Alex Malley, the CEO of CPA Australia writes:

The trans-Tasman relationship between the Key and Turnbull Governments has reached a new level of mutual respect and intimacy not previously seen during the decades since the signing of the CER agreement in 1983.

This bodes well for both countries’ economic, diplomatic and security future.

Over all those years there has been some fine talk from Australian leaders about the special relationship between the two countries but it’s fair to say that, from a New Zealand perspective, there’s been precious little action on a range of issues affecting Kiwis.

Even when Julia Gillard addressed New Zealand’s Parliament, in what was a first for the two countries, she was unable or unwilling to change policy that was causing political and diplomatic tension. She did say she wouldn’t challenge the world trade decision on apples but, as seen with Kiwi eyes, that was perhaps making a virtue out of an original sin.

So, Prime Minister Turnbull’s initiative to lay a pathway for some Kiwis to Australian citizenship is a significant one.

No previous prime minister – Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard et al – has actually implemented a New Zealand request for a change to Australian domestic law to accommodate its citizens living in the Lucky Country.

This is basically correct. Turnbull is the first PM since CER to actually change Australian law to benefit New Zealanders living there.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he has been burgled three or four times in his life, including once when he “screamed” after confronting an intruder. 

Perhaps the most embarrassing was when his wife Bronagh’s birthday present – a pink Honda City – was stolen when they lived in Wellington. 

His comments came as Police have defended their efforts to solve burglaries, despite the percentage of overall crimes solved dropping below 10 per cent in some parts the country.

On the burglary resolution rate, it is worth noting that there is a difference between the resolution rate for individual burglaries, and the arrest rate for burglars.

Sadly, unless a burglar is stupid or unlucky, it is hard to prove who burgled a house. The nature of burglary is there are generally no witnesses, so it is not like many other crimes. Unless they get caught at the time, captured on camera unmasked, leave DNA/fingerprints or get found with your property, it is hard to prove they did a burglary.

However while a burglar may not get prosecuted for a specific burglary, most burglars do get caught eventually. They may have done 50 burglaries before being caught. There will be enough evidence to prove he or she did say five of them (the Police will have a fair idea they did the others in the area) so officially only five out of 50 burglaries are resolved, but the burglar has still been caught and punished.

Now ideally every burglary will get resolved. It brings peace of mind to know the actual burglar who robbed your place has been found and convicted – for your burglary. But the nature of burglary is that the resolution rate will never be particularly high. The more important indicator is the actual incidence rate.

He had been burgled three or four times, including most recently at his St Stephens Ave house in Parnell, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Those involved were caught. 

Earlier he and wife Bronagh were burgled when they lived in Johnsonville, Wellington, before he entered politics. 

“They stole Bronagh’s birthday present at the time, which was a pink Honda city. Which was of some amusement to the cops at the time – that I’d be stupid enough to buy her one.”

When he lived in Auckland’s Burwood Crescent burglars had “cleaned out” the house.

On one occasion at the Key’s Parnell house he had gone down stairs at 3am – clothed – to see what was happening when the alarm went off.

They had thought it was set off by bad weather.

“The wife sent me down to sort it out … as it turned out it was someone downstairs. I started screaming and the next thing you know the cops turned up.”

Heh, most PMs wouldn’t admit to screaming at a burglar – or buying a pink Honda City 🙂

Just taken a look at the crime stats. This is the rate of burglaries per 10,000 population from 2004 to 2014:

There was a very good decline from 2009 to 2014. The rate has been static since then. would be good to have it decline further.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand could add more than $16 billion to the economy by lifting its female employment rate to match that of Sweden.

New Zealand has been ranked fourth in PwC’s Women in Work Index, coming in behind Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

The report, based on data from 2014, highlights the potential gains for businesses and economies by employing more women and shrinking the gender pay gap.

