The Herald reports:

Alex Swney stole more than $4 million because he felt he was being underpaid for his work to improve Auckland, a court has heard.

Well that’s okay then.

The 57-year-old former Heart of the City boss was jailed for five years seven months in Auckland District Court this morning after pleading guilty to charges laid by the Inland Revenue and Serious Fraud Office covering “sophisticated” offending over more than a decade.

That is quite a decent sentence. Good.

Question remain about how he got away with it for so long. One can never be fraud-proof, but the Auckland Council and HOTC Board need to take a strong look at what systems were in place.

The Herald reports:

One boy has been found guilty of manslaughter in the death of a West Auckland shopkeeper but a second has been cleared of the same offence. …

The 14-year-old is one of about 10 children. It is understood his mother gave birth to her youngest child weeks ago.

A source close to the family said the children had a tough upbringing and most had been in and out of Child Youth and Family care.

She’s obviously not a capable mother. If some of her kids are in CYFS care, why has she just given birth to her 10th?

I know we probably shouldn’t sterilise anyone against their will, but don’t CYFS now have the power to get an order from a court that any future children will be automatically removed from her? Shouldn’t this be done, as it may incentivise her to stop having children.

A previous story reported:

The court heard the sad history of these families. The eldest of the boys lived in a “drug house,” his brother said. Mum would sell cannabis and synthetics and people would come and go frequently. …

Eventually he began speaking of suicide and acting up at school. He smoked synthetic drugs to cope. 

Again, she should not be having more children, let alone the 10 she has currently had – most of whom will sadly end up with huge challenges ahead of them.

Stuff reports:

Parliament’s top official has urged MPs to “grow up” and allow the official television feed to be used to mock them.

Mary Harris, Clerk of the House, told the Privileges Committee a ban on using footage of Parliament for satire may need to be relaxed “in this day and age”. …

Harris, whose seven-year term as Clerk ends on July 3, said the rules around satire were developed at a time when television was among the only ways of viewing Parliament, but with the proliferation of media the concerns had changed.

The rules have “been lifted in Australia [and] we borrowed our rules from Australia, and we maybe need to grow up,” Harris told the committee on Wednesday.

“I don’t think there’s a need to shelter Members [of Parliament] any longer.”

“It’s difficult to police. Once or twice Speakers have brought people in and given them a bit of a lecture about it but I think it’s a bit like slapping people with a wet bus ticket.”

I agree. The rule is ignored anyway, and satire is a good thing!

Harris said the committee may want to consider other changes, including expanding rules around photography to cover MPs taking photos in the House, as standing orders related only to footage taken from the public and press galleries.

Official footage of Parliament should also be allowed to show MPs misbehaving, Harris said.

“If members are going to be disorderly, they should be seen to be so.” …

Press Gallery chairwoman Claire Trevett told the committee the gallery backed the lifting of rules around disorder in the House, signalling that if there was an episode such as MPs brawling, the chances were media outlets may simply ignore the rules.

The idea behind that rule is to discourage MPs deliberately misbehaving so they get on TV, but they’re not really discouraged anyway. Another rule that can go.

Our favourite political party offical new site reports:

Kaylee Teree Ngarimu has been wheel chair ridden for months, doctors couldn’t diagnose her condition. What Kaylee was suffering from is often referred to as Maori sickness a condition that modern medicine has no solutions. Tuta and Kaylee went to many experts until whanau at the Mana AGM referred Kaylee to alternative healing. Nothing was working until she decided to attend the Mana AGM. After speaking to a Maori Healer Kaylee was able to stand then walk away from her wheel chair and hasnt used it since.

This is great news. Attend a political party AGM and your sickness will be cured and you can walk again.

Imagine all our people who are reliant on western medicines and end up that way for years with no real cure,if our people went back to OUR way of healing, our iwi would be better off.

I encourage all Mana Party members to abandon this evil subsidised Western medicine.

There will be a whopping four bills drawn from the ballot of 73 at midday today. Bills in the ballot are:

Brian Rudman writes:

Tomorrow, for example, even though only seven of 20 councillors support the mayor’s proposed 10-year budget, it is likely to be adopted, because possibly five opponents will look the other way and abstain.

Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett calls this abstaining “a total nonsense” and “a breach of trust with ratepayers”, and I agree.

In a democracy, if the executive can’t get a majority to support its plans, the accepted course is for the rulers to go away and prepare a budget the majority will support.

Exactly.

The Auckland Ratepayers Alliance has said:

The Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance is pledging to hold to account those who support Len Brown’s proposed Auckland Council budget tomorrow, including those who allow it to pass by abstaining. The Alliance, which launched in April, has nearly ten thousand members and is growing every day.

Ratepayers’ Alliance spokesperson, Jo Holmes, says:

“Make no mistake, this is a bottom line for our members and activists. Any councillor that votes for, or abstains tomorrow will be a target in the lead up to next year’s election.”

“We are now confident that the Ratepayers’ Alliance will have enough financial support to conduct a mailout to every Auckland household. We will ensure that all voters know who the guilty Councillors are. There will be billboards, radio ads and even ringtones naming those who allowed Len Brown to hike rates at 99 times the level of inflation.”

“Those who fail to vote tomorrow to stop the Mayor’s rates hike will not get away with it.”

The 9.9% rates increase is just an an average. In some low income areas it is as high as 17%!!!

Stuff reports:

Parliament has voted down a bid to close the loophole that allows MPs to enter Parliament on the coat tail of someone who wins an electorate seat.

A bill promoted by Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway would have implemented the recommendations of the Electoral Commission following a review which called for the removal of the single electoral seat threshold and a corresponding reduction in the party vote threshold from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. Lowering the party vote threshold would make it easier for smaller parties to win seats in Parliament because they would only need to win 4 per cent of the vote, not 5 per cent, the current threshold. 

Ironically if this had been implemented at the last election, as Labour wanted, Colin Craig would almost certainly be an MP and hold the balance of power. The Conservatives got 3.97% and it is inevitable they would have got 4% if voters had seen them so close to the threshold.

The coat tailing rule is seen as unfair because it means parties that win only a small number of votes can still get a number of MPs in Parliament so long as they win an electorate seat.  It also can allow larger parties to do deals that would help smaller parties into Parliament, which happened with ACT and National in the Epsom seat in Auckland. In 2008 ACT won just 3.6 per cent of the vote after then-leader Rodney Hide won Epsom, in contrast with NZ First which got voted out of Parliament with 4.1 per cent of the vote.

I think the coat tailing rule should go, on balance, but point out that in 2011 there were no “coat tail” MPs and in 2014 there is only one.

But ACT leader David Seymour said the Opposition were “so wrong on every count” about the coat-tailing rule.

He said the only benefiting from the coat tailing rule in the current Parliament was the Maori Party, which got an extra MP thanks to Te Ururoa Flavell winning the Wairiki seat.

Other parties had benefited in other Parliaments including the Greens, NZ First and the Alliance.

“If you take the entire history of MMP, for a period the coat tailing rule benefited the Left and then it benefited the Right.  There is no more to it than that; there is no more sincere motivation than that it has politically disadvantaged [Labour] recently. I’ll be opposing this bill because there is no sound principle, only self-interest.”

Labour, the Greens and NZ First voted for the bill, but National, United Future, the Maori Party and ACT voted against.

Seymour has that dead to rights.

I’ve blogged the latest poll at Curia.

On it National would have 62 seats, Labour 32, Greens 16 and NZ First 8.

Renate Lindeman writes at Stuff:

Upon delivering my first child 11 years ago, I heard the words “Down syndrome”, and my world collapsed. Visions of children sitting passively in a corner watching life go by, not participating, kept me awake those first nights as a mum.

It didn’t take me long, though, to figure out that my ideas were based on negative, outdated information that had nothing to do with the reality of life with Down syndrome today.

My daughter April is an active, outgoing girl. She’s my nature child, wildly passionate about anything with four legs. Although April uses few words, she’s a master communicator. Through her, I’ve learned that Down syndrome is not the scary, terrible condition it’s made out to be.

But while governments (rightly) ban gender selection, selective abortion continues to be encouraged for children with Down syndrome. In the United States and abroad, screenings are a routine part of healthcare programmes, and the result is the near-elimination of these children.

