Laura McQuillian writes at Stuff:

We, my fellow New Zealanders, are scientifically proven to be a nation of pissheads. 

Getting drunk is our true national sport: whoever gets there the fastest, without falling down, wins.

We’re holding our own against the rest of the world: last year’s Global Drug Survey found while Irish blokes led the boozing charge, followed by the Poles, Kiwi men rolled into third place. We’re also third when it comes to binge-drinking: 2.8 per cent of us admit drinking too much nearly every day of the week.

The survey found one in three of us wants to drink less; for one in five of us, a friend, family member or colleague has suggested cutting back.

Only problem is the Global Drug Survey is not scientific. It is a self-selecting survey and not representative of the population. A better survey is the National Health Survey done by Ministry of Health. It shows 20% of over 15s are non-drinkers, 62% are “normal” drinkers and 18% hazardous drinkers.

Everything about our drinking is embarrassing, from the regrettable texts and drunken pashes, to the pools of vomit along Courtenay Place and cancelled brunches on Sunday mornings.

I’m tempted to quip that’s just Laura’s last big weekend out 🙂

For some that is how they drink, and in my distant past some of that would apply to me. But that is not the majority of New Zealanders.

In my university days, a group of friends would organise an annual “Ranfurly Shield” event. The challenge: dress in rugby garb and drink a dozen 440ml cans of Ranfurly – arguably New Zealand’s worst beer. The first to finish won a decorated shield. It was a bit of student fun – certainly not a healthy pastime, but all survived unscathed.

Now, the whole country can take part in an event that’s nearly twice as bad: “National Crate Day”. For the fifth year running, a radio station and a booze giant are encouraging Kiwis young and old to drink themselves silly (or potentially to death) on a dozen 745ml bottles – or nine litres – of beer in one day.

Over the weekend, while “celebrating” National Crate Day, a 20-year-old in Nelson fell from the back of a ute, hit his head on the road, and ended up on life support with a brain bleed.

The organisers – The Rock, with support from Super Liquor – ask us to consume 30 standard drinks in a matter of hours, two to three times what’s safe to drink in an entire week.

I agree events like National Crate Day are dangerous and should not be promoted. In fact Super Liquor is probably breaking the law if they are promoting it.

When it comes to drugs, on the other hand, we don’t know what we’re getting ourselves in for. Our ecstasy could just kill us, or we might trip for days from new synthetic drugs like N-bomb.

Zero-tolerance hasn’t stopped the drugs a-flowing: 63.5 per cent of Kiwi survey respondents had smoked pot in their lifetime, and a rather surprising 14.7 per cent had used cocaine. 

I highly doubt 15% have used cocaine. This is the problem of a self-selecting online survey. A 2008 scientific survey found 0.6% of adults have used cocaine.

Legalising drugs could help keep users safe: with regulated sales and education on the risks, users wouldn’t have to buy from a black market of potentially-lethal pills and potions, the government would be able to control who’s selling and help encourage safe use.

Start with decriminalising cannabis. At the same time, teach the tens – perhaps hundreds – of thousands of users how they can continue do so, with full knowledge of what it’s doing to their health, and how they can minimise the risks.

I agree that decriminalising cannabis would be a good thing to do, and allow the focus to go on health and harm prevention.

I have no inclination to use drugs myself – I treasure my brain cells too greatly – but I’d rather those who do use alive and high than preventably dead.

Pushing the issue of drug use under the carpet while letting us drink ourselves to death simply makes no sense.

Again I agree – ideally all drugs would come under the same framework of a health based approach.

“Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.”

– Winston Churchill

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.

Stuff reports:

Over 500 new social housing properties will be created in Auckland over the next three years, after the Government announced $10 million of funding for community housing providers.

The Salvation Army is among the five providers who have signed or are expected to sign deals to boost the city’s social housing supply.

The Salvation Army will provide 87 of the 508 properties and the Chinese New Settler Trust will provide 36 properties, with Accessible Properties taking on the biggest load with 358 properties.

Another two providers are expected to sign contracts to cover the remaining properties in the coming weeks.