If New Zealand raised its female employment rate to match Sweden’s – the country with the highest female employment rate in the OECD – it stands to grow GDP by almost 7 per cent, or US$11 billion ($16 billion), the report says.

It is a relatively easy way to lift GDP. Countries like Japan with a low level of women in the workforce have real challenges with their economy. It’s not good to have half your adult working age population not in work.

New Zealand’s ranking remains unchanged from 2013; however, it has risen four places in the past 14 years.

Meanwhile, Australia continues to fall in the index rankings, dropping from 17th to 20th.

Ouch.

According to the report, New Zealand’s gender pay gap is not as large as those of some of the OECD’s worst-performers.

Kiwi men’s median wages were found to be 6 per cent higher than those of their female counterparts, compared to a gender pay gap of 17 per cent in the US and 18 per cent in the UK.

Not as large as some? That is an under-statement.

According to the OECD, we have the smallest pay gap in the developed world, which probably means the world.

The Herald reports:

The melanoma drug Keytruda should be funded here, Labour says — despite the head of Pharmac saying cancer experts here found no proof the drug helps people live longer.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the findings from Pharmac made with the help of senior cancer doctors and the possibility of a similar drug becoming available did not mean Keytruda shouldn’t be funded.

“The evidence that is around, admittedly on a patient-by-patient basis here in New Zealand, those who have funded it for themselves, it has made a difference for at least some of them. …

Pharmac chief executive Steffan Crausaz, in an interview on TV3’s The Nation this weekend, said nine senior cancer doctors in New Zealand helped the agency review Keytruda.

“The committees have reviewed the evidence, and in their view Keytruda hasn’t been proven to help people live longer lives. It does have some effects on tumour size and tumour progression, and that’s important, but what they really want to see is whether it actually helps people live longer and live better.”

So Andrew Little knows better than nine senior cancer doctors. The Greens are right on this:

However, the Green Party has expressed disappointment in that position, saying politicians should not interfere with Pharmac’s decision-making, which is based on the best evidence available.

And it is not just a matter of giving Pharmac more money as Little claims:

Mr Crausaz said about 20 other drugs are in the high-priority category, meaning they would likely be funded before Keytruda if more money was available. They include medicines for infections, vaccines and other cancer drugs.

And these decisions should be made by Pharmac, not Andrew Little.

Stuff reports:

An $18 million blowout refitting the Health Ministry’s head office in 2014, has bought a strong rebuke from Treasury, accusing the ministry of “serious financial mismanagement”.

That’s very strong words, but justified.

Independent auditors were called in to investigate how the ministry “miscalculated” the levels of its cash reserves, and a $24 million refit required a further $18 million from the Government to complete.

Some projects, especially IT, will cost more than originally forecast. But a 75% blow out on a building refit is well beyond acceptable. It isn’t entirely clear if the $18 million is extra costs or cash they thought they had, but didn’t. Either scenario is unacceptable.

The Director General of Health, Chai Chuah, said the Health Ministry’s corporate finance team made a mistake in its forecasts, TVNZ reported.

It was forced to ask for the funding boost at the last budget.

TVNZ reported Treasury was very concerned about the funding miscalculation, citing papers describing it as “serious financial mismanagement”.

In a letter to Ministry of Health Director General of Health Chai Chuah, Treasury chief executive Gabriel Makhlouf said the “the new bid for funding brings into question the governance and financial management practices of the Ministry”.

PwC was bought in by Chuah to investigate.

Labour health spokeswoman Annette King has called for Chuah’s resignation, while Chuah said he accepted the ministry made a mistake.

I’m not sure Chuah should resign, but someone at senior management should.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman said he made it clear to Chuah the project management was unacceptable. He confirmed changes had been made, including “in finance personnel”.

It is unclear what change means. Maybe they have been promoted?

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s rates are set to jump by 3.6 per cent while the city’s debt will increase by almost $60 million, as the city council sets its sights on some major projects.