When pregnant with my daughter Hazel, tests showed she, too, would be born with Down syndrome. I was shocked when an acquaintance asked me why I did not choose abortion – as if she were a mistake that could be easily erased.

Although my personal prejudices have radically changed since the birth of my first daughter with Down syndrome, I realised that negative attitudes about the condition remain deeply rooted.

To many, my children and their cohort are examples of avoidable human suffering, as well as a financial burden. Knowing that individuals look at my daughters this way hurts, but seeing governments and medical professionals worldwide reinforce these prejudices by promoting selection is horrendous.

I think it is entirely a good thing if parents know in advance if the foetus, once born, will have Down syndrome. It allows them to make an informed decision.

That decision would be a very difficult and torturous one. I wouldn’t judge any people in this situation who have to make such a decision.

The unspoken but obvious message is that Down syndrome is something so unworthy that we would not want to wish it for our children or society.

I don’t read it like that. It is one of many conditions that can make life very very difficult for both the future child, and parents. Just like if you knew someone would be born with no limbs.

A 2013 study reports that parents are 2.5 times more likely to have a negative experience on receiving the initial Down syndrome diagnosis than to have a positive one.

Umm, would anyone have a positive experience?

The irony is that for a baby with Down syndrome born today, the outlook has never been better. Medical and social advances have radically changed what it means to live with Down syndrome.

Most people with Down syndrome are included in schools and communities. They live healthier, longer lives, and many adults live independently, have jobs and enjoy a rich social life. In 2013 a young woman with Down syndrome became Spain’s first councillor.

One study showed that the majority of people with Down syndrome report being happy and fulfilled, regardless of their functional skills.

This is why Downpride is calling on the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to stop systematic screening for Down syndrome as part of public-health programmes and to regulate the introduction of prenatal genetic testing – testing should be used to enhance health and human wellbeing instead of discriminating against people based on their genetic predisposition.

I disagree respectfully.  I think an informed choice is a useful thing.

Backbenches have said a topic for Wednesday is electricity prices:

POWER PRICES-A SHOCKER?:  Nearly 80% of our electricity comes from renewable energy sources, primarily hydropower. Power prices have more than doubled since 2002. So, why are our monthly power bills so dear? And why can your power costs vary so greatly from power company to power company. Labour says we are paying far too much. But what is the solution to lower prices? Do we need to nationalise the power companies? Do we need to change how much lines companies charge? Their tarrifs can make up to 40% of a monthly powerbill? Or is this just the price of doing business?

Yes they have doubled since 2002, but the increase has not been consistent. To help, here is a graph of annual electricity inflation.

Quite a difference, although price increase of over 3% are still too high.

In the seven years from 2001 to 2008 inclusive electricity prices increased 63.5%. Since 2008 they have increased 24%.

Richard Harman at Politik writes:

Prime Minister John Key has confirmed that New Zealand has yet to see any major concessions on dairy exports to Japan and Canada from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement negotiations.

That’s because both Japan and Canada, the negotiating countries with the highest barriers against dairy imports have yet to begin the “hard” part of their negotiations.

But it leaves a huge hole in the negotiations which Mr Key admits is not what New Zealand wants. …

Speaking at his weekly post Cabinet Press Conference, the prime Minister described the situation in Washington as “a game of chess” between the Senate and the House.

He said there was a deal on dairy products “but it’s not at the level we would currently like.

“There are more negotiations to be undertaken”

Asked what advantages New Zealand would gain, if the dairy agreement could not be reached he said: “What I’ve seen at the moment is if we froze time and concluded the deal, as I see it it’s a net positive for New Zealand.

“But it wouldn’t be nearly enough for dairy for us to be comfortable and we’d like to see more.”

