Lindsay Mitchell writes:

Between the passage of the Social Security Act in 1938 and the early 1970s the percentage of working-age people on a benefit never exceeded two. Today it stands at almost twelve, with the time people stay dependent growing every year.

As a society we have created this level of reliance by believing and acting on a bad idea. That we must not judge others. We must not mention their faults and shortcomings. We must bend over backwards to not blame the person responsible for their own troubles. That’s the ‘kindness and compassion’ we are taught to aspire to.

Until Louise Upston said something quite contrary but actually utterly sensible.

In assessing applicants for emergency housing case managers must take into account whether they have “unreasonably contributed” to their need.

One assumes that if the answer is positive, there will be no emergency housing offered.

Behaviour should have consequences, and bad behaviour should not result in being rewarded.

Grant Duncan writes:

I too have questioned the boot camps (on grounds of a lack of evidence of effectiveness) and queried the possible reduction of the school lunches programme. But Prof Kidman let herself down, as an academic, by resorting to an ad hominemattack. Accusing the present government (the elected representatives) of hating children and asking if they’re a “death-cult” was nothing unusual on X, but was well below par for credible academic debate. And she does display the title Prof. on her X profile.

There is a world of difference between saying boot camps are bad public policy and saying the Government hates children and is a death cult.

In this case, however, I can’t defend the professor, as her words strayed from academic standards. Of course she’s free, by law, to say what she likes, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for her academic reputation. …

DPMC have since expressed concern that Prof Kidman’s comments “may bring the centre into disrepute”. May? I’d say the damage is done.

Absolutely. The centre no longer has any credibility.

The Free Speech Union notes

You may have been following in the media the backlash Professor Joanna Kidman has received since tweeting some criticism against the Government. 

Victoria University say while they stand for academic freedom, her comments don’t “support an inclusive conversation” and they are “discussing this matter” with her.

But, academic freedom depends on individuals having their say and participating in debates. So in Joanna’s role as a professor, the university should butt out. 

However, her tweet was made in the capacity of her role as director of He Whenua Taurikura, the Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, funded by the Department of Cabinet and Prime Minister (DPMC). This brings some other implications. The Government doesn’t have to fund someone whose output they clearly can have no confidence in.

So, was Joanna allowed to make the claims she did, or wasn’t she? In the capacity as a professor, absolutely. But as a DPMC-funded, minister-appointed advisor, her contribution needs to be credible, moderate, and principled. And big questions exist as to whether that’s the case!   

I think that is correct. As an academic she has the right to call the government a death cult and appear unhinged. She won’t be the only one. So she would remained a tenured Professor at VUW.

But as the director of a government funded anti-extremism organisation, her role is untenable. She is an extremist, and isn’t suitable to keep her current role.

Sky News reports:

The fact-checking director who oversees Mark Zuckerberg’s misinformation program on Facebook has been caught in secret emails colluding with a now disgraced operation which suppressed journalism during Australia’s Voice referendum. …

RMIT FactLab was suspended from fact checking on Facebook after a Sky News Australia investigation in Augustfound the operation was filled with partisan activists who used their powers to censor journalism on Facebook they disagreed with, particularly in relation to the Voice referendum.

The investigation, dubbed The Fact Check Files, revealed the university had breached the IFCN’s rules of impartiality several times, including when its fact checking director Russell Skelton was campaigning for a change to Australia’s constitution during a contentious referendum debate.

A fact checker that is also a campaigner!

RMIT university was paid up to $740,000 from a Meta Irish subsidiary to finance its operation which targeted just one side of the Voice referendum debate, censoring journalism by reducing the reach of content on the platform.

Facebook fact checkers can reduce or kill your visibility on Facebook.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Housing Minister Chris Bishop today announced the Government had ordered Kāinga Ora’s board to scrap the Sustaining Tenancies Framework, which aimed to sustain tenancies with a goal to avoid evictions and exits into homelessness, while also balancing obligations to neighbours and wider communities.

Labour prioritised tenants who terrorised their neighbours over their victims. They instituted a policy of basically no consequences for bad behaviour which was a disaster.

It didn’t only victimise neighbours. It also created a backlash against Kainga Ora housing projects, as communities don’t want neighbours who can terrorise them with impunity. Decades of goodwill for state housing projects got wiped away by this disastrous policy.

