Andrew Geddis writes:

First, earlier this month the Victorian Parliament’s Legal and Social Issues Committee tabled an extensive report on on its inquiry into end of life choices. This report proceeded the way that NZ’s Health Committee really should have done – it first examined how the State’s palliative care services are operating and what should be done to better improve this, before then turning to look at the issue of aid in dying. With regards that latter matter, the Committee concluded that:

“Assisted dying should be made available to adults with decision making capacity who are at the end of life and suffering from a serious and incurable condition, which is causing enduring and unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner they deem tolerable.

Suffering as a result of mental illness only does not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Assisted dying should be provided in the form of a doctor prescribing a lethal drug which a person may then take themselves, or in the case of a person being physically unable to take the drug themselves, the doctor administering the drug.

The request to access assisted dying must be completely voluntary, properly informed, and satisfy the verbal request, formal written request, repeat verbal request procedure described [in the report].”

There’s a bunch of reasons why we should care what this Committee thinks. First up, it represents the conclusions of a group of MPs from a society that is (like it or not) pretty similar to our own. What is more, the report represents a cross-party near-consensus on the issue. The Committee consisted of three Labor MPs, three Liberal MPs  and one representative each from the Sex Party (yes – really!) and the Greens. Of these eight members, only one (from the Liberal Party) dissented from the recommendation. So you can’t just dismiss this report as the ideologically driven predetermined views of [insert whatever side of the political spectrum you disagree with].

It will be interesting to see what conclusions the MPs on the Health Select Committee reach.

So now that Canada has brought in a regime of legalised aid in dying, we’ve got a near perfect comparator for us as a nation to see if the claimed negative consequences of the practice eventuate. Will Canada’s introduction of aid in dying somehow harm the practice of medicine (or, at least, the practice of medicine in end-of-life situations)? Will it lead to elderly/depressed/disabled people being pushed by relatives or money-saving governments to end their lives? Will the suicide rate, especially for young people, trend upwards because of “mixed messages” about the practice? Etc, etc?

I agree Canada will be a good country to study to see what happens. While I support euthanasia in principle I am always ready to be swayed by evidence.

For the same reason I look forward to the results of Oregon and Washington legalising cannabis. Will it increase harm or make no difference?

Simon Bridges announced:

Mr Bridges says it has found that achieving a step change in the performance of Auckland’s transport system will require a range of interventions.

“It concludes that while ongoing investment in new road and public transport projects will clearly be needed, greater use of technology and in the longer term, road pricing – or directly charging for road use, will also be part of the toolkit,” he says.

“The final stage of ATAP will look at what additional projects could be brought forward in the next ten years to support Auckland’s growth. If the benefits of early investment in these projects are significant, there may be a case for the Government and Council to make extra funding available,” Mr Bridges says.

Exactly how that funding could be provided would need to be considered after ATAP provides its final report.

“Auckland will need to accommodate an expected 700,000 additional people over the next 30 years. The emerging approach indicates a need to focus on ensuring transport enables and supports this growth, particularly through early investment in new growth areas in the north-west, north, and south of Auckland,” Mr English says.

“The approach also looks to better target investment to strengthen strategic road, rail, and public transport connections, as well as ensuring we’re making the most of the existing network,” he says.

Mr Bridges says the potential opportunities from current and future technology are exciting.

“ATAP is finding that by embracing intelligent transport systems early, we can position Auckland to make the most of any future benefits from connected and shared vehicles. Technology could also enable a progressive move towards road pricing.

There’s a lot of detail in the report dealing with both supply and demand issues. On the supply side it identifies further investment needed in roads, busways and rail.

On the demand side it says that network pricing should be considered, which is basically congestion charging. It means that you might pay to use certain network corridors, and pay more if using them at peak times.

I strongly support this. It is user pays. At the moment we have indirect user pays through petrol tax and licence fees. But the future will be and should be a more direct link between the roads you use and the amount you pay.

