Stuff reports:

MPs will carry out an inquiry into voluntary euthanasia.

Announcing an inquiry on Wednesday, chairman of the health select committee, Simon O’Connor, said members were “ready to engage” on what was an “important conversation that needs to be had”. …

It would take a couple of weeks to come up with a plan for the inquiry, O’Connor said.

The inquiry would consider how best to involve the public and what questions and terms of reference need to be included, he said.

This is a good step forward. It is no substitute for a bill, but can be complementary.

The Herald reports:

Self-inflicted body blows continue to batter the Conservative Party, with a newly appointed board suspending the membership of founder, party benefactor and former leader Colin Craig.

And in a further hit to the divided party’s credibility, Craig last night said the new board – and therefore his suspension – was invalid because neither natural justice nor the party’s constitution had been followed at yesterday’s meeting.

“I think any ordinary person will realise a process when you don’t advise the person that you’re considering something, you don’t let them attend, you don’t even give them a chance to respond to allegations, is no proper process,” Craig told the Herald on Sunday. …

The fallout from Craig’s revelations has decimated the party’s board with all but one member, John Stringer, resigning in the past week.

Stringer appointed himself chairman yesterday and created a new board with former electorate candidates Deborah Cunliffe, Mark Pearce and Thomas O’Rourke, and Waikato regional chairman Al Belcher.

“They meet again next month, when they may make a final decision on Craig’s suspension and appoint a leader.

Craig said Stringer’s actions were invalid because he had been suspended from the party by remaining board members on Thursday, which Stringer denied.

“It’s a bit rich of him to accuse us of things he’s done himself. I think he has got bigger issues to resolve than us.”

This is like fighting over the remains of a carcas. Sad.

Stuff reports:

Older white men paid double young ethnic women

A silly heading. Older white men are also paid almost double younger white men.

Older ethnic women are paid more than young white men.

There are legitimate issues around gender pay, and to a degree race. But bringing age into it is stupid, as people should get paid more as they get more experienced.

Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Jackie Blue said it was only fair that wages should increase with time and experience.

Yep, something those who push income inequality often overlook.

But regardless of age, men are consistently paid more than women, and Europeans more than other ethnic groups.

There is a gender pay gap,but of interest is it is very small at the younger ages – just 50 cents an hour. At middle age, it is over $6 an hour.

The ethnic pay gap is probably one largely based on education. Just comparing averages for an entire demographic does little. The better comparison is of people of the same age, same location, same education achievement and same industry. You want to compare like to like where the only difference is race, to really measure if there is a pay gap.

There definitely is for gender, once you take into account all other variables.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown and council staff held a ratepayer-funded party hours after passing a new budget that includes a 9.9 per cent average rates rise for households.

Senior staff have defended the function as a way of thanking staff but critics say the decision was misguided when thousands of Aucklanders were smarting from big rates increases.

If this just adds even more pain to the 9.9% rates rise, you can do something about it – join the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance. The 10 Councillors who voted for the 9.9% rates rise will be targeted for defeat at next year’s election – to send a signal to all Councils and Councillors in NZ that if you massively hike rates, you will lose your jobs.

As a Wellingtonian who lived and studied in Dunedin, I always support Wellington and Otago sports teams. So a Hurricanes vs Highlanders Super 15 final is the ideal for me – I’l be happy with whomever wins. However my greater loyalty is to the Hurricanes, and I will be cheering for them. So thrilled they made the final, and it will be at home.

So who do we all think will win, and who do we want to win?

Gordon Campbell writes:

It would be nice to think that California – the home state of Hollywood – may have finally and decisively overturned the “contractor” fiction through which the likes of Uber and the film industry continue to exploit their workers. Uber and Warners do like to portray themselves as being at the forefront of technological innovation and business excellence. Well, it’s the 21st century, guys. Maybe its time you stopped making your employees accept 19th century work conditions as the basis for keeping their jobs. Basically, if your business model depends on offloading your own legitimate costs onto your workforce, then maybe the model doesn’t deserve to endure.

