless of his personal views on an issue, he will be constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the decisions of his two colleagues.

This is why I could never support a Labour candidate for Mayor. They will be constitutionally unable to be a Mayor for Wellington, able to decide issues on their merits. They will be bound by the decisions of their colleagues.

People should be aware of the dangers in voting for a Labour candidate for Mayor. You will be getting someone bound to vote as their party colleagues decide, not following their conscience.

News.com.au reports:

In the latest edition of its propaganda magazine Dabiq the terror group takes aim at liberals and non-believers before detailing why militants attack western targets.

The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled Break The Cross and takes a direct swipe at Christians.

The editorial Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You not only mocks the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion and those who refuse to call the group Islamic because it’s “politically incorrect”.

It begins by talking about the “blessed attack on a sodomite nightclub and how it was indeed a hate crime because “Muslims hate liberalist sodomites”.

It goes on to say how the attacks committed against the West including the Orlando nightclub shooting and train attack in Germany aren’t senseless, but are in retaliation for apparent wrongs committed against Islam.

It then launches into the six reasons why IS hates the West.

Despite Islamic State explicitly saying what motivates them, many will ignore their own words and insist it is all about US foreign policy etc.

“We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers”, the editorial reads.

“It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.”

It then launches into a hatred of liberalists who have allowed gay rights to spread as well as promoting fortification and gambling.

Secularists are also targeted, while atheists are next in the firing line for their refusal to believe in their creator and insisting things happen randomly.

They wish everyone to submit to their religious beliefs, which they have enforced in the territory they hold.

The Herald editorial:

Too often in matters of health and safety today, perfection becomes the enemy of improvement. The refusal to finance sleeping pods for babies, and the regulation of e-cigarettes, seem to be two recent examples of this mindset. Until Health Minister Jonathan Coleman over-ruled his officials this week on the funding of the wahakura that can protect babies from being crushed by an adult sleeping beside them, the Ministry of Health had regarded them as an unwise encouragement of the unsafe practice of “co-sleeping” with babies.

Doubtless a woven basket or a plastic pod is not as safe as putting a baby to sleep in its own cot, but for many mothers there are clearly cultural instincts in play that have been resisting this advice. As Herald reporter Olivia Carville has disclosed, the pods have been recognised as a worthwhile second best by doctors familiar with sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), by coroners who have held inquiries into these deaths and even by some district health boards that have provided pods out of their discretionary funds.

After the devices came into use, New Zealand saw the first drop in Maori infant mortality rates in a decade. Since they are not expensive, many might question the need for them to be publicly funded. But if that is what it takes to give babies a better chance of surviving in their mothers’ beds, the modest cost to the public is well worthwhile. The minister has now directed his officials to work with paediatric experts to develop a new “safe-sleep programme that incorporates the appropriate use of safe-sleeping spaces”. Hopefully the message will be: separate sleeping is best but these devices are better than nothing.

The same message is likely to be given to smokers now the Government has issued a consultation document on a proposal to legalise the sale of e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine. E-cigarettes, as the Ministry of Health concedes, are much less harmful than tobacco.

I agree with the editorial. On both issues what we seemed to have was a purist view by the Ministry of Health. The purist view is that you shouldn’t smoke at all (correct) and that you should never have your child sleep in bed with you (also correct).

But the reality is some people do smoke and some parents do have their babies in bed with them. And so the policy challenge is how do you minimise harm, even if you can’t eliminate it. The sleeping pods seem like a pragmatic response to protect babies, recognising not all parents follow best practice. Funding them doesn’t mean you stop telling parents not to have their babies in their bed, just as allowing e-cigarettes doesn’t mean you stop telling people the best thing is not to smoke at all.

Claire Trevett writes:

There has been a slight irony in developments around the race to be UN Secretary-General this week. Over the Tasman, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd discovered he did not have support from anybody except indigenous groups thanks to his apology to the “Stolen Generation”.

Here, Helen Clark discovered she had the support of everybody except the Maori Party (and the Right-to-Lifers but let’s not go there.)

