Derek Yach writes:

Over the last decade, a range of new reduced-risk nicotine products such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have appeared on the market. Millions of smokers have used them to successfully replace their regular cigarettes, reducing their risk of cancer, heart disease and lung disease. However, this positive trend is under attack by tobacco control leaders and physicians who fear that the new products will be as bad as cigarettes or who simply do not trust the tobacco companies that are creating some of these products.

I can understand their views. For decades I led tobacco control efforts, first in my native South Africa, then globally as a cabinet director at the World Health Organization (WHO).

Yach is a long-time anti-smoking activist.

The science in favor of e-cigarettes is maturing and the UK government’s evidence update today suggests that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to health than normal cigarettes, and earlier this month the Royal Society for Public Health issued a statement on nicotine being no more harmful to health than caffeine. Based on this evidence, it is time for public health groups in the U.S. to recommend that smokers who seek to quit should switch to e-cigarettes.

Meanwhile in NZ it is illegal to sell them, but legal to sell tobacco.

It is time to end the war on e-cigarettes and view them as the smoking cessation aid that they are. This cultural change begins with a smarter regulatory path. Policymakers need to adopt regulations that encourage smokers to shift to reduced-harm products such as e-cigarettes and tighten up on regulatory actions aimed at regular cigarettes.

Last week, we saw a glimpse of what those policies might look like. 3 leading health economists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine – Frank Chaloupka, David Sweanor, and Kennet Warner – called for tobacco excise taxes to be set proportionate to the harm the product causes. These 3 played a key role over the last 20 years in placing excise tax and pricing at the core of WHO, World Bank, and government actions taken to curb use. Having worked with them, I know that the world’s finance ministers take their voice seriously.

My view is that we need to build a significant gap between the actual prices of regular tobacco products versus reduced risk products, starting with an increase in tax on the former without favoring local brands (a practice followed in many developing countries) and by keeping the tax on reduced risk products very low for at least 2 decades or until they command 75% of total sales of nicotine products.

I blogged previously on NZ research that predicted we could make the 2025 smokefree (less than 5%) goal by continuing to increase the excise tax by 10% a year, and allowing e-cigarettes sales. I’d much prefer this to plain packaging, banning smoking in outdoor areas etc.

Nicola Young writes in the Dom Post:

In early 1974, Wellington City Council completed an exploratory tunnel for a second Mt Victoria road tunnel. As the workers emerged into the daylight, they were given cold beers by Mayor Frank Kitts who said Wellingtonians were “keeping our fingers crossed” that the new tunnel would be built soon.

The Ministry of Works’s official was less optimistic: he reckoned construction was years away. There has been little progress since then.

It may end up taking longer than Transmission Gully.

Wellingtonians expect their rates and taxes to deliver infrastructure that makes it quick to get to work and efficient to do business; instead, we’ve had decades of transport paralysis, where optimism has not been matched by action.

And last month saw a double whammy of transport setbacks in Wellington, with Wellington City Council voting for the heavily watered-down “marginally improved bus” scheme (little more than a few tarted-up bus lanes), and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Basin flyover appeal thrown out of court.

And there is no Plan B.

Top of the list is a replacement for our trolley buses, which are theoretically being retired in 22 months. The regional council’s latest suggestion is for double decker buses that can “kneel” to get through our tunnels, but these would be too heavy for our roads, which are the city council’s responsibility. These kneeling buses haven’t actually been designed yet – but never mind.

That isn’t a plan, or even a hope. More wishful thinking.

Also on the wing-and-a-prayer list is a replacement solution for the Basin flyover, with a tunnel ruled out by engineers as geologically complex and extortionately expensive. Sorting this out is important because real “bus rapid transit” is undeliverable with the Basin in its current state, as last week’s announcement from NZTA made clear.

No flyover, and no tunnel. So what is the plan?