Just over 140 of the properties will be new builds, with the remainder made up of existing stock turned into social housing.

Houses designating as social housing are treated like state houses – the tenants pay no more than 25% of their income in rent, with taxpayers subsidising any difference.

Ironic that again you have Sue Bradford and comrades chaining themselves to gates on the grounds the Government hates the poor, and just two days later they announce more subsidised housing for poorer New Zealanders.

The changes are here. In summary:

• Tim Groser to become Ambassador to Washington
• Maureen Pugh will replace him as a List MP
• Judith Collins returns to the Ministry and to Cabinet as Corrections (off Lotu-Iiga) and Police (off Woodhouse) Minister
• Climate Change goes from Groser to Paula Bennett
• Trade goes from Groser to Todd McClay
• Revenue goes from McClay to Woodhouse
• Local Government goes from Bennett to Lotu-Iiga
• Seymour was offered Minister of Regulatory Reform and Associate Education but declined so he could focus on rebuilding ACT, Epsom and his members’ bill

There will be high expectations that Judith will “settle down” Corrections and to a degree Police. When she was Minister of them previously she did a very good job in making effective change. I’m pleased to see she her skills will be put to good use with significant portfolios.

The other changes look sensible, if unexciting. McClay gains the most and if he does well, could even eventually end up as Foreign Minister one day.

A difficult but smart call by David Seymour to turn down a ministerial portfolio. I’ve blogged several times that too often a mainor party leader becomes a minister and then all their energy goes into their ministerial portfolios, rather than leading their party and promoting the party values. I told a couple of minor party leaders previously that if they won, they should make their deputy a minister and keep themselves fresh for the leadership.

As Seymour is a sole MP, I imagine at some stage he will accept a ministerial position, as you can impact policy better there. But a good call to wait probably another year to do so.

Tim Groser will be missed, but having concluded the TPP is a good swansong to go out on, and the hard work may be getting it through the US Congress, so as Ambassador he’ll still be fighting the good fight.

Also pleased to see Maureen Pugh make it in – she was provisionally an MP on election night, and will be a good representative from the West Coast.

National Review reports:

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal activist who once worked for groups such as the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. His environmental cred is stellar: Even as a kid, Shellenberger would cast off paper boats lit with small candles every August to commemorate the Hiroshima bombings. During the anti-nuke 1980s, he was swayed by the documentary The Day After and other films that showed doomsday scenarios about nuclear proliferation. “I was anti-nuclear my whole life.”

Now Shellenberger is the standard-bearer for ecomodernism, which promotes — among other things — nuclear energy as the cleanest, cheapest way to power the planet, especially for off-the-grid developing countries. “When I looked at the challenge of global energy and development needs, I changed my mind.”

If you really think the world’s biggest risk is global warming, then supporting nuclear power is an easy decision.

Unlike the activists gathering in Paris who will blame human activity for every problem from melting sea ice to terrorism, ecomodernists embrace human ingenuity and modernity as the best way to mitigate the impact of a changing climate. But what’s most impressive about this group is how unafraid they are to take on their own former allies, and indeed even those with whom they are still otherwise politically compatible. “The Left went wrong in becoming anti-modern,” Shellenberger readily admits. “Only a small part of their agenda has to do with the environment. It’s kind of this romanticized, idealized reaction to modern life.”

I think for many in the environmental lobbies, it is more a rejection of modern life. They see the industrial revolution as a bad thing. I suspect they are even suspicious of the agricultural revolution.

Most distinctively, the ecomodernists are pro-growth and pro–free markets. “The Kardashians are not the reason Africans are starving,” chides Alex Trembath, a senior researcher at the Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, Calif., which advances ecomodernist ideas. Trembath is another hard-core convert; raised by liberal, Christian-theology professors who were also environmentalists, Trembath started to question the movement’s tenets in college: “Climate risks are real and we should aim to reduce fossil-energy consumption as quickly as possible” he says. “But fossil fuels are not without tremendous benefits and are not poisons forced upon us by some evil corporation.”

Exactly. There is a detrimental side-effect from fossil fuels, but they also have produced great benefits.

