The Herald reports:
Labour’s West Coast-Tasman MP Damien O’Connor won’t say whether he supports the new agreement between Labour and the Greens.
The two parties signed a memorandum of understanding yesterday. They’ve agreed to work together to change the Government, to co-operate in Parliament and to investigate a joint policy and/or campaign.
Mr O’Connor would not answer “yes” or “no” today when asked – seven times – whether he supported the memorandum.
I think we can take that to mean a no.
I’ve never been a fan of US laws that allow you to shoot intruders in your home. But having just read about the vacuum cleaner salesman who spent three hours (until 10.45 pm) in someone’s home trying to sell a $4,500 vacuum cleaner, I’m prepared to concede such laws may have a place in New Zealand!
Stuff reports:
A Picton pharmacist is frustrated at having to advise customers on sensitive medical issues on the pharmacy floor while a purpose-built consultation room is used as an “expensive tearoom”.
Picton Medical Centre Pharmacy co-owner Chris Webb said the room was upgraded before the Picton Medical Centre opened last November so he could discuss confidential matters in the room, including emergency contraceptive pill prescriptions.
But the room had been relegated to a storage and lunch room because of a Ministry of Health technicality.
Webb said because the pharmacy was separated from the consultation room by two doors and 50 centimetres of carpet, it was not considered to be part of the pharmacy premises.
“It’s bureaucratic nonsense,” he said.
It would cost at least $5000 to modify access to the room so it met Ministry of Health regulations.
Forcing him to spend $5,000 to modify access would serve no public benefit at all and just be a bureaucratic cost for no purpose.
MedSafe is the Ministry of Health body responsible for regulating pharmacies.
MedSafe acting group manager Chris James said pharmacies needed to comply with requirements for patient consultation rooms to be located within a licensed premise.
If a decision was made to licence a consulting room that was not directly accessible from pharmacy premises, it could provide an unfavourable precedent, James said.
An exemption would not be granted for the Picton Medical Centre Pharmacy, he said.
Medsafe should get real. This is why many people despise bureaucracy. If you look at the photos in the story it is obviously part of the premises and a 50 cm “corridor” doesn’t change that.
The bureaucrats need to look at the intent of the rules, rather than a blind dictate.
Stuff reports:
Two judges have given similar sentences to a pair of racers snapped at about 200kmh – except that one gets to keep his identity secret.
Police caught them both whizzing down State Highway 2 in Lower Hutt in performance cars in September.
Shane Kumar, 26, an IT programmer from Miramar, was found guilty on Monday of racing his Nissan Skyline after a day-long judge-alone trial before Judge Bruce Davidson.
The other driver, a 24-year-old from Lower Hutt, was found guilty in February – but he was granted permanent name suppression by Judge Chris Tuohy, despite being found to have lied to police.
Unlike Kumar, the 24-year-old had a letter of support from Hutt South MP Trevor Mallard, saying he was “a young man with tremendous potential” whose years of study could be “negated by a conviction for lying to the police”.
If you don’t lie to the Police in the first place, the you won’t need to worry about the impact of a conviction for lying to them.
Very unfair one of them gets name suppression, but another doesn’t.
Patrick Gower looks at what a Labour-Greens-NZ First Cabinet may look like.
So that is 10 Labour Ministers, five NZ First and five Greens.
Ewen McQueen writes in The Herald:
The court has reached its verdict. The marchers have gone home. The politicians and media have done their usual hypocritical hand-wringing. But the question remains – where was Moko’s dad?
A father is supposed to be there to protect his children. A father is supposed to be there to help their mother look after the family. A father is supposed to provide for and love his family.
So where was Moko’s dad? We have no idea. We have no idea because the question was never asked. It never is. In all the national breast-beating that happens whenever such a tragedy occurs, the real issue is never addressed. Why are so many children left without the care of a natural father? Why have we allowed a relationship culture to become embedded which accepts as normal the regular dropping in and out of relationships and frequent changing of partners? How is this supposed to build strong and loving families?
