Andrea Vance writes at Stuff:

Norman had a comprehensive list of examples to back his assertion that “something in rotten in the state of New Zealand politics…something is rotting in the Beehive.”

He cited: the SkyCity deal; Hobbit employment law changes; the sacking of Environment Canterbury councillors; dumping of proposed MMP changes; a ban on deep sea drilling protests at the behest of oil companies; and recent disabled carers’ legislation.

Let’s be very clear. It is absolutely appropriate opposition parties attack the Government for decisions they don’t like. I do wish they would stop lying about deep see protests being banned. They are not. All that is banned is protests within 500 metres of a commercial operation, as the right to protest doesn’t trump the right to do your lawful business.

Anyway absolutely legitimate to attack the Govt and the PM for decisions you dislike.

But the 20-minute address marked a departure from the Green’s particular brand of play-the-ball-not-the-man-politics. Norman launched a personal attack on Key, painting him as a Muldoon-style bully. There was also a snide reference to Key’s personal wealth: he is “irritated if we are not all grateful for him generously agreeing to be PM.” And he trashed Key’s trademark genial disposition.

“The next time you see John Key smiling, …he’s smiling because he’s giving favours to his mates while undermining your democracy,” he said.

What Norman is doing here is trying to paint Key as an evil person. He’s trying to make people think that Key actually hates ordinary New Zealanders and just pretends to be friendly when he is smiling.

It is ridiculous, as anyone who knows John Key would testify. John Armstrong writes:

Muldoonist? John Key? Russel Norman cannot be serious.

The Green Party co-leader’s assertion that the “divisive and corrosive” behaviour exhibited by the leader of the National Party is akin to that of his most notorious of predecessors is certainly headline-grabbing. It also verges on the ludicrous. Sir Robert Muldoon was without question our most belligerent, abrasive, polarising, dictatorial and vindictive politician.

The fear and loathing he was capable of generating within his own ranks – let alone in the wider world of politics – was summed up by a caucus colleague who said he went to Muldoon’s funeral only so he could be assured the lid on the coffin had been nailed down properly.

I knew Muldoon, unlike Norman. Norman only moved to New Zealand five years after Muldoon died. I can’t think of an MP who is more different to Muldoon in personality, than John Key.

This is shown in Key’s response to Norman:

Prime Minister John Key was remarkably restrained in his response to Greens co-leader Russel Norman’s personal attack on Saturday. Dr Norman called Mr Key corrosive and said he is ”irritated if we are not all grateful for him generously agreeing to be PM”. Through a spokeswoman, Mr Key said the Government is ”focused on the things that matter – like building a strong and stable economy with more, better paying jobs to help New Zealand families”.

I can’t recall the last time John Key did a nasty personal attack in a set speech. Making a joking reference to Labour and Greens as the devil-beast is not a personal attack. It is a political one.

Here’s a challenge. What”s the worst thing John Key ever said about Helen Clark? To the best of my memory he attacked her Government, not her. In fact once he beat her, he helped get her a job at the UN.

I think people can decide for themselves who has decided to be corrosive. Now I’m not complaining about it. I think it is good that people are now able to see what the Greens are prepared to do, in order to get into power.

UPDATE: Karl du Fresne, who was a journalist under Muldoon blogs:

Russel Norman’s speech to the annual conference of the Greens, in which he compared John Key with Robert Muldoon, rated a 10 for desperation and a zero for credibility. …

Norman arrived in New Zealand from Australia in 1997, and on the basis of his speech I would guess that’s about as far back as his knowledge of our political history extends.None of the prime ministers we’ve had since Muldoon could be compared with him, for which we should be grateful. He was a vindictive bully who cleverly exploited the politics of fear and division, and never more so than during the 1981 Springbok tour.

In fact I would suggest that in terms of personality, Key is the least like Muldoon. Anyone old enough to remember the political unpleasantness of the late 1970s and early 80s – which probably excludes a lot of Green voters – would have reacted with astonishment to Norman’s bizarre attempt to compare the two men.

Muldoon’s default facial expression was a snarl. Key’s is a grin (or if you want to be harsh, a smirk).