The TPP was meant to be a gold standard trade agreement. It won’t be that if there is no meaningful dairy access.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, in question time yesterday, he would “absolutely” retain confidence in a Minister who authorised a multi-million dollar payment to a disaffected businessman to unlock a free-trade deal?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
3. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing why more housing is needed as part of supporting a growing New Zealand economy?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What advice, if any, did he give to Cabinet on the risks of the Social Bonds Pilot announced on 1 June 2015?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has the Government made around tax rules on property transactions?
7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he meet with David Brownrigg and George Assaf in Auckland on 18 October 2011 “to discuss trade between New Zealand and the Middle East and, in particular, the resumption of a specialised live export sheep trade with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and was that meeting the subject of a letter to him dated 2 November 2011 from Brownrigg Agriculture on behalf of Mr Al Khalaf and Mr George Assaf?
8. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on a new emergency response system for mobile 111 calls?
9. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Māori Development: Why did he tell Radio New Zealand yesterday he did not discuss programming content with Paora Maxwell on 20 May, when Paora Maxwell said in an email to staff on 22 May that “We talked about … content”?
11. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Small Business: What steps are the Government taking to improve the way we collect data from rural small businesses?
12. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with Lancet Commission co-Chair Professor Hugh Montgomery that “climate change is a medical emergency” but “tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century”?

National: Four questions on the economy, property tax rules, 111 calls and small businesses

Labour: Four questions on the Saudi Arabia farm x2, social bonds, and Maori TV

Greens: Two questions on the Saudi Arabia farm and climate change

NZ First: Two questions on Maori Affairs Minister and PM standing by their statements

General Debate 3.00 pm to 3.00 pm

The general debate consists of 12 speeches of up to five minutes each, so a maximum of one hour.

NBR reports:

The “Global Mode” case has been settled in favour of the big media companies.

A notice posted this morning to the NZX by Sky TV reads, in full: “The legal proceedings against “Global Mode” service providers have been settled. As a result, from 1 September 2015, the “Global Mode” service will not be available to any person for use in New Zealand.”

This is a pity, as it would have been great to have got a court ruling on whether circumventing geo-blocking technology is illegal. It would have had global ramifications.

My take: this is a victory for the old media companies but really only a moral one. Global Mode was unique worldwide in that it covered every CallPlus and Slingshot customer, without them having to do anything but there are still lots of easy ways for people to access geo-blocked sites. …

And perversely, had they lost, at least the big media companies would have had a legal decision confirming what everybody already knows: that in the age of streaming video services, there’s no such thing as an exclusive local license any more – and that the price Sky TV and others pay for local rights should reflect that.

I agree that this is not much of a victory for the broadcasters. It takes around 20 seconds to install a plugin to get around geoblocking, so people will still circumvent. And as Keall says, if they had lost in court, they could negotiate lower fees from rights holders. Now they will still pay inflated fees for theoretically exclusive content, but still have people directly accessing it from overseas sites.

The Herald editorial:

Fairly or not, politicians are expected to have solid, unambiguous positions on every issue. Not for them the shades of grey that influence the decision-making of most people in everyday life. Consequently, it is unsurprising that the Auckland councillors who are thinking of abstaining to allow the council’s 10-year budget to pass are being strongly criticised. Yesterday, Michael Barnett, of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, added to the pressure by saying taking that course would be “a total nonsense”.

They are elected to govern. If they can’t handle the responsibility, they should resign and allow in someone who can.

But ringing in their ears are the dire warnings of the council’s chief executive and chief finance officer, who have told councillors if the budget is not adopted, the council will not be able to set or collect rates, refinance loans or meet stock exchange requirements.

If they vote down Len’s budget, then Len has to put up an alternate budget which can get a majority. That is how it works.

It would surely not be catastrophic if the budget was not adopted. Any difficulties could be worked through as the budget was modified to meet the concerns of Mr Clow and others. This could see the rates impost reduced significantly through a variety of measures, including staff minimisation, enhanced efficiencies, and the selling down of council assets, such as port and airport shares and carparking buildings.

It is not a choice of Len’s budget or no budget. If they vote down Len’s budget, then a revised budget gets put up.

The issue is too important for any councillor to choose not to choose. They were elected to provide a voice for the citizens of their ward. That should not be lost when they are so adamant about the budget’s shortcomings.

Any Councillor who votes for the 9.9% rates increase budget, or abstains on it, will face a vigorous and effective campaign to stop them being re-elected.

Stuff reports:

The Government has confirmed plans to insert corporate manslaughter provisions into the health and safety reform law currently before Parliament.