There is a wealth of evidence that a stable family with both parents has much much greater outcomes on average for kids.
What we need is the truth. The social science evidence gives us that and it is conclusive. In 2009 the Office of the Commissioner for Children undertook a review on death and serious injury to children. It concluded that of all factors, having a non-biological parent in the home increased the risk by eight to 12 times. A year later they published another report which noted that family breakdown and “frequent changes in household members” was a significant factor contributing to child abuse and neglect.
The New Zealand research findings are mirrored internationally. In Australia research by Deakin University in Melbourne concluded, “Children under 5 living with a non-biological or step-parent are up to 77 times more likely to die from a violence-related injury than those living with their biological families.”
In the US a study by the University of Missouri similarly concluded, “Children residing in households with unrelated adults were nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children residing with two biological parents.”
Very hard to argue against that evidence.
Stuff reports:
A new responsible drinking campaign that promotes talking to teens about drinking, in the same way parents talk to them about sex, has been questioned by public health officials.
The educational videos, launched by alcohol-industry Cheers, shows parents having awkward one-on-one conversations about alcohol with their teens, using language that could be applicable to the sex talk.
Cheers is run by the Tomorrow Project, the social responsibility arm of Spirits New Zealand, the NZ Winegrowers, and the Brewers’ Association.
The educational advertising campaign launched on Monday with the aim of getting more parents to talk to their teens about drinking.
A survey of 1500 people carried out by Cheers in 2014 found teens believed their parents did a better job at talking to them about sex than about alcohol.
“We talk to our teenagers about sex, so why should alcohol be any different?”
Further interviews with 10 families in 2015 found parents were approaching the subject the wrong way by doing things like sharing war stories, trying to be their friend, or setting restrictive rules around drinking.
Robert Brewer, spokesman for Cheers, said the campaign was about breaking down traditional barriers and promoting conversations.
Sounds a great campaign. Promotes responsible drinking and parents talking to their kids about alcohol. Who can be against that?
Director of alcohol watchdog, Alcohol Healthwatch, Rebecca Williams said the alcohol industry shouldn’t be trusted as the expert on youth health.
“The business of the alcohol industry is to make and manufacture and market alcohol.
They’re not experts in youth health and they’re not experts in parenting.”
Williams said parents should be turning to the public health sector for information from a more neutral perspective.
“I can’t support alcohol industry groups taking over that educational space…
There are always two types of public health activists. One type genuinely support harm reduction, and will support anything that reduces harm. The other type just hates and detests the industry they target and their motivation is to damage the industry, rather than reduce harm.
If you were the former, you’d welcome an industry campaign that promotes responsible drinking and parental responsibility.
Instead we just get a reaction that industry can never be trusted and should have no role in anything – that only self appointed NGOs can be heard.
Stuff reports:
The Green Party has an eye for the role of deputy prime minister, if it finds itself in such a bargaining position, after the next election.
And that would “almost certainly” fall to Metiria Turei, her co-leader James Shaw said.
Why not co-deputy PMs? You could have three of them – Grant, Metiria and James!
Speaking on Wednesday, Shaw said it was “entirely normal” the biggest party in a coalition would hold the roles of prime minister and finance minister.
Not at all. There have only been two full coalitions – National/NZ First and Labour/Alliance. One of those had the finance role go to the junior party/
He denied speculation the move to confirm only Robertson’s portfolio in a potential Labour-Green government was to give the public an assurance the Greens would not be in charge of New Zealand’s finances.
Of course it is. The sad irony is that often Julie-Anne Genter makes much more sense than Grant Robertson on the economy. I’m not sure NZ businesses will be very reassured.
Based on current polling, however, any Labour-Green coalition Government would still likely need the support of Winston Peters and his NZ First party.
Peters refused to say who he would back before the election. On Tuesday, he rubbished the agreement, calling it a “jack-up”.
But he did reject the idea of playing “third fiddle” to Labour and the Greens.
