Questions for Oral Answer. 2.00 PM -3.00 PM

Questions to Ministers.

1. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Did his Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, advise Parliamentary Service that United Future Leader Hon Peter Dunne had agreed to cooperate with the Henry inquiry and had consented to releasing his electronic phone logs; if so, why?
3. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on business confidence and intentions among companies to invest and hire more staff?
4. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “High house prices matter because many New Zealanders spend a large portion of their incomes on housing and that has helped fuel household debt and contribute to damaging imbalances in the economy”?
5. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What steps is the Government taking to raise achievement and participation in tertiary education by students in South Auckland?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: What percentage of sites identified as a river in theSuitability for Swimming indicator report released yesterday were categorised as “Very Good” or “Good” and therefore were safe for swimming?
8. LOUISE UPSTON to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made about the first Children’s Teams, part of the Government’s Children’s Action Plan?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance that “The Government is focusing on ensuring that every teacher put in front of our children is competent”?
10. MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding school property?
11. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
12. JOHN HAYES to the Minister of Customs: What is the Government doing to improve border processing?

Today Labour are asking four questions today. Labour are asking the Prime Minister whether he stands by his statements twice (yes, twice!), high house prices and teacher numbers. The Greens are asking two questions, about the Henry Inquiry and river pollution. New Zealand First is asking one question, about whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements.

Patsy of the day goes to Dr Cam Calder for Question 5: What steps is the Government taking to raise achievement and participation in tertiary education by students in South Auckland?

Government Bills 3.00 PM – 6.00 PM and 7.30 PM – 10.00 PM.

1. Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill – Committee Stage

2. Resource Management Reform Bill–  Committee Stage

3. Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill – Third Reading

4. Statutes Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

The Appropriation (2013/2014 Estimates) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill relates to the Budget, and seeks parliamentary authorisation for the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2014 

The Resource Management Reform Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. This is an omnibus bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The bill aims to make improvements to the consenting regime, provide for the delivery of the first combined plan for Auckland, provide further powers to make regulations, and to make technical and operational changes.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Building and Construction, Maurice Williamson. The bill proposes amendments to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006 to validate a disciplinary levy and an offences fee prescribed by the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. The bill also seeks to extend the Board’s power to impose levies so that it has funding for all of its functions, including the prosecution of non-registered persons.

The Statutes Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Courts, Chester Borrows. This is an omnibus bill. It is designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to thirty existing acts of legislation.

Pope Francis continues to impress. Stuff reports:

Pope Francis has reached out to gays, saying he won’t judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference as he returned from his first foreign trip.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis asked. “We shouldn’t marginalise people for this. They must be integrated into society.”

Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, signed a document in 2005 that said men who had deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests. Francis was much more conciliatory in his first news conference as pope, saying gay clergymen should be forgiven and their sins forgotten.

It’s only a change in tone, not policy, but a welcome one.

Stuff reports:

TVNZ is planning to shut down youth channel TVNZ U, which failed to work financially.

The vacated frequency will be used to screen TV2 programmes an hour after they appear on the main channel.

TVNZ said it had made a commercial decision to take TVNZ U off air at the end of August, after the free-to-air channel had run at a loss for two years.

“Despite our best efforts, we’ve not been able to make it work financially,” TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kenrick said.

“As it is, the channel is a very lean operation and no significant savings can be made to address the shortfall.”

In other words, no one was watching it and it could generate not even minimal revenue.

It is a pity the Government hasn’t sold TVNZ while it might get some money for it. It’s long-term prognosis is not good, as the money will be in production or distribution – not in channels.

I would have loved the Government to sell TVNZ and use the proceeds as capital for a public service broadcaster, merged with Radio NZ.

Stuff reports:

A worker, who was fired after his boss saw Facebook photos of him at a waka ama championship when he was meant to be at home sick, faces bankruptcy if hit up for legal costs.

Bruce Taiapa, of Gisborne, must pay his former employer, Turanga Ararau, $12,315 after he took the training institute to the Employment Relations Authority. It ruled the institute was entitled to sack him because he misused his sick leave. He appealed to the Employment Court, and lost that appeal.