So Gordon Campbell thinks the Uber model does not deserve to endure. Has he not noticed that many taxi drivers are flocking to Uber because they earn much more money with Uber, as Uber doesn’t have huge sign up fees, or costs. They’re often better off. But Gordon, like many on the left, don’t like anyone being contractors.

This is going to be a good test for Labour’s Future of Work Commission. The future of work is companies like Uber allowing people to be contractors and private drivers. Uber would die if they were forced to become employers, rather than merely a booking app.

Will Labour come up with policies that reflect the 21st century? Flexibility is what the 21st century is about, not forcing everyone to be an employee.

The ACT newsletter:

Amidst all the Good Ideas
One notable item was that the exemption on Crown land from rates is unjustifiable. Quite so. Central government dumps regulatory burdens on local government, but is tight fisted in paying for them itself. Allowing local authorities to charge rates on Crown land would encourage agencies to use land more efficiently and would be fairer to ratepayers.

The Rating Base
Councils can charge targeted rates for water, sewage and refuse collection, but cannot levy other rates, including uniform annual charges or general rates on Crown land. One option might be to allow councils to apply uniform annual charges to Crown land. That might encourage them to not push the uniform charge down to the minimum, as has happened in Auckland.

But Which Land?
As a first cut at what might be included, and what not, conservation and recreational land could be excluded. Because schools and hospitals all compete with private organisations, they should pay rates. Road and rail network infrastructure should probably be excluded, but ports and airports are private businesses, albeit often partially owned by councils, so would be included.

And Some Controversial Areas
Land used for religious worship or education, and Maori land of various types is exempt from rates. It’s hard to see how that could be justified.

The Net Effect
Slightly lower rates burden, slightly higher central government tax burden – but better price signals and incentives all round. And fairer.

I agree there should be no rates exemption for religious or Maori land. I also agree that some Crown land should pay rates – not conservation land, but other land. It will encourage better use of the land.

The Washington Post reports:

A deeply divided Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live.

The court’s action rewarded years of legal work by same-sex marriage advocates and marked the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence.

Marriages began Friday in states that had previously thwarted the efforts of same-sex couples to wed, while some states continued to resist what they said was a judicial order that changed the traditional definition of marriage and sent the country into uncharted territory. As of the court’s decision Friday morning, there were 14 states where same-sex couples were not allowed to marry.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has written all of the court’s decisions recognizing and expanding gay rights, said the decision was based on the fundamental right to marry and the equality that must be afforded gay Americans.

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Kennedy wrote. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

I have mixed feelings on this. I welcome the outcome, but not the method.

I think it great that all Americans now have the right to marry the person they love (with rare exceptions such as family). And to have the US Supreme Court rule that gay Americans have a constitutional right to marry their loves ones, with mean a huge amount to gay Americans.

So just as I fought hard for same sex marriage to be legal in New Zealand, I welcome it in the United States.

All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented, and each wrote a separate opinion.

The common theme in their dissents was that judicial activism on the part of five members of the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” wrote Roberts, who for the first time in his tenure marked his disagreement with a decision by reading part of his dissent from the bench.

“Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” he wrote.

Scalia called the decision a “threat to American democracy,” saying it robs citizens of “the freedom to govern themselves.”

I do agree with the Conservative Justices though that while the outcome is to be celebrated, the process is not. I think it is a stretch to claim that a document written 200 years ago was intended to allow same sex marriage – considering same sex activity was a criminal offence at the time.

Having a court of nine appointed judges decide on such a massive issue, makes it less likely to gain widespread acceptance than a decision made by referendum or an elected legislature.

The wonderful result in Ireland, where a staunchly Catholic nation voted to legalise same sex marriage was the best way for it to happen. No one could attack the legitimacy of the decision. No one could say it was out of touch politicians or activist judges. In fact having the public vote it in, sent a message to religions that if they want to retain followers, they may have to change with the times.

In the US, it was elected legislatures that gave women the vote. This made it far less controversial, than if the US Supreme Court had done it (which inevitably they would have). By contrast the reason abortion is such a massively controversial issue in the US, is because the Supreme Court decided it for the whole country, rather than let voters or elected legislatures decide. That resentment is why it is such a toxic issue today.