Some of the areas where we have scored poorly are due to Celia Wade-Brown’s failures as Wellington’s mayor. “Quality of roads” is a particular weakness of our competitiveness ranking, yet in March the mayor made a tactical “no show” for the crucial vote on spending central government money to build the connector roads that will plug the Transmission Gully highway into our neighbouring cities.

We let down our regional partners, who consider the roads critical in addressing their transport problems, improving resilience and boosting their economies – an important point given that Wellington’s growth rates have been some of the lowest in New Zealand in the past decade. And we’ll need solidarity from our neighbours if the business case for extending our airport runway stacks up.

The larger problem is the maelstrom of transport agencies and elected bodies working against each other. “Voting for more information” is a favourite political delaying wheeze, but it’s something we’ve been doing for decades – and it has to stop if we’re to have a step-change in our roads, buses and trains.

New South Wales (population 7.6 million) and Auckland (1.4 million) have unitary transport authorities, while metropolitan Wellington (400,000) has a fudge of four territorial authorities, a regional council, NZTA and some input from KiwiRail.

We absolutely need a unified approach to regional transport.

A single transport authority would end the muddled thinking and procrastination, get people onto public transport, and help deliver the growth Wellington desperately needs. Not the false growth promised by the mayor’s pet projects like “Sealandia”, the Ocean Exploration Centre in Lyall Bay, butgrowth built on the ideas and energy of Wellingtonians able to travel around the city quickly and seamlessly. And this needs decisions – not crossed fingers and a hope that somehow we’ll muddle through.

I support there being a single transport authority for Wellington. And it may not even need legislation – just leadership from our local mayors and chair.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Why did he say on 29 July that core Crown health expenditure covers “most, but not all, inflationary pressures”, and why does he deny this shortfall is having an impact on patients?
3. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 36,076 colonoscopies were performed in the last financial year, a 12 percent increase on the year before?
4. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in kiwifruit exports?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Was she, as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage consulted during the flag design process, and is she satisfied with the outcome as one of the responsible Ministers?
8. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for Women: What reports has she received relating to the benefits of employing women in trades and construction for the Canterbury rebuild?
9. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Reserve Bank in light of today’s Official Cash Rate cut which has now reversed 75 points of the 100-point hike it made in 2014?
10. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What is the name of the tertiary education institution he referred to in his answer to Oral Question No 9 yesterday that had its focused review “elevated to a full review”, and what is the nature of the allegations that his officials are now investigating?
11. RIA BOND to the Minister of Communications: Does she stand by all her statements?
12. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by her statement, “We are doing everything we can to protect the Maui’s dolphin”?

National: Four questions on the economy, colonscopies, kiwfruit exports and female employment in Canterbury

Labour: Four questions on health spending, Minister of Finance standing by his statements, NZ Flag and tertiary education

Greens: Two questions on the Reserve Bank and Maui’s Dolphin

NZ First: Two questions on Labour and Commons Ministers standing by their statements

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill – third reading

This bill amends the Land Transfer Act 1952 and other acts to gather better information for tax compliance from dealings in land. It promotes the enforcement of tax obligations of offshore persons generally and is intended to give Inland Revenue greater assurance about the identity of the offshore person.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed 63 to 53 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• SC report: August 2015, supported with amendments by majority with a minority report from Labour
• 2nd reading: August 2015, passed 109 to 12, NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: September 2015

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

Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) – second reading continued

“The Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) modernises the Passports Act 1992 by extending the maximum validity period of the New Zealand passport from 5 years to 10 years for persons who are at least 16 years old and by taking into account certain changes in technology.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: August 2015, supported with amendments unanimously

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

Tariff (Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea) Amendment Bill – second reading

This Bill amends New Zealand law as part of the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea.

• Introduced: June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed 95 to 26 with Greens and NZ First opposed
• SC report: July 2015, supported unanimously without amendments

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

Stuff reports:

After plenty of big talk about changing the face of cycling in Wellington, the council has written a big cheque to match.