He does not sound keen.
On Tuesday, however, Labour leader Andrew Little was clear the party alliance was “not a monogamous relationship”.
He would welcome any other party committed to changing the Government and advancing progressive policies.
But he refused to say whether he would leave the Greens out in the cold and form a government with NZ First if it had the numbers and Peters insisted.
Turei said the Greens worked well with NZ First and she had no concerns about being elbowed out.
These were different times, different parties and different leaderships than when Peters blocked the Greens from governing with Labour.
You keep repeating that long enough and you might start to believe it.
Just been reading the 2015 annual report for Vanguard School.
Their results have seen them in the top ten schools for all of Auckland. Their students got 100% success for NCEA Level 1 and Level 3 and 93% for Level 2.
Now is this a school cherry picking the brightest and best students from all over Auckland? No, it is generally students who were failing in other schools.
56% of their roll is Pasifika and Maori. 53% come from South and West Auckland.
Have a read through their annual report, especially the quotes from the students about what a difference this school has made to them.
And then ask your local Labour or Green MP why they are determined to close this school down.
Paul Krugman writes:
First, at a certain point you have to stop reporting about the race for a party’s nomination as if it’s mainly about narrative and “momentum.” That may be true at an early stage, when candidates are competing for credibility and dollars. Eventually, however, it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.
That’s why Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee; she locked it up over a month ago with her big Mid-Atlantic wins, leaving Bernie Sanders no way to overtake her without gigantic, implausible landslides — winning two-thirds of the vote! — in states with large nonwhite populations, which have supported Mrs. Clinton by huge margins throughout the campaign.
Yep it is Clinton vs Trump.
Second, polls can be really helpful at assessing the state of a race, but only if you fight the temptation to cherry-pick, to only cite polls telling the story you want to hear. Recent hyperventilating over the California primary is a classic example. Most polls show Mrs. Clinton with a solid lead, but one recent poll shows a very close race. So, has her lead “evaporated,” as some reports suggest? Probably not: Another poll, taken at the very same time, showed an 18-point lead.
What the polling experts keep telling us to do is rely on averages of polls rather than highlighting any one poll in particular. This does double duty: it prevents cherry-picking, and it also helps smooth out the random fluctuations that are an inherent part of polling, but can all too easily be mistaken for real movement.
Yep individual polls have a lot of fluctuation and noise. The average is far better to focus on.
Which brings us to the general election. Here’s what you should know, but may not be hearing clearly in the political reporting: Mrs. Clinton is clearly ahead, both in general election polls and in Electoral College projectionsbased on state polls.
It’s true that her lead isn’t as big as it was before Mr. Trump clinched the G.O.P. nomination, largely because Republicans have consolidated around their presumptive nominee, while many Sanders supporters are still balkingat saying that they’ll vote for her.
But that probably won’t last; many Clinton supporters said similar things about Barack Obama in 2008, but eventually rallied around the nominee. So unless Bernie Sanders refuses to concede and insinuates that the nomination was somehow stolen by the candidate who won more votes, Mrs. Clinton is a clear favorite to win the White House.
Clinton is at 66% in the prediction markets. That’s definitely a favourite but far from a certainty.
At the moment Trump looks to have 206 electoral college votes and Clinton 332. That’s the same margin as Obama beat Romney by.
Chris Trotter writes:
HOW MANY MEMBERS does the Labour Party have in its centenary year? According to the veteran political journalist, Richard Harman, the answer is – not a lot.
Writing in his “Politik” blog on Monday, 23 May, Harman noted:
“Politik has learned that the party’s membership is now probably below that of the Greens, which would place it below 5000, possibly less than half that.”
If true, that is shocking news – and it’s only fair to point out that within 24 hours the Labour Party’s new General Secretary, Andrew Kirton, was assuring Harman that it was not true. “We are far, far higher than 5,000 and therefore well above the Greens.”
In spite of reassuring his readers that the contested information came from “a usually reliable source”, Harman was willing – as of Tuesday morning – to take Kirton at his word.