So he took the case, lost it, and appealed, lost that, and is now complaining he can’t pay the legal bills.

Wouldn’t it have been a better idea to just accept the (justified) sacking and look for another job? Or not to have pulled a sickie and facebooked photos of you away at a sporting event.

Stephen Franks blogs:

The Labour Party’s new policy to prevent non-residents from buying existing houses seemed inconsistent with the equal treatment Article of the NZ China FTA. That FTA was a proudly claimed achievement of the last Labour PM – Helen Clark.

The FTA’s definition of “investor” refers to a person “who seeks to make, is making, or has made an investment….”. So it clearly looks at prospective investments.

But a technical reading of the equal treatment Article suggests that it may demand equal treatment once an investment has been made, but does not protect intending investors.

Under Article 138 of the NZ China FTA (National Treatment)  all investments and activities associated with such investments made by investors of both parties must be treated, “with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal”  no less favourably than investments of its own investors. The list does not include “acquisition” or similar words.

So under that provision a Chinese house buyer must be treated the same as a New Zealander after acquiring residential property, but the protection does not extend to prospective buyers. Whew for Labour!

But wait – another Article (the most favoured nation clause) commits New Zealand not to pass law that discriminates against Chinese investors in comparison with other overseas investors (such as Australians).

Article 139 requires that investors of [China] be treated no less favourably than investors of any third country [Australia] “with respect to admission, expansion, management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment and disposal” of investments.

So Chinese would-be  investors do not get direct rights to insist on investor equality but they can’t be treated worse than Australians.

Labour has said Australians would still be allowed to buy residential property under their policy. This would breach Article 139.

The policy may also breach the Malaysia FTA and the ASEAN FTA it seems.

Also Rob Hosking at NBR reports:

It is a mark of how bogus the housing debate has become that Labour’s figures about foreign owners of New Zealand houses almost definitely include former leader Helen Clark and her four  houses.

The current Labour leader and Miss Clark’s successor as MP for Mt Albert, David Shearer, claimed at the weekend there are “more than 11,000 overseas investors [who] own properties here that they don’t live in”.

What Mr Shearer did not say is the figure comes from Inland Revenue’s numbers about “non-resident” taxpayers who pay taxes on houses they  own in New Zealand.

“Non-resident” taxpayers are largely made up of  expatriate New Zealanders and in this context are those who have gone overseas and who have rented out their properties here.

There are no figures on this but it is a highly common practice – although most who go overseas will have only one, or maybe two, properties to rent out and not, as in the case of Miss Clark, who departed to the United Nations in 2009, who owns four.

Half the Labour caucus have investment properties. If they all sold them to aspiring first home buyers, that would probably do more to help the market, than this policy!

Last year’s Productivity Commission report looked at the issue, but only in the context of immigrants buying houses.

In that context, it found the main inflow was – again– not from Asians, as Mr Shearer dog whistled at the weekend, but expatriate New Zealanders.

There is, the commission said, “no evidence of an inflow of foreign-born immigrants to an  area impacting on house prices”.

There is, though, “a strong positive relationship between inflows of returning New Zealanders into an area and local house prices (with a 1% increase in population resulting from an inflow of returning Kiwis associated with a 6%-9% increase in house prices)”.

The commission concluded the main cause for higher house prices in recent years is  shortage of supply, driven by a mix of investment nervousness since the end of 2007, plus poor regulation leading to slow consenting processes for new developments and some evidence of high building  costs because of a lack of competition.

Labour’s bid on housing, in short, is not aimed at what is causing problems in the housing market and will do nothing to solve them. It is aimed rather at the party’s political problems.

Mr Shearer’s weekend launch was a clear, unsubtle and some would say desperate bid to pick up votes from the segment of the population which does not like foreigners, especially foreigners of a different coloured skin, very much.

Labour is, in short, dog whistling for the New Zealand First and Green Party xenophobic vote.

It is classic dog whistle politics. Blame the immigrants and foreigners.

New Orleans is also home to the National WWII Museum. It’s a huge complex, and takes a good three hours to get around. Around a 25 minute walk from the French quarter.

