Jamie Morton at NZ Herald reports:

A quarter of us are driving above the speed limit on the open road.

The Ministry of Transport’s 2012 Speed Survey, released exclusively to the Herald, shows the percentage of motorists exceeding the speed limit on the open road dropped from 31 per cent in 2011 to 25 per cent last year.

That would appear to be a good thing.

More relevant is where the speeding has occurred  There are some open roads where 110 km/hr is safe as houses and some where going over 70 km/hr is certifiable.

But while drivers may be easing off the throttle, police and officials have no plans to slow down their war against speeding.

Of course not.

Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges said the Government would this year push ahead with new anti-speeding initiatives he could not yet reveal.

I hope they are well targeted, such as focusing on areas with high accident rates.

The Press reports:

The largest political grouping in Christchurch’s local government scene says it is determined to unseat Mayor Bob Parker at this year’s local body elections.

People’s Choice has set up a 12-strong electoral strategy panel to oversee the selection of a mayoral candidate and to chart the course of the election campaign.

The group is represented on the Christchurch City Council by Glenn Livingstone, Jimmy Chen and Yani Johanson.

Chairman Paul McMahon said informal discussions had been held with several people and expressions of interest in the mayoralty called for.

The group wanted to announce its candidate as soon as possible but wanted to make sure it selected the right person for the job.

“We are going to pick someone who can win,” said McMahon, who declined to say when the candidate selection would be made.

He said the selection panel was conscious of the need to work with mayoral aspirants outside of People’s Choice if it wanted to avoid splitting the vote and giving Parker another three years in office.

Livingstone is considered the group’s most likely contender for the mayoralty, but there has been speculation it could back Cr Tim Carter for the job, even though he is not part of People’s Choice.

Whenever a political ticket includes the term “people” in it I recall the maxim that any country that has “democratic” in its official name almost invariably isn’t, and any country that mentions “people” in its name also almost invariably oppresses them.

Parker could well face challengers from the left and the right. It will be fascinating to see who steps forward in the next few months.

Rachel Young at Stuff reports:

Bar and restaurant owners may soon be able to decide whether dogs are allowed on their premises.

The Food Bill, now before Parliament, would give proprietors the right to choose whether man’s best friend was welcome or not.

The Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 say that “no animal is permitted” on premises where food is prepared or sold.

However, some Christchurch hospitality operators spoken to took a relaxed approach to the rules, welcoming dogs on to their premises as long as they did not cause trouble.

A spokesman for Primary Industries Minister David Carter said the bill, which would replace the regulations and the Food Act 1981, would require operators to take responsibility for food safety in a way that was appropriate for their businesses.

“Obviously they will need to keep unwanted animals out of their restaurants, and especially the kitchens and food-handling areas, but in many cases there will be little risk to food safety if, for example, pet dogs are allowed into outdoor dining areas.”

James Jameson, owner of the St Asaph St Kitchen and Stray Dog Bar, said business owners should make their own decisions.

Absolutely. I was unaware they were banned. I think some bars that get known as pet friendly could do very well commercially.

Good to see the law change to focus on the outcome (hygiene) and not be overly prescriptive on how it is achieved.

Stuff reports:

Television New Zealand’s head of news and current affairs Ross Dagan has resigned after less than nine months in the job.

In an email to staff, Dagan said his departure was for personal reasons and he was heading back to his hometown of Brisbane to take up a job at Seven Network.

It is highly unusual and almost unprofessional to quit an executive role in less than two years, unless there is something wrong at work. I’d heard Dagan wasn’t very popular – but that is not unusual for people in his role.

The Telegraph reports:

Home secretary Theresa May said the Government will accept a House of Lords amendment to remove the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Excellent. It should not be a crime to be insulting.

Six years ago police tried to prosecute Oxford student Sam Brown after he said to a mounted officer: “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”

Stuff reports:

Two identical and deaf Belgian brothers have been euthanised after the inseparable middle-aged pair found out they were going blind and would never see each other again.

Marc and Eddy Verbessem were 45. They lived and worked together; and last month they died together after a Belgium hospital accepted their request to be euthanised.

Belgium is one of three countries where euthanasia is legal for non-terminally ill patients.

So long as people are mentally competent and rational, I think they should be able to decide to end their own lives. This case is a good example of how difficult a case can be.

The twins’ brother Dirk Verbessem defended their decision.