A more cynical person, upon being told by Labour’s General Secretary that the membership figure is “far, far higher than 5,000”, might offer, by way of response, the words of the infamous call-girl, Mandy Rice-Davies, who, when told that an Establishment big-wig had denied all knowledge of her, shot back the immortal line: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
Certainly, it would be remarkable if a political party with fewer than 5,000 members entertained any serious hopes of becoming the Government.
I suspect the number of individual members is below 5,000. Labour often muddies the water by including affiliate members as members. But they are not the same thing.
An individual member of a political party is one who every year makes a decision to pay a membership fee to that party. It is a proactive ongoing decision.
Labour’s affiliate members are very different. How they work is like this. Let’s say Union X in 2002 voted to affiliate to Labour. And that 60% of the union members who bothered to vote voted in favour. That union may have 10,000 members yet just 500 may have voted on the decision to affiliate.
Anyway as 60% voted in favour, then 60% of the unions’s members are determined to always be an affiliate member of Labour. So if that union in 2016 has 13,000 then they are deemed to have 7,800 affiliate members. That is despite the fact not a single member of their union pays a sub to Labour (the union just does a block payment at a very low rate).
So if you ever see Labour claim to have X members, ask them how many individual members they have.
The Telegraph reports:
Public concern over immigration has delivered a “significant” boost to the Leave campaign amid growing concern about Britain’s ability to control its borders, a new poll suggests.
Leave now has 46 per cent of the vote share, with Remain on 51 per cent. The five point gap has been cut from 13 points last week.
The poll, by ORB, was carried out last week when new figures revealed that migration had risen to record levels; forecasts showed that immigration would add 4 million people to Britain’s population; and images of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean in their attempts to get to Europe emerged.
I never read too much into one individual poll but there have now been several out showing Brexit picking up ground, after dropping away.
Bremain still leads in most polls, but they are not over 50%. It will come down to the turnout for each side, and what the undecideds do. If they don’t vote, then Bremain will probably win.
Sir Lynton Crosby, the strategist who masterminded David Cameron’s election victory, suggests that the focus on migration in the past seven days has boosted the Leave campaign.
Writing for the Telegraph he says that the “increasing focus on lack of control over immigration and associated message discipline” had helped the case of the Leave camp.
That is the key message that can resonate. With Brexit the UK regains control of its own borders and immigration policy. In the EU, they have limited control. Now whether than is worth giving up the economic advantages of the EU is debatable, but it is the issue that most resonates.
Richard Harman writes at Politik:
The Labour/Green pact announced yesterday may pave the way for Greens Co-Leader James Shaw to stand against Peter Dunne in Ohariu.
If Labour didn’t stand a candidate — and Labour sources say that’s a real possibility — then, on paper, based on the last election results, Mr Dunne would lose his seat.
I’m not sure Labour not standing would see Shaw win the seat.
If Labour pulled out, then it is quite possible National could decide not to stand also. Or alternatively National voters would be more likely to vote strategically to ensure Shaw did not win.
It is also possible Dunne may not stand again in 2017, in which case National would win easily I’d say.
Let’s look at the party vote in the seat, as that gives a good idea of how right or left a seat it.
National got 50.4%. Labour got 23.5% and Greens 15.1%. So their combined vote is 38.6% – around 12% behind National.
Of those National voters 29% voted for the National candidate and 59% for Dunne. If it looked like Shaw might win, I’d say you’d get even greater tactical voting.
A good column by Nick Smith:
News that companies are extracting millions of litres of water for bottling and export has got the Green Party demanding a moratorium, Labour a new water tax and New Zealand First a prohibition on export.
So the Greens want to ban bottled water, NZ First want to ban exporting it and Labour wants a special tax on water.
New Zealand has 500 trillion litres of water flowing through our lakes, rivers and aquifers. Each year we extract 10 trillion litres, or 2 per cent. The water shortages we have are in quite defined areas and for only some of the year. NZ has no overall shortage.