Maori Party co-leaders Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox have been hung, drawn and quartered for saying they did not support Helen Clark’s bid to be Secretary-General. Labour described it as “political hysteria”, Dover Samuels said it was utu, NZ First leader Winston Peters proclaimed it was “treacherous in the extreme”.

It seems the Maori Party missed out in the nationwide distribution of rose-tinted glasses since Prime Minister John Key and Helen Clark announced her bid.

Anyone who is surprised at the Maori Party’s position has forgotten where the Maori Party came from. It was born from protest against the very actions of Helen Clark’s former Labour Government.

This week’s debate has prodded old scabs – Clark meeting Shrek instead of the foreshore and seabed hui of “haters and wreckers”, Clark referring to the Maori Party as “last cab off the rank”. It was a reminder that the Maori Party owed Clark nothing.

Clark called them the last cab off the rank, so not very surprising they they are not enthusiastic.

Morgan Godfery also makes the case against Clark from a Maori point of view:

I was thirteen years old when Helen Clark pinched my land. She told the country my family were ‘haters and wreckers’. …

But Clark is the prime minister responsible for preventing Māori from establishing customary title to the country’s foreshore and seabed, a land confiscation in process if not name. As if the psychic harm of ‘nationalising the beaches’ were not enough, owners with private title to the foreshore and seabed could continue business as usual. It’s an exhausted truism, but property rights for some are property rights for none.

There are so many things that hurt here: the double standard between possible owners of Māori customary title and owners of private titles; blocking access to the courts, another breach of natural justice for Māori; but the moment that survives in my memory, almost twelve years later, is how Clark condemned the law’s opponents as ‘haters and wreckers’. Again, this isn’t neutral – the unspoken context is that Māori hate and plan to wreck the nation. 

This distinction between ‘them’ and ‘us’, between Māori and the nation, is more than hypothetical. Māori activist and writer Tim Selwyn, who threw an axe through Clark’s electorate office window in the middle of the night as a symbolic act of dissent against the foreshore and seabed law, was convicted on a charge of sedition. Understood in this context, the accusation that Marama Fox is a ‘traitor’ takes on a sinister edge.

If racism is a private act, then Helen Clark is no racist. But if racism is a public act, something that happens through institutions and manifests in power relations, then perhaps she is. Racism works like a virus, infecting progressive and conservative hosts. Politicians, especially prime ministers, often make racist choices, whether they mean to or not. Clark’s foreshore and seabed law may lack racist intent, but its racist impact is clear: one standard for Māori customary owners, another for private – most likely overwhelmingly white – owners.

I’m sorry, but your progressive fav is problematic. #ImWithMarama

I’m personally a backer of Clark for three reasons:

1. I think she can do the job, and would be better than the other candidates in terms of cutting costs at the UN
2. I think NZ would benefit from having a NZer as UN Secretary-General
3. It keeps her out of NZ for another five to ten years!

But I agree with Godfery that it is hysterical and nasty for media and politicians to insist everyone must be backing Clark or they are traitors to NZ. Absolute nonsense. She was a controversial politician and of course some NZers will not back her candidacy.

Politik writes:

Nevertheless, there is an increasing frequency of thinking aloud in Wellington as to whether a Trump phenomenon could happen in New Zealand.

Clearly, Winston Peters, who has spoken enthusiastically of Trump, seeks to tap into the same angry anti-establishment, anti-free trade electorate that Trump pitches too.

So could Peters become New Zealand’s, Trump?

That’s the wrong question. Trump has followed the same pattern as Peters and other populists.  Find a segment of the population to blame for everything, stand for nothing, and believe you are the solution to everything.

The question is why has Trump been so successful while Peters leads a party that is normally around 8% in the polls?

The answer is their backgrounds. Trump prior to entering politics was a prominent businessman, billionaire and major media/TV figure.

Peters before he became an MP was a provincial lawyer.

NZ is 8th highest in the OECD for mobile broadband subscriptions. In fact we have more mobile broadband subscriptions than we do inhabitants!

The Economist writes:

AS POLITICAL theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

Trump and Sanders sound identical on trade.