What is important is this is not used just to increase revenue for the consolidated fund. But as I understand it any transport revenue will remain dedicated for transport, and if direct charges come in, then indirect charges (petrol tax) may reduce.

This will be many years off, but it is good to see the Government moving in this direction.

Stuff reports:

Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, is leaving the campaign, following a tumultuous stretch marked by missteps and infighting.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Monday that “Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign”. She paid tribute to his “hard work and dedication” and wished him the best.

Two insiders told the New York Times that Lewandowski was let go.

Lewandowsky deflected any criticism of his approach, pointing instead to campaign chairman Paul Manafort. “Paul Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since April 7. That’s a fact,” Lewandowski said, declining to elaborate on his dismissal.

You only sack your campaign manager when you’re in real trouble.

But he’s not the one who should have been fired. Trump needs to fire Trump.

Stuff reports:

In the hospitality sector, Carl’s Jr chief executive Andy Pudzer has said he wants to try fully automated restaurants, where customers never see a person, in an effort to deal with rising minimum wages. 

“If you’re making labour more expensive, and automation less expensive, this is not rocket science,” he toldBusiness Insider.

“[Machines] are always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.”

It is inevitable.  Unions keep insisting on huge increases in the minimum wage, and one day they will wake up and realise they have no members left!

The Herald reports:

A new national cyber-law centre is being set up and its first project is putting the Harmful Digital Communications Act under the microscope.

The New Zealand Centre for ICT Law, which opens next month at Auckland University, aims to provide an expanded legal education for students and provide research and development into the impact electronic technology has on the law.

The centre’s new director, retiring district court Judge David Harvey, said he regarded the centre as a vital hub for both the legal fraternity and the public.

“More and more IT is becoming pervasive throughout our community and it’s providing particular challenges and interesting developments as far as the law is concerned.”

Research was already underway on the effectiveness of the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

Future projects would include digital aspects of the Search and Surveillance Act, Telecommunications Act and Copyright Act.

This is a great initiative and Judge Harvey is the perfect person to head this up. Over the last 20 years the intersection of law and the Internet has only been increasing.

Matthew Plummer writes on why he is voting for the UK to leave the EU:

1. Accountability – the EU is basically an appointed Government, not an elected one
2. Eurozone integration – will be the main focus of EU going forward
3. Trade – too many vested interests to do good trade deails
4. Less Government – 10,000 EU employees in Brussels earn more than David Cameron
5. Immigration – UK outside EU could do free movement agreements with countries such as NZ
6. Progressive values – don’t come from the EU but Magna Carta etc
7. Security – comes from Five Eyes, not EU. An EU Army undermines NATO
8. Reform – meaningful EU reform can’t be achieved

The referendum appears to be neck and neck. Brexit was leading in the polls, but since the murder of Jo Cox, most polls have shown Brexit now slightly behind.

The Herald reports:

Long-serving Waikato MP Lindsay Tisch will leave Parliament after next year’s election.

Mr Tisch, a former National Party president and who became an MP in 1999, has announced he will not seek the National Party nomination for his Waikato electorate next year.

Waikato is a safe National seat, with Mr Tisch having one of the largest majorities in the country when he won the seat by 16,169 votes in 2014.

18 years is a decent period of time to be in Parliament.

It is a very safe seat. I expect a number of very credible people will be interesting in being candidates.

Donna Miles-Mojab writes in the NZ Herald:

I write this as a Muslim even though being a Muslim does not define me. In fact, I have a very secular outlook to life and last time I knelt down to pray was more to impress my grandmother than Allah – I was 7 or 8.

A useful reminder that for many people their religion does not define them – it is just a part of them. For some people their religious beliefs are the most important and central part of their life. But not for everyone, or even most people.

I have therefore decided that, for the sake of the majority of peaceful Muslims, to embrace my Islamic heritage and to celebrate, build and promote what is good, beautiful and uniting about Islam: think solace, comfort, charity, hospitality, empathy, kindness.