The 10 trillion litres of water we extract each year is made up of six trillion for irrigation, two trillion for municipal supplies and two trillion for industry. Three billion litres used for the bottled water industry may sound a lot but it is less than 1 per cent used by industry and 0.004 per cent of the annual resource. The suggestion by some that Mr and Mrs Average Kiwi won’t be able to bathe because of bottled water exports is ridiculous.
0.004% is what they are complaining about.
Regional councils manage about 20,500 water permits of which 41 are solely for water bottling and a further 30 for a mix of uses, including bottled water. But only 23 of the permits are being used for now, reflecting the fact this is a niche industry. More than a dozen water-bottlers have gone broke. It is a myth that this is an easy industry in which to make lots of money.
This is true.
The only fair charging option would be to charge everyone. I heard one opposition MP call for a uniform charge for all commercial water users of 10c a litre. Kiwis need to appreciate that our major export earners such as horticulture and dairying are water intensive. A litre of milk takes about 250 litres of water to produce so that would be an extra cost of $25 a litre – a cost which would push the price of milk through the roof for consumers and destroy our largest export industry.
The Government is open to modest charges for water users, for the cost of managing water resources. We are proposing as part of our current freshwater reforms to allow councils to charge water users a per-litre levy for the costs of the water quality, monitoring water takes and ensuring compliance, rather than on rates paid by everyone. However, the charge would be for cost recovery only and would not price the natural resource.
That seems fair. User pays.
The Herald reports:
A second family is facing eviction from its Hamilton state house, despite a dramatic last-minute intervention by Work and Income which saved another family from eviction this morning.
Chartwell family Rob and Roselyn and their four children aged 15 to 10 owe $900 in rent arrears to Housing NZ and say they are willing to negotiate paying it off gradually.
But Housing NZ area manager Karan Frederikson says the family has been given “many opportunities” to arrange the payments and have not done so.
This Thursday a Tenancy Tribunal will hear Housing NZ’s application to end the tenancy within 48 hours, and a cross-application by the family’s advocate Graham McCready for $6001 in compensation from Housing NZ for failing to maintain health and safety in the house.
The family, who do not want their surnames quoted, said water has been running down internal walls around the chimney since the recent rain started.
“My sitting room is soaked in water and my kitchen has been covered in towels,” Roselyn said.
However:
Ms Frederikson said seeking to end a tenancy was “always a last resort” and Housing NZ had tried to reach agreement with the family.
“We have struggled to engage with them regarding rent arrears, despite numerous attempts to make contact. We have also tried to put in place a rent arrears repayments of small regular payments,” she said.
“These tenants moved into their home a year ago. The house had had a full upgrade prior to them moving in, and was in very good condition. We have had no jobs logged about maintenance required, and the first we knew of this was when they lodged a cross-application to the Tenancy Tribunal.
“We have given these tenants ample notice and many opportunities to address the issues with their rent, including two rounds of mediation.”
State houses have a huge subsidy. Unless you earn a lot of money, your rent is related to your income. If on welfare, your rent will be 25% of your benefit only. So it may be as low as $100 a week.
Claire Trevett writes:
It may indeed be historic but the agreement between the Green Party and Labour today may also effectively have handed the 2017 election to National on a platter.
Labour’s leader Andrew Little was at pains to emphasise the new memorandum of understanding between the two parties was “not monogamous”.
The trouble is that the one man needed to form Little’s Big Love government is NZ First leader Winston Peters and Peters prefers monogamy. …
It is certain there was some resistance in Labour’s own crew to the development. Little has made claims of supporting ‘middle New Zealand’ in recent times and the perception Labour is aligning too closely to the Greens risks undermining that.
There was a grin on Peters’ face after the announcement for a reason. Labour’s support base includes a significant chunk of working class voters who identify more with Peters than the Green Party. Peters will be betting he can scoop up some of that support from Labour. He has already begun, accusing both Labour and the Greens of selling out their supporters.