Arguably, the politician who most closely resembles Muldoon, and who served his apprenticeship under him, is Winston Peters. Like Muldoon, Peters has a penchant for demagoguery. But even the New Zealand First leader falls far short of Muldoon’s menacing intolerance of dissent, though it might have been a different story had he ever won power.

That’s the Winston Peters that the Greens are preparing to go into Government with?

There are only two possible explanations for Norman’s attack on Key. The first is that, as postulated above, he knows nothing about our modern political history (not that that stops him from promoting himself as a credible alternative leader). The second, which is even more worrying, is that he knows the comparison between Key and Muldoon is absurd but ran with it anyway. Perhaps he senses the Greens’ momentum is slipping and is prepared to resort to extreme measures to get some traction.

I think it is the second.

A fascinating article at the Economist:

Young Britons are classical liberals: as well as prizing social freedom, they believe in low taxes, limited welfare and personal responsibility. In America they would be called libertarians.

More than two-thirds of people born before 1939 consider the welfare state “one of Britain’s proudest achievements”. Less than one-third of those born after 1979 say the same. According to the BSA, members of Generation Y are not just half as likely as older people to consider it the state’s responsibility to cover the costs of residential care in old age. …

“Every successive generation is less collectivist than the last,” says Ben Page of Ipsos MORI, a pollster. All age groups are becoming more socially and economically liberal. But the young are ahead of the general trend. They have a more sceptical view of state transfers, even allowing for the general shift in attitudes (see first chart).

Polling by YouGov shows that those aged 18 to 24 are also more likely than older people to consider social problems the responsibility of individuals rather than government. They are deficit hawks (see second chart). They care about the environment, but are also keen on commerce: more supportive of the privatisation of utilities, more likely to reject government attempts to ban branding on cigarette packets and more likely to agree that Tesco, Britain’s supermarket giant, “has only become so large by offering customers what they want”.

A belief in economic and social liberalism is only sensible. Keep the Government out of both business and the bedroom.

Young Britons’ broad liberalism, their suspicion of state interventions of most varieties, not only contrasts with the views of their elders. It also makes them unusual internationally. Britons between 15 and 35 are more relaxed about the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis than are young people in the EU as a whole. Another Eurobarometer study conducted in 2011 showed that Britons in that age group were more likely to have set up their own business than their counterparts in any other large European country.

Setting up your own business is one of the best things you can do. Of course you may fail, but there is no reward without risk.

As yet, there is little sign any of this is permeating mainstream politics. The two main parties, the Conservatives and Labour, broadly adhere to the conventional right-left divide (with economic liberalism on one side and social liberalism on the other).

So who can appeal to the growing number of young Britons?

A mainstream politician could yet tap into it. Speaking to young people from different backgrounds and parts of the country, from the engaged to the apathetic, your correspondent often asked if any politicians appealed to them. The reaction was strikingly uniform: silence, then contemplation, then a one-word answer—“Boris”—before a flood of agreement: “Oh yeah, I’d vote for Boris Johnson.” The chaotic, colourful mayor of London, a rare politician who transcends his Tory identity by melding social and economic liberalism, appears to have Britain’s libertarian youth in the bag. The 2020 election beckons.

Boris does transcend the normal divide. People like him, for being human.

Stuff reports:

A group of Spring Hill prisoners narrowly escaped being burnt to death after a burning roof caved in, just as prison officers herded them to safety.

The Waikato Times understands many of the 29 prisoners involved in Saturday’s riot at the prison’s high security wing were lucky to escape with their lives.

More than 115 prisoners have been relocated to other North Island prisons, including the 29 involved in the riot.

If those who nearly burned to death were those doing the rioting, it may have been Darwin’s Law in operation.

Would it not be sensible to split up those involved in the riot? Generally they like to have you near your family for rehabilitation reasons, but I think when you instigate riots, then there is a good case for moving some of them to say Dunedin and Christchurch prisons.

Cleaning products were used to light fires while sports equipment was broken down and used as weapons by raging prisoners – understood to be gang members.

The end result may be other prisoners lose access to sports equipment.

She confirmed those involved in starting the riots were gang members.

“There are significant numbers of one particular gang at Spring Hill, which is the Killer Beez”.

