Stuff reports:

Former Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore is spearheading a group calling for a city council-led earthquake recovery.

Moore, a long-term mayor before Sir Bob Parker, and architectural designer Barnaby Bennett are among the founders of the Option 3+ group, which has attracted 649 members on Facebook within two weeks of its creation.

Moore said the group was about “capturing our city back” from “Wellington’s hands”.

I’m all for that, if it means they also no longer want Wellington’s money.

Karl du Fresne writes:

Central to the case, it seems to me, is whether Hager is entitled to call himself an investigative journalist.

That’s apparently how he prefers to be described, and most of the media oblige him by using that term. The court heard that the Crown accepts he is a journalist.

This ishelpful for his image because the word “journalist” conveys a sense of professional impartiality.

But to my knowledge Hager has never worked as a journalist in the commonly understood sense of the word, and I resent him appropriating the description.

Journalists follow certain rules. They are expected to approach issues with an open mind and to report them in a balanced and objective way.

(Some people dismiss objectivity as unattainable, but in fact it’s a wise and perfectly workable principle that has underpinned mainstream journalism for decades.)

Ideally, if not always in practice, journalists are expected to maintain a certain detachment. Where there’s another side to a story, they are expected to report it.

I think that last part is key. Journalists are meant to tell both sides of a story.

Everything he does is calculated to challenge and undermine what we loosely call “the establishment”.

Sure, he uses journalistic skills, and uses them very well. He could show journalists a few things about digging beneath the surface and uncovering information that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden.

But that’s partly a reflection of his motivation, which is that of a doggedly determined Leftist crusader.

What he does is entirely legitimate and even praiseworthy in an open democracy, providing it’s done lawfully.

Hager’s books make an important contribution to informed debate and help voters make decisions on important issues, such as state surveillance and honesty in government.

But does that make him a journalist? I don’t believe so.

He was more accurately described in police documents as a political author.

You could also call him an activist (which he apparently dislikes), a campaigner, an annoying pebble in the shoe of the establishment – but not a journalist.

I think author is the best description.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand families have the third-highest material living standard in the world, a local study has found.

Researchers at public policy research institute Motu used data from 800,000 households across 40 countries to create the new measure for wellbeing, which took into account homes that included a 15-year-old.

The measure is based on ownership of possessions such as books, internet connections, whiteware and cars, as well as the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in a house.

These are measures that actually matter to families – far more than whether the guy down the road has an even better car.

The top 10 are:

1. USA
2. Canada
3. NZ
4. Australia
5. Liechenstein
6. Luxembourg
7. Ireland
8. Norway
9. Sweden
10. Italy

They did look at inequality also. NZ was in 20th out of 40 countries.

Motu senior fellow Dr Arthur Grimes said the results should call into question the widespread negative impression of living standards in New Zealand compared with other developed countries.

“Our results show New Zealand is still a great place to bring up children, at least in material terms.

“Not only do we have wonderful natural amenities, but contrary to what GDP statistics tell us, most Kiwi families have a high standard of material wellbeing relative to our international peers.”

A great place to live in, NZ is.

“A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims, by his spending giving a boost to retail trade, would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it unfortunately carries more conviction.”

– Murray Rothbard

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.

A guest post by David Garrett:

All New Zealand jails are bad…apparently

The headline on Monday said “Jails bad. Full stop”. The story beneath revealed that – surprise surprise –  serious incidents occur  in  all  the country’s jails, both state and privately run. Even union boss Beven Hanlon, who usually repeats a “state prisons good, private prisons bad” mantra ad nauseum, was quoted as saying state run prisons were just as bad as privately run  ones. What is the problem?

First the basics. To get sent to prison in New Zealand you generally  need to be a really bad bastard. Those sent to prison have, on average, appeared in court eleven times,  before finally being sent to jail. That is eleven court appearances, not eleven charges. At each appearance, a criminal might be facing a number of charges. By the time prison is the sentence, all the other non custodial alternatives have been tried.

Prison inmates are, by and large, there for serious or repeated violence, class A drug dealing or manufacture, or sexual offences against both  other adults and children. Although people like Kim Workman imply inmates are largely poor unfortunates who had a bad day when they committed the offence(s) for which they are arrested and  jailed, this is nonsense. Anyone  who has any experience of our prisons – particularly the members of  Mr Hanlon’s union – will tell you so.

So, a group of violent dangerous men all grouped together without much to do;  places where ongoing problems and violence are just the way it is? Well, actually, no. I have been inside prisons in both New Zealand and the United States. The atmosphere in United States  prisons  could not be more different from those  in New Zealand.

