The Herald reports:

Tamihere is seeking damages of over $620,000 in a suit filed with the High Court on December 23 last year.

The Herald has obtained a copy of Tamihere’s statement of claim and sworn affidavit.

They reveal:

*Tamihere claims MediaWorks had agreed to renew his $10,000-a-month contract for 2014 and he is suing for the full amount after the contract was not renewed following the scandal.

That’s $120,000. Where does the other $500,000 come from?

*Tamihere alleges MediaWorks also failed to publish the findings of an internal complaints review process that found Jackson and Tamihere’s interview with “Amy” had not breached any broadcasting standards.

*Tamihere claims the effect was to allow the public to think Tamihere had been fired for misconduct over his role in the interview but that Jackson had done nothing wrong. Tamihere’s defamation claim is for $500,000 in damages plus costs.

Oh, it’s a defamation suit – not an employment dispute. That will be interesting.

Stuff reports:

Pay equity for women has again reached the courts, with thousands of workers and employers keenly watching the result.

The question about whether women should be paid the same as similarly skilled men in different industries was heard by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

The result of the case, which pits the Service and Food Workers Union against the aged-care sector, could have a drastic impact on other female-dominated industries throughout the country.

In 2012, the union launched a legal challenge fronted by Lower Hutt member Kristine Bartlett, who works at rest home provider TerraNova Homes & Care.

Ms Bartlett says her $14.46 hourly wage is less than would be paid to men with the same, or substantially similar, skills, arguing it was a breach of the Equal Pay Act.

In August, the Employment Court ruled in her favour, stating women in female-dominated industries could now compare themselves to men in other industries requiring similar skills.

Employers, who argued only the same work in the same industry could be compared, were outraged and TerraNova appealed.

I think it was a very bad decision which was more about law making that interpreting the law.

The Equal Pay Act was designed to stop cases where an employer might try and set different pay rates for men and women – such as saying female shop assistants are paid $14 an hour and male shop assistants are paid $15 an hour.

Parliament did not intend it to be say that (for example) nurses (mainly female) must be paid the same as police officers (mainly male). It is about saying female nurses should not be paid less than male nurses. The court’s decision was a massive expansion of the law, and one that should be made by Parliament explicitly – if that is deemed desirable.

Personally I deem it highly undesirable. Pay rates should primarily be determined by demand and supply – not by legislation.

The appeal concludes today, with the court to hear from other parties, including Crown Law, after Attorney-General Chris Finlayson asked for the Government to be represented because the decision could have “important public policy implications”.

The court’s decision is likely to be reserved.

I hope the Employment Court decision is reversed.

I’ve just published Curia’s monthly polling newsletter (can subscribe here), and of interest is the difference in mood between countries.

Many polls ask if people think their country is generally heading in the right or the wrong direction. They difference between right and wrong is called the net direction. The current polls for the five countries we cover are:

• United States -32%
• United Kingdom -21%
• Canada – 17%
• Australia +2%
• New Zealand +39%

Why do people think New Zealand is so much more positive than all the others?

TVNZ report:

Prime Minister John Key gave his clearest hint yet that the general election is likely to be held before the G-20 global leaders’ meeting in Brisbane, in mid-November.

He told his weekly post-Cabinet press conference that it would be preferable not to leave the country to attend the high-powered meeting of the world’s most powerful 20 economies, which Australia has invited New Zealand to attend this year.

Describing the G-20 as a “complicating factor”, Mr Key dodged questions about exactly when the election could be, but was lukewarm on attending an international meeting during the course of an election campaign.

“You can do anything you want to do, but I just don’t think that’s likely,” he said. Asked whether that meant an election would be before the Nov. 15 meeting, Mr Key replied: “Or after.”

However, the situation is all the more complicated by the fact that Mr Key has invited several of the world leaders heading to Brisbane to make flying visits to New Zealand around the time of the G-20, including US President Barack Obama.

If they arrive before election day, their presence could be criticised as designed to influence the election, while also requiring much of the Prime Minister’s and other senior politicians’ campaigning time.

If held after the G-20 meeting, a four to six week election campaign would push polling day into Christmas or beyond.

Under the Electoral Act, the latest date for the election is around mid-January, but conventional wisdom dictates that is a terrible time to hold a general election.