“Many will wonder why my brothers have opted for euthanasia because there are plenty of deaf and blind that have a ‘normal’ life,” The Telegraph reported him as saying.

“But my brothers trudged from one disease to another. They were really worn out.”

His brothers were both going blind with glaucoma and Eddy had a deformed spine and had recently undergone heart surgery, The Telegraph reported.

“The great fear that they would no longer be able to see, or hear, each other and the family was, for my brothers, unbearable,” he said.

Dr David Durfour, who treated the brothers, said their physical condition was strongly deteriorating and it was a “weight off their shoulders” when they learnt their request to be euthanised had been accepted, the Huffington Post reported.

“They were happy and relieved that a date was set to end their suffering.”

The day of their deaths was “serene and beautiful”, week.co.uk reported the doctor as saying.

“They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well… The separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.”

An ending the brothers preferred to the alternative.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Former prime minister Helen Clark has been hit with a devastating critique of her United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in an official report saying much of its annual US$5.7 billion (NZ$6.8 billion) budget is only remotely connected to ending global poverty. The densely worded report by the UNDP’s executive board – Clark’s bosses since she became secretary-general in April 2009 – amounts to a stinging performance review. US media reports say she is leading a counter-attack claiming the study misses the point behind its work.  But the report paints a striking picture of a confused organisation seemingly unable to bring significant change to the world’s 1.3 billion poor people despite spending US$8.5 billion on fighting poverty between 2004 and 2011.

Anyone who knows the UN won’t be totally surprised by this critique. What is surprising is that it comes from the UNDP’s own executive board, which suggests major discontent internally.

A longer story is at Fox News, along with the full report and the management response.

Bottom line: after spending more than $8.5 billion on anti-poverty activities between 2004 and 2011—and just how much more is something of a mystery– UNDP has only “limited ability…to demonstrate whether its poverty reduction activities have contributed to any significant change in the lives of the people it is trying to help.”

Those devastating conclusions come in a densely worded, official “evaluation of UNDP contribution to poverty reduction,” which will be presented to the agency’s 36-nation supervisory board at its next meeting, which begins on January 28 in New York.

Among other things, the document casts significant doubt on the extent to which UNDP is actually living up to its declared identity as “the United Nations anti-poverty organization—a world partnership against poverty,” a claim the report says was made by UNDP’s then-chief—James Gustave Speth—in 1995.

Moreover, it lays a significant part of the blame for that failing on the way that UNDP has spread itself across a growing range of activities in the name of promoting “development” –from environmental projects to trade promotion and border management—that “dilute” its anti-poverty effort.

The normal problem of bureaucratic empire growing rather than focusing on actually achieving things.

I love the buzz words in the management response:

Towards the goal of transformational change in the context of poverty reduction, the UNDP theory of change represents a holistic, pragmatic and consistent approach that impacts the lives of people, particularly the most vulnerable. The theory of change presents an end-result of an empowered, resilient and equitable society. 

UNDP must be stuffed full of management consultants!

Alexander Bisley interviews playwright Dave Armstrong on plays and humour:

DAVE ARMSTRONG tells me he doesn’t trust those without a sense of humour.  “Never. The trouble with most people who don’t have a sense of humour is they think they have a far better sense of humour than anyone else. People like that either end up as dictators of small African nations or as executives in charge of comedy in television networks.

Heh. I suspect he has someone in mind with this statement.

The friendly basil grower’s TV credits include Skitz, The Semisis, and Bro’town. One of his witty sketches for McPhail and Gadsby noted a shark’s airlift to Southland Hospital after a run in with Jenny Shipley. Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby had many broadcasting complaints (none upheld). A Melbourne critic didn’t realise it was an attack on free market economics and called Armstrong and the Jewish co-writer Danny Mulheron Nazis. “Satire can be easily misunderstood. And the more sophisticated it is the more easily it can be misunderstood. If someone misunderstands my point I often see that as a badge of honour. Even though Gormsby was a satire on free market changes in education, I’ve lost count of the right-wing ACT supporters who absolutely loved it and saw it as an attack on left-wing values.

I think the best humour can appeal to you , even if you disagree with the message. I loved West Wing (more drama but lots of humour) even though it had a liberal bent. I adore South Park because it lampoons conservatives and liberals in equal doses. After they had lampooned several religions, they even had a go at Richard Dawkins and atheists.

