The Herald Politics quiz is back.  10/10 in 47 seconds.

Lizzie Marvelly writes:

With all due respect, I don’t give a hoot what the Prime Minister, Richie McCaw and Dan Carter think about the flag. To me, the relationship Kiwis have with their flag should be wholly their own. They are absolutely entitled to their own views, but it is not for All Black legends or a leader democratically elected to serve all New Zealanders, to try to tell us what to think, much less how to vote in this ballot of lasting national significance.

So Marvelly says it is wrong for celebrities such as McCaw and Carter to say how they are voting on the flag referendum. Now this is a valid point of view (not one I agree with though) – that celebrities shouldn’t influence public opinion.

The thing is, I doubt even the pro-Lockwood campaigners could look New Zealanders in the eye and say, hand on heart, that this alternative flag is the best flag they could have imagined for Aotearoa. Until there is such a design, one capable of flying alongside Tino Rangatiratanga (now that is a well-designed flag, whatever you think of its connotations), of representing us in times of triumph and in times of tragedy, of inspiring a rush of love for our homeland here in New Zealand and overseas, I’ll be voting for our current flag.

Marvelly then spends most of the rest of her column rubbishing the Lockwood flag and stating she’ll be voting for the current flag.

Now I’ve got no problems with Marvelly using her column to campaign for the current flag. Just as I have no problem with McCaw saying on Facebook why he supports change. But is it rather rich to complain about McCaw stating his view in public, and then doing the exact same thing you complain with.

On the substance of the issue, I think it is absolutely sensible for people to say they are voting for the current flag as they prefer it to the Lockwood flag. However demanding that the alternate flag must be the “best” flag imaginable reminds of the old saying “perfect is the enemy of good” and I’d predict that if that is the standard, we’ll still have our current flag in 50 years time.

If I was Gareth Morgan, all I’d say on the successful crowd funded campaign for the Awaroa land was “Well done”. But  instead he thinks it is a good idea to tell us all how stupid we are.

Morgan blogs:

Congratulations to all those who contributed to the Awaroa crowdfunding campaign – you got your wish. I have no intention to question how people spend their money, but I do think that the price paid was too high – both from a conservation and purely financial perspective.

Umm Morgan is the one who said there is no way it will go for $2 million and the crowd funded appeal will fail as it is worth far more than that. Now he says the price of around $2.8 million was too high.

Public access to this strip of land could very easily have been secured for under $500k and ownership is totally unnecessary to achieve that. To do that they not only needed to get the bidding out of the public arena, but also once the site was purchased the beach could have been covenanted and the land resold.

In other word give Morgan $500,000 to buy the land. He may be right that is a cheaper way to do it, but once the campaign had started, there is no way one could change it mid-way.

But as we all know that purchase was not about rational behaviour, it was all about romance, we fell in love with the pretty picture and after that, the madness of crowds took over. There are two faults with allowing hysteria to win the day.

Hysteria? Really?

I made a rational decision to donate $50. For $50 I could help deliver it into the public estate.

Last time I heard from them they only had about $1m and they needed a hand up given donations were flagging. My response then was to offer a strategem whereby we could stimulate the rate of donations, get the beach for a price below $2m

Umm, no. You explicitly said it would need more than $2 million.

I’ve been very happy to turn down the offers for help to buy Awaroa, and will be looking to spend my money on things that actually improve conservation.

I don’t think anyone expected Gareth to donate, and of course he should decide what he wants to spend his money on. But the backlash he has received he produced himself. He could have quietly gone to the campaign organisers and proposed what he wanted. They could have accepted or rejected it quietly. He decided to publicly blog his offer/demand and now seems bitter the campaign succeeded.

Phil Goff has said he doesn’t want to be a partisan Mayor, and work across the Council table. Yet he has a gratuitous swipe at John Key in this Herald article, which to me suggests as Mayor he will be more interested in attacking the Government than working with it.

The Herald reports:

Auckland mayoral candidate Phil Goff is eyeing the Remuera Golf Course as a possible site for thousands of new houses.