Okay lets looks at what dates are probable and possible. First what is the last possible date.

Parliament expires on Wed 17 Dec 2014. Writs must be issued by Wed 24 Dec and returned within 50 days which is Thu 12 Feb 2015. You need two weeks or so to count special votes so the last possible date is Sat 24 Jan 2015.

However let us assume that an election after Christmas is undesirable, and that you also want final results before Christmas which means an election no later than Sat 6 December.

Now election campaigns tend to be from four to six weeks in length. That means the campaign would start 8 November at the latest. So it is hard to see the election being after the G20 meeting unless you have a three week campaign only (or have the PM overseas for some of the campaign).

So when could the election be if before the G20? You could have it on Sat 1 November but there may not be a clear election outcome by 15 November (especially if Peters is involved).

The Saturday before (25 October) is Labour weekend, and apart from not wanting to give Labour a campaign slogan (Vote Labour on Labour Weekend) having so many people on holiday would be a problem.

Sat 18 October is possible. The All Blacks do play the Wallabies that day but it is in Australia so not as major a factor as if it was in NZ.

So I’d say 11 or 18 October are pretty likely dates. Of course as a pollster I’d be happy with 24 Jan 2015 🙂

Been doing the monthly polling newsletter, and in reading the results of the UK polls, noticed some interesting questions this month. results include:

The Labour Party has announced that if it wins next year’s election it will increase the top rate of income tax to 50p for people earning more than £150,000 a year. If Labour does come to power and does increase the top rate of income tax, what do you think will happen in practice?

16% say it raise a significant amount of money and 71% say rich people will find ways to avoid paying the tax and it will raise very little extra money.

Currently people are allowed to use “reasonable” force to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder. Some people have suggested that the law should be changed to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder. Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder?

An astonishing 75% support no limit on what force can be used to defend a home with only 17% against. And specifically on lethal force:

Do you think it is or is not acceptable for someone defending their home to use force that causes the death of a burglar or intruder?

60% support lethal force and only 26% against. Even Labour voters are 55% in favour and 30% against.

The Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow recently said he always thought about sex upon meeting a member of the opposite sex, saying ‘Sex comes into every evaluation of a woman, there’s no doubt about it. It’s there,’

When you meet a member of the opposite sex, do you think about what they would be like to make love to?

36% say they do and 60% say they do not. But broken by gender it is 56% of men do and only 18% of women!

If a referendum were held on the UK’s membership of the European Union with the options being to remain a member or withdraw, how do you think you would vote?

52% say they would vote to leave and 34% to remain. 62% of Conservatives favour leaving, 40% of Labour and 36% of Lib Dems.

The Southland Times reports:

The fate of Labour’s Invercargill candidacy will be left to the quandary of party processes after another city resident entered the contest.

Michael Gibson will challenge Lesley Soper for the position, in what the party have dubbed ”democratic process”.

The two will need to pull together party member votes before a selection panel makes the final decision. 

None of the head office people will vote for Soper as she is pro-life, so she is dead in the water.

New Zealand Labour Party regional representative Glenda Alexander said contest was healthy for democracy.  

Sticking to the rules is healthy for democracy. I’m no fan of Soper, but if she was the only nominee, and did not break any rules, it is not fair to nobble her after she has been selected.

The uncharacteristic decision to reopen nominations could be perceived as a breach of the democratic process, she said. 

Because it is.

Michael Gibson’s nomination was received on Thursday evening by Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett in the ”nick of time”, a spokesperson said. 

It took them until the last minute to find someone!

Brian Fallow, NZ Herald Economics Editor, writes:

So we have David Cunliffe in his state of the nation speech on Monday deploring that people are struggling with a rising cost of living while their wages stay still and then talking about “reforming” the Reserve Bank Act to assist exporters.

By reform, they mean to have more inflation – which of course makes the cost of living increase!

It is one of the ironies of our political discourse that the parties of the left are the most casual about inflation when it is the poor and economically powerless who suffer most when inflation gets out of hand and as it is brought under control again. Perhaps they are too young to remember. 

If more inflation is the answer, the question is wrong.

News Ltd economics reporter Jessica Irvine writes:

Our sporting teams may be locked in bitter rivalry: Wallabies vs. All Blacks; Diamonds vs. Silver Ferns.