The alternative is to denounce the religion I was born into because of the actions of a minority.

But doing that would only play into the hands of extremists; their goal is to declare themselves as the only true Muslims by dismissing my mother, grandmother and over one billion of other peaceful Muslims as infidels.

Very true. And Islam can only be reformed by those who are within the religion.

It is time for secular Muslims, feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, bisexual Muslims, lesbian Muslims, transsexual Muslims, Marxist Muslims and all the other shades of Muslims to come out, in greater numbers, and proudly say that they are Muslims too. It is also time for Muslims to accept that extremism, violence, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, oppression and patriarchy are rife amongst many Islamic cultures. But Muslims need to talk about these issues in an open and transparent way and acknowledge that the extremists who carry out vile acts of terrorism are Muslims too.

Good to have this acknowledged. Now again this does not mean that all or even most Muslims are anti-Semitic, racist or sexist. They’re not. But in a fair number of Muslim majority countries, these values do hold sway. Women can not vote or drive. Consensual homosexual activity can attract the death penalty. Apostasy is seen as a capital crime.

There is no doubt that the majority of the global terrorism today is carried out by Islamist groups but 50 or 100 years ago, it was communists, anarchists, fascists and others who resorted to terrorism to achieve their goals. Nobody blamed Christianity or atheism then so why are we blaming Islam now?

My view is that communism, fascism and Islamism (not Islam) are incompatible with democracy. Islam as private religious beliefs is fine. Islamism, as the political belief that a country’s laws should reflect the religious beliefs is not.

The latest Roy Morgan poll is at Curia. Greens up and National and Labour down.

“First they make us pay in our taxes for Greek olive groves, many of which probably don’t exist. Then they say we can’t dip our bread in olive oil in restaurants. We didn’t join the Common Market – betraying the New Zealanders and their butter – in order to be told when, where and how we must eat the olive oil we have been forced to subsidise.”

– Boris Johnson

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

Gerry Brownlee announced:

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says Cabinet has today agreed to extend New Zealand’s contribution to the joint New Zealand-Australia mission to train Iraqi Security Forces until November 2018.

Also agreed was an amendment to the mission’s mandate to allow small numbers (generally around six to eight at a time) of our training and force protection team at Taji to travel for short periods to Besmaya, a secure training location about 52 kilometres south east of Taji.

“At Besmaya our troops will ensure a smooth hand-over of the Iraqi soldiers they’ve been training at Taji to other coalition trainers, who will be teaching them to use heavy weapons,” Mr Brownlee says.

Finally, Cabinet has also agreed in principle that New Zealand personnel be authorised to provide training to stabilisation forces, such as the Iraqi Federal Police, in addition to the Iraqi Army.

“These forces are providing an essential role in securing cities once they have been liberated from Daesh so rebuilding can occur,” Mr Brownlee says.

“To date this has been a successful mission, and the value we’re providing the Iraqi Security Forces to rid their country of Daesh is increasing all the time.

This is a broken promise, but the right thing to do. Circumstances have changed, and we would lose credibility to bail out of Iraq at the end of the two year mission. The Islamic State needs to have their territory removed from them, as it is territory that gives them credibility. It is important that the forces they battle be local residents, not outsiders. NZ has played a small but useful role in training the Iraqi Army. and so far the training has worked. They have recaptured significant cities and territory from ISIL.

The mission is not without risk, and we may suffer casualties.  But far far more people will die if Islamic State is left in control of the territory they have.

The Herald reports Andrew Little as saying:

Labour leader Andrew Little says he will withdraw New Zealand troops from Iraq if his party is elected to power next year.

Mr Little said he expected the security situation in the Middle East to change significantly by the general election, by which time the Islamic State may have been pushed back further or defeated.

But regardless Little says NZ will do nothing to help defeat Islamic State. It is worth recalling that the intervention in Iraq has a Security Council authorisation, and the support of the Iraqi Government. It is against a clear evil that has spread terror in scores of countries. Yet Labour is still against NZ doing anything to defeat ISIL.