Start by remembering what is at stake. The multilateral system of institutions, rules and alliances, led by America, has underpinned global prosperity for seven decades. It enabled the rebuilding of post-war Europe, saw off the closed world of Soviet communism and, by connecting China to the global economy, brought about the greatest poverty reduction in history.

Indeed a lot at stake.

Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.

They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects.

Exactly.

Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people (just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning it.

A good prescription.

NY Magazine has done an in depth feature on why media is failing.

Their analysis is:

1. News is an entertainment business, even if it pretends otherwise
2. So it doesn’t know how to handle serious issues
3. Gets addicted to conflict
4. Loves simple heroes
5. And simple villains
6. Reduces complexity to comfortable narratives
7. And is desperate to be respected, which produces blindness
8. Journalists are easily bored
9. Especially by good news
10. Unfortunately, so are readers, who are hard-wired for panic
11. Which editors, producers, and publishers know
12. Journalists are deluded
13. More cynical than their readers
14. Rush their work
15. Believe popular opinion is all that matters
16. And are completely comfortable cutting deals
17. And it’s not just in politics
18. Often journalists think they know the story before they report it
19. And are no longer protected from market forces
20. The media is also clueless about its audience (and country)
21. Which brings us to Donald Trump
22. His campaign was catnip to the partisan outrage machine
23. And everybody was transfixed by the spectacle
24. And obsessed with the incredible horse race
25. Including the public
26. But gorging on Trump coverage didn’t actually mean coming to terms with him
27. Later, the journalists who tried harder to call out Trump (by fact-checking him, for instance) weren’t very effective
28. Not that that is really anything new
29. Whoever the subject, the press can be cruel
30. And selective in its cruelty
31. And things can get very personal
32. Reporters are obsessed with gaffes
33. Can be horrible to women, even when they are trying to be kind
34. They can also be lascivious, when they aren’t being outright lewd
35. And ruthless in their pursuit of “the get.”
36. Then, typically, they just move on
37. And then there’s the problem of “objectivity.”
38. And “bias,” of course
39. Plus general media ignorance
40. And the way media is consumed helps all-out charlatans flourish, too
41. (Not that these complaints are unprecedented.)
42. The media’s lost power, and coziness with its subjects, serves the celebrity industrial complex …
43. … Political operations …
44. … Big business …
45. … And start-ups too
46. Who owns things is a major problem, too, whether it’s a giant corporation …
47. Or an unsavory individual
48. Social media rules everything now
49. And it does enclose everybody in customized-news silos
50. (Even though, often, those silos are at war with one another.)
51. And yet it has also reinvigorated things
52. Particularly by diversifying things
53. But also by giving people what they want

A very long but interesting read.

Matthew Hooton wrote:

The real reason Mr Mallard is abandoning Hutt South and bringing his 30 years in Parliament to a close is because he knows he would almost certainly lose the seat to National’s rising star Chris Bishop. …

If Labour is interested in reconnecting with the Auckland business community and the crucial aspirational middle class in West Auckland – which Mr Little and his finance spokesman Grant Robertson have so utterly failed to do – then it really has no choice but to opt for Sir Robert Jones’ right-hand man in Auckland, NBR Rich Lister Greg Loveridge, who is expected to put his hand up.

Most obviously, sitting on this year’s NBR Rich List at $80 million, ahead of Mr Key on only $60 million, the one-time test cricketer and Cambridge University graduate exudes everything Labour’s increasingly wacko membership despises, especially as most of his $80 million was made in Auckland property – albeit commercial not residential.

He would be a star candidate

However NBR later report:

NBR Rich Lister Greg Loveridge says he isn’t about to leave the boardroom for the parliamentary bearpit.

The New Zealand manager of Sir Bob Jones’ RJH, whose involvement with the Labour Party is longstanding, says speculation he will stand in veteran MP Trevor Mallard’s Hutt South electorate is wide of the mark.

So why not?

“I have no intention of getting into politics,” he told NBR in an email response.

“I have enough to do with running a company and having four small children.”

However, Mr Loveridge adds that last week’s column by NBR commentator Matthew Hooton, mooting the prospects of a candidacy, is “right in one sense.