Bishop claimed the framework had removed incentives for tenants to improve their behaviour. He cited the “most recent stat” that there had been 335 serious complaints per month, which included intimidation, harassment and threatening behaviour. In 2023, three tenancies had been ended due to disruptive behaviour, Bishop claimed.

So around 0.1% of serious complaints result in evictions.

“At a time when there are over 25,000 people on the social housing waitlist, Kāinga Ora should not be prioritising tenants who abuse their home or their neighbours above families who are anxiously waiting for a home,” he said.

Yes Labour had a policy that prioritised gang members who terrorise their neighbours over families who are waiting for the privilege of a state house, and will be good neighbours.

Greens housing spokeswoman Tamatha Paul believed the Government was “seeking to define a category of undeserving poor people”.

Normal Greens ideology. The fact is people who terrorise their neighbours are undeserving. Greens views criminals as victims and victims as, well collateral damage.

“This politics of punishment from the coalition must come to an end before it does irreparable damage to communities who have historically been let down, time and time again, by successive Governments.”

The communities being let down are the 98% of state house tenants who don’t terrorise their neighbours.

Paul said it would be cruel if the Government evicted more state housing tenants during a cost-of-living crisis and following changes to benefit increases which mean beneficiaries will receive less over time.

Anyone evicted is replaced by a family that benefits from the income related rent. And it is easy not to get evicted. Its called not acting like a sociopath.

A resident on Auckland’s North Shore said his family were “over the moon” at the Government’s announcement after having constant problems with a neighbouring Kāinga Ora property when new tenants moved in last year.

William Macneil said an abusive Kāinga Ora tenant on electronically monitored bail lunged at him with a large “butcher’s knife” and threatened to kill Macneil’s family by ramming their house with a car in September last year.

Labour and Greens don’t want this to result in eviction.

The Herald reports:

Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters is doubling down on his comments likening Te Pāti Māori statements to Nazi Germany – and is promising to say more on the subject later today.

That’s despite Prime Minister Christopher Luxon telling Peters – also the Foreign Minister – his comments were unhelpful and reinforced the importance of politicians refraining from using divisive language.

Godwin’s Law is that the longer a thread carries on on the Internet, the probability of a comparison to Hitler reaches 1. This also applies to politics sometimes.

I’m against any politician comparing policy disagreements to the Nazis, whether it was Megan Woods around asset sales or Winston on co-governance.

I’m also against Te Pati Maori labelling getting rid of the Maori Health Authority as genocide, and Labour calling the use of urgency as a dictatorship with comparisons to Putin.

Te Pati Maori especially get a free pass from most of the media for their incendiary rhetoric. They use the genocide term repeatedly. They also argue against democracy and this barely gets a mention in the media.

During his speech, Peters appeared to compare Labour’s use of co-governance to “race-based theory”, as seen in Nazi Germany.

He later clarified his “Nazi Germany” comments were referring specifically to comments made by Te Pāti Māori regarding Māori genes.

Did any media call out TPM for claiming Maori had superior DNA? Did they aggressively question the co-leaders over their claims of genocide or insane claims of white supremacy?

Georgina Campbell reports:

The Government’s position on the mega ferries was reinforced this week after Marlborough Harbourmaster Jake Oliver set limits for the maximum size of new vessels using Tory Channel to access ports at Picton and Shakespeare Bay.

The entrance to Tory Channel is narrow and tidal, making it challenging to navigate. The risk of an incident occurring increases with longer vessels.

The direction sets a maximum ship length of 187 metres. A variation to these rules will be considered on a case-by-case basis and only when safety is not compromised.

The mega ferries would have been nearly 40 metres longer and at least five metres wider than the ships in the existing Interislander fleet.

Oliver confirmed KiwiRail had previously approached the harbourmaster’s office regarding the proposed introduction of the mega ferries into Tory Channel.

“KiwiRail had engaged with the previous and current harbourmasters and commenced work to determine whether the proposed ferries would have been permitted to transit Tory Channel.

“KiwiRail had not been given a confirmation as to whether the ferries would or would not be permitted to operate in Tory Channel.”