It is no secret Peters – and some Labour MPs for that matter – think the Green Party is toxic for Labour’s chances of Government. Nor is it any secret that if a Government can be formed with him alone, that is exactly how he likes it.
The only person who will be most delighted by today’s turn of events is one John Key, Prime Minister, whose chances of retaining that title just increased without him having to lift a finger.
Peters has recently said that he has never supported putting the Greens into Government, and isn’t about to start now. The best the Greens can hope for is a Labour-NZ First Government that throws them a few policy crumbs.
Went on Sunday to a production called My Shout, at The Thistle Inn. The venue was more than appropriate as it was a play about the 176 year history of The Thistle Inn, and through that to be a history of Wellington.
It is put on by the students of 18 students of Victoria University’s Theatre 311 class and directed by Kerryn Palmer, Hannah Banks and Finn Shepherd.
You start off in the main bar of the inn and then in small groups do a tour of some of the rooms above, before everyone returning to the main performance.
The entry price of $18 includes a drink so while you drink, you get some tunes of the piano and a bit of singing, including the theme to Cheers.
Up stairs you have three encounters. The first is a student studying Katherine Mansfield, and then Mansfield herself and her lover. Mansfield wrote in detail about The Thistle Inn.
In the second room you have a bevy of ladies awaiting their loved ones returning from WWI.
And the third room has William Cooper who established the Thistle Inn in 1840. You hear him enthuse about how he funded it by buying some land cheaply off the natives and then reselling it. Lucky for him Cooper isn’t a Chinese sounding surname. The original Thistle Inn faced the beach, and people could and did row and paddle to it, including Te Rauparaha.
I found the first segments, with the tour through the rooms a bit disjointed. But the second part did well, bringing it all together.
Back in the main bar you get a series of acts including Te Rauparaha coming in for a whiskey, and all the staff cowering in fear. You have the drama of WWI, the wharfies strike and the rail strike. Also the Springbok Tour. These all tie into The Thistle, as it was a long time drinking hole for wharfies and railwaymen.
Katherine Mansfield and Kate Sheppard are included and over the 100 or so minutes you really do get a good history of Wellington through the eyes of the Thistle Inn.
The singing made it a nice festive occasion, and there was some good acting, especially James Forster as Te Rauparaha. A very enjoyable way to delve into history and all over a drink, in a great bar.
The production was only on for thee days, and is now over. But if you see it offered again, definitely worth seeing.
The Telegraph reports:
Donald Trump has won the backing of a major newspaper – in North Korea.
DPRK Today, the official state paper of Kim Jong-un’s regime, published an editorial on Tuesday calling Mr Trump a “wise politician” and “far-sighted presidential candidate”.
It was Mr Trump’s hands-off policies toward Asia that earned him the plaudits of the author, identified as a Chinese North Korean scholar named Han Yong Mook.
I think this is the first newspaper to endorse Trump, except those he owns.
Mr Trump said recently that he would be open to direct communications with Mr Kim, in a break with the long-standing policy of freezing out the country’s antagonistic regime.
He has also warned America’s Asian allies, including South Korea and Japan, that he will withdraw US troops if they do not contribute more toward the costs associated with basing them there.
The presumptive Republican nominee has more broadly advocated an “America First” foreign policy that would see the US play a less forceful role in disputes beyond its borders.
While calling on America to adopt those policies immediately, the article urges US voters not to choose Mr Trump’s “dull” rival, Hillary Clinton, in November’s election.
Stuff reports:
A young All Blacks fan needing several teeth removed arrived at hospital drinking Powerade “because Richie does”.
The Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has called for an end to sponsorship deals between sports teams and junk food giants as part of its submission on an Advertising Standards Authority review.
Board principal dental officer Dr Rob Beaglehole said it was inappropriate for the sporting heroes of children to be linked with fast food and sugary drink brands.
“If children are worshipping these sports heroes, and sports heroes are associated with unhealthy products, it sends a very confusing message to children.”