Highlights were an 11 minute reconstruction of the last hours of the USS Tang – the most successful sub.marine of WWII. You go on board the replica sub, and man specific stations, and are assigned the name of a specific officer. You then learn at the end who survived or not.

Also very good was the section on Eisenhower’s decision on whether to proceed with D Day, or delay it for two weeks. The course of the war depended on that decision, and it was his alone.

This isn’t the WWII Museum, but is just around the corner, and also an interesting visit. No photos allowed, sadly.

Photos not best quality due to the glass. I found this display interesting. We probably take for granted to a degree, the eventual victory of the Allies. But look at the relative military expenditures in 1939. Deciding to go into battle against Germany was a heroic decision.

This shows the relative military strengths of Japan, Germany and the US around 1941. Again, the result of WWII could have been very different if different decisions were taken. If Hitler had been saner, for one.

The section on D Day and the landings at Omaha Beach were gruesome. While D Day was a huge victory strategically, there was some awful scenes as soldiers were just mowed down as they landed.

However also a terrifying experience for the Germans. Some of them are quoted as saying that seeing thousands of ships coming towards you was a sight that was beyond belief – they could not imagine an armada of that size.

One of my favourite photos.

There were five Sullivan brothers, and they all died in WWII. Normally siblings were separated but they insisted on serving together. Sadly this resulted in them all dying when their ship was sunk, or in the ocean afterwards. Two destroyers have been named after them, in memory of their sacrifice. They enlisted after their sister’s fiancee was killed in Pearl Harbour.

This is the note from President Truman authorizing the use of nuclear weapons. That decision was controversial for some, but the cost of invading the Japanese home islands would have been enormous. Operation Downfall would have been more than twice as big as Operation Overlord and just invading the island of Kyūshū was predicted to result in a million or so Allied deaths and many time more Japanese deaths.

Operation Olympic, for the Kyūshū invasion, would have involved 42 carriers, 24 battleships and around 400 destroyers.

Also nearby is this statue of General Robert Lee, the Civil War General.

The Herald reports:

Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says there is no evidence the Defence Force had copies of journalist Jon Stephenson’s phone metadata.

Dr Coleman said in a statement today he would be very concerned if this had occurred.

“The Defence Force has assured me that this is not something that they would regard as a legitimate practice.

“I have seen no evidence to support these claims at this point.”

He said the NZDF were carrying out record checks to see if there was any evidence it occurred.

The Sunday Star Times article by Nicky Hager made two main allegations against the NZDF – that they had copies of Stephenson’s phone metadata in Afghanistan and that investigative journalists were classified in a security order manual as posing the same level of security risk as criminals and hackers.

It will be fascinating if there is proof, as I’d expect an inquiry into who authorised it – if it happened.

“I became aware of the details of this order over the weekend. It is one of hundreds of orders that exist in NZDF manuals.

“The order was issued back in 2003 by the Chief of Defence Force at the time, Sir Bruce Ferguson, and then reissued in 2005.”

Surely not the same Sir Bruce who just came out decrying it, and saying it is a bad thing?

And who was Minister of Defence in 2003 and 2005? Mark Burton, I think.

Vernon Small writes at Stuff:

The only thing saving him is the refusal of the Shearer-sceptics to coalesce around a single alternative.

The blokish, more conservative MPs can’t yet bring themselves to back deputy leader Grant Robertson.

The anti-Cunliffe group may have been expanded by his disloyalty at the time of last year’s annual conference although, to be fair, he has been keeping his head down and playing the team game in recent months.

Former union boss and party president Andrew Little has not set the world alight, nor gathered a salon of close supporters and he is seen as unready.

So the status quo remains.

But at times it feels as if the rival factions are in some macabre version of the movie Weekend at Bernie’s lugging around a political corpse because they are afraid to let go of one arm in case he falls over and the other side grabs power.

What a great analogy!

Unless Mr Shearer stepped aside and an heir was anointed – something the wider party would likely balk at – a spill that late in the year would trigger a primary runoff that would cascade into election year, further weakening Labour’s prospects.

Yes, Mr Shearer needs to lift his game, but he is not stupid. He surely gets the sense of urgency. Whether he can change is the open question.