In other words, KiwiRail ordered the mega ferries in 2021 with no confirmation the ships could use Tory Channel, meaning they would have to take what’s known as the scenic route instead.

This is staggering. Kiwirail committed to expenditure of up to $3 billion on a ferry project without even knowing if they would be allowed to use the Tory Channel.

The problem goes back to Labour’s insistence that the new ferries must be so large that trains can roll on and off them (as opposed to transferring their freight to them). This meant they had to get larger ferries, This then meant they needed to redevelop both ports. This also meant they would be too large to use the Tory Channel.

It is worth remembering that we also have the Bluebridge operating over Cook Strait. They do eight crossings a day and it doesn’t cost taxpayers one cent.

A guest post by Sean Rush:

I was interested in Bryson C Clark’s piece in The Spinoff (“A disinformation campaign, the 2023 election and new government policy” 12 March 2024).  Mr Clark, a history major with ties to the left-wing fringe group “The Workers Party of New Zealand”, has resurfaced from Christchurch mayoralty aspirations to lead the charge against alt-right extreme misinformation here in New Zealand.

Without any climate qualifications, he makes the case that more CO2 is not good for plant life, ignoring that NASA reports the global leaf area index, a satellite measure of how much the planet has been greening, has increased significantly over the last few decades. His referenced authority Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? | Scientific American is not from a peer reviewed paper and needs to be considered carefully amongst the wider evidence.  The reference, in part, supports the benefits some have spoken of, for example, “for most of the other plants humans eat—including wheat, rice and soybeans—having higher CO2 will help them directly.”

The reference to nitrogen as a constraint is indeed true (although more recent studies show that this limitation may be overstated).  But so too is a lack of water or other necessities for plant growth, which is why crop growers add fertiliser and water.  Supplying extra CO2 is a frequently used method to increase the yield of greenhouse horticultural crop which seems to contradict Mr Clark’s research.

On the suggestion that “food crops will lose enough nutrients to cause protein deficiency in 150 million people” Mr Clark’s referenced (non-peer reviewed) article includes an important qualification that is very common in the climate change space when predictions of great calamity are made.  The actual language was that “food crops could lose enough nutrients” not that they “will” – a small but important gloss by our intrepid disinformation buster.

Looking at the actual study, it comments that the “total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anaemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels.”

Let’s unpack that a wee bit. According to the Lancet those at-risk nations are Western sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Central sub-Saharan Africa.  But what these people are crying out for is access to affordable and reliable electricity that most Western nations source from coal and gas.  The scarcity of access to affordable and reliable electricity is without doubt the greatest cause of early mortality, inequality, and poverty in these countries – not iron deficiency.

The regions with the lowest anaemia are Australasia (despite NZ soils being deficient in iron and zinc), Western Europe, and North America – the wealthy West.  This is not due to enriched soil. I think the folks of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia would take a 3% shortfall in iron in their current diet if it meant their future diet could be diversified to Western standards and supplemented by access to an electric fridge, clean, reticulated water, enhanced crop growing techniques, mechanisation, not to mention the dietary supplements we in NZ obtain to manage our own shortfall in zinc, iron and selenium.

Despite CO2 increases, the Lancet notes the global picture around anaemia has improved and that treating underlying causes of anaemia (e.g., malaria, chronic kidney disease, tropical diseases) is a critical first step.  As with all things ‘climate’ the problems are much more complex and climate is rarely the root cause of the problems or the solution. We deserve more than superficial coverage.

Mr Clark rightly asks if NZ farmers are being sold a ‘pup’ by James Shaw.  To answer that, one need only look at email traffic sourced under the Official Information Act from Professor Dave Frame, a NZ expert on methane and IPCC Lead Author, and former Minister Shaw.  Professor Frame knows that methane is a short-lived gas so there is no scientific need to reduce emissions if the objective is for NZ farmers to not add to global warming.  Stabilising methane emissions suffices.

Reducing farm emissions means farmers are doing more than their share.  But James Shaw made international commitments to reduce NZ’s impact as a whole but without any viable replacement for the Indonesian coal being burned at Huntly to keep Auckland lights on.  Because of coal burnt due to his own anti-gas policy, he’s put the burden on farmers who have no option but to reduce the size of their herds.  NZ is wholly dependent on its farmers so this is economic suicide on a national scale.