But in the battle for economic supremacy, New Zealand is set to reign supreme.

While the Australian economy dominated over the past two decades, the tables are turning.

Australia survived the GFC with our two decade unbroken growth record intact, while New Zealand plunged into a year and a half long recession, before a deadly earthquake levelled its second biggest city of Christchurch in 2011.

But things have turned a corner for the New Zealand economy, says Saul Eslake, the chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“The situation has now changed. As we move into 2014 the New Zealand economy does so gathering momentum whereas the Australian economy is clearly limping and will continue to do so,” Eslake explains.

And the migration patterns are changing.

Could the flood of New Zealanders to our shores be about to reverse?

Better jobs prospects at home are already reducing migration flows to Australia, says Eslake.

“I think that is already evident in NZ’s own migration patterns, which show net emigration having fallen quite significantly.”

New Zealand’s economy expanded 3.5 per cent over the year to last September, outpacing growth in the Australian economy of just 2.3 per cent.

As a result, getting a job in Australia is getting harder while getting a job in New Zealand is getting easier.

New Zealand’s jobless rate dropped sharply from 7.2 per cent to 6.2 per cent, while Australia’s climbed from 5.4 per cent to 5.8 per cent.

Hopefully our rate will drop below 6%.

John Armstrong writes:

In what is ominously but obviously quickly becoming a year-long de facto election campaign, you can guarantee National will try to drum one particular message into voters’ brains.

National will make considerable effort to permanently typecast David Cunliffe as a politician who cannot be trusted.

Such a strategy would have been a complete waste of time were the mild-mannered David Shearer still Labour’s leader.

It is equally unlikely to have had much effect had it been applied to Phil Goff, someone who commanded respect, if not popularity.

But voters know little about Cunliffe. They may have watched his brazen undermining of Shearer’s leadership at Labour’s annual conference in 2012. They may have heard his disingenuous-sounding denials that he was fomenting trouble.

And they may have noted that the policies he pushed in the leadership primary, are not quite the same ones he is now pushing.

Something was missing, however, from the explanatory paperwork handed out to journalists covering the policy’s launch in west Auckland.

The material made no mention of the policy’s stipulation that those qualifying for the $60-a-week “baby bonus” would not get any money until their household’s eligibility for paid parental leave had been exhausted.

As Labour intends to expand paid parental leave from the current 14 weeks to 26 weeks, Cunliffe’s assertion in his speech notes that “all” families eligible for Best Start would get the weekly $60 payment “for the first year of their child’s life” did not tell the whole story.

Cunliffe subsequently blamed a speech-writer for the wording. And – to be fair – the policy and the conditions governing the varying amounts of cash to be paid to families during the up to three years that their child might qualify for assistance were mostly spelled out in detail on Labour’s website.

Mostly. There was scant mention of Labour’s intention to abolish the parental tax credit to help fund the new policy.

That tax credit is worth up to $150 a week for some families, and covers the first eight weeks of a baby’s life. That is equivalent to 20 weeks on Labour’s new scheme.

There is further evidence Labour’s scheme is not as generous as it might appear at first glance.

The first income-tested payment for 1-year-olds will not occur until April 2017 – more than three years away. Meanwhile, Labour has quietly canned its 2011 policy to pay the $60-a-week in-work tax credit to beneficiaries.

Labour has done itself no favours by failing to be totally upfront about its intentions. Reporters at the policy launch should have been able to rely on the information given to them. They will be asking whether the absence of important facts was a genuine mistake or an accidental omission on Labour’s part, or whether they were being deliberately kept in the dark in an attempt to increase the chances of uncritical coverage of the baby bonus.

Buying a fight with the media is not the smartest way to kick off election year.

What Labour should have done is provide tables showing the net changes for different families. Instead they provided tables only showing the gains, but not the losses, providing a misleading impression.

Labour’s rhetoric has noticeably toughened under Cunliffe – and for one reason.

There seems to be no mood in the electorate for a change of government. Without such a mood, Labour – which anyway does not look ready to govern – and the Greens – who do have their act together – have to manufacture one.

Like the manufactured crisis in manufacturing!

Desert Oak, Northern Territory, Australia

During a fairly severe dust-storm in the Australian outback I was amazed at the rapidly changing conditions and visibility. I was watching the sky and cloud formations quite intently when I came across this old Oak tree and decided to use it to compose the photograph.