Beaglehole treated a 5-year-old boy last year who came to an appointment to have multiple teeth extracted under general anaesthetic holding a large bottle of energy drink.
When Beaglehole asked him why he was drinking Powerade, the boy responded “because Richie does”, in reference to the former All Blacks captain Richie McCaw.
Easier to blame Richie than blame the parents. The boy is five. His parents should be ensuring he has healthy food and drink. Nothing wrong with a kid having a coke occasionally, fish and chips occasionally, a burger occasionally. But not every day, and not enough to rot teeth. They’re called treats, not staple food and drink.
Sugary drinks were the number one source of sugar in the diets of New Zealand children, and contributed to multiple health problems including tooth decay, obesity and type 2 diabetes, Beaglehole said.
I don’t know if kids differ much from adults but the National Nutrition Survey found only 16% of sugar in diets came from sugary drinks.
As the principal dental officer, Beaglehole said he had a clinical responsibility towards the 20,000 children who lived in the Nelson Marlborough region.
“It makes sense for me to turn the sugar tap off in order to save these kids’ teeth.
No it doesn’t. Parents have the responsibility, not you.
The Nelson Marlborough District Health Board submission on the review of the code for advertising to children also called for limits on junk food and sugary drink advertising within 500 metres of schools.
Beaglehole said dairies, petrol stations and bus stops around schools often featured junk food advertising.
“It’s very difficult for children to get to school without running the gauntlet of these dairies that are selling products which are harming kids.”
The submission also highlighted the prevalence of sugary drink multi-buy and discount deals at retailers close to school grounds.
Marlborough Boys’ College principal Wayne Hegarty said the main reason sugary drinks were popular with students was the convenience and cost of buying them.
“A person that’s given $1 to buy their lunch is going to buy a can of fizzy.”
He supported the idea of limiting the sale of sugary drinks and junk food around schools.
This is particularly nuts. A ban on advertising within 800 metres of schools was mooted for Auckland. A map showed that these zones would cover almost the entire city.
Blenheim nutritionist Emily Hope said it was hard for children to make healthy choices when they were bombarded with advertising for unhealthy food and drink, particularly when those products were associated with role models.
It made no sense for sports teams to be sponsored by fast food outlets, she said.
“I don’t think it’s what the athletes themselves would eat.
“They wouldn’t fuel themselves with a [KFC] quarter pack before going out on the field.”
You should meet the Tongan Rugby Team.
Stuff reports:
Rebuild Christchurch founder Deon Swiggs will stand for council in the upcoming local body elections, as an independent candidate.
The 28-year-old said he would contest the newly-created central Christchurch ward.
In 2013, he sought the Labour Party nomination in the Christchurch East by-election, triggered by former Labour MP Lianne Dalziel seeking the city’s mayoralty.
Swiggs has been a Labour supporter since he was 15, but had chosen not to stand for the Labour-aligned People’s Choice group.
“This is about the city. . . not a group so if people elect me then I’m going to represent that ward.
“I don’t want it to be a case of ‘us’ and ‘them’,” he said.
I’ve met Deon a couple of times. He’s done a lot for Christchurch and I think he would be a good Councillor.
Richard Harman writes at Politik:
StatisticsNZ may seem to be one of Wellington’s more prosaic Government departments.
But in fact, it is the engine room that is powering the Government’s whole social investment programme.
And it’s at the cutting edge of some of the big issues facing the Government whether they be economic or the social implications of the sometimes uncomfortable truths that it reveals about our society.
That idea has the potential to upend parts of the banking system.
And now its Minister is talking about even more radical ideas which would seem some crucial statistics be produced in real time.
The Minister being:
But it is in Statistics that he has a chance to make a real difference.
Though he seems to like coming across as a Hawke’s Bay farmer (handy in his Tukituki electorate), Foss is, in fact, a former investment banker with a similar international career to that of John Key.