Frame gave Shaw both barrels in an email sent 25 October 2022.  Describing Shaw as “disingenuous” which he clarified as “not candid or sincere” and being “misleading.”  He commented that “you already know that GWP100 [an outdated metric Shaw has embraced for comparing CO2 warming with methane across 100 years] does indeed overestimate the centennial effects of methane emissions by a factor of 3-4, while underestimating the 20 year effects by a factor of 4-5. Myles Allen [an Oxford scientist] and I both explained this to you in 2019, if not before” and “you appear wedded to an emissions metric that only works at all (and then not very well since it depends on the rate of increase) when emissions are increasing. I thought the point of your policies was to decrease emissions?”

Meanwhile Mr Clark has a few words to say about visiting American physicist, Tom Sheahan, but not about the emerging science he talked about whilst here. It was published by Will Happer, a highly distinguished atmospheric physicist from Princeton, who has been involved in climate change science since the mid-1970s.  Happer’s work, with colleague W.A. Wijngaarden, is complicated quantum mechanics applying to energy and its interaction with molecules.  The upshot is a model of energy flows under various greenhouse gas concentrations that matches satellite observations and shows what scientists have known since the early 1970s: that greenhouse gas warming is largely ‘saturated’ meaning the addition of later volumes has smaller and smaller effects on warming.  There’s no chance of a runaway hothouse.  Hallelujah!

Mr Clark reserves some focus on Sheahan’s indifference to being labelled a climate ‘sceptic.’ Ultimately, as the above shows, there are several angles to a story on climate change and the technically available solutions. Superficial coverage does a disservice to those wanting an informed and balanced analysis. From my own perspective, the human effect on climate is well established – land clearance, creation of artificial oases, and adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, all affect the climate.  But the suggestion that these human activities are an ‘existential’ threat is not a view held widely by climate scientists. We must stop thinking climate is everything and start addressing it in a sensible and measured manner.

*Sean Rush holds a Masters in Climate Change Science and Policy and was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC sixth assessment, working group 1.  From 2019 to 2022 he was a Wellington City Councillor.

An earlier version of this article was sent to The Spinoff as an op-ed but was declined on the basis that it was not ‘accessible’ for readers.

Sky News reports:

The prominent Melbourne activist currently on bail for kidnapping and assault charges has been identified as 27-year-old pro-Palestine campaigner Laura Allam.

Ms Allam is the CEO of Al Jannah Foundation, a non-profit that aims to “raise Lebanon back to its feet” and has drawn the outrage of Jewish groups in recent months for publicly celebrating the deaths of Israelis in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

Now, it can be revealed that police allege last month Ms Allam messaged a man via WhatsApp to meet for dinner before orchestrating his violent kidnapping and torture with the help of three accomplices.

How surprising that someone who celebrates other people being killed by terrorists, should turn out to be (allegedly) capable of also inflicting violence on an innocent.

The unmasking of one of Victoria’s leading pro-Palestine protestors as an alleged violent kidnapper comes just weeks after Ms Allam served as a guest speaker at the Palestine to Parliament protest in Canberra alongside Green Senators David Shoebridge, Jordan Steele-John and Mehreen Faruqi.

Ms Allam also posed for photos alongside Senator Faruqi after the event that were published on Instagram.  

They may not have known of the kidnapping and torture at the time, but they did know she celebrates the deaths of civilians.

Earlier this month, Sky News Australia host Sharri Markson revealed she received death threats from followers of an anti-Israel activist from Melbourne, now identified as Ms Allam.

Ms Markson said the police and ASIO were repeatedly warned about Ms Allam after she published numerous social media posts about individuals in the Jewish community.

Markson, who is Jewish, reported the disturbing threats to police and Sky News has employed private security to ensure the host and her family’s safety.

Allan seems such a lovely person.

The Herald reports:

The judge presiding over Golriz Ghahraman’s court hearing yesterday previously worked on cases with the former MP when they were both lawyers.

Criminal barrister Marie Dyhrberg KC and former Auckland District Law Society president told 1News the judge would have been “very much alert” to the “reality of not having bias” but also the “perception … which is really important”.