Nuclear power won’t work well in NZ, but is a very good option for many countries to replace coal.

Jenny Ruth writes at NBR:

Will Xero [NZX: XRO] protect your financial data from prying government eyes, unless it’s legally compelled to spill the beans?

NBR simply can’t say.

NBR has been trying to find out since Rodney Hide’s column on the issue was published in early November.

That Hidesight column detailed how Xero provided the Official Assignee with access to the company records of the spouse of a bankrupt without her knowledge.

Reportedly, Xero then denied doing that when she asked whether her records had been accessed.

The case relates to bankrupt Dave Henderson and his wife, Kristina Buxton. They are friends of Mr Hide.

The column raised a number of questions about the circumstances in which Xero will provide information to officials and, if it does, whether it will tell the affected customer and whether it will even tell that customer if she asks.

It seems reasonable to have Xero clarify what their policy is.

Xero’s reply, printed on NBR’s website the day the column was published, raised even more questions.

It said the column was factually incorrect but didn’t say which facts were wrong.

“We have acted entirely appropriately and according to law and provided what we considered to be the minimum information required under the law,” Xero said.

That’s a non-answer.

The Herald reports:

A new report shows New Zealanders have the wrong idea about the world around us.

The Perils of Perception survey shows New Zealand is the most ignorant developed country, with most people misunderstanding the facts that make up our country’s society.

The Ipsos-MORI poll showed inequality was one area where New Zealanders got it wrong. Kiwis hugely overestimated the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1 per cent in the country.

The average response on the percentage of wealth controlled by the wealthiest 1 per cent in New Zealand was 50 per cent. In reality, the wealthiest New Zealanders hold 18 per cent of the country’s wealth.

So thanks to the non stop coverage in the media, NZers think that 1% of NZers own 50% of the wealth – three times the actual level.

Most of the other countries believed the wealthiest 1 per cent should own a smaller proportion of the country’s wealth than they currently do, but New Zealand responded was opposite.

In contrast, when asked what percentage of wealth the wealthiest New Zealanders should hold, Kiwis answered 27 per cent, which is nearly 10 percentage points more than what they control currently.

Hilarious – the scare campaign has been so successful, that Kiwis think the top 1% should hold more wealth than they actually do!!!

Very classy comparing Sodastream to IG Farben. The Professor of Sociology is comparing Sodastream to the company which made the poisonous gas used to exterminate the Jews. Words fail me.

Hat Tip: Shalom Kiwi

Pete George has blogged:

Tonight I was served with a court order notice instructing me to “take down or disable material from the blog Your NZ that mentions or identified [person’s name] or [company name], or any of it’s associated companies directly or indirectly” and “introduce a full time moderator systems so that no comment that is harmful to said person is placed on the blog “Your NZ”.

I make no comment on the dispute itself between Pete George and the party who gained the court order.

I am concerned however that a Judge has made a ruling that a blogger must “introduce a full time moderator systems so that no comment that is harmful to said person is placed on the blog”.

It is unclear under which statute the Judge has made the ruling. It may be the Harmful Digital Communications Act, but this is not stated in the court order.

I don’t have a problem with an interim order instructing content be removed.  That is a proper and not entirely uncommon thing to occur.

But an order that a blog must introduce a full time moderator system is deeply concerning. If such an order was granted against Kiwiblog, I would probably have to stop publishing.

It isn’t even clear what the court means by a full-time moderator, but I presume it means you must manually review and approve every comment made before it appears. For a large traffic blog such as Kiwiblog, that would kill the discussion threads and possibly the blog.

So again I have no view on the dispute itself, but I am concerned that a Judge has made such a wide-ranging order. If the order is under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, then it shows that the concerns about that Act had considerable validity.

UPDATE: Some readers have said they don’t think the action is under the HDCA as most of it is not in force. The court ruling (which I have seen) does not mention the Act at all. But I am told by someone who knows the plaintiff or complainant that the action is under Sections 222 to 25 of the HDCA, which are in force.

The Herald reports:

The committee often known as the “powerful” privileges committee has an unusually full agenda owing to some blatant breaches of parliamentary standards by the Labour Party.

