Stuff reports:

The Government has written off $6 billion in interest on student loans in the last decade but a new report says the policy is a poor use of money and should be scrapped.

More than $1.5 million has been lent by the government to students in the last year alone and $602m was immediately written off, said Eric Crampton, head researcher at the New Zealand Initiative.

The loan scheme is a poor use of $6 billion and ultimately it’s a subsidy for “upper and middle class households who can afford to pay their own way,” he said.

It is very low quality spending. I’d much rather that money was spent on early childhood education or increasing Pharmac’s budget.

The only thing the zero interest policy does is shorten the repayment period and Crampton argues that for many it only cuts about one year off their repayment, which isn’t a lot for the sake of $6b.

“A student leaving university with $16,000 in student loans would take about an extra year to pay off their student debt if interest rates were 7 per cent rather than zero percent.”

At a minimum the interest rate should at least match the inflation rate, so students are not incentivised to borrow the maximum – even if they don’t need it.

Labour’s education spokesman Chris Hipkins takes that a step further and says taking away interest-free student loans “reinforces inequity”.

“It would make inequity worse because those on the lowest incomes would be penalised the most. It’s an incredibly regressive system.”

Hipkins is wrong. It takes money away from poor people who don;t go to university and gives it to doctors and lawyers.

Hipkins said the think tank was taking a “narrow view of the value of tertiary education”.

“This is exactly the type of ideological right wing clap-trap i’ve come to expect from the successor to the business roundtable.”

“They assume it’s all personal benefit, they don’t look at the fact we put significant taxpayer subsidies into higher education…because it is not a purely personal benefit, the whole of the country benefits,” he said.

The NZ Initiative has not made that assumption. Few argue that there are not country benefits from having a more educated population. That is why over 70% of the costs of tertiary education are met by taxpayers.

Labour of course want to have taxpayers pay 100% of the costs of tertiary education and have truck drivers pay even higher taxes so doctors and lawyers can get their degrees for “free”. This is what happens when most of your front bench are former student politicians.

Stuff reports:

A sex offender on the run after cutting off his electronic monitoring bracelet has been caught.

Nigel Robert Gately, 48, went missing from the Salisbury St Foundation, a residential facility for prison parolees in St Albans, Christchurch, on Tuesday.

Police arrested him in Nelson on Wednesday night following a manhunt across the upper South Island. It is understood he was caught after a sighting of his car – a purple 2004 Ford Falcon.

Gately is the latest of dozens of criminals to flee after removing an electronic monitoring bracelet.

He attacked two women the last time he was paroled and police launched a wide-ranging search when he was discovered missing.

He will now be recalled to prison.

Gately grew up in Culverden, North Canterbury, and has convictions for rape, assault with intent to commit rape and abduction for sex. He was released on parole in May last year.

At the time, the Parole Board said he was assessed as a “high risk” of sexual offending, but felt he could be managed with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring.

Well done NZ Police for catching him but why did the Parole Board give him parole when their own advice was he had a high risk of sexual offending? Parole is for low to medium risk, not high risk.

Even worse Gately had a sentence of preventive detention, so never had to be released. The Parole Board couldn’t justify parole by saying he would have eventually been released so better to do it with conditions.

His criminal record is:

• 1994 raped a Christchurch woman, got eight years jail
• 2000 attempted rape of a Dunedin woman two months after release
• 2001 attempted rape and abduction in Pukerua Bay

He was sentenced to preventive detention in 2001.  Let’s hope the Parole Board doesn’t give him a 5th chance and he remains in prison until he is too old to be a risk to anyone.

The Ireland Journal fact checks claims about sugar taxes. They find:

Claim: Taxes on sugary drinks have not achieved their public health aims
Verdict: Mostly TRUE

• There is some evidence that the tax precedes a moderate decrease in consumption, but also that this effect tends to fade quite quickly

• There is no significant evidence that sugar taxes cut body mass index (BMI), or rates of obesity, diabetes or heart disease, but there is evidence that they have not achieved such desired and promised public health gains

• However, most sugary drinks taxes were implemented quite recently, and subsequent research may yield different results as the effects of the taxes develop.