However I think this ruling will be less controversial over time. That is mainly because so many states had already legalised same sex marriage, and public opinion on same sex marriage had dramatically changed over a decade – possibly the largest change on a social issues ever in such a small period of time.

Another difference between the controversy over the abortion Roe vs Wade ruling and this one, is that with same sex marriage, the opponents of it are not directly affected. Yes they think it is wrong, but it is hard to point to a concrete harm except a generic changing of society’s morals. However with abortion, opponents believe that an eight week old foetus is living human being, and that abortion is not far removed from murder.

So I think it is unlikely that in a few years, this will be an issue at all in US politics. In fact some analysts are saying (and I agree) that this has done Republican politicians a favour as they can now say that the issue is settled regardless of their personal views, and don’t have to worry about being off side with a large majority of the population.

After the tragic mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina recently the displaying and usage of the Confederate flag has been much debated. But Fox News point out there is some hypocrisy at work here.

Amazon has banned all Confederate flag items from being sold on its site. But the ban doesn’t extend to selling various items with images of this guy.

The Fox News article goes on to remind readers that Guevara was a murdering thug:

Although Guevara is a popular image on T-shirts, he executed many non-communists in Cuba. At one point he admitted in a speech to communist officials: “We executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation; it has the obligation to triumph.”

There are other examples cited in the article as well which could be interpreted as hypocrisy.

I don’t agree with how the Confederacy treated slaves, and displaying of the flag is a valid topic for debate but there is a double standard at work here.

Stuff reports:

Ngapuhi leader Sonny Tau says he made “a mistake, which I deeply regret” when stopped carrying dead kereru, a protected wood pigeon.

How was it a mistake? Did he accidentally kill them?

“I also wish to say this was a mistake, which I deeply regret. The laws around native bird protection are important and to be respected by all, myself included,” he said.

Kereru are protected under the Wildlife Act. 

Harming one can result in a fine up to $100,000 or six months in jail.

So why didn’t he? Claiming it was a mistake is like claiming you robbed a bank by mistake. Did the gun go off by accident?

Ngapuhi leader David Rankin said there was nothing wrong with catching kereru.

“Article two of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees Maori the full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of our fauna and flora.  Basically, the problem is that the law hasn’t caught up with the Treaty.”

The problem is they almost are extinct (one of the three sub-species are extinct) due to the attitude above, and if they go extinct then there is nothing to possess.

The Herald reports:

A south Taranaki grandmother says she was shoved to the ground and handcuffed by police after she objected to being forced from her house in the face of rapidly rising flood waters.

Police came to Dot Bowlin’s Waitotara property late on Saturday afternoon as they told everyone in her street to leave.

But Mrs Bowlin, 67, told them she wasn’t ready to go as the water wasn’t yet a threat to her house – situated on a rise – and she had to organise her animals.

She said she was pleading her case to stay when a younger policeman allegedly threw her to the ground and put her in handcuffs, aggravating an arm injury.

Police yesterday confirmed Mrs Bowlin was handcuffed, but said they could not comment on how she was treated.

There are two sides to every story, but what concerns me here is that this was not a case of refusing to be arrested, or fleeing a crime. This was choosing not to evacuate. Do the Police have the authority to force people to evacuate? Surely their role should be to advise and assist, but if someone wants to stay – that is there decision. They should be told, they won’t be assisted if they stay, but is an evacuation order compulsory?

Stuff reports:

The old adage of strength in numbers is the main driver behind the proposed merger between two of New Zealand’s larger unions.

In July, the potential combination of the Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) with the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) will be put to the vote at a national conference and if it gets the thumbs up there, the memberships of both groups will then get to have their say.

These are the two largest unions of Labour’s six affiliated unions. Individually they have 42% and 25% of the affiliate vote. If they combine they will have 66% of the affiliate vote. It means the combined union will effectively select their own vice-president of the party, have reps on the list moderating committee, be far more dominant at selection meetings and this one entity would control 13% of the leadership electoral college.

In other words the Labour Party would not be far removed from being a subsidiary of the new combined union.  In a leadership ballot the vote of each delegate would be worth almost 50 times as much as an ordinary member.

The Herald reports:

A lobby group fighting to keep its status as a registered charity says it operates the way it always has, so it shouldn’t lose its status.