This year’s draft Annual Plan includes a new climate change strategy, with a focus on reducing car ownership, as well as plans for a new council-controlled organisation that can play the property market.

It’s not the Council’s job to try and force people not to own cars or to play the property market. They should focus on doing their core role well, not fiddle everywhere else.

Paul Little writes:

If you are one of those people whose employer hasn’t been ponying up their contribution to your KiwiSaver fund, you might be wondering about your retirement plan – such as, will you have one.

It was reported last week that $29.3 million in contributions and penalties is owed to KiwiSaver by employers who have not been passing on workers’ contributions, deducted at source, or not paying their compulsory 3 per cent contribution, a figure, it’s worth noting, that is a meagre third of what Australian employers must contribute to their workers’ retirement.

Of that $29 million, some of it will just be paperwork errors, and some will be deliberate decisions not to pay.

In the first case, they are effectively stealing from staff who would presumably be shown the door were the situation reversed. Employee contributions, however, are Government guaranteed; employers’ contributions are not.

Naturally the Government isn’t interested in making good the money delinquent employers don’t pay – that would reward delinquency. The alternative would be to pursue them through the justice system, but the amounts in many cases will be so small this would not be cost-effective.

I agree it is effectively theft when an employer deliberately doesn’t pass tax payments from staff on, and instead spends them on other activities.

A great example of this is this case from 2011. This nasty employer didn’t even pass on the PAYE from the staff. And they never got prosecuted for it, despite the large amount.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received about progress in improving New Zealand’s external financial position – particularly in bringing down the longstanding current account deficit?
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises:Does he support Landcorp’s recent decision to significantly reduce its dairy footprint?
5. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm preliminary data from the National Patient Flow Project, which shows that 90 percent of patients referred by their GP to a hospital specialist between 1 July and 30 September 2015 were accepted for a First Specialist Assessment?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: When was he informed that the Ministry of Health request for a capital injection to fund the fit out of its new headquarters was not supported by Treasury, and “exposed a serious failure of financial management within the Ministry”?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
8. JAN LOGIE to the Prime Minister: Will he return the Minister for Women to Cabinet, to mark International Women’s Day?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “when the primary sector sneezes, the New Zealand economy catches a cold”?
10. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on NCEA level 2 results for 2015?
11. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the Commissioner of Police?
12. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Trade: What opportunities do businesses and the wider public have to seek information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

National: Four questions on the current account deficit, hospitals, NCEA and TPP

Labour: Four questions on PM confidence in Ministers, Ministry of Health, primary sector and confidence in Police Commissioner

Greens: Two questions on Landcorp and International Women’s Day

NZ First: Two identical questions on PM standing by his statements

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – second reading

This bill confirms and validates unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure incurred for the 2014/15 financial year.

• Introduced: December 2015
• 1st reading: March 2016

There is no debate on this second reading.

Employment Standards Legislation Bill – committee stage

This bill deals with zero hour contracts and extends paid parental leave.

• Introduced: August 2015
• 1st reading: September 2015, passed 107 to 14 with Greens opposed
• SC report: February 2016, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 94 to 25 with Greens and NZ First opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a six hour debate as the bill has five parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There are three SOPs – one each from the Minister Michael Woodhouse, Denise Roche and Clayton Mitchell.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – committee stage

The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.

• Introduced: December 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 106 to 14 with Greens opposed
• Select Committee report: September 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 120 to 1 with ACT opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a three hour debate as the bill has two parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There is one SOP from the Minister Nick Smith.

The Herald reports:

Changes will include:

• Allowing self-service online, and shifting from paper-based processes that were judged to increase the risk of privacy breaches.
• Moving resources away from minor injuries and claims, meaning people with complex claims will receive more support.
• Improving the transparency of claim decisions, with people able to go online and “track and trace” decision-making as it progresses.
• Use data and evidence to identify what actually makes a difference, particularly in injury prevention.