The measure allowing firms to be prosecuted and fined for workplace deaths has been under consideration since the Pike River mine tragedy. Labour leader Andrew Little has been a strong supporter, but the Government has dragged its feet until now.

Justice Minister Amy Adams on Tuesday said the most appropriate place for the provision, which would address the concerns of those who lost loved ones to the actions of corporates, was in the health and safety law.

She had asked Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woodhouse to add the provision, and he had said he would look at it.

“There’s already a strong sanctions regime, but I’m certainly open to having a look at the suggestion around corporate manslaughter,” Woodhouse said.

There may be just cause to have such a law, but I fear it may become very politicised with calls for employers to be found guilty of manslaughter in relation to all workplace related deaths. The test should be gross negligence at a minimum.

There are lots of people on the Internet with nutty conspiracy theory. I ignore most of them. But when one of them is the official editor of the news site of a political party that came close to holding the balance of power, I think it is important for people to understand what sort of Government we would have had if it was a Labour-Green-NZ First backed up by the Mana Party.

Joe Trinder on Mana News writes:

There are rumours Henry receives free credit from Sky casino in exchange for getting talking points from the prime minister’s office as part of the right wing bias media.

It would be almost funny, if not so sad.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little has called for Maori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell to be stripped of responsibility for Maori TV after questioning whether Mr Flavell put pressure on the broadcaster to scrap a debate.

Stuff reports:

Calls are coming for the Maori Development Minister to resign, as it emerges he met with the Maori Television chief executive less than two hours before a contentious debate was canned.

This is just getting pathetic. Now Labour thinks Ministers should be sacked on the basis of a conspiracy theory with no proof.

I blogged on Monday on the issue of the e-mails from his staffer. They are quite mundane and if Labour think it is now illegal for a press secretary to negotiate details of a press appearance with media, well there won’t be any left in the building. That is their job. And Flavell’s staffer was quite explicit that Flavell would appear regardless of whether their views on other participants were taken on board.

The latest element is that Flavell met the Maori TV Chief Executive a couple of hours before the decision was taken to scrap the debate. Now certainly if Flavell and the CEO came to an agreement to cancel the debate, that would be outrageous. But the Herald reports:

However, the show was cancelled on May 20 and those involved were told two hours after Mr Flavell had a meeting with Maori TV chief executive Paora Maxwell.

Mr Flavell said that was coincidental and told Radio NZ he had not discussed the programme with Mr Maxwell at that meeting.

A file note from the meeting between Mr Flavell and Mr Maxwell provided to the NZ Herald contains no specific mention of Native Affairs or the proposed Whanau Ora debate.

However it does mention Maori TV plans to increase advertising revenue through the Ministries of Health and Education and “partnership with Whanau Ora Commissioning Agencies re: future growth of services.”

Mr Flavell said it was a regular quarterly meeting which was set up back in February.

So Labour are basically claiming both Flavell and the CEO are lying, and the file note deliberately incomplete. And their proof for this …. well, nothing at all.

A spokeswoman for Maori TV said the planned debate was cancelled because of low ratings on public holidays. “It was a format change because of ratings. Previous ratings for panel shows on public holidays were low.”

Seems pretty logical. And I’m sure Maori TV will have many debates about Whanau Ora over the next year.

Mr Little acknowledged he did not have firm evidence of any interference by Mr Flavell but the press secretary’s concerns and timing of the cancellation did raise questions Mr Flavell had to answer.

“In the absence of explanations about what happened in the meeting and in the absence of an explanation about why the debate on Whanau Ora was cancelled we are entitled to draw inferences. I have and I smell a rat.”

Translation: I made it up with no proof at all.

A recent ASA decision:

Complaint:  The Facebook advertisement for Spark streaming television service featured numerous tablets of Whittaker’s chocolate products. A post by the Advertiser stated:

“Tell us which Lightbox show you can’t get enough of to be into win #BingeWatching chocolate goodies …”

Complainant, S. Vernon, said:  “the advertisement encouraged binge-eating sugar-filled foods to a population that is already struggling with its obesity.”

Oh dear. They promoted eating chocolate during binge TV sessions. How evil of Spark.