Labour leader Andrew Little has led a mini-revolt against the established protocol of showing respect to the Speaker, or at least not demonstrating disrespect.

The problem with the leader instigating such a revolt is that it leaves no place for the party’s wiser heads to go.

Little has dragged Chris Hipkins, chief whip, and Grant Robertson, shadow leader of the House, into the fray with him.

They must back up Little publicly or leave the leader out on a limb. There is really no choice. Instinctively they back him.

With all three on the case of the Speaker, it leaves Labour looking petty, always arguing the toss, not concentrating on the issues that matter, blaming the referee.

They may have convinced themselves their attacks on the Speaker define them as fighters to the core, but they often come across as bullies.

It’s a good way to view it. They are picking on the only MP in Parliament who can’t fight back – the Speaker. His job doesn’t allow him to respond to their jibes. They can’t actually win against MPs who can answer back, so they go for one who can’t.

There has been one egregious error by the Speaker this term, in letting the Prime Minister get away with claims that Labour supported murderers and rapists.

But Labour and Little’s constant clash with the chair smacks more of frustration that the party is not making gains where it wants, in hits against the Government or its own policy triumphs.

Yep.

The matter that has the Labour leader and senior whip, Little and Hipkins, before the privileges committee is even more serious than Dyson’s.

They suggested widely in media interviews that the Speaker had acted on the instructions of National to postpone a private member’s bill in the name of Little from being introduced, after it had been drawn out of the ballot.

It went further than a general allegation of bias to a specific suggestion he had taken instructions from the Government.

It’s one thing to make a general accusation of unfairness or bias, but Little just invented a conspiracy theory that is defamatory.

The rules clearly state that a bill that is substantially the same as another cannot be introduced again in a calendar year – and Little’s bill on a warrant of fitness for rental property was virtually the same as his colleague Phil Twyford’s that had been tied 60-60 on a vote taken before Winston Peters won Northland and brought in another list MP for the Opposition.

Little wanted to have another go with a similar bill in the hope of embarrassing National with a 61-60 victory for the Opposition after Peters’ win, excepting his bill was not different enough.

The Government agency in charge of WoF standards would be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, not Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, as in Twyford’s bill. The policy was the same.

Labour deserved to be annoyed and disappointed. Its staff had sought advice from the Office of the Clerk on the bill and had been assured by someone in the Tables Office (where members’ bills are lodged) that Little’s bill would be acceptable.

But straight after it was drawn, the new Clerk of the House, David Wilson, decided otherwise.

He told me this week he became aware of the Tables Office advice only on the day it was drawn from the ballot: “I did not agree with the advice. Since all staff of the Office of the Clerk act on behalf of the Clerk, if they make a mistake, it’s up to me to correct it. It was on that basis that I advised the Speaker [to postpone the bill to the next calendar year].”

Instead of accepting the Clerk’s word, Little and Hipkins went straight for the Speaker’s jugular with no evidence of wrongdoing.

So unless Little is claiming the Clerk of the House is lying, then he should withdraw his allegation against the Speaker. The Speaker merely acted of the advice of the Clerk.

The nominations have closed and the voting begins. Vote below four your choice of:

• 2015 National MP of the Year
• 2015 Labour MP of the Year
• 2015 Minor Party Politician of the Year
• 2015 MP of the Year
• 2015 Press Gallery Journalist of the Year

You can also vote at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KBAwards

Create your own user feedback survey

The Washington Post reports:

The new Liberal government has promised to act quickly to legalize marijuana for general use, which would make Canada the first G-20 country to end cannabis prohibition on a national level.

Personally I would to see the results of the impacts of legalisation in those US states which have done so. It will almost be a controlled experiment as we will be able to compare any changes in the crime rates and health data in those states which have legalised cannabis to those which have not.

For police forces across Canada, the month of August is harvest time.

Cops slip on their coveralls, grab thick gardening gloves, shoulder machetes and begin the annual ritual of chopping down marijuana plants hidden in cornfields, remote mountain valleys and forest clearings.

