Newshub reports:

Pressure is mounting on the Government to tackle the controversial area of genetic technology, with officials warning if it doesn’t, the country could face lost opportunities – ranging from economic benefits to cutting-edge medical treatments and combating diseases like kauri dieback.
Documents obtained by Newshub under the Official Information Act reveal the current law around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is out of date and could be restricting New Zealand’s access to the advancements the technologies provide.
In a Ministry for the Environment briefing to Environment Minister David Parker in June 2018, officials warned New Zealand could fall behind the rest of the world in the genetic engineering space. It said the rapid pace of technological change is forcing countries to clarify their positions, and recommended the Government update the law and at the very least spark a national conversation about genetic modification.

All the scaremongering about GE has fallen flat with three decades of safe use. Time for us to listen to the science and liberalise our laws.

Stuff reports:

Downbeat manufacturing data is stoking concern that New Zealand’s economy in sinking into a deeper than expected trough, with economists trimming forecasts in the lead up to official figures.
On Thursday Statistics New Zealand is expected to release figures showing gross domestic product (GDP) expanded at around 0.6 per cent in the first three months of the year, which would see annual growth remain below 2.5 per cent.
Economists at BNZ had been generally more upbeat than their counterparts for growth at the start of the year, picking 0.7 per cent growth, based on expectations of a solid number in the bank-sponsored PMI index, a long running monthly picture of New Zealand’s manufacturing sectors.

But on Friday the PMI recorded the largest monthly drop since 2012, from 52.7 for the month of April to 50.2 in May. A figure above 50 represents expansion. The figures, released jointly with BusinessNZ showed a contraction in employment and production.

So not contracting, but close to it.

Kiwibank now sees New Zealand’s GDP growth dropping to 2 per cent in the middle of the year, with lower growth rates over the next two years. Growth peaked at around 4 per cent in 2017.

So the growth rate may have halved. This has consequences as it is economic growth that allows you to fund all the wellbeing stuff!

News.com.au reports:

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam has delayed indefinitely a proposed law to allow extraditions to mainland China after widespread anger and violent protests in the Asian finance hub.
The extradition bill, which would cover Hong Kong’s seven million residents as well as foreign and Chinese nationals in the city, was seen by many as a threat to the rule of law in the former British colony.
About a million people marched through Hong Kong last Sunday to oppose the bill, according to protest organisers.
Protests continued through the week and were met with tear gas, bean bag rounds and rubber bullets from police, plunging the city into turmoil and piling heavy pressure on Lam.

Well done all those protesters. They have shown that freedom is worth fighting for.

Bob Brockie writes at Stuff:

A new United Nations report on biodiversity, released in May, claims that a million of the world’s species are at imminent risk of extinction, while 4000 native plant and animal species also face extinction in New Zealand, according to another recent report.
These claims give the impression that droves of plants and animals are going extinct, but things are not as alarming as these reports assert. 

They key word they use is “face” which makes it sound imminent.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) keeps a close eye on extinctions and lists very few animals going extinct on the continents.

Since 2000, the Union lists only the Western black rhino, a Japanese otter, the Yangtze River dolphin, five species of Australian marsupial rodents, and some African grasshoppers.

So nine species, not thousands.

Extinction doomsayers have always attracted headlines. In 2004, an international survey claimed that half the world’s animals faced extinction by the year 2050.
In I995, the renowned American scientist Jared Diamond predicted that half the world’s species would be extinct by the time he reached retirement age. However at age 72, Diamond has seen only a handful of animals disappear.

This is why people never accept doomsday claims, because we’ve heard them all before.

No animal has gone extinct in New Zealand since our bush wren was last seen in 1972. The last native plant to go extinct here was Adams mistletoe in 1954.

Wow I had no idea it has been that long.

New Zealand can be proud of its efforts to fight extinctions. Thanks to government and private efforts, and the heroic work of an army of volunteers, New Zealand has not lost a single species for 45 years. 
With more money, new methods, and astute planning going into conservation, there is every prospect of our dwindling populations being saved from extinction over the next 50 years.
Repeated exaggerated claims that hundreds of species are on the verge of extinction are unnecessarily alarmist and likely to lead to apathy.

Great column.

David Seymour announced:

“ACT’s Freedom to Speak Bill will repeal parts of the Human Rights Act and the Summary Offences Act which make insulting and offensive speech unlawful. ACT believes that, while it should be a crime to incite or threaten violence, nobody should ever be punished for insulting or offensive speech. Distinguishing hate speech from genuine criticism is impossible.
“The Freedom to Speak Bill will also specify that the Harmful Digital Communications Act only applies to complainants under the age of 18. Online bullying of children is a major problem. It is important that there is an agency and a set of guidelines for resolving bullying of children online. However, doing so also restricts the right of free expression. While this may be tolerable in the case of children, or those communicating with children, adults should not be able to use hate speech sanctions to silence critics.