The Herald reports:

A University of Auckland student who propositioned her lecturer has been suspended after being found guilty of sexual harassment.

But the 30-year-old physics student at the centre of the row says the reaction to her behaviour is over the top and now her second degree is under threat.

The woman told the Herald on Sunday she simply sent her lecturer an email asking: “Would you like to have sex in Bali?”

Her advances were not welcome, and she was suspended until the end of the year for not complying with the disciplinary process triggered by the teacher’s sexual harassment complaint.

On March 6, two weeks into her physics course, the woman sent her lecturer a risque email saying: “It’s rather forward of me but I wondered if you and your wife are the open experimental type?

“I met an interesting person I respected of this lifestyle she had several honest concurrent relationships of varying degrees of intimacy and a couple who are my close friends have shared with me they invite a third person in for a short time when it feels right.

“Bali Indonesia rendevous [sic] in July if you are interested I’ve made a booking for a week here before I go diving in the komodo islands 🙂 I’d like to spend the week getting to know you intimately.”

The email added: “I’ve had such an instant sexual interesting response for someone I don’t know well. I hope it’s mutual, but I’ll be fine if it’s just my overactive imagination too, distracting me pleasurably from math, so please continue relaxed and happy!”

She told her lecturer that if her attention was unwanted he should ignore her message. “No need to compute a rejection letter! And I would never expect you to be unfair, I’m happy to wait until after the exam.”

Soon after receiving the email, the lecturer forwarded it to his boss. An investigation was launched and the student was found guilty of sexual harassment by the university proctor.

An interesting case. If the approach was from the lecturer to the student, then it would be quite wrong.

The approach was unwise, shall we say. Probably best to use a more subtle approach to ascertain if the attraction is mutual, rather than an e-mail out of the blue inviting them to Bali for a sex holiday.

But nevertheless, is a one off approach by e-mail sexual harassment?

I would have though suspension of the student was over the top. Possibly requiring her not to contact the particular lecturer or attend his classes would be in order, but a suspension seems too punitive.

The student said she considered her offer to be direct, but did not expect it to trigger a sexual harassment complaint.

“Basically I sent that very forward – but still polite – email: Would you like to have sex in Bali?” she said.

“I thought that I tidied it up at the end and said if you don’t want to, no pressure, no coercion, nothing. Just be happy and go on your way. The next thing I know I was inundated with sexual harassment policy and basically I was suspended.”

I wonder how common is it for students to proposition lecturers?

UPDATE: Subsequent reports have had the University saying that the student has propositioned multiple (two) staff and after being told not to e-mail them on non-learning issues, continued to do so. If the University is correct, then her behaviour would warrant disciplinary action.

Joshua Drummond at The Spinoff highlights a great thread at Reddit about how personal gardening in NZ is banned. It happened a year ago but came back to life when people attributed the avocado shortage to the ban on gardening.

Some of my favourite extracts:

Actually tariffs to protect farmers are about as logical as banning gardening to protect farmers!

A great film by the way.

Josh also does a short history of gardening on his own site:

after the 1981 Spring Bok Choi riots, about which more hardly needs to be said, Prime Minister David Lange was cautious about allowing further gardening activities. With New Zealand public opinion on the resumption of gardening split, after Muldoon’s hastily-called Snapdragon Election, Lange was invited to debate an earnest American private horticultural advocate, Jerry Falwell, at the Oxford Club. The moot: Personal Gardens are Morally Indefensible. It looked for a time like Lange had met his match as the Falwell led an impassioned defense of the role private gardens played in winning World War Two and in the balance of power in the postwar period.

“I can smell the fertiliser on your breath,” Lange retorted, famously…

Love it.

The Observer reports:

Dissenting State Department officials are demanding President Barack Obama wage war on the Assad dictatorship—which is a short step away from demanding regime change.