If the grower is unlucky enough to be caught red-handed, he is cuffed and taken off to court. Each police unit hits two or three of these hidden marijuana plantations, with the confiscated pot taken to incinerators. The destruction of marijuana plants goes on for about two weeks and then it’s back to normal police work.

Has this war on marijuana worked?

“No, it hasn’t,” said Clive Weighill, chief of the Saskatoon police force, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and a veteran of the August raids.

Taxing it might be a better option.

The Liberals point out that more than 600,000 Canadians have criminal records for simple possession of marijuana and the number continues to grow. They claim this is a needless destruction of lives.

Each year the federal government spends as much as 500 million Canadian dollars (roughly $375 million U.S.) on drug enforcement and prosecution, according to the auditor general. About 50 million Canadian dollars goes to raiding marijuana plantations. These figures do not include the money spent by provincial and municipal authorities.

Yet a large number of people still use cannabis. For about a decade now, studies have shown that past-year use among Canadians age 15 to 24 is the highest in the developed world, with a recent study putting the rate at 24.6 percent. For adults 25 and over the figure drops to 8 percent.

A lot of money for little results.

Stuff reports:

Patients wanting access to groundbreaking drugs that are still being tested would get Government funding if Labour gets into power.

Opposition leader Andrew Little said “by and large” he didn’t have an issue with Pharmac, the national drug purchaser, but he was in favour of an early-access funding scheme, similar to the United Kingdom.

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman has ruled out providing early funding for new drugs where results appear to be promising, but there may not be sufficient data to justify full funding.

Green Party health spokesman Kevin Hague criticised Little for his comments that politicians should get involved in decisions around what drugs Pharmac funds.

Hague said it was a “shame” that Little said Labour would fund Keytruda, a potentially life-saving treatment for melanoma sufferers.

“Political decision-making on medicines a very bad idea,” he posted on Twitter.

I agree. I never agreed with National’s promise to fund a longer dose of Herceptin when Pharmac wouldn’t, and likewise don’t think Labour’s promise to fund Keytruda is a good idea.

They both play into the hands of large multinational pharmaceutical companies who learn that whipping up public support for a drug is a better method than convincing scientists and doctors that the benefits of a drug outweigh the costs.

2,300 get melanoma a year in NZ. This drug costs $150,000. So Andrew Little has just promised $345 million a year for this one promise.  He’s promising to spend as much on this one drug as 40% of the overall budget for all other drugs.

UPDATE: Might only be used for those at Stage IV, but that is still 330 a year and an extra $50 million.

USA Today has a survey where you can try and match which US presidential candidate is closest to you.

Like all surveys like this, it has flaws with multi-choice answers. For example on the issue of same sex marriage there was no option for supporting same sex marriage, but not regarding it as a constitutional right.

Anyway my closest match was Bobby Jindal on 62%. That’s pretty low for a closest match, which reflects how there are very few candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The full list of matches for me is:

1. Bobby Jindal 62%
2. Chris Christie 54%
3. Jeb Bush 46%
4. Marco Rubio 46%
5. George Pataki 38%
6. Lindsay Graham 38%
7. John Kasich 38%
8. Carly Fiorina 31%
9. Ben Carson 31%
10. Rand Paul 31%
11. Jim Gilmore 31%
12. Lincoln Chafee 31%
13. Martin O’Malley 31%
14. Bernie Sander 31%
15. Hilary Clinton 23%
16. Ted Cruz 23%
17. Mick Huckabee 23%
18. Jim Webb 15%
19. Donald Trump 15%
20. Rick Santorum 8%

I’m so happy I live in New Zealand!

The Telegraph reports:

Since she was elected the youngest MP in French parliamentary history, aged 22 three years ago, while a second year Sorbonne law student, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, niece of Front President Marine and grand-daughter of its obstreperous founder Jean-Marie, has had the fastest learning curve in French politics since Bonaparte’s.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

There were some good things about his reshuffle.  Has-beens Trevor Mallard, Ruth Dyson and David Cunliffe have all been ritually humiliated as a signal it is time to find new jobs.  The same message has been sent to never-will-bes Clare Curran, Kris Faafoi and Rino Tirikatene.  It is right that more dignity has been given to temporary deputy leader Annette King.