If the bill gets drawn from the ballot, I would hope National and NZ First vote for it at first reading to send it to select committee.

Stuff reports:

Service cuts should be expected after the appointment of a Crown monitor to the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), a board member warns.
Dr Lester Levy, a former chairman of Waitemata, Auckland, and Counties Manukau DHBs, will start in the role immediately to help the CDHB climb out of a forecast $103.4 million deficit – the largest of any DHB in the country.

The Government promised it would fund the health system much more than National did, yet the reality is the DHB deficits have exploded since they came in.

Newshub reports:

The Prime Minister is facing questions over her former interim chief of staff who, according to records, never officially stepped aside from his role at a lobbying firm at the time.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said on Friday the former interim chief of staff had signed two codes of conduct when he took on the role, and that he filled out a conflict of interest form. 
But there is no official declaration in the New Zealand Companies Office records – a government agency – that shows Thompson stepped aside from the company he was a director at, during that time.  …

ACT Party leader David Seymour raised the conflict of interest issue in Parliament on Thursday. He asked Ardern why she said Thompson took a leave of absence from his company during his tenure as interim chief of staff, when there’s no record of it. 
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, standing in for Ardern, replied: “On behalf of the Prime Minister, because it was and is a fact.”
Seymour raised concern about Thompson having access to Cabinet papers during his time as interim chief of staff, while also remaining a director of a company, pointing to the lack of official records. 
He told Newshub: “What’s really offensive here, is that the Prime Minister has said, actually he stepped down from those roles, when very clearly he didn’t.”

I don’t think the issue is that GJ spent five months as interim Chief of Staff. The issue is that the PM said he stood down from his role as his firm, when in fact he remained a director and shareholder. He may not have been involved in day to day business, but remaining a director was a conflict.

The results of the first round of voting for the next UK PM were:

1. Boris Johnson 114, 36%
2. Jeremy Hunt 43, 14%
3. Michael Gove 37, 12%
4. Dominic Raab 27, 9%
5. Sajid Javid 23, 7%
6. Matt Hancock 20, 6%
7. Rory Stewart 19, 6%
8. Andrea Leadsom 11, 4%
9. Mark Harper 10, 3%
10. Esther McVey 9, 3%

So those under 5% get eliminated, leaving seven. The threshold is the 2nd ballot is 10% so only Johnson, Hunt and Gove look sure to make it. Raab might if he picks up a few votes from those who dropped out.

Johnson is looking very good to make the final two. At 36% it is mathematically impossible for him not to make the final two in fact, so long as he holds his 114 votes.

Sir Bob Jones writes:

Trump’s tariffs don’t directly cost China a penny, rather their expense is solely borne by American consumers and paid to their government. As is the nature of all governments dealing with free (other people’s) money, they will waste much of this windfall.
China will bear an indirect cost in presumably selling less goods to Americans, given their tariff-induced reduced spending power. All of this applies equally to Chinese consumers because of China’s counter tariff measures on American imports.
So the question is, who’s the winner? It’s not hard to answer. There are no winners. Obviously Chinese and American consumers are worse off with their reduced spending power, so too both nations’ exporters with their reduced buyer markets. And while the tariff proceeds go into the Chinese and American governments’ pockets, they too are worse off. Why? Because these measures hit economic activity with a consequential reduced tax take and higher welfare outlay. In short they are dumb.

A great explanation of why tariffs are stupid and hurt both countries.

An excellent example is the Warehouse. I’ve long held the view that Stephen Tindall with his Warehouse chain has done more for low-income folk than any other New Zealander. I’m staggered when I study their full-page advertisements and see the incredibly low prices on clothing and other items. Children’s leather shoes for example, at $8. When I was a kid in post-war working-class New Zealand it would have taken my father, a welder, two weeks wages to buy me a pair of shoes. 

I agree – The Warehouse has been excellent for many families.

Much the same can be said about the sale of land to foreigners, particularly those nations, invariably Third World, which naively prohibit foreigners owning their land. Complaints that foreigners are buying up our land is a constant cry.
First , it’s not our land, rather it belongs to one of us and whether owned by a foreigner or a local has no adverse effect on anyone. It remains private property.
Second, foreigners are not Martians; they’re people and do us all a service bringing their cash here. If every farm in the country was sold to a foreigner we’d all be immensely wealthier with such a massive influx of cash which inevitably would feed into the wider community. Meanwhile, exactly as before, we’d indirectly reap the benefits of the farmers’ export earnings.

I wish more people understood this.

In a perfect world there’d be universal free-trade and no restriction on business and land ownership. As I alluded to earlier, the most restrictive countries are invariably the poorest and the wealthiest are the most open. Draw a conclusion.

