The Herald reports:

Labour and New Zealand First MPs have voted against a select committee inquiry into Pharmac despite desperate pleas from women with advanced breast cancer.
Malcolm Mulholland, the husband of Wiki Mulholland who has breast cancer, was at Parliament today to hear the outcome of the vote.
He was devastated to learn that Labour MPs had voted against the motion from National MP Michael Woodhouse at the health select committee.
He didn’t know how he was going to tell his wife of 20 years, who was one of a number of women with advanced breast cancer who have made emotional pleas over the past few weeks to the committee to push Pharmac to fund two drugs – Ibrance and Kadcyla – and hold an inquiry into the Government’s drug-buying agency.

“I’m just gutted,” he said.
Struggling to control his emotions, Mulholland read from a prepared statement.
“I’m deeply saddened by today’s decision by Labour not to support an inquiry into Pharmac.
“The result of this decision is that people with advanced cancer, including breast cancer, will die sooner than they should. Why? Because the New Zealand system of funding drugs is broken.”
He said the committee’s chairwoman, Labour MP Louisa Wall, had told him an inquiry into Pharmac would be launched and that all Labour members supported it.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has also said she would not stand in the way of an inquiry if the select committee opted to hold one.

If all the Government MPs voted against an inquiry, it will absolutely be because the Government told them to.

Newshub reports:

Getting his euthanasia Bill to its second reading in Parliament is a big win for David Seymour, according to Newshub’s Political Editor Tova O’Brien.
On Tuesday, the Justice Select Committee reported back on the ACT leader’s End of Life Choice Bill, which would give people the option to request assisted dying if they have a terminal illness or a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”.

As not all committee members agreed it should be passed, all MPs will have a chance to “resolve the broader policy matters” in the House, the committee’s report said.

There is a degree of politics in this. Much of the opposition to the bill was centered around that eligiblity was not just to those who had a terminal illness but also those with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”. Some in the disabled community worried that merely being disabled could mean you are eligible etc.

Supporters of the bill, including the author, were happy to change the bill at select committee to narrow the eligibility. But as I understand it opponents of the bill didn’t want that change made, because it would make opposing the bill more difficult.

Not in politics such tactics are not uncommon. It is how it goes. But people should be aware that if the bill reaches committee of the whole stage, it is highly highly likely to have that eligibility narrowed – something the opponents had been asking for.

Public opinion also seems to be on Ardern and Seymour’s side, with a Newshub-Reid Research poll last year finding 71 percent of people supported the Bill, with 19.5 percent opposed and 9.5 percent unsure.
But the public will have a more official method of expressing their support if Winston Peters has his way.
“If it does pass, and make its way into law, then it goes out to you, the public, because Winston Peters is only pledging his support for this Bill if there is a referendum,” said O’Brien.
“So if it does all pass, and go through in that way, that will be tacked onto the 2020 election.”

As the select committee declined to make substantive changes, the right thing to do is vote for the bill at the second reading, so that the amendments dealing with eligibility and a referendum can be considered by all MPs. Then at third reading MPs can vote on if they are happy with the final bill.

GlobalPower rates all the militaries of the world on 55 factors.

NZ has the 88th most powerful just ahead of Slovenia.

The top ten most powerful are:

1. US
2. Russia
3. China
4. India
5. France
6. Japan
7. South Korea
8. UK
9. Turkey
10. Germany

Nick Smith said:

Stats NZ’s confirmation that the problems with Census 2018 is not just with the record low response rate, but a doubling in the partial response rate compounds the problems for the State Sector, says National’s State Services Spokesperson Nick Smith.

“We now know over 700,000 people or one in seven New Zealanders did not complete Census 2018. 

It is puzzling and bad news that the partial response rate increased so much. I understand why the overall response rate was down (not enough staff to follow up) but why did so many more people start but not complete the census?

“The problems with Census 2018 are so bad that consideration should be given to deferring the electoral boundary changes for 2020 and bringing forward the next Census to 2021.