He wants the sale of the Auckland Council-owned land to be discussed, and he doesn’t care that the Prime Minister plays there.

“That fact that John Key is an honorary member doesn’t exclude the golf course [sale] from scrutiny. If you are looking at assets which return almost nothing to the ratepayer, this is one,” Mr Goff said.

On the substantive issue I agree with Key Goff. I’d sell the golf club land and use it for housing. But why does he bring the PM into it, except to try and make it look like Key is opposed? As far as I know Key has never said anything on this issue.

This to me makes it clear that Goff is campaign to be a Labour Party Mayor, not a Mayor for all of Auckland.

UPDATE: It appears the land was gifted to the Council explicitly for use as a golf course or reserve so the Council has no power to convert it to housing. A minor detail a Mayoral candidate may have checked out before declaring it is a potential site for new houses.

Stuff reports:

The picturesque Vogel House, once home to Sir Robert Muldoon, has become the subject of a legal dispute as its original owners’ grandsons fight a government decision to hand it over to two Wellington charities.

The stately home in Lower Hutt was gifted to the Crown in 1965 by Jocelyn Vogel, for whom it was built in 1933, and was used as the official Wellington home of prime ministers from 1977 to 1990. 

Now the Crown has decided it no longer needs the estate, which has a rateable value of $4.1 million, and has decided to allocate half each to the beneficiaries of her will, the Wellington SPCA and the Vogel Charitable Trust, which gives grants to the poor and needy in Lower Hutt.

I’m sad that Vogel House is no longer a ministerial house. It has such history.

I’d been out there many times in the 1990s, and enjoyed great hospitality there. The grounds are huge and beautiful.

But Tim and Geoff Vogel, grandsons of Jocelyn and her husband James, say their grandparents always meant to leave it to them, and are contesting the commissioner’s decision.

“It was a family property gifted by the Vogel family to the Crown. It should go back to the Vogel family,” Tim Vogel, a lawyer who played cricket for Wellington in the 1980s, said on Wednesday.

Only if that is what the Vogel Family specified at the time of gifting.

“It bears the family name, and we spoke to our grandparents over the 50-odd years about the gifting and it was clear to us that our grandparents wanted the property, in the event the Crown no longer needed it, to be gifted back to family.”

If that is what they wanted, they should have said so in the will.

Stuff reports:

Upper Hutt City Council has declared the city a “TPP-Free Zone”, prompting its mayor to condemn his colleagues’ “ultimately meaningless” political statement.

Don’t those Councillors have any actual work to do, rather than puerile idiotic gestures?

What do they mean by a TPP-Free Zone? Do they mean they want all imports from the US, Japan, Australia and Canada banned?

Do they want Upper Hutt businesses to stop exporting?

Deputy mayor John Gwilliam agreed the declaration was a political statement but said he voted for the resolution because of serious concerns about how the TPP could thwart local government and undermine public welfare, because of the powers it gave international companies to use dispute settlement proceedings against governments.

McClay said the agreement would not change the ability of governments, to fulfil core functions, at local as well as national level.

“I am surprised that the council has not tried to be better informed.”

After learning about Wednesday night’s vote, Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce & Industry chief executive Mark Futter said he was astounded the business community was not consulted.

The council owed the people of Upper Hutt an apology for the “purely political” resolution, which could cause a backlash against export businesses in the city trying to establish international trade links, he said. 

“The political stake they’ve put in the ground means nothing. If I was a business owner, I’d be pretty disappointed in the council.”

Someone should remain those Councillors of the rates paid by local businesses.

Councillor Angela McLeod said she voted for the resolution because she had gauged a rising anti-TPP public sentiment and was concerned the provisions of the agreement amounted to an attack on “the sovereignty and democracy of Upper Hutt”.

They’re like lemmings. They repeat a phrase with no understanding of it.

THE VOTE

FOR: Deputy mayor John Gwilliam, councillors Mary Amour, Paul Lambert, Glenn McArthur, Angela McLeod, Helen Swales and Dave Wheeler (7).