The link between how free an economy is and how well off people are is very strong.

MSN reports:

A man who molested a child is facing a 10-year jail term, because of the three strikes legislation.
Graeme Rutherford, 63, appeared in the High Court in Wellington this morning and pleaded guilty to one charge of indecently assaulting a child.
His lawyer asked the court to order both a probation report and a psychological report, given the length of sentence her client is facing.
Because this is Rutherford’s third serious offence, he must serve the maximum 10-year sentence, unless the court considers that would be manifestly unjust.

Sadly no doubt the court will once again find no parole to be manifestly unjust. But let’s look at his record.

• 1987 – convicted for indecent assault on a female
• 1989 – convicted for indecent assault on a female
• Strike 1 was in December 2014. He put his hand up the dress of a three year old girl in The Warehouse. Given three months community detention and two years intensive supervision which includes no contact with any under 16 year old. To run from April 2015 to April 2017.
• Strike 2 was in March 2016, while subject to the supervision conditions. He felt up the bottom of an eight year old girl in a playground. Got eight months home detention and again ordered not to associate with anyone under 16

This is an interesting case. The two earlier strikes did not get any jail time. They are arguably at the lower end of the offending scale. However he seems unable to stop himself and is a menace. He ignores court orders to stay away from kids. No amount of courses or counselling seems to be working. And he is offending frequently. I suspect he has had more victims.

We don’t know how serious his offending was for his third strike. It is possible if it is at the lower end, that he shouldn’t get ten years without parole. But the good thing is Three Strikes means his sentence will be for ten years and no parole is possible for at least three years and four months. So there won’t be any more community detention or home detention which has obviously been a total failure with this guy.

Stuff reports:

The dispute between teachers and the Government over pay and work conditions appears to be coming to an end, with union leaders supporting a new offer.  …

This will cost the Government a further $271 million, on top of the $1.2 billion over four years already offered, Hipkins said.

It’s almost comical. Months of insisting there is no more money, and of course the Government caved. This will embolden other unions to strike for even longer, now they know strikes pay off.

Stuff reports:

Screen workers will regain the right to collectively bargain for better pay and conditions, but will remain on as “contractors” and not be allowed to strike as the Government backs down on a full-scale repeal of the Hobbit law.

This is basically a total victory for the film and screen industry. In fact arguably even better than the status quo.

All workers remain contractors which means no strikes etc. But the ability to do a collective contract with contractors is actually beneficial to the film industry as rather than have to go through the hassle of individual negotiations with each contractor, they can just say “Here’s the collective terms and conditions”.

So great to see common sense prevail and the Government turn down the hobbit haters.

There are 10 candidates who have qualified for the caucus vote to be Conservative Party Leader, and hence UK Prime Minister. The top two polling will go through to a membership ballot. The current odds (expressed as percentages) are:

1. Boris Johnson 57%
2. Jeremy Hunt 17%
3. Andrea Leadsom 11%
4. Michael Gove 5%
5. Rory Stewart 2.9%
6. Dominic Raab 2.6%
7. Sajid Javid 2.6%
8. Matthew Hancock 0.8%
9. Esther McVey 0.6%
10. Mark Harper 0.2%

The more I read about Rory Stewart the more I like him.

Anyway voting has started for the first round. A candidate has to get over 5% or 16 votes to make the second round. If they all make 5%, then the lowest one drops out. The 2nd ballot is in five days.

Louis Holbrooke at NZTU writes:

Within the first weeks of becoming leader of the Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern made the call not to defend Metiria Turei’s self-confessed cheating of the welfare system. It was the right move. Workers rightly resent the idea that beneficiaries game the system while others work long shifts, pay secondary tax, and contribute to society with the aim of getting ahead or giving their children a better life.
So it was shameful when in Budget 2019 the Government announced a linking of benefits to average wages. Now, beneficiaries will get payment increases in line with the wage rises that others earned and sacrificed for.
Benefits have already been annually adjusted for inflation: that’s enough to keep up with increases in the cost of living. But last week’s change means beneficiaries will now share the cream of economic growth, automatically, every year – without having to get off the couch.
Treasury estimates the change will cost working taxpayers $320 million in the first four years (that’s $143 per worker), with costs climbing every year after that.
The Government could justify the cost to taxpayers by comparing benefits to superannuation, which has been indexed to wages since 1977, but experts acknowledge that’s increasingly unaffordable and will eventually need reform.
If the Government was consistent with indexation, it would turn its attention to tax brackets. If the top tax bracket was indexed for wages since it was set at $70,000 in 2011, it would now be set at $87,755. Likewise, instead of paying 30 cents on the dollar in tax from $48,000 a year, the second-highest rate would not kick in until $60,000.
In other words, average income earners would be in for significant tax relief.
If that seems too generous, bear in mind that it’s the same principle that now applies to both superannuation and the benefits system. Unfortunately for the taxpayers who fund these programmes, the Government cries poverty when it comes to taxes, refusing to even go so far as to adjust brackets for inflation.
This means that every year, a portion of our income is pushed by inflation into higher tax brackets, meaning we’re taxed harder even though we’re no richer. As a result, in just two or three years the average wage earner will be paying tax in the top 33 percent tax rate – meaning the Government snatches a third of any pay rise or overtime.
Grant Robertson could have used the room in his Wellbeing Budget to treat taxpayers fairly, like superannuants and beneficiaries. Instead, by ignoring the pain of inflation on taxpayers, and boosting benefits, he’s doubling-down on the unfairness of the wealth transfer system.
Labour is now giving its working base a clear message: we’ll keep increasing the penalty for your hard work, and endlessly boost the reward for unemployment. This does not bode well for wellbeing.