I’d go a long stronger than say consideration should be given. National should clearly state they will not allow boundaries to be set on the 2018 census data (which they can do by making the Representation Commission inquorate without an Opposition representative).

The Herald reports:

The lawyer for a Kapiti councillor found guilty of indecent assault says the measuring of her client’s penis was a trial tactic that misfired.
David Scott is appealing both his conviction and sentence at the Court of Appeal in Wellington.
Scott was found guilty of indecent assault after he pressed himself against a female Kāpiti Coast District Council employee during a morning tea break in April 2017.
The 72-year-old was fined $1500 for the indecent assault.

During the trial last year, Scott’s penis was measured by a doctor with a wooden ruler to determine if it was the same length as what the victim felt pressing into her.
The measurement was suppressed.

Yes having your penis measured in court is probably a very bad idea as a defence strategy.

But as I understand it, this was a demand made by the defendant’s lawyer, not the prosecution, or the judge, and certainly not the jury!

So hard to see how this becomes grounds for appeal, but of course that is for the Judge to decide.

Crown lawyer at the appeal Simon Barr said none of the disputed decisions were fundamental trial decisions, but were all decisions of trial tactics or strategy.
He said those tactics were used by one of the most senior defence lawyers in Wellington who was well respected across the country.
“This was not a situation where there was a relatively junior trial counsel making decisions, quite the contrary.”

His original lawyer was Mike Antunovic. He is indeed one of the most experienced defence lawyers in NZ, having appeared before the Privy Council and all the courts below it.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported back the Arms Amendment Bill.

Some of the significant changes are:

• An exemption for wild animal or pest control
• An exemption for airsoft and paintball guns
• An exemption for firearms collectors

It is expected to have its second reading, committee stage and third reading this week.

A very good op ed by Masih Alinejad and Roya Hakakian on the hijab:

In an interview for the April issue of Vogue Arabia, Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar said, “To me, the hijab means power, liberation, beauty and resistance.”
As two women who once lived with the mandatory hijab in Iran, we hope to bring another perspective to this complex matter by describing our experiences.
There are two vastly different kinds of hijabs: the democratic hijab, the head covering that a woman chooses to wear, and the tyrannical hijab, the one that a woman is forced to wear.
In the first kind, a woman has agency. She sets the terms of her hijab, appearing as ascetic or as appealing as she wishes. She can also wear makeup and fashionable clothing if she likes.

In the second kind of hijab, the woman has no agency. Where we lived, the terms were set by Iranian government authorities under a mandatory dress code that banned women from wearing makeup in public and forced them to wear a baggy, knee-length garment to fully disguise the shape of their bodies, over a pair of pants and closed-toed shoes.
For a while, the authorities even decreed the colours that women could wear: gray, black, brown or navy.

I like how they distinguish between the democratic hijab and the tyrannical hijab. And that is why having the PM wear a hijab after the terrorist attack was so powerful – she was showing empathy to Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. It was not about the tyrannical hijab, but the democratic one.

We are pleased to see Omar proudly exercise her right to don the hijab. In an era when nativism is rising in the United States and in many other countries, it is important for those who support the values of a pluralistic society to stand up for the rights of their threatened minorities.

In that spirit, we wholeheartedly stand with our Muslim sisters in the West and support their choices.
In return, we ask the global sisterhood to stand with Iranian women as they fight against the mandatory hijab.
We ask that American women support Iran’s most prominent human rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has been sentenced to 38 years in prison and 148 lashes after defending the women who have defied the hijab laws with their peaceful acts of protest.

Disgraceful.

Just as Americans must distinguish between violent radicals and ordinary Muslims to successfully fight the former and honour the rights of the latter, so must they recognise that not all hijabs are created equal.
Omar and other Muslim women who benefit from the freedom that America has bestowed on them are especially well positioned to speak up for women forced into hijab.
By itself, the hijab is a mere piece of cloth. Tyranny turns it into a symbol of oppression. It is democracy, with its embrace of diversity, that turns hijab into an emblem of power or beauty for those who choose to wear it.