“Labour needs to move away from leftist anti-trade and anti-growth populism and try to make an actual difference to people’s lives rather than keeping its bloggers happy.”

So like Shane Jones, he sees Labour heading in the wrong direction.

Ian Apperly writes:

This is laughable. In three years they’ve put in (another) tech hub (they are starting to fall from fashion due to their dubious effectiveness), screwed up Victoria Street while holding hands with the NZTA, and bought an air connection to Canberra of all places!

This Council promised over twenty projects at the start of the triennium. Exactly zero have been completed.

And he looks at the lack of consultation:

I want to remind people of Island Bay’s controversial cycleway and butchered consultation. Owhiro Bay, where residents were ignored over concerns about a camp site. The shambles around density housing, and again, the lack of consultation. Support for an airport extension that makes no sense, spending ratepayer cash in a clear case of corporate welfare. A total lack of support for local High Tech companies, preferring to buy international products over local (better) products.

A botched consultation over the Hutt cycleway. Bad consultation in the Eastern Suburbs over cycle options. No overall progress on public transport. No progress in transport at all. Poor key performance indicators across a number of council services. Doctoring business cases prior to public release. Multiple complaints to the Ombudsman that have been upheld. Not being able to tell what the actual rate rise is each year.

A high degree of absenteeism from certain councillors. A poor relationship with central government, across many agencies and at cabinet level. Twenty communications staff with far less consultation staff. In-fighting.

They have managed to do some things. They painted polka-dots in Bond Street.

They are cool polka-dots!

Don’t forget that when you start voting. And watch for more rewriting of history in the next few weeks. Ask yourself when you read the rhetoric and promises: “How?” How is it that they are going to change the mess that they have got themselves into, and if they don’t recognise the appalling state of the current situation, then should you be voting for them at all?

As usual I’ll publish my thoughts on the mayoral and council candidates after nominations close.

Stuff reports:

Wellington aqua bunnies could lose out as figures show a massive increase in ratepayer spending for pools resulting in almost no more swimmers.

And Wellington City Council chief executive Kevin Lavery is now questioning whether some of the money would be better spent on growth sports such as mountain biking and trail running.

More than $45 million in ratepayers’ money since 2002 had been spent on upgrading and renewing the council’s swimming pools, he said in his pre-election report.

Despite Wellington’s population increasing by 15 per cent in that time, pool visits had remained almost static at about 1.2 million visits per year.

“This has meant our ratepayer subsidy per attendee has almost doubled.”

Good to see the CEO pointing this out.

The council needed to be “smarter” with its sports and recreation investment and may need to look at reducing funding to pools and instead pouring it into “growth sports”, such as mountain biking and trail running, which were not traditionally strongly supported by councils.

“The recreation paradigms are shifting and we need to move with them,” he said.

I agree.

The Herald reports:

Housing New Zealand applied to evict 4 per cent of its tenants in the year to June.

The state agency has told the Herald, in response to an Official Information Act request, that it applied to the Tenancy Tribunal to end 2247 tenancies in the year to June last year, and 2591 in the latest year.

The latest number is 4 per cent of its 65,543 state rentals as at March this year – one in every 25 tenants, excluding homes rented to community groups.

Auckland Tenants Protection Association manager Dr Angela Maynard said the agency was effectively evicting people into homelessness because it was meant to be the housing agency of last resort.

“If you’ve been evicted from a Housing NZ house, the private sector doesn’t want to know you. Are they supposed to go on the streets?” she asked.

Housing NZ evicts tenants for basically two reasons only. Either they are refusing to pay their rent, or they are mistreating the property. If they get evicted, it is because they have chosen to behave in a way which leads to their eviction.

Almost all state house tenants have income related rents so it is no more than 25% of their income.

But Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford said taxpayers would want the state agency to be “tough but fair”.

“Most people would want Housing NZ to have the wisdom of Solomon,” he said.

“You want them to be compassionate, particularly to tenants who might be pretty challenging to deal with, but also tough but fair when it comes to making sure, as a good landlord, that state house tenants are good neighbours and look after their houses.”

Twyford speaking sense on this.

“Housing NZ will only apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy as a last resort,” she said.