The ASA took the complaint seriously enough to respond, but not to have a formal ruling. The ASA Chair said:

The Chairman noted the Complainant’s view the advertisement encouraged binge eating. She disagreed.

The Chairman noted Lightbox offered a streaming television service that enabled subscribers to watch continuous advertisement-free programmes, as well as the ability to “binge watch” their favourite television series rather than watch them in weekly episodes on television.

However, the Chairman said there was nothing that suggested the chocolate itself shown in the advertisement should be consumed in one sitting, or binge-eaten. Rather, the Chairman was of the view the chocolate represented the amount that might be consumed over weeks of watching a series in weekly episodes.   

Sad they even have to spell it out!

Christopher Snowdon blogs:

Five years ago, in May 2010, I published The Spirit Level Delusion in response to Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s book The Spirit Level which was being widely read at the time. Using similar scatter-plots to those used in The Spirit Level, I showed that most of the statistical associations between inequality and social problems that were reported by the authors were the result of selection bias. This was certainly true of the key assertion that income inequality causes poor health and shorter life expectancies (leading to the claim that “inequality kills”).

As shown in The Spirit Level, this is the relationship between income inequality and life expectancy. There is a modest (r2=0.20) correlation, with the less equal countries appearing to have shorter life expectancies.

But …

But, as I said in my rebuttal, the data used by Wilkinson and Pickett for this graph were peculiarly old. Indeed, I got my first hint that all was not as it seemed in The Spirit Level when I turned to the references and noticed that the authors used life expectancy figures from a 2006 report for one graph but used figures from a 2004 report for the graph shown above. Using the more recent figures weakens an already weak relationship, but a more fundamental problem was the exclusion of several countries from their analysis. Wilkinson and Pickett provide a justification for only studying rich countries in The Spirit Level, but there are a number of rich countries that are needlessly excluded. When those countries are added and the data from the 2006 report used, a rather different picture emerges, as the graph below shows:

This them shows a correlation in the opposite direction with r2=0.26. So the authors cherry picked their countries to get the result they wanted. However what if you use up to date data with their original cherry picked countries:

Since it’s been five years since my rebuttal was published, I decided to look at the most recent life expectancy statsand see how The Spirit Level was holding up. The results are interesting. Even if you limit the analysis to The Spirit Level’s questionable group of countries, the association with inequality has completely disappeared (r2=0.02). This remains true if you include the countries added above and if you use different measures of inequality.

That is coefficient of determination very close to zero.

Will the authors publish a revised edition?

It seems that the relationship between inequality and life expectancy only holds when we use data from early in the last decade and arbitrarily exclude a number of countries. It fails the basic scientific test of reproducibility. A law that only works under certain circumstances and in certain years is no law at all.

The fact that a correlation no longer exists even when we confine the analysis to the countries that were specially selected in The Spirit Level does not leave much wriggle room for the book’s authors. It is difficult to exaggerate to importance of the supposed link between life expectancy and inequality to The Spirit Level’s argument.

Indeed.

The Dom Post looks back at Carmen’s 1977 campaign for Mayor. I recall that campaign as a 10 year old – it was very funny.

Flamboyant transgender businesswoman Carmen lit a bomb under Wellington’s 1977 mayoral race, much as she had shaken up its social life over the previous decade.

Carmen, born as a Taumarunui lad named Trevor Rupe, ran against incumbent mayor Michael Fowler in a campaign that featured bared breasts, a shock engagement, and strippers stopping rush-hour traffic. Her slogan was “Get in Behind”.

“I am easily the best candidate,” Carmen told 1000 university students at a debate that August.

“I am better looking than Sir Francis [Kitts], I am more charming than Michael Fowler and I could beat [Values candidate Tony] Brunt in a brawl any day.”

A great line.

Her mayoral campaign was the brainchild of property baron Bob Jones, and funded by a group of Right-leaning businessmen tired of inaction under Robert Muldoon’s first government.

“If Carmen was mayor, so our logic ran, nothing would ever happen and citizens would have a respite from ever-increasing rules and regulations,” he wrote in The Dominion Post in 2007.

“Carmen cut a grotesque figure, as might be expected of a 136-kilogram King Country Maori bloke wearing a dress and flaunting massive breasts,” Jones said.

Heh.