This is from a neutral observer. The full article is a very good read. A couple of extracts:

It suggests that, while it is possible the introduction of sugar taxes may have slowed those increases, the taxes certainly did not cause a single decrease in average BMI or obesity prevalence in 96 opportunities for that to happen (four countries, six years, two measures, two gender categories).

So what is the evidence that they reduce obesity:

It should be noted that several studies can be found which project a likely or possiblereduction in BMI and obesity, but this research is generally based on predictive models, rather than data gathered in the context of a tax having already been implemented.

The evidence is predictions, not evidence.

So when people argue in NZ for a sugar tax, they have no evidence at all they reduce obesity. It’s just a way to tax New Zealanders even more.

The Washington Post reports:

Republican Mayor Richard Berry was driving around Albuquerque last year when he saw a man on a street corner holding a sign that read: “Want a Job. Anything Helps.”

Throughout his administration, as part of a push to connect the homeless population to services, Berry had taken to driving through the city to talk to panhandlers about their lives. His city’s poorest residents told him they didn’t want to be on the streets begging for money, but they didn’t know where else to go.

Seeing that sign gave Berry an idea. Instead of asking them, many of whom feel dispirited, to go out looking for work, the city could bring the work to them.

Next month will be the first anniversary of Albuquerque’s There’s a Better Way program, which hires panhandlers for day jobs beautifying the city. In partnership with a local nonprofit that serves the homeless population, a van is dispatched around the city to pick up panhandlers who are interested in working. The job pays $9 an hour, which is above minimum wage, and provides a lunch. At the end of the shift, the participants are offered overnight shelter as needed.

Simple but effective.

In less than a year since its start, the program has given out 932 jobs clearing 69,601 pounds of litter and weeds from 196 city blocks. And more than 100 people have been connected to permanent employment.

“You can just see the spiral they’ve been on to end up on the corner. Sometimes it takes a little catalyst in their lives to stop the downward spiral, to let them catch their breath, and it’s remarkable,” Berry said in an interview. ”They’ve had the dignity of work for a day; someone believed in them today.”

Looks worth trialling in NZ.

The Dom Post editorial:

It is true that problem drinking remains a feature of New Zealand, and that the harms caused by alcohol are substantial, from crime to hospital admissions. It’s fair for the police to offer their impressions of this problem – they are the ones who stand, sober, on Courtenay Place at 4am and witness it.

It is also absolutely fair for the police to strictly enforce the law, as this newspaper has advocated many times, when bars serve under-age or drunken patrons, or market alcohol irresponsibly.

Yet the police are ultimately only the enforcers – not the makers – of the rules. They know about alcohol harm, but they do not have to weigh that against the atmosphere and colour that come with a bustling central city.

The politicians do that. And Wellington City Council made a very reasonable case this week when it unanimously reaffirmed its existing rules – arrived at after wide consultation in 2013.

Mayor Celia Wade-Brown rightly pressed Bensemann for some evidence that supported his claims. When it wasn’t forthcoming, she simply repeated that the council needed solid data.

This is entirely fair – and the police should take the hint. If they really have been quietly pressing owners to accept earlier closing times, that is out of line and it needs to stop.

Will the Police listen though and accept their job is to enforce the law not make it?

If they don’t, I think an MP should put forward a members’ bill changing the Act to restrict their role in alcohol licence applications.

Stuff reports:

An Invercargill MP feared for her safety when a man left a threatening phone message on her office phone, a judge has heard.

Steven Shane Lawrence, 52, admitted a charge of speaking threateningly when appearing in the Invercargill District Court on Thursday.

A police summary of facts says Lawrence made a phone call to the National MP office on August 3.

“[Lawrence] left a voice message for the local Minister of Parliament, who is the victim in this matter,” the summary says.

Lawrence identified himself in the message before saying in a threatening manner twice said he was going to “get her” and she didn’t even have to be in the building.

“This caused the victim to fear for her safety and police were notified,” the summary says.

Lawrence, when spoken to by police, said he phoned the victim because she was a local representative of the National Party and he felt angry towards the party “due to their involvement in the Holy War”. 