“For example, when a tenant falls behind in their rent their tenancy manager will contact the tenant to attempt to make a repayment arrangement.”

She said tenancy managers handed tenants to debt specialists if they fell more than 21 days behind in their rent. If a specialist could not arrange repayments the agency then sought mediation, and only went to the tribunal if mediation failed.

It is a last resort.

A man who has been partially disabled since a horrific truck accident a year ago is being evicted by Housing New Zealand because he didn’t declare income of almost $35,000.

Stuart Wilkinson, who turned 50 today, has lived for 14 years in a state house in the Christchurch suburb of Parklands with his wife Leeann and their two children now aged 18 and 15.

He said he spent his birthday “barricading” the house after a Tenancy Tribunal hearing last Wednesday ordered the termination of the tenancy and Housing NZ told him to leave the house ready for a final inspection by Housing NZ today.

“We have just barricaded ourselves in,” he said.

So he broke the law, committed fraud, and still has a sense of entitlement so strong he is barricading the house rather than accept the consequences of his fraud.

Housing NZ regional manager Jackie Pivac said her agency issued a 90-day eviction notice in May after the ministry told it that Wilkinson was being prosecuted.

She said Wilkinson then stopped paying rent, so the agency went to the Tenancy Tribunal to end his tenancy “immediately” and to recover $3519 in rent arrears.

Wilkinson confirmed that he did not declare income from work.

“I know it’s wrong,” he said.

And he has stopped paying rent, but still thinks he should be able to carry on there.

Dr James Russell writes:

New Zealand is the world leader in killing invasive predators. We’re so good at it, other countries around the world seek our help and advice for their own eradication projects.

Yay, we’re the best pest killers around 🙂

The Government has said no, but by any standard scaling up our efforts by the order of magnitude required to achieve a pest-free New Zealand by 2050 is a giant leap from where we are now.

Can we do it? I believe we can and I think we must. The Government’s decision to commit a further $28 million to the 2050 goal on top of the $60m to $80m already spent on pest control every year is a significant step forward and, perhaps more important, demonstrates the leadership required. It sets up a multi-year programme which successive governments must all support – our precious biodiversity, unique in the world, must be seen as more than a political football.

Over time much more funding will be needed, but as progress is seen, I am sure this will occur. And there is a significant economic return on doing so.

The Herald reports:

This is Gwenda Christine Bush, one of New Zealand’s most prolific fraudsters.

During the past 40 years she has amassed more than 600 dishonesty convictions, filling 57 pages of a court file, for using fabricated sob stories to rip off charities.

Yesterday, she was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention for her latest scam – a 12-year rort where she obtained almost $6000 in food parcels, furniture and other assistance from the Salvation Army. …

Detective Kellie Osborne, the officer in charge of the investigation, spoke to the Herald after sentencing yesterday.

“In the entire 10 years that I’ve been a police officer, this is the most abhorrent type of fraud that I’ve investigated,” Detective Osborne said. “The Salvation Army relies on the generosity of the public, they offer amazing help to people who are in genuine and desperate need. …

Judge Down said Bush’s criminal history was “appalling”. “[You have] 57 pages of convictions, mostly for dishonesty … the worst list of previous convictions I have ever seen in 35 years in the criminal justice system.”

He said Bush, who has two children, started offending in the 70s.

Judge Down considered sending Bush back to prison, but noted none of her earlier lags had made a difference to her offending.

He did not know if there was any point in sending her again and thought the restrictions of home detention, which she had not served before, might be more beneficial.

“Someone who is such a repeat and recidivist offender cannot really expect any less than imprisonment.

“But on the other hand, she has been sent to prison so many times in the past it hasn’t made any difference,” the judge said.

He sentenced Bush to 12 months’ home detention followed by six months of special conditions. “However, if you breach it or you commit further offending during home detention or post-detention conditions you will be brought back to court and you will be resentenced to a term of imprisonment.”

I think it is fair to conclude that after 600 convictions over 40 years, nothing can be done to deter her.

So surely the focus should now be on protecting the community. She should be given the maximum sentence available for her offending, to remove her from the community. She has left behind scores of victims.