The Wellington City Council has agreed to spend $101 million on new cycle lanes across the capital over the next 20 years, with $30m being spent in the first three years to really get the programme going.

Wellington’s ‘Master Plan’ for cycling, which was approved by the council’s transport and urban development committee on Wednesday, identifies the CBD, eastern suburbs and the route between the railway station and Ngauranga as the first areas for development.

Cycling in Wellington at present is not massively different from playing Russian Roulette – albeit with slightly better odds.

Hutt Rd was the only real option for reaching Ngauranga, while Kent and Cambridge terraces, Tory St, Taranaki St, Victoria St, Cuba St, Karo Drive, Willis St and the waterfront would all feature in the CBD conversation, he said.

Please, please have the Hutt Road cycleway actually link all the way up to Petone, not stop 300 metres short as it currently does.

Looks a decent plan.

Stuff reports on the four new Apple products.

• iPhone 6s
• iPad Pro
• Apple TV update
• Apple Watch new apps

Based on that story, no need to rush out and get them. The iPhone 6 was a pretty big change from the iPhone 5s, and I got one. But the 6s seems to mainly be about extra features when you press instead of tap.

The feature I want is a battery that will last 24 hours of extensive use!

Stuff reports:

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson has described as “nuts” a theory that removing the Union Jack from the New Zealand flag will give the Government more power.

Despite that, Finlayson said that “in the world in which I live” the theory was “quite moderate”.

“I have people alleging that – old grandmothers write in and say that the GCSB is spying on them, and that the Romans and Phoenicians were here before the Maori, so in terms of insanity it’s only moderately nuts.”

I would have called it barking mad, but I guess in comparison to some of the other stuff, it is only moderately nuts. I think we should ask the AG to provide his full scale, with examples, ranging from reasonably plausible to certifiable.

According to the theory, removing the Union Jack from the flag would remove the “due authority” of the Crown in government matters, as the Union Jack represents the monarchy.  “It also means we take away the very power which enforces both the 1990 Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing NZ has to an entrenched Constitution) and the founding plank upon which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning,” reads one blog post.

Asked if removing the Union Jack from the flag would have any effect on New Zealand’s constitution, Finlayson replied: “Absolutely not. It would be a novel constitutional argument that the sovereignty of New Zealand was dependent on one corner of the New Zealand flag.”

How stupid do you have to be to actually think this?

The Southland Times reports:

How many Invercargill City Council staffers does it take to buy Christmas lights?

Three – and they have gone to China to purchase them at a cost of thousands of dollars to city ratepayers.

Council chief executive Richard King said four staff are visiting Invercargill’s sister city, Suqian, in China for six days, with three on the trip to purchase replacements for the aged Invercargill Christmas lights.

Graphic designer Colleen Montgomery is there to choose the lights and to make sure they look effective.

Roading manager Russell Pearson, the senior engineer in charge of the Invercargill CBD upgrade, is in China to ensure the chosen lights can be installed from an engineering point of view.

And council finance director Dean Johnston, who is leading the delegation and is experienced in doing business in China, will conduct negotiations over the lights.

This is so extravagant. At the most you need one person to go. Arguably none – just do it by phone and Internet. They’re buying some lights.

From the crackpot file:

New Zealand should take only women and children refugees from Syria and tell the men to return home and fight, NZ First leader Winston Peters says.

His brain seems even more disengaged than normal.

And who should they fight for – ISIL or Assad?

And as he seems to be stuck in a 1970s time warp, if he thinks only men can be soldiers. He should visit Israel at some stage.

Queen Elizabeth II becomes Queen of New Zealand in 1952, when she ascended to the British Throne.

Most of us were not of course even born then. So what was New Zealand like in 1952.

