The Herald reports:

Internet NZ’s engagement director, Andrew Cushen, said legislating to enforce porn-blocking software would be costly, ineffective, provide “a false sense of security” and was an unjustified “nanny state” intervention.
“What we risk is an over-engineered government imposition that actually involves some pretty creepy stuff in terms of asking every adult to ask for permission to see a range of websites,” Cushen said.
Each household should be left to choose its own filtering software from a wide range of suppliers , he said.

Yep. Parents can decide for themselves what type of filter, if any, they want to use.

Stuff reports:

At the age of 10, Kiwi kids can’t drink, drive, buy cigarettes or even have their own Facebook page.
But 10-year-olds can be convicted of murder or manslaughter – that’s the current minimum age of criminal responsibility for those crimes in New Zealand.
However, the Government has agreed to consider whether the current minimum age should be raised, Justice Minister Andrew Little confirmed to Stuff.
“In January, New Zealand had its third Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council, and has agreed to consider whether the current minimum age of criminal responsibility, 10 years of age, should be increased to align with international standards,” Little said in a statement.

If a 10 year old can murder someone, then they should be held accountable for that murder.

Perhaps one of the most well known cases internationally is the story of murdered British toddler James Bulger.
Bulger, 2, was tortured and killed by 10-year-olds Robert Thompson and Jon Venables in Liverpool in 1993. 
Thompson and Venables, by then aged 11, were tried in an adult court and found guilty of Bulger’s murder on November 24, 1993, becoming the youngest convicted murderers of the 20th century. 

A very good example of why you need to hold young killers accountable. They did not just kill Bulger, but tortured him also.

The upgrade to the FTA with China has been finalised. Upgrade is an optimistic word for it.

The original FTA (thank you Phil Goff) led to billions of dollars of more exports to China. It was the 5th Labour Government’s biggest success. Ironic that Winston and the Greens campaigned against it.

The “upgrade” will see around $36 million of tariff reductions on 1% of wood products. Some useful clarity around trading rules also. It’s definitely better than nothing, but can’t comp[are to the original FTA or the TPP.

Also a RCEP has been completed, but India has pulled out of it. We basically already have trade agreements with all the other signatories, so the gain is minor. Definitely welcome, but access to the India market was the goal.

Data from the latest HLFS:

• Just 23,000 jobs created in the last year, or a 0.9% increase
• 6,000 more unemployed than a year ago
• Unemployment rate is 4.2%

Here’s the job growth for September years for the last few years:

• 2016: 135,000
• 2017: 88,000
• 2018: 60,000
• 2019: 23,000

The US is the only major market we do not have a trade agreement with, or are not negotiating one with. It would be huge for NZ exporters and consumers if we could get one.

And I think I know how.

President Trump has shown that he will happily and proudly use foreign policy to reward countries that screw over his domestic political opponents. So let’s do exactly that.

Here’s what would work.

The Maori Labour Caucus lodges a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council against Elizabeth Warren. In it they claim that her pretending to be Native American has undermined the human rights of indigenous persons around the world, and they demand various UN bodies investigate their complaints.

For good measure I’m sure they could get some co-complainants such as the Maori Council.

The United Nations HRC is so PC that they could never decline a request from an indigenous group, especially against a US politician. So they would schedule hearings into whether Elizabeth Warren has trampled the mana of indigenous people around the world.

President Trump would be so delighted with New Zealand that we’d have “the best” free trade deal you can get within a few days. Hell he’d probably even through in some military aid.

It’s a win-win. We get a free trade agreement, and we cripple Warren’s candidacy (which is good as she would probably lose to Trump if she’s the candidate).

So come on Willie Jackson. Start the ball rolling.

Interesting reporting from Newsroom and Radio NZ from Winston’s lawsuit against various people over his claiming too high a rate on his National Super.

Here’s what was revealed in court:

• MSD staff noted down he said “Do you know who I am?” to a staffer
• answered a question on whether he had a partner instead with a response about his long-ago wife, by ticking a box saying they were separated and lived apart.
• never addressed the question of whether he had a partner at the time of the 2010 application
• did not read all the explanatory notes on the form
• did not fill out a series of questions relevant to whether he had a partner
• asked an interviewing official in 2017, when the overpayment was discovered, why someone in a relationship should be paid less than someone who was single, as he had two people who had been dependent on him
• three frontline staff said the MP was alone during that meeting, including one who was “very sure” Ms Trotman was not there.