The Herald reports:

The detention of Kiwis living in Australia could be part of a push to “purify” the country, Labour’s Corrections spokesman Kelvin Davis says.

Davis has hit out after new figures show the number of New Zealanders held in detention centres like that on Christmas Island at 199.

There are a total of 1577 people held, including 175 Iranians held, and 142 from Vietnam.

Davis questioned why many of the New Zealanders had to be locked up while they appealed their visa cancellation, and said it could be a policy to “purify” Australia.

“They are cleansing themselves of undesirables, even if those people have been born in Australia.”

Yes they are. If you are not an Australian citizen and you are convicted of a crime, you get deported. The way to avoid this is not to commit a crime, and not join a gang.

Sir Bob Jones writes in NBR:

Following the arrival of Wellington Council’s new CEO, Englishman Kevin Lavery, I broke my life-long wariness of contact with Kevins and invited him to our office for drinks. “So what’s your impression of Wellington?” I asked. “It screams out for pedestrianisation,” Kevin replied, unsurprisingly as all English cities have pedestrianised their CBD centres, so too throughout Europe, North America, Australia and the more advanced Latin American nations.

I told Kevin of my efforts to promote the pedestrianisation of Lambton Quay two elections back. There was a positive feedback from sophisticated retailers and people such as the capital’s leading CBD retail leasing agent, Ty Dallas of Colliers. Conversely, it elicited some mind-boggling stupidity, none more so than from John Milford, then manager of the city’s only department store, Kirkcaldie, who told the Dominion Post he was opposed as his customers like to park outside. Pointing out that there were no parks outside Kirks made no difference.

No surprise then that Kirks was slowly going broke. Indeed, as my company owns the building, we had already drawn up plans to chop it into shops. Then I suggested to Kirks’ long-suffering chairman that he approach David Jones, given its new owners were plainly into international expansion.

And the women of Wellington have been rejoicing at the new arrival, based on my Instagram feed.

Nobody has more to lose from Lambton Quay pedestrianisation than me (if I’m wrong), my company owning the most Lambton Quay buildings and far and away the most CBD shops. But I’m not wrong as the worldwide evidence is compelling.

The best cities do have large walkable areas.

A few weeks ago Wellington mayoral candidate, councillor Nicola Young came out for pedestrianising Lambton Quay and theDominion Post gave it front page coverage.  It quoted retail specialist Chris Wilkinson, who spoke enthusiastically for it and sought rival mayoral candidates’ comments. Jo Coughlan opposed it, she being in the Milford camp and wanting to park there when shopping. Keith Johnson expressed his love of the city’s worst blight, namely buses, Nick Leggett endorsed it, albeit with a childish crack about candidates not being traffic engineers, Justin Lester made the extraordinary claim that buses “bring vibrancy to cities” and the mayor, Celia Wade-Brown said the idea is not new. Nor is oxygen Celia but you’re right, it’s happening everywhere.

Heh.

Ty Dallas, who’s a huge enthusiast for the concept, told me there are 246 Lambton Quay shops from Lambton Quay’s south end through to Midland Park and a total of five carparks. That’s not a typo. Five bloody parks, yet the Dominion Post then ran letters from halfwits saying they were against Lambton Quay pedestrianisation as they liked parking there. It’s unbelievable.

What one needs is a couple more large tower car parks near Lambton Quay.

As with many local governments, Wellington is ill-served by its councillors, not one of whom can point to any outside achievement. Public office is nowadays a refuge and income source for the incompetent as, regrettably, capable people shy from it.

It’s rumoured that Wade-Brown will not run and instead will “anoint” Justin Lester; probably the most charisma-free individual ever to seek public office in history and who makes Colin Craig look like Tarzan on steroids. Lester is a typical leftie, namely free and easy with other people’s money. He came out for the absurdly titled “living wage” (if they’re not receiving it already, then why aren’t they dead?) for council employees and contractors. He owns a small takeaway food outlet. The Dominion checked and asked him why he wasn’t paying it to his own staff. “I can’t afford it,” he wailed.

Ouch but true.