Late on June 16 The Wall Street Journal reported that the “near collapse” of the current ceasefire had spurred 51 “mid-to high-level State Department officers involved with advising on Syria policy” to sign a “dissent channel cable” calling on the Obama Administration to target Syria’s Assad regime with repeated “military strikes.”

The Obama strategy seems to be to do as little as possible and hope someone wins.

Journal reporters who personally reviewed the cable described the document as “a scalding internal critique of a longstanding U.S. policy against taking sides in the Syrian war, a policy that has survived even though the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has been repeatedly accused of violating cease-fire agreements and Russian-backed forces have attacked U.S.-trained rebels.”

The dissenters argue “Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as Daesh, even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield.” The Journal adds that Daesh is an Arabic acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Having 51 mid to senior staff sign on to such a dissent is not something I can recall in recent times.

Stuff reports:

Q: What’s this court decision all about?

A: In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Communications Commission won a sweeping victory against a number of suing internet providers. The FCC was accused of writing a set of strict rules for Internet providers that went far beyond what it was allowed to do under its mandate. And by filing a lawsuit, telecom companies hoped to get those rules thrown out.

Q: But instead the companies lost?

A: Yes, pretty much across the board, surprising almost everyone on both sides of the issue.

The conventional wisdom in Washington was that the court would agree to let some of the rules slide, but not all. Analysts predicted that the three judges in the case would throw out an attempt by the FCC to apply its rules to cellphone data as well as regular, fixed home broadband. But in the end, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit granted even those provisions.

Q: Remind me again what these rules are for and what they look like?

A: In a nutshell, they’re aimed at making sure the internet stays an open platform and that cable and telecom companies can’t use their position in the marketplace to unfairly benefit themselves and shut down competition.

More specifically, the rules come in several parts. The first part contains a series of total bans on certain kinds of tactics – things like blocking or slowing down the websites you’re trying to reach while favouring the sites that a cable or telco may own or have a commercial relationship with. These flatly aren’t allowed under what the FCC calls its “bright-line rules”.

This is a good thing. You don’t want your ISP deciding for you how fast or slow your connection to websites are, based on their commercial relationships. You want your ISP to treat all sites you want to access, the same.

Basically this is about stopping vertical integration where a dominant player can use their position unfairly. A comparison would be with airports. You would not want (for example) Auckland Airport to be owned by Qantas, and then make all non-Qantas flights wait twice as long to depart.

Net neutrality is unlikely to be an issue in NZ, because we have good competition among ISPs. But in the US, it is a more valid concern – so the ruling is welcome.

Stuff reports:

A born-again Christian defending his bamboo canings says his faith taught him to hit his children’s bottoms when they misbehaved.

The South Canterbury man, whose name is suppressed, faces charges of assault with a weapon.

He says his hyperactive son needed the punishments.

“I follow the Bible and the Bible overrules those laws, I’m afraid,” the man said of the Crimes Act in the Timaru District Court on Friday.

No it doesn’t.

The Telegraph reports:

In February, this newspaper ran a letter from several of Britain’s most senior retired military leaders, in favour of a Remain vote in the coming referendum. ‘Will Britain be safer inside the EU or outside it?’ the letter asked, ‘When we look at the world today, there seems to us only one answer.’

What has changed his mind? It is his anxiety about a growing EU role in defence, leading to a European Army. ‘I think a European Army could damage NATO. It is expensive. It’s unnecessary duplication to have it. It would appeal to some euro vanity thing.’

Besides, there are serious differences between EU member states. In the Balkans in the 1990s, for example, German attitudes to Croatia created a sort of paralysis which, Lord Guthrie believes, led to the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives. ‘To get 28 people sitting round a table being decisive is very, very difficult. If you have a European Army, you will find that lots of those taking part will see it as a way of getting a seat at the top table as cheaply as they possibly can.  Then they can actually do less, and the equipment programmes and the size of the forces suffer. When it comes to leading, you want a very clear chain of command, capable of making quick decisions.’