I like the part I bolded.

Stuff reports:

A man is accusing Immigration NZ of ageism after an official made a note of the 33-year age gap between him and his Filipina partner.
Wayne Greenwood obtained a document written by an Immigration NZ (INZ) officer that scrutinised the age difference and differing cultures between himself and his fiancée Liza Nofoaiga, whose residence visa application was later declined. 
“Ages of couple matches: No – there is a 33 year age gap,” the staff member wrote in early 2018 in a memo, obtained by Greenwood under the Official Information Act and provided to Stuff.

That’s not ageism. Immigration NZ is not saying that a relationship can’t be genuine if there is a 33 year age gap – just that it is less likely to be so. It is their job to establish if a relationship is genuine, or just an attempt to rort the immigration system.

Nofoaiga’s application was declined in September 2018. Greenwood said he was “gobsmacked” when he saw the internal document, which he described as ageist and discriminatory.
“It’s against everything that this country stands for. We’ve got a big age gap – there’s no two ways about that – but that’s our choice, and if that’s the way [Associate Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi] decided against us, that’s a breach of human rights.”

There is no human right to get residency in New Zealand, if you are not a citizen.

One of the requirements for residence visa applications is that the applicant’s sponsor must not have acted as a sponsor in one previous successful visa application.
Greenwood said that he had successfully sponsored the application of a Chinese woman in 2010, but they had since broken up.
He suspected that INZ believed his new partner was trying to use him to obtain residency, but he said that was unfair: “You cannot assume that.”

They can assume that, especially when it seems that is what his previous “partner” did.

A Reid Research poll commissioned by Business NZ has found:

• Only 23% think CGT should be a priority for the Government and 65% say should not be a priority
• 48% say CGT debate has harmed the Government, with only 33% disagreeing
• Only 32% support a CGT on business and farms with 54% opposed
• 39% support a CGT on property (excluding family home) profits with 50% opposed
• Only 4% support a CGT on KiwiSaver earnings with 90% opposed
• Only 19% support a CGT on shares with 69% opposed
• 25% said a CGT would change how they vote at the next election

Will the Government listen?

Newshub reports:

Supreme Court Justice Sir William Young will chair the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the announcement on Monday, saying the inquiry will start considering evidence from May 13 and report back by December 10.

An excellent choice.

Justice William Young was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1991, to the High Court in 1997, and to the Court of Appeal in January 2004. He became President of the Court of Appeal in February 2006.
Justice Young was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court with effect from 1 July 2010.

He’s been a senior court judge for 22 years. Very widely respected.

I blogged over the weekend the critique by Troy Bowker on the unreliaiblity of the data proponents of a CGT have used to argue it will only affect a few rich pricks.

Dr Cullen has responded with a very political attack on Bowker’s column. Cullen is getting paid $1,000 a day to attack critics! Amazing.

Even more interesting is how much Cullen plays the man, not the ball, and ignores the details Bowker used. Let’s go through his response.

“Troy Bowker’s claims in today’s Business Herald about the reliability of data used by the Tax Working Group lack credibility”, says the Chair of the Group, Sir Michael Cullen.

This ignores the TWG’s own officials included disclaimers about the reliability of the data.

“Boiled down to its essence, his argument rests on one simple point: the data is derived from the Household Economic Survey (HES) which is a sample survey of households.
“Mr Bowker seems to believe a sample size of 8,000 is a small size on which to base conclusions. In fact this is a sample size some eight to ten times that of the main political polls. It has a high degree of accuracy.

Dr Cullen is conflating the overall sample size with the sample size for responses to particular questions. He specifically doesn’t address the fact highlighted by Bowker that 20 of the 50 categories have sampling errors of greater than 20%.

Here’s an example. Let’s say you have 8,000 households in the survey. But only 1% of them are farmers. Then the survey has only 80 responses from farmers so any data about the value of farms is based on 80, not 8,000 responses.