A very interesting court case indeed.

Former Air NZ CEO Chris Luxon won the Botany nomination for National on the 1st ballot.

This means he got more votes from the 60 delegates than the other four candidates combined, which is impressive.

National is probably unique amongst political parties that selections are done entirely by the local members, and head office gets no say (beyond a veto of unsuitable nominees).

Botany had the 5th highest party vote in 2017 – 61.0% for National. Luxon’s first job is to have Botany meet or exceed that.

Audrey Young rates the Greens MPs. In order they get:

• Chloe Swarbrick 8/10
• James Shaw 8/10
• Jan Logie 7/10
• Marama Davidson 6/10
• Golriz Ghahraman 6/10
• Eugenie Sage 5/10
• Julie-Anne Genter 5/10
• Gareth Hughes 4/10

Stuff reports:

Paralympian Marieke Vervoort said when the day arrived, she had signed the euthanasia papers and was prepared to end her life.
That day came Tuesday (Wednesday NZ time) in her native Belgium, her death confirmed in a statement from the city of Diest.
Vervoort, who was 40, won gold and silver medals in wheelchair racing at the 2012 London Paralympics, and two more medals three years ago in Rio de Janeiro.

In an interview attended by The Associated Press at the Paralympics in Rio, Vervoort described living with unbroken pain from an incurable, degenerative spinal disease.

She talked of sleeping only 10 minutes some nights, described severe pain that caused others to pass out just watching her, and detailed how sports kept her alive.
“It’s too hard for my body,” Vervoort said in the 2016 interview. “Each training I’m suffering because of pain. Every race I train hard. Training and riding and doing competition are medicine for me. I push so hard – to push literally all my fear and everything away.”
Vervoort spent her last evening with close friends and family, even sharing a glass of sparkling wine, which she referred to as a painkiller.

I’m glad she lived in a country where she could make such a choice.

Vervoort was a strong advocate of the right to choose euthanasia, which is legal in Belgium. Like training hard, she said it gave her control and put “my own life in my hands.”
“I’m really scared, but those (euthanasia) papers give me a lot of peace of mind because I know when it’s enough for me, I have those papers,” she said.
“If I didn’t have those papers, I think I’d have done suicide already. I think there will be fewer suicides when every country has the law of euthanasia. … I hope everybody sees that this is not murder, but it makes people live longer.”

I think this is right – the alternative to euthanasia is often suicide.

Labour promised to end homelessness. In one interview the PM said it would be done in four weeks. But I have been generous and assumed they meant by the end of their first term.

The Priority A waiting list for social housing is the best indicator of homelessness. These are those deemed in urgent need of accommodation. So how has Labour gone in reducing homelessness from 4,000?

To date they have increased it by 150%. I’ll update this series each time new data comes out.

Massey senior lecturer Steve Elers writes:

On one hand, Massey has to deal with the complexities of “free speech”, which in itself is completely subjective – even the Free Speech Coalition lists eight “categories of speech that are not included in free speech”.
On the other hand, there are economic considerations that must be taken into account. All organisations need to remain financially viable to exist. Therein lies the problem.
Massey’s 2018 Annual Report shows its revenue included $108.6 million in student fees from domestic students. In comparison, it received $84.1m in student fees from international students. The same report shows Massey had 5331 international students and that 3722 students were born in China. Of course, not all Chinese-born students are international students, but it is probably fair to say most are.
In other words, Massey, probably like many if not all of our universities, is beholden to its international full-fee paying students from China.

Elers points out Massey gets a lot of income from Chinese international students.

China can literally turn the tap off overnight. It threatened to do that to the United States a few months ago due to the trade war between China and the US, which has resulted in a “record number of Chinese students” at British universities. The Global Times, the Chinese state newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece the People’s Daily, wrote earlier this year: “American universities shouldn’t be so arrogant. By leaving China’s booming market and leaving Chinese students, those universities would feel regrettable.” 
Enough said.
So, the question becomes: Are we prepared to risk our fourth largest export earner, $5b and 50,000 jobs, for the sake of “free speech” in the form of posters?
If you follow the deontological position of ethics, you might subscribe to the view that removing posters is morally wrong, and therefore you are willing to jeopardise $5b and up to 50,000 jobs because upholding “free speech” is paramount.
In contrast, if you adhere to the teleological position, you would make a decision based on the best overall consequences – that might mean you are not willing to jeopardise $5b and up to 50,000 jobs, so you pull down the posters. What I have outlined is a simplified approach – I am not a philosopher – but either way it is definitely a “no win” situation for Massey.

