3 News reported:

A US study, which a New Zealand teachers’ union has used to back up its claims that charter schools are failing, says they are actually helping struggling students.

A study by Stanford University’s Centre for Research on Educational Outcomes was referenced by the NZEI in its argument against charter schools being introduced in New Zealand.

A statement from the union says the 2013 study, which looked at charter schools in 26 states, found that the taxpayer-funded privately run schools do not justify their existence.

“It backs what educationalists in New Zealand have been saying all along – that charter schools are not the answer to improving educational outcomes for children,” said national president Judith Nowotarski.

But 3 News spoke to Stanford University:

It found charter school students had greater learning gains in reading than their peers in traditional public schools while there were equivalent learning gains in mathematics.

“The results reveal that the charter school sector is getting better on average and that charter schools are benefiting low-income, disadvantaged, and special education students,” said Dr Margaret Raymond, director of the centre.

According to the research, students in poverty, black students and those learning English gain most in both reading and maths compared to their traditional public school peers.

This is what Labour and Greens are fighting tooth and nail against!

The House has referred to a select committee the The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill.

The Copyright Act has a provision that bans the parallel importation of films into New Zealand for nine months. This provision expires on 31 October 2013.

The bill proposed extending the ban for a further three years, but reducing the period of the ban from nine months to five months.

I think this bill moves the law in the right direction (a shorter ban period) but I’m not convinced we should have a ban at all.

Craig Foss in moving the bill said:

The Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for a period of 5 months from the date of the film’s first release to the public. A ban on parallel importing is necessary to enable cinemas to exclusively screen films for a limited period, before copies of films on formats such as DVD and Blu-ray are brought to the New Zealand market. Although many films are released in New Zealand cinemas at the same time as international releases, many films are delayed for several weeks or months due to factors such as seasonality, screen availability, profitability assessments, and competition with other films. Without a ban in place, parallel-imported copies of films could potentially be sold in competition with screenings in cinemas. This could potentially affect the viability of cinemas.

Two things occur to me.

The first is I am far from convinced that allowing DVD sales immediately would threaten the viability of cinemas. People choose to go an see a film at the cinema for a number of reasons – the big screen, the larger capacity, the night out, the better sound etc.

The second is why should we protect cinemas as a medium. Do we protect supermarkets from dairies? Do we protect record stories from open air concerts? Let consumers choose how they want to watch a movie I say.

I think the future is, or should be, that upon release consumers can choose where and how they watch a new movie – so long as they are willing to pay for it.

It may be that a digital copy of a new movie costs $50 for the first month, then $30 for the first five months and say $20 thereafter.

Also the ban on parallel imports for a period encourages unauthorised copies. If you can’t legally buy a copy of a film, then you are more likely to acquire an unauthorised copy.

Labour also backs this bill so it will pass:

Jacinda Ardern: Just to go back to the beginning, in 2003, as I understand it, Labour introduced a 5-year temporary ban that prohibited the commercial import of a film for a period of 9 months from the film first being made available to the public. There is a very explicit reason for this and it is very much based around the motion picture industry—in particular, our small cinemas that many of us may have frequented over the years. I particularly want to highlight the ones in some of our smaller towns and provincial areas that really do rely on the ability to at least get a first foot in the door when it comes to a release. The staging of releases is pretty important to remember: something that is released in the United States, for instance, that is timed around a school holiday period, does not naturally coincide with that period within New Zealand. So having that little buffer period for that industry, as it claims, is the difference between 165 jobs existing or not. Let us be really clear on that. That is work that PricewaterhouseCoopers has done on behalf of the industry to demonstrate that a loss of that window would have that effect.

Let us be clear, though: the industry does have to move with the times. Things are changing, and rapidly. So that is why, as I understand, this bill will put an expiry date of 2016. It also reduces the window from a period of 9 months, which is what we currently have, down to 5 months. That is a compromise that we feel very comfortable with. This is a message, I guess, to the industry that this is unlikely to be a tenable, long-term way of maintaining its ability to stay in front of the game in a digital age. This is, as it were, extra time for the industry to try to develop where it goes next, in the same way that the music industry is doing—and has started doing a very good job of it, I must add. So too does this industry have to start looking at that, and much more rapidly, as well. This bill will allow it the time to do that. It will allow those jobs to be retained while the industry works on how it tries to ensure that it remains viable in the future.