A perceived conflict of interest can be raised by lawyers or the judge.

The District Court Recusal Guidelines read: “The guiding principle is that a judge is disqualified from sitting if in the circumstances there is a real possibility that in the eyes of a fair-minded and fully informed observer the judge might not be impartial in reaching a decision in the case.”

I don’t see this as a big deal. There were no real decisions to be made at this hearing, except media photography. The judge may not even have known which cases they had until that day.

It would be very different if this was a sentencing appearance. In that situation having a former colleague decide your penalty would be problematic. But for merely taking a plea, I see no issue.

More details of the offending have come out. They are:

• 22 Oct: Stole black Zambesi shirt costing $695 from Cre8iveworx by placing the shirt inside her clothing or bag.
• 21 Dec: Stole from Scotties an Acne Studios single breasted coat valued at $1900 and a Commes des Garçons wallet, valued at $160 by placing them in her bag.
• 22 Dec: Stole from Standard Issue a navy blue cardigan priced at $389 by placing it in her bag
• 23 Dec: Stole from Scotties a $650 Issey Miyake bag, a $333 Two Squares dress, a $4500 black Row Calanthe dress, and a $290 Lemaire Crepe tank top. Refused to allow staff to search her bag

Also of interest is she claims not to remember some of the offending. You have to wonder how many other times she has shoplifted but has forgotten about it.

Newshub reports:

Chris Hipkins has doubled down on his accusation the Government is acting like a dictatorship.

The Labour leader took his troops on a soul-searching field trip today where one MP even momentarily likened the Coalition to Russia’s regime.

Yep, Labour MPs are comparing the Government to Putin because it is using urgency to implement its election promises.

Now one can have a rational critique of whether the Government is using urgency too often, but having the Opposition Leader call it a dictatorship is hysteria which demeans his role.

Liam Hehir helpfully tweets Chris Hipkins. no less moving urgency on a massive 24 bills!

It is a sign of desperation for relevance when Labour combine hypocrisy and hysteria.

The poor victim not only got assaulted. Her assailant got off scot free with name suppression, and she got her victim statement heaving censored.

We now have almost all 2023 data in, which has allowed me to update my annual table of how Labour went against its promises. This is basically their final report card.

So in summary:

• Labour achieved 2% of their Kiwibuild target
• Labour achieved 4% of their billion trees target
• Labour achieved 16% of their emissions free government vehicles target
• Labour pledged got end homelessness and the priority A housing waiting list increased 481%
• Labour pledged to cut NZ’s net greenhouse gas emission to zero, but increased them 3.2%
• Labour pledged to reduce child poverty but saw a 4% increase in the number of children in material deprivation
• Labour promised to start construction of Dunedin Hospital in its first term. No bricks were laid.
• Labour promised 13 km of completed light rail in Auckland by 2021. At the end of their second term, a business case wasn’t even completed
• They promised to relocate Government functions to the region and increased the Wellington share of the public service by 3%
• They promised 100% renewable electricity by 2035 and did manage a modest 4% increase in the renewable share compared to an 18% increase under the previous Government
• They said free tertiary fees would lead to a 15% increase in enrolments. 1st year enrolments dropped 3%

In six years they managed to achieve less than the 1st Atkinson Ministry.

Mark Stocker writes:

This article will not engage in the vexed question of Cook’s impact on New Zealand history, other than to say that his voyages – and tragic death – preceded any significant European settlement by decades. Therefore, holding him to any personal, adverse responsibility here is both silly and misplaced. The same goes for a North Island tribal chief executive’s characterisation of Cook as ‘a barbarian’ when the whole ethos behind Cook’s voyages was specifically not imperial conquest but that noble Enlightenment goal (trashed by postcolonial academics in recent years), ‘dare to know’. All this and more has been said in the columns of History Reclaimed, when Robert Tombs explained why ‘Scapegoating Cook is a facile response to problems that we are far from having solved. We can’t hide 21st century failings by blaming Cook’.

Cook was an explorer. He never left crew members behind.