The sceptics also have to play their part. They must either back him or back off. At the moment they are going around in circles. “It isn’t working, we need to move, he is not up to it, but I am not voting for . . .” And so nothing continues to happen and Mr Shearer’s confidence is sapped further.

Of course, events across the Tasman show that these things can never be finally put to bed until success silences the critics.

But if Labour wants to get back in the game, the leadership circus must be brought to a climax, the sooner the better.

The next TV polls will be in September probably. That may be the crucial month.

Tony Alexander in May 2013 looked at this issue. He found the following from sales data:

From these numbers we can derive the proportion of all house sales in NZ which go to buyers from offshore
who have no intention of shifting here – including half of the “Don’t Know” responses.

• Australia 0.4% 
• China 0.6% 
• Europe excl. UK 0.4% 
• India 0.4% 
• Other Asia 0.5% 
• South Africa 0.3% 
• United Kingdom 0.3% 
• United States 0.4% 
• Other 0.4% 
• All 3.6%

So if you exclude Australia, Labour’s policy may reduce the number of buyers by 3.2%.

However also of note is 4.5% of sellers were based overseas.

Now remember this is based on actual sales data. Alexander summarises:

This is interesting because taking the many sampling uncertainties into account the proportion comes close to the proportion of sales we estimate are to people offshore who do not intend shifting to New Zealand – some 3.6%. The implication? There could be close to zero net transfer of NZ home ownership occurring to offshore investors.

I’d tempted to call the policy a snake oil solution.  The data suggests it may have no impact at all on prices.

Andrea Vance writes:

Recently, the Business and Parliament Trust hosted a bit of a do for politicians and big hitters. The charity is aimed at helping MPs and the business world understand each other better. The seminar was held under Chatham House rules but some tantalising observations leaked out from participants.

Prime Minister John Key spoke, and was well received, followed by Labour leader David Shearer.  Norman, according to reports, was hostile and aggressive.

So much so, that some in the audience were reluctant to ask questions, for fear of being attacked. 

Ironic that Norman compared John Key to Muldoon.

Judging from chatter around Wellington, the antagonism was not an isolated episode.

A representative from an oil company tells the story of how Norman turned on his heel and walked off without a word, after they attempted to introduce themselves.

He has recently been making attempts to get around businesses, but to mixed reaction.

Within the agricultural community, there is genuine apprehension the Greens will be part of any future coalition. Industry players say that outside of environmental concerns, there has been little attempt by  the party to understand its issues.

There is frustration that the Greens overlook, or are unaware, about the sector’s innovative strides. Ideological stubbornness is standing in the way of any constructive relationship with those that earn the country a living, they say.

The Greens are entirely ideological – it is their strength and their weakness. It helps them as a political party, as they are very consistent with what they say. However Government by its nature is about flexibility, and a degree of pragmatism, and the Greens in Government could well prove incendiary, and fall apart as the Alliance did.

But the view that Norman and his party are hostile to business, is a shaping up to be a bit of a conundrum for Labour. Should they be in a position to form a government next year, they must find a role to satisfy both his acumen and ambition. That he would become finance minister is quixotic, and there would be noses out of joint (including Jones’) if he was handed the economic development portfolio. Giving him energy would be an interesting move – but would likely end in a ugly clash with oil and gas companies.

Won’t Deputy PM be enough?

The Press reports:

A policy limiting bars’ opening hours would reduce the amount of alcohol Christchurch people drink by as little as 1 per cent, according to a city council report.

The draft Local Alcohol Policy would also cost the region more to implement than it would save in alcohol-related healthcare and police services. It could also deter bars and licensed premises from rebuilding in the central city.

Those are among the findings of a report commissioned by the Christchurch City Council that compares the costs and benefits of the draft policy.

The district-wide policy proposes a one-way door rule from 1am in the central city and a blanket 1am closing for suburban licensed premises in a bid to help curb the city’s alcohol-related issues.

The hearing of submissions on the policy begins today and is expected to last four days.

The report concluded the economic costs of the policy would outweigh the economic benefits.

In other words, the policy will achieve almost nothing, but impose costs on businesses and remove choice for residents.

It is good the Council agreed to do an economic analysis of their proposed policy. Hopefully they will listen to their own report, and not give into the wowsers.