I agree with Jacinda that this bill is not a tenable long-term way of comping with the digital age. My concern is will we just see it get extended time and time again every three years? This is the second temporary ban. MPs should make very clear that this will be the last one.

You can submit on this bill up until 25 July. What do readers think? Should cinemas be able to have an exclusive period where only they can show a film?

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Act Party leader John Banks will make a rare vote against his coalition partner National this week to maintain his passionate defence of animal rights.

The Psychoactive Substances Bill is expected to return to Parliament tomorrow and the Government could come close to losing a vote on a Green Party amendment which would ban animal testing for the purposes of approving legal highs for sale.

The bill states that animal testing should not happen if alternatives exist, but some MPs want the tests ruled out.

A proposed ban on animal experiments tabled by Green MP Mojo Mathers has the support of Mr Banks, who told Parliament on Wednesday: “Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.”

Mr Banks said the bill was well-intentioned but he could not support it in its present form.

It was “totally unacceptable” that the bill failed to rule out “testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals”. …

If it passed, Ms Mathers’ amendment would block drug-makers from using information gained from animal testing to prove that their products were “low-risk”.

It was opposed by National and United Future.

Whether it succeeds could hinge on the fact that new Labour MP Meka Whaitiri will not be sworn in when the vote is held.

At present, the amendment is believed to be supported by 60 MPs and opposed by 60 MPs. New Zealand First has not publicly stated its position but is expected to support the amendment.

It was expected to pass if Ms Whaitiri was able to cast her vote. But the new Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP, who was elected in a byelection last week, will not be sworn in until the end of the month.

If the vote is tied, the amendment fails.

In the old days, the Speaker would have a casting vote which would be used to maintain the status quo. Now, there is no casting vote and a tie means the vote fails.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Just when the country imagined women were doing well in politics, particularly in the Labour Party, the party’s organisational wing says they are not. It is so worried that women do not yet fill half the party’s seats in Parliament it might allow electorates to ban males from selection as the Labour candidate. Predictably, the “man ban” has been ridiculed from all sides but if Labour wants to do it, why not?

I hope they do!

 They have set a goal of a 50-50 gender balance in their caucus and women make up only 41 per cent so far. To reach perfect equilibrium by the election after next, they may need to turn away good men. Local electorate committees may be able to seek permission of the party’s New Zealand council to say that only women need apply for their selection.

If this is repugnant to the meaning of equal opportunity in most people’s minds, it is not foreign to Labour thinking.

What is amazing is that the political leadership did not see this coming. Richard Harman blogs on this at Frontpage:

Make no mistake this “Man Ban” furore has raised potentially fatal questions about David Shearer’s leadership of the Labour Party.

Here at “The Nation” last week we got a front row view of just how dysfunctional the Shearer leadership machine is.

First up, it is mind boggling that it was left to Cameron Slater and his “Whaleoil” blog to reveal that the party was proposing to allow women-only  candidate selections as part of a bid to evenly balance its gender representation by 2017.

This proposal is part of the party’s Organisational Review which began work last year.

Its proposals have already surfaced at a national conference; at local LECs and at regional conferences.

They then went to the party’s Policy Council.

Either Mr Shearer is so out of touch with what is happening inside his own party or alternatively — as one Labour source suggested to me over the weekend – he simply wasn’t listening.

But nor, apparently, were the rest of the caucus.

The Herald continues:

Positive discrimination is central to the philosophy and character of the Labour Party. It does not believe in equal opportunity but in equal outcomes, which it believes require the playing field to be tilted in favour of those disadvantaged by race, gender or relative poverty. The “man ban”, even if the executive backs away from the idea in public, is a good defining issue for voters.

I think that is a key difference between National and Labour – the focus on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities.

To anybody who shares Labour’s belief that women are inherently disadvantaged in competition with men, an idea as drastic as the “man ban” will show how determined a Labour government would be to address remaining gender imbalances in all walks of life.

Imagine what quotas will be introduced by a Labour/Green Government?

The Dom Post reports:

Wellington City Council is again looking to slow the resource consent process for the Basin Reserve flyover.

The council has appealed to Environment Minister Amy Adams to have the consent application for the $90 million flyover heard by the Environment Court, rather than by an independent board of inquiry.