• Governor-General was Lord Freyberg, the commander of NZ forces in WWII
• Sidney Holland was Prime Minister and Minister of Finance – would be unthinkable today for someone to do both
• Walter Nash was Opposition Leader
• Sir Matthew Oram was Speaker, a WWI veteran who was MP for Manawatu
• The Mayor of Auckland was John Allum, an engineer
• The Mayor of Wellington was Robert Macalister, a lawyer
• The first feature film since WWII was produced, Broken Barrier – about a relationship between a Pākehā journalist, and a Māori woman
• Yvette Williams won our first female gold medal at the Olympics with a long jump of 6.24 metres. Today the record is 7.52 metres.

Well known New Zealanders born in 1952 include Sir John Walker, Dame Jenny Shipley, Warren Lees, Jeremy Coney, Tim Finn, Sandra Lee, Chris Knox, Graham Mourie, Sue Bradford, Tame Iti, Sukhi Turner and Marilyn Waring.

The Herald reports:

The future ownership of New Zealand’s biggest meat processor, Silver Fern Farms, is a matter for its farmer shareholders to determine, says Finance Minister Bill English.

Silver Fern is going through a capital raising process, which media reports have suggested will involve an investor from China – the company’s biggest market – spending up to $100 million on taking a stake in the company.

Any overseas investor would have to go through the Overseas Investment Act processes to get there, English said.

“But fundamentally that is a choice for the shareholders of the company. So the owners who are the farmer shareholders have had quite some time to look at the issue, various attempts to raise the capital.

“The New Zealand farmers who are shareholders have total control over that business now, and it is in their power to keep control over it, so we can’t really force them to own a business if they don’t want to own it.”

English said some of the company’s owners believed the business was a strategic asset and one that should remain in New Zealand hands, but for that to happen the necessary capital needed to be found.

“The real test is not whether people have an opinion, it is whether they are willing to put the money up.”

Separately, Labour leader Andrew Little said Silver Fern’s capital structure would be a matter for Silver Fern’s shareholders to decide.

“My position on foreign direct investment is that adding jobs, adding investment and creating new value for New Zealand – that’s a good thing. If it doesn’t achieve that, then it’s something that we should be concerned about.”

Good to see Little pulling Labour back from some of their previous hostility to foreign investment, and recognising it is a matter for shareholders.

This is in contrast to Winston who as far as I can tell wants the Government to nationalise the company.

The Herald reports:

Paid parental leave will be extended for eligible parents with pre-term babies, the Government has confirmed.

The move comes as Labour hopes to get the needed support for legislation which would extend paid parental leave for all parents to 26 weeks.

Today’s announcement that leave would be extended for parents with pre-term babies was previously signaled by Act leader David Seymour, who wanted the changes after he agreed to vote against a previous members bill in the name of Labour MP Sue Moroney.

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse said how much extra leave a parent received would depend on how premature their baby was.

“Under the changes, eligible parents of pre-term babies will be entitled to a longer period of parental leave payments than the standard 18 weeks (as at 1 April 2016), if the baby is born prior to 37 weeks of gestation (considered full term),” Mr Woodhouse said in a statement.

“They will receive additional weekly payments for each week the baby was born prior to the 37 week gestation period. For example, a mother who gives birth at 28 weeks would receive nine additional weekly payments, making it a total of 27 weeks of payment.”

The announcement is a win for the Act Party, after the Government agreed earlier this year to work with its leader David Seymour.

He wanted more support to be provided in situations of multiple birth, disability and pre-term births.

This has been smart politics from Seymour. In the past you expect ACT to be arguing against all spending on paid parental leave. Their image was very flinty and uncaring (even if economically sound).

Here ACT have argued for more support, but only in circumstances where a mother has been disadvantaged by events outside her control. So they are not arguing for more leave for all mothers – as you do choose to have a baby.

