Viva reports:

A new petition launched by local skincare entrepreneur Katey Mandy is challenging the New Zealand Government to remove GST from the sale of sunscreen products. …

But is it fair to pay GST on a product that can save your life?

Katey Mandy, entrepreneur and founder of local skincare label Raaie, doesn’t think so, and now she’s urging you to join her mission to lobby the government to do away with GST on sunscreen altogether.

No, no, no, no ,no.

This is what happens when people start to see GST as a tax that should only be applied to some goods and services, and not others. Then every industry in NZ wants to be exempted – food, tampons, sunscreen.

You could make a case for no GST on doctors fees. No GST on sun hats.

GST is about efficiently collecting revenue. It is not about how good or not good a product is.

Noah Feldman writes at Time:

The core of this new antisemitism lies in the idea that Jews are not a historically oppressed people seeking self-preservation but instead oppressors: imperialists, colonialists, and even white supremacists. This view preserves vestiges of the trope that Jews exercise vast power. It creatively updates that narrative to contemporary circumstances and current cultural preoccupations with the nature of power and injustice. …

That caution is especially important because Israel, the first Jewish state to exist in two millennia, plays a central role in the narrative of the new antisemitism. Israel is not an imaginary conspiracy but a real country with real citizens, a real history, a real military, and real political and social problems that concern relations between Jews and Palestinians. It is not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israel. Its power, like any national power, may be subject to legitimate, fair criticism.

It is also essential not to tar all critics of Israel with the brush of antisemitism, especially in wartime, when Israel, like any other war-waging power, is properly subject to the strictures of international humanitarian law. To deploy the charge of antisemitism for political reasons is morally wrong, undermining the horror of antisemitism itself. It is also likely to backfire, convincing critics of Israel that they are being unfairly silenced.

There are many many ways to criticise the behaviour of Israel, without being anti-semitic. You could say things such as:

• The policy to allow new settlements in the West Bank is wrong and inflammatory
• The response to the Hamas attacks has been disproportional and is resulting in too many civilian deaths
• The current Prime Minister of Israel is using the war to hold onto power

Note that these are all criticism of a specific policy, issue or person.

To emphasize the narrative of Jews as oppressors, the new antisemitism must also somehow sidestep not only two millennia of Jewish oppression, but also the Holocaust, the largest organized, institutionalized murder of any ethnic group in human history. On the right, antisemites either deny the Holocaustever happened or claim its scope has been overstated. On the left, one line is that Jews are weaponizing the Holocaust to legitimize the oppression of Palestinians.

Many on the left use the language of genocide against Israel, to try and minimise the Holocaust.

The means Israel has used are subject to legitimate criticism for killing too many civilians as collateral damage. But Israel’s military campaign has been conducted pursuant to Israel’s interpretation of the international laws of war. There is no single, definitive international-law answer to the question of how much collateral damage renders a strike disproportionate to its concrete military objective. Israel’s approach resembles campaigns fought by the U.S. and its coalition partners in Iraq in Afghanistan, and by the international coalition in the battle against ISIS for control of Mosul. Even if the numbers of civilian deaths from the air seem to be higher, it is important to recognize that Israel is also confronting miles of tunnels intentionally connected to civilian facilities by Hamas.

To be clear: as a matter of human worth, a child who dies at the hands of a genocidal murderer is no different from one who dies as collateral damage in a lawful attack. The child is equally innocent, and the parents’ sorrow equally profound. As a matter of international law, however, the difference is decisive. During the Hamas attack, terrorists intentionally murdered children and raped women. Its charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Yet the accusation of genocide is being made against Israel.

If Hamas had the ability to invade Israel, it would happily kill every Jew there. We saw this on 7 October.

These relevant facts matter for putting the genocide charge into the context of potential antisemitism. Neither South Africa nor other states have brought a genocide case against China for its conduct in Tibet or Xinjiang, or against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. There is something specifically noteworthy about leveling the charge at the Jewish state—something intertwined with the new narrative of the Jews as archetypal oppressors rather than archetypal victims. Call it the genocide sleight of hand: if the Jews are depicted as genocidal—if Israel becomes the very archetype of a genocidal state—then Jews are much less likely to be conceived as a historically oppressed people engaged in self-defense.