You now know which grandstanding fools not to vote for.

Stuff reports:

The Government has struck back at claims that controversial state-owned asset sales have cost more than $1 billion.

Green Party energy and resources spokesman Gareth Hughes said the party had not ruled out buying back Mighty River Power, Genesis and Meridian.

Oh good. A policy of asset confiscation will be just the thing to get National a 4th term.

The latest dividend figures showed the Crown had missed out on $945 million in dividends since listing, with a further $96m spent on the sales programme, he said.

The Greens are confusing foregone income with costs. They are not the same thing, as any stage 1 accountancy student would know. Also it is not foregone income.

Cameron Burrows, a spokesman for Finance Minister Bill English, said the Greens’ comments confirmed they did not understand how business worked.

“The share offer programme has brought valuable private sector discipline to public assets,” he said.

The Government now received more in dividends than it did when it owned the companies outright.

“For example, dividends from Genesis in the decade before the float averaged $32m,” said Burrows.

“This year, as a 51 per cent owner, the Government received $83m in dividends from Genesis.”

Yes, the Government is receiving more in dividends now with 51% than it did with 100%.

The Greens think ownership doesn’t matter and that 100% public ownership would have resulted in the same level of profitability and dividends. The history of the world is that ownership does matter. It is ridiculous to assume this level of profitability and dividends would have occurred under fully public ownership.

Hughes said it would only be a few more years before the total costs eclipsed the money raised.

No the Government is receiving more money now from its 51% share than it did from 100% share. It has more dividends, and reduced debt. A win-win.

National won the 2011 and 2014 elections despite the campaign against partial asset sales. The Greens think that somehow people will care in 2017?

“As ordinary Kiwis open their power bills this winter and see the price rising again, they’ll be asking, ‘how has the power company sell-off benefited me?'”

Electricity prices went up 64% or 7.1% a year under nine years of a left wing Government.

In the last three years electricity prices have gone up only 2.45 a year.

So in summary:

• Smaller price increases than previously
• More dividends to the Government
• Less debt for the Government
• More dividends for investors such as KiwiSaver funds

Looks like a great success story to me.

The Greens and Labour were criticised for releasing their NZ Power policy just before the companies were listed, which some commentators saw as an act of sabotage.

The resulting fears may have reduced final sale prices by hundreds of millions, meaning a substantially reduced return for taxpayers.

“That’s for commentators to speculate, and play hypotheticals on,” Hughes said.

It was an act of economic sabotage. But it backfired. While some investors were scared off, those who did invest (like me) made a large capital gain after the election – all thanks to Labour and the Greens.

Mighty River Power is trading at a 4 per cent premium to its $2.50 float price, despite touching $3.50 a year ago.

Genesis Energy has also pulled back from last year’s highs, but remains 21 per cent above its $1.55 float price.

Meridian Energy has been the star performer of the three, up 57 per cent from its initial price of $1.50, which investors paid in two instalments.

I purchased in all three. I invested for the dividends but thanks to the Greens and Labour I made a good capital gain also.

StatsNZ reports:

The net gain from Australia numbered 1,300 for the January 2016 year, surpassing the 1,000 mark for the first time since the October 1991 year. This was the fourth month in a row to show an annual net gain of migrants from Australia.

Of the migrant arrivals in the January 2016 year:

• 30,600 were New Zealand citizens, making up one-quarter of all migrant arrivals 

• 15,200 were Indian citizens, with almost three-quarters having student visas

• 11,000 were Chinese citizens, with over half having student visas and one-quarter having residence visas.

The migration from Australia is welcome. The student visas are very good also as we earn heaps from the fees international students pay, plus their spending in NZ.

The level of residency visas has not changed in recent years. With so much inwards migration in other areas, it could well be sensible to have a temporary reduction in residency visas, to minimise the infrastructure strain. Medium term we definitely want to keep migration levels at strong levels, but an inwards net flow of 200 a day is pushing infrastructure.

Stuff reports:

Mt Roskill MP Phil Goff says he will quit Parliament at the 2017 election if he fails in his bid for the Auckland mayoralty.