But arguing for more support when you deliver prematurely is sound policy, and good politics – a rare combination.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. JAMES SHAW to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Are New Zealand officials working to soften the climate change declaration to be adopted at the Pacific Islands Forum?
2. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Finance: How are household balance sheets supporting resilience in the New Zealand economy?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that a rising exchange rate “is a sign of confidence in New Zealand”?
4. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 98 percent of general practices across New Zealand are offering free visits for under-13-year-olds, covering 770,000 eligible children or 99 percent of all under-13s?
5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Why has the Government extracted more than half a billion dollars in dividends from Housing NZ when there are over 3,000 people on the waiting list, children dying in cold, damp homes, and a shortage of houses?
7. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on progress with construction on the Government‘s Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?
8. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister of Immigration: Does he agree with the manager of the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre, who said “We’ll make it work” when asked if they can accommodate the extra Syrian arrivals?
9. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How much funding have tertiary institutes been forced to repay to the Tertiary Education Commission in the past year as a result of overfunding, and does he still have confidence that the Tertiary Education Commission’s regular monitoring procedures are working?
10. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Communications: What recent announcements has she made on expanding Ultra-Fast Broadband to New Zealanders?
11. MARAMA FOX to the Minister for Social Development: What is she doing to investigate any concerns raised by families who are being denied access to their children in care because of Child, Youth and Family processes?
12. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he think it’s in the best interest of primary industries for a controlling interest to be potentially taken by foreign investors in New Zealand’s largest meat processing company, Silver Fern Farms?

National: Four questions on the economy, under 13 GP visits, Waikato Expressway, and ultra-fast broadband

Labour: Four questions on the exchange rate, Housing NZ, the Tertiary Education Commission and Silver Fern Farms

Greens: Two questions on climate change and refugees

NZ First: One question on Economic Development Minister Minister standing by his statement

Maori: One question on CYF

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

The general debate consist of 12 speeches of up to five minutes each for a maximum debate of one hour.

Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) – second reading continued

“The Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) modernises the Passports Act 1992 by extending the maximum validity period of the New Zealand passport from 5 years to 10 years for persons who are at least 16 years old and by taking into account certain changes in technology.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: August 2015, supported with amendments unanimously

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

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – first reading

The bill amends several statutes relating to taxation in order to facilitate easier communication with Inland Revenue, simplify tax rules and provide for the sharing of information.

• Introduced: June 2015

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

Environmental Reporting Bill – third reading

• Introduced February 2014
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 78 to 41 with Labour and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: March 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, minority views by Labour and Greens
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 61 to 60 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party opposed
• Committee of the whole House: June 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed

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

Stuff reports:

Palmerston North MP Iain Lees-Galloway thought the Government was pathetically clutching for good economic news – and was ejected from Parliament for saying so.

The Labour MP continued to interject, despite a warning from Speaker David Carter, when Transport Minister Simon Bridges started talking about airline Jetstar’s new regional routes.

“My interjections were along the lines that he has no ministerial responsibility for commercial decisions made by an Australian airline,” Labour MP Lees-Galloway said outside the chamber on Tuesday.

“I thought it was pretty pathetic of the Government to be clutching for good economic news for claiming some responsibility for the commercial decisions of an Australian airline.”

Of course the Government doesn’t have responsibility for what a company decides to do. But it is no more surprising that the Government highlights decisions that benefit consumers, just as the Opposition demand the Government is responsible when the decisions do not.

Here’s recent press releases from Labour MPs condemning decisions of airlines, and blaming the Government for them:

• Phil Twyford, Nov 2014
• Kelvin Davis, Nov 2014
• Ruth Dyson, Mar 2015
• Phil Twyford, Apr 2015
• Damien O’Connor, Nov 2014
• Clare Curran, Feb 2014

So maybe Iain Lees-Galloway should talk to colleagues about his belief that decisions by airlines have nothing to do with the Government.

The Herald reports:

Protesters occupying Kaitaia Airport have forced a flight carrying five specialist doctors to be cancelled this morning.

Activists moved onto land at the airport at about lunchtime yesterday, cancelling flights into and out of the Far North, in protest against a $100 million Treaty of Waitangi settlement due to be ratified today.

The latest flight cancelled was expected to land at 8.30am with five doctors on board from Whangarei – including one dentist and one pediatrician.