Family First is appealing a decision the Charities Registration Board made to de-register it in 2013.

The group said its opposition to gay marriage was the reason Charities Services wanted to deregister it.

The Charities Registration Board said Family First’s main purpose was to promote “particular points of view about family life” and the lobby group did not advance religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders, as the law required charities to do.

I don’t think Family First should be eligible to be a registered charity. Likewise I don’t think the Sensible Sentencing Trust should qualify. Ditto for Greenpeace and the National Council of Women. And neither should commercial companies owned by religions or Iwi.

We should have a much tighter definition of charity in NZ, and only register organisations that:

1. provide welfare, education or health services to needy families
2. provide funding for public good activities such as conservation

The antics of Greenpeace yesterday shows what a mockery of the law it would be, for them to be a registered charity.

I’m told this is not a parody, but a serious ad by an Australian Trade Union that doesn’t think it should give up control of the Labor Party.

The Herald reports:

Environment researchers have made fresh calls for a tax on polluters on the back of an OECD report highlighting rising pressures on our green backyard.

Through its new book, Vanishing Nature, the Environmental Defence Society has put forward an environmental consumption tax and rebate as a key reform, which it argues has the potential to tackle environmental degradation while broadening and rebalancing New Zealand’s tax base.

The lead author, EDS senior policy analyst Dr Marie Brown, said it would also help to reduce wealth inequality, could be designed to cut growth-limiting income and company taxes, and fund climate change mitigation.

My first reaction to any proposed new tax, is I’ll consider its merits if it is proposed not to increase the overall level of taxation, but as an alternative revenue source, which would allow income and company taxes to be reduced. It is good to see that this is the case here, even though they seem to be suggesting only a partial offset.

Dr Eric Crampton, head of research at the New Zealand Institute, said that in principle, taxes on pollution were far better than taxes on income so long as they were set properly – but this was very hard to do.

Simplicity is important – as we have with GST.

Taxes tend to reduce whatever you tax. So if you tax income, you reduce labour. If you have a GST you reduce consumption. If you have a CGT, you reduce capital. So a pollution tax can reduce pollution.

Tony wall at Stuff reports:

At her parents’ house at least, it’s as if Rachal Cleaver has been erased from history. A hand-written sign on the door of her old bedroom says simply: “spare room”.

“We burnt everything of Rachal’s, from the smallest to the greatest,” says her father, Stephen Cleaver, a self-styled prophet who claims to hear the word of God.

“We do not discard her, but we have to walk the path of the Lord. If we are moping over the dead, we are going backwards, we have to look ahead.”

There’s a sign on the gate of the ramshackle farm property Cleaver and his wife, Carla, rent near Kaiwaka that says “Get your own toilet”.

They say that Christ will soon return in a blaze of fire and God’s angels will kill everyone who hasn’t made it to their place – but you have to take care of your own body waste.

“The war will start right here,” Stephen Cleaver says.

The couple says the Government is spying on them and that Prime Minister John Key himself buzzed their house in a helicopter.

And they say it was Key and American president Barack Obama who were behind Rachal’s death.

When I first starting reading this article, I wondered why the mad beliefs of these parents were being given prominence. But sadly as you read on, you realise they may have played a role in the death of Rachal.

Rachal, 20, died in Whangarei Hospital on June 10 after suffering a severe asthma attack at home. She was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Her baby was delivered by caesarean section while she was in a coma, but he died in Starship the following day. He was named Robert. …

Rachal was in the care of the Dingwall Trust, a care and protection facility in Papatoetoe, South Auckland, from nine until she turned 17.

The trust’s director, Tracie Shipton, says staff had serious concerns about what would happen to Rachal if she returned home. It was also feared she wouldn’t get the medical treatment she needed for her asthma and eczema.

Shipton says Rachal’s death was “highly preventable. Asthma is a manageable disease.”

There would have been a reason she was in care, but once she was 17 she could choose where to live.

On the day of her asthma attack, Cleaver says, Rachal was outside filming aircraft that were flying low over the house.

He claims they were Government planes, and they dropped poison.

Oh dear.