I love the idea of being able to track and trace decisions on claims as they progress. Also the focus on data and evidence being used more.

Like many people of my generation, Martin Crowe was the best NZ batsman I could recall.  I was away tramping when he died, and wanted to say a few words, but cricket fan Chis Bishop has made a great post which I’ll just copy:

Martin Crowe was my childhood hero. Almost every boy growing up in NZ has one; Martin Crowe was mine. I missed seeing Crowe in his mid-1980s pomp – I was just two when he tore Australia apart at the Gabba in 1985 after Hadlee had taken 9/52 – and so my earliest memories of him are in the 1990s.

Like many Kiwis the 1992 World Cup is indelibly burned into my mind. I watched every ball of the first match against Australia. England had spanked us 3-0 going into the tournament. Hopes were not high for a New Zealand victory. But on that sunny, heady, day at Eden Park Crowe and his band of trundlers and journeymen played like world-beaters. I watched every ball of Crowe’s 100 not out. He drove McDermott down the ground straight, he pulled Tom Moody to the (very short) boundary behind square-leg, and did it again, and again. In the final over, he back-cut Steve Waugh behind square to get his century, and the crowd invaded the field. He had lit up the World Cup; inspired a team; and made a nation believe. Three hours later Larsen and Latham (!) had strangled Australia’s batsmen on the slow, low pitch, Harris ran out Boon with a 30 m side on throw from deep-wicket, and we had won. I wrote about it in my standard two class notebook, and I kept it for years and years.

After that game the nation went nuts. I can still picture where I was for every game. Our cousins in Upper Hutt for a summer Barbie when we beat England. At home, watching Greatbatch deposit Brian McMillan onto the roof of the biggest stand at Eden Park, chasing down South Africa’s 192 in 25 overs. At another set of cousins’, watching with disbelief as Greatbatch charged Malcolm Marshall and Curtly Ambrose (!) and hit them for six over deep extra cover. Dipak opening the bowling against Pakistan. Through it all Crowe was the master – almost impossible to get out when batting, directing things in the field, chivvying his young and enthusiastic team, daring to dream that New Zealand could do the almost unthinkable.

I used to keep a scrapbook of cricket news clippings. I would carefully cut out articles of interest from the Dominion and the Evening Post (separate papers in those days) and paste them into a big scrapbook. I can still picture the large article published the day after Crowe and Jones’ epic partnership in 1991 at the Basin Reserve. There’s a photo of Crowe and Jones with their wives, glasses of champagne in their hands, tired but happy looks on their faces. The scorecard for the test. The list of records broken by their massive partnership. For years and years in my backyard cricket games I would replicate Crowe’s innings – the cautious start, the resolute desire to Just. Not. Get. Out, then the slow build through the 100s as the bowlers got tired and the partnership grew and grew, then the freedom that came in the 200s, sixes off de Silva, breaking Turner’s 259 record, and then getting to 299. What to do? Obviously not the run past the keeper Crowe played. An off-drive? A clip off the legs? Push for one? I always scored 300. Crowe didn’t, and he later wrote about the anger, the agony, the pain. And the redemption, of sorts, when McCullum did it on the same ground, years later.

So many memories.

In his autobiography Crowe talks about the mental demons that come with being a cricketer, a batsmen in particular. One mistake and you’re out. That’s it. Sometimes when you don’t even make a mistake, you get dismissed. The ball that you just have to play outside off that takes the edge – out. The ball that cannons into the stumps when you’re backing up at the other end, with the bowler’s minute touch – out. The bouncer that so discombobulates you the ball ends up in short-leg’s hands off your bat – out. Cricket is a tough, tough game mentally, if not particularly physically. Crowe writes of the fear of failure; the fear of getting out, of missing your opportunity to score runs, to contribute. In schoolboy cricket you only get one chance to bat every Saturday. You don’t want to waste it. I used to try and channel Crowe when I batted – obviously the elegance and the strokemaking (at least an attempt) – but specifically his tricks for dealing with stress. Imagine your best ever innings and replicating that today. Remember how you felt when you were batting. Replicate that today. Get in the same zone. Remember the shots. Replicate. Watch the ball. Replicate. Score runs. Watch the ball. Score.

