Germaine Greer is one of the major feminist voices i the 20th century. But even she can’t qualify as being PC enough today. Stuff reported:

Germaine Greer, a leading feminist for more than 45 years, has defended herself against allegations of misogyny towards transgender people saying “just because you lop off your d— it doesn’t make you a woman”.

The Australian-born academic, 76, was due to give a talk at Cardiff University next month but cancelled it after a number of activists protested against her repeated derogatory comments about transwomen.

The author of The Female Eunuch, a classic exploration of female sexuality, Greer prompted protests on social media last week when she told Newsnight: “I’m not saying that people should not be allowed to go through that procedure, all I’m saying is that it doesn’t make them a woman.”

Terrible – she must be boycotted. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to have her speak on campus and ask her questions about her views?

There is a recent Southpark episode in line with this, where Kyle is demonised just because he says he doesn’t think Caitlyn Jenner is a hero.

The House voted yesterday on the Government’s Shop Trading Hours bill. This is a very modest law change which simply gives all local authorities the power to decide whether or not shops in their area can open on Easter Sunday. At present only a few historical areas can do this.

It was a whipped vote for National as a Government bill but a conscience vote for other parties. It passed first reading 75 votes to 45.

The 59 National MPs voted for it. Who were the other 16?

1. Darrock Ball, NZF
2. Mahesh Bindra, NZF
3. Ria Bond, NZF
4. Clare Curran, Labour
5. Peter Dunne, UFNZ
6. Te Ururoa Flavell, Maori
7. Phil Goff, Labour
8. Ron Mark, NZF
9. Tracey Martin, NZF
10. Clayton Mitchell, NZF
11. Pita Paraone, NZF
12. Winston Peters, NZF
13. Richard Prosser, NZF
14. David Seymour, ACT
15. Barbara Stewart, NZF
16. Fletcher Tabuteau, NZF

So well done to Clare Curran and Phil Goff for being the only Labour MPs to vote for it.

The 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index is here.

The top 10 countries are:

1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Denmark
4. New Zealand
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Netherlands
9. Finland
10. Ireland

In the different categories, NZ’s ranks are:

• Economy 14/142
• Entrepreneurship 17/142
• Governance 2/142
• Education 6/142
• Health 19/142
• Safety 11/142
• Freedom 2/142
• Social Capital 1/142

3 News reports:

Allowing bars to open during Rugby World Cup games didn’t turn the country into the drunken shambles that had been predicted, say the backers of the law change that made it possible.

Police communication centres today said the local aftermath of the All Blacks win over Australia in the Rugby World Cup final in London was quiet.

A law change was made two months ago to allow bars to open early during the tournament, rather than having to apply for special licences. Under the changes, hoteliers had to give police seven days’ notice they would be open.

The change was enabled by a bill from ACT’s sole MP David Seymour, who watched the final at a bar in Auckland’s Mt Eden.

He was happy there had been no major problems and it showed New Zealanders were actually responsible people.

It does.

But there is a bigger lesson about this, and over-regulation.

The current law would have seen far fewer bars able to open, far fewer NZers able to watch the games with their friends, and all sorts of ridiculous requirements and hoops for bars to jump through. And these extra costs would have produced no benefits, as it turned out that actually most people do the right thing.

So let this perhaps be a lesson the next time the nae sayers warn of doom and gloom unless we pass some law to regulate our behaviour.

I saw Ache at Circa on Saturday night. A very enjoyable play you could relate to about the dating scene in Wellington.

Richard Dey and Renee Lyons play the main characters, a man and a woman in their 20s who meet at the bar of a wedding. A chance encounter but not their only one. He’s uninspired and she’s just back from London. She’s also tottering in some ridiculously large heels.

Over the next 75 minutes they also meet up at a sushi restaurant, a police station, an art gallery, the beach and again at a wedding. Some of them unplanned, some planned.

The set design is very elegant and flexible. A few boxes being moved changes it from one scene to the next.

Dey and Lyons are joined by Amy Usherwood and Jack Buchanan who play multiple other roles from whiny girlfriends to police officers. All for actors are excellent and give a memorable performance.

You can see the comedic talents of director Lyndee-Jane Rutherford, and her knowledge of Wellington. As a Wellingtonian both the set feels very real, but also the encounters. Many of us have had the “meet someone interesting” at a function and not sure if you’ll see them again, along with the situation where you think both are interested but not both available.

The play was written by Pip Hall, the current President of the Writers Guild.

A very fun play that the young and young at heart can enjoy.