Another prominent Dominion ad listing dozens of Carmen’s supporters sparked a protest when Jones added to the list without their consent a dozen “highly conservative QCs, businessmen and other city hierarchy”, he said.

In retaliation, one of the named luminaries organised a dozen bare-breasted strippers to parade along Kent Terrace on election eve, October 7, bearing placards with indecent comments about Jones and Carmen’s other backers.

Some of those QCs were very very upset!

In one last publicity stunt before the election, Carmen announced her engagement to top investor and businessman Ron Brierley. Gamely playing along, Sydney-based Brierley discussed the engagement ring and honeymoon when interviewed by Radio Windy, but his investment firm’s share price fell, and one director threatened resignation.

Jones played many jokes on Brierley, as recounted in his Letters books

Eric Barker at Time gives us some facts on alcohol backed up by research:

• If you want to crack someone’s skull, use an empty beer bottle, not a full one.
• Ban liquor and the homicide rate goes up.
• Vodka is more associated with homicide than beer or wine.
• Alcohol is the most harmful drug.
• Ban smoking and you get more drunk driving.
• 31% of rock star deaths are related to drugs or alcohol.
• You don’t function better after when you add Red Bull to your Vodka — you just think you do.
• Drinking makes you wealthier, can stave off dementia and help youlive a long life.
• Have the bartender use a tall, thin glass, not a short, fat one.
• You’remore creative when you’re drunk.
• Getting drunk makes you more think more politically conservative.
• You know what you’re doing when you’re drunk, alcohol just makes you care less about the consequences.
• Women like wine better when they think it’s expensive.
• One of the best predictors of how sexual a woman is is how much she drinks.
• Women probably get beer goggles worse than men.
• The answer to whether people like the taste of beer can predict if they have sex on the first date.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in helping reduce New Zealand’s external debt position?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing given that, since he became responsible for housing, the average Auckland house price has risen by $221,000, which works out at over $250 a day?
4. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
5. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding refugee numbers that “it’s not 750, and I think it’s 3000 or 4000 off the top of my head”?
6. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Civil Defence: What support is the Government providing to communities affected by the severe storm and flooding event of 18 to 21 June?
7. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development:Does he stand by his statement on who is responsible for the spending at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: “Well, the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is me”?
8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Does he support the continued Landcorp conversion from forestry to dairy despite the impact dairy farming has on freshwater quality, and the ongoing loss of forest as a carbon sink?
9. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister for Communications: Can she provide an update on the build programme for the first stage of the Ultra-Fast Broadband initiative?
11. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by his statement that “What will improve our health and safety record is changes in behaviour and attitude, and that is what I am promoting”?
12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What update can she provide about the Government’s welfare fraud reform initiatives?

National: Four questions on debt, civil defence, UFB and welfare fraud

Labour: Four questions on Auckland house prices, refugee numbers, MBIE spending and health and safety

Greens: Two questions on confidence in Ministers and Landcorp conversion of land

NZ First: Two questions on Minister of Maori Development standing by his statements and PM standing by his statements

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

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill – third reading continued

The bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the EEZ Act) to overcome unintended effects of Section 162 of by allowing existing petroleum operators who have applied for a marine consent to continue their operations until the application is decided and any subsequent objections or appeals are determined.

• Introduced: February 2015
• 1st reading: February 2015, passed 106-13 with Greens against
• SC report: May 2015, supported without dissent with amendments
• 2nd reading: June 2015
• Committee: passed without amendments or dissent

There are 11 speeches of up to 10 minutes remaining for a maximum of 110 minutes.

Harmful Digital Communications Bill – second reading

The bill provides for independent environmental reports in the areas of air, climate and atmosphere, freshwater, marine and land.

• 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

There is no time limit for the committee stage. It has two parts so is likely to last for at least two hours.  There is one SOP from Eugenie Sage.

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill – committee stage

The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2011 to facilitate the efficient and effective investment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund by allowing the Guardians to control entities formed for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund.

• Introduced: November 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: July 2014, supported with amendments without dissent
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 101-13 with Greens against

There is no time limit for the committee stage. It has two parts so is likely to last for at least two hours.  There are two SOPs from Bill English