More substantially, the education portfolio is no longer split and has been reunified around Chris Hipkins, recognising the crucial importance of the transition from secondary school to higher education.  Phil Twyford has been recognised for his Chinese-sounding-names stunt.  Kelvin Davis has been given the promotion he has earned for his stance on Christmas Island and Nanaia Mahuta the demotion she so richly deserves for contributing nothing since first being elected to Parliament nearly 20 years ago.

Poll favourite Jacinda Ardern has been given a light workload so that she can concentrate on her media profile.  Labour’s right wing has adequate representation in the shadow cabinet with Clayton Cosgrove, Stuart Nash and Peeni Henare all sneaking in on the bottom rung.  As noted, while we know that the left-leaning Mr Robertson and Ms Sepuloni are expected to do the heavy lifting in economic and social policy, the right-wing David Shearer will be responsible for foreign policy.  To remove ambiguity over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mr Little has appointed an opponent of the deal, David Clark, to look after trade, replacing the pro-TPP David Parker.

One day, perhaps all these people will be famous.  More likely, given Labour’s fundamentally flawed brand, you’ll never hear of most of them again.  And even if Mr Little makes it to the prime ministership, nearly half his team will have to make way for ministers from the Greens and New Zealand First. 

This is a key point. Only the first 12 Labour MPs are guaranteed to be in Cabinet, even if there is a change of Government.

Shearer, Lees-Galloway, Sio, Moroney, O’Connor, Cosgrove, Nash, Whaitri, Salesa, and Henare may only be Select Committee Chairs or Ministers outside Cabinet.

Stuff reports:

School principals plans for next year have been thrown into disarray as a groundbreaking teacher training programme is ruled illegal.

The scheme enables high-achieving university graduates to do an intensive, six-week course before they start work in low decile schools, training on the job for two years. Principals and parents have praised the scheme but the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) filed a legal challenge.

The Employment Relations Authority ruled teacher graduates were illegally appointed to jobs through the government-funded Teach First New Zealand programme, disadvantaging qualified teachers who were excluded from the roles.

The Government has committed $6.4 million over four years to the programme, about to start training it’s third batch of graduates, but the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) filed a legal challenge.

Post-Primary Teachers’ Association president Angela Roberts says Teach First operators ignored New Zealand’s employment laws when it set up here.

The 50 or so teachers already posted to schools face uncertainty over future employment and it’s unclear if the future teaching posts of graduates about to start their six-week course will be suspended while the Ministry of Education and Teach First resolve the issues.

Northland College principal Jim Luders, one of 20 school heads to file affidavits in support of the trainee teachers, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the PPTA for taking the action.

“Every single Teach First candidate we’ve had has just been outstanding, they are so thorough, so hard-working and so resilient, it’s unbelievable. Our kids get major benefit from them.

“I put my kids first, and for my kids, these guys [Teach First trainees] are outstanding. This is the best thing for kids in low decile kids and this system works.”

How very sad. We often hear from the teacher unions that we need to spend more money on getting great teachers into low decile schools. We have a programme that does exactly that – gets some of the best graduates in NZ agreeing to spend two years teaching in low decile schools, and it gets blocked because basically they’re not union members.

UPDATE: PPTA have said that many trainees were PPTA members and that they back Teach First, just not how it has been implemented.

An interesting and sensible interview with Professor Dave Frame of Victoria University’s Climate Change Research Institute in the NZ Herald:

Q. On New Zealand’s new target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels and 11 per cent from 1990 levels by 2030. Do you see this as a reasonable commitment?

You can see it as glass half full or glass half empty.

It’s true we could be doing more; but claims that we are radically behind Europe are a bit overblown – our 2005-2020 commitments have been roughly in line with what would have been expected of us if we had been a country within Europe, with the same per capita income we currently have.

I think that is pretty spot on. We certainly could do more but the claims we are radically out of step with other developed countries is not true. No matter what our policy is, some groups would claim it is disastrously low.

Q. Given criticism of the effectiveness of carbon trading markets, do you hold any concerns with countries relying on systems like the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme to meet their targets?