The left wing columnist for The Dominion Post elaborates on his disappointment with elements of the left’s censorious and humourless disposition. “The left don’t have a monopoly on humourlessness. If you don’t believe me, read a Treasury report. But there are elements on the left that get offended on other people’s behalf. Good humour keeps people guessing and is unpredictable, so to be too doctrinaire can make things less funny. For example, I used the N-word in a play recently, and even though the audience roared with laughter, almost every liberal critic told me off. They saw red at the mention of the word, yet didn’t realise that I wasn’t insulting Afro-Americans, I was laughing at the way white politicians try to get down with black people and usually do a dreadful job. Check out David Cunliffe speaking at the Avondale Markets on YouTube in a cuzzie-bro accent to see what I mean.”

It is those who get offended on behalf of others who drive me most crazy.

The drole writer of Le Sud wants audience to be entertained and provoked by his new play,Kings of the Gym. “I believe all four characters in this play are likeable, there’s not really a bad guy. Though it’s about PE on the surface, Kings of the Gym is really about tolerance and ideology. Each character is trying to capture the soul of the other characters. They want someone else to think and act like them, and, at the beginning of the play, can’t countenance a different or opposing political, religious or educational point of view. Like most of my plays,Kings of the Gym is hopefully an entertaining and thought-provoking plea for tolerance on all sides, even though it’s initially very intolerant characters who are making it.”

I’m attending the premiere on Saturday. It will be the only day in January in which I’ll actually be in Wellington!

Other formative influences include political satirists Jonathan Swift and Jaroslav Hasek. “I had a very good English teacher at school who introduced me to Swift’s Rules for Servants, which is like a political satirist’s handbook. And I loved Gulliver’s Travels. It’s a great narrative yet fantastic satire at the same time. And I have a soft spot for scatological humour. Hasek, especially in the Good Soldier Schweik and Red Commissar, really understands how authority in institutions like the Army operates. As a leftie, I find Hasek’s ‘party of moderate progress within the law’ very funny as it reminds me of the Labour Party.”

There is a bit of info on the afore-mentioned party here.

Armstrong is confident about theatre’s future. “Definitely. People have been predicting theatre’s demise for years—talkies, television, Cinemascope and 3D were all going to destroy theatre. But theatre’s still here and I reckon always will be, along with the book and the newspaper. Theatre allows writers to experiment and do things relatively cheaply, which can make it quite a radical and subversive medium. The minute lots of money is involved, people are less likely to take risks. I’ve had far less censorship or people wanted me to change things in theatre compared to other mediums like television. And theatre can be a good living for a writer. Many New Zealand plays make more money at the box office than New Zealand movies.”

That’s an interesting assertion. But quite believable.

If a play has full houses for a month, and it is in Circa One, then that is 30 x 242 x $45, or around $330,000. And that is just for one city. Of course not all plays have full houses and same tickets are discounted. I’m not sure what the average occupancy is for theatres, but plan to find out. I’m actually very interested in the economics and logistics of theatre as well as the actual productions themselves.

Today’s profile is of Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell.

What MP outside your party impresses you and why?
I’ve got a bit of respect for Lockwood Smith because of what he has been able to do for the position of Speaker in his time. He is really clear about what Parliament is all about and he tries to bring that same sort of feeling and passion to how he attempts to present Parliament to the nation. He recognises things Maori do have a place but I suspect even he might feel constrained. But I like the dignity he brings to the office. And I always kind of like Nick Smith because he is one politician who had his hand on the pulse in terms of his understanding of the portfolios that he ran – Environment and Local Government – really knowledgeable and his willingness to engage with us.

A fan of the Smiths!

Do you have a bill in the private members bill ballot?
Yes. It would give iwi, hapu and whanau a veto right for all permits approved under the Crown Minerals Act and establish a joint management committee with the applicants if they are successful in getting a permit.

Not a bill I’d support!

Name one of your heroes outside politics.
I kind of liked Willie Apiata [VC] right from when he first got his award and whenever I see him there is something about him. I don’t know what it is. He really impresses me as a neat person to talk to yet ever so humble. He must be courageous. And just how he carries himself, I think he is a bit of a hero for me.

A hero for many.

Ken Shirley from the RTF writes in the Dom Post:

Why are Sue Kedgley and her Green Party colleagues so stridently opposed to road projects and road transport?