The website is being migrated from one server to another today so we will have this photograph available as a download next week.

Cheers
Richard

Daniel Hannan writes in the Telegraph:

Ponder the graph above. Sixty-nine per cent of [UK] Labour supporters would want a top rate tax of 50 per cent even if it brought in no money.

I’m sure they’d dispute the premise. I’m sure they’d insist that it did bring money in. And, on one level, they’d believe it; it’s human nature to start with the result we want and then rationalise it to ourselves with what look like hard data. I think their rationalisation would be false, obviously – once the behavioural consequences of the tax are factored in, it becomes a net drain on revenue – but I might be subject to my own confirmation bias in the other direction.

Anyway, this isn’t a blog about the statistics – I’ve already posted one of those. No, this is a blog about the mind-set of people who see taxation, not as an unpleasant necessity, but as a way to punish others.

This is amazing. Over two thirds of UK Labour supporters want higher taxes, even if those higher taxes did not produce more revenue for the Government.

I wonder what the percentage would be in NZ?

Envy is an ugly and debilitating condition, but it seems to have an evolutionary-biological basis. The dosage varies enormously from individual to individual, but even toddlers often display a sense that, if they can’t have something, no one else should either. If they had the vocabulary, they would doubtless, like the 69 per cent of Labour supporters, explain that emotion “on moral grounds”. Few toddlers, and few Labour voters, openly admit to being actuated by vindictiveness.

Hannan also touched on inequality:

I accept that there are advantages in homogenous, Nordic-type societies. Huge inequalities of wealth can lead to higher stress levels, higher crime rates and weaker social engagement (oddly, the people who deploy these arguments in support of economic homogeneity almost never extend them to multiculturalism, but that’s another story).

The case against state-enforced equality is not that a narrowing of the wealth gap is in itself a bad thing; it’s that it carries a disproportionate cost in terms of lost prosperity and lost freedom.

Wealth taxes make societies more equal; but they do so by making them less prosperous. We can push plutocrats into shifting their money abroad. We can drive hedgies to Singapore or Switzerland. We can, more prosaically, make entrepreneurs spend more time with their accountants and less creating jobs. We can encourage by far the most common forms of legal tax avoidance: shorter hours and earlier retirement. All these things will make our country more equal. All of them will make it poorer.

And be careful with what you wish for:

Following the credit crunch, inequality fell. City salaries plummeted, average salaries fell slightly, benefits stagnated. In other words, the 69 per cent got their way: Britain became poorer and more equal. Yet, in the event, it was Labour supporters who moaned loudest. There’s no pleasing some people.

The focus should be on economic growth. If you grow the pie, then you get better options as to how to divide it up. Taking more tax off hard working taxpayers so you can give it parents earning $140,000 does not grow the pie.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Transport has quietly backed down on mowing berms, but is skimping on the quality of grass-cutting.

After months of controversy and scruffy verges, the Auckland Council’s transport arm has resumed mowing berms where residents cannot do so, or refuse to.

But Auckland Transport will cut the grass only periodically, and to a lower standard than previously.

A quiet partial backdown.

Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer said he planned an amendment for the proper reinstatement of berm mowing, which could be funded from a special $101 million dividend from Auckland Airport, or internal savings.

“The policy has failed dismally and saved nothing. The silliness and constant fighting with the elderly, sick, migrants and those who don’t have a lawn mower has to stop,” he said.

My view is that the owner of the berm should be responsible for its mowing.

The FT report:

Proposals for a tax crackdown on digital companies such as Google and Amazon are to be dropped, as governments push ahead with measures affecting the global economy.

Designing special tax rules for internet companies would not be viable, given the growing digital presence in large parts of the economy, an international task force has concluded.

So I’m really looking forward to details of the magic wand that Labour claim they have, that will mean those companies will pay tax in New Zealand based on their turnover instead of their profit.

Audrey Young reports:

Dr Whyte, 48, has lived for about six of the past 20 years in New Zealand and Mr Seymour, 30, has lived for two of the past seven years in New Zealand.

Both have philosophy degrees and Dr Whyte has been a noted writer and columnist in Britain.