Elers concludes (and I agree) that Massey pulled down the posters to appease Beijing, as they were scared of losing revenue.

But I disagree with his analysis that this was a hard decision and a no win either way.

First of all, you need to consider than China is like Rio Tinto – a good bluffer. Are they really going to boycott Massey University because they refused to take some posters down? Where will they send them instead? Otago? Auckland? Oxford?

Keith Ng makes this point:

But even if there are economic consequences, the decision is clearly the wrong one. Just consider where this ends if a NZ university decides to trade free speech for appeasing the Chinese Government. If we’re okay with them taking down posters supporting the HK protesters then what next would they be willing to do?

• Ban campus access to the Wikipedia article on Tiananmen Square?
• Ban protests in support of the HK protesters?
• Refuse to publish any academic research critical of China?
• Refuse to allow academics or students from Taiwan to study or lecture?
• Allow the Chinese Government to approve any textbooks used in classes about China

The only reason that China even bothers to pressure universities is because they have shown in the past that they will succumb to pressure.

NZ universities should follow the lead of the University of Chicago.

Stuff reports:

We are beginning the perennial dance between the Crown and Rio Tinto, majority owners of the Tiwai aluminium smelter.
Last time we did this tango John Key ignored Treasury advice and tipped $30 million from the public purse into the welcome mittens of the smelter’s owners.
Now, we have the usual hand-wringing from the great and the good decrying the threat of more corporate welfare.
Even my comrades at the Taxpayers’ Union have started a petition against propping up this foreign-owned smelter.

They are wrong. Tiwai is important and if we need to swallow a dead rat to keep it we should sprinkle a bit of sugar on the deceased rodent and make the best of it.

I disagree.

First of all, we should not assume some corporate welfare is what will keep Tiwai open or not. Rio Tinto are masters at pressuring money out of the Government, but I personally do not believe they would have closed the smelter last time without the $30 million.

What matters most to Tiwai is the price of aluminium. We have no control over that. It is not up to taxpayers to subsidise Tiwai when the global prices falls, anymore than we subsidise other global commodity companies.

The NZ Herald reports:

The foreign affairs branch of the New Zealand Government says it continues to share its concerns about the “human rights situation” in China’s Xinjiang province.
This comes after New Zealand and 23 other countries last week co-signed a statement to the head of the United Nations Human Rights body, condemning the treatment of the Uighur Muslims in China.
The statement, delivered by the UK’s Permanent Representative to the UN Karen Pierce, was co-signed by the likes of Japan, Germany, the US and the UK.

I’m pleased New Zealand signed this, despite our relationship with China.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Transport’s $1.3 million rideshare experiment in upmarket Devonport is the city’s most heavily-subsidised public transport service, needing a top-up of $11.72 per trip.
The council agency has decided to extend the 12-month trial for a further six months, declining a management recommendation that it become permanent.

Auckland has huge public transport needs. But what it doesn’t need is a Council loss making Uber style service. There are multiple ride sharing companies competing in Auckland.

Fare revenue is just under half the $187,200 annual forecast, due to the “introductory” $2.50 fare never being raised to $3, and only 36,533 trips taken versus the 62,400 forecast used in estimates.

So the number of trips is half forecast. They’d be bankrupt if not owned by ratepayers.

AT said the service had replaced 10,750 private vehicle trips, although 48 per cent of the electric shuttles’ trips have been with just one passenger.
The service has also been attracting people who previously walked, cycled or caught a bus to the ferry.

If there were 36,000 trips and it replaced 11,000 vehicle trips, then the conclusion is that 26,000 of those trips were people who would have been walking, cycling or busing.

It is highly likely that it has led to more congestion, more greenhouse gas emissions and had made a loss. A lose-lose-lose.

Brent Norling writes:

Dear Jacinda,
As an insolvency-specialist lawyer, I see a high volume of business owners who are really struggling and many who ultimately fail and lose everything. 
These hardworking New Zealanders often do everything for their businesses. 
They are their own product/service developer, finance department, marketing department and sales department. 

They are the HR department, the general manager, the mentor, the quality control officer, the IT department, the administrator and bookkeeper… 
The list of tasks they perform each week to keep their companies going is endless. 

And we have a few hundred thousand of them.