He doesn’t stop at threats:

On a separate matter, Lawrence pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault with a blunt instrument and was remanded in custody until September for a case review hearing. 

And he has done this before reports the Herald:

A “lonely man” who pretended to be a radical terrorist in emails to Members of Parliament where he threatened to put their heads on poles and pump them “full of bullets” has today been jailed for 11 months.

Steven Shane Lawrence, 50, sat in his Christchurch flat and seethed against the New Zealand government.

The loner was angry at a “Zionist” government he perceived to be in bed with America.

So, over a seven-day period in January, Lawrence sent a string of extremely graphic and abusive emails to several MPs.

One victim received a threat that he would be pumped full of bullets and that Lawrence would rejoice in his bloody death.

Another victim was threatened that she would “burn eternally in hell” and that her entrails would be spread across the streets.

Others were threatened with having their decapitated heads put on poles, while another was told her throat would be slit.

So he served his jail time (I hope he didn’t get parole) and almost straight away is doing the same thing. A longer jail sentence is needed to keep people safe.

Stuff reports:

The Opposition is throwing its support behind two Government policies but want a tourist levy introduced to pay for them.

Green Party co-leader James Shaw announced on Thursday a “taonga levy” to be paid by all international tourists to help fund a predator-free New Zealand by 2050 and to boost the Regional Tourism Facilities Fund.

The levy will be a $14-to-$18 addition and once combined with the existing border clearance levies, will bring total levies paid by international visitors to approximately $40.

The Green policy is half good and half stupid.

There may be a case for a tourist levy to cover the external costs of tourists being in NZ, so it is a sort of user pays levy. But balanced against that is tourists contribute through GST on their spending and also increased tax take on companies and employees in the tourist industries.

So a tourist levy to fund regional tourism facilities may be a good idea. But it may also discourage some tourists and lead to an overall smaller tax take also.

The tourist levy to fund the predator-free NZ is simply daft. If predator-free NZ makes sense economically (and it does) then it stands on its own merits without needing to justify an new tax for it.

CBC reports:

Elizabeth May says she is questioning whether she can continue in her role as leader of the Green Party, after its members voted in favour of a resolution supporting sanctions against Israel, despite her own opposition to it.

The Greens became Canada’s first federal party to endorse the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement during the party’s biennial convention in Ottawa over the weekend. Some Canadian Jewish groups denounced the Green Party for supporting a boycott policy against Israel. The House of Commons condemned the movement in February.

“I’m struggling with the question of whether I should continue as leader or not, quite honestly,” May told Rosemary Barton in an interview with The National.

“I’m quite certain most of our members don’t support this policy, but weren’t fully engaged in the consensus building process we normally would have had,” she said.

“So if I can’t find a way to bring that back and have the members review it with a consensus decision-making process, then I have to profoundly question whether I can continue as leader and that’s obviously heart-breaking.”

Good to see a leader with principles.

According to Stuff the parties stance on cannabis decriminalisation is:

• National – no
• Labour – no
• Green – yes (legalise)
• NZ First – hold a referendum

Stuff reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little is prematurely muscling in on John Key’s job by trying to oust him as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

Little takes issue with the Prime Minister, or any minister with responsibility for spy agencies, being chair of the select committee.

“In other jurisdictions – I’ve looked at the UK – they have allowed a senior opposition MP to chair the committee.”

I think Little is talking nonsense. The UK Committee‘s last seven Chairs have all been Government MPs.

In Australia the chair is a Government MP. In the the US the majority party in Congress provides the chair. In Canada the chair is a Government MP.

Little is also calling for the committee to be increased to nine members to allow both the Greens and NZ First to be represented while still providing the Government with majority representation.

Key isn’t opposed to increasing the size of committee but says the Greens have a “deep aversion and suspicion of the (spy) agencies” and he doesn’t think that’s a “constructive” view to bring to the table. …

“The question for the Labour Party if they want to put the Greens on the committee, is do the Greens actually believe the agencies?

“Because if you’re just philosophically opposed that’s a legitimate position for a political party to hold but you’re not a very constructive member of the ISC,” Key said.