In 2007 Garth McVicar, Stephen Franks and I made a study tour of  the US to learn more about three strikes laws – especially how to avoid the well publicised injustices which the early version of three strikes gave rise to in California. We also visited prisons and spoke to both prisoner lobby groups, public defenders, and probation officers. We learned a great deal.

In Arizona we visited both ordinary prisons and the famous tent jails for which Sheriff Joe Arpaio is so well known. The very first thing we noticed was how well behaved the prisoners were. Some of the guards  were middle aged women. None of the guards were armed. Prisoners obediently and quickly complied when one no nonsense lady ordered them to “stand up straight behind the line”. When ordered to move they moved. No-one answered back. No prisoner said anything. Talking wasn’t allowed.

At the tent jail we visited it was lunchtime.  For lunch the prisoners were  all in a large airconditioned  mess hall – about 200 of them. Our group was shown through by one  unarmed guard.  The men had the kind of faces and body language one sees in jails here. But the atmosphere was entirely different.

One or two of the prisoners shouted out derogatory remarks about the food they were getting. On the spur of the moment I decided to share lunch with them – a filled roll, a pot of yogurt and a piece of fruit – rather than the lunch laid on for us. As the men moved closer to our small group – and our lone guard – I instantly regretted my decision. I asked if we had anything to fear (whether we did or not I was already frightened). Our guard said “Oh no…they’ll move back if I ask them to”. And he did, very softly. And they did.

My first thought was this behaviour must be obtained through intimidation and violence. We asked if we could speak to the prisoners one on one, and speak to whoever we wished to. Our hosts readily agreed, and so we did. I remember stifling guffaws as one tattooed middle aged female  inmate told an earnest young journalist accompanying us that this was her first time in prison.

We were not told of any  violence by the guards, although many inmates complained that the rules were “ real strict man”. They moaned about the food, and of course about the oppressive heat in the cell blocks which were not airconditioned. What is not well known is that inmates volunteer for Sheriff Joe’s famous chain gangs, and being sent to tent jail is a privilege to be earned. Five minutes inside the blocks and you understand why.

Since that visit I have become aware of various claims of wrongful death in Arizona prisons. No doubt those commenting on this piece will post links to such stories with alacrity. It goes without saying that no-one should be killed in jail.

Some years after the US trip I found myself an MP, and made it my business to visit as many New Zealand prisons as I could. The atmosphere was starkly different from those in Arizona and California. There is an air of barely suppressed violence in every one. Most notably, the prisoners are visibly contemptuous of their guards. They know  the guards can do very little to them. The prisoners can no longer be put in solitary confinement or fed bread and water  for disciplinary infractions. No extra time can be imposed. Parole Boards no longer hear evidence  from those who have been in charge of the freshly scrubbed and shaved inmate appearing before them meekly claiming to be ready for release.

One short visit to a few US jails doesn’t make me an expert on prison management.  However one would have to deaf dumb and blind not to see the glaring differences between their prisons and ours. How do they do it? Would their methods be acceptable here? Would their methods be culturally transferable? I don’t know. What I do  know is I felt a damn sight safer in the company of one guard in Arizona than I did with half a dozen prison officers tagging along in New Zealand.

When even Beven Hanlon is saying public prisons are just as bad as the private ones, it’s time to take very hard look at how we are managing our prisons and our prisoners. It’s time to take some lessons from overseas, learn from them,   and where appropriate  adopt them here. Just as we did with three strikes.

The Herald reports:

Inland Revenue Department staff are being hauled before their manager if they have even one day off ill, as the tax agency grapples with its high level of sick leave.

The meetings, dubbed “welcome back conversations”, are part of a new initiative – Supporting Positive Attendance – introduced after the IRD noticed skyrocketing rates of staff taking sickies.

After starting the project two years ago, it had gone from second worst to third worst department in the public sector. The tactics have raised the eyebrows not only of staff, but also of an employment expert who says the department is dancing close to the edge when it comes to obligations under the Holidays Act and possibly the Privacy Act.

But the IRD is standing by its policy and says the initiative has saved taxpayers $6 million in two years.

A spokesman said that since the project was rolled out over 2013/14, average sick leave taken each year had reduced by nearly two days a person.

What I find interesting is the huge differences in average sick leave per employee by agency. You have:

• MSD 10.5
• TPK 9.7
• IRD 9.1
• Customs 8.3
• Stats 7.9
• SFO 4.7
• MFAt 4.3
• Treasury 3.8
• DPMC 2.9
• Defence 2.6

Now you can understand MSD and IRD being higher because many of their staff will be call centres.