Her article condemning the Transmission Gully project and her physical protest against the Basin Reserve reveal a messianic zeal that surpasses all understanding.

We should all welcome public debate on these important issues, but blatant untruths by campaigners should be exposed for what they are. 

Any motorist or freight operator who has experienced the waste of time and fuel associated with the many congestion points between Mana and Waikanae on the existing State Highway 1 route will readily reject her BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere never again) syndrome approach.

A nice summary of the Green Party policy on roads!

Kedgley acknowledges that this project has been on the backburner for decades. Her assertion that taxpayers will end up subsidising every road commuter to the tune of $18 a day is a gross distortion of reality.

What she fails to reveal is that all repairs and maintenance of existing highways and the cost of all new highway projects are paid from the hypothecated Land Transport Fund, with no general taxation funding. 

What we have is a user-pays system, where road users fully fund these activities through the fuel excise duty (FED) on petrol and road user charges (RUCs) on diesel-powered vehicles, including the truck fleet. 

The FED and RUCS are projected to contribute $4.9 billion and $3.7b, respectively, to this fund in the next three years.

In addition, about $500 million of motor-registration fees are paid to the Land Transport Fund. Road users, through their representative organisations, the AA and Road Transport Forum, support and welcome these projects, as do most local bodies. 

Yep roading is basically user-pays, and the vast majority of road users want these projects. Those against tend not to be road users.

Paul Thompson at The Press writes:

 I have seen some horrible things on a football training field – punches and tantrums thrown, nasty episodes of bullying and grown men in tears.

But most chilling of all was the photograph of Gareth Morgan taking part in a Wellington Phoenix practice last week.

Morgan is a brilliant economist and generous philanthropist and deserves praise for investing cash in the Phoenix.

But he doesn’t belong anywhere near the training pitch. Whatever he is trying to achieve isn’t working. His meddling is damaging the team he part owns.

Ownership gives him and his Welnix partners the right to do whatever they like with their club. But that doesn’t mean that those are the right things to do.

The Phoenix are in full-blown crisis. The coach has been emasculated by owners who have issued a directive on how the Phoenix should play despite having no knowledge of the game. The players are confused and fearful for their future. The tactics are all over the place.

The team is now bottom of the league and, worse, is displaying a level of incompetence that strongly suggests that is where it belongs.

Harsh, but not unfair. The best tea owners are silent ones!

You have to feel sorry for Herbert who, despite having a good coaching record in the A-League, has been rendered powerless to impose tactics that will get results.

He is compliant with the owners’ wishes because he clearly has little option but to publicly support their whims. He is clearly held in such low regard that, despite being the football expert, he is not running the show.

This season is looming as a train wreck. There appears to be a willingness to sacrifice short-term results – otherwise known as winning – for an ephemeral, long-term pipe dream.

But winning matters to the fans and it certainly matters to the players as well, who look shell-shocked to find themselves in such a parlous position.

It is time to allow Herbert to get on with the job he is paid to do and should be accountable for – to put out a winning side and then to build on that over time.

There’s an old saying – winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything! 🙂

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia’s successor may be identified at the annual Ratana Church celebrations this month.

MP Te Ururoa Flavell says he will be “comfortable” taking over the leadership after Turia announced in December that she would stand down at the 2014 election to spend more time with family, including the granddaughter she and husband, George, raise.

Her announcement leaves the party at a crossroads as it struggles to retain support.

Press secretary Kaapua Smith-Purkis and former MP Rahui Katene have been touted as potential leadership replacements, but neither has strong links to Turia’s Te Tai Hauauru electorate.

It will be interesting is those two are the candidates, as Smith-Purkis blogged in late 2011:

The Maori Party have been reduced by one, losing a fierce and staunch representative in Te Tai Tonga – Rahui Katene. As a perpetual student of politics, I see her as one of the most hard working MP’s in parliament, and arguably the best representative that Te Tai Tonga has had in my generation.

The other issue of interest is how they transition from Sharples to Flavell.

One News reported:

New Zealanders have the most freedom in the world, according to an international index that ranks 123 countries.

The report, which was released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank, and Germany’s Liberales Institut, examines the characteristics of freedom and how it can best be measured and compared between different nations.

New Zealand was ranked number one for offering the highest level of freedom worldwide, followed by the Netherlands then Hong Kong.

Australia, Canada and Ireland tied for fourth spot, with the United States and Denmark tied for seventh.