The Greens are opposed to us having any specialist intelligence agencies. With such a view it is hard to see how they can be constructive about how best to oversee them. It’s like appointing pro-choice activists to the Abortion Supervisory Cmte. They would have no interest in supervising – just closing down.

The Greens policy is:

• we will abolish the GCSB and close its two signals intelligence bases at Waihopai and Tangimoana immediately.
• we would therefore institute a select committee enquiry into whether the SIS should be abolished
• will review the functions and need for the Domestic and External Security Secretariat and the National Assessments Bureau.

So they definitely want to abolish one of the intelligence agencies and seem very keen to abolish all the others.

Jacinda Ardern wrote on Facebook:

I have a question. If you’re jobless and looking for work, where would you start? My instinct says ‘online.’ But the Government has just decided that if you’re unemployed, but look for work on say Seek or Trademe for example, you basically will no longer count in our unemployment stats. I cannot tell you how mad this makes me!

As the Government Statistician has pointed out, this was not a decision made by the Government (Ministers) but by public servants with statutory independence. If Jacinda was Prime Minister, the same decision would have been made and occurred as politicians don’t get to decide how statistics are defined.

Chris Bishop pointed out:

Cool story Jacinda but you are wrong. Browsing job ads on the Internet does not count for statistical purposes as ‘seeking a job’. Applying for jobs online does.

Important to note (since you don’t) this was done by statistics NZ independently too, to bring NZ into line with other countries.

They announced the changes in June, saying:

Previously, we captured responses that specified using the internet to seek work in an ‘other’ category and consequently classified as ‘actively seeking’. The redeveloped HLFS deals with using the internet differently. The job search method category ‘Looked at job advertisements in newspapers’ has now changed to ‘Looked at job advertisements’. Consequently, looking at job advertisements is now being correctly classified as ’not active’, regardless of the medium used.

What this means is merely browsing job advertisements (either in newspapers or online) doesn’t count as seeking work. You actually have to have applied for a job to be classified as seeking work.

Stats noted:

This change brings the classification in line with international standards and will make international comparability possible.

Now again Labour knows this. They know this was a decision made by professional statisticians, and not politicians. But they are desperate.

Stuff reports:

Labour Party MP Kelvin Davis said the entire Maori caucus would attend the celebrations, as well as Labour leader Andrew Little.

“It doesn’t sound particularly important, if he’s just going to Dunedin,” Davis said.

He said the Prime Minister’s decision not to attend the Kingitanga celebrations was proof that Maori issues weren’t a priority for the Government.

What an idiotic statement.

Labour seem to think attending a party is what is important, not your actual policies.

Stuff reports:

The golden glow is back on New Zealand’s Olympic campaign thanks to another fabulous canoe sprint triumph for Lisa Carrington on Tuesday (Wednesday NZ Time).

Smoke on the water and with a golden hue off it, Carrington is now a double Olympic champion in the fast and furious canoe sprint they call the K1 200m − and there was never really any doubt about it as she extended her unbeaten streak in the event at the global level to 13 regattas.

A great victory. I recall her first gold medal. I was at a packed bar in Martinborough watching her race and when she won the place went crazy.

The Government Statistician has said:

Like my predecessors I am fiercely protective of the statutory independence of the role of the Government Statistician and strongly refute any assertions made by Grant Robertson that there has been political interference in the production of official statistics.

This independence means that I maintain the right to make changes necessary to ensure the relevance and quality of our official statistics. Changes to the Household Labour Force Survey have been made to ensure that we produce the best possible measure of the current state of the labour market and to maintain consistency with international best practice.

Far from ignoring technological change during the past 30 years, such as the advent of the internet, we are incorporating these changes so as to be technology neutral.

Within the survey questions, to be regarded as actively looking for a job you must do more than simply look at job advertisements, whether it is online or in a newspaper.

It is not uncommon for revisions to be made to official statistics as a result of more accurate information becoming available or changes to international standards and frameworks.

This was in response to Robertson’s clumsy smear:

National appears to be actively massaging official unemployment statistics by changing the measure for joblessness to exclude those looking online, says Labour’s Employment spokesperson Grant Robertson.