Trading is more economically efficient than other ways of limiting emissions, such as regulation or taxes.

The issues around our weak price have more to do with policy choices such as the two-for-one deal, our access to cheap hot air units and so on.

It’s not that the ETS itself is inefficient, it’s that some of the policy choices that surround it are enfeebling.

The ETS is a sensible market response to something that has a negative external cost. The two for one deal was needed in the early days to lessen the impact, but I think the time has come to phase it out.

The other weakness in the ETS is the lack of a binding post-Kyoto agreement means the market price for carbon “permits” has dropped dramatically. But post Paris one may see it go up significantly which will mean the emissions market will send stronger price signals.

Q. Are there any areas – such as policy for developing nations – where you see New Zealand making any meaningful difference at COP21?

We can have more influence with our ideas than we can through our emissions alone.

Fossil fuel subsidy reform is arguably our most valuable contribution to date – by getting countries to focus on eliminating bad policies we can leverage emissions reductions far in excess of anything we can do at home.

So far, we’ve been the country that has thought the most about agriculture and climate change, but the issues we have in the agricultural sector are mirrored in many developing countries.

If we can create policies that contribute usefully to international efforts, work for us, and are attractive for others to adopt, we can help shape the way climate policy develops.

This is important. One can also contribute significantly through thought and policy leadership, not just through what happens to your own emissions in a particular year.

Q. In terms of the big picture: who are the big players, why, and how much depends on them to come away with a robust agreement?

There is a scale parameter to climate policy – the smaller you are the less you capture the benefits of your mitigation.

So the big guys will lead and set the precedents whatever they do — either by creating a world where strong policy is the norm or one where weak policy is the norm.

What we can do is suggest ideas that other countries might find useful as they think about climate policy.

As I say get the Big 10 to agree, and everyone else will follow. But the minnows can’t dictate to the big emitters.

Q. Generally, what do you anticipate will be the biggest stumbling blocks at Paris to limiting temperature rise to 2C this century? From attending previous conferences, are you somewhat cynical about getting a good outcome?

Paris should be judged on its ability to get countries to participate in climate policy, subject to some meaningful but basically domestic compliance mechanisms.

It won’t limit warming to 2C, and it’s unrealistic to expect it to do so.

The three main things you need from an international climate agreement are participation, compliance and stringency.

Kyoto made a mistake by focusing on stringency for some before participation by all.

That’s the wrong approach in a problem like this.

Paris is a chance to start over, focusing on getting broad buy-in and potentially signalling some carrots and sticks around compliance.

On the whole, we should judge Paris on the basis of its ability to get everyone to offer something.

Paris is a very important building block and direction setter.

Q. Much has been made of what this conference means for the fate of the planet. Is this really our last chance to achieve a 2C limit before it’s too late?

We’ve been having these last chances for years.

There are several reasons that’s a bad way to view the negotiations: (1) negotiations alone can’t determine that outcome; (2) repeated threats regarding last chances have diminishing credibility; (3) the 2C target is an aspiration, not a physical threshold – there’s no evidence that the world is radically different at 2.1C than it is at 1.9C; (4) choices made today to limit emissions out to 2030 or 2040 cannot guarantee remaining under 2C, because the actions of future generations matter crucially, too.

What we can and should do, is be clear about how to give those future people the best possible shot at limiting warming.

And that means focusing on limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide.

The “last chance” thing is neither compelling nor constructive, nor credible.

The media should take note of this. Every conference since 2001 has been billed the “last chance”. It is wrong, and counter-productive.

The Herald editorial:

Theirs is an invidious task, never more so than this week when it had to tell us it would not fund a drug for melanoma, Keytruda, that is being hailed as a breakthrough in the treatment of this cancer. Clinicians say it is the only treatment that seems to be effective against advanced inoperable melanoma. Chemotherapy and other regular cancer treatments are not.

Keytruda is state-funded in Australia and England but here Pharmac’s assessment committee has marked it low priority for funding, because of uncertainty about its benefits and extremely high cost. A course costs around $300,000, which anyone given a terminal diagnosis would pay if they could. Some can and do. But it is beyond the means of most and beyond Pharmac’s budget when it weighs up all the demands on its funds.