Prison staff had no indication trouble was brewing before Saturday’s riot.

How can this be? The Greens say it was because of the two year old smoking ban and the three year old double bunking policy? Nothing to do with being gang members I am sure.

Yahoo reports:

Dubai is being promoted as a luxury high-class paradise in the desert, but the reality is brutally different, as Australian Alicia Gali discovered. Gali took a job in the UAE with one of the world’s biggest hotel chains, Starwood. What happened next makes this story a must-watch for every Australian planning on travelling through the region.

Gali was using her laptop in the hotel’s staff bar when her drink was spiked. She awoke to a nightmare beyond belief: she had been savagely raped by three of her colleagues. Alone and frightened, she took herself to hospital. What Alicia didn’t know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.

That is beyond appalling. It should offend the sensibility of every right thinking man and woman. Maybe the UN could condemn situations like this as loudly as possible, if it does not take time away from tut tutting that only 33% of NZ’s Parliament are female.

NewstalkZB reports:

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker says a report he is standing down at this year’s local body elections is a ‘complete fantasy’.

Today’s Sunday Star-Times suggests Mr Parker will exit the mayoral race.

So far, he is the only candidate to confirm he’s standing.

Bob Parker says while he enjoys a work of fiction, he believes in Christchurch and wants to be part of its future.

There are two questions here.

The first is whether the rumour just started as organic speculation, or was it a destabilising dirty trick?

The second is why the The Press ran the story? Parker denied it on the record to him. If a rumour is denied emphatically, how is it newsworthy?

Note this is not a parody post.

A friend e-mails:

I was at a friend’s place last night. There were about 15 of us catching up and one of my mates who is in the Green Party had been to the Green Party Conference earlier in the day.

He told me that the conference was “fragrance free” that no one could wear aftershave or perfume (and I wonder if that extended to deoderant as well??).

It was written in the agenda booklet too.

This is really too funny for words.

The full list is on the DPMC site.

ONZ

To be a Member of the said Order:

Emeritus Professor Albert Wendt, CNZM, of Auckland. For services to New Zealand.

Professor Wendt was born in Samoa, but of German heritage. He established the University of the South Pacific Center in Samoa, has won the NZ Books Awards and is currently a Professor of Pacific studies at the University of Auckland.

DNZM

To be a Dame Companion of the said Order:

Mrs Ngāneko Kaihau Minhinnick, JP, of Waiuku. For services to Māori and conservation.

KNZM

To be Knights Companion of the said Order:

The Honourable Robert Stanley Chambers, of Auckland. For services to the judiciary. (Deceased. This appointment took effect on 20 May 2013; Her Majesty’s approval having been signified before the date of decease.)

Mr John Stratton Davies, QSO, of Queenstown. For services to business and tourism.

Dr The Right Honourable Alexander Lockwood Smith, of London, United Kingdom. For services as a Member of Parliament and as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr Gordon Frederick Tietjens, CNZM, of Tauranga. For services to rugby.

Dame Ngāneko has been associated with many causes, mostly associated with the left such as anti-nuclear. I doubt anyone can say the Key Government is being partisan with this appointment.

Sir Robert’s appointment was already known, to her his sad untimely death.

Sir John Davies is a former Mayor of Queenstown and a major owner of tourism businesses such as Mt Hutt, Coronet Peak, the Remarkables, Tourism Milford,  the Hermitage Hotel at Aoraki-Mt Cook. As Mayor he was instrumental in establishing the village green in Queenstown.

No surprise with the knighthood for Lockie. Congrats to Sir Lockwood and Lady Smith.

A popular knight I suspect with Sir Gordon Tietjens, or Sir Titch as he will probably be known. A legendary coach for the Sevens. They’ve won ten titles, one rugby world cup and four commonwealth gold medals under him.

Rodney gets better week after week as a writer. Today in the HoS:

Air New Zealand’s rejection of would-be cabin crew member Claire Nathan because of the ta moko on her forearm highlights how New Zealand is developing and unfolding in new and exciting ways.