But why would staffers at Stats NZ have twice as much sick leave as those at Treasury?

Stuff reports:

Doctors and nurses are playing increasing roles in prescribing, supplying or administering drugs that may hasten a patient’s death, according to new research.

A University of Auckland study anonymously surveyed 650 GPs.

Sixteen reported prescribing, supplying or administering a drug with the explicit intention of bringing death about more quickly.

But in 15 of those cases, it was nurses who administered the drugs. 

Researchers acknowledged the actions of the GPs would generally be understood as euthanasia, but the survey did not use that term. 

In the survey, led by Auckland University senior lecturer Dr Phillipa Malpas, GPs were asked about the last death at which they were the attending doctor.

Of the 650 to respond, 359 (65.6 per cent) reported that they had made decisions, such as withdrawing treatment or alleviating pain, taking into account the probability that they may hasten death.

Some made explicit decisions about hastening death.

Of the 359, 16.2 per cent withheld treatments with the “explicit purpose of not prolonging life or hastening the end of life”.

So euthanasia is already quite widespread – but with no legal protections for patients. If we legalise euthanasia, then we put in place a legal process where we can be sure any actions taken are with the consent of the patient, and is necessary tostop their suffering.

Stuart Middleton from MIT writes:

The New Zealand Herald is right to call for more enrolments in trades academies. Yet to protect teacher management jobs from funding cuts, the NZ Post Primary Teacher’s Association (PPTA) recently advised against secondary schools enrolling numbers of students in trades academies.

The argument put forward by the PPTA is that they will lose funding for the one day per week that the student attends trades training.

Cutting the number of students able to access trades academies would dramatically disadvantage those students – particularly those in low decile areas. Trades academies are proven to keep students in education longer and to improve their employment outcomes.

That’s the important outcome.

South Auckland has experienced real success with these initiatives. As an example, the MIT Tertiary High School (introduced in 2010) has produced fantastic results for students who weren’t achieving in mainstream schools – its NCEA pass rate is comparable to decile 10 schools, and students are learning skills which will prepare them for real jobs in the future.

Early access to vocational and technical programmes is the key.

Importantly, the students’ results improved in their other subjects, not just the trades. Research, including a study undertaken by the MIT Centre for Studies in Multiple Pathways, shows that students learning in trades academies perform much better across all of their schooling.

Excellent.

The issue for the PPTA is that this training is best undertaken by the tertiary sector. It is cynical to deny students these opportunities simply because it would decrease a school’s funding. It is perverse that a higher premium is placed on a relatively small amount of staffing, than on the success that trades training can deliver to students.

We will only get different results by working differently. The PPTA needs to work with the opportunities, instead of resisting them. Mixing conventional school subjects with trades training is a winning combination and the only way that New Zealand will achieve excellence in both achievement and equitable outcomes across our communities.

By withdrawing students from trades training, the disadvantage for many students will far outweigh the funding advantage to a few adults.

Well said.

A reader writes in:

A bit of feedback for you, and if you choose to publish, I hope will send a bit of a message from a platform that has been an advocate.

Bride and I have adopted Uber and loved the app, the service and the convenience. We also loved the price (typically not overly price sensitive – but it was a distinct bonus). However, last nights experience was not so good and had an element of biting the hand that feeds.

We were traveling from Khandallah to Newtown for a party leaving at 6.30pm. Clocked on the app to be told that there was a ‘surge rate of 1.5x normal rate’ to encourage more Uber drivers onto the road. We swallowed the dead rat and booked. $56 to Newtown (with a driver who bad mouthed other cab companies from start to finish – chatty guy and nice enough, but not classy or my preferred backtrack en route).

Leaving party went to book via app, ‘surge rate 2x normal fare applies’. Bollocks to that. Called Wgtn Combined, cab there within 15 and happy to text on arrival as was p!ss!ng cold and we were down a driveway. That same journey was $43 (and blissfully quiet!).

I know you have been a vocal advocate of Uber and market driven demand, I though I might whore your platform to fire a shot across their bows and warn them against premature complacency.

I recently had a 2x surge rate also, but that was from Wellington Airport at 1.30 am in the morning. Normally when prices get that high, I’ll choose a taxi instead. However there were none there, and around 30 people in a queue waiting for one.

So I had a choice of paying a higher rate for a guaranteed ride in ten minutes, or spending an indefinite amount of time queuing for taxis. I went for the Uber.