Dr Whyte lives in Herne Bay with his wife, Zainab, originally from west Africa and raised in Belgium, and their two daughters, Rachel, 10, and Khadija, 6.

(The girls attend the same school as the children of Labour Party leader David Cunliffe.)

Dr Whyte’s first few hours as new leader were marred by Mr Boscawen’s decision to withdraw not only his fundraising services to the party but by his threat to withdraw his own substantial donations, which have been at least $250,000.

Mr Boscawen said he accepted the result, and would remain a member of the party, and sincerely wished Dr Whyte and Mr Seymour every success.

Dr Whyte said he would spend the next month gearing up for his first party conference as leader, policy work, fundraising “and revving up the members”.

He said his previous writing promoting the legalisation of drugs, for example, had been of greater concern to Mr Boscawen than to the board.

Such a policy would be attractive to many voters, but not I suspect in Epsom!

Mr Cunliffe said it was ironic that a party that had been “dismissive of academics in Parliament had chosen two academics as their leader and candidate”. Referring to Dr Whyte’s advocacy of legalisation of drugs and getting rid of all labour laws, Mr Cunliffe said “that would put him in the realm of Colin Craig and show that Mr Key really is desperate for coalition partners”.

I’m pretty sure that Colin Craig is not an advocate for legalisation of drugs!

I blogged a few days ago on the extraordinary growth in exports to China in the years since we signed a free trade agreement with them, and said people should recall those who voted against it.

A reader asked if Australia had also experienced the same levels of growth in exports to China, and hence is it just that China is growing and importing now, or did the FTA make a difference.

It’s a good question, especially as Russel Norman often claims that the growth in exports to China has nothing to do with the FTA, and hence their opposition to it wouldn’t really have cost us tens of billions of dollars if their view had prevailed.

So I’ve looked at the value of exports to China for both Australia and NZ from 2008 to the year ending June 2013 (the last year Australia has reported on).

Australia exported A$37.1b in 2008 and $78.4b in 2012/13. That’s an increase of 111% or an average of 24.7% a year approx. Pretty good and there is no doubt China’s growth is leading to more exports generally.

But look at NZ in the same period, from when the FTA was signed and came into effect. In 2008 exports were NZ$2.5 billion and in 2012/13 were $7.7b. That’s growth of 205% or 45.4% a year – almost double Australia’s.

So if NZ export growth to China had followed Australia’s export growth for the last five years, what would be the difference? Around $6.6 billion.

Now it is overly simplistic to say the difference is solely the FTA. We have different export profiles. But I think there can be little doubt that the cost of Green and NZ First policies to our exporters would have been well into the billions of dollars.

The sad thing is not that they were wrong, but that they don’t admit they were wrong. Those who once opposed Nelson Mandela being released and opposed decriminalizing consensual same sex relations, generally admit today they were wrong, and on the wrong side of history. But the Greens and NZ First refuse to accept that their opposition to the China Free Trade Agreement was wrong, despite the billions of dollars in extra exports NZ has gained since we signed it.

The sad reality is that the Greens just do not like trade full stop, and NZ First just doesn’t like Asians full stop. That is their motivation to their opposition to the free trade agreement, rather than any rational analysis of what is good for NZ.

ACT have announced:

This morning the ACT Board met to choose the new leader and a candidate for Epsom.

The Board’s decision was made by a secret ballot, which was conducted by an independent auditor.

The Board is confident that its decision will give ACT its best chance of successfully contesting this year’s general election with a Leader and Epsom Candidate who can powerfully and positively share the Party’s vision with voters.

The new leader will assume the role at the Party’s AGM on the 28th of February, and until that time, will serve as the leader-elect.

It is my privilege to announce that the person who will stand as the ACT candidate for Epsom is David Seymour and the new leader of the ACT Party will be Dr. Jamie Whyte

The Board acknowledges that it had three outstanding candidates seeking selection and thanks all of them for their commitment, energy, and passion.

In particular, the Board wants to acknowledge Party President, Hon John Boscawen, who’s record of service to the Party in a variety of roles throughout ACT’s history is recognised and valued.

This is a brave, yet risky, decision.

On a personal level I’m pleased to see two strong classical liberals take up the two key roles, and this should mean that ACT is clearly positioned in the future as a classical liberal party, not a conservative party or some hybrid.