No longer must we think through the consequences of our actions. This is very liberating. For Nathan, her dream was to work serving the diverse customers who fly Air NZ. In the past she would have had to think through personal decisions that might affect her chances of a job. Like having a tattoo on her arm.

Not any more. She can have her tattoo and Air NZ is wrong to object.

The second great development is that you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your decisions in embarrassed silence. You can trumpet poor treatment in the media and instantly become the victim.

The third is that we are quick to spot any hint of racism. Nathan is Maori. Maori traditionally had tattoos. Therefore, Air NZ is discriminatory and racist. We have yet another opportunity to prove again that we are ever-vigilant in battling the scourge of racism.

As I said choices have consequences.

The Press reports:

Christchurch’s mayoralty race could soon take a dramatic turn with rumours swirling that incumbent Bob Parker may not run.

Parker, who late last year confirmed he would seek a third term as mayor, has been sounding out city leaders lately, asking whether they thought he could win if Christchurch East MP Lianne Dalziel stood against him.

The popular Labour MP is widely tipped to run in October’s election and yesterday said she would announce her “decision” later this month.

The city’s mayoralty race has been non-existent so far with Parker the only confirmed candidate. Yesterday, he denied any suggestion he would stand down, claiming that was purely what his opponents wanted to hear.

It is thought Parker received mixed feedback from those he consulted.

Polling done by his political rivals shows Dalziel holding a narrow lead against him and it is thought these results prompted the Parker rethink.

But his loyal deputy Ngaire Button strongly denied any talk of Parker quitting. “That [rumour] is completely fanciful. Bob has told me he is running.”

Earlier last week, Button hosted a group of “independent” candidates she will soon unveil to stand across the city. The, group, to be called City First, fuelled rumours Parker could endorse Button for the mayoralty and slip out of the political landscape on his own terms.

She did little to dampen down that talk yesterday, saying the idea of Parker endorsing her for the mayoralty was “a scenario that could work out in time . . . but I have not thought about it”.

Bob Parker led the city very well through the initial crisis of earthquake. But he does run the risk of ending up like Winston Churchill in 1950 – the public grateful for the efforts, but wanting a change.

Would it be better to go out on top after two terms, than risk losing to Dalziel?

Stuff reports:

As the Ports of Auckland seeks public feedback on its controversial container port expansion plans, an alternative proposal has emerged for a site on the other side of Auckland.

The promoters of a container port on the Manukau Harbour in the South Auckland area of Wiri claim several potential advantages to the Ports of Auckland (POAL) reclamation in the Waitemata Harbour. These include less pressure on Auckland’s transport infrastructure, significant sea-transport savings of around $150,000 a voyage and estimated savings on container movement costs of $70 a TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units – the standard container size).

The promoters of the alternative port – ports and shipping consultant Mark Oxley, former P&O NZ chief executive Mick Payze and former Maritime New Zealand chief executive Russell Kilvington – have conducted preliminary investigations over the past couple of years but are seeking a backer to fund the estimated $250,000 to take the proposal to the next step of a full feasibility and economic study.

Waterfronts historically have been industrial and commercial areas. But as CBDs have become places where people live and play, they are far better suited for hospitality, retail and open park areas.

So I’m all for moving ports away from CBDs to industrial areas like Manukau Harbour. Of course this should only happen if it can make economic sense. But ports need to grow, as the economy grows, and they won’t be able to do so in locations where they are competing with the public.

Rob O’Neill at Stuff reports:

Over the past few months Telecom has “pulled the pin”, says chief executive Simon Moutter, and made moves designed to change the telecommunications market.

Moutter is referring to initiatives such as sharp cuts announced in December to international data roaming charges, which have been a bugbear for many business travellers whacked with hefty bills for using the mobile internet services when overseas.

Telecom launched a flat daily rate for data roaming by on-plan customers across major travel markets such as Australia where roaming now starts at $6 a day. A $10 a day flat rate applies in other specified markets while elsewhere roaming charges will be cut by up to 92 per cent.

I’m heading to the US soon, and for once plan to keep my NZ sim card in the phone.

What has happened to Telecom? It used to be Vodafone and, more recently, 2degrees making the running in the fast-growing mobile market.

Moutter says Telecom is no longer spending time and energy defending the past or worrying about regulation. It has moved into what he calls “clear air”.