So yes I am a fan of Uber, but also not an uncritical one. My main frustrations to date are:

• Not enough drivers in Wellington. Often have a fair wait for a driver
• The estimated times for a pick up are often on the low side – ie they say six minutes and it takes ten
• Surge pricing does occur fairly often

But overall still very happy with them.

Salient reports:

Chris Fowlie is the head of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and he really doesn’t like the way the police enforce the Misuse of Drugs Act. In a recent post on The Daily Blog, he argued that the authorities maliciously target harmless dope smokers, causing them far more harm than a joint ever could.

The statistics he cites appear to back up his argument: since 1994 there have been nearly half a million drug arrests, accounting for 11 per cent of all recorded crime. 85 per cent of the arrests were for cannabis, and 87 per cent of those were for personal amounts. On average, that equates to the police arresting 15,800 users a year for possession of personal amounts of pot. That’s 43 a day, or one every 33 minutes.

Fowlie says these statistics “are illustrative of how drug policing in New Zealand has gone off the rails”. But actually, the opposite is true: a closer look at the data shows that in fact there has been a huge decline in police arrests for possession and use over time. In averaging out arrests over two decades, Fowlie focusses on the noise and misses the signal.

You can see the trend above.

In the period between 1994 and 2014, annual recorded offences for possession of all illicit drugs halved. Offences for cannabis possession specifically did likewise. More interestingly, recorded offences for using illicit drugs fell from 1,307 down to 260, which was largely driven by 1,046 fewer cannabis use offences. The Police prosecute significantly fewer people for possession and use of drugs than they did two decades ago.

And this has occurred at a time when Ministry of Health figures suggest that the prevalence of drugs in New Zealand has remained stable and, particularly in the case of cannabis, relatively high. The data shows that 42 per cent of Kiwis aged 15 and over have smoked pot at some point in their lives, and 11 per cent have smoked pot in the past year. That’s 397,000 past-year tokers. The same survey showed that only two per cent of past year cannabis smokers reported experiencing legal problems as a result of their use.

So why have arrests halved if use has remained the same? There’s a simple answer: the Police are decriminalising cannabis in New Zealand.

I wouldn’t go that far. I would say that the Police are sensibly prioritising crimes that actually have victims.

Another explanation for the decline is that there has been a wider shift in the way that police approach low-level criminal offending. Wilkins says that “it would be a mistake to say it is a change that is specific to drugs. It reflects a wider change in police philosophy.” He believes the trend extends to other low-level crime, such as petty theft, and says the decline in arrests is a case of better allocation of police resources. “There’s a desire to be more effective and efficient, so that means reprioritising low-level offending.”

This is supported by the data. At the same time as possession and use charges for cannabis have come down, the number of manufacture and import charges have increased. The last 20 years have also seen the rise of meth, which Wilkins says has taken up more policing resources.

“If you’re a policeman and you have two markets—meth and cannabis—you have to ask yourself, ‘which is the best use of my time?’”

And I’m for prioritising meth over cannabis.

Encouragingly, Police Commissioner Mike Bush agrees that alternative approaches to prosecution can lead to better outcomes for users. Last month he heaped praise on Auckland Constable Scott Wolfe, “whose empathy for a methamphetamine addict helped turn her life around”.

In a post on his “Commissioner’s Blog”, Bush explained that Constable Wolfe “arrested the woman for possession of a cannabis pipe and, recognising the signs of methamphetamine use, discovered she had a heavy addiction and was living in a car”. Instead of prosecuting the woman through the traditional court system, Constable Wolfe referred her instead to Te Kooti o Timatanga Hou—The New Beginnings Court, which is focussed on homeless and disadvantaged people.

“She’s now in rehabilitation, has reconnected with her child and made huge improvements in her life,” said the Commissioner. “This is a superb example of the difference we can all make by showing a little understanding and using our initiative.” Indeed.

Yep, a good call.

Yes, there is. Professor Mark Bennett, a lecturer at Victoria University’s Law School, says that “if a certain offence will not be followed up on and there is little danger of detection and/or prosecution, there are questions around the legitimacy of this from both a rule of law and democratic perspective.”

The police can’t just decide to stop enforcing the laws of the land without there being repercussions. Dr. Dean Knight, another law lecturer at Victoria, says that one of the roles of the police is to follow the democratic will of the people and enforce the laws they voted for. “The Police probably shouldn’t effectively repudiate laws through non-enforcement,” he says.