How do I describe Bourbon Street? It may be the most depraved, sordid street I have ever visited. So naturally I loved it, and had a great time! From early evening to early morning it goes off, and is packed by tourists and locals enjoying very cheap alcohol.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer once described Courtney Place as having scenes “no civilised society can relish”. Well I think he would have died of a heart attack on Bourbon Street, as it makes Courtney Place very tame.

A police officer keeping an eye on things, but mainly posing for photos. Despite the huge amount of alcohol drunk, there are relatively few problems for the Police. People are too focused on having a good time.

Bourbon Street runs over eight blocks. We were staying just 50 metres from it, so enjoying going out both nights.

Interestingly, despite the huge number of strip clubs and sex shows, I’d say there were just as many women out on Bourbon Street as men.

One under-dressed gentleman.

And one over-dressed lady.

Almost all the establishments have large drinks for low prices. They serve them in plastic cups which you can take up and down the street to drink outside. Just beware of the “shot girls” who are very expensive – that is where they make their money.

A couple of preachers trying to save the souls of those assembled. Fair to say the crowd were not receptive (but polite). I don’t think anyone there was wanting their souls saved. The preachers were very explicit, going on about how many of you will be going home to have casual extra-marital sex which is a sin (which resulted in may cheering).

Was offered the opportunity to try some Ketamine. Not really into horse tranquilizers, so I declined, missing out on the opportunity to experience a “K-hole“.

Bourbon Street was great fun. A must do if you are in the area, and you don’t have kids with you. To our surprise there were a fair few people going up and down the street with prams or young kids! Definitely an R18 experience.

The Press reports:

A first-term councillor has emerged as the top performer in The Press pre-election assessment of Christchurch City councillors.

Cr Tim Carter has been awarded an A- grade for his tenacity in questioning the council’s business-as-usual approach and for pushing for greater transparency and accountability.

Despite only being elected to the council in 2010 Carter has made a big impact, but he looks set to depart local body politics in October as he has indicated he is unlikely to seek re-election for personal reasons.

 

The three next highest performing councillors, as ranked by The Press after hundreds of hours of observation, were councillors Sue Wells, Claudia Reid and Peter Beck, all of whom earned a B+.

The article has a useful feature where you can see how various Councillors have voted on different issues. Would love the Dom Post to do that for the WCC.

Their overall ratings are:

• Tim Carter A-
• Peter Beck B+
• Claudia Reid B+
• Sue Wells B+
• Ngaire Button B
• Aaron Keown B
• Jamie Gough B
• Glenn Livingstone B
• Yani Johanson B
• Barry Corbett B-
• Jimmy Chen C+
• Sally Buck C
• Helen Broughton C

The Herald reports:

Housing Minister Nick Smith said it was a sign of how desperate Labour and Mr Shearer had become.

“The oldest trick in the political book, whether it be over crime or unemployment or affordable housing, is always to blame the foreigners.

“There’s no evidence that overseas buyers are having any discernible affect over house prices.”

It was an “unprincipled” policy because it exempted Australia, Dr Smith said.

“They are the largest group of non-resident home buyers.”

Property commentator Olly Newland said the policy would not work.

Australians would be exempted from the scheme, because of a reciprocal arrangement where New Zealanders were able to buy properties there.

Mr Newland said that made the policy “a bit of a nonsense” because Australians bought the highest number of properties here of all foreign buyers.

“Secondly, of course, any overseas buyer would very quickly find somebody else to buy a house for them here in their name and hold it in trust for them.

“There are a thousand ways to get around it if they want to come here,” he said.

“It sounds good but in practice it just won’t work.”

Sounds attractive to some, but likely to make almost no difference. Increasing the supply of land for housing is what will make the largest difference to house prices.

After Memphis we had a great drive down to New Orleans – a very scenic drive.

As you head into Lousiana, you travel for a dozen miles or so on bridges over their waterways

We had a hotel in the French quarter, which locals told us is the only place to stay. Went to a local bar, and enjoyed some food and drink. This photo looks like it is of a politician, and indeed it was. It is of Huey Long, a populist Governor and Senator who was looking to challenge FDR in 1936 for the presidency. He was in fact a fairly nasty piece of work, and was assassinated in 1935 by the son in law of a political opponent. His killer was shot 62 times by Long’s bodyguards.