The lowest-ranked countries were Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Syria.

I’m surprised Sri Lanka is so low. The full report is here. They assign a score out of 10 for personal freedom and economic freedom. We get 9.2 and 8.2 respectively. On each individual factor we are ranked 2nd or 3rd, but overall 1st with 8.7. The Netherlands and Uruguay are ranked slightly higher for personal freedoms but significantly lower for economic freedoms. The only country higher for economic freedom is Hong Kong but obviously they are not so good on personal freedoms.

The median personal freedom is 7.5, economic freedom 6.9 and overall index 7.1.

The correlation between the economic freedom ratings and personal freedom ratings was 0.60. That there would be at least that level of correlation was not a surprise given theory and cruder but indicative previous attempts to discover such a relationship.

This is one of the reasons I support both. Generally countries with greater personal freedoms have greater economic freedom and vice-versa.

The factors involved in the freedom ratings and NZ scores out of 10 are:

• Extrajudicial Killing 10
• Torture 10
• Political Imprisonment 10
• Disappearance 10
• Battle-related Deaths 10
• Level of organized conflict 10
• Female Genital Mutilation
• Son Preference
• Homicide 9.4
• Human Trafficking 10
• Sexual Violence 0.9
• Assault 9.5
• Level of perceived criminality in society 7.5
• Theft 0
• Burglary 0
• Inheritance
• Hostility to foreigners & their private property 10
• SECURITY & SAFETY SUB-TOTAL 7.7
• Forcibly Displaced Populations 10
• Freedom of Foreign Movement 10
• Freedom of Domestic Movement 10
• Women’s Freedom of Movement
• MOVEMENT SUB-TOTAL 10
• Press Killings 10
• Freedom of Speech 10
• Laws and regulations that influence media content 9.3
• Political pressures and controls on media content 8.8
• Dress code in public
• EXPRESSION SUB-TOTAL 9.5
• Freedom of Assembly and Association 10
• Parental Authority
• Religion – Government Restrictions 9.6
• Religion – Social Hostility 9.1
• Male to Male Relationship 10
• Female to Female Relationship 10
• Age of Consent for Homosexual Couples 10
• Adoption by Homosexuals
• RELATIONSHIPS SUB-TOTAL 9.8

The authors note:

There needs to be a discussion in the main text regarding the women’s
freedom and homosexuality variables to point out that these are not
about women or homosexual activity per se, but are instead trying to
get at the extent certain groups are discriminated against under the law. Equality before the law is a key component of the classical liberal tradition. By the same token, the freedom to speak, denounce, and even privately discriminate against people is also a part of the classical liberal tradition. An expanded discussion of this nuance would be helpful. The bottom line from the classical liberal tradition is that private inequality of treatment is allowable but the government and legal system, which is based on force, must treat people equally.

Also of interest in this methodology:

This index of freedom also does not incorporate measures of democracy or “political freedom.” The reason is that democracy describes a “power relationship,” to use Fred McMahon’s term, in which freedom may increase or decrease depending on the collective decisions of the elected government. Democracy may be more consistent than other forms of government at safeguarding freedom, but it is not freedom, nor does it necessarily guarantee freedom.4 The relationship between democracy and freedom is of crucial interest to all advocates of liberty, which is all the more reason to establish an independent measure of freedom.

A key point. Just being in a democracy does not make you free. It is about far more than whether once every few years you get a vote.

An author at Crooks and Liars lauds NZ over the US, and cites our placement on a number of rankings. His or her post has been shared over 10,000 times on social media!

Audrey Young interviews Rotorua MP Todd McClay:

What highlights have you had in the past year?

The first was being asked to chair the finance and expenditure committee. It’s a big step up and quite an honour if I look at other members in Parliament who have been offered the opportunity over the years to choose FEC. The other, and I wouldn’t put one before the other, being able to negotiate support for my member’s bill once it came out of the ballot with Act, United Future and New Zealand First to get my gang patch bill over the line [banning gang patches in Government- and local government-owned buildings]. I’ve received support from those parties to see it all the way into law.

On other MPs:

What other MP makes people’s lives better and does their party impress you and why?

There’s a number of them … Probably the one that I respect the most of other parties would be Te Ururoa Flavell. I find him to be a man of great dignity and respect and a lot of integrity and honesty. His electorate of Waiariki and Rotorua overlap. We work quite closely together on a number of local issues. I have a lot of respect for him because of the gravitas and dignity he brings to the job in Wellington, but the human side to his politics I see on a pretty regular basis around our electorate.