Later when I did a lot of debating, I used to try and channel Crowe again before giving a speech. Remember that speech you gave three years ago that won that debate? Replicate that. Remember how you felt then? Do it again. Remember the audience response? Do it again. Channel past greatness to inspire current greatness

Crowe was my first idol. The guy I wanted to bat like, to be like, to lead like.

Because I never said it when I got the chance – thanks Martin.

Jonathan Coleman reports:

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says new figures show there has been a significant drop in national rheumatic fever rates.

98 people were hospitalised for the first time with rheumatic fever in 2015, compared with 177 hospitalisations in 2012 – that’s a 45 per cent reduction.

Rates for Māori have more than halved since 2012 – down 54 per cent. There has also been a drop of 27 per cent for Pacific people. More than half the national reduction was in Northland and Counties Manukau DHBs.

This is good to see. The focus on health should be on outcomes (such as this) now on how much money you spend (asyou could triple health funding and still have unmet demands).

The BPS target is for a two thirds reduction by 2016/17.  The interim target for 2014/15 was a 40% reduction so this 45% reduction suggests the overall target is on track.

This graph shows the significant progress being made. Rheumatic fever is often called a disease of poverty. If so, the graph speaks for itself.

The rheumatic fever rate went from 2.9 to 3.8 under Labour and has now dropped to 2.1.

“Government is good at only one thing. It knows how to break you legs, hand you a crutch, and say, ‘See if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.’”

– Harry Browne

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.

The Herald reports:

After years as an internet wasteland, the Labour Party’s “Red Alert” blog site looks to have been quietly put out of its misery. Once lauded as the new way for MPs to interact with the public, it soon became a bit of an embarrassment, before being ignored. Now, it appears to be no more.

It started off very well, and I lauded it often. But it lost its way and started to score too many own goals. A pity it wasn’t done better as I like the idea of MPs blogging.

David Seymour writes:

However, I do have a modest proposal that could relieve the poorest New Zealanders of this damaging tax (the poorest are 3.71 times more likely to smoke than the richest).

It is legal to buy electronic cigarettes in New Zealand. These devices use battery power to warm flavoured liquids into a vapour, giving the impression of smoking.  It is illegal to buy liquids that contain nicotine though, so they can’t usurp an addiction to real cigarettes.

In the internet age, the hyper-connected middle class simply imports nicotine-based fluids online.  If Customs can’t work out whether or not to charge GST on those jeans you just ordered from LA, they have no chance of working out what’s in the liquid you mail-ordered.

We should simply legalise the purchase of nicotine e-cigarettes, by prescription, tax-free.  The government already subsidises nicotine patches and the drug Champix, among other smoking cessation policies.  In total it spends around $75 million a year on anti-smoking measures.  Legalising nicotine e-cigarettes for those similarly diagnosed would provide an alternative for quitting.  The main advantage is that unlike standard medical substitutes it provides a substitute not only for the substance but for the habit.

Making e-cigarettes available by prescription is the least we can do. I’d actually make them available on the same terms as normal cigarettes. Why would you make the less harmful product harder to access?

Jacinda Ardern responded:

There is a trend towards electronic cigarettes, and the evidence certainly suggests they are exponentially less harmful than smoking tobacco, but we are still replacing one addiction with another.

Good to see Jacinda recognise the evidence that they are massively less harmful. It isn’t replacing an addication with another as substiution a product.

The addiction is to nicotine. But it is the tar that kills you. So if someone is addicted to nicotine, then the nicotine product without tar is a way way better option that the one with tar.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for these products (noting with caution that the big tobacco companies have started investing in them) and I agree that making them more accessible has some real benefits.