Associate Dean of Education at Vic Uni Michael Johnston writes at Stuff:

There is an obvious point of difference between ethnicity and religion in respect of Little’s question. Ethnicity is an element of personal identity; it is something one is, rather than something one believes.

Religions, on the other hand, like political doctrines, are ideologies. It would be especially dangerous to go down the road of protecting ideological beliefs from criticism on the grounds that those holding them might be offended.

Why should it be an offence to criticise Scientology or Catholicism?

The principle of free speech is the bedrock on which free societies are built. It ensures we can, without threat of legal sanction, discuss controversial things in order to sort out good ideas from bad. It is precisely the expression of controversial, and potentially offensive, ideas – not safe or mainstream ones – that the principle of free speech is required to protect.
Viewed in this light, hate speech legislation is simply a euphemistic term for handing to the state the power to determine what is and is not acceptable political discourse. That is just not a power the state ought to have in a democratic society.

Exactly. We already do have some restrictions on speech. But they are to do with inciting violence and hatred etc. Many on the left want laws that will criminalise people for having a different view on a political issues, such as whether or not to have Maori seats.

Stuff reports:

Motorists expecting Wellington’s extra Mt Victoria tunnel to fix their traffic congestion woes might need to think again.
Transport Minister Phil Twyford has revealed the additional tunnel, proposed to ease congestion at the State Highway 1 chokepoint, would be prioritised for buses, cyclists, and pedestrians – rather than private vehicles.

That’s nuts.

You already have a dedicated (one lane) bus tunnel.

I think the strategy of the Government is to make driving as unbearable as possible, to force people to abandon their cars.

Newshub reports:

Housing Minister Phil Twyford is again under fire, only this time he has been accused of trying to hold secret political meetings with his former boss Auckland Mayor Phil Goff.
Twyford failed to disclose the meeting, but was outed by one of own colleagues – Environment Minister David Parker, who also attended the meeting with the former Labour leader.
Twyford met with Goff and Parker on March 2 this year, but he failed to disclose that in his public diary.

And denied any such meeting.

The Housing Minister was asked specifically to hand over any information about the meeting. But he refused the official request, saying, “The information requested does not exist or cannot be found.”
When asked why he refused to release information about that meeting, he told Newshub: “I’m not aware that my office did refuse to release information.”
It was Parker who let slip about the meeting, releasing the emails Twyford’s office refused to release. They show Twyford’s office requesting “a political meeting with no officials”.

So a meeting with no officials, and that he denied ever happened. Remember the most open and transparent Government ever claim!

The meeting was held to discuss Auckland’s urban rural boundary – it’s Government policy to remove the boundary to free up more land for housing.

Which is clearly about a portfolio matter.

Shane Jones has boasted about how the PGF will create 10,000 jobs. We now know that in fact it has been less than 100, and the 10,000 is the total of what the applicants claim will happen if they get given money.

One of the more ludicrous examples of this is the claim that by spending $99,000 on a Kiwifruit Labour Coordinator in the Bay of Plenty, this will create 1,000 extra jobs.

I think the PGF competes with Kiwibuild for the greatest gap between promises and reality.

The Herald reports:

Housing Minister Phil Twyford has revealed the scale of the KiwiBuild reset will be much larger than had previously been anticipated.
Not only is the Government announcing how it will change its approach to the KiwiBuild policy, Twyford this morning revealed that the Government will also be resetting its entire housing building programme.
Speaking at a select committee in Parliament this morning, Twyford said when the KiwiBuild reset is unveiled, it would include a plan to change the Government’s entire building programme.

What they reveal will be very different the what they campaigned at the election on. They spent seven years promising 100,000 affordable homes. It was probably their most well known policy. And they’re junking it after 18 months because they are so incompetent they have only produced 119 homes to date.