The new narrative of Jews as oppressors is, in the end, far too close for comfort to the antisemitic tradition of singling out Jews as uniquely deserving of condemnation and punishment, whether in its old religious form or its Nazi iteration. Like those earlier forms of antisemitism, the new kind is not ultimately about the Jews, but about the human impulse to point the finger at someone who can be made to carry the weight of our social ills. Oppression is real. Power can be exercised without justice. Israel should not be immune from criticism when it acts wrongfully. Yet the horrific history and undefeated resilience of antisemitism mean that modes of rhetorical attack on Israel and on Jews should be subject to careful scrutiny.

Well said.

It is impossible to overstate the dire situation the New Zealand education system is in – and the future consequences for individuals, families and society as a whole.

It was been pointed out the the Ministry of Education has grown from 2700 employees (already well and truly overblown and inefficient) to 4400 employees over the last 6 years. Completely inversely related to the achievement of students. The top 12 should already have walked with their heads hung low.

Recent critique is about the 20 building projects cancelled and the 350 on hold. This is not all bad as many of these builds will not be high value for money and ignore the changing nature of teaching and learning (e.g. www.mthobson.school.nz).

Rumour has it that the Ministry have told the Minister that any cuts to funding can only go as deep as 2% before property is affected. Nonsense. The 4400 Ministry employees come at an average cost of $103k per annum (and I wonder if that takes into account overtime, etc, the officials get but teachers don’t). That totals to $453,200,000 for achieving very little (at best). Even the extra 1700 Ministry employees cost the taxpayer over $175,000,000.

ACT campaigned on taking the bureaucracies back to 2017 levels. That would only solve half of the Ministry of Education problem … but it would be a start.

There is not a child in New Zealand of lower inherent value than the Secretary for Education – Iona Holstead (who is paid around $600,000 per annum). It is well past time that things were realigned.

Radio NZ reports:

TVNZ rejected a last-ditch Newshub proposal to form a shared news agency with workers from both organisations – a decision Warner Bros Discovery has described as “baffling”.

Warner Bros Discovery met with TVNZ chairman Alistair Carruthers and chief executive Jodi O’Donnell, along with RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson, on 21 February to discuss the proposal.

But TVNZ rejected the idea just two days later.

Having the three leading broadcasters share a single news bureau would arguably be more efficient, but it would also be dangerous. That bureau would be very powerful.

NZPA worked well for many decades, and it is a shame it has gone. But it supplemented news bureaus, not replaced them. It was also strictly non-sensational. Their job was reporting.

Cr Tony Randle writes:

Firstly, and in some ways most importantly, this is an unprincipled deal. No Council should be using its special privilege to tax its residents (which is why we can borrow at much lower interest rates) to help individuals or private for-profit companies. 

This disadvantages all the other individuals and private companies who also “need help” to redevelop their business. That there is no agreed council policy covering this deal and that Reading International has lobbied the Council for years to finance them only makes this deal even more unprincipled.

All the other building owners who didn’t lobby Council are not happy about this.

Secondly, this Council is facing much bigger financial problems in fixing water, waste and transport. 

Reading is simply not on the priority list. 

Our infrastructure deficit is largely because previous councils diverted tens of millions of infrastructure depreciation funding towards projects they deemed as “needy” such as Tākina – our impressive new but loss-making convention centre. 

Even before this deal, the WCC Long-Term Plan includes borrowing to 245% of our rates income. This is over our own financial policy limit of 225% … so why are we even considering non-essential projects when we cannot properly fund our essential ones?

The Council decided this was a higher priority than essential services. They are already at their debt limit.

You would think getting a $32M loan at significantly below market interest rates (by my estimate worth over $10M) should be enough for Reading International to get on with their strengthening project. But no, this council has also agreed to give Reading the option to buy its land back any over the next ten years for the same price! Wellington CBD land roughly doubles in price every decade which means this land in 10 years’ time will likely be worth over $64M. In ten years, Reading can give us the $32M back and then immediately sell the same land for $64M walking off with the extra money. 

Because the Council plans to fund this deal by selling $32M of other CBD land, this loss of the land capital gain is real money … hell, we haven’t even got the buyback price inflation-adjusted so we lose on a decade worth of inflation on our loan principle!

It’s a great deal for the US owners of Reading.

The Herald reports:

The Labour Party is mourning the death of one if its longest-serving MPs, Jonathan Hunt, who has died aged 85.