The shops in the French quarter are superb. Loved this record store which had actual records. We discovered early on that the RV didn’t allow your iPhone to play music through it, so in Utah we purchased some CDs. The only CDs the store had were country and western, so we drove 1200 miles listening only to Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson! The range has now happily been expanded.

At the waterfront of the Mississippi River.

Bands play all over the quarter, and you even have some dancing on Royal Street.

Jackson Park

General (and President) Andrew Jackson, after whom it is named.

Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, the founder of New Orleans. He was Governor of Louisiana for 30 years between 1701 and 1743.

These are gator bites. Quite tasty, a bit like chicken.

This is the pool area at the hotel. Very relaxing just reading out here.

I liked this statue at the waterfront, saluting the brave immigrants who left their homes for the new world. A shame that today so many immigrants are pilloried and vilified.

We did a dinner cruise up the Mississippi on the steamer paddleboat SS Natchez.

Like many I’ve always wanted to see the Mississippi River, having read so much about it through classics like Huckleberry Finn.

For me the connection is a bit more personal, as I am part-Clemens on my mother’s side and related to Samuel Clemens.

It was scorching hot in New Orleans generally, and on board, so frozen strawberry daiquiris helped!

The waterfront at night from the steamer.

The paddles in operation. I observed that they would be excellent for water-boarding!

More tributes to New Orleans musical heritage

A reminder of Hurricane Katrina.

Had to laugh at this. How many police stations would sell police t-shirts!

I’ll do separate posts on Bourbon Street and the WWII Museum.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

Since then, activists and academics have emphasised inequality. 

In New Zealand, the Child Poverty Action Group says 270,000 children – half of them Maori or Pasifika – live in poverty, around a quarter of the total.

Otago University says 400,000 New Zealanders suffer fuel poverty.

Depending on the measure, the welfare industry tells us that around 760,000 New Zealanders live in poverty.  Our income inequality is said to be a bit better than the hellhole of Canada but a bit worse than the paradise of Greece.

So the aim of the left is to have us more like Greece, and less like Canada!

In reality, all these measures are mere statistical constructs.

If every New Zealander’s income immediately doubled (ignore for the sake of argument any inflation effect) so-called poverty in New Zealand would remain unchanged.

If dairy farmers and tourism operators have a good year, more children would be said to live in poverty because the median income would rise.

Similarly, cut middle-class salaries, or slash the value of the Rich List’s portfolios, and child poverty apparently falls.

This is very true, and those numbers quoted are near meaningless. The far better measure of hardship is the survey done by eithers Stats and/or MSD every few years asking a representative set of households what items or services they do not have, that they wish to have.

This is nonsense and confirms Margaret Thatcher’s famous assertion that the left would rather have the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich.

That case was made just last week by Dr Geoff Bertram – the architect of the Labour/Green electricity nationalisation to combat “fuel poverty” – when he proposed chief executive salaries should be no more than three times that of a company’s lowest-paid worker.

If Fonterra employed even one factory hand on, say, $20/hour, its chief executive would be limited to a salary of about $125,000 a year.  It is impossible to see how that would help even one of the 760,000 New Zealanders apparently living in poverty.  It is a proposal solely motivated by the politics of hate.

Dr Bertram is the architect of Labour’s and Green’s power policy.

Could you imagine Fonterra being unable to pay any staff member over $125,000 a year?

There is an argument that, at a certain point, inequality can become harmful because it can become a barrier to economic growth.

In a system of pure feudalism, where all new wealth that is created is confiscated by the rich, or a system of pure communism where all wealth is redistributed, no one would have an incentive to do anything, with economic collapse following.

The question, though, is whether there is the slightest evidence that New Zealand is remotely approaching either extreme.  If there is, it would surely be towards the latter.

Under the current tax system, including Working for Families which John Key rightly described as “communism by stealth” but has kept in place, the top 3% of New Zealand households pay a third of all net income tax.

The top 5% of households pay half and the top 12% pay three-quarters.

In net terms, the 44% of households earning under $50,000 pay no income tax at all.  Their true net tax rates are below zero.