There was a hint yesterday that the Government could come to the rescue. “Watch this space,” said one of its MPs, Judith Collins, on breakfast television. She compared it to the breast cancer drug Herceptin, that was not accepted for funding by Pharmac but in 2008 the National Party promised to fund it if it came to power, and duly did so. Pharmac does “a great job”, said Ms Collins, “but every now and then something comes along and you’ve just go to say, something has to give on this”.

The Labour Party had been even quicker to take the decision out of Pharmac’s hands. “We would fund it,” said its health spokeswoman, Annette King. With politicians like these, who needs professionals to assess efficacy against costs?

If a Government provides additional funds to cover the costs of a particular drug, it does not upset the careful decisions that Pharmac has to make about the best use of its budget. But each time a Government does so, it reduces the integrity and fairness of the public health system. It is easy to make emotional decisions, especially where cancer is concerned. And of all cancers, melanoma may be the most scary.

I agree with the Herald. We set Pharmac up so medical and other professionals could assess which drugs provided the most benefit for their cost. This is the right way to do things with a limited budget, and MPs should not step in over them to fund additional drugs based on the success of a lobbying campaign.

Tracy Watkins looks at the parties in 2015:

Because the Government ends the year as it began, ploughing through turbulence, controversy and crisis to emerge battle scarred and worn, but with its bow still riding high, according to the latest polls.

This truly is the Houdini government.

There are signs that Prime Minister John Key’s star is waning, but from such dizzy heights there’s a way for it to fall yet before National will start to panic.

But it’s not been a bad year for Labour either, all things considered.

There was no great honeymoon for Labour leader Andrew Little, but then again, there were no great disasters either.

This was a year of consolidation and solidity – the caucus looks united, there have been some standout performances, and Little has stamped out the dysfunction and backbiting that were the hallmark of recent years.

He deserves far more kudos for that than he has received so far.

So solid years for the two big ones.

Peters was the standout, rocking the political landscape with his Northland by-election win and, in the process, giving NZ First a fresh purpose as the voice for the “forgotten” provinces in heartland New Zealand.

But more significant than the win was the fact that Peters also changed the political landscape by robbing National of its margin of error on Parliamentary votes.

A good year for Winston.

Meanwhile, UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne reinvented himself as the coalition Government’s conscience and caused National just enough of a headache to free himself of the ‘poodle” tag.

Dare I say it,  Dunne may even be the new cool.

ACT leader David Seymour is another revelation, combining quirkiness, eccentricity and independent thought in equal measure, though it is still hard to look past the young fogey-ishness.

But he has done more to bring ACT back to its founding Liberal Party roots than some of his more recent predecessors.

The Maori Party has floundered with the loss of its twin pillars of strength, Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, but despite all that new co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has probably achieved far more behind the scenes in his Maori Affairs portfolio than Dr Sharples.

New face Marama Fox has bought a refreshing sassiness to the party, and will likely outshine her co-leader Flavell on the campaign trail.

And the party has wrung important concessions from National, which it will remind voters about in 2017.

The three small parties all have had good years, partly thanks to Winston making them all more important.

As for the Greens, who sit uncomfortably between big party and minor party status, this has been a year of soul searching after a disappointing election result and the loss of co-leader Russel Norman. More ripples from installing outsider James Shaw over old hands like Kevin Hague and Gareth Hughes may yet be felt when MPs consider their futures ahead of the next election.

But Shaw has already made some canny moves that suggest he was the right choice to de-tune some of the messages that were scaring off potential voters. Metiria Turei has been just bolshie enough to suggest she too has heard the speculation about a push for change in the female co-leadership.

The Greens don’t look able to get significantly past that 10% barrier and even if there is a change of Government, it is almost inevitable Winston would lock them out of Cabinet.

As for Colin Craig, he looks to have delivered his Conservative Party a death blow. There is no way back from the scandal, intrigue and bizarre allegations surrounding Craig this year.

I can’t see it, but mind you the same was once said about ACT.