It is so much better to make defence arrangements with countries, whether European or not, which are ready to act. Nations like Australia ‘which has a jolly good army and one which is prepared to do things’ and New Zealand, are much more useful to deal with than a European army.

Radio NZ reports:

Former MP Hone Harawira is getting back into politics and will stand for Māori electorate seat Te Tai Tokerau again in next year’s election, he says.

Mr Harawira lost his seat to Labour’s Kelvin Davis in 2014. His Mana Party which combined with Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party, got just 1.5 percent of the party vote.

He told RNZ’s Mihingarangi Forbes on TV3’s The Hui he was re-entering the political fray because Māori lacked a strong voice in Parliament. …

Mr Harawira said his former Mana Movement colleagues, Sue Bradford and John Minto, could be involved in the party, but in less prominent roles than in 2014.

Mr Harawira first won the Te Tai Tokerau seat as a Māori Party MP in 2005.

This is excellent news.

Stuff reports:

A man charged with murdering British politician Jo Cox gave his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain” in court.

Thomas Mair, 52, made the statement when he was asked to identify himself at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in central London on Saturday (local time).

Mair has suspected ties to far-right groups and has been described as a loner by neighbours who said he liked gardening and showed no signs of being radicalised.

It seems pretty clear that while had had serious mental illnesses, his motivation was political – making this an act of terrorism.

While his comments in court may not explicitly be about the EU referendum, most would interpret them as wanting Britain to leave. Brexit has been leading in the polls, and had momentum. It is possible that his actions may trigger a backlash against Brexit and make it more likely the British vote to remain in the EU – achieving the exact opposite to what he wanted.

Records have surfaced showing Mair subscribed to a far-right publication and sought information from white supremacist groups. His younger brother also revealed Mair had a history of mental illness for which he received treatment.

Whether or not he is found insane, he should never be back in the community.

John Drinnan writes:

Cartoonist Bill Leak both delighted and caused offence last week with an Oped piece in “The Australian”  He complained eloquently about “authoritarian barbarians of the New Left” and increasing damage wrought by political correctness.

His comments were:

“Progressive fundamentalists now are trying to dictate what’s permissible when it comes to cracking jokes, just like the barbarians of fundamentalist Islam, cartoonists have found themselves on the frontline. We used to be instinctively anti-authoritarian and cynical, which made it almost impossible to offend us, and was the reason Australia became a breeding ground for great cartoonists. But it’s not any more because, instead of manning the barricades against this plague, our cartoonists, with a few honourable exceptions, rushed to embrace it. As ­George Orwell said: “You cannot be really funny if your main aim is to flatter the comfortable classes.” But they do. They want to be cool, they want to be popular; liked on Facebook, followed on Twitter. So at a time when their duty to ­offend has never been more pressing, they go out of their way to ­appease the offendirati by making their cartoons as inoffensive, as ­insipid, as possible.”

Sadly very true.

Jacinda Ardern writes:

We have long advocated for the introduction of an independent criminal case review commission – a place where cases like this can be reviewed independently and sent back to the Appeal Court. A similar commission operates in England and Wales and, in the last 15 years, 320 of the 480 convictions they referred to the Appeal Court were overturned. We need the same here.

I agree. The fact that two thirds of the cases the UK bodies refer to the courts are successful show that.

David Seymour replied:

Ensuring we have a strong criminal justice system won’t be achieved by establishing yet another government commission. Ultimately, that replicates the royal prerogative of mercy (appeals considered by the Governor General) and undermines the role of the appeal courts.

I don’t agree. The prerogative of mercy is effectively run by the Ministry of Justice and has been shown to be ineffective in cases such as Peter Ellis. And a commission would refer cases to the appeal courts, not decide for them.

UPDATE: Don Brash has commented below that this is also a rare instance where he also disagrees with David Seymour.