Even when taking into account GST, fuel taxes and tobacco and alcohol excise, the redistributive effects of the current system are overwhelming.  Just 12% of indirect taxes are paid by the poorest 20% of households and a third by the wealthiest 20% of households.

The current economy is one that is growing, where unemployment is falling, wages are rising, inflation is below 1% and even the constructed measure of inequality is marginally narrowing.

It is also a country where someone like Rod Drury can turn an idea into a $2 billion company, including quite a few hundred million for himself.

We should return to the values of the 1980s and celebrate him and all those who have made it honestly onto this year’s list.

They create wealth and opportunities for New Zealanders.  It is a lie to say they make children poor.

A great column.

Stuff reports:

Thousands of beneficiaries will be managed into work by private employment agencies in a new nationwide pilot programme some are labelling “sinister”.

The Ministry of Social Development has been seeking tenders from community and private employment agencies to put beneficiaries into paid work.

Annually, 2000 beneficiaries will be involved nationwide and the agencies will earn up to $12,000 for placing a client into a job.

They will earn more for placing higher classified patients, such as those with “entrenched mental health issues” and those with serious barriers preventing them returning to work.

Overseas, similar welfare-to-work programmes have been criticised as ineffective and costly. Some groups are worried the same thing could happen here, and that there’ll be too much focus on “bonus payments”.

But Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the Government was willing to pay more to help those who are likely to find it harder to get into work and be independent.

This is what Labour and allies are calling sinister?

Rodney Hide writes in HoS:

Those of us following politics are witnessing the destruction of a party leader. The destruction is all the more remarkable because it’s coming entirely from within. It’s especially remarkable because the parties combined in opposition are consistently polling within a whisker of government. They could easily win.

National is polling extremely well but its necessary support parties are not. Next year’s election is looking a close-run thing. MMP is like that. It’s not how well one party does but how well the parties who can work together in government do in total.

The Labour Party should now be attempting to show themselves, the Greens and New Zealand First united in heading into government. Instead, Labour is failing to unite behind its own leader. It’s a political mess. The plotters within the Labour caucus don’t have the numbers to dump David Shearer. If they did, he would be gone. Minus the numbers, they aren’t quietly getting on with their job. They are, instead, engaged in a guerrilla campaign to destroy their democratically elected leader.

I think they may have the numbers. They just don’t have the certainty of who would win the replacement election.

The plotters’ attacks are deathly corrosive. That’s their purpose. If the plotters can keep up their attacks from the shadows they will inflict sufficient damage. At that point either Shearer or his colleagues and supporters will accept he is damaged beyond political repair. Then the plotters will have succeeded.

Meanwhile, when we are especially in need of an effective opposition, our major opposition party is entirely focused on itself. When we need more than ever to be debating the country’s direction, the Labour Party is busy debating with itself.

The true difference between National and Labour is not philosophy or policy. It’s cultural. It manifests in many ways. The Nats dispatch leaders with the minimum of fuss. They put winning elections and being in government above all other considerations. They don’t do untidy. Labour revel in it.

The tough part for Labour’s plotters is not the damaging of Shearer. That’s easy. Their tough part will be putting the party together once they have succeeded. That’s hard.

They need a unity ticket.

The Lorraine Motel is the site of the assassination of Martin Luther King.

In many ways I find segregation and its associated racism harder to fathom than slavery. Don’t get me wrong – slavery is by far the bigger evil. But the world in the 1700s and even 1800s was vastly different from the world today. Women also had few rights, and there was no widespread communications or sharing of knowledge.

So I can understand how slavery existed in the 1700s and early 1800s. And those who fought against slavery then were in some ways ahead of their time.

But what astonishes me about segregation is that it was still happening in the 1950s and 1960s. In New Zealand for example Europeans and Maori had been living and working together for 100 years (not perfectly albeit). Yet in parts of the US there were separate buses, schools, and military units. You had the astonishing scenes in Arkansas where the Little Rock 9 were kept out of the school they were legally enrolled in by the Democrat Governor ordering the National Guard to stop them. Then amazingly President Eisenhower federalised the national guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division and the National Guard to accompany them to school. They protected those nine students from assaults and worse, to allow them to study at the school they wanted.