Rating: ****

Green City Councillor David Lee writes:

As Wellington International Airport Limited (WIAL) prepares to lodge its application for resource consent for a runway extension, it’s important Wellingtonians are aware of the full facts – because, if the scheme goes ahead, a vast amount of ratepayers’ money will be pouring into it.

The plan has its supporters.

Wellington City Council (WCC) supports committing $90m towards the estimated $350m cost.

That $90 million would come from basically 75,000 households so is around $1,200 a household!!

As a resident, planner and Wellington City councillor, I am passionately committed to investment to promote a strong local economy and vibrant compact city – but it has to be the right kind of development.

As a professional planner – I spent 10 years as an airport and land-use planner with the Royal New Zealand Air Force and several years planning major road projects for New Zealand Transport Agency – I am seriously worried about this proposal.

Let’s look at the facts.

Undoubtedly the airport is a valuable strategic asset for the city and the region. Good air connectivity is essential for commerce, trade, resilience and social wellbeing.

But it is concerning that the private company that owns the airport is proposing to contribute just $40-$50m of the proposed costs. Other councils in the region have been asked to contribute $60m, so the residents of Hutt, Kapiti and the Wairarapa are contributing more than the private owner of the airport will.

This is key. We have an owner who is putting up just one seventh of the cost. They’re asking for the following:

• Airport Owner $40 million
• Wellington City ratepayers $90 million
• Greater Wellington ratepayers $60 million
• Taxpayers $160 million

Does that seem fair? To me it is more like corporate welfare.

Air New Zealand and none of the other 19 airlines BARNZ represents are interested in flying long-haul into Wellington. None of the economic benefits of a runway can be realised if no airline is prepared to use it. 

On that evidence, the airport would struggle to achieve much more than an infrequent service to a single destination in Asia – perhaps Southern China, hardly connectivity to a major hub. And the Council’s own analysis discounts the chance of North American links. . 

There is a real risk that $350m-plus could be spent, with huge cost to Wellington ratepayers, for a couple of flights to China a week.  

Not a single airline has said they’ll put extra flights on. At best we may get a couple of flights a week from Wellington to Guangzhou and return.

I am urging that before WCC invests any further money in this application, that an independent, rigorous and robust business case is completed and the community is given the opportunity to assess whether the promised ‘benefits’ stand up to scrutiny and this very considerable investment is warranted.

I’m open to persuasion if some airlines commit to a significant number of extra destinations due to an extended runway. But without that commitment, it is just corporate welfare and a “Build it and they will come” hope mentality.

Good to see a Councillor willing to show caution with this huge amount of money.

UPDATE: A response from Infratil that they posted to the wrong thread:

David Lee’s article in today’s Dominion Post and the commentary attached to quotes from the article in the whaleoil blog are a mixture of platitudes, inaccuracies and comments that can only cause concern about the writers’ credulity
Lets start with the inaccuracies.
At present the Airport and the City are jointly funding a review of the project. This will address the business case and seek consents.
Once this exercise is concluded the various parties that have been identified as potential capital providers (Airport, Council, Government) will be approached to provide the construction funding.
Does anyone in their right mind believe that sums like $300 million get invested without comprehensive due diligence and analysis?
As to how much funding will be sought from the likely providers, absolutely nothing has yet been identified. Initial construction cost estimates have arrived at $300 million, but this can only be provisional until consents are received and final design work completed. The Airport has indicated that it expects to contribute a sum to reflect the commercial value of the extra services/traffic generated by the extension. Amounts of $50-100 million have been mentioned as the likely range for this value, but until the business case is fully formed and modelled, no one knows. What is known now is that the figures and analysis will be public and transparent once they have been identified.
The assertion that the runway could be extended and then not used or only used to fly to somewhere obscure in China is counter to any logic. In the first place, there will be a substantial commercial investment in the project, an investment that could only pay off if the extension is actually used. Secondly all capital providers will have ample opportunity to reach their own conclusions on the “will they come?” issue. Third, perhaps the Councillor missed the presentation made last week on the topic of likely routes. The key point of the presentation from InterVistas (the world’s leading experts on airline route economics and demand) was that long-haul routes to Wellington will link Wellington to a hub; Singapore, KL, HK, LA, one of the Emirates. Another point in that presentation which seems to have been missed is that several routes appear viable to InterVistas.
Platitudes?
Such gems of insightfulness provided as comments on the Councillor’s article “Good to see a Councillor willing to show caution with this huge amount of money” Hello? Really? What matters for Wellington is the quality of governance and oversight provided by its councillors. Caution is not a virtue on its own. This project is complex and the final decision will be based on a lot of information and analysis. As a ratepayer I’m not looking for caution so much as diligence, analytical capability and judgement.
Credulity?
The article quotes at length representatives of the current airline users of the Airport who are opposed to its extension. Ask yourself, is their opposition to the extension (and their funding of opposition initiatives) based on their generous concern about Wellington or a desire to limit competition?
This project is a long long away from its final form. It can only happen if it gets the backing of private and public capital providers. This is uncommon in New Zealand and clearly there is plenty of discomfort with the prospect of “socialise costs, privatise profits”. But for Wellington what matters is that the right decision is made.
That means investing if the investment has a strong case that it will generate community wealth and not to invest otherwise.
But the worst decision that can be made is to not invest when the project would have generate community wealth.
Saying “no” can be as wrong as or worse than saying “yes”, it depends on the facts, and at present no one has those facts.