Entering Parliament in 1966, Hunt was an MP for 39 years, 30 of which were as MP for New Lynn.

Becoming a minister in the David Lange Government, he held roles as Minister of Housing, Tourism, and Broadcasting, as well as the Postmaster-General.

Hunt was appointed Speaker of the House in 1999 by the Helen Clark Government.

After leaving Parliament in 2005, he went on to serve as the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom for three years.

He was also famously nicknamed the Minister of Wine and Cheese, and was appointed as a member of the Order of New Zealand in 2005.

I know a lot of Labour Party staff who adored Jonathan Hunt, and spoke of how kind he was and always asking how they were.

He was a parliamentary institution, and was the Father of the House from 1991 to 2005. That made him the longest serving Father of the House since Sir Apirana Ngata.

My thoughts are with his friends and colleagues.

A useful summary by Stuff of the changes in transport funding announced.

David Parker’s plan had 36% of land transport spending going on public transport, rail, walking, cycling etc. The Brown plan has that reduced to 28%, which is still quite generous. The big winner is state highway improvements up 37% and local road maintenance up 14%.

The Herald reports:

TVNZ is axing Sunday, Fair Go and two of its daily news bulletins as part of a massive overhaul of its news and current affairs portfolio.

There are reports the Midday and Tonight weekday bulletins are also being dumped as part of widespread cost-saving measures as the company cuts costs in a challenged economy.

This is sad both for news coverage in NZ, and especially for affected staff.

I’m probably an example of the challenge broadcasters face. I used to watch several news bulletins a day, loved Fair Go and Sunday etc.

Today I don’t even watch the 6 pm news. Not because I will dislike it, or it isn’t good, but because it isn’t necessary. I already know what has happened of interest that day through Twitter feeds, websites etc. Life is too busy to spend an hour in front of the television. I’ll just tune in occasionally for very major stories.

So if former news junkies like me have tuned out, it is no surprise TVNZ is having to make the hard decision to close these shows. It is a pity, but the would has changed. Linear TV has a limited life span.

For those who can’t see the graphics, the co-chair of the Health Coalition Aotearoa tweeted:

• We now have a fascist white supremacist government
• She hopes David Seymour never breeds
• The Government has a deliberate policy to kill off Maori

Yet this person gets treated by the media as a neutral expert, with masses of air and print time. Now imagine a right leaning academic said the Ardern Government was a Marxist racist Government, how Jacinda should never breed, and they have a deliberate policy to kill off Europeans. How much media space would that person get – zero right. They would rightfully be dismissed as an extremist.

People have every right to be an extremist. It’s good we get to see how deranged some of these people are. But lets not pretend they are neutral experts.

The new of the large loss by TVNZ got me interested in what has happened to revenue for major NZ media companies. So I went through the annual reports for those that have public ones.

TVNZ’S revenue is 5% lower in 2023 than 2015. They are a commercial broadcaster, so this is not surprising. It explains the layoffs – expenses would have gone up lots since 2015, and income has not.

NZME revenue is 16% lower in 2022 than 2015. But they have been increasing since 2020 with a 10% revenue increase over two years.

Māori TV’s revenue in 2023 46% higher than in 2015, and Radio NZ is 43% higher. This shows how publicly funded media are in far more comfortable positions that commercial media.

Would be interesting to include Stuff in the graph, but their finances are private.

I grew up a little behind being able to experience Snell and, although I met Sir Peter five minutes after a World Masters table tennis championship match years later, it was clear that losing was not something he accepted easily. One of my children stayed for a weekend with Sir Peter and Miki Snell prior to the great man’s death in 2019 and would swear that he has never met a greater human.

That is one of the reasons we should celebrate the four incredible medals at the world athletic championships this week. A silver to Eliza McCartney in the pole vault (a simply incredible come-back story against physical and financial barriers). A shot-put silver from the great Tom Walshe. Then measure 2 meters 36cm on your wall and understand that Hamish Kerr cleared that height to set a new world indoor championship record after winning the event’s gold medal.

In 1960 we had the unprecedented situation where Peter Snell (at 20 years old) charged past the favourite, Roger Moens, to win the men’s’ 800m gold medal at the Rome Olympics. Just 90 minutes after Murray Halberg had smashed the 5000m field to win his gold.