MLK was the voice of the civil rights movement. His “I have a dream” speech is iconic, and he was a force for good. That is not to say he was unblemished and I (or anyone) agree with everything he did or advocated. but he was the spiritual leader of millions of blacks just wanting their basic human rights – and he was killed for that.

The memorial plaque.

Room 306 is the room he was staying in, and it was on the balcony outside where he was shot.

This is where James Earl Ray fired from. The whole building is now the National Civil Rights Museum and a fascinating catalog of both the political and legal civil rights struggles, but also the life and death of MLK, and like with JFK the various theories about if it was the work of more than one person.

This is the view from next to where the shooter was. A fairly easy target.

The FBI did well to track him down as he was using multiple identities, as these posters show.

Mart

This woman, a former resident and housekeeper at the motel, has been protesting for 25 years against the museum. Nutty, but determined.

Dr Ryan Malone is a former Cabinet Officer staffer and a public law commentator. He writes in the Dom Post on the Sky City deal:

Can the SkyCity agreement, and the resulting legislation, be considered a breach of our unwritten constitution? The argument of constitutional impropriety rests on three pillars. None are very persuasive.

The first is that the legislation will benefit just one person, in this case SkyCity. This, it is argued, is offensive to the rule of law because legislation should be of general application to everyone.

This is certainly true of criminal laws passed by Parliament. Here we are all equal before the law. Yet outside of this area, Parliament regularly makes laws that benefit a single individual or group. Private bills by their very definition change the law for the benefit of a particular person or company.

Similarly, local bills relate to specific regions. Parliament gave Wanganui District Council the power to ban gang patches in parts of the town. Not all local authorities were given this power – just Wanganui District Council.

Perhaps more importantly, government bills are commonly passed that benefit one individual or industry group to the exclusion of others. Thus, individual iwi receive compensation packages through statutes that implement Treaty of Waitangi settlements with the Crown.

So that is the first point dealt with.

The second argument as to why the deal is unconstitutional is that by amending the Gambling Act in exchange for building the convention centre, the Government is “selling” a dispensation from the Gambling Act. …

But what is clear is that parties in government always face difficult tradeoffs when making big policy decisions. In this case the National Government – still facing challenging economic conditions – considers that the pros of having a privately funded national convention centre outweigh the cons. Not everyone will agree with that assessment, and they will have the opportunity to express their views at the next election. But hard policy choices do not automatically equate with governments running roughshod over our constitution. …

It also changed the Overseas Investment Act regulations to ward off the Canadian Pension Board’s takeover bid for Auckland Airport. The fact that many people opposed those decisions did not make the resulting laws unconstitutional. They were simply political decisions taken by the government of the day. The Government’s deal with SkyCity is no different.

And the third point:

The third reason why the deal is supposedly unconstitutional is that it “binds” a future government. Under the terms of the agreement, SkyCity is entitled to compensation if key parts of it are overturned. But it is not unusual for governments to have their hands tied by earlier decisions of Cabinet or Parliament.

For example, the current Government must pay Tainui and Ngai Tahu additional settlement money because of relativity clauses inserted in legislation passed by Parliament in the 1990s. In any event, it will always remain open for a future Parliament to revoke the deal and specifically rule out compensation to SkyCity.

Our Parliament is free to enact laws that remove rights without compensation and has done so in the past. The Government’s agreement with SkyCity is not contrary to New Zealand’s constitutional system. Fundamentally it is a political issue, not a legal one.

And one announced prior to the last election.

For a different view, there is this opinion from Stephen Franks.

Labour’s lurch to the hard left continues:

Labour says it would consider restricting foreign ownership of residential properties to help ease pressure on the housing market.

Labour’s finance spokesman David Parker has previously said the party would restrict foreign ownership of rural land, but as recently as May he said restricting foreign ownership of residential property was not Labour policy.

However, Mr Parker appeared to soften his position on TV3’s The Nation this morning, saying Labour “would consider” foreign ownership of residential land.

At the rate Labour is going, I expect a merger by Christmas and the new co-leaders of the combined party to be Holly Walker and Jacinda Ardern.