The minister has the power to appoint a board, which is required make a consent decision within nine months of public notification.

The Environment Court process can vary in terms of time, but history suggests it takes longer.

The law that is applied and the outcomes should be the same. But a board of inquiry is dedicated to one hearing, so you don’t suffer a backlog.

Wellington City councillor Iona Pannett said she had little faith the board process would allow for a proper debate.

All boards of inquiry established since 2009 had granted approval, suggesting they were little more than a government rubber stamp, she said.

Boards of inquiry and environment courts are not binary decision making bodies. They do more than say yes or no. They attach dozens, sometimes hundreds, of conditions to a resource consent.

“People opposed to the flyover should be very concerned, therefore, if the project goes to a board of inquiry. The risk is real that the project will be given the green light.”

That is not what most people call a risk.

Note that the Council has accepted there is actually not practical or affordable alternative to the flyover. Despite that some Crs are still trying to kill it off.

City councillor and mayoral aspirant John Morrison said the flyover needed to be fast-tracked through a board of inquiry. He was disappointed that certain members of council wanted to use the Environment Court as a “smokescreen” for stopping the flyover.

“It’s this endless Green Party attitude of ‘stop everything, do nothing’ and that’s simply what this is. I’m sick to death of it, and I believe the city is too.”

Mr Morrison, who also sits on the Basin Reserve Trust, said the ground desperately needed the $12m stand that would be built by the Government to soften the visual impact of the flyover.

The cricket ground was in real danger of losing its test match status soon if its facilities were not drastically improved, he said.

The Environmental Protection Authority, NZTA and Greater Wellington Regional Council have made submissions to Ms Adams, all saying the flyover should be considered by a board of inquiry.

I hope the Govt will listen to them, not the WCC.

Jewish News reports:

The Left Party, a political party made up of socialists and feminists, in the County Sormland, Sweden, is pushing for making standing urination for men, illegal, for those who use public restrooms of the Provincial Government.

Why you wonder?

Party officials are pushing for the installation of sitting only toilets in men’s restrooms.

Local supporters of the proposal said they feel that sitting only urination is more hygienic and promotes male health. This will help eliminate the problem of puddles on the floor and spray stains in toilets. They also argue that urinating while sitting will help promote men’s health because it allows men to empty the bladder more effectively. Sitting urination according to advocates reduce prostate problems in men.

Men must not use urinals! They are bad for you!

I await this policy being adopted in New Zealand.

The Guardian reports:

Local reports said the incident, which took place on 30 June in the remote Brazilian town of Pio XII, escalated when the player, 30-year-old Josenir dos Santos, became involved in an argument with the referee, Octavio da Silva.

As the confrontation became physical and Dos Santos refused to leave the field, Da Silva allegedly produced a knife and stabbed the player, who died while being taken to hospital.

Reports said that outraged spectators responded by running on to the field and stoning Da Silva, before severing his head and sticking it on a stake in the middle of the field.

Okay, I think I might cross Brazil off the travel list. I thought sticking heads on stakes died off with the Roman Empire!

Police spokesman Valter Costa was quoted as saying: “We will identify and hold accountable all those involved in this incident. One crime will never justify another. Actions like this do not correspond with state law.”

Good to know state law doesn’t endorse decapitation.

Radio NZ reports:

Infrastructure investor Infratil says the Labour Party’s portrayal of how much New Zealand electricity prices have gone up in the past three years is misleading.

A graph on Labour leader David Shearer’s Facebook page – using Government data for 14 countries – shows New Zealand was one of only two where electricity prices rose between 2009 – 2012.

Bruce Harker, the head of Infratil’s manager’s energy team and TrustPower chairman, said the list of countries put forward by Labour omits Australia, where electricity prices have risen much more than in New Zealand.

Dr Harker said the comparisons being made are misleading and although if it’s converted to New Zealand dollars it appears the electricity price has fallen in other countries, the reason for that is that the New Zealand dollar has appreciated so much over that period of time.

He said consumers in Britain, Denmark or Norway would say their prices have gone up 15% – 20% in that period.

That’s outraegous – to use exchange rate changes to make it appear power prices have not shifted in other countries. Intellectually absolutely dishonest. Unless consumers in Denmark and Norway pay their power bills in NZ dollars, it is meaningless. The graph should show the actual increases in each country.