“In so far as it may provide an inaccurate picture around wealth distribution it is likely to be an underestimation of the assets of the very wealthiest, something which does not help Mr Bowker’s case at all.

Dr Cullen gives no basis for his assertion that it is an underestimation. And Bowker in his original column pointed out the survey is based on people’s estimates. They may over or under-estimate.

“Mr Bowker does not help his argument by describing the CGT proposal as a ‘Labour’ one. In fact it comes from a clear majority of the Tax Working Group – a group of experts drawn from a wide variety of views.

Splitting hairs. Labour campaigned on a CGT and appointed a former Labour Finance Minister to chair it. They also appointed the members, knowing what some of their views were. And despite all that the overall CGT was still opposed by three of the members, and many key elements only passed on a narrow 6:5 vote.

“Finally, Mr Bowker continues to argue, like so many speaking for high net wealth individuals, as if only those people are hard working ordinary Kiwis.

Here he plays the man, not the ball, and asserts Bowker is speaking only for high wealth individuals. In fact Bowker was explicitly saying that many hard working Kiwis will be impacted by a CGT, even though they are not wealthy.

“The great advantage of the HES is that it gives us the most complete and available picture of the wealth of all Kiwis – including the many who have little wealth apart from their family home”, Sir Michael said.

But Dr Cullen’s CGT will impact those who have little wealth apart from the family home. If you have a home office you get impacted. If you take more than a year to build your new house you get impacted. If you have a lifestyle block etc etc.

Dr Cullen is effectively being paid $1,000 a day to act as a press secretary for Grant Robertson.

Stuff reports:

Sir Anand Satyanand offered to withdraw as head of the country’s largest ever state inquiry amid worries about a perceived conflict of interest because of his Catholic faith.
Documents obtained by Stuff show Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin rejected the former Governor General’s offer, instead asking him for a plan to combat any risk to the integrity of the Royal Commission into Historical Abuse in State Care and Care in Faith-Based Institutions. 
Child abuse survivors are calling for Satyanand’s resignation offer to be accepted. They say his position risks tainting the inquiry’s credibility – already mired in setbacks.

This is pathetic prejudice. Just as one shouldn’t treat all Muslims the same, it is also bigoted to treat all Catholics the same.

To suggest that someone can’t preside over the Royal Commission because they are Catholic, and some of the abuse happened in Catholic institutions, is nuts. This is defining someone’s entire being, on the basis of their religion.

Sure if Sir Anand had been a member of the clergy or a high official in the church, there might be a conflict. But merely being a Catholic is not a conflict.

Network of Survivors of Abuse in Faith-Based Institutions spokeswoman Liz Tonks said the group had doubts about Satyanand, and any other Catholic commissioner, to be “dispassionate and unbiased”. 

Which is sheer prejudice. It is saying that they believe Satyanand’s religion outweighs everything else and he is incapable of being unbiased. This is a man who was a Judge for 13 years, am Ombudsman for 10 years and Governor-General for five years. But because he is also Catholic that counts for nothing it seems.

A guest post by Andrei Krutskikh, Ambassador at Large of the Russian Federation, Special Presidential Representative for international cooperation in information security:

Against the backdrop of the habitual – even ritual – anti-Russia propaganda, some voices of reason have been heard lately among American experts. Of particular interest in this regard is the recent article by the Daily Beast titled “This Hotline Could Keep the U.S. and Russia from Cyberwar”. No doubt, for the professionals who have closely followed the development of the situation this publication will hardly be an eye-opener. What is important is that the article openly admits that the absence of a depoliticized expert dialogue between Russia and the U.S. on international information security is not only a road to nowhere but also a dangerous course fraught with further misunderstanding and a risk of a large-scale conflict.

Those are not emotional conclusions, but rather plain facts cited by American security officials who have formerly worked or still work at the administration, overseeing the issues of cyber security, i.e. by those who know the situation on the ground and, by virtue of their occupation, are bound to be utterly pragmatic.

If security officials and the expert community in the U.S. actually share this opinion, this is the case when it is hard to argue with the colleagues, even though they are “on the other side of the fence”.