I think the separation of Telecom from Chrous has been great for Telecom. They no longer focus on protecting a monopoly and trying to vertically integrate around the monopoly portion.

Moutter, who in a previous life at Telecom (before a successful four-year stint leading Auckland International Airport) fought the threat of regulation and operational separation fiercely, says Telecom can now be much more clear about what drives its future value.

“A separated model feels a lot better to me than what we called operational separation,” he says.

Where operational separation bound the company up in rules, full structural separation since late 2011 has freed Telecom from a lot of that red tape and delivered a new sense of direction as a pure retail business.

The lesson here is you should regulate the monopoly aspects of a utility, but promote competition in the non-monopoly areas. Sadly Labour/Greens wish to do the opposite and turn power generation into a state controlled monopoly.

Moutter says “texting circles”, or deals such as Vodafone’s Best Mates, are the biggest barrier to winning back market share, but Telecom has moved on from such “closed network” deals, where customers get a discount on calls or texts within a single providers’ customer base, to what he describes as “any net” deals.

“If I was a Vodafone customer, I’d be wondering why I was being held captive,” he says.

A very good question.

Ironically for the man once charged with facing down the regulators, Moutter freely admits that is a product of regulatory intervention – the Commerce Commission’s decision to regulate mobile termination rates charged between providers for calls terminating on their respective networks.

“I was that guy running defence. That was my job.”

As one of those who advocated termination rate regulation, good to see Telecom not embrace it. It has been a great boon for consumers, and has helped foster competition as it makes it easier for people to choose the network offering the best deal – rather than be forced to go on the one their friends are with.

Simon Day at Stuff reports:

A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included.

Two “Band of Brothers” seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons’ lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons. A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn’t because her presence would inhibit discussion. She was told a mother and son seminar was planned for later in the year.

“We really just wanted an opportunity for the guys to open up and chat, and they wouldn’t particularly want to do if there were females around – which I think is understandable,” said principal Darrel Goosen.

The woman’s son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.

How incredibly selfish.

“In hindsight we realise we may have offended some single parents, for which we apologise, as this was never our intention,” said a school note to families.

It’s not the school that should be apologising.

The Herald reports:

Gang tensions are believed to have sparked the on-going prison riot at Spring Hill jail south of Auckland, where inmates are setting fires and damaging cells.

But who is to blame? It isn’t the gangs. Oh no. According to the Greens, it is the Government. Andrea Vance tweeted:

Greens say double bunking and smoking ban to blame for heightened tensions in prisons.

This would be hilarious, if it were not so tragic. The smoking ban by the way has been in place for two years, and the double bunking for three years.

Yet the Greens have divined they are to blame for the riot!

Nothing to do with the gangs. For gang members are just victims of society, as are those poor prisoners who can’t smoke and have single cells.

Imagine the fun with a Green Minister of Corrections!

The Herald reports:

Bullrush and other potentially bruising activities are returning to play as research points to the long-term benefits of scraped knees and the odd broken bone.

The moves aim to counterbalance a health-and-safety culture which has seen playgrounds remodelled, particularly overseas where litigation fears have killed off tall slides and seesaws.

Principal Scott Thelning re-introduced bullrush when he was at Christchurch’s Mt Pleasant Primary. He’s now at the city’s Cobham Intermediate, and from Friday, pupils there will be playing the NZ classic.

The game will be monitored by a teacher at first, but eventually children will be able to play unsupervised. A letter will explain the situation to parents and mouthguards will not be compulsory.

Mouthguards? I hope not.

Bullrush is a great game. We played it all the time at school and at Scouts. No kid should grow up without it.

The Herald reports:

A land banking business with a big piece of residentially zoned real estate on Auckland’s outskirts has made more than $6 million a year for almost two decades – doing nothing.

QV records shows Yi Huang Trading Company owns 39 Flat Bush School Rd, which it bought in 1995 for $890,000.

