The Herald reports:

An ‘attempted strangulation’ charge may be introduced by Justice Minister Judith Collins in a bid to tackle domestic violence.

The act of attempted strangulation is often a precursor to murder in domestic violence situations, the minister said, and it needed to be treated more seriously.

“One of the suggestions from the family violence group that’s been looking at it, is that we bring in a new law around attempted strangulation,” she told TV One’s Q+A programme.

“So when we’ve got people who are being strangled and partly strangled in their home, that is an indicator that the person who’s doing it is actually going to go on and kill them. And we need to treat that much more seriously than we do.”

Such a crime on the books seems a useful, albeit, sad thing. I guess a case can be made for attempted murder to be the charge in all such cases but proving beyond reasonable doubt that a strangulation was going to continue and kill would be difficult often.  But with attempted strangulation you won’t need to prove what the final intent was, just that some strangulation occurred.

Most domestic violence penalties were tough enough to deal with the crime, Ms Collins said, with perpetrators being treated “as anybody else” on charges such as murder or grievous bodily harm. But a charge of male assaults female may not be reflective of the seriousness of the crime.

I think that crime should be removed from the books. We should have a range of assaults defined in law, but they should be defined based on the seriousness of the assault, not on the gender of the assailant and victim.

Tony Featherstone writes in the Brisbane Times:

As much as I hate to say it, Australia is being left for dead by other countries that are fostering an enterprise culture among young people and grooming their next generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners through the school system.

As we teach kids about general business, mostly in secondary school, the United Kingdom is considering recommendations to teach children as young as five to think up a micro-enterprise as part of reforms to change attitudes towards self-employment. …

The Enterprise for All Report, released this month in the UK, was a joy to read. The Venture has argued for years primary schools should teach students about business creativity; that secondary schools should teach innovation; and that universities should teach commercialisation skills. And that enterprise teaching should be embedded into all levels of the education system

But our politicians are still getting their heads around small business, let alone entrepreneurship, which must be taught as early as possible.

The report was stunning in its scope. Recommendations included embedding enterprise teaching in new curriculum materials and exams at school; giving teachers business experience as part of continuous development programs; and creating a national network of volunteer “ enterprise advisers” to liaise with schools.

Universities would offer an elective enterprise module to every student – something I have long argued for.

Why should entrepreneurship only be taught as a “business” subject when there are potential entrepreneurs across all disciplines? Why should a nurse, lawyer, engineer or arts student with incredible entrepreneurial potential be denied this type of learning, simply because he or she does not study business? It’s an antiquated approach.

The UK report sounds great. This is something the NZ Government should look at as a priority.

Other recommendations impress. The Fiver program, where primary school students get a month to do something enterprising with their five-pound pledge is a favourite. What a great way to get kids creating for-profit or social ideas, and to plant the self-employment seed.

Creating an electronic digital passport for students to record enterprise activity is another of the report’s good idea. A student’s academic achievements are recorded, so why not their enterprise achievements and experience? Forward-thinking employers would value that information.

Great idea.

The Enterprise for All Report should be mandatory reading for our politicians. They need to know other countries have big plans to adapt their education systems, from primary schools to university, to develop a stronger culture of enterprise and self-employment.  

The report is here. This looks like a great area for Steven Joyce to champion.

The Herald reports:

A $300 million cash swap from roads to railways is at the heart of New Zealand First’s transport policy for the election, including restoring the Gisborne-Napier line, and looking at extending the Wellington line to Levin and into Wairarapa.

The Gisborne to Napier line had basically no passengers and freight volumes dropped 75% in the few years before it closed. This would be akin to puring money down the drain.

A great goal with a few minutes to go in extra time.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett says Brown has done what politicians have done to Auckland for years – offered low rates increases but not stuck to a spending plan that aligns with this.

He says if Auckland really wants to build a city that people want to live in there must be investment to attract people, investment and tourists.

Where the Auckland Council has gone wrong, he says, is not aggressively reviewing what it does with an eye on doing things better with less.

He asks: Does the council need 900 staff in planning and 600 in policy? Should Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency combine in Auckland? Does Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed) need a $60 million budget?