What I’m getting it is, being in business is hard. 
But you may not appreciate that. 
Because if you did have a basic understanding of SME (small-to-medium enterprise) life, there is no way that you would be acting the way that you are. There is no way that your Government would have the policies that you do.
For example, you are making it difficult for New Zealand SMEs to employ foreigners for roles Kiwis don’t want anyway. You are increasing employee costs for business owners who aren’t even paying themselves a living wage.
You are making it harder for employment relationships with changes to the trial period provisions. You are increasing costs to business by tampering with fuel costs. There is uncertainty over the tax position of SMEs and how that could play out. 

Almost no Ministers have ever worked in business, let alone a small business. So no they don’t understand.

Business owners have an extremely stressful role. They literally risk everything. Their assets, their time, their physical health and their mental health. They do it because we are great optimists in New Zealand. They do it for the nest egg. The better future for them and their loved ones. 
And if they are successful, they will contribute in a very important way to our economy and they will provide employment to many New Zealanders who don’t want to or can’t run a business. 
So, why do you and your party wish to make life even more difficult for hard working Kiwi business owners? 

Because unions fund the Labour Party and vote in Labour Party selections.

Newshub reports:

A heated debate broke out at a select committee considering changes to abortion law, after some submitters asked for the legislation to say “pregnant person” instead of “pregnant woman”.
The Abortion Legislation Bill – which would bring abortion out of the Crimes Act and remove the need for a doctor’s approval before 20 weeks – currently uses the term “pregnant woman”. 
But some submitters have asked the committee to consider replacing “pregnant woman” with “pregnant person” or “pregnant women and people” in the legislation to represent diversity.

Yes it is critical than pregnant men are also able to have abortions.

You might consider this a trivial issue but imagine you’re a man who got pregnant. Would you want to carry the baby to term?

Reuters reported:

Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has “utterly failed,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, adding fuel to a debate over immigration and Islam polarizing her conservative camp.

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democrats (CDU), Merkel said allowing people of different cultural backgrounds to live side by side without integrating had not worked in a country that is home to some four million Muslims.
“This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed,” Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, south of Berlin.

The key is integration. Immigration done well, like in NZ, is a very good thing. But it is important that we control both the rate and “quality” of immigrants. Our points based system is an excellent system. And we have secure borders so can decide how many people enter our country.

That is very different to countries which have insecure borders and get swamped with illegal immigrants and/or asylym seekers. In those situations, it is much harder to integrate.

Merkel faces pressure from within her CDU to take a tougher line on immigrants who don’t show a willingness to adapt to German society and her comments appeared intended to pacify her critics.

This is also key. People should adapt to the country they move to. That doesn’t mean give up on their own culture, but it does mean adapt and integrate. If I moved to Singapore, I would adapt to Singaporean society.

Average Thief blogs:

I was one of the thousands of people who made a submission relating to the Abortion Legislation Bill.  Like many people, I oppose abortion on demand, and my submission gave reasons.
Sometime later, the Parliamentary Select Committee considering this bill emailed submitters.  The email included:
The committee has agreed to hear from as many submitters as possible, focusing on submissions that will most help it consider what, if any, changes should be recommended to the bill.
Select Committees consider –
whether to recommend that a bill should proceed; and
if they recommend that it should proceed, what (if any) amendments to recommend.
This committee seems to have skipped step #1.  And public hearings are yet to occur.
I emailed the committee secretariat describing the usual practice and asking, “How on earth has the committee decided in advance that the Bill will proceed?”
The response:
Detail of the committee’s consideration is confidential to the committee.
In other words, “We’ve made up our minds before public hearings and we’re not prepared to discuss it”.

It does seem unusual to only be asking for improvements to the bill, and not to be asking for submissions on whether or not the bill proceed.

The doom merchants would have you believe everything is getting worse and poverty etc is increasing. The opposite is of course the case.

The Guardian reports:

For the millions of people who descend on Munich for the annual bash, Oktoberfest is a celebration of beer, bands and bratwurst.
But as the dust settles for another year on the world’s largest folk festival, and die Bierleichen (“beer corpses”) return to the land of the living, environmental scientists have released the first analysis of methane emissions from the 16-day party.
Researchers at Technical University in Munich walked and cycled around the perimeter of the festival last year with mobile sensors aloft. The instruments found the event emitted nearly 1,500kg of methane – 10 times the amount that wafted off Boston, Massachusetts, in the same period.

Well obviously Oktoberfest must be banned to save the planet. Bags not going to Bavaria to explain though.