“These changes are typical of a Government that actively manipulates official data to suit its own ends. I have no doubt National ministers will embrace the massaged figures and continue not to worry about the real people who are out of work.

“Despite the many flaws in the HLFS its biggest strength is that is has been a consistent measure for almost 30 years. National’s recent changes have completely undermined that. It is arrogance of the highest order to simply write thousands of jobless New Zealanders off the books,” says Grant Robertson.

Robertson is not stupid. He knows the Government Statistician has independence and no Minister can tell her to change an official definition. He just figured a cheap shot at the Government was worth the implicit smearing of the neutral officials at Stats NZ who make these decisions. Remember this when Robertson talks of protecting the public service – it needs protecting from him.

@dpfdpf @grantrobertson1 @avancenz Screw that. Undermining confidence in integrity of Stats NZ is serious.Shortsighted, nasty & unscrupulous

— Rob Hosking (@robhosking) August 16, 2016

Sums it up nicely. A desperate move.

The irony is that I expect the HLFS to show increased unemployment tomorrow because the last update had a big drop, which may partially be sampling error, so it could well reverse.

To help Wellingtonians make an informed choice beyond who can write the best 200 word election statement, Kiwiblog is running a survey of candidates to find out their views on local government issues in Wellington. Thanks to those who suggested questions on Facebook.

Once most candidates have responded (say by end of August) I’ll publish the results and do summaries for each ward where people can see where each candidate stands.

Some candidates read Kiwiblog so will see this here. Feel free to bring this to the attention of any candidates you know, so they get the opportunity to share their views with the 75,000 or so readers of Kiwiblog.

The survey is here, on Surveymonkey.

John Key announced:

Prime Minister John Key today introduced a bill to update the legislative framework and improve the transparency of New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies.

The New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill 2016 is the Government’s response to the first independent review of intelligence and security presented to Parliament in March 2016 by Sir Michael Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy. …

Key aspects of the legislation include:

• Creating a single Act to cover the agencies, replacing the four separate acts which currently exist.

• Introducing a new warranting framework for intelligence collection, including a ‘triple lock’ protection for any warrant involving a New Zealander.

• Enabling more effective cooperation between the NZSIS and GCSB.

• Improving the oversight of NZSIS and GCSB by strengthening the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and expanding parliamentary oversight. 

• Bringing the NZSIS and GCSB further into the core public service, increasing accountability and transparency.

More info is at DPMC. Stuff reports:

But the Government varied from one recommendations in the report by former deputy prime minister Sir Michael Cullen and incoming Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy.

It would have given the GCSB the power to enter and search private premises, but the new law would instead make it clear, for instance, that the GCSB can conduct a “remote search” of a computer but the SIS would carry out a physical search of a property.

But they would have the full suite of powers when operating together.

So the bill doesn’t go so far as Cullen recommended in terms of powers for the GCSB.

Labour will support the Bill to select committee but has problems with some elements of it, including the definition of national security and the level of privacy protections.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the law controlling the work and scope of the agencies needed to be updated so they can adapt to a rapidly changing environment and new challenges.

“While we will support the Bill at first reading, it does not get the balance quite right. I have confidence changes can be made at select committee which is why Labour will support the Bill at first reading.”

The present definition of national security was too broad “and must be narrowed down to actual threats to security and government”.

Key indicated the Government was open to changes, including to the national security definition, to get broad support.

It will be good if any changes have broad support. The Greens of course want to abolish the GCSB so no matter what is in the bill they are obliged to oppose it.

Sadly the Auckland Council has overturned the Independent Panel and mandated a minimum size for apartments. Frank McRae at Transport blogs why this is not needed:

1. You don’t have to live in one

No one can force you to live in a shoebox. This isn’t North Korea. It’s not even Cuba.

2. Bank lending rules mean that developers will tend towards building larger apartments

A recent article in The NBR also raised concerns at the prospect of shoebox apartments (paywalled). Despite its intentions, the article actually made a convincing case for why Minimum apartment size rules aren’t needed. The article noted that banks generally don’t like small apartments and often won’t provide loans for apartments less than 50m 2 in size. If that’s the case then developers generally won’t want to build tiny apartments. Developers aren’t in the business of throwing away money and if prospective apartment buyers can’t get a loan for a tiny house then the developers won’t want to build something no one can buy.