The Police have no choice but to remove the protesters, unless they agree to leave in the very near future.

There are some protests where the best thing is to ignore them, because all they’re doing is sitting on a roof at Parliament, or occupying a park.

But this is a protest which has closed a vital transport hub. Residents are going without specialist health care. It is the equivalent of blocking a road. It is preventing people from going about their jobs, and their travel.

The Police need to show the law applies to all.

And what are the local MPs saying or doing? Winston, Kelvin, Shane and Mark. Do you have nothing to say on the illegal occupation of a vital transport hub.

Stuff reports:

A Court of Appeal judge says the court has been given an “utterly impossible task” in the latest of the many Dotcom cases.

“We are not sure what we are going to do but we are going to do something,” Justice John Wild said, reserving the court’s decision at the end of Tuesday’s hearing.

The hearing to decide whether Kim Dotcom and three of his business associates are eligible to be extradited to the United States is scheduled to start in the District Court on September 21. It is the tenth time the extradition proceedings have been scheduled to be heard.

Grant Illingworth, QC, lawyer for two of Dotcom’s associates, told the Court of Appeal in Wellington on Tuesday the extradition fixture should again be postponed, until it could take place fairly. He said they were wanting “just a few months”.

Dotcom’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield, said all they wanted was time and fair resources to prepare for the hearing.

Yeah sure, just a few more months. And I guarantee you in three more months they’ll find another reason to seek a another delay.

They keep claiming they have not had enough time to prepare. Well think if all the time they spent on seeking delays in the case, they had spent on actually preparing for it!

Stuff reports:

A Waimate pensioner has lost most of her life savings after believing scammers who promised her a reward.

The woman, who declined to give her name, said on Monday she could not bear to tell anyone she knew how she lost over $27,000.

“I feel like such a fool.”

Scammers called her on August 21 at dinner time, purporting to offer a refund from the Inland Revenue Department for consistently paying tax on time.

“They said: ‘The Government is going to reward you’.”

That’s the point at which you should figure out it is a scam!

Professor David Williams of the Auckland University Law Faculty is giving a public address:

The Treaty of Waitangi – the Maori Magna Carta
Public address by Dr David V Williams, Professor of Law, University of Auckland
St Andrews on The Terrace, Wellington
7:30pm Sunday 13th September

The blurb is:

“This year is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. It is also the 175th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The notion of ‘British sovereignty’ as understood in 1840 (rather than as understood in later and in more recent times) was consistent with the continued application of tikanga and rangatiratanga for governance of the affairs of hapu, whilst the colonial administration exercised direct authority over settlers and foreign traders. In debates about the Treaty of Waitangi in the early 1840s there were numerous references by the Governor and his officers to that treaty as the ‘Maori Magna Carta.’ The address will discuss aspects of that history and then turn to contemporary issues.

“Magna Carta’s symbolic strengths cannot guarantee good defence counsel for those who are accused of crimes, nor can they ensure that justice is indeed done when juries announce verdicts of guilty. But without due process and other common law liberties, the potential for more frequent examples of arbitrary and unfair detentions and imprisonments would be hugely enhanced. Noting instances of justice and injustice in recent times, the address will conclude that due process common law traditions associated with the Magna Carta remain of enduring significance.” – Dr David Williams

I was unaware that at the time the Treaty was referred to as the Maori Magna Carta. Should be an interesting lecture.

The Telegraph reports:

In a move David Cameron said was “a new departure” for Britain, Reyaad Khan was last month assassinated in an RAF drone strike after security services uncovered his bid to stage a terror attack in the UK.

The Herald reports:

The author of the first book to be banned in New Zealand for at least 22 years is asking: “Will I be burnt next?”

Don’t get hysterical and silly. And it isn’t banned as much as suspended – there is a difference.

His award-winning book for teenagers, Into The River, has been banned from sale or supply under the order issued by the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Dr Don Mathieson, QC.