One has to pay tribute to John Boscawen who has stood with ACT through thick and thin. It was noble of him to offer himself for the leadership and Epsom, and it is understandable that he is stepping aside:

John Boscawen said he had resigned as Act President and would be reconsidering his financial support of the party.

He would no longer be fundraising for the party which he had done for four elections, but he would remain a member.

So ACT has a numbers of risks, as well as opportunities ahead. The risks are:

• Difficult to attract funding
• Not winning Epsom
• Struggling for media attention as both Whyte and Seymour not particularly public figures

The opportunities are:

• Can draw a line with the past, as leadership clearly passes to a new generation
• A clearer identity as a classical liberal party
• The potential to attract votes from younger urban liberals

With the funding issue, it is to early too know. I gather than quite a few of the traditional supporters wwere supporting Whyte so they may continue to get some money from them. But they will miss having Boscawen as their fundraiser, and may struggle to connect with some in the business community as Whyte and Seymour are both more from the academic side.

Winning Epsom is the big thing. Seymour is very capable and competent and I can’t imagine a scenario where he stuffs up. However Epsom is not a classical liberal electorate. It is fairly conservative in some ways. Epsom won’t vote for Seymour because he is very smart on policy issues. They will vote for him if they think doing so will help John Key remain Prime Minister, and they think he would be a good local MP. David should (and probably has) talk to Rodney about keeping Epsom onside.

Whyte will I believe be very good with the media, and in the minor party leadership debates. However until the campaign itself starts he may find it very difficult to gain media attention unless he says something very controversial (which may not be helpful). He needs to find around three key issues on which to brand ACT.

For Whyte to become an MP, he needs to lift ACT’s vote from 1.1% to 1.2%. Not impossible, but considering the brand damage over the last two years, a significant challenge. If both Whyte and Seymour can make it to Parliament, then ACT’s will have a future.

New Zealand has just had its human rights records reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council. This august body includes the governments of Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Libya, Maldives, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

So what are some of the things they recommend for New Zealand:

• Continue its reflections and work with a view to having a written Constitution (Benin)
• Incorporate economic and social rights in its Human Rights charter (Togo)
• Continue to address all forms of political, economic and social discrimination against the Māori and Pacific population by meeting their various demands for constitutional and legal reforms and recognition (Somalia)
• Increase its official development aid to reach the international norm of 0.7 per cent of GDP (Tunisia)
• Expedite the development of a new Māori language strategy (Bangladesh)
• Implement effective measures to achieve the aim of increasing the participation of women in governance to 45 per cent in the public sector and over ten per cent in the private sector by 2014 (Australia);
• Consider relinquishing the use of electric taser weapons by the police (Namibia)
• Establish appropriate national strategies with the aim to identify and address structural discrimination in the justice system (Iran (Islamic Republic of))

Wonderfully helpful. They’ve written the Green Party manifesto for them!

News.com.au reports:

Abbott pinned his free-market colours to the mast at an important speech at Davos earlier this month – the premier annual gathering of the world’s economic and business elite.

The former Roman Catholic seminarian urged attendees to become “missionaries for freer trade” and fight protectionism whenever and wherever it may raise its ugly head.

Free trade was a well-trodden path to wealth creation, he explained. “Over time, everyone benefits because, in a global economy, countries end up focusing on what they do best. A more global economy with stronger cross-border investment eventually helps everyone because it generates more wealth and ultimately creates more jobs.”

This is very true.

And, as it turns out, Australia is not very good at canning fruit.

Putting his words into action, Abbott last week successfully stared down a three hour bid in cabinet by Nationals colleagues to secure a $25 million taxpayer handout for the embattled fruit cannery, SPC Ardmona.

Free trade and the rigours of globalisation are perhaps the primary reason why SPC’s factory – which must pay far higher wages than in competitor countries – is unprofitable. That, and it seems Australians don’t much fancy tinned fruit any more.

SPC’s cannery in Shepparton employs about 3,000 workers, but it has been operating at a loss of more than $400 million in recent years, according to local Liberal member Sharman Stone.

It’s only natural to worry about the loss of Australian jobs.

But a job in an unprofitable company is a job already lost.

The same applies to jobs that only exist due to subsidies, such as “Green jobs”.

The only way to create jobs is through the efforts of profitable companies.