And it’s that broad business experience that meant when he got his Statistics role he asked Chief Statistician Liz MacPhersopn to imagine that Xero CEO Rod Drury was in charge and Statistics was about to be floated.
He asked her: “Would you be doing stuff differently.”
Of course, this was a hypothetical situation, and no one is contemplating privatising Statistics.
“The owners of all the data are the taxpayers; do they know it’s there, , can small businesses find it, is it useful, do you need a Ph.D. to dig it out.
“So they are absolutely turning that on its head.
“Statistics is now open by default as opposed to closed by default.”
We need other agencies to follow. All government data should be open by default, and exemptions should be rare – mainly to protect personal details.
And what is going to strengthen that data is the big digital disruption that is sweeping through Statistics.
“Fifteen months ago they were still calculating the consumers price index (CPI) by going round ships with a clipboard, counting cabbages and taking that back home, filling out a form and faxing it to Wellington.
“So now they are on Ipads, and batch doing it.
“But why are we doing that?”
He says that if Statistics had access to financial transaction by EFTPOS they could generate a real-time consumer price index.
That’s a great idea. You could track the actual prices people are paying, rather than the advertised prices at the rimes Stats NZ checks.
Stuff reports:
There’s something about Audrey Hepburn’s impossibly long cigarette holder that oozes elegance and class.
The use of tobacco on-screen has long been a device used to help craft characters, from the effortlessly cool Danny Zuko in Grease to the womanising executive Don Draper in Mad Men.
But New Zealand researchers are calling for an R rating for TV shows and films containing tobacco imagery, after a study that shows there has been little change in on-screen smoking in the past 10 years.
“While tobacco imagery cannot be banned in any meaningful way, legislation could be introduced requiring programming with tobacco imagery to be R-rated,” the authors concluded.
The research, led by Louise Marsh of the University of Otago, examined tobacco imagery on New Zealand television over a week-long period in October 2014 – 10 years after a similar study in 2004.
Well The Hobbit and LOTR feature some smoking, so these researchers would ban kids from being able to see those films.
But longstanding film reviewer Graeme Tuckett said an R-rating would achieve nothing. “The whole idea of ratings has almost become redundant, because so many people watch things online.”
Yep.
Chandler would sometimes smoke on Friends. So that would be banned for kids also.
Chester Borrows writes:
To the woman who was asked where were they all living before living in the car? And who said “At home with my parents but then I got kicked out.” I want the media to find out why. To the mother of 10 children living in a carport I would like the reporter to explain that if she is on her own and her children are all school age, that she is entitled to $1500 per week from WINZ – which may not be much with 10 children – but what happened to that money this week. With an accommodation supplement on top of that her income would be much closer to $2000 per week. And another question she could be asked, bearing in mind she has probably been renting previously is, why she moved? Has she got a good rent record? Did she always pay rent on time? Was the accommodation ever damaged? Did she have to move because of the harsh and unfair treatment of the landlord or what? None of the answers affect the bottom line which is that it is all about the kids. But I want to know.
The media dereliction of duty has got even worse. They now allow the Greens to put up people and refuse to supply a surname – making it impossible for media to verify if what they are being told is correct. Yet despite this, the media all reports the claims.
Others being in bad circumstances does not make us become cold and uncaring towards them, or unsympathetic towards their circumstances. It doesn’t mean we all want to see people living in cardboard boxes under bridges, or begging on the street. It doesn’t mean we say it’s their own damn fault. The opposite is generally true. We open the doors to our homes, we open our wallets and give of our time energy and resources to help, we drop off groceries and raid our own firewood supplies to help with heating, especially when kids are involved.
Knowing the full facts doesn’t absolve us from a responsibility to help. But I am stuffed if I am going to be denied the knowledge of those full facts because a news agency can’t be bothered asking the questions. Alternatively, maybe they have decided that we don’t need to know because it doesn’t fit with the angle they are taking on a particular story.
When my bull-dust radar is screaming, the only way to turn it down is to know the truth. Let the fourth estate step up on this occasion.
Hear, hear.