The order took effect when it was issued on September 3 and applies until the full board meets to decide on a permanent classification for the book. Dr Mathieson said that would be as soon as possible and “may very well be at the end of this month”.

And why has this come about?

Mr Dawe said he was “blindsided” by the ban, which was sought by lobby group Family First after deputy chief censor Nic McCully removed a previous R14 restriction on the book on August 14, making it totally unrestricted.

“It’s extraordinary,” Mr Dawe said. “I’ve had quite a few emails from people who share that sense of outrage. Do we live in a country where books get banned? I’ll get burnt next.”

He said Family First director Bob McCoskrie and Dr Mathieson, who wrote a dissenting view advocating an R18 restriction when the majority of the board rated the book R14 in 2013, were overstepping the rules of a democratic society.

“Those two individuals are united in their determination to establish this as a line that will not be crossed. I feel they have wildly overstepped the whole mechanism of looking at art and making judgments on it,” he said.

First of all this controversy will be great for the book. They should be thankful. It will go from being an obscure book to a best seller now.

As for the substance, what puzzles me is that the Deputy Chief Censor seemingly can over-rule the Board of Review. The timeline seems to be:

• Censor’s Office classified it as M, unrestricted
• An appeal to the Board of Review saw it rated R14, with the President wanting R18
• Deputy Chief Censor over-turns the R14 and reclassifies it as M
• Board of Review President bans it temporarily until the Board can classify it again

What amazes me is the Deputy Chief Censor can over-turn the Board of Review. Surely this is ridiculous? And even if they have the power, why would you do that? I’m surprised that media haven’t been asking questions about this. There seems to be a power struggle here.

Don’t think this means I think it should be classified R14 or R18. I haven’t read it so can’t say, but instinctively I am anti-censorship and am highly unlikely to think it should be restricted.

But having the Deputy Chief Censor able to ignore the Board of Review just seems barmy. I presume it is legal, but if so it seems idiotic. The whole purpose of a review or appeal board is that they are superior and binding.

UPDATE: Graeme Edgeler has a useful backgrounder on this. He notes:

This wasn’t all that long ago, so I was pretty surprised at news of the reclassification by the Censor. The Censor gets to make decisions, but these can be reviewed by the Film and Literature Board of Review, which gets to make (subject to High Court review) the final decision. As with all classification decisions, the Censor can revisit them after a time (it does so occasionally when asked, notably in respect of books banned years ago. In 2012, after the book ‘Bloody Mama’ (banned in 1971), was seized at the border, the Censor looked at it again, and reclassified it as unrestricted), but the general rule is that decisions stand for at least three years.

It’s been less than three years since that R14 decision of the Board of Review, so the Censor needed to be “satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying reconsideration”.

I can understand reviewing a classification 40 years on. But having a lower body overturn the decision of the higher body after just three years seems wrong to me.

What would be preferable is that if the censor felt the classification needs to change, is they should ask the Review Board to review its decisions. Basically if a decision has been made by the Review Board, then only the Review Board can change it. If that happened, then no suspension would be needed, as the consequence of a turf war.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s deployment of troops to train the Iraq Army continues to have strong public support, says the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey.

In the poll, 59 per cent of respondents said they supported the deployment of 121 troops to train Iraqi soldiers in the fight against Islamic State – up from 57 per cent in May. Just over one-third said they did not agree with it – the same level as in May soon after the troops arrived in Taji.

So almost 2:1 in favour.

Labour leader Andrew Little said Labour stuck by its decision to oppose sending the training troops, saying New Zealand’s efforts were better spent on humanitarian efforts.

Labour’s policy is to do nothing to actually defeat ISIL, just to take in the refugees who are fleeing from them!