The achievement this week of 27 year old Geordie Beamish to win the world indoor championships men’s 1500m is right up with Lovelock, Snell, Dixon, Walker, Rogers and Willis. I am not sure that I have ever seen a NZer come from so far back in a field to win against this quality in a major event. Just watch the black singlet throughout this race and feel proud.

This is an achievement every young, and not so young, kiwi can look up to as they set their goals.

Tim Murphy writes:

Luxon’s coalition is relentless about its 49 points to be actioned and verified to the public before day 100, on Friday week.

He says he receives detailed updates twice a week showing progress on all initiatives and whether they are “on-track, off-track or ahead of programme”. He meets ministers and ensures their priorities are the 100-day priorities.

Compare that to Labour that had so many promises spend years with no progress or tracking.

Luxon, however, is revealing a taste for rolling 100-day plans. The second 100 days. The third 100 days.

The committee of ministers that has overseen this first one is transforming into a Cabinet strategy committee, which he will chair, and that group will launch successive quarterly plans by which the National-led Government will hold itself, and be held, accountable.

No spending three years dithering about how to do light rail.

The Prime Minister’s also been meeting ministers alongside their portfolio chief executives, to ensure “we’re all very aligned” about their programme for the rest of this year.

Early this month Luxon convened a meeting of all public service chiefs, again to outline his thinking beyond his own executive group.

This is what you call active leadership, as opposed to not noticing Ministers were not achieving anything.

Bruce Cotteril writes:

The last Labour Government was more radical than others. Their policies around water management, health, education, and crime were more extreme than we had seen before and as a result, drew criticism from many. Their approach to issues of race was difficult to fathom. The ability of many of their ministers to execute policy was shown to be inadequate and sometimes incompetent. Their spectacular failures around housing, mental health and child poverty will not be easily forgotten. Their financial mismanagement was such that some four months after their departure, the fiscal surprises are still being unearthed.

Extreme and incompetent! What a mixture.

This week we’ve learned about the extent of property projects languishing in the education system. Projects unfunded and now, I suspect, unaffordable. But they were projects that, in many cases, had been promised to the schools and the communities they serve. Stanford is already across the problem. We need “standardised, repeatable buildings” she said. Hallelujah. Since when did school buildings need to be contestants in the annual architecture awards anyway?

The state of New Zealand is a sad reflection of the past six years. There is a massive job to do in turning this country around. The new Government has made big promises. And in the current landscape they are challenging to deliver on. It’s hard to get excited about unravelling the past. I’m guessing that we have to do that to create a platform from which to deliver a desirable future. It’s that future we should be interested in. And a vision that tells us where we want to go and how we can help to turn the ship around and get there.

This is right. The Government needs to quickly reverse and repeal Labour’s failed policies, so it can then focus on its own policies and agenda going forward.

Stuff reports:

Stuff understands there is growing consensus amongst the region’s leaders that the councils can no longer continue as is, and will eventually need to amalgamate. …

There have been a number of proposals. These included:

One Greater Wellington Regional Council – encompassing all the councils, including Wairarapa. This was the option floated in the early 2010s and was highly unlikely to be re-promoted.

Establishing three or four councils: A Hutt Valley council, a Wairarapa council, and a Porirua-Wellington council which may or may not include Kāpiti District Council.

From discussion with city leaders, the most likely option was a Wellington council encompassing Porirua – potentially Kāpiti – the central city and entire Hutt Valley.

The status quo in Wellington is not great. We do have to many Councils and Wellington Water shows the weaknesses of the status quo.

Fewer Councils would be good in terms of efficiencies, but the problem is what will the culture of a larger Council be? If we were inflicting the infighting of WCC onto the region, well Upper Hutt and Porirua don’t deserve that.

A better option might be deciding which functions should be provided at a regional level, and either transferring them to the Regional Council or setting up CCOs at arms length from the current Councils.

Stuff reports:

Facebook owner Meta has refused to continue paying for news in Australia, announcing it will end its deals with local publishers when they expire this year in a decision that news companies say blatantly ignores the value of their journalism.

The government also blasted the move, describing it as “a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media”.

The tech behemoth confirmed today it won’t renew its deals with news organisations in Australia and also said it will remove its Facebook News tab next month.

This should kill off the Willie Jackson bill in NZ to try and force tech firms to pay media simply for linking to them.