3. The market has an incentive to provide larger apartments

People generally favour more space than less space if they can afford it. This provides an incentive for developers to build larger apartments. Indeed, the latest round of intensified construction going on in Auckland’s city fringe is producing much larger and higher quality apartments than the construction boom of the early 2000s. This shows there is demand for larger apartments and that the market has moved on from where it was 15 years ago.

4. Limited development opportunities incentivise the development of smaller apartments

Until recently, intensified residential development was largely prohibited in most areas outside of Auckland’s CBD. This made well located residential floor space scarce. This scarcity provided an incentive to build tiny apartments like those that proliferated in the early 2000s. If additional residential floor space can be constructed in more areas, the scarcity of floor space is reduced and there is potential to provide bigger apartments. Additionally the more development opportunities there are, the more developers will need to compete on things like size and quality to attract buyers.

5. Small apartments can be nice and some people want to live in them

Despite all of the above there are still some circumstances where a developer will want to provide a small apartment and there are some people who will want to live in them. With good design, small studio apartments can be nice and they can work for some. Young people with an active social life may only need a house for crashing and the occasional shower. Why should they be denied the option of paying less money for less space? And if a cramped apartment is the best someone can find within their budget and other constraints, how would they be better off if that apartment didn’t exist?

All excellent points.

Planning rules should be about controlling the external effects of development. It’s hard to see what external effects small apartments create and why they should be of concern to anyone other than those who choose to live in them. If hand-wringing about “shoeboxes” is really from a genuine concern for the welfare of those living in them, then the hand-wringers should be even more concerned about people living in cars (the ultimate shoebox dwelling) and uninsulated garages. A small apartment is a much better option than a car or homelessness for those without other options. And for those really concerned about others having better housing options, the best way to achieve that is to ease the arbitrary rules that create an overall shortage of housing and prevent more affordable housing from being built.

It’s sad to see the Auckland Council vote for minimum sizes, which may keep prices higher than they need to be. But to be fair overall most of their votes have been in favour of the independent panel’s reccomendations.

The Herald reports on this incredible photo of Usain Bolt by Cameron Spencer of Getty Images in the 100 metre final.

One might imagine someone doing this towards the end of a long distance race. But in the Olympic 100 metre final, that is incredible. But he is an incredible athlete and so glad he beat the drug cheat.

Stuff reports:

The members’ bills process has come under scrutiny after the selection of a National backbencher’s bill that would see MPs debate the sale of lost luggage.

Labour and ACT have called for the “trivial” change lodged by Christchurch MP Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako to be added to a Statutes Amendment bill in a tidy-up of regulations, rather than waste politicians time and taxpayer money going through the parliamentary process.

But this is not the first time a seemingly menial bill has been entered into the ballot and literally plucked from a biscuit tin.

The member’s bills process is “fundamentally flawed”, concludes United Future leader Peter Dunne. 

He says there’s a better way to get the bills dealt with and it would involve setting time-frames for a more proportionate system.

“It would be better to, particularly from a smaller party’s point of view, have almost a quota system so that each party was guaranteed a minimum number of bills per session,” he said.

“Say there is a ballot procedure, but there’s also a backstop that says during the course of the year each party will be guaranteed some measure of proportionality. So if you get to the latter stage of the year, and their bills haven’t come up, [it] ensures every party gets a fair go.”

That’s not a bad idea.

It’s been a tactic for Governments to get their MPs to enter proposed bills to reduce the chance of Opposition bills being drawn. Opposition MPs use the ballot to highlight issues they know Government have no appetite for.

Yep opposition often put up bills they just want to embarrass the Govt on, and Govt sometimes puts up bills that are relatively minor. However important to note that many members’ bills do lead to significant reforms and are very worthwhile.