Six years ago, in 2013, we managed to reach agreement on establishing a direct line of communication between Russia and the U.S. in the event of cyber incidents. Basically, the system was modelled on a similar mechanism that had been in place during the Cold War for dealing with traditional military incidents and enables a prompt information exchange at all levels from institutional to political.

Since its establishment, the communication channel has been used, and more than once. In fact, during the Obama administration, we maintained a vibrant dialogue on cyber issues both at the routine technical level and in the format of full-fledged consultations. Physical meetings of experts enabling them to engage in direct discussions on emerging issues were held. Even a special high-level bilateral
working group was established under the Russian-American Presidential Commission.

As for the operation of the “hotlines”, the most vivid example is the address of the American side during the U.S. presidential campaign in autumn 2016, in which the U.S. expressed concerns over the intrusion into its electronic infrastructure. Our response was prompt as usual, and an exchange of the relevant technical information took place. Our National coordination center for computer incidents, which is in charge of the line, as early as last December, announced its readiness to reveal the content of the correspondence to general public, subject to consent of the American side. We sent the relevant proposal to Washington through diplomatic channels early this year. The response was in the negative.

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson offered an exhaustive
explanation on the issue at her briefing last week. For my part, I can only add to this that our proposal to publish the above-mentioned correspondence was an unprecedented step, an example of true transparency, which our partners tend to invoke so often. Russia has nothing to fear – nor do we have anything to conceal.

We are ready to open the correspondence for examination by the general public both in Russia and the U.S., the mass media, and experts, so that they could draw their own conclusions on what really happened. But at the moment, we cannot publish this data because of the refusal of the American side. The pretext for the refusal was the so-called “sensitivity” of the data. It is highly unlikely, however, that any information that is more “sensitive” for the U.S. than for Russia could be found there.

Frankly speaking, this approach rather shows that they unsure of their position, since it would be much harder to disseminate information accusing Russia of “having a hand” in cyber intrusions if true facts were made public.

However this is not the end of this absurd story. We decided to directly address the US audience about the Moscow view on the situation around the “hotlines” and proposed a number of the leading US mass media to publish this article. We told them: we just give you “direct speech” and you comment on it in any way you like. If you don’t like our proposals, if you don’t believe us – put it on paper and let the readers judge.

First, these media showed the interest in the matter, asked us for the details, claimed that they were ready to publish the article. However, then they apparently got a stop light and refused, giving no explanation. They got cold feet maybe.

This is a matter of emotion while we want to be pragmatic. I once again
agree with our U.S. colleagues (Michael Daniel, Chris Painter and Luke
Dembosky), whose opinions were referred to in the article, that it is not enough just to set up emergency hotlines. For them to work effectively there should be a dialogue between those who maintain their day-to-day operation as well as a broader conversation on issues related to international information security.

Officials in Washington often say that, allegedly, there is “not enough trust” for this. The question is why would there be any trust if you keep avoiding any discussion on the matter? We have repeatedly proposed to hold bilateral consultations, but all our proposals have been rejected. At times things get absurd, as a year ago in Geneva, when the U.S. canceled a bilateral meeting two hours before it was supposed to begin, even though the delegations were already there.

One might think that talking face to face seems so appalling to our partners that they would rather transmit their grievances through the media.

However, this issue is beyond routine politics, mutual poking or any subjective factors. Today, just as 50 years ago, we talk about preventing a cyberincident from escalating into a full-scale military conflict between Russia and the United States. If the established emergency “hotlines” bolstered with dialogue between experts stall for political reasons, we will face the risk of another Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time it will be triggered by information and communication technologies, not warheads, and events will unfold in a matter of minutes, leaving little time for both sides to make their decisions. It sounds like a science-fiction film, but actually it has long been our reality.

I want to believe that the U.S. recognizes this as well as Russia does. At
least, the opinions expressed by the U.S. experts provide us with reasons for hope. We also seek the same openness, democracy and constructive dialogue as we cooperate with the U.S. on