It has been a disaster in Canada, and now also in Australia. It sees tech giants restricting or downplaying links to new sites, which results in a far far bigger drop in income for the media than for the tech giants.

The whole rationale for the bill is bizarre anyway. Put simply it is:

1. Advertisers used to advertise solely with media
2. Now most advertisers advertise with Internet companies
3. The Internet companies have stolen the advertisers off the media, so they must pay them money for offering a better advertising product

The tech giants do not make significant money (estimated to be below 3%) from linking to news sites. People advertise with them because they provide more eyeballs, better targeted for lower cost. If they stopped linking to media sites, they’d would hardly notice it.

On the other hand, the media make a significant amount of money from social media companies like Meta linking to them. A story shared on Facebook can go viral and get hundreds and thousands of views. and hence advertising income for the media as people then come through to their site.

In Canada Meta blocked news on Facebook and some media outlets have reported a 30% drop in page views, which probably means a 30% drop in revenue.

The bill should die a quick death.

Stuff has the story of a young woman who was raped at knifepoint by a 17 year old in. a park. It is harrowing to read how it has shattered her life. Full of admiration for how she kept her cool, and tricked the rapist into walking through an area with security cameras so he could be identified.

The assailant received a sentence of only 26 months, which seems unbelievable for a violent rape. The victim calls it a pitiful response, which it is.

The unadjusted sentence was 11 years and one month which seems about right. But he then got discounts totalling 77% for various factors such as youth, assumed remorse etc.

The Government is going to change the Sentencing Act so that the maximum cumulative discount is 40%. In this case it would means a sentence of six years and eight months rather than two years and two months.

The opposition will of course oppose this law change.

Winston Peters writes:

Over the past four years the sign-up of media outlets to receive $55 million of public funding through the Public Interest Journalism Fund has cemented that mistrust from the public for obvious reasons – most of which, it seems, is lost on the very media outlets that received those funds.   

It is a plain fact that for media organisations to be eligible for funding they had to sign up to certain criteria and conditions – including forcing certain narratives of the Labour government at the time. …

One of those conditions is based on a purely political view that is not supported by many New Zealanders or many political parties.  It states that the media organisation must “actively promote the principles of partnership, participation and active protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner”. And have a “commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner”.  

If they didn’t sign up to this condition, they wouldn’t get the money. 

How can a politically neutral and independent media organisation give balanced political commentary, analysis and in particular “opinions”, when this is the basis for the funds they receive for their very survival?  

This is the sinister incentivised seed that provides the platform for political bias. 

It is a preposterous state of self-denial when they cannot see that the contract they signed is a recipe for bias and corruption. 

It has created a media environment where certain leftwing political narratives and agendas have seeped into much of what the media presents to the public – where any opposing views are shutdown, cancelled and labelled as “far right” or “fringe”. 

This is spot on. The media should have refused funding which had Treaty partnership belief as a criteria for eligibility. If they had all stood firm, then the criteria would have gone, but they just took the money.

It is incredible that senior public servants tendered such advice. To state as a fact that “The right to be smoke free is entrenched in Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is beyond overwrought.

Professional sane advice could say something along the lines of “Some groups argue that the right to be smoke free ….” but to state a highly contentious interpretation as a fact just means that Ministers can’t actually rely on such advice.

Incidentally for those who like their history, Hone Hone cut down the flagpole to protest the Government’s new tax on various products, including tobacco which was one shilling per pound! And Hone was the first signatory to the Treaty!

Heke’s rebellion was successful in getting the Government to repeal the tax on tobacco, and instead introduce property rates.

So for the Ministry of Health to state as an uncontested fact that the Treaty entrenches the right for Maori to be smoke free, is not just wrong, but historically illiterate.

Stuff reports:

Hungary’s parliament voted Monday in favour of Sweden’s long-delayed bid to join Nato, clearing the final obstacle to a historic expansion of the military alliance and putting an end to an uncomfortable standoff between members.

With Budapest at last onboard, Sweden is set to become Nato’s 32nd member, possibly within the week, completing a process that began with Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and saw Finland join last year. The addition of the two Nordic countries will bolster the alliance’s capabilities, strengthening its position in the high north and the Baltic Sea – all while sending an important message to Moscow.

Putin achieved the near impossible – he shifted Sweden from neutrality.

Sweden adopted neutrality in 1812 and it lasted for 210 years until Putin invaded Ukraine.