Labour finance spokesperson David Parker, a former minister of energy, concedes power prices have gone up more in other countries than in New Zealand.

So Parker admits Labour lied.

Peter Kurti at CIS writes:

Federal Labor MP Ed Husic is to be commended for his cool reaction to the swirl of anti-Islamic posts on Twitter and Facebook this week.

When he was sworn in on Monday as a Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Chifley became Australia’s first Muslim frontbencher.

Mr Husic, the son of Bosnian migrants, took the oath of office on a copy of the Qu’ran. ‘I couldn’t obviously take my oath on a bible,’ he said. ‘I am who I am.’

But that decision provoked unpleasant and anonymous attacks on social media which accused Mr Husic of treacherous and unconstitutional behaviour.

As well as being offensive, these rants were both absurd and inconsistent.

Far from being an unconstitutional act, Mr Husic’s decision to take the oath of office on the Qu’ran falls entirely within the provision of section 116 of the Australian Constitution.

Not only does the Constitution protect the free exercise of religion, section 116 prohibits religion being made a qualification for public office under the Commonwealth.

In other words, the Constitution protects the rights of Muslims to hold public office. When a Muslim is appointed to such an office, it is entirely appropriate that he or she take the oath on the Qu’ran if they wish to do so.

The Qu’ran has long been made available to Australian Muslims taking the oath in Australian courts of law.

A person taking an oath on a sacred book is not promising explicitly to uphold the contents of that book. The book simply serves as a symbol of invocation as the oath taker calls upon God to be the guarantor of his or her integrity.

NZ is rather more tolerant on these things. Ashraf Choudhary in 2002 was elected an MP and chose to swear his parliamentary path on the Qu’ran.  Off memory, there was no fuss or protest or backlash at all (except from Winston Peters, but he doesn’t count) – as there should be. We either allow no-one to swear an oath on a religious book, or we allow all religious books to be used. A country should not tell its citizens which religions are acceptable.

Kenneth Minogue died last week, aged 82. Not well known in NZ, but significant classical liberal who was President of the Mont Pelerin Society. Wikipedia notes:

Minogue wrote academic essays and books on a great range of problems in political theory. His 1963 book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, about the perversion of the liberal label by radical leftists became popular internationally. Minogue argued that genuine liberalism rests on the tradition of thinkers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant, Adam Ferguson, Alexis de Tocqueville,John Stuart Mill et al., who built the foundation for a conservative perspective. Minogue defended civility, decency, and moderation against globalists and leftists, and advocated an honest and transparent public sphere where individuals can freely pursue their own ideas of happiness.

National Review writes about him:

Kenneth Minogue, who was one of the most brilliant yet also most approachable philosophers of liberty, died suddenly on Friday when returning from a conference of the Mont Pelerin Society, whose retiring president he was, on the Galapagos Islands. This is not a formal obituary and so it will not list Ken’s academic achievements and honors. All one need say for the moment is that he was at the center of an extraordinary group of political philosophers, economists, and journalists — other members included Michael Oakeshott, Bill and Shirley Letwin, F.A. Hayek, Roger Scruton, Perry Worsthorne, Noel Malcolm, Colin Welch, Frank Johnson — who between them instilled intellectual rigor, political imagination, a deep appreciation of liberty, and a sharp (occasionally derisive) wit into the all-too-inert body of English conservatism.

Ken, a New Zealander by birth, an Australian by upbringing, and British by affection and long habit, established a solid academic reputation at the London School of Economics and gradually expanded it into an international one through his books and lecture tours. He was well-known throughout Europe and the English-speaking world for the freshness and originality of his thought and expression. He was a contributor to National Review under all of its three editors, and an occasional guest of Bill Buckley’s on Firing Line.

He did come back to NZ from time to time, and will be missed by those who knew him.

Stuff reports:

Plans to lift the minimum wage for Hamilton City Council staff have failed.

An ambitious proposal to introduce a “living wage” of $18.40 per hour over two years was today voted down 6-5 as councillors baulked at its costs.

The council voted in May to introduce a living wage over two years, from this year, on the strength of a February estimate it would cost $168,000 to lift pay rates for 80 permanent council staff now paid between the minimum and living wages. 

But management now say the resolution covered 144 staff, and their revised estimates showed the cost would be at least $643,000.