“This is all stuff that should have been challenged over the last three years.”

900 planning staff? 6oo policy staff? My God.

And while some spending on tourism and events can be justifiable, $60 million is way over the top.

Quax said the mayor had shown no ability to say no to anyone who came knocking at his door, whether it be Maori, the Rescue Helicopter Trust, Holy Trinity Cathedral or Skypath.

Another right-wing opponent, Cameron Brewer, says the mayor has over-promised and rolled over to the wish lists of the former councils when he should have prioritised and cut projects at the outset.

Local body financial commentator Larry Mitchell, who produces annual “league tables” of council financial performance, said the council had substituted disciplined financial management with four years of “borrow and spend”.

Borrow, borrow and spend indeed.

UPDATE: Maybe a start could be made by not spending $100,000 for a silk curtain at the Devonport Library.

Yesterday the Internet Party released their environment policy and to me it sounded very similar, if not identical to the Greens. They want to ban fracking, ban deep sea drilling, and bring in a carbon tax.

I’m not the only one who noticed this. Danyl McLauchlan blogs:

In the hypothetical Labour/Green/New Zealand First/Mana/Internet Party coalition that voters are being asked to put in charge of the country this election year, its hard to figure out which inter-party relationship is the most poisonous, or who would like to destroy whom the most. But now that Laila Harre’s gone and started pre-releasing Green Party policy on the same day as the Greens and justified it on the basis that she worked for the Green Party for fifteen months, and therefore owns all their intellectual property, somehow, I’m gonna nominate the Green/Internet Mana relationship as, from here on in, probably the most toxic.

What’s the strategy here? The original vision for the Internet Party was that it would be a, y’know, Internet Party, focused on digital issues and changing the government by turning out young non-voters. My guess is that Dotcom’s money has paid for some market research which has found that the number of non-voters passionate about copyright restrictions is close to zero, and that the demographic most sympathetic towards the Internet Party are current Green voters. Harre doesn’t share Dotcom’s interest in digital rights, or his legal problems, so her focus – like any other political leader – is purely on maximising her party vote. Which explains why the Internet Party is now a tiny cannibalistic version of the Green Party.

Now I don’t generally mention family members, but it is no secret that Danyl’s wife is the political director for the Greens. I mention this not to suggest he is speaking on her behalf or writing what she thinks. But to make the context that this isn’t an opinion of someone who has absolutely no idea of what people in the Greens think of the Internet Party.

Since the Internet Party formed the Greens have dropped from 13% to 11.5% in the polls. That is lower than they were polling just prior to the last election, so they run the risk of losing MPs.

The Internet Party looks like it will have a set of policies almost indistinguishable from the Greens. But the one big difference is the $4 million they have had from Kim Dotcom to appeal to people who like Green Party policies.

ACT have released their list. The top six are:

1. Dr Jamie Whyte
2. Kenneth Wang
3. Robin Grieve
4. Beth Houlbrooke
5. Don Nicolson
6. Stephen Berry
7. Dasha Kovalenko

If they get 1.2% of the vote (they got 1.1% last time) and retain Epsom, then Jamie Whyte comes in. At 2.0% they also get Kenneth Wang. They would need 6.0% to get Dasha Kovalenko in, which sadly will not happen.

An interesting display of how our exports have changed over 35 years, by NZ T&E. It shows the benefits of free trade agreements.

The Herald reports:

Deep sea drilling would continue under a Labour Government, but with more safety regulations in case it goes “very very wrong”, Labour’s energy and resources spokesman David Shearer said this morning.

Mr Shearer appeared on The Nation this morning to talk about Labour’s oil drilling policy.

“We support oil drilling [and] we have done in the past, there’s no major change there,” he said.

Here’s the problem. Shearer supports it and says it will continue as Energy Spokesperson. But their environmental spokesperson will put out releases condemning it, and their candidates lead marches against it. They try to be all things to all people.

Andrea Vance provides some translations. Extracts:

“I’m relatively relaxed about this . . .”

Because my chief of staff is working like billy-o to find an official we can pin the blame on.

“I have been very clear.”

Beep beep beep, look out voters – I’m backing into a U-turn.