It is the vandals, not Captain Cook, who are blind. Their defacement of his statue is an emotionally immature and ill-educated act of copycat vandalism, probably influenced by the recent uprooting of his Melbourne statue. Smashing Cook’s face helps no one’s understanding of history and does nothing to allay the suffering of indigenous peoples as a consequence of the arrival of Europeans. His complex and controversial legacy in Aotearoa [New Zealand] is best addressed by having an explanatory caption beside the statue, complemented by smartphone accessible QR codes, providing a range of interpretations. Indigenous responses would be central to this.

That is an excellent idea.

Some interesting findings from Ipsos, including:

• Gen Z and Millennials are more likely to think that a man who stays at home to look after his children is less of a man
• Around half of people across 31 countries think that men are being asked to do too much to support gender equality (51%).
• Almost half of people (46%) think that we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men.
• Just 15% of NZers prefer a male leader, 20% prefer a female leader, with the majority not having a preference either way.

Radio NZ reported:

Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick will be the Green Party’s new co-leader alongside Marama Davidson, as James Shaw steps down.

Last month, Shaw said he would be stepping down from his duties as co-leader in March.

Dunedin-based activist and conservationist Alex Foulkes had put his hand up too for the role but announced on Sunday that he had conceded defeat. Swarbrick received 169 votes from party delegates, Foulkes received no votes.

This is now old news, and of course absolutely no surprise.

Chloe has a devoted following, especially with younger voters. I would not go so far as to say she will achieve her goal of supplanting Labour as the major party of the left, but I do think she has real potential to grow their vote and especially get more younger people to actually enrol and vote.

Niki Bezzant writes:

As International Women’s Day rolls around again, women can sit back, relax and reflect on all the amazing progress that’s been made in the past year.

Kidding!

Last year I wrote a piece on why we still need International Women’s Day. Sadly, these reasons all still apply. We’re still behind (or going backwards) in the gender pay gap; representation in the nation’s boardrooms; the orgasm gap and access to equitable healthcare.

This should be part of the Government’s second 100 day plan – to close the orgasm gap.

I’m not sure who would be the lead agency – Ministry of Health, Ministry for Women or the Social Wellbeing Agency. You could even have a cross-sector approach and include the Department of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Innovation etc. Maybe even the new Ministry of Regulation could examine this area.

Radio NZ report:

The government’s top digital officials say they are not aware of any trials of artificial intelligence for summarising parliamentary submissions.

The ABC recently reported that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had used AI to read and summarise public submissions into parliamentary inquiries, such as the use of consultants in government.

In response to reporter questions, ASIC said it had trialled AI because it was becoming too onerous to read all the submissions.

The commission called it an “ideal and low risk” way to test generative AI technology, the ABC reported.

Actually this would be a very good use of AI.

When summarising submissions, you really want to report the following:

• The arguments for and against each section
• Proposed changes
• Which submitters were for and against each possible change
• Overall sentiment

This is stuff that could be done very efficiently by AI, especially as there may be thousands of submissions which will have common themes.

You’d still want a human to check over the output, but it is a lot quicker to review a summary, than write it from scratch.

I’d be all for select committees and government agencies trialling AI to summarise submissions.

The Herald reports:

A leading United States official in the Aukus programme had to abandon her speech in Wellington today after it was disrupted by pro-Palestinian and anti-Aukus protestors planted among the audience (see the speech below).

The right to protest does not extend to being a right to prevent people from hearing from someone they wish to.

When you prevent people from hearing a speaker they wish to hear from, you are forcing your views on them and harming their human rights. It is basically a form of speech fascism.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds has remained highly critical of the Government’s new tax relief policy which she said would make landlords “tax cut millionaires”.

Under the existing law, introduced by the former Labour Government when the property market was overheating, no interest can be deducted for property bought from March 27, 2021.

This is nit a tax break or tax relief in the normal sense of the word. Every business in New Zealand is allowed to deduct the costs of the business from the income of the business to work out taxable income.

Labour changed the law so that people who rent property would not be allowed to deduct interest expense, unlike every other business. It was totally unprincipled.

All National had done is put all businesses back on the same rule which is we tax on net income, not gross income.

This is not like say the film subsidy which is a tax break specifically for films. That is a form of corporate welfare.

Calling this a tax break for landlords is like saying that allowing doctors to deduct the cost of their work computers from their income is a tax break.