Mayor Julie Hardaker said once the council’s “toe was in the water” on a living wage policy it would be very difficult to review it, or roll the changes back.

The weird thing with the original decision is they were outsourcing their wages policy to a couple of people in the Hutt Valley. Whatever they said was a living wage, would be automatically implemented by the Council!

John Stringer blogs on 10 reasons why he thinks Bob Parker went:

1. CEO not a poli.
2. Marryatt and Consents
3. Endless negativity and character assassination
4. The Press
5. Polls
6. Wife and “well-being”
7. Reputation and legacy
8. Communication
9. Transferred frustration
10. Media prostitutes.

I don’t agree with all of them, but I do think the endless negativity was very real, and partly explains what Marryatt stuffed up also. He definitely made many mistakes, but I suspect the fact that some Councillors spent so much of their time attacking and undermining the Mayor and CEO, is why he was reluctant to let them know when problems arose, such a the consenting.

Now that is not to defend his decision. He should have informed the Council. But some Councillors are to blame also for creating a culture of negativity and attack, so the CEO did not feel he can be upfront with them. If he tells them of problems, they’ll just use it to attack him.

Sent in by e-mail by a reader. Very good.

Lots of commentary on Labour’s proposed man ban.

Colin Epsiner writes at Stuff:

Oh dear. I really didn’t think it was possible for Labour to top its own goal over the Sky City corporate box debacle. But it has. 

After a week where the Government ought to be on the back foot over the GCSB saga, Auckland’s nutty property market, and the death throes of one of its coalition partners, Labour has come out with a policy so politically barmy it makes you wonder whether it really has any interest in winning the next election. …

David Shearer has – after initially stating the policy had “some merit” – realised he’s dealing with a political bomb and come out against the policy, saying he favours targets rather than quotas. Senior Labour MPs Phil Goff, Shane Jones, and Andrew Little immediately recognised the damage the proposal would do and have denounced it too. 

But it may be too late. This idea needed to be taken out and quietly shot before it ever saw the light of day. From now until it’s debated at Labour’s annual conference in November, Labour’s opponents will have a field day. 

The Opposition needs to be talking to the electorate about jobs, housing, incomes, and hip-pocket issues. Not navel-gazing about its gender balance. The public, to be frank, doesn’t give a toss whether Labour has 41 per cent women MPs or 50 per cent. They just want good candidates and good policies. 

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

No Labour MPs other than Manurewa’s Louisa Wall will publicly back a proposal to have women-only selection short lists for some electorates to boost female MP numbers.

After his initial reluctance to comment earlier this week, party leader David Shearer has now come out against the proposal.

Outspoken male MPs Shane Jones and Damien O’Connor panned the idea in no uncertain terms, warning it risked driving away socially conservative blue-collar voters.

Of Labour’s 34 MPs, only Ms Wall has been prepared to publicly support it since it was revealed on Thursday.

Eleven, including Mr Shearer, have said they don’t support it or are yet to be convinced.

But is David Shearer not a member of the NZ Council that has proposed this?

So either he got rolled at the NZ Council meeting, or he has flip-flopped and was for it before he rages against it.

Fran O’Sullivan supports it though:

Congratulations to Party Central for putting gender equality ahead of diversity when it comes to the ranking criteria for selecting the next crop of Labour MPs.

Quaintly, the notion that a 21st century political party might opt to use its selection process to try to make sure that as many women as men represent us in Parliament has been met with howls of derision and barely disguised outrage.

That’s just on the Labour side of politics. Let’s point out here that the most vocal MP opponents (Yes, I am talking aboutyou, Shane Jones and you, Clayton Cosgrove) are only there themselves by virtue of their list rankings.

John Armstrong writes:

When you are in a hole, you can rely on Labour to dig itself into an even deeper one beside you – as it did this week with its shoot-yourself-in-both-feet potential change to party rules to allow women-only candidate selections.

This was not solely political correctness gone stark-raving bonkers. Apart from alienating one group of voters who have drifted away from Labour in recent years – men – such a rule change would be just as insulting to women in insinuating they could not win selection on their own merits.

The proposal should have been kiboshed by the leader the moment he saw it. That he didn’t – or felt he couldn’t – points to deep schisms in the party.

The message voters will take from Labour’s warped priorities is that of a party which cannot get its act together in the snoozy backwaters of Opposition, let alone in the blazing sun of Government.