“The real question here . . . “

I don’t like your question, so I’ll waffle on about something I do want to talk about.

“What I’m hearing from hard-working Kiwis as I travel up and down the country . . .”

Actually, it’s what the data from our extensive polling and focus groups says.

“That’s a matter for the party. That’s an operational matter.”

I might be in charge but someone else can take the fall for this mess.

“Talking about rising levels of immigration is not racist.”

But I’m happy for all the racists to vote for me.

“After a hard day campaigning there’s nothing I like more than a cold beer/fish and chips with the family.”

Until the cameras are off and I can crack open that $175 bottle of Central Otago pinot noir.

“I’m here to talk about our new policy.”

Please stop asking me questions about whether I have the support of my party.

“There are questions the Government must answer/We are calling for an independent inquiry.”

We can’t quite prove what we are insinuating but it looks dodgy and we needed to put out a press release.

“My caucus is united . . .”

. . . By the fact they’d rather have someone else in charge.

“The only poll that matters is on September 20.”

We’re screwed.

Andrea is very cynical, but not unjustifiably so 🙂

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Trevor Mallard just can’t let go of his fascination with resurrecting the moa.

Yesterday Inglewood, a town long associated with the extinct flightless bird, came to the attention of the Labour MP.

He was in Taranaki yesterday to talk about sport and recreation, but was fascinated to learn Inglewood was briefly known as Moatown in the mid-1870s.

Last week Mallard caused a ruffle when he told his electorate that breakthroughs in modern science could bring back the species and they could one day roam the hills above Wainuiomata.

And, if the moa was brought back from the dead then Inglewood could be a great place for some to live, he said.

“It may well be that within careful enclosures some of the smaller moa will be there at the time of our grandchildren or great grandchildren,” he said. Not the big ones though, because the farmers in Taranaki might not want the birds near their cattle, he said.

It would be a great tourism market for his district, but Taranaki could cash in on that too.

I love it. Trevor is now going up and down the country talking about Labour’s plans to bring back the moa. Cunliffe will be furious, but can’t do anything about it without causing a public major rift.

One of the big ones. Tax.

Taxes are one of the most tangible links between the government and civil society. We all pay taxes in some form, and in exchange we expect the government to provide certain goods and services: roads, infrastructure, the courts, law enforcement, education, and support for society’s most vulnerable.
 
From this perspective, the oft-quoted declaration ‘taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society’, widely attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, rings true.
 
However, it is a common misconception that a dollar taxed is a dollar that can be spent by government on goods and services. In reality, a dollar taxed is a dollar that must be spent on collecting tax, ensuring tax compliance, public administration of policy and, of course, the actual public policy.
 
Besides, increases in tax rates do not automatically lead to an increase in tax revenue, as illustrated by the Laffer curve. Named after Arthur Laffer, this curve popularised the notion that higher tax rates may actually cause the tax base to shrink so much that tax revenues will decline. Conversely, a cut in tax rates may increase the tax base so much that tax revenues increase.
 
How so?
 
Taxes distort behaviour by influencing the personal decisions people make about their work and consumption. For instance, people who would prefer to work longer hours or at a higher pay may work less or refuse a pay rise to avoid being taxed at a higher rate. Higher personal income taxes encourage workers to substitute their preference for work to economic activities that they would otherwise not prefer.
 
This is known as the deadweight loss of taxation, where the tax system causes individuals to pursue actions they would otherwise not prefer. To gain maximum tax revenue, there must be a careful balance between low rates with a greater tax base, and high rates with a smaller tax base.
 
There is also the issue of tax incidence, which describes who bears the cost of the tax. For example, increasing the tax on high income earners may not necessarily mean that they bear the cost of the tax. If workers are receiving less money in their pocket, for an equal or greater amount of work, employers may feel compelled to raise their wages to ensure employees receive the same take-home pay. Thus it is employers who bear the burden of a higher rate of income tax.
 
Taxes are not the price we pay for a civilised society. At best they are the price we pay for a civilised government. But they are also the price of overly bureaucratic procedures, unpredictable outcomes, and the loss of freedom to make our own decisions.