Who cares who invests in them? Is the aim of public policy to harm particular companies or to improve public health?

Again good to see Jacinda recognise the benefits.

But so too would properly resourcing cessation programmes.

It’s not either or. Some people respond to cessation programmes, but not everyone.

So I propose an alternate idea – why don’t we use the considerable tax take on cigarettes (which we spend only a portion of on smokers) to back cessation programmes and products that have a proven track record, and help people to quit for good.

Umm tobacco excise tax and GST on tobacco brings in $1.3 billion a year. Is Jacinda saying all of that should be spent on cessation programmes? Currently $57 milion a year is spent on smoking cessation programmes. Is Jacinda really saying we should increase that at least ten fold?

After the latest round of voting, Hillary Clinton is almost half way to the nomination.

She has 1138 delegates and Sanders 483.

To win Clinton need 40% of the remaining delegates and Sanders would need 60%.

On the Republican side Trump has 391, Cruz 304, Rubio 148 and Kasich 37.

To win they each respectively need (of the remaining) Trump 53%, Cruz 59%, Rubio 68% and Kasich 75%.

The Herald reports:

Nancy Reagan, the helpmate, backstage adviser and fierce protector of Ronald Reagan in his journey from actor to president – and finally during his 10-year battle with Alzheimer’s disease – has died. She was 94.

The former first lady died Sunday at her home in the Bel-Air section of Los Angeles of congestive heart failure, assistant Allison Borio told The Associated Press.

I wasn’t a great fan of her influence in the Reagan White House, but I was a huge fan of her dedication to Ronald Reagan – especially over the ten years of his Alzheimer’s battle.

A rare Anthony Hubbard column I agree with:

Our flag is not just absurd, it’s laughable. “New Zealand,” it says, “still British after all these years.”

“Kiwis,” it says, “colonial and proud.” “Don’t disturb,” it says, “still asleep in the 19th century.”

 As a symbol of modern New Zealand, the half-pie Union Jack is merely embarrassing. Anything would be better than this, which is why we should go for the alternative Silver-Fern-plus-Southern-Cross. It’s not much of a flag, but at least it would be ours.

Some call it the rugby flag, a tea-towel that’s worse than that old British thing. No, it’s not. If you visit New Zealand war graves in Europe, an experience that shakes the soul and tells you who you really are, you will find a silver fern on every tomb.

That for me is the key. I want a flag unique to NZ (not near identical to Australia) that has a silver fern on it and no union jack on it. I love the UK, but having their flag on our flag is not a good symbol.

Don’t believe the people who say we can have another go later. If John Key gets a hiding over this, as seems likely, no other government will touch it for decades.

A Labour-led government can’t go there. Labour has shown that when it comes to the flag they are an odious bunch of hypocritical cowards. Labour is the party of independent nationhood and necessarily supports a non-colonial flag, but it decided to use the referendum as a stick to beat Key with.

Ratting on your own beliefs for political advantage is gutter politics and it doesn’t work.

Labour are so obsessed with inflicting a loss on John Key, they have destroyed any chance of a flag change probably in my lifetime.

Salient reports:

Victoria University Chancellor Sir Neville Jordan expressed disgust with a recent satirical piece published in Salient.

In an outburst at a recent Victoria University Council meeting, Sir Neville said it was not made clear that the piece was a “spoof” and that it was “disgusting” and a “travesty”.

In response to Sir Neville’s public comments, and after consultation with VUWSA, the editors sent a private apology letter to Sir Neville.

Sir Neville did not accept their initial apology. The editors were told that Sir Neville required the apology to be amended to specify that the editors “unreservedly” apologize.

Further, Sir Neville required that the amended apology letter be published in print and online. Sir Neville was non-negotiable on the apology letter being published in print.

It was not made clear what the consequences would be if these requirements were not met.

Sir Neville also required all online content of the article to be removed.