Now, this 29ha block is listed on the market for $112.6 million, promoted as “the land of opportunity, vacant but close to Barry Curtis Park”. …

Developers say Auckland Council officials have blamed them for building high-priced houses but they say land speculators took a bigger toll because they were inactive and reaped rich rewards for locking land away from being put to productive purposes. If it achieves the full asking price, then each year the company has held the land it made $6.2 million, they said, for doing nothing.

There are two solutions for this.

The first is free up the land supply. Because there are so few areas that can be used for residential development, it has produced massive profits for those land bankers. By not freeing up land supply, you encourage them to land bank.

The other solution is a land tax. That will encourage land to be used for productive reasons, not just be banked up for future use.

Andrea Vance at Stuff writes:

And he launched an astonishing personal attack on Prime Minister John Key, who he says is “divisive and corrosive” and “irritated if we are not all grateful for him generously agreeing to be PM.”

He added: “So next time you see John Key smiling, remember he’s not smiling because he likes you, he’s smiling because he’s giving favours to his mates while undermining your democracy.”

And Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald writes:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has made a rare personal attack on Prime Minister John Key, comparing him to former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon

You could say a lot about the policies put forward by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, but you know that they never would have carried out the sort of personal smear attack Russel Norman is now doing with the Greens.

Once upon a time the Greens boasted that they didn’t do personal attacks. I presume they’ll never make that claim again.

I can only presume it is desperation as Russell sees his long awaited dreams of being a Minister slip away.

His speech resembles one of the more angry rants you often read at The Standard. That is because it was probably written by one of the authors at The Standard.

The Herald reports:

Two-thirds of New Zealand’s richest people are not paying the top personal tax rate, with increasingly complex overseas schemes and bank accounts being used to evade the taxman.

Inland Revenue has found that 107 out of 161 “high-wealth individuals” who own or control more than $50 million worth of assets declared their personal income in the last financial year was less than $70,000 – the starting point for the top tax bracket of 33 cents in the dollar.

The multimillionaires used a variety of 6,800 tax-planning devices – such as companies, trusts and overseas bank accounts – to avoid paying tax. One had a network of 197 entities.

I doubt many, if any, avoided paying tax. What they avoided was paying the top personal tax rate of 33%. If you run your affairs through a company, then the tax rate is 28%. However if you take income from your company at greater than $70,000 then you will still pay the 33% rate.

The way you stop this happening is by having the top personal tax rate the same as the company rate at 28%.

Labour’s revenue spokesman, David Cunliffe, said it appeared the problem here was worsening.

Actually what would worsen it massively is Labour’s plan to increase the top tax rate to 39%. That will encourage even greater avoidance.

“I am astounded and appalled. The legitimate tax system requires that everyone pays their fair share.

“If people want to [avoid tax] then it will require the Government to be much stricter and crack down on avoidance opportunities. Why should people who are the most privileged sector of society use their position to avoid paying a fair share of tax?

“That is morally wrong and should be illegal.”

What a fascinating position. Is Labour proposing to make it compulsory for people to pay as much tax as possible? That it is illegal to arrange your affairs in a way that avoids the top tax rate?

Maybe Mr Cunliffe proposes that family trusts be made illegal as they can be used to avoid tax. However I note on the register of pecuniary interests he has declared the Bozzie Family Trust. Is he saying what he has done is morally wrong and should be illegal? What explicitly does he propose to change?

Figures supplied to the Weekend Herald show that the IRD has collected more than $600 million in extra tax since a unit was set up in 2003 to investigate high-wealth individuals.

Other cases still under investigation total $212 million, and a further $112 million is disputed.

Inland Revenue has also identified 500 people it believes may have given themselves artificially low salaries to avoid paying the top personal rate.

The law allows you to arrange your affairs in a way that may mean you pay less tax. But the arrangements can not be “artificial”. So if you are a surgeon earning $500,000 a year into your company and the company pays you only $50,000 a year – the courts have ruled this is artificial and won’t be allowed.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s diplomatic bid to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Ross Sea is floundering in its Antarctic waters after China and Japan stridently opposed it.

Japan made it clear they don’t even want discussion on the 4.9 million square kilometre marine protected area (MPA) which is backed by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

The Ross Sea or “Last Ocean” plan went before last year’s Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) but failed for lack of a consensus and decision making was moved to a meeting to be held in Bremerhaven, Germany, from July 11 to 16.