Goff, 62, said he had moved on in his mind and felt he had “done all the things I wanted – or had the opportunity to do, should I say – in central government”.

He wanted to be Prime Minister but he became leader at the wrong time for that.

“If  I lose the mayoralty I wouldn’t put the country to the unnecessary cost and expense of a by-election but I would stand down at the following election in 2017.”

So cheaper for taxpayers if Goff loses!

Jonathan Coleman released:

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says good progress has been made in the quarterly health targets with improvements across all six areas.

“The health targets are not just about numbers – they are about delivering better faster access to services,” says Dr Coleman.

“The latest quarterly update shows improvements in elective surgery rates, shorter stays in ED, faster cancer treatment, increased immunisation, better help for smokers to quit, and more heart and diabetes checks.

“These results are a credit to health workers throughout New Zealand.

“Progress towards the new faster cancer treatment target improved six per cent, up to 75 per cent – the biggest quarterly increase to date.

“Delivering better cancer services is a top priority for the Government. We’ve made significant progress since 2008 and patients are getting better faster cancer care.

“The more heart and diabetes checks target was met for the second consecutive quarter. Around 1.2 million people have had their cardiovascular disease risk assessed in the past five years.

“The elective surgery target has again been achieved with 98,870 elective surgical discharges provided for the year to date – 4,890 more than planned.

Data on the targets is here. Some of the changes we have seen:

1. 94% of ED patients dealt with in under six hours, up from 70% in 2008
2. 98,870 elective surgeries year to date – up 42% from 2008
3. 75% of cancer patients getting first treatment within 62 days (up from 66%)
4. 100% of patients needing radiotherapy or chemotherapy start it within four weeks
5. 94% of infants immunised on time, up from 76% in 2008. Rate of Maori is 91% and Pasifika 96%
6. 96% of hospital patients who are smokers getting advice or support on how to quit (up from 17%)

This is stuff that really matters to people and makes a difference.

Geoffrey Miller writes:

A long thin country, marked by its diversity of landscapes. A small population, outflanked by bigger and more powerful neighbours.

An increasingly multicultural society with a significant indigenous group.

It could be New Zealand.

But it’s Sweden.

Like New Zealand, Sweden long had a tradition of personal, retail politics in which politicians rub shoulders with voters as apparent equals. That’s what one expects in a small country.

But there is one big difference between Sweden and New Zealand.

Sweden has suffered not one, but two political assassinations. The first, in 1986, was the murder of then Prime Minister Olof Palme.

The second, in 2003, was the killing of foreign ministerAnna Lindh.  Had it not been for her untimely death, Lindh was in line to be Prime Minister.

We should keep Sweden’s experiences in mind when reflecting in the increasingly dangerous level of political vitriol that New Zealand has seen in recent months.

This vitriol is backed by John Minto and Sue Bradofrd who have backed the protester who poured stuff over Brownlee. Their view seems to be that so long as you are on the side of “right” (ie agree with their politics) then it is legitimate to assault politicians.

And it is easy to think that we would never end up like Sweden with an assassination. But reflect that we currently have a trial on for the murder of two WINZ staffers. The disgruntled person could well have decided to shoot a Cabinet Minister instead of local WINZ staff.

Miller continues:

But another, more deep-seated reason for anger is John Key’s continuing popularity. Anyone who has dipped into the comments section on The Standard, or who follows left-wing activists on Twitter, or reads comments on the various activist Facebook pages knows how central John Key to the discontent. …

There is plenty of legitimate criticism of John Key and the government.

But anyone who has visited the left-wing blogosphere, or Twitter-verse, or the many Facebook pages know that there is a nasty underbelly.

The right calls this “KDS” – or “Key Derangement Syndrome”. …

Another reason for the desperation is the continued failure of parties on the left to succeed. Labour and the Greens’ share of the vote is going backwards, according to opinion polls.  The left’s champion, Hone Harawira, was voted out of Parliament in 2014 amidst the utter debacle that was Internet Mana.