In response to Sir Neville’s complaints the editors published an apology in print, including the required phrase ‘unreservedly’. They deleted the article from the website but it remains online in a PDF version of the magazine.

The satire piece consisted of a series of questions and answers. Questions included ‘What’s the best part of your job?’, ‘What’s the worst part of your job?’ and ‘So what do you actually do?’, to which the responses were “shaking sweaty hands at graduation ceremonies”.

The final question asked for “any parting words of wisdom” and the response quoted a “favourite Kardashian/Jenner child” (Kylie): “stop sippin’ on that haterade” and “don’t listen to what people say because they don’t know the truth”.

VUWSA placed some pressure on the editors as this article went to print to not make this information public.

The Salient Charter, Clause 1, states: “The Editor(s) shall determine the form and content of Salient with complete freedom from political interference”.

Salient is funded by Victoria University of Wellington students through the student services levy, and was established as “an organ of student opinion” in 1938.

With respect the VC Chancellor is over-reacting to some pretty obvious satire. And sad to see VUWSA trying to pressure Salient to stay quiet. This is what happens when you sell your soul to the university in exchange for funding.

UPDATE: VUWSA have sent through a statement:

There is a clear distinction between the political arm of VUWSA, run by the Executive, and the operational arm headed by the General Manager.

The VUWSA General Manager, who is the manager of the Salient Editors, raised concerns with the editors regarding any potential legal risks to VUWSA (as the legal publisher of Salient) in publishing an article. At no time were the Salient Editors asked to show the content of the proposed article.

We respect Salient’s editorial independence as outlined in the VUWSA Constitution.

Brian Rudman writes:

In Monday’s Herald, Unitec urban design experts Dushko Bogunovich and Matthew Bradbury revisited their alternative approach.

Instead of squeezing apartment buildings on to parks and golf courses, felling mature trees and doubling the size of motorways, they proposed a linear city, stretching initially from Wellsford and Helensville to Pokeno and Orere Point and possibly further.

Not random sprawl, as some are clamouring for, but carefully planned growth as occurs in Europe, along a single transport corridor, serviced by high-capacity, high-frequency transit.

Professor Bogunovich has been submitting reports and papers along these lines for years – so far to deaf ears. But now the reality of trying to crowd 400,000 new homes on to the isthmus over the next 30 years, as many as possible into established suburbs, is starting to hit home, maybe his linear city’s time has come.

Destroying the enviable environment that keeps Auckland near the top of assorted world liveability charts, in pursuit of some planning goal, is a bit like the quip about the operation being a complete success, shame the patient died.

My view is that Auckland needs to build both out an up. Just doing one of them will lead to failure. The real challenge is to determine the right balance. Town planners seem to be focused on the vast majority being up instead of out.

The Telegraph reports:

Stuff reports:

Doctors did not check patients’ driving licences “because we don’t consider it informed consent. The family should be asked irrespective of what’s on the driver’s licence”.

This was despite research from Australia showing knowledge of a deceased family member’s preference to donate drastically increased the chance of their family providing consent.

This is appalling and points to an easy to make change that could apply immediately.

Whether or not families should be able to over-ride the wishes of the deceased is one issue – and one that would need a law change.

But even without a law change, surely it should be automatic that the decision of the deceased should be checked, and communicated to the family.

Why the hell do we even collect all these preferences on the license, when doctors say they don’t even bother to check? It;s outrageous.

Think how many more donors e could get just by making it automatic for a check to be done and communicated to the family.

You can indicate that you want to be a donor on your driver’s licence, but that can still be overruled posthumously by your family. In fact, unless your family asks, doctors won’t even check your driver’s licence.

I appreciate the issue of a law change is one with pros and cons and needs some consideration.

But a simple instruction that in a case where donation is viable, the licence must be checked and the preference of the deceased communicated to the family can be done quickly and could have a significant boost to donation rates.