Stuff reports:

An Australian report that lays the blame for rising house prices on a lack of land for development, rather than a “price bubble”, could have reached the same conclusions here, a free-market think tank says.

The report, by the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, said Australian house prices had risen at an annual rate 3 per cent higher than inflation since the 1970s.

Author Stephen Kirchner said foreign and domestic property investors had been made a scapegoat when the real problem was zoning and planning rules. They restricted the availability of building land and prevented the more intensive development of existing residential areas.

The supply squeeze in Australia was compounded by taxes such as stamp duty and capital gains tax, he said.

Australian house prices have risen at much the same level as New Zealand. What is useful to note is Australia has had a Capital Gains Tax since the 1980s.

So when Labour goes on about how a CGT will magically mean house prices decrease, ask them why has that not worked in Australia?

The solution in both countries is the same. Make more land available. It is about as basic economics as you can get. Artificially restrict the supply of land, and of course the price of land increase.

Stuff reports:

Germany has told the CIA station chief in Berlin to leave the country in a dramatic display of anger from Chancellor Angela Merkel at the behaviour of a close ally after officials unearthed two suspected US spies.

The scandal has chilled relations with Washington to levels not seen since Merkel’s predecessor opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It follows allegations that Merkel herself, who grew up in Stasi-ridden East Germany, was among thousands of Germans whose mobile phones have been bugged by American agents.

“Spying on allies … is a waste of energy,” the chancellor said in her most pointed public remarks yet on the issue. “We have so many problems, we should focus on the important things.” …

US government sources said the official – whom neither side named – was Berlin station chief for the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency. A German source said the man would face possible forcible expulsion if he did not leave voluntarily.

This is an unprecedented fall out between allies. I can’t say I blame the Germans. Spying on your opponents and enemies, but not your allies.

The Privileges Committee has reported back to the House on two issues.

The first is around the fiasco around the GCSB report leak. It sets out four principles:

1. There should be a presumption that information held on parliamentary information and security systems should not be released. 
2. Individual members should retain complete control over the release of any information that relates to them. That is, material relating to individual members should only be released where that member specifically agrees to its release. 
3. Journalists working in the parliamentary precinct should retain complete control over the release of any information that relates to them. That is, material relating to a journalist or group of journalists who work in the parliamentary precinct should only be released with their specific authorisation. 
4. For information requests that do not relate to an individual member, the Speaker of the House of Representatives should be the ultimate decision-maker.

They seem very sound principles.

They also report back on issues around Police and SIS access. Mainly just a series of clarifications.

Stuff reports:

A new milk could threaten New Zealand’s $17 billion dairy export industry.

Made in the lab from yeast, and due to be on shelves in 2016, it will be a product virtually indistinguishable from cows’ milk.

Because it will have the same proteins, fats, sugars, vitamins and minerals, it will also taste the same, according to Perumal Gandhi, co-founder of Californian research and development company Muufri.

But the milk will be able to be made without the typical cholesterol, allergen lactose and bacteria in cows’ milk, meaning it will be healthier and won’t need to be refrigerated, giving it a much longer shelf-life.

Soon after its introduction, it would become far cheaper than its cow-made rival, Gandhi said.

I don’t think in the short term, people are going to swap to artificial milk. But we should not discount what the future may hold. As we crack more and more DNA and the like, our ability to create things will expand exponentially.

Stuff reports:

The Christchurch City Council is unlikely to face consequences after a food-licensing blunder affected businesses, Local Government Minister Paula Bennett says.

All cafes, supermarkets and food manufacturers in Christchurch were left operating illegally for two weeks after food licences expired on June 30 and none were renewed by the council.

Bennett said the council would not face intervention as a result of the delay but would be under the spotlight and monitored for further botchups.

Delays in renewal were timing and administration, which the council said it had now fixed.

“The council has some unique challenges to manage on top of its core business requirements,” Bennett said.

“While I don’t believe this delay indicates the council has wider issues or that there is a need for intervention, I’ve asked officials to continue monitoring the council’s work to ensure all is on track.”

Hospitality NZ Canterbury president Peter Morrison said the blunder was “unbelievable”.

“It’s diabolical, considering all the trouble they’ve had with the building consents, that they couldn’t get a simple thing like this right,” he said.