We might think it’s fine for the Police to decriminalise pot, but what happens if one day they decided to stop prosecuting theft, say? Or assault? Or corruption? This is particularly concerning given the fact that the public is largely unaware of changes in police policy.

We already have this with electoral offences. Over many years the Police have shown no inclination to prosecute electoral law breaches.

But there is always going to be a degree of Police discretion over how actively they enforce some laws. Otherwise they’d be arresting jaywalkers or the like.

By John Stringer

www.coNZervative.wordpress.com

Martin Freeman is brilliant as Lester Nygaard in the 2014 SOHO TV series FARGO spin-off of the 1996 film.

What does one watch after Breaking Bad?  Can anything be as good?  Is life doomed as half-baked forever afterward as you wait for the next season of GoT or The Walking Dead?

There’s Season 2 of True Detective (starring a surprisingly different-looking Rachel McAdams of The Notebook) or Season 2 of Ray Donovan. Both are great, but neither quite cut the blue crystal meth. When the rellies were over from Perth recently, I forced everyone to watch FARGO (1996), because you’re not truly human till you’ve watched FARGO, don’cha know.

The classic and now iconic, Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) FARGO 1996.

FARGO was that supremely awesome 1996 genre-breaking neo-noir black comedy crime thriller set in Minnesota and North Dakota near the Canadian border and based on real events.  One of the key characters is dialect.

The Coen brothers are such excellent film makers.  In 2006, the film was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the Library of Congress and inducted into the US National Film Registry for preservation. Has won heaps of awards.

It starred that surprise find Frances McDormand (above) as Marge (‘Margy’) Gunderson, a heavily pregnant local Minnesota police chief, and other well-known actors, such as William H. Macy (Jerry Lundegaard) whose inept crime falls apart due to bungling and the persistent police work of the extremely normal Marge.  McDormand hasn’t been seen much since she played in a weird movie with George Clooney and Brad Pitt (Burn after Reading, 2008) in which Clooney plays an adulterating serial sex addict and Pitt plays his favourite crazy guy again (Fight Club and Twelve Monkeys). 

SOHO to eternal praise has extended the 1996 FARGO film by creating a TV series that picks up exactly where the film left off.  A suitcase of cash is stashed in the snow along a fence line in snow-swept wastes with a red windscreen scraper stuck in the ground to show where it is.  And the Fargo legend continues.

The TV series is as brilliant as the film (described by some as the best new TV series). It stars Billy Bob Thornton as a seriously evil psychopathic serial hitman working amongst a cast of ordinary Joes over several years. Main protagonist is Lester Nygaard (rhymes with Lundergaard from 1996) played by Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins The Hobbit).  All are just excellent. Allison Tolman re-plays ‘Marge’ but as Deputy Molly Solverson also pregnant like Gunderson in 1996. The Police Chief is ‘Sol Goodman’ of Breaking Bad (Bob Odenkirk) whose character in BB was so rich, the character spawned his own spin-off TV series as the ambulance chasing small-town crime lawyer. In Fargo 2014 he retires at the end of Season 1, due to the trauma, and Molly takes over as police chief, to complete the Marge Gunderson circle.

The series is full of black comedy and then sudden, unexpected violence, all the more black because of the ordinariness of it all (ceramic ducks on the back wall and sensible woolen jerseys with snow flake patterns).  The juxtapositions are jolting. Well worth a watch.

I just LOVE this series.  Season 1 is finished on SOHO but Prime is re-running it again on 4 and SOHO have SOHO POP-UP on 11 that runs the series as a marathon back-to back if you watch for that.

Here’s a quote from 1996:  “So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There’s more to life than a little money, you know. Don’tcha know that? And here ya are, and it’s a beautiful day. Well. I just don’t understand it.” ~ Marge Gunderson.

Don’tcha know!

Here’s a  great clip from the TV series.

https://youtu.be/vXfej6ekBZI

Unions are running a campaign which is basically claiming the Government (and employers) for all work place deaths. They arrange crosses at protests to try and suggest that every work place death is preventable and they are all the fault of the Government and employers.

So I thought I’d look up the ACC data on all accidental deaths. How many accidental deaths occur in workplaces, as opposed to home or other places?

Do we blame the Government for deaths at home, or just those at work?

This is not to say that some work place deaths are not preventable, and that sometimes the employer is responsible. That is why we have prosecutions. In some industries such as forestry the death toll has been horrendously high.

But what I reject is the notion that every death is preventable and is the fault of the Government or the employer.

So what does ACC tell us on fatal accidents.