He says every three hours Rachal was being “stabbed” with what he was told were steroids. He believes otherwise.

“I think they were giving her a paralysing injection to kill her. I voiced many times that she was murdered.”

The parents obviously need psychiatric help, but it may be too late.

An autopsy was carried out, and the bodies of Rachal and her baby were released to the Dingwall Trust, where a funeral service was held on Wednesday. The parents didn’t attend.

Shipton says it was a beautiful service. Staff were devastated by Rachal’s death. 

“She was a beautiful young girl with lots of potential. What I’m most stressed about is it was a highly preventable death of a pretty awesome kid.”

Rachal was returned to a situation where her safety could never be guaranteed, Shipton says.

When Rachal turned 17, she immediately returned to her parents in Northland. There was nothing Dingwall could do, even though they believed she was not mature enough to make a sensible decision.

Sadly you can only protect people so much.

Shipton has wider concerns about the law.

The trust has been campaigning for a change to extend custodial responsibility and ongoing care provision for vulnerable young people into their 20s. An expert government panel is considering the changes and Shipton says it should be a priority.

“Some young people are leaving care to return to highly dysfunctional families that are just as unsafe as they were when the children were removed from their parents care, the only difference is the child’s age.” 

I sympathise but unless the person is mentally incompetent, it is hard to justify them not being able to make their own decisions once they are 18.

People who saw Rachal before her death say she was completely different to the vibrant, happy girl she’d been at Dingwall. She quoted scripture at people and questioned their morality.

Facebook gives a clue to her mindset. She talks about brussels sprouts being “evil and demonic” and writes “the reason why I stand in the sun every day is because I don’t want you to see how many tears I shear”.

All that’s left on her bedroom wall is a small scrap of paper with some writing – something about helicopters flying low over her house last December. By the end, she well and truly shared her parents’ paranoia.

Actually those brussels sprouts can be pretty evil!

So sad to read of a young life that died, and was probably preventable.

Noah Smith writes:

Tomas Hellbrandt of the Bank of England and Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund show in a new working paper that global inequality is falling, as poor countries power ahead. The global Gini coefficient – a standard measure of income inequality – is falling fast. In 2003 the coefficient was 69 (with 0 being perfect equality and 100 being perfect inequality). In 2013 it was down to 65. If current trends continue, it is on course to reach 61 by 2035.

So inequality may be increasing within some countries, but over humanity as a whole, the gap between rich and poor is closing.

The reason for this is what free trade and capitalism have done to countries like China and India, with hundreds of millions rising out of poverty.

So around the world, a rising tide is lifting all boats, and it’s lifting the boats at the bottom faster than the boats at the top. This is really an extremely good, successful outcome (though it would have been nice to see this happen without the increase in inequality within some countries).

A nice break from the gloom and doom.

It’s important to realise is that this is a recent phenomenon. For a long time, the opposite was happening. In 1988, for example, economic historian Brad DeLong showed that the poor countries of the world had mostly failed to catch up to the rich countries since 1870. The former colonial powers of Western Europe, the US and Japan were zooming ahead, with the former colonies either being left in the dust or struggling just to keep pace.

So we may be seeing something like a global Kuznets Curve. In the early stages of global growth, rich countries – and the rich people in them – zoom ahead of the pack, but eventually the masses catch up. If the forces that move inequality really are global in nature, then it means that capitalism and trade really are a force for good. It means that we don’t really face a tradeoff between wealth and inequality in the long run. And it implies that once the poor countries have done some more catching up, inequality will begin to fall within countries, too.

The new data, and the global Kuznets narrative, also destroy the idea that the wealth of rich countries is based on the exploitation of poor countries. Capitalism is not colonialism after all. Most of our global wealth is created by trade and industriousness, not plundered or extracted by force. The world isn’t a zero-sum game.

That is the most vital thing to remember.

Stuff reports:

Telling the Prime Minister to get on his bike might normally get a minister sacked. 

But on Thursday Prime Minister John Key and Transport Minister Simon Bridges visited Rotorua to announce a $333m cycleway investment programme that Bridges says will change the face of cycling in New Zealand.

That’s a huge investment. I doubt any other Government has ever done so much to promote cycling.