There is a reasons this never emerged under Helen Clark. She would have strangled this before it was born, even if she privately backed it.

Bryce Edwards has collected some of the best tweets on this issue. Here’s a few:

Bernard Orsman ‏@BernardOrsman

The ‘man ban’. Can things get any worse for Labour. PC madness. @nzlabour

James Macbeth Dann ‏@edmuzik

David Shearer is against the quotas. That should guarantee they get passed

Perfect Mike Hosking ‏@MikePerfectHosk

The Labour Party manban makes no sense at all. It’s like saying “drinkable organic wine.”

Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

Labour Party wants a quota system for MPs based on gender etc – not merit. Apparently this isn’t a joke.

Michael Laws ‏@LawsMichael

Labour’s next caucus rule – seats reserved for the disabled, the mentally ill, overstayers, gays, vegetarians, the over 70s, the under 20s.

Philip Matthews ‏@secondzeit

@harvestbird Over a couple of beers with my mates building a deck, we decided that the manplan has set progressive politics back decades.

Julian Light ‏@julianlight

Went for a coffee this morn but was refused service. Not enough women had bought a coffee. Seemed about as fair as Labour’s policy #manban

Aunty Haurangi ‏@_surlymermaid

Upside to the #manban : Less likely John Tamihere will get an electorate seat.

Keeping Stock ‏@Inventory2

Sean Plunket describes the #ManBan as “a completely co-ordinated attack by the Labour Party on itself”; and he’s spot on.

Ben Uffindell ‏@BenUffindell

@LewStoddart More women MPs just for the sake of more women MPs is not a noble goal. Sexism lies in the population at large.

Cactus Kate ‏@CactusKate2

50% of houses should b owned solely by women n we should hv zero interest loans 2 fund this #manban

Finally we have Chris Trotter:

AMIDST ALL THE CLAMOUR of its detractors, the true significance of Labour’s “Man Ban” has eluded most commentators.

Yes, the proposed rule change has undoubtedly damaged Labour’s election prospects.

Yes, there are many more important issues the party would have preferred the news media to focus upon.

Yes, it is further evidence of a party with no reliable political grown-ups in charge.

Yes, Labour’s opponents will dine out on it for months.

And, yes, it’s the only thing the 2013 Annual Conference will be remembered for.

But, the “Man Ban” is also proof of something else: that the distance separating Labour’s rank-and-file from Labour’s Caucus has grown as wide as the gulf that once separated the “old” Labour Party from the “new”.

The conference in November should be spectacular!

I think a record – 10/10 in 34 seconds. Quiz here.

Stuff reports:

The Government has paid no compensation to the families of the victims of the Pike River mine disaster, their lawyer, Nick Davidson QC, says.

This was in spite of apologies from the Government and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment over their contribution to the tragedy, he said.

“Nothing has been paid by the Government [to Pike victims]. Not at all.”

In comparison, Davidson said the Government paid out-of-court settlements over another West Coast disaster, Cave Creek, near Punakaiki.

In that case, the Department of Conservation was found to have acted illegally and negligently after the viewing platform collapsed on April 28, 1995, killing 13 Tai Poutini Polytech outdoor recreation students and a DOC manager, and injuring four other students.

The two cases are not comparable.

DOC was the owner of and responsible for the Cave Creek platform.

The Pike River company was the owner of the Pike River mine and responsible for the mine safety. The court has found they were at fault.

I have huge sympathy for the families of the Pike River victims. However I do not believe it would be a good precedent to have taxpayers responsible for the failings of private companies.

Treasury have released the financial statements for the 11 months to May 2013. The operating balance before gains and losses (obegal) was a $3.3 billion deficit.

The 2012 Budget forecast a $7.8 OBEGAL deficit for the current financial year. It is now looking to be much much less than that. That’s a really promising sign that the economic recovery is strengthening and that the inherited structural deficit will be gone in the next two years.

Stuff reports:

Every town in the country should have CCTV cameras to installed to help in the fight against crime.

That’s the opinion of one top officer, retiring after 30 years in the force, and who in the course of his career worked some of the country’s most notorious crimes

Retiring Detective Sergeant Glenn Tinsley, formerly of the Waihi Crime Investigation Bureau, was heavily involved in both Operation Sara – the murder of Sara Niethe in 2003 – and Operation Olive – the murder of Paeroa Pizza man Jordan Voudouris in June 2012, two investigations he says would have been a lot easier with the help of technology.