The order paper is here.

It is likely there will be a motion congratulating the All Blacks on winning the Rugby World Cup. Also new Green MP Marama Davidson will be sworn in today or tomorrow (her maiden speech is tomorrow).

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Immigration; if so, why?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received, if any, on the pressures facing the public health workforce?
4. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Science and Innovation:What reports has he received on growth in New Zealand’s technology sector?
5. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Finance: What specific steps will he take to minimise the economic effect from billions of dollars of bank profits being taken out of New Zealand by overseas-owned banks?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Is it correct that Treasury have advised him that they expect unemployment to rise above six percent in the coming months and that there will be “weak earnings growth over the rest of 2015”?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Associate Minister of Education: Is she happy with the process to find a contractor for the Northland College rebuild; if so, why?
8. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand’s education legislation?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf regarding Early Childhood Education that “this Government believes firmly that it is not only about funding; it is actually about quality and participation”?
10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Social Development: What initiatives has the Government implemented as part of the Children’s Action Plan?
11. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Who is responsible to this House for spending at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment?
12. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Conservation: What percentage of forest in Northland currently has multi-pest control operations by the Department of Conservation

National: Four questions on the economy, the technology sector, the Education Act and the Children’s Action Plan

Labour: Four questions on the public health workforce, unemployment, ECE and MBIE spending

Greens: Two questions on bank profits and pest control

NZ First: Two questions on confidence in Immigration Minister and Northland College rebuild

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

Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and Riccarton Racecourse Bill

These bills repeals the existing enactment relating to the Riccarton Racecourse, and re-enacts provisions with ongoing relevance, together with provisions necessary to enable 40 hectares of the racecourse to be developed for housing.

• Introduced October 2015

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are seven speeches remaining.

Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill – first reading

This bill clarifies the law relating to locating legal property boundaries on land affected by movement resulting from the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequences, and provides for guidelines to assist with boundary determinations in greater Christchurch and for more general use in future.

• Introduced October 2015

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill – second reading

This Bill introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 so that residential land (except a main home) sold within two years of acquisition is automatically deemed a capital gain and taxed.

• Introduced: August 2015
• 1st reading: September 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: October 2015, supported with amendments by the majority with minority reports from Labour, Greens and NZ First

The second reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

Extended Sitting for Government Bills 9.00 am to 1.00 pm (Wednesday)

Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill amends the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 to grant territorial authorities a limited power to create bylaws that allow shop trading on Easter Sunday, and enable shop workers to refuse work on Easter Sunday.

• Introduced October 2015

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

Radiation Safety Bill – second reading

The bill replaces the Radiation Protection Act 1965 to “provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological, scientific, and organisational changes that have occurred over the last 5 decades” and also enables “ratification of key relevant international instruments.”

• Introduced: December 2014
• 1st reading: March 2915, passed unanimously
• Select Committee report: August 2015, supported unanimously with amendments

The second reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

Stuart Nash blogged at The Daily Blog:

Let’s be clear about one thing: politics is about winning.  There is no such thing as a ‘glorious defeat’, leaders who lose are not, as some may believe, ‘martyrs to the cause’, and ‘coming second but maintaining our principles’ is a ludicrous proposition.

Opposition is a complete waste of time as the opportunity to achieve anything meaningful simply does not exist, while the winners get to implement a political, social and fiscal agenda that is usually a million miles away from the one we would have rolled out.  

In fact the week after I won Napier (the only seat won from the Nats in 2014), a friend of mine was speaking to a group of Labour supporters in Auckland; my name came up and my friend said ‘wasn’t it great Stuart won Napier back for Labour’, to which the Labour supporters replied: ‘no its dreadful.  Stuart winning means that Maryan Street doesn’t make it back’.   My friend was incredulous: so winning is now a sin in Labour.  I would like to believe that such thinking is in the minority.