National is balanced when it comes to transport – it invests in roads, bus lanes, rail and cycle. Some one the left promote is as either or – they want next to no funding for roads because they hate cars. But the reality is the different systems are complementary, not substitutes. Sometimes I bike, sometimes I bus, sometimes I walk and sometimes I drive. I want investment in all the modes of transport.

Bridges says that as well as the 13 cycleway projects announced in January, an additional 41 will receive funding as part of the Urban Cycleways Programme.

“This is the single biggest investment in cycling in New Zealand’s history,” Bridges says.

“This will make cycling a safer and more attractive option.”

The safer it is, the more people will do it.

Four bills were drawn from the ballot yesterday. They are:

Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill – Labour MP Stuart Nash

This bill would mean any poll on amalgamations of local government will be unsuccessful unless it gains not just a majority over the affected area, but also a majority in each and every district within.

Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill – National MP Matt Doocey

This would require people soliciting donations, signatures or the like to disclose whether they are paid collectors.

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill – National MP Chris Bishop

This would allow people who can not work due to having donated organs, to get income assistance equivalent to ACC (80% of lost earnings) for a maximum of 12 weeks, compared to the current sickness benefit only.

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill – NZ First MP Denis O’Rourke.

This would reduce the level of NZ Superannuation on a pro-rata basis to people who have not been or remained in NZ between the ages of 20 and 65.

My thoughts on each are:

• Nash bill – just seeks to reverse a law change from a few years ago. Would vote against at first reading
• Doocey bill – a useful concept and enhanced transparency is good but current wording may be too draconian. Support at first reading, and review after select committee
• Bishop bill – strongly support
• O’Rourke bill – is worth having a debate on the issue, and the principle of less NZ Super for those who spent less time in NZ is not a bad one. But don’t want to punish people for doing their OE for a few years. Worth supporting at first reading to get submissions

• Arthur Anae
• Len Brown
• Bill Cashmore
• Linda Cooper
• Chris Darby
• Alf Filipaina
• Mike Lee
• Calum Penrose
• Wayne Walker
• Penny Webster

You now know who not to vote for Auckland.

Special attention must go to Mike Lee who correctly labels the 9.9% rates increase as odious and deeply flawed, yet votes for it.

The Herald reports:

Heather du Plessis-Allan and Duncan Garner will host Story, TV3’s new 7pm current affairs show, MediaWorks has announced.

MediaWorks group head of news Mark Jennings said Story would be a “smart, fun and thought-provoking show that will lead the way in daily current affairs”.

“Story will focus on the issues that are relevant and important to all New Zealanders. We will be looking for the best stories, the most interesting stories and the stories New Zealanders are talking about,” he said.

It looks like it will be somewhere between Campbell Live and Seven Sharp. Campbell Live’s problem was it was so relentlessly negative on everything it drove viewers away until it was on life support, while Seven Sharp is entertaining but often has little focus on current affairs.

Garner said he expected fun, laughter and entertainment.

“I see this as a great chance to be part of a programme that will reflect our country and our lives – no matter where we live.

“And when those in power in Wellington, or in your own community, make bad decisions, mislead you or are hypocrites, I promise – you can rely on us to keep them honest – simple.”

Excellent.

Du Plessis-Allan said she was excited to be part of TV3’s “new chapter”.

“Duncan is one of the best journalists around so I’m stoked to be able to learn from him. But Duncan, if you’re reading this; don’t let it go to your head. I’m not your sidekick. In fact, they told me, you’re my sidekick.”

MediaWorks chief executive Mark Weldon said du Plessis-Allan and Garner were two of the most engaging and talented journalists in the country.

“Together they represent a major investment by MediaWorks in the future of current affairs leadership in New Zealand.”

I think this could be a very good show. Duncan and Heather are indeed both engaging, but they are also very skilled interviewers. They can do light and fluffy, but they can also go for the jugular when it is warranted.

Heather’s comment about Duncan being her sidekick is one of the reasons it should work – they’ll spark off each other.

I have not watched any of the 7 pm “current affairs” shows regularly for years. I plan to put Story onto series record, and watch it regularly.