As Abbott told Davos attendees: “You can’t have strong communities without strong economies to sustain them and you can’t have strong economies without profitable private businesses.”

“After all, government doesn’t create wealth; people do, when they run profitable businesses.”

Some on the left rail against profit, but how many jobs would we have without profitable businesses?

The HoS reports:

Prime Minister John Key was mobbed by fans from the Asian community vying for a photo opportunity when he entered the event.

The day showcased the cultural diversity of New Zealand, he said.

“There are over 200,000 New Zealanders of Chinese ethnicity; they’re a hugely important partner from New Zealand’s point of view.

“I think if you look at New Zealand, we are based on a bicultural foundation, but we’re very much a multi-cultural society. It makes Auckland and New Zealand a far more interesting place when you can celebrate Chinese New Year, or Diwali, or whatever the cultural function might be.”

When Auckland Mayor Len Brown took to the stage at the event he was met with a chorus of polite clapping and a smattering of boos from the crowd.

He welcomed the crowed enthusiastically, ignoring hecklers who voiced their disappointment over his extra-marital affair by using duck callers – alluding to his labelling as a “lame duck mayor”.

I wonder how many of his volunteer translators where there?

Colin Espiner writes:

Good morning and welcome to this special edition of Who Wants To Spend Like A Millionaire (SLAM).

Joining us today are three contestants; Team Red, Team Blue, and Team Green. They’ll all be trying to spend as much of your money as possible in the time available. Take it away, guys.

Team Blue: “We’ll set up a new network of specialist teachers and principals throughout the country and pay them much more. We reckon it will cost around $359 million of taxpayers’ money.”

Team Green: “There is such a thing a free lunch and we’ll prove it. We’ll provide all decile 1-4 schools in the country with food and medical care at a cost of around $100m a year.”

Team Red: “Phffft. Pocket change. We’ll give nearly everyone in the country who has a baby $60 a week, even really rich people. There’s quite a bit of fine print but we’ll let you read it for yourself. It’s going to cost a whopping $528m every single year within four years.” …

And the losers? Taxpayers, who’ve found their elected representatives have collectively managed to write cheques totalling nearly a billion dollars in the first week of the political year. With another 46-odd weeks until the election, the mind boggles at how much largesse could be promised this year.

The last paragraph is the key point. Taxpayers have to fund every single one of those promises. The Government does not fund them. We do.

As I said, I’m actually happy to fund better pay for the top teachers. I’m not happy to fund a $60 welfare payment to someone on $145,000 a year and I’m not happy to fund turning schools into meal dispensaries.

The reason, of course, is that National knows Labour’s idea is likely to be popular. Giving away money always is, which is why the prospect of tax cuts is likely to be dangled before voters later in the year – although probably not actually promised just yet.

Tax cuts is not giving away money. It is not taking so much money off people. A very big difference.

Speaking of infants, Labour is going to have a hard time convincing me that giving everyone $60 a week just for having a baby is a good idea – or is likely to raise productivity (except perhaps in the bedroom). 

Indeed.

Labour’s first election-year salvo is therefore good politics but bad policy. National’s education announcement is costly, but might benefit us all in the long run.

Hopefully Labour’s leader David Cunliffe will come up with some other ideas besides mere redistribution of income as the year unfolds.

I hope so also.

Steve Braunias writes:

MONDAY

That’s why I’m announcing that a Labour government will give every new-born baby 60 hot meals of nutritious baked beans every week until they’re old enough to operate a can opener.

TUESDAY

I slightly misspoke yesterday. I meant to say new-born babies will receive 60 hot meals of nutritious baked beans every week until their parents are old enough to operate a can opener.

WEDNESDAY

I slightly miscalculated on Monday. I meant to say new-born babies will receive 60 nutritious baked beans every week, as in 60 individual beans, not 60 cans of beans.

THURSDAY

I slightly miscommunicated on Monday. I was absolutely frank and absolutely clear when I declared my love for Genesis.

But there’s a distinction between liking early Genesis, and liking mid-career Genesis, when Phil Collins’s presence became more apparent. You can’t like both. At no point have I ever said that you could like both.

FRIDAY

I slightly mispronounced on Monday. I meant to say that under a Labour government, new-born babies will receive exactly 60 nutritious baked beans every year.

Heh.