That is a pity. Just as Antarctica itself has international agreements to preserve it for scientific research, the Ross Sea should have the same status.

But the nature of international agreements is you can’t force countries to agree.

The Press reports:

We complain if we are served burnt coffee or stale food, but should we complain if a cafe plays music we find offensive?

Christchurch cafes have the right to choose their own tunes, but some customers are unhappy over the playing of “explicit” songs.

One cafe-goer contacted The Press after he was offended by the use of “four-letter words” in a song playing at C1 Espresso cafe at lunchtime.

“There were young children in the cafe at the time. I raised the matter with the waitress, who was going to talk to the manager about it but seemed pretty unconcerned,” he said.

“Looking around the cafe it didn’t look like a grunge dive; it seemed to be business people, couples, young families, and ‘active elderly’ people.”

The man complained to C1 Espresso owner Sam Crofskey about the song.

Crofskey told The Press it was a cafe’s prerogative to choose their own music.

“Music in a cafe is part of the business’s identity. Along with the furniture, the food and the decor, it’s part of the product. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. I wouldn’t walk into McDonald’s and tell them to turn down the neon lights and be more intimate.”

Absolutely. There are no shortage of cafes to choose from.

Stuff reports:

If the gory photos on cigarette packs and the threat of a hideous death weren’t enough, now an academic has come up with a grim countdown-to-death for smokers.

Smokers will literally be able to see the minutes of their life expectancy drop away with each smoke, if Massey University College of Health head Professor Paul McDonald’s idea gains traction.

He is proposing an idea in which each cigarette would be marked with six rings and a message saying each ring smoked past would take a minute off life expectancy.

If adopted, New Zealand would be the first in the world to print warnings directly on to cigarettes.

The idea is still in its infancy but a preliminary survey of 10 smokers by Prof McDonald showed it would have a “profound” effect.

I’d be wary of any study with just 10 people in it.

As with plain packaging, I’d trial ideas like this in a geographic region so one can establish whether smoking rates there change more than the rest of the country.

The Dominion Post asked four smokers if Professor Paul McDonald’s idea would encourage them to quit.

– Luke Eling, 23, a chef from Brooklyn: It wouldn’t help.

It’s killing you but you are going to die anyway, so bugger it.

I would see if I can smoke it faster than six minutes.

– Robbie King, 33, a body piercer from central Wellington: If it was actually true and you could gauge it like that, it may help. Yes, smoking can be bad for you but my grandfather lived till 97, smoking five times as much as me.

– Mark Speedy, 35, a milkman from Churton Park: It wouldn’t stop me. What if you have a heart attack? Is it a minute off that? Obviously not.

– Sue Barratt, 54, works in insurance, from Karori:

It probably wouldn’t. I still enjoy smoking – that’s the problem.

I do feel guilty about smoking, more than I used to.

I suspect most smokers already know it kills you.

Tougher this week. I got wrong a quote on the cartoons and when Doug Graham was knighted.

Stuff reports;

It can cost parents less than 50 cents a day to give their child breakfast, but principals say most families who send their children to school hungry cannot afford to feed them.

Really. I’d welcome one solid example of a family who can’t afford 40c a day for breakfast. By a solid example I mean full details of their income and expenditure.

But Hamilton beneficiary and mother-of-two, Ali, says she battles every week to put potatoes, rice and Weet-Bix on the table and petrol in the car with the $38 she has left after rent, bills and loan repayments.

The Waikato Times has found that a basic breakfast of Weet-Bix and milk, peanut butter on toast, or porridge costs between 20 and 39 cents a day per child – between $1.43 and $2.73 a week.

And the DPB pays $295 a week in the hand plus $157 family tax credit is $452 a week. Breakfast for two kids is $3 to $6 a week from that or around 1%.

INCOME:

$293 from Winz, plus $120 rent assistance.

EXPENSES:

$285 rent. $30 electricity. $60 loan repayments to the bank and people to whom she owes money.

$38 left for petrol, food and unplanned expenses.

They appear to have left out the $157 family tax credit. Did the reporter not ask, or does Ali not mention it, or has she failed to register for it?