It is true that if you win an electorate seat, you get one fewer list seat. However electorate seats are important. A party does better with the public when it has electorate MPs in touch with their communities. A party that has no electorate MPs outside the three major cities will struggle to win Government, and be seen as relevant. So Stuart is right that people in Labour should not be upset he won his seat.

We love to hate Whale Oil and yet we give him strength, purpose, relevance and breathe life into every pore of his existence time and time again by publicly throwing metaphorical mud at those with whom we are supposed to have a political affinity.  

Labour once had a blog for MPs called Red Alert, and the rumour around at the time was that Cameron Slater wanted this closed down.  Then I found out the opposite was true: it gave him some of his best material due to the occasional ill-disciplined MP.  

Red Alert was excellent for Labour for a couple of years, but it lost its way and yes in the end right wing bloggers were probably the people who most enjoyed reading it 🙂

Our supporters have the same impact when they squabble, bitch and back-stab on so-called ‘left-friendly’ sites like The Standard (a dreadful 21st century bastardisation of a once proud Labour broadsheet).  Criticising your favourite Labour MP is not the route to victory, no matter what you think of their philosophies, hair or politics.  

If you feel so aggrieved by something an MP has said, written or done, then email them personally and you are more likely to get a response and, just perhaps, an explanation.  But ill-disciplined rants typed from an anonymous keyboard will only provide Mr Slater and Mr Farrar with a wealth of information and powerful ammunition to fire back with twice the impact.  

So how do authors on The Standard respond to this request that you talk to Labour MPs, rather than attack them in public? Well with an attack on Stuart Nash of course!

Micky Savage writes at The Standard:

He then criticises the party because more than one Labour member apparently said that they preferred Maryan Street to Nash as an MP.  He concludes that some in the party think that winning is a sin.  Unfortunately for Stuart he does not understand that his vainglorious success in Napier probably hurt the party’s prospects.

Vainglorious?

Good on him for winning.  If you look at the 2011 and 2014 election results in Napier you will see that his proportion of the electorate vote barely changed but National’s plunged by 19% points because of an energetic campaign by the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s candidate Garth McVicar.  His success was directly due to McVicar’s presence but hey, in politics winning is all important.

This is simply untrue. Long before McVicar entered the race, Nash was seen as likely to win Napier. Why? He spent 18 months campaigning full-time for the seat. This is the work ethic decried by Mr Savage.

McVicar attracted voters from more than National supporters. And Nash picked up 13% of National party voters – because he developed broad appeal.

But the share of the party vote in Napier went down by 3.13% compared to the countrywide figure of 2.35%.  It is the ABC of proportional politics that winning electorate campaigns do not actually help, the level of the party vote like winning is the only thing that matters.

A candidate should also of course campaign for the party vote, and Nash did (unlike Cosgrove). But I am unsure you can say the 0.8% greater drop in party vote is because of the candidate. Also you need to look long-term. Having a Labour electorate MP in Napier, gives Labour a far better platform to lift their party vote next time.

The discussions that occurred on the Standard arguably affected the last two leadership campaign results.  David Cunliffe was the overwhelming favourite on this blog in 2013 and this was reflected in the result.

Yeah, and that worked so well, didn’t it.

Stuart Nash has responded to some of those attacking him in the comments. Some of his comments include:

• I don’t know of a Labour MP who does [read The Standard] (though no doubt there are some) because those I talk to tend to agree that this is a site mired in negativity and bile.
• This site doesn’t represent the moderate left voter – or the aspirational Kiwi who is looking for an alternative to the current government; but rather the embittered left dreaming of a socialist utopia that has never existed anywhere in time or place.
• I suspect that after tonight I won’t read this site for another 12 months. After all, why would I – it offers nothing I can’t get looking into a long drop in a DoC campsite.

Ouch.

Stuff reports:

Britnee Tapara is confident she can be a fearless and informed advocate when she calls for better mental health services for young people at the 2016 Youth Parliament.

Legally blind and an albino, the Chilton St James year 11 student has experienced bullying and depression herself but considers these hurdles have made her stronger.

“I have never let my vision defeat me. I like to think of it as playing the game of life on hard mode,” she said in her successful pitch to National list MP Chris Bishop to be his representative in the July event at the Beehive.

Tapara has a passion for programming, gaming, drawing, singing and technology. She says that when she got her first laptop, she made sure she could do anything she ever dreamed of in the comfort of her visual boundaries.

“I admit sometimes a lifelong disability is a hard pill to swallow at my age, but the lessons I have learned in my mere 16 years are many. The truth is, if given the option, I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I’m not sure how I would have coped (or would cope now) with such a serious disability, but very inspiring to see Britnee has not let it define her in terms of what she can’t do, but instead has faced challenges and already achieved a lot.