He’s also involved with a disgraceful “business investment unit” the council established. It wastes millions annually but refused to release details of its “investments” on the bogus grounds of “commercial confidentiality.” 

That must end.

Lester and his rivals doubtless can offer something to society, such as becoming shepherds, dog-walkers and such-like but should be nowhere near the public purse.

Heh.

Auckland is marching on with its CBD pedestrianisation programme. The formerly down-at-heel, seedy Fort St’s vibrant rebirth evidences pedestrianisation’s merits. So too O’Connell St and street-by-street the work is (inexplicably) slowly being completed. The only negative is the dull grey paving stones.

The extraordinary thing about the Lambton Quay proposal is it’s costless. The creating of retail decked shops scattered down the wider parts centre will create investment units that will cover the entire expense.

Fort Street has been transformed. It would be great to see this happen in Wellington.

Stuff reports:

The Government are looking into making the sale and supply of e-cigarettes legal.

A consultation document was released on Tuesday for the public to consider how selling e-cigarettes containing nicotine should be legalised. 

Kiwis were already buying them online and importing directly for personal use, said Associate Health Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-liga, as it was not illegal to use them.

He said this would only be done “with appropriate controls”.

E-cigarettes are electrical devices that mimic smoked tobacco products but produce a vapour (rather than smoke) which the users inhale (called “vaping”).

Smokers get addicted to the nicotine, but it is the tar (and other) which kills them.  E-cigarettes feed the nicotine addiction but don’t have tar etc.

The Ministry of Health says there is “emerging evidence that e‑cigarette use may substantially reduce the burden of disease caused by smoking”.

Public Health England has said they are 95% less harmful. Despite this, it has been illegal to sell nicotine for e-cigarettes in NZ, while tobacco has been legal. A preposterous situation.

The sale of e-cigarettes would be restricted to people aged 18 years and over, would prevent e-cigarettes being advertised, and ban their use in smoke-free areas, according to the proposals.

They seem reasonable restrictions to me.

Labour’s health spokesperson Annette King said the proposal was a “sensible move”.

“They will not be making them available and legal without advice, and I have said for some time that it can be another tool to help reduce consumption of tobacco.”

Smokers needed “as many tools as possible” to help them quit, along with mechanisms such as nicotine patches and gum.

“The argument has been that there will be people that would take up e-cigarettes and start smoking e-cigarettes, well I don’t know the evidence that people would actually do that.”

There have been several studies looking at this, and so far no evidence that non-smokers start using e-cigarettes. Almost all e-cigarette users are smokers trying to quit.

Martin van Beynen has read the Callinan Report and writes of the seven pieces of evidence that meant Callinan didn’t decide on balance of probabilities it wasn’t David.

1. A lens found in his brother Stephen’s room matched damaged spectacles found in his room.
2. David had injuries – scratches, bruises and abrasions to his head and knee – consistent with a fight.
3. David’s fingerprints were found on the rifle. They looked to have been made by his fingers covered in blood.
4. Stephen’s blood was found on David’s clothes.
5. If Robin was the killer, his behaviour was implausible and highly unusual including wearing David’s gloves and getting changed from the clothes he wore during the shooting into old clothes to shoot himself.
6. Bain’s inability to explain what he was doing for 20 minutes after he returned from his paper run.
7. Bain gave inconsistent accounts of what happened and bizarre behaviour after the shootings.

A useful point also:

Callinan was critical of the expert evidence in the case.

“I have to say that expert evidence adduced on behalf of Bain, or elicited in cross-examination, which pointed to possibilities, even reasonable possibilities has failed to establish possibilities as probabilities.”

Real life was different to crime stories, Callinan said in conclusion.

“People in real life and the courts that adjudicate upon conflicting facts know that all of the questions cannot always be answered, and all of the issues neatly resolved. This is such a case. Addressing the sole question that I am asked, and confining myself strictly to it, my answer is that Bain has not proved on the balance of probabilities that he did not kill his siblings and his parents on the morning of the 20th of June 1994.”

This is key. The alternative theories put forward by Bain’s legal team established reasonable doubt as they were possible. Hence it is quite correct he was eventually found not guilty. But while they were possible, they were not probable.