These are for 30 June years. So over the last five years only 12% of fatal accidents have occurred in work places. 32% have occurred at home and the rest on the roads, sports fields hospitals and other places.

Also of interest is the total number of fatal accident claims has actually fallen since 2010/11.

Do we know what proportion of the workplace accidents, involved employer culpability? In some accidents there are definitely things the employer could have done to have a safer workplace. But in others, it might be procedures were not followed, or just sheer bad luck (you slip etc).

Our workplace accidents rates are higher than many other countries and need to be lower. But that doesn’t mean all workplace fatalities are the fault of the employer or due to the nature of our OSH regime. Men are 20 times more likely to die in workplace accidents than women. Is this all due to what occupations they are in, or a reflection that men are often less risk averse (with bad results).  Changing male culture around risk may be just as important as workplace safety regulations.

Stuff reports:

Lorde has gone beyond the role of pop princess and is speaking out to help Kiwi kids in need.

The singer posted an image on Instagram of lunches from Eat My Lunch, a start-up run by award-winning chef Michael Meredith and Auckland woman Lisa King. 

For every lunch ordered through the service, another is provided for a child who can’t afford their own.

A great initiative, and cool to see Ella supporting it. But the part of the story which is wrong is:

It is estimated one in four children in New Zealand live in poverty and go without lunch every day.

One can debate the correct definition of poverty, but let’s put that to one side. The assertion (reported as fact) that one in four kids go without lunch every day is wrong. It was an assertion made by Metiria Turei which has been debunked. I blogged in March on this.

KidsCan said that in the 449 schools it works with, 23% of kids need lunch every day on average. There are 2,500 schools in NZ, so this is 23% of the 20% of schools that have a problem (and hence KidsCan is involved with).

That 23% of 20% is around 4% of kids overall. So it is one in 20, not one in four.

Now one in 20 is too many, and that’s why it is great we have charities there helping kids whose parents aren’t providing lunches. But there is a big difference between one in 20 and one in four.

I’ve blogged at Curia the results of the 3 News Reid Research poll broadcast last night.

Like the One News Colmar Brunton poll the previous week, it shows no bounce for Labour from its targeting of people with Chinese surnames.

What it does show is that Andrew Little has fallen below Winston Peters as Preferred Prime Minister.

This is a feat never achieved by Phil Goff, David Shearer or David Cunliffe.

The last time an Opposition Leader failed to poll in the top two as Preferred Prime Minister was in October 2003 – 12 years ago. Later that month he was rolled in a coup.

So the results of Labour’s concede Northland to Winston strategy has been to have their leader fall into third place behind Winston as Preferred PM.

And the results of their decision to highlight home buyers with Chinese surnames has been to achieve nothing in the polls, but alienate many Chinese New Zealanders.

Dr Samir Zakhari of the US Distill Spirits Council writes in Stuff:

Cancer is not an easy topic.  Most of us will know someone who has been affected by this terrible disease in its many forms.

And as a society we are desperately seeking both the cause and the cure for cancers with great advancements being made on both counts.  But as our knowledge advances one thing is clear – to say that one thing causes cancer is simply wrong.

Unfortunately last month in Wellington a group of academics made such a claim – and not for the first time.  They said that alcohol causes cancer which is simply incorrect and not supported by any credible research .

The reality is excessive use of alcohol can be one of many factors, but that is not the same as saying “causes”:

Cancers are caused by many things. The key to managing the risk of getting cancer is knowing what those factors are and trying to manage exposure to them. And yes, immoderate consumption of alcohol over an extended period of time does increase your risk of getting some cancers – as does lack of exercise, diet, genetics, age, gender, smoking, drug use and a range of other lifestyle-related factors.

Alcohol is not the same as tobacco. Tobacco is harmful to you full stop. Alcohol is fine in moderation.

Globally there is recognition that moderate alcohol consumption can be part of a healthy lifestyle.  There are many well-documented health benefits associated with moderate consumption – particularly in later life and associated with cardio-vascular function.

The key to this statement is the word ‘moderate’.

The New Zealand Government’s Health Promotion Agency recommends that, to reduce the long-term health impacts associated with alcohol, women should have no more than two standard drinks a day and men no more than three with both sexes having at least two non-drinking days a week.

Again, moderation.