Seymour, also the regulatory reform under-secretary,  was happy to talk to any MP to help add minor issues to the Statutes Amendments bill. The changes in Korako’s Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill actually made a lot of sense to Seymour, but wasn’t worth a separate bill.

I tend to agree. A members’ bill doesn’t need to be a major issue, but it should have some significance to it and this particular bill doesn’t seem to make that threshold. In fact it is debatble if the bill is even needed. If all MPs are happy to add it to the Statutes Amendments Bill, then they should do so – possible by seeking leave of the House.

Some good facts in a presentation on US charter schools:

• The number of charter schools has increased from 1,500 to 6,700 from 1999 to 2014.
• The number of students in charter schools has increased from 350,000 to 2.9 million from 1999 to 2014.
• 5.8% of US students are now in a charter school – every one by choice
• Bad charter schools get closed down – around 3% a year close. When was the last time a bad state school closed? Most get closed for failing to meet academic targets – accountability.
• 29% of charter students are black (double the 15% in state schools) and 27% are Latino.
• Just over one million students are on a waiting list for a charter school
• On average charter schools improve student learning but this varies by state. Poor and black students are most likely to have improved learning at charter schools.
• Urban charter schools do especially well
• Charter school performance has improved over time as low performing schools get closed down, new high performing schools get opened and existing schools improve

Stuff reports:

The Christchurch City Council will investigate ways to limit unhealthy food outlets setting up shop close to schools.

More of this madness. A map in Auckland showed that if you banned food outlets within 800 metres of a school, them most of Auckland would be covered.

Linwood College student Harriet Helms, 16, said 90 per cent of her friends went to Burger King after school at least four times a week. They went for the free wi-fi and purchased food while they were there.

She wanted a place that had free wi-fi and healthier food options.

If they are after free wifi they are going to go to a place that has it, regardless of whether it is 100 metres or 1 km from the school.

Linwood Medical Centre’s Dr Richard Griffiths asked the council to show some backbone and regulate against the outlets. 

“Day in, day out we’re confronted by adult obesity and more concerning child obesity.”

Griffiths said he was furious at the ease in which companies could position themselves across from schools. 

Oh such hysteria. You’d think this is a school in the middle of the countryside, and KFC has chosen to open up outside their school just to target them.

The school is located next to a major shopping mall. Shopping malls the world over have fast food outlets. People like to eat while they shop.

Doug Sellman writes:

University of Otago’s Professor Jennie Connor has had two prestigious publications in the past month highlighting the fact that alcohol causes cancer in moderate drinkers in New Zealand.

Not quite correct. To quote a paper from the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism:

To date, no experimental evidence indicates that alcohol by itself can cause cancer-that is, that alcohol can act as a complete carcinogen. Over the past few decades, however, several animal studies have indicated that alcohol can have a cocarcinogenic, or cancer-promoting, effect. This means that when alcohol is administered together with other known cancer-inducing agents (i.e., carcinogens), it promotes or accelerates cancer development.

What the research shows is:

Alcohol consumption has been linked to an increased risk for various types of cancer.

I don’t know anyone who disputes this. There are of course scores of things that increase the risk of cancer from sausages to red meat to sunlight.

The really important point that Connor makes is that many of the cases of these alcohol-related cancers occur in moderate drinkers, ie they are not confined to people with severe alcoholism.

Again I don’t know anyone who disputes that overall there is a non-zero increased risk of cancer with even a moderate level of drinking. But there are also increased health benefits (as well as enjoyment).  To quote the Harvard School of Public Health:

It’s safe to say that alcohol is both a tonic and a poison. The difference lies mostly in the dose. Moderate drinking seems to be good for the heart and circulatory system, and probably protects against type 2 diabetes and gallstones. Heavy drinking is a major cause of preventable death in most countries. In the U.S., alcohol is implicated in about half of fatal traffic accidents. (1) Heavy drinking can damage the liver and heart, harm an unborn child, increase the chances of developing breast and some other cancers, contribute to depression and violence, and interfere with relationships.

Alcohol’s two-faced nature shouldn’t come as a surprise. The active ingredient in alcoholic beverages, a simple molecule called ethanol, affects the body in many different ways. It directly influences the stomach, brain, heart, gallbladder, and liver. It affects levels of lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) and insulin in the blood, as well as inflammation and coagulation. It also alters mood, concentration, and coordination.