I also think Flavell is a very good MP.

How are you unwinding over summer?

My wife’s a Kiwi too but all my kids were born overseas so when we chose to come home it was so my children could do the stuff I did when I was growing up. Our holiday this year is going to be around camping and beaches. I want them to be able to enjoy for the whole of the school holiday all of the pursuits you can have around water in New Zealand which, by the way, nobody owns. We are going to be camping in and around beaches in the Gisborne area, a bit in the Bay of Plenty and for a week we are heading off into the bush to do a little bit of hunting and walking and staying in a hut away from everybody else.

Sounds like a great family summer.

Do you mean you want Tim Groser’s job [Trade Negotiations Minister]?

I don’t think anybody could do Tim Groser’s job but I would love an opportunity to do more in an area I have done a bit of work in before.

The translation is “Hell, yes” 🙂

Sam Sachdeva at The Press reports:

Tobacco companies are trying to pry confidential documents from government departments as they battle a possible crackdown on their trade.

Really? Are they breaking into offices? Blackmailing officials? Stealing secrets?

Information obtained by the Sunday Star-Times revealed legal representatives for several tobacco companies filed at least nine Official Information Act (OIA) requests to the Ministry of Health in the past two years for documentation relating to plans to ban brand marks and logos on cigarette packets.

Oh my God. A company asked under the Official Information Act for government papers regarding a proposed policy which would have a massive impact on their business. What a scandal.

Here’s what even funnier. The information on these OIA requests would have been obtained itself under the OIA. So whomever planted this story has used the OIA to attack someone else for using the OIA.

The companies’ requests covered a wide array of information, including documents relating to:

All communication about plain packaging between the Ministry of Health and its Australian, Canadian and British equivalents;

how plain packaging would affect youth and adult smoking rates in New Zealand;

how plain packaging would impact on the intellectual property rights of tobacco manufacturers;

and whether plain packaging would violate any of New Zealand’s trade and investment treaty obligations.

This seems absolutely appropriate requests to make. In fact such info should be public automatically.

British American Tobacco was the most prolific company, with its legal representatives filing six OIA requests during the period.

Six over two years. Hell I sometimes file six OIA requests in a single month.

The requests were largely declined, with Turia citing the “substantial collation or research” required to gather much of the information and the confidentiality of some documents.

However, several Cabinet papers related to plain packaging reform were released, while the companies were told that other information it had requested would soon be publicly available.

The director of anti-tobacco group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), Ben Youdan, believed the companies were trying to “hold up and bog down” civil servants who had to process the requests.

Nonsense. It annoys me that a taxpayer funded lobby group is complaining about the cost to taxpayers of government departments obeying the OIA law.

If the companies were filing a request every few weeks, they may have a point. But nine requests over two years is stuff all.

If I wrote this story I would ask the MoH how many OIA requests in total they received over two years, and what proportion came from tobacco companies. I’d also ask ASH how many OIA requests have they made.

Pat Pilcher writes:

Kim Dotcom has become a regular fixture on Twitter and not so long ago he posted a tweet on what he believes needs to happen if piracy is to end. As ironic as that may sound, Kim Dotcom’s logic is inescapably robust.

Here’s what his end to piracy manifesto says:

1. Create great stuff 
2. Make it easy to buy 
3. Same day worldwide release 
4. Fair price 
5. Works on any device

I basically agree with Dotcom on this. It would not end “piracy” entirely, but it would massively decrease it.

I get so annoyed when I try to buy a movie or a TV series and I can’t buy it on itunes or Amazon. It means the producers are refusing to take my money. How stupid is that?

The Press reports:

The number of jobs advertised in Canterbury this week would cater for only half of those on the dole.

Even if this stat is correct, that’s a very high proportion. That suggests that if a job stays listed for say a month, then over two months there would be more jobs listed than people on the dole in Canterbury.

About 28,000 Cantabrians are out of work, with 3424 being paid an unemployment benefit, but there are only about 1700 jobs advertised on employment listings website Seek.

The Sep 2012 HLFS says there are 317,000 people working in Canterbury, 17,000 unemployed (5.2%) and 147,000 not in the labour force but of working age.

On top of 17,000 unemployed, there are 9,000 available for work but not seeking it and 3,000 seeking it but not available.