Dr Zakhari’s background:

Dr Samir Zakhari is a researcher on the medical effects of alcohol consumption, and a former director of the Division of Metabolism and Health Effects with the American National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. He is now senior vice president of science at the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

UPDATE: The article in Stuff was edited from the original submitted, which made it less clear. The paragraph that was submitted is:

Unfortunately this week in Wellington a group of well-intentioned researchers made such a claim – and not for the first time.  They said that moderate alcohol consumption causes cancer.  While chronic abusive alcohol consumption is associated with a plethora of health problems including cancer, attributing cancer to social moderate drinking is simply incorrect and is not supported by the body of scientific literature.

So chronic alcohol consumption is a factor, but moderate consumption is not.

The PM announced at the National Party conference five changes to migration policy. They are:

1. Currently, skilled migrants with a job offer get 10 extra points if that job is outside Auckland, and those points count towards the 100 they require. From 1 November, they will treble that, and give them 30 extra points.
2. Last year launched an Entrepreneur Work Visa, targeting migrants who offer high-level business experience, capital and international connections. Currently, people applying for this visa get 20 extra points if they set up a business outside Auckland, and that counts towards the 120 they require. From 1 November, we will double that to 40 extra points.
3. From 1 November employers can find out faster whether New Zealanders are available to fill a particular vacancy, before they lodge a visa application with Immigration New Zealand by being able to contact Work and Income directly to check availability.
4. The Government intends to provide a pathway to residence for a limited number of long-term migrants on temporary work visas in the South Island.
5. Government will consider a new global impact visa targeted at young, highly-talented and successful technology entrepreneurs and start-up teams, who want to be based in New Zealand, employ talented Kiwis and reach across the globe.

All sounds sensible to me.

Talking of the conference I was disappointed there were so few protesters there. I think I recognised around half of them personally!

The Herald reports:

New Zealand has increased its ranking to seventh in a list assessing the reputations of 55 countries. Last year it was eighth.

Canada has beaten last year’s leader Switzerland to top the 2015 “RepTrak” rankings, issued by the Reputation Institute, which has offices in many countries.

Since the survey began in 2010, Canada has ranked first all but two years and has not been placed lower than second.

The institute gathered information online for its rankings from more than 48,000 people in G8 countries. It says this enables it to “measure the public’s perception of 55 countries based on three dimensions: effective government, appealing environment, and advanced economy.

“Countries with strong reputations are perceived positively in all three dimensions.”

The top 10 are:

1. Canada 78.1
2. Norway 77.1
3. Sweden 76.6
4. Switzerland 76.4
5. Australia 76.3
6. Finland 75.1
7. New Zealand 75.0
8. Denmark 74.5
9. Netherlands 73.7
10. Belgium 72.3

The bottom five countries are Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Nigeria.

The Herald reports:

The Government is poised to crack down on people on the state house waiting list who turn down a house offered to them, Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said at the National Party conference in Auckland.

They will drop down the list unless there was good reason — at present there are no repercussions.

Anyone who turned down a house for insufficient reason should not remain ahead of someone else on the list, she said.

Mrs Bennett said that in the year from November 2013 to 2014, a total of 3,081 people on the waiting list for a state house declined a property offered to them.

She later released figures showing that 7 per cent of them had declined a property three or more times.

“They often declined because they didn’t like the neighbour, or they didn’t think the fence was good enough and there is no repercussion for people who decline houses.

“I’m sorry, but that sort of thing has to stop.”

Agreed. Unless there is a really good reason, you need to take the house offered to you.

NBR reports:

Cameron Brewer says he is pleased the “sacred cow” Auckland Energy Consumer Trust (AECT) is included in the review. Although AECT is not a council asset, under its 80-year deed it will be wound up in 2073. Its biggest asset is a 75.4% ownership of Vector, worth $2.1 billion.

“We owe it to ratepayers to explore the trust, its deed, legislation and the value or potential of its assets, instead of stinging them every year while council debt continues to skyrocket. The shares are owned by Aucklanders, who also pay rates and it remains the biggest and most glaring nest-egg in the region. 

“I am sure the Aucklanders receiving a $300 dividend cheque every year won’t mind forgoing it if it means lower rates and the money is ploughed into infrastructure that benefit the region.

I’m damn sure they will mind having their dividend cheques stolen off them by the Council.

The Council should learn to live within its means, not look to steal assets off other organisations.

Critic reports:

A University of Otago student is taking matters into his own hands after feeling he has been wronged by the university’s proctor.

The student, who wishes not to be named, was given a fine and had access to his online course resources suspended for a week after Campus Watch officers claimed he had been drunk and abusive to them. After much discussion, viewing of CCTV footage and GPS tracking on his phone, his name was not cleared until OUSA’s Student Support got involved. He was then found to be innocent. The student, however, is still demanding an apology for the illtreatment, which he has not yet received.