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Why did he say “Plan A is a good plan” given the state of regional economies?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to this House in June of this year that “The Government still has an open mind on that quota number”?
3. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received highlighting the resilience of the New Zealand economy?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement on 29 July that core Crown health expenditure covers “most, but not all, inflationary pressures”; and what impact has this shortfall had on patients?
5. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What new investment is the Government making in “high quality” research?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: When did Treasury first advise him that economic conditions were starting to mirror the downside scenario in his 2015 Budget?
8. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that over half a million patients received a First Specialist Assessment in the last financial year, an increase of 26 percent on the number performed in 2008/09?
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Why did he say that the building materials industry “needs a shake-up through increased competition and greater transparency to ensure Kiwi families can get access to more fairly priced building materials and homes”?
11. STEFFAN BROWNING to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will the Government provide compensation to farmers whose cows fell ill or died from eating herbicide-tolerant swedes?
12. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he seen on increased competition in the aviation industry that supports regional New Zealand?

National: Four questions on the economy, research, surgical assessments and aviation competition

Labour: Four questions on regional economies, health spending, the economy and the building industry

Greens: Two questions on refugees and cows eating herbicide-tolerant swedes

NZ First: Two questions on Economic Development Minister and Maori Development Ministers standing by their statements

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

Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill – second reading

This bill amends the Land Transfer Act 1952 and other acts to gather better information for tax compliance from dealings in land. It promotes the enforcement of tax obligations of offshore persons generally and is intended to give Inland Revenue greater assurance about the identity of the offshore person.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed 63 to 53 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• SC report: August 2015, supported with amendments by majority with a minority report from Labour

The second 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 – first reading continued

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

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are 11 speeches remaining

Employment Standards Legislation Bill – first reading

This bill promotes fairer and more productive workplaces by providing enhanced protections and benefits for both employers and employees through a number of improvements to the employment relations–employment standards legislative framework.

• Introduced: August 2015

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

Extended Sitting 9.00 am (Wed) to 1.00 pm

Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Bill – committee stage and third reading

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement entered into by the Crown and Te Kawerau a Maki on 22 February 2014 for the final settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Kawerau a Maki.

• Introduced April 2014
• 1st reading: November 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: May 2015, supported as amended without dissent
• 2nd reading: June 2015, passed unanimously

There is not expected to be lengthy debate at the committee stage. There is one SOP from the Minister.

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

Te Hiku Claims Settlement Bill – committee stage and third reading

This bill gives effect  to the deeds of settlement in which the Crown and Ngati Kuri, Te Aupouri, NgaiTakoto, and Te Rarawa agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of those iwi.

• Introduced April 2014
• 1st reading: November 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: May 2015, supported as amended without dissent
• 2nd reading: June 2015, passed unanimously

There is not expected to be lengthy debate at the committee stage. There are two SOPs from the Minister.

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

Stuff reports:

Karl du Fresne suggests the Care of Children Act 2004, which allows pregnant teens to seek abortion without notifying their parents, be changed to enforce parental notification.

He calls it a “modest request” (Politicians will run a mile, but our abortion laws encourage deceit, September 4).

It isn’t remotely modest. First, at age 15 and under, there is no practical difference between parental notification and parental consent, because parents have a high degree of physical control over their under-16s. This means parents could force their teens to become mothers. This has happened in the United States.

I don’t accept that assertion. It relies on several improbable things such as the parents being of such strong views that they would force their daughter into keeping the child, but also that they would basically keep her confined at home for several months. How likely is this? A couple of cases from the US is not proof that this would be at all common.

Also you could have notification after the event, not before.

Second, the law change is unnecessary because the vast majority of pregnant teens tell their parents. All counseling bodies involved with teens encourage it. The teens who don’t tell fall into two categories: those who fear physical and mental abuse, and those who are ashamed of disappointing their parents.

If the law is changed the first group will suffer harm, assault, homelessness, and even death so that the second group can enjoy the benefit of being forced to acknowledge their parents still love them. The benefit does not outweigh the harm.

What are the relative numbers in each category? How many would be abused by their parents? And couldn’t you have an exception for those who fear abuse? The author may have a point but nowhere does he actually try and measure the size of each group or the probability of benefit or harm.