But the rather dodgy stat is using Seek as the indicator of jobs available in Canterbury. It is just one website. Trade Me by comparison has 1,577 jobs. Not all of them will be duplicates.

So how many jobs are there available in Canterbury? ANZ tracks both print and online ads and found in October 2012 there were around 33,000 jobs ads nationwide. If you assume they are proportional to population, then that would indicate over 3,000 jobs advertised in Canterbury.

Overall it is a good story, but the stats used are a bit loose.

Security One managing director Graham Larson, who has been hiring people for more than 20 years, said about a third of all applications he received would be thrown away, especially if they came with a generic CV.

“If I bother to put my name and number on an ad, I would expect to be addressed as more than ‘Dear Sir’ or ‘Dear Manager’,” he said.

“People need to say this is who I am, this is what I can do and this is what I can do for your company – and for goodness sake, clear up your Facebook page.”

Blake Surfacings owner Peter Scott said he had been trying to find someone to take on a $16.50-an-hour “unofficial apprenticeship” with his industrial flooring firm for about six months.

Two people had expressed interest, but after asking them to send copies of their CV, neither replied. The job was “semi-skilled”, but all training would be provided on the job as Scott said he would prefer to hire someone “fresh” to the industry.

No surprise more and more people from overseas are being hired.

Amelia Wade in the Herald reports:

A teachers’ union is criticising the Government for holding the consultation period for charter schools during New Zealanders’ holidays.

The New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) yesterday launched a campaign to raise awareness about the January 24 deadline for submissions on the Education Amendment Bill 2012.

A full-page advertisement in the Herald on Sunday and in today’s Herald said the Government had “its own agenda – the dismantling of New Zealand’s public education system by introducing charter schools”.

It also implied the Government had purposefully chosen a closing date for submissions on the bill when most people were still on holiday.

First of all the Government doesn’t decide when submissions are due, the select committee does. Now if the Government has a majority on a select committee, of course they can effectively set the date.  But they do not have a majority on Education & Science. The breakdown is National 5, Labour 3, Greens 1, NZ First 1. This means that at least one opposition MP (or all of them) agreed to the dates.

Secondly most bills have around a six week period for submissions to be made. This bill has in fact had a three month submission window which is one of the longest I know of for a bill. Even taking into account the Xmas slowdown, it is a lengthy period of time. The bill was referred to select committee on Thu 18 October and submissions opened on Wed 24 October.

Also the consultation does not close on 24 January. That is merely the deadline for written submissions, and then you have the oral submissions. There is a full six month window for the select committee consultation and deliberations.

It is a pity the Herald has just repeated the spin from the PPTA and not bothered to check the facts such as the three month submission period and that the Government doesn’t have a majority on the select committee that set the date. These are both highly relevant facts to the story, and are on the parliamentary website.

Tom Hunt at Stuff reports:

Of the 285 names rejected between July 2001 and September last year, “Justice” was by far the most refused baby name.

Sixty people, or 63 if you include Juztice and Justus (2), have tried and failed to name their babies as if they were a High Court judge.

Eleven of these were in the past 18 months.

Also topping the list are other names easily confused with titles, such as 29 Kings, 27 Princesses, 26 Princes, nine Majors, nine Dukes, and eight Bishops.

Twenty-one parents tried and failed to name their bundle of joy Royal.

285 refused names over 11 years is around 25 a year or one a fortnight. Not too bad.

But the law said names could be no more than 100 letters long, none could be offensive to a reasonable person, and each name had to abide by the dictionary definition of a name – that it was a word or a group of words.

I don’t see the 100 letters specified in law. The Act says:

For the purposes of this section, it is undesirable in the public interest for a person to bear a name or combination of names if, and only if,—

• (a)it might cause offence to a reasonable person; or

• (b)it is unreasonably long; or

• (c)without adequate justification, it is, includes, or resembles, an official title or rank.

In terms of (a):

“Sometimes it is pretty simple. ‘Anal’, for example, for most people, is quite offensive.”

Did a parent really try to name their kid “Anal”? Surely not. I’d say that should be a mandatory CYFS notification!

Mr McPherson said he was aware of instances where people tried to register names with more than 100 letters, but then reduced them to fit in with legislation, meaning there were some New Zealanders with 99-letter names.

Poor bastards.

The Daily Telegraph reports: