NewstalkZB reports:
Watercare is under fire for keeping a $20 million deal with Waikato-Tainui under wraps.
It’s been revealed the Auckland Council-controlled water provider last year signed up to paying $1 million a year, for two decades.
You don’t need to own something, if the law requires your permission for consents to use it. You still can extract rental income from it.
The Herald reports:
Wellington’s three Pandoro cafes will today close their doors for the last time after 28 years in business.
Owner Tony Beazley said it’s a sad day for the company having to lay off more than 20 staff across their Willis St, Allan St, and Woodward St stores.
Beazley blames the struggling local economy with more people working from home and moves by Wellington City Council to install cycleways and bus lanes, removing car parking for customers.
What the Council has achieved on a small scale, they will achieve on a large scale with their plans to turn the Golden Mile into a bus lane only.
I’ve done my monthly analysis at Patreon of how the five Governments (Australia, Canada, NZ, UK, US) are looking in terms of re-election.
It is neck and neck in the US, while the NZ Govt is better placed than the other new Governments in the UK and Australia.
Let’s say you are a senior member of a faculty which has just surveyed faculty members and the results are that many say they are very unhappy in multiple areas – far more so than in other faculties.
Here’s a guide as to what not to do.
I can only imagine what next year’s survey results will be like!
I wish this was made up, but it isn’t.
Jerry Coyne writes:
The government of New Zealand continues to throw away money by funding ludicrous projects involved indigenous “ways of knowing” (in this case Mātauranga Māori, or “MM”). …
One of the projects involves trying to stem the death of kauri trees(Agathis australis), the iconic tree of New Zealand. Kauri deforestation, due to logging by Europeans and also burning buy Māori, is now exacerbated by “Kauri dieback,” the death of trees after infection by a funguslike organism. This has resulted in the closure of forests (the infection may be spread by humans carrying soil on their feet), but so far nothing has really been effective in curing the disease or stopping its spread.
But a new government-funded project based on Māori traditions involves trying to stop the disease by, yes, playing whale songs to the trees and dousing them with whale oil.
The taxpayer funded project explains:
Māori whakapapa describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.
They’re not fucking brothers. One is a tree. The other is a whale.
They are not the same species, the same genus, the same family, the same order, the same class, the same phylum or even the same kingdom!
Coyne points out:
Note that the video begins with the statement that there are “forms of knowledge” other than science, and that indigenous knowledge gets no respect because the “colonization process” has “tried to remove our knowledge” and outlawed it. In my view, this is pure, ludicrous science-dissing.
The whale nonsense begins at about 2:50 with the claim that “the whale once traversed the face of the earth” (yes, on land, too!) and that there is a “sibling relationship” between whales and kauri trees.
This is what happens when “traditional wisdom” is used instead of modern science (which, by the way, discovered the organism causing the tree infection).
Well, who knows—the tattooed Måori man might be right: whale oil and whale bone might cure the trees, as he claimed it has. But I’m not betting on it. How about a double-blind control test rather than legends and anecdotes?
Any entity that funds anti-science instead of science should lose all government funding in my view.
The BSA released:
A segment on ZM’s Fletch, Vaughan and Hayley show irresponsibly promoted alcohol and the broadcaster failed to take adequate action over the breach, the Broadcasting Standards Authority has found.
The decision relates to a complaint over an on-air discussion by the show’s hosts about a Reddit post titled “Highest alcohol percentage for least amount of bucks, what’s the best from any liquor store?”.
The BSA agreed the item, aired on the morning of 15 March 2024, amounted to alcohol promotion that was socially irresponsible. It found broadcaster NZME was correct to have upheld the complaint by Communities Against Alcohol Harm (CAAH) that the segment breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard.* …
The Authority noted the hosts spoke about deliberately looking for the cheapest alcohol with the highest alcohol by volume, and referred to wanting “bang for buck” and “I’m not going to drink if it’s not going to get me drunk”.
I don’t want to comment on the wisdom of the radio hosts’ segment, but can comment on the bangs for the buck issue when it comes to youth drinking.
A while ago I did eight focus groups of young drinkers around RTDs and other products. And something that come up in almost everyone of them was the “bangs for the buck” mantra.
These 19 year old maths prodigies go around a store looking at the number of standard drinks in each product and the price, working out in their heads the cheapest price per standard drink (often spirits or cask wine).
The irony is that the requirement to list how many standard drinks is in a product was introduced as a health measure to promote people drinking less. Yet it has turned out to be something that helps young people to get drunk for the cheapest amount of money!
A good example of unintended consequences.
A bill for parliamentary nerds.
The Government has introduced a bill called The Parliament Bill. It brings together into one law the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988, Parliamentary Service Act 2000, Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013 and Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. So just on e Act to refer to, instead of four.
There are also a few policy changes, ranging from trivial to significant. They include:
Seems like a sensible modernisation.
Sean Plunket writes:
A research company has been canvassing for participants in a survey as part of a post graduate thesis at Victoria.
The thesis is entitled “Testing the Efficacy of Educational Modules for Reducing the Stigma Towards people with a sexual interest in minors.”
Now I don’t have a varsity degree, but I’ll have a crack at putting that word salad into common parlance.
“Can we teach people to be more accepting of those who want to sexually abuse kids?”
As a researcher, I’m not quite so quick to rush to judge this project – it may depend on the details.
First of all it is important to differentiate between those with a sexual attraction towards children and those who act on it. Most people can’t control whom they are attracted to, but they certainly can control whether or not they break the law and commit rape or sexual abuse.
Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder where someone is primarily attracted towards children. Not all paedophiles go on to abuse children, and not all child sex abusers are paedophiles (as in they are also attracted to adults).
Plunket continues:
I am all for research into what makes someone a paedophile, and how those blighted individuals might be helped to abandon their perverted urges. Many of those who engage in such abhorrent acts are victims of similar abuse and in some sense deserve help and sympathy but rebranding them as “people with a sexual interest in minors” only normalises their evil behaviour.
Again there is a difference between interest and behaviour.
I would like to take part in the research and see how Victoria University thinks I might be educated out of my views on child abusers. There is something in it for me as I could win one of ten $50 Prezzy vouchers if I take part.
The “research” has been approved by Victoria’s ethics committee and has the blessing of its Vice Chancellor.
I’m not educated enough to understand what the research is really about, and I’d love the University to explain it to me but so far……. crickets.
I would be interested also to know exactly what the focus of the research is, and its intended use. Is the focus on those who have an attraction but don’t act on it, or on those who have an attraction and do abuse children?
A reader has sent me a copy of his very comprehensive submission to the Royal Commission.
The headline:
Kiwi billionaire boss Chris Ellison proposes stopping staff leaving the office for coffee
Makes him sound like a terrible human being doesn’t it. But if you actually read the story, what he is doing is:
Be nice to have a headline that reflected that.
An interesting comment on my Royal Society funding piece:
There is no biography of Sir Roger Douglas. As a Senior Lecturer in History, I asked the Marsden Fund to support my biography of Douglas. They ranked my application 62 out of 62, dismissing it with the shallow comment, “The topic of Rogernomics is not all that exciting.” This is political bigotry. It shows the poor quality of the Royal Society’s thinking, which has since been exposed on other topics.
It does seem incredible that they would declare there is no interest in Rogernomics as even 40 years on it is vigorously debated and Douglas is probably the most influential MP in NZ history who was not Prime Minister. I bet you a biography on a left wing political figure of the same stature would not be ranked last.
High sporting prestige with Hamilton Boys vs Nelson College.
If is was the boys final for Academics it is not until the 15th highest high school achiever – Hutt International Boys High (UE for LEAVERS 88.4%) for play St Peter’s (Epsom) 2nd at 84.5%.
The comparisons of the provincial Boys’ schools is not flash to the top girls schools – 11 of the top 15. Iona the top at 97% of their leavers having UE. It is also not flash, for most, against their matching girls schools either.
| % of LEAVERS with UE 2023 | Boys | Girls |
| Tauranga | 29.6 | 39.9 |
| Hamilton | 44.8 | 41.1 |
| Rotorua | 23.8 | 11.0 |
| Palmerston North | 35.8 | 66.2 |
| New Plymouth | 27.3 | 48 |
| Hastings | 15.1 | 23.4 |
| Napier | 32.4 | 67.7 |
| Gisborne | 25.4 | 35.1 |
| Nelson | 35.8 | 51.0 |
| Christchurch | 46.8 | 69.1 |
| Otago | 49.7 | 70.5 |
I coached rugby for many years including three as a 1st XV coach of Tauranga Boys. I cannot help concluding it is now well out of perspective. For a school of 2000 less than 2% will play in the 1st XV in any given year … are the resources dedicated to that proportional to the academic needs of students struggling with assessments?
I discuss this issue and other for our high schools here with Peter Williams.
If you want the data set that compares a range of outcomes for every NZ high school please email me at alwyn.poole@gmail.com
Rodney Councillor Greg Sayers has been appointed Chair of the Council’s Budget Committee.
Sayers should be a friend to ratepayers. He has already challenged why the Council is funding non-Council gym yoga classes, and giving away free haircuts, ahead of keeping public rubbish bins in place.
The Committee has asked the CEO to find savings of $78 million. Hopefully they succeed.
Wired reports:
The battle cry of energy transition advocates is “Electrify everything.” Meaning: Let’s power cars, heating systems, industrial plants, and every other type of machine with electricity rather than fossil fuels. To do that, we need copper—and lots of it. Second to silver, a rarer and far more expensive metal, copper is the best natural electrical conductor on Earth. We need it for solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. (A typical EVcontains as much as 175 pounds of copper.) We need it for the giant batteries that will provide power when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. We need it to massively expand and upgrade the countless miles of power cables that undergird the energy grid in practically every country. In the United States, the capacity of the electric grid will have to grow as much as threefold to meet the expected demand.
So exactly how much copper will be needed:
A recent report from S&P Global predicts that the amount of copper we’ll need over the next 25 years will add up to more than the human race has consumed in its entire history. “The world has never produced anywhere close to this much copper in such a short time frame,” the report notes.
So this is a good test for environmental organisations. Do they oppose copper mining in NZ?
Shane Reti announced:
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says updated guidance provided to the Health Research Council (HRC) means future projects will have an increased focus on Government priorities and improved health for New Zealanders when being considered for funding. …
“What that means is a sharper focus on real-world projects leading to improved health and/or health system outcomes, such as improving timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders.
Basically the HRC has been told to focus on those with high health needs, health system goals, achieving health gains and strengthening the health research workforce.
Hopefully this will mean less of projects such as these which were funded last year:
Judith Collins recently announced three new service heads for the defence force:
Major General King is the first female general in New Zealand, and the first female service head.
She enlisted 33 years ago and graduated into the Corps of Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. She has served in Prevlaka (border between Croatia and Montenegro) and Afghanistan. Professionally she has a Masters of Management in Defence Studies (University of Canberra, a MA (Strategic Studies) from Deakin University and a Bachelor of Defence Studies from Massey University.
She is also one of only four NZers to have received the NATO Meritorious Service Medal.
The Post reports:
Wellington ratepayers have shelled out out more than $550,000 on the upgrade of a 32m laneway to accommodate a new designer bike rack and two extra motorbike parks.
The Council has increased rates by almost 20%, and the Mayor is telling everyone there is no waste, and the big increases are all due to infrastructure underfunding and then we learn they spent half a million dollars on having a bike rack near the council office!
The total cost of the upgrade came to $562,942 with the cycle rack sucking up $136,000 of that – eclipsing the $85,000 spent on a similar bike rack alongside Freyberg Pool in Oriental Bay by $51,000.
So the bike rack only cost $136,000 but the total cost of upgrading the street to fit it was $563,000. Is that a must have or a nice to have?
Councillor Diane Calvert blasted the spend as an “unbelievable waste”.
“And especially when there is an empty bike rack 50m up the road outside council. This highlights yet again a troubling pattern of council spending decisions made without adequate oversight or insight into the real needs and concerns of our community.”
I bet you this bike rack also is near empty most of the time.
An event was recently held which resulted in the following:
The media headlines for the event was:
Smart readers will know the name and location of the event.
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
I recently had an interview (https://theplatform.kiwi/podcasts/episode/lucy-rogers-on-liberation-theology) with The Platform about my criticism of Cuban academic Professor Miguel de la Torre, who spoke at Auckland University. Some issues arose in our conversation which are worth more elucidation than was possible in a 10 minute radio interview.
Cuba’s human rights abuses are morally wrong
At one point in the interview I said that Cuban atrocities, like Nazi atrocities, are morally wrong and it was therefore morally wrong to invite a supporter of the Cuban government to speak at Auckland Uni. However, I emphasised that my commitment to free speech meant I did not believe in employing the apparatus of the state to prevent his talk from happening.
Morality: a social construct?
Michael Laws responded: “But isn’t morality subjective?” I said that I did not think so and that there was no academic consensus on that issue. He responded (and I am paraphrasing) that respect for free speech depends on the state presumption that objective morality does not exist.
Our law presupposes objective morality
In fact, the concept of objective morality is inherent to our law. Section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 states that it is a defence to a criminal charge that someone suffers from “natural imbecility or a disease of the mind rendering him or her incapable of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong”, i.e. insanity.
Moral wrongness is not the test of criminality
The question is not whether morality is subjective: rather, it is whether it is prudent for the state to involve itself in prohibiting an act. We do not criminalise every child who tells their schoolteacher an excuse for not doing their homework. But lying in other contexts, such as perjury, is a criminal act.
What was our culture’s historic answer?
The rationales against state censorship historically were various. Firstly, private institutions like the media, the family, the academy, the Church, etc play an important role as a check on the power of the state, as no one ideology can predominate. The concentration of too much power in one institution, whether in the monarch or the Church during the Middle Ages, was deemed undesirable due to the human tendency to misuse power. This requires limitations on the role of the state in steering social institutions towards monolithic views.
Censorship does not permit social pluralism
A second reason for state non-interference in the expression of opinion is that it permitted social pluralism, which was facilitated by an evolving concept of shared cultural identity despite our differences and a willingness of different ideological factions to peacefully co-exist. Our forebears discovered that it was possible for people to disagree without killing each other.
Worldviews are deeply important to many people
If we accept that to kōrero (speak) is an important aspect of what it means to be human, and that it is deeply important to many people to be able to express their sincerely wrong views, then social pluralism requires that the state remain out of the regulation of expression of opinion.
The subjectivity of morality undermines the concept of human rights
These arguments ought to challenge cultural assumptions across the political spectrum today. For one thing, the arguments I have outlined above emphatically do not (as Michael Laws believes) entail that morality is subjective. In fact, I submit that the supposed subjectivity of morality undermines the concept of human rights altogether, including free speech.
Is it important to constitutionally protect gratuitous offence?
The arguments I have made also challenge free speech absolutism, as nothing I have said justifies (for example) gratuitous offence. Readers may remember the phenomenon of Wicked Campervans a few years ago: I do not see the great historic rationales for free speech as applicable to displaying the word “CUNT” on a van. I do not agree that offence is subjective, although it may be in the interests of social pluralism that we should treat it as such.
My arguments also challenge ideological intolerance
I scarcely need add, however, that my arguments should also challenge anyone who cannot fathom how anyone could possibly hold a differing opinion, or who assumes ill-faith of her political opponents, or hates them. This discourages social pluralism and leads to totalitarianism. Liberty requires that people want to co-exist. Perhaps the most precious taonga (treasure) of Western culture was the belief that reasonable people can disagree.
My thanks to Michael Laws for a great conversation. He was an intelligent and reasonable interviewer who gave me a fair hearing. I thought his pushback at points was very appropriate, although I disagree with his conclusions.