They’ve given up on winning the contest of ideas, so they are resorting to the contest of violence.

On Monday, David Cunliffe tweeted “I’m no great Brownlee fan, but politics is a tough gig and most people try to make a difference.  Doesn’t deserve it”.

Cunliffe’s tweet was in reaction to a tweet by scientist and Green Party activist Dr. Sea Rotmann, who had tweeted: “I’m just glad that NZs proud tradition of throwing things at senior politicians stays alive and well”.

Rotmann is not just an activist but was a candidate for the Green Party, and she endorses these acts. But if they occurred to a Green Party MP, she would be outraged I am sure. Again it is the belief that it is okay to do it to the other side.

When someone made threats online against Sue Bradford, I immediately contacted her office and said I had some information (IP address) that could help identify him. And gave that info to the Police also.

There is nothing wrong with a peaceful protest.

But hurling objects at MPs is not peaceful.

So far, the incidents have been harmless.

But what if the next time a minister is attacked, it is with a bullet?

Impossible? That’s what Sweden thought.

In hindsight Josie Butler should have been charged by the Police. We all enjoyed the humour in her choice of thing to throw, but overlooked the bad precedent it sets. Don Brash makes the point:

Former National Party leader Don Brash says a Christchurch nurse who threw a dildo at Government minister Steven Joyce may have avoided a criminal charge because she was Maori and a woman.

Josie Butler, a nurse at Hillmorton Hospital in Christchurch, was not charged after she threw the dildo at Mr Joyce on Waitangi Day, in protest against the Government signing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Dr Brash tonight said her actions were “totally inappropriate” and he didn’t know why she wasn’t charged.

“The guy who threw mud at Gerry Brownlee has been charged but the woman who threw the dildo at Steve Joyce hasn’t.”

He said both acts were hugely inappropriate.

“Was she not charged because she was a woman or because she’s Maori? I don’t know, but she thought it was a huge joke and was delighted when she wasn’t charged.”

If it is not too late, she should be charged.

He said the only consolation was Kiwis who were opposed to the TPP may now be supporters due to her actions.

“Most people thought ‘Well, if that’s what the people who opposed the TPP acted like, I’m in favour of the TPP after all’.”

Yep.

The retirement of Mark Jennings as Head of News for TV3 after 27 years is not a good sign.

Jennings was highly respected and even loved by almost all the TV3 staff over the years.

I suspect TV3 will face more departures over the next few months unless they can turn things around.

Stuff reports:

The Government stepped in with an 11th hour offer of $350,000 to help get the Abel Tasman beach bid over the line.

Conservation Minister Maggie Barry confirmed the contribution after it was announced a public campaign to buy Awaroa beach had been successful.

Barry confirmed the Government contribution was what helped the appeal “get over the line and buy the property for New Zealand”.

A separate last-minute anonymous donor was also a “critical component” in the success of the campaign to buy the Abel Tasman beach, organisers say.

Stuff reports:

The Government looks prepared to accept a move from the United Kingdom Government to charge ex-pat New Zealanders a healthcare surcharge on every visa application. 

The UK Government has announced that New Zealanders staying in the UK for more than six months, will be required to pay a surcharge for access to the free National Health System (NHS).

This will be $328 for New Zealanders on the Youth Mobility Scheme or student visas, and $437 for New Zealanders on other visas for more than six months.

Both New Zealand and Australia have a reciprocal health agreement with the UK, for equal access to each other’s public health systems. 

Prime Minister John Key said he was disappointed in the move, but defended the argument of the UK high commission that visits to private GP practices in New Zealand weren’t free. 

“We’re not planning any sort of reciprocal change if you like.

“One of the reasons for that, and this is the point that the British High Commission has been at lengths to explain to MPs right across the Parliament, is that the rules aren’t equal at the moment,” he said. 

I don’t have a problem with the fee per se, but why make it compulsory? Why not give NZers in the UK the option of not using the NHS and paying privately for any health needs, rather than pay the fee?

As I understand it, if you are there for less than six months you don’t need to pay this fee. If you become a resident paying tax, then your taxes pay for the NHS. But this is targeted at those just there for a couple of years, and whose earnings tend to be quite low, so they are little or no income tax to the UK Government.

An interesting op-ed from Deborah Hart of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand.

Opponents of the Trans Pacific Partnership have been conducting a brisk trade in criticising the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanisms in the recently concluded 12-nation deal. The term refers to the critical aspect of the agreement that allows parties to take a case against governments they believe aren’t playing ball.

What isn’t so clear is how familiar these critics really are with this aspect of the fine print when they hyperbolically dismiss it as the deal’s most “chilling” feature, which could also yet result in loss of national sovereignty, supposedly secret hearings and other unspecified hardships for New Zealand.

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is actually as chilly as a typical summer’s afternoon in Auckland. The warmth is partly in its transparency, but also in the fact that what we’re talking about is a form of arbitration and something New Zealand is not only good at but has already shown itself to be practical, efficient and in the country’s interests.

A dispute settlement provision represents nothing new. In one form or another it has been around internationally since the mid-1960s. New Zealand is already party to a half-dozen trade or investment treaties containing such arbitral provisions.

In 2010, for example, the value of such mechanisms to New Zealand was memorably put to the test when this country petitioned the World Trade Organisation to successfully get access to the Australian market for our apples, which had been barred as a result of restrictive quarantine measures.

Yep we used their provisions to stop Australia using bogus science to block our apple imports.

The intervention of these international tribunals, sited in a neutral venue, comprising independent specialists in international law, often retired judges, and appointed by the parties, is better than the alternatives.

Certainly, they’re much better than litigation in the courts of the home state. It provides a consistent system of justice across member states. If such disputes are left to domestic legal systems, investors are left to deal with the vagaries of local courts, which can be interminably slow, unpredictable, biased or even corrupt.

Chilling indeed would be to contemplate a New Zealand company trying to enforce its rights, say in a Mexican or Malaysian court.

Again the provisions are most liked to be used by NZ companies, not used against NZ.

“Generally speaking,” Simon Foote, an Auckland-based arbitration expert, explains, “the investor protections in the TPP are narrowly drafted, meaning that it would require egregious conduct on the part of a state for an investor to have a meritorious claim.”

Protections for investors, for example, an obligation not to expropriate without compensation, have been part of international law for decades, Mr Foote notes. “They are fundamental and beneficial to investors prepared to invest outside their own backyard. And what ISDS provisions do is provide a workable means to enforce these fundamental protections.”

And there are carve outs for education, health etc.

Mr Foote also points out that this is not an insurance scheme to protect investors against all changes to the law. The Government’s right to regulate on matters concerning public health, safety and the environment are not subject to ISDS. And the TPP does not apply to measures required to fulfil the Government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations and permits measures favourable to Maori as exceptions to the obligations otherwise owed to investors. Notably, states have the right to deny claims relating to tobacco-control regulation.

Investor-state dispute settlement is therefore not something to be afraid of. It’s part of being a trading nation in a globalised world. Access to markets comes with obligations. ISDS is to be celebrated, for it means our corporates won’t be ending up in foreign courts, and nor will our country’s trading partners end up in ours. This is how arbitration works best. There isn’t a better alternative.

Much fuss about nothing.

NBR reports:

Death is an inevitably morbid conversation and few people like talking about funerals.

Except for businesswoman-turned-charity founder Jude Mannion.

The former boss of companies such as Elizabeth Arden, Kellogg’s New Zealand and Hallmark has founded funeral browsing website Fresh Funerals, which she equates to an ‘Airbnb of the funeral industry.’

Users of Fresh Funerals fill out a form, specifying how they want their funeral to be conducted. Options include whether the deceased should come home or stay at the funeral home; cremation or burial; and arrangements for a casket.

They are then sent quotes by funeral directors. The website is linked to all funeral homes to enable them to quote.