They note:

Even moderate drinking carries some risks. Alcohol can disrupt sleep. Its ability to cloud judgment is legendary. Alcohol interacts in potentially dangerous ways with a variety of medications, including acetaminophen, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, painkillers, and sedatives. It is also addictive, especially for people with a family history of alcoholism.

So heavy drinking is bad overall for health. Moderate drinking has some health benefits and some health risks.

The benefits and risks of moderate drinking change over a lifetime. In general, risks exceed benefits until middle age, when cardiovascular disease begins to account for an increasingly large share of the burden of disease and death.

So whenever an activist focused just on the risks without the benefits, they are not wanting you to understand the full picture – just as anyone promoting just the benefits without the risks does the same.

Sellman continues:

It is clearly important for this information to be widely publicised to all who consume alcohol in New Zealand. However, it won’t be the alcohol industry that engages in this work. A responsible industry of any product that is causing 250 cancer deaths each year would quickly warn its customers about the risk.

Actually what is important is both the benefits and risk be publicised. And this is what public health professionals should do – provide a balanced view, rather than be zealous campaigners.

Now what I find interesting is that when Connor and Sellmam provide data like this:

• There were 243 cancer deaths attributable to alcohol in 2007.
•  126 of these cancer deaths were in men, 117 were in women.
•  This represents 4.2% of all cancer deaths, i.e. 1 in 25.
•  60% of all alcohol-related cancer deaths in women were due to breast cancer.
•  This represents 14% of all breast cancer deaths, i.e. 1 in 7.
•  There is no level of drinking that does not increase your risk of cancer to some extent, but heavier drinkers are more affected than light drinkers.

They don’t provide what the public would find the most useful information to make an informed choice. What is the overall increased risk of getting cancer from moderate alcohol consumption. Is it 25%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 2% etc? Knowing this allows us to make an informed choice. If moderate drinking increased my risk of cancer by say 25% I’d be quite likely to stop drinking as that risk is not worth the health benefits it provides and/or the enjoyment from it.

What would also be useful if quantifying the overall increased risk from moderate drinking compared to other risks, such as processed meat. Also is the risk of dying from cancer from moderate drinking say more or less than the risk of dying in a car crash?

An article in the British Medical Journal provides the information that I would want to make an informed choice:

Compared with non-drinkers, light to moderate drinkers had relative risks of total cancer of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06) and 1.04 (1.00 to 1.09; P_trend=0.12) for alcohol intake of 0.1-4.9 and 5-14.9 g/day among women

That is a 2% and 4% increased risk.

Corresponding values for men were 1.03 (0.96 to 1.11), 1.05 (0.97 to 1.12)

A 3% and 5% increased risk.

But these are affected by if you smoke. The combination of tobacco and alcohol is a bad one. They find for non-smokers:

For a priori defined alcohol related cancers in men, risk was not appreciably increased for light and moderate drinkers who never smoked

And women:

However, for women, even an alcohol consumption of 5-14.9 g/day was associated with increased risk of alcohol related cancer (relative risk 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.20)), driven by breast cancer.

So a 13% increased risk of alcohol related cancers for women, but the important stat is the overall increased risk of any cancer which is 4%. Their conclusion:

Light to moderate drinking is associated with minimally increased risk of overall cancer. For men who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers is not appreciably increased for light and moderate drinking (up to two drinks per day). However, for women who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers (mainly breast cancer) increases even within the range of up to one alcoholic drink a day.

Now if Connor and Sellman were providing this context, I doubt anyone would object. Knowing moderate drinking increases overall risk of cancer by around 2% to 4% amongst non smoking women and minimally amongst non smoking men is useful information to have.

But you balance that up against the fact that non drinkers tend to die before moderate drinkers. Again there are benefits and risks from moderate drinking and I think we should regard with suspicion those that promote the risks only, just as much as those who promote the benefits only.

UPDATE: Eric Crampton has also blogged on this, providing some very useful data about overall health impacts.