A keen horse rider, she is striving to compete in the Para-Equestrian Dressage event at the North Island championships in February. She said a few months ago that her horse Missy Amber Fudge “was the only reason that I got up each day”.

Depression and anxiety had left her at her lowest ebb, and she felt despair.

She told Hutt News she was fortunate that her parents could get her private health care, thus sidestepping public mental health waiting lists.

“But not everyone can do that.”

She intends arguing a case at the Youth Parliament for more Government investment in mental health services.

Bishop said all the applicants for the position would have made great youth MPs but Britnee was “an exceptional young person”. 

Her passion for a better mental health deal for young people “really spoke to me”.

“Our youth suicide rates are just scandalous.”

They are. The answer may not be spending more, as opposed to better services (it could be both). Many people are ashamed to say they struggle with mental health issues and/or depression, so it is inspiring to see Britnee so open about her challenges.

The Herald reports:

Even when President Barack Obama sent United States troops back to Iraq and ordered the military to stay in Afghanistan, he insisted Syria would remain off limits for American ground forces. Now he’s crossed his own red line.

Obama’s announcement on Saturday that he was deploying up to 50 US special operations troops into northern Syria to assist in the fight against Isis (Islamic State) is the kind of incremental move that has defined his second-term Mideast strategy.

So when will the Nobel Committee as for its Nobel Peace Prize back? Obama now has ground troops in three countries.

I think this shows the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Sometimes you have to go with the least worst option.

Stuff reports:

The police case against Rickey Caton started with a “roaaaar!” when he was forcibly arrested by two officers after jokingly producing a toy dinosaur during a roadside car stop.

But it ended with a whimper on Friday when a magistrate ordered the police force to pay more than $105,000 in legal costs after finding the matter should never have gone to court.

The police are facing even more financial pain over the ill-judged prosecution, with Mr Caton and his mate set to launch a claim for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for assault, wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.

“The [police] proceedings should not have been brought,” Magistrate Mark Douglass told Kiama Local Court on Friday, as an inspector from the police force’s Professional Standards Command looked on.

“The prosecutor failed to reasonably investigate relevant matters … which might have suggested that the accused was not guilty.”

The magistrate was referring to the evidence of the third officer present on the night of the arrests – Lucie Litchfield – who said that far from assaulting police as her colleagues had claimed, it was Mr Caton and his mates who had been the victims of aggression.

Ms Lichfield said that when police stopped Mr Caton and his mates in Queanbeyan in late December 2013 and asked if they had any weapons, the local father had cheekily pulled out the toy and declared “I’ve got a dinosaur – roaaaar!”.

She said one of the officers, Senior Constable Todd Finnegan, had subsequently forced Mr Caton from the car, pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him. Her other police colleague, Senior Constable Patrick Hicks, had then crash-tackled Mr Caton’s friend, Adam Antram into a retaining wall.

What an appalling over-reaction by Police, and good to see them lose big time in court.

Stuff reports:

Malcolm Turnbull has dumped Tony Abbott’s widely ridiculed policy of reinstating Knights and Dames, saying the titles are “not appropriate” in modern Australia.

The new Prime Minister announced he was dumping the titles nearly seven weeks after ousting Abbott from the top job.

In a statement, Turnbull said the decision was recently taken by cabinet and approved by the Queen.

“The cabinet recently considered the Order of Australia, in this its 40th anniversary year, and agreed that Knights and Dames are not appropriate in our modern honours system,” he said.

Turnbull said the change will not affect existing Knights and Dames, meaning Prince Philip will potentially be Australia’s last Knight.

Abbott’s March 2014 decision to reinstate Knights and Dames in Australia was one of his most notorious “captain’s picks”. 

I’m a republican but I actually like titular honours. Even if we become a Republic, I don’t think that means we need to ditch titular honours.

For me calling the (2nd to) top tier of honours recipients knights and dames is no different from calling top academics professor or top researchers doctor. When people achieve a certain level, they get a title to go with it.

So I see no need for NZ to change, just because Australia has. Indeed I look forward to Sir Richard McCaw and Sir Steve Hansen.

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.”

– Calvin Coolidge

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:

A central Wellington supermarket has been accused of being “willfully blind” to years of drunken violence in its car park after hours, including a 30-man brawl just weeks ago.

The car park at New World Wellington City, generally known as Chaffers New World, on Wakefield St has become such a hub for alcohol abuse, fights, theft and disorderly conduct after dark on weekends that police have dubbed it and Blair St “Wellington’s crime corridor”.

New World’s liquor licence is now under threat as a result. It sought a renewal from the Wellington District Licensing Committee on Friday but police raised serious questions about whether it should be granted.

Once the supermarket is closed, surely it is the responsibility of the Police to deal with crime in the carpark, and has nothing to do with the supermarket?

Police told the licensing committee that the majority of those at fault were “young” people either pre-loading before heading to bars in Wellington’s CBD, or side-loading between visits to pubs on Friday and Saturday nights.

In the 12 months since June 2014, the car park was the scene of 30 violence and disorder callouts, 18 alcohol-related harm callouts and 12 theft callouts, excluding shoplifting)

In the early hours of October 11, Police were called to quell a large fight involving up to 30 people.

Two Wellington police officers said they had been raising concerns about the car park since 2013 but their impression was that the store did not care what happened after closing, and was only prepared to do “the minimum” to address it.

Young people go to large open spaces – whether it be car parks or parks. Again why is the supermarket responsible for what happens when they are closed?

Wellington City New World director Gary Baker said he was only made aware of the car park issues in December 2014, and had been working with police to solve the problem since then.

Two extra security cameras had been installed in the car park, the lights were now left on overnight and security guards had been employed after hours.

Sounds responsible.

Chaining up the car park was problematic because some staff, like shelf-fillers and bakers, worked outside of trading hours and it could be dangerous if they had to park further away, Baker said.

The majority of alcohol being consumed in New World’s car park after hours was not purchased at the supermarket, although some of it was, police said.

So if most of the alcohol is purchased elsewhere, again why scapegoat New World?

The Telegraph reports:

Home Secretary Theresa May will announce the plans when she introduces the Government’s new surveillance bill in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

Rodney Hide writes in the Herald:

I’m afraid rate hikes seem a forever-thing. We keep voting for politicians who promise things and those things cost money which means higher rates. Rates will only come down if we elect politicians promising less, not more. That’s not been the case for years. The fault is with us.

Rates have not increased because of the Super City. Rates increased because the elected Councillors voted for lots of extra spending that needed a 10% rates increase to fund it.

The changes are all “under the hood”. We had eight councils trying to run Auckland. It was a nightmare. Roading projects were constantly stymied through political gamesmanship. Maintenance and repairs would go to a council boundary — and stop.

The major infrastructure works that Auckland needed couldn’t happen.

All that’s now different. It’s still not easy but with one mayor, one council, and one plan, the impossible has become possible and, indeed, is happening.

A big change is that central government can now talk to Auckland council and get answers. That previously was not possible. The failure of Auckland’s mayors and councils ever to agree meant nothing much happened.

Infrastructure development in Auckland was forever stalled.

Having one mayor and one council has made a huge difference for transport and other infrastructure developments but also for schools, policing, health care and, well, everything that central and local government does.

Not sexy but important.

The bylaws are now consistent across the city. That makes doing business across the region easier. It’s also fairer. There were 44 different water tariffs. Now there is one.

The service is better too. In ways you don’t necessarily notice but do care about.

I was shocked to discover most of the local water treatment plants were producing water that did not comply with the Ministry of Health’s standards. In Franklin alone, Watercare has now invested $116 million to transform the area’s water supply and to ensure a safe and reliable water supply.

Previously, much of Auckland’s water was not safe. Now it is.

These are changes well worth having. They are things you don’t notice when they work but you do when they don’t.

True.

Helen Clark had started the process with a Royal Commission of Inquiry that followed on from exasperation that the mayors of Auckland couldn’t agree on where to site a new stadium to be paid for entirely by taxpayers. The Commission reported and John Key agreed to establish one council as recommended.

Which Labour then opposed despite being their own Royal Commission!

Two areas need consideration in my view. There are too many local boards. Twenty-one is too many to service and for the council and CCOs to consult. I don’t know the right number but a rationalisation is in order. A bigger jurisdiction would make them less local but the advantage would be in their say counting for more.

The Maori Statutory Board is a mistake. It’s a recipe for division and poor governance. The people running government should be elected, or appointed by those who are.

Critical decisions can turn on the vote of Maori Statutory Board members who themselves aren’t democratically accountable. The members of the Board are appointed by a Mana Whenua selection body. That’s wrong.

Yep. It should go.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand has drafted a United Nations Security Council resolution that calls for Israel to stop building settlements in occupied territories and for the Palestinians to refrain from referring cases to the International Criminal Court.

The two-page draft also asks both sides to avoid provocative acts and not to question the “integrity or commitment of the other party or its leaders.”

Good to see the draft NZ resolution is relatively balanced and calls for restraint on both sides. Far too many UN resolutions only make demands on Israel.

The text was circulated this week to the 15-member council, Israel, the Palestinians and other countries in the region to gauge reaction. New Zealand UN Ambassador Gerard van Bohemen said the aim was “to try and get the council to speak with a united voice even if in a relatively modest way.”

“There’s been a worrying deterioration on the ground and we’re stuck with nothing happening in the peace process and no commitment in the council to do anything,” van Bohemen said. “We have to find a starting point and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

It isn’t a roadmap to peace, but a useful step forward.

The Herald reports:

A genetically modified organism has been approved for use in a clinical trial in New Zealand – the first GMO approved as a human medicine under a regime established in 1996.

The Greens will be appalled. They are against any use of GMOs in NZ. They even have had activists destroy test crops.  So what is the evil GMO designed to do?

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has approved the release of Pexa-Vec for a clinical trial for the treatment of a type of liver cancer.

Liver cancer is natural.We should not genetically modify organisms to fight it.

Pexa-Vec is a weakened virus that is based on a vaccine used in the eradication of smallpox.

The modified virus is injected into a cancer tumour in order to grow inside the rapidly growing cancer cells and kill them.

It kills cancer cells. Outrageous. Ban it.

SillaJen Biotherapeutics said in its application that Pexa-Vec was a promising therapy against liver cancer, with potential immediate benefits including tumour shrinkage, alleviation of symptoms, cancer remission and prolonged survival.

But it isn’t natural!

The use of GMOs is strongly opposed by some environmental groups and today’s decision will be controversial.

It shouldn’t be. It should be welcomed by everyone who is pro-science.

UPDATE: The James Shaw influence is having some impact. The Greens are just sceptical rather than hostile. NewstalkZB reported:

The Greens are calling for some independent evidence before giving a blessing to a GMO release that’s been approved for a medical clinical trial.

Green MP Steffan Browning said he’s cynical about the assurances the EPA has made about it being low risk, but he wouldn’t like to stand in the way of effective treatment for individuals and this looks like it has the potential for that.

“What I’m looking for is some robust analysis by some genuinely independent and capable scientists who add to the discourse that has been had at the EPA.”

Much more nuanced that in the past, which is good.

But the EPA is the independent body. I don’t see why you need a second independent body when you don’t like the conclusion of the first.

Some Richie McCaw stats:

• Only four other players in history have played as many international tests as Richie McCaw has international victories
• 132 All Blacks have debuted for NZ since McCaw did in 2001
• Only three of the 15 games McCaw has lost for the All Blacks were by double digit margin
• NZ Player of the Year  – 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012
• IRB Player of the Year – 2006, 2009, 2010
• NZ Sportsman of the Year – 2010, 2011
• 10 Bledisloe Cups
• 10 Tri Nations or Rugby Championships Cups
• Two World Cups

His playing record for the All Blacks:

• Argentina 10/10
• Australia 29/36
• British Lions 2/2
• Canada 2/2
• England 12/14
• Fiji 2/2
• France 12/13
• Georgia 1/1
• Ireland 14/14
• Italy 3/3
• Japan 1/1
• Namibia 1/1
• Romania 1/1
• Scotland 7/7
• Samoa 1/1
• South Africa 20/26
• Tonga 2/2
• Wales 11/11

Overall has won 131 of 148 test matches for a 89.2% success rate.

It is near impossible to declare someone the best rugby player of all time – how do you compare McCaw and Meads, when the game now is so different to the game then. Both are legends. But I think I can safely conclude he is at least the best player in my lifetime.

The Herald reports:

Fixed home loan rates are unlikely to fall much further regardless of what happens to the official cash rate brokers say.

The Reserve Bank left the official cash rate on hold at 2.75 per cent today pausing its rate cutting moves.

Since June the central bank has slashed the cash rate from 3.5 per cent.

Economists are picking there could be one more cut before the end of the year at the Reserve Bank’s December 10 briefing.

But mortgage brokers doubt interest rates will continue to fall below their current record breaking levels.

“I think interest rates are pretty much at their bottom,” said John Bolton, managing director at Auckland-based mortgage broker Squirrel.

Below are the average interest rates from the Reserve Bank data series.

Now the big drop was due to the GFC, but look how low they have stayed since.

And how much does this matter to a family with a mortgage? Well the median house price is $490,000.  Let’s say you have a 20% deposit so you borrow $400,000 on a standard 20 year term.

Here’s what you pay every week at different rates:

• 10% – $889
• 9% – $829
• 8% – $771
• 7% – $714
• 6% – $660

So if interest rates are 6% rather than 8%, then the family is paying $111 less interest a week, which is huge. That’s over $5,500 a year saved.

Credit Suisse has its annual report on wealth and wealth per capita.

The opposition would have you think NZ is a hellhole. But seems it isn’t too bad. Here’s the countries with wealth per capita of over US$100,000:

1. Switzerland $567,122
2. New Zealand $400,811
3. Australia $364,896
4. US $352,996
5. Iceland $351,037
6. Norway $321,352
7. UK $320,368
8. Sweden $311,353
9. Luxembourg $303,695
10. Singapore $296,408
11. France $262,070
12. Belgium $259,406
13. Denmark $251,634
14. Canada $248,276
15. Italy $203,577
16. Austria $196,092
17. Taiwan $194,701
18. Ireland $194,650
19. Japan $190,230
20. Netherlands $182,782
21. Germany $177,984
22. Hong Kong $173,685
23. Qatar $156,986
24. Israel $155,982
25. Finland $149,917
26. UAE $144,377
27. Kuwait $113,419
28. Spain $111,643
29. Malta $110,998

UPDATE: The data is disputed and we may only be US$252,000 which would 13th place (which is still very good).

The Herald editorial:

The young Muslim woman refused a job at an Auckland jewellers because of her hijab (headscarf) has been the subject of an important debate since her story appeared in the Weekend Herald last Saturday. Letters to the editor have questioned whether it is fair to expect a shop hiring counter staff to ignore a garment that may make some customers uncomfortable. They praised the Stewart Dawsons/Pascoes outlet for at least being honest with the woman.

Many employers might turn her down on a false pretext. But the James Pascoe group was quick to disown the decision. “This is by no means how we run our business,” said a spokesman. “We have employees who wear the hijab.”

I don’t think most people have any problem with the hijab. Criticising a Muslim woman for wearing a hijab is like criticising a nun for wearing a coif.

There may be a small set of jobs where a hijab would not be appropriate, as in a job where any headgear is banned – possibly for safety reasons. But these would be very few.

Those who are unsettled by Islamic women covering their head, and even their face in some cases, will need to get used to it.

Head yes, face no.

But tolerance does not preclude debate about the meaning and purpose of covering up in this way. Islam insists on the hijab (covering hair) but not the niqab covering all but the eyes, which some adherents choose to wear as part of the full body covering, the burqa. To Western minds it is profoundly sad that any women should want to cover their face in public or cover themselves completely, especially if their religion would otherwise blame them for arousing male interest.

I view the niqab very different to the hijab. Apart from the fact is is more a political than a religious requirement, it is an incredibly hostile garment as it means you can not make any sort of visual identification with a person wearing that – something that cuts to the core of most societies.

I find the niqab as anti-social as a balaclava.

One of them, British-born, Iranian-bred New Zealand citizen Donna Miles-Mojab, described the niqab in the Herald on Thursday as a rejection of “the objectification of women and manufactured views of beauty and liberty”.

There are many ways to reject manufactured views of beauty and objectification of women, without covering up every piece of skin except your eyes.

It is almost a signal that I don’t want any contact with anyone. If you were not sure of where you were going and wanted to ask someone directions, you wouldn’t ask someone in a niqab. You wouldn’t make casual conversation with them at say a bus stop. And it is almost beyond belief that someone wearing a niqab would ever get hired in a job, as almost all employers and employees value the norm of visual identification.

More seriously, they are a social barrier to others. We are not accustomed to people around us in public being hooded or masked and it is not easy to get used to. If we must, of course, we can. Tolerance will prevail.

We should tolerate it in the legal sense. Any NZers should have the right to wear what they want, within decency standards. But I don’t think we should shy away from making it clear that wearing a niqab in New Zealand is a socially unacceptable thing to do (even if legally acceptable) and that it is the equivalent of someone in a Middle Eastern country walking around in say cut off shorts and a t-shirt.

When we visit or live in other countries we respect the cultural norms around dress. If people choose to live in NZ it is my hope they will respect our cultural norms around dress – which is being able to have visual identification of people you interact with. It should not be a legal requirement, but to me it is a sign that someone doesn’t want to integrate into NZ society.

Western governments who have tried to discourage these dress codes have not achieved very much.

Tolerance is the only fair and sensible response and with it, immigrants are more likely to find the space and confidence to discard some encumbrances and embrace new ways.

We should have legal tolerance, but that is different from societal tolerance. And I am only talking about the niqab, not the hijab. So long as I can see someone’s face, I don’t care what else they’re wearing – overalls, a nun’s habit, a hijab or a dinner suit. But a society where a large number of people walking down street are showing their eyes only, is not one I want for New Zealand.