On 23 April, the student was waiting outside a lecture hall to enter a law exam, and was approached by Campus Watch for being “abusive” and “causing a lot of ruckus” the night before. “I was kind of shocked at the time,” said the student. “I’ve never been accused of something like that.” 

The student said he had been home all night, though the officer was “pretty sure it was him” and his ID was taken. After his exam, which he finished early because he was “freaked out”, the student called Campus Watch to complain about what had happened. “I couldn’t have been in two places at once,” he said.

After not hearing anything further, he assumed the allegations had disappeared. On 7 May, after making multiple attempts to submit assignments online, the student realised his access to Blackboard had been cut. This was because he owed $50 to the proctor for missing a meeting.

The student had received an email that he was required to see the proctor about the accusations, but had not checked his student email in “a long time”. Letters are normally sent to students who are required to see the proctor, but he was told “a change in staffing” meant this wasn’t done.

So suddenly he is cut off from online resources – all on an accusation.

At a later meeting with the proctor, which he attended with his partner whom he was at home with at the time of the alleged incident, the student was again told he had drunkenly abused staff. The Campus Watch officer attended the meeting and said, “he was smiling, he was very smug”. The officer said it was definitely him; however, a second officer said although the two looked similar, he “couldn’t with confidence” say it was this student.

The Campus Watch officers should have taken details at the time, not gone on this guys looks like this other guy.

The student discovered he had GPS evidence on his phone that showed he was at home the entire time. However, the proctor refused to accept this, claiming he could have left his phone at home.

No student goes out without his or her phone!

CCTV footage was obtained and, in an email, the student was told the footage “looked very much like him”. However, in a second meeting, which the student attended with a Student Support advisor, the proctor was said to have done “a complete 180 with his behaviour”. The accusations were then dropped. The student was cleared, though he has not received an apology or compensation for having his services cut off for a week while assignments were due.

Philippa Keaney, acting manager of Student Support, said: “Despite the advocacy of OUSA Student Support, and the provision of extensive evidence to prove [the student’s] innocence, the Proctor’s Office continued to treat [the student] as the guilty party over a number of weeks.”

“One of the principles underpinning the New Zealand criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence unless adequate evidence to the contrary is produced. It appears that [the student] was not accorded that courtesy in this case.”

Seems like it is guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent at Otago.

Liam Hehir writes:

Protectionist critics of the TPP, however, allege that ISDS undermines national self-government by allowing foreign businesses to sue member states over legitimate policy decisions. NZ First MP Fletcher Tabuteau is so concerned about this that he has a bill before Parliament to outlaw free trade agreements that include ISDS provisions altogether – something that would preclude our participation in the TPP.

Consistent with its Hamlet-like agonising on the subject, Labour has pledged to support Tabuteau’s bill to a first reading (despite the fact that it will almost certainly back the treaty when it comes to the crunch).

In fact, concerns over ISDS are probably overstated.

In the first place, ISDS is now a well-established aspect of international trade. Globally, there are already about 3000 treaties and deals with ISDS in place. Our own recent free trade agreements with Malaysia, South Korea and the People’s Republic of China include such provisions (and did so, it should be added, with Labour’s support).

Yes, ISDS is not some new thing dreamt up by the US. Labour agreed to ISDS clauses in most of the FTAs they signed.

Those still wavering can take further comfort in the fact that, in any event, no ISDS procedure will be able to overturn any of our laws or enjoin our government from any particular course of action. The most an aggrieved party could ever win would be compensation for harm suffered. And if our Government didn’t want to pay the damages, nobody could force it to – though our international reputation would take an (entirely deserved) beating if that happened.

This is not to say that we should go along with ISDS in any form whatsoever. We should only sign treaties we intend to honour and a badly drafted ISDS regime could expose the Government to unmeritorious claims that could soon become a serious nuisance. If the risk of that happening outweighs the benefits of the treaty, then the Government should refuse the deal.

When all is said and done, however, there is nothing conceptually untoward about ISDS provided our overall national sovereignty is not threatened (more on that next time). The devil will be in the detail, of course, but in all probability New Zealanders will have more to gain from the mechanism than our government stands to lose from it. It is not, in principle, a sound reason to oppose the TPP.

As Hehir says, there are some ISDS forms which would be bad for NZ. But our negotiators have negotiated ISDS clauses in several previous FTAs, and we’ve never had a problem to date with them.