Now consider Labour is vowing to abolish CERA in 2016 and make their mate Lianne’s council responsible for the entire rebuild.

Considering the Council lost its consenting accreditation due to incompetence, and now has failed to perform another statutory duty, can you imagine the chaos that would eventuate if they were in charge of everything.

Stuff reports:

Online auction site Wheedle is closing, less than two years after it was set up to take on Trade Me. 

The site’s sole funder, Mainfreight co-founder and rich-lister Neil Graham, decided against further investment in the company, he said in a message to Wheedle members tonight.

“Our aim was to create a commercially successful site where people could buy and sell online without costing users an arm and a leg. 

“More than 80,000 members backed us and we’re very proud of that achievement.”

With respect Wheedle could almost become a text book case of how not to do a launch. Competing with Trade Me would have been challenging for the best of competitors, but Wheedle never got it together.

Launched in October 2012, the site aimed to undercut Trade Me by charging a flat-rate $1 fee on items that sold for more than $20. 

People don’t care much about the fees. They care about the price they’ll get.

NBR has a good feature on what went wrong.

Claire Trevett writes the second half of the detailed look by the Herald into the Opposition Leader – as they also did in 2008. Her story is focused on Cunliffe’s political years. Some extracts and comments:

Former President Mike Williams first impressions of David Cunliffe were not as favourable. It was at the party’s 1999 campaign launch and Cunliffe turned up with bright red hair – the result of an overzealous hairdresser for a fundraiser whom Cunliffe claims was “a Tory.”

It ensured he got a reputation for self-promotion before he even entered Parliament. The Herald awarded him “best self promoter,” reporting he also handed out copies of the ‘Cunliffe Courier’ – featuring 22 photos of himself – at the campaign launch.

That’s a great idea. Labour’s manifesto should be the same this year.

Cunliffe caught the media’s attention, if not always for the right reasons. He was dubbed the ‘toyboy minister” and “nakedly ambitious.” Observations of his talent were usually followed by a comment about his ambition and ego. He was mocked for describing his own maiden speech as “passionate.” In 2002, his supporters turned up to the Labour Party campaign launch waving placards with his name on them.

Bit of a pattern.

Cunliffe and Tamihere gravitated towards each other, part of a group of junior MPs including Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor, and dubbed themselves the “Mods” – short for Modernisers. They met in each other’s offices for drinks and discussed policies and the direction Labour might take in the longer term, post-Clark. They decided to recruit others and Tamihere says Cunliffe returned with loyal Clarkists. Whether it was innocent or deliberate, he was seen to have dobbed them in. …

Tamihere says there was no big blow out and they did maintain a professional relationship. Asked about the Mods’ goals now, Tamihere laughs and says “well, you always go down there with those heady ideals.”
“He’s an extraordinarily talented chap but you never get to see the real David. You get to see the David that he thinks you want to see. And that’s his problem.”

This is what is interesting. There is no doubt Cunliffe was on the right of the party, yet now he is trying to position himself to the left of Helen Clark.

After a lengthy review and two year stand-off with Telecom, Cabinet moved to break the company’s near monopoly by forcing it to open its local network to competitors in 2006.

I thought Cunliffe handled the portfolio very well, and he had a good legacy with the operational separation of Telecom. It was long overdue.

Cunliffe had worked with Michael Cullen since he was a junior MP, but Cullen declined to be interviewed for this piece. Cullen publicly backed Grant Robertson in the leadership challenge in 2013 – and quipped at the NZ Post Book Awards at the time he expected next year’s entries to include Cunliffe’s new book “The Dummies Guide to Walking on Water: How I learned from Jesus’ Mistakes.”

Cunliffe made it too clear he wanted Cullen’s job. Funnily enough I think Cunliffe would be an able Finance Minister.

Somewhere along the line Cunliffe earned the nickname ‘Silent ‘T’ – because of the difference inserting a ‘t’ into the relevant part of his surname would make.

That nickname started before Cunliffe was a Minister. No one knows which of hil colleagues first coined the name, but most think it was Clayton Cosgrove.