He says if the government and public want to “get serious” about crime prevention, the first step should be a rollout of CCTV cameras coupled with plate recognition technology.

He reckons cameras – paid for by local councils, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and ACC levies – should be installed at the entry and exit points of every town.

“If you had a camera set up in all towns either side of Whangamata, Whitianga, Tairua, Coromandel the same, even the [Kopu] bridge at Thames; everything that moves – you are going to catch it,” he said.

Why stop there?

Why not microchip every person born in NZ, with a chip that tells the Police where you are. So if a crime happens in a specific area, the Police can work out who was within 100 metres of the crime and haul them in for questioning.

Then after that, we can start work on pre-crimes. Of course that would mean arresting the entire population of Huntly.

Bob Parker has just announced he will not stand for Mayor again. Right decision after consents debacle.

Will Lianne be crowned unopposed or will more candidates come forward now?

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First has criticised the cost of Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce’s recent four-day trip to Europe but Mr Joyce has hit back.

Mr Joyce visited Poland, Germany, Brussels and the United Kingdom in June to strengthen New Zealand’s science, innovation and international education links with the European Union.

He opened the biennial New Zealand-European Commission joint science and technology co-operation meeting in Brussels.

Answers to written questions show the budget for the trip was $56,700, a total NZ First leader Winston Peters said was the equivalent of two minimum wage jobs.

Mr Joyce confirmed today the budget for his trip was $56,700 but said actual costs were still being processed.

He said 75 per cent of the budget was spent on airfares and has called Mr Peters a “hypocrite” for his comments.

“This was the guy who as foreign minister defined spending money. For example, in 2006 he managed to spend more than $250,000 in three months – which equates to around $300,000 today – and he said at the time that was to be expected.

“The good news is that I didn’t burn any bedspreads.”

Heh, no smoking in bed.

But it is truly sad and pathetic to see a former foreign minister attacking Ministers for their travel. Winston presided over a culture of extravagance at MFAT with massive boosts to their budgets.

“While Steven Joyce and his staff are jet-setting around the world, more and more New Zealanders are lining up to collect the dole”.

This trip was not jet setting. Certainly some trips, such as Speaker’s Tours, are fairly shall we say relaxed. But most Ministerial travel consists of 16 hour days, and no spare time at all.

Where did Mr Joyce stay:

* Poland: Hotel Stary, Krakow – 1 night

* Germany: Hotel Berline-Mitte, Berlin – 1 night

* Brussels: Sofitel Brussels – 1 night

* London: Royal Horseguards Hotel – 1 night

People who don’t travel much think travel is fun. Travel is not fun, it is a pain in the butt. Checking into and out of hotels every day and stuck on planes is not a holiday. Don’t get me wrong – being in other countries can be great fun – if you have the time to actually do stuff when you are there. But look at Joyce’s itinerary – every day was travel.

But Mr Joyce gained some support from former foreign affairs minister Phil Goff, who said the costs weren’t unreasonable.

“I’ve never criticised a minister of foreign affairs or a minister of trade for travel costs, because if you’re doing your job you’re spending long hours flying, long hours at meetings and there’s no time for junkets in between.

Good on Goff for playing this fair.

During Mr Peters’ time as foreign minister, he spent more than $250,000 between June and September, 2006.

In that year his office was charged $230 for a bed cover that was burnt with a cigarette, although the money was later reimbursed.

And we’re still waiting for him to repay the $158,000.

Edward Gay at the NZ Herald reports:

A nephew of Mana Party leader Hone Harawira was on bail for a home invasion in which a 12-year-old boy was bashed and robbed when he took part in an aggravated robbery.

Following a four-day jury trial at Auckland District Court, Enesi Zane Brooks Taito and his brother Tohara Harawira were today convicted of aggravated robbery and a third man was convicted of assaulting two witnesses.

It can now be revealed that Taito, 26, was on bail at the time for a home invasion after he and his brother, Mau Harawira, attacked a boy in his Auckland home. Taito was convicted for injuring with intent to injure in that case.

I’m losing track of which Harawiras have been charged with and convicted of which crimes recently, as there have been so many of them.

To help me, could someone do up a family tree showing all the different members, and which ones have convictions?