“You can do it at home, online, for the first time in New Zealand. You don’t have to go to the funeral director’s home where you feel out of your comfort zone. You’re in a really strange place and you’ve got a professional saying, ‘tell me what you want,’” Ms Mannion, the founder of The Robin Hood Foundation NZ says.

“I’m hoping that by sitting at home, drinking a bottle of wine with your brothers and sisters you can discuss in a more relaxed way how you want to do the final send-off for the one you love. We only get to do it once.

I like the concept. It is similar to Builders Crack. Your describe what you want, and let companies compete for the work. You make your selection based on price, quality and reviews.

Funeral Directors Association chief executive Katrina Shanks says there’s not necessarily a demand for a website like Fresh Funerals, though, adding that there’s a lot of information on undertakers’ websites already.

She says funeral arrangements can’t simply be chosen by “ticking a box” because there’s substantial emotional attachment, unlike booking a hotel or Uber.

The industry body has commissioned research asking people what they value most in the funeral process. A lot of the feedback involved compassion and sympathy, which Ms Shanks says can’t be catered to by a website. She says funeral directors have the training to understand those skills.

Not everyone wants the same thing. The great thing about the Internet is it allows different business models, and we’ll find out if they succeed.

Stuff reports:

Lawyers for Julian Assange have asked a Swedish court to overturn an arrest warrant for the Wikileaks founder following a ruling by a UN panel that his stay in Ecuador’s London embassy amounts to arbitrary detention.

Assange, 44, took refuge at the embassy in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations, which he denies, that he committed rape in 2010.

Once again the biggest threat to the UN is itself.

Assange voluntarily entered the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape charges. He can leave the embassy at any time, so long as he is willing to defend himself against the charges.

Trying to escape the criminal justice system of Sweden for rape allegations does not make you a political prisoner.

Murray McCully announced:

McCully will not contest East Coast Bays in 2017

Foreign Affairs Minister and National Party Member for East Coast Bays Murray McCully has announced that he will not contest the East Coast Bays constituency in next year’s general election. He advised his East Coast Bays electorate AGM of his decision last night.

Mr McCully said his decision was not related to his medical leave late last year.

“It is a real privilege to serve as Minister of Foreign Affairs. But it is an office that does not always sit easily with the role of a constituency MP.

“When my role as Foreign Minister comes to an end it is my intention to retire from Parliament. Quite when that will be, and whether I seek election as a List Member of Parliament in 2017, are decisions for the Prime Minister in the first instance.

“At the end of this term I will have served as the local Member of Parliament for 30 years. This is the right time for me to announce my intentions and clear the way for an orderly succession process,” said Mr McCully.

This is no surprise and has been long signalled.

There will be huge interest in his seat, His majority was 15,034 and McCully got five times as many votes as the Labour candidate in 2014.

Stuff reports:

Job seeker Eric Knight calls himself a “jack of all trades and a master of none” but a 34-year-old conviction for burglary is preventing him from finding any work, he says.

The 52-year-old is calling on the Government to amend the Clean Slate Act to include convictions that are more than two decades old and for which less than a year of jail time was served. 

The Criminal Records Act, otherwise known as the Clean Slate Act, currently allows people to conceal convictions dating back seven years or more – providing they aren’t serious offences and didn’t result in jail time.

I have sympathy for Mr Knight, but not sure a law change is the answer.

As an employer I’d not hold a 34 year old conviction against an applicant, if they had been crime free for 34 years. I doubt many employers would. So it may not be the conviction that is stopping work being found.

He committed two burglaries after a “s*** upbringing” which saw him “pushed from pillar to post”, and served a year in jail when he was 18.

But after meeting the woman who would later become his wife, Knight says he never committed another crime, nor did he want to. 

“Yes I have a police record, that was 30 years ago, I’m a totally different person to who I was then,” he says.

“The problem is that I got sentenced to a term of imprisonment and that’s where the law has said ‘once a criminal, always a criminal’ [but] I am living proof that 30 years later a leopard can change his spots, and I’m not the only one.”

It is great he has turned his life around. But again I’m unsure a law change hiding the truth from employers is the answer, as opposed to relying on employers to use common sense.