I can relate a funny story about the nickname. Was once at an MPs house and a reference was made to his nickname of Silent T. Then a nine year old boy piped up and asked why do people call him “David Cunliffety”. We all pissed ourselves laughing as it would not have been appropiate to correct Master Nine’s assumption about where the T was inserted.

Cunliffe also had to deal with the complex, politically sensitive portfolios of immigration and health in his final years as minister. He undertook a major review of immigration settings

He did that very well also. Prior to his law changes, many illegal migrants could game the system for years and years with numerous appeals. Cunliffe introduced a much better and simplified system for dealing with immigration decisions and appeals.

Cunliffe was at the function when Helen Clark ceded defeat and announced she would step down.

Immediately confronted by the media, he said he had no intention of running to be leader.

However, he now reveals that he did subsequently put his name forward at one stage because he was encouraged to do so. He will not say who encouraged him and said he did not push the matter because he acknowledged he did not have the experience in Opposition. “There was, I think, a fairly widely shared view that perhaps later on it might be appropriate for me to have a chance to lead the party.”

Tizard says she spoke to him at the time. “My view was that it was probably too soon, but my comment was ‘if you think you’ve got the numbers, go for it. If not, get the numbers.'”

Interesting that Cunliffe did look at standing, encouraged by Tizard. It was no secret that Clark wanted Cunliffe to become her successor, so he could keep out Goff.

One minister at the time said Clark had proposed Cunliffe as deputy, but Goff made it clear he wanted Annette King.

Never appoint a Deputy who wants to take over from you. David Shearer learn this the hard way.

Cunliffe was the finance spokesman when Goff stepped on the stage in the election campaign at the end of those three years for the Press newspaper’s debate with Key. Goff held until his ground until Key asked where the money to pay for Labour’s spending promises was coming from with the repeated “show me the money” refrain.

Goff foundered, failing to even bring up the capital gains tax revenue which had been released. After the debate, Goff called Parker off the campaign trail to help with the full costings. They were released in full within days, indicating they were at least almost ready.

Why did he not call in the Finance Spokesperson?

Goff says he does not blame Cunliffe for it. “I take responsibility for myself, I don’t blame other people.”

That’s his public stance. His private stance is very different.

Cunliffe’s campaign was an open pitch to the union movement and activist left. He embraced socialism, and followed it up with a brace of promises, many around wage increases and working conditions. One former colleague observed it was a canny move to target the unions. “If you want to be the boss of that mob you have to look at who’s got the organisational muscle 24/7 to organise for you.”

Boss of the mob – how well phrased.

Asked what the biggest mistake of his leadership has been, Cunliffe says it was the use of that trust. 

We should all thank a certain blogger at The Standard for his fine work in setting it up, and never twigging it might be a bad idea.

Cunliffe’s deputy David Parker publicly backed Shearer in 2011, but refused to reveal who he supported in the 2013 run-off. “I felt whoever was leader, there was a need to build bridges. And I thought I was one of the ones who should do that.”

My understanding is Parker voted for Jones, but Cunliffe was his second choice ahead of Robertson.

Cunliffe says he intends to stay on if Labour is in Opposition after the election when he faces a confidence vote. His supporters agree – Tizard points to Helen Clark staying on after losing in 1996. 

This is the real battle ahead.

There’s also an interesting article on Karen Price.

The Herald reports:

Homeowners and landlords could see hundreds of dollars added to their rates bills under Labour proposals for a sweeping overhaul of the disaster insurance regime.

The policy unveiled by Labour’s Earthquake Commission (EQC) spokesman Clayton Cosgrove would see EQC levies gathered by taking them off insurance premiums and adding them to rates bills so all residential properties are covered.

The levy is currently $207 a year for most homes but Mr Cosgrove said Labour would also lift the maximum payout by EQC from its current $100,000 cap.

Which will see the levy increase. So that may mean you rates end up going up by over $300 a year.

He acknowledged that the resulting increase in EQC’s total liability would mean the levy would probably have to rise but that insurance premiums would not necessarily fall to reflect the fact they would not include the EQC levy.

“I’ve never seen an insurance premium go down.”

So Labour is proposing that our rates go up by $300 or so but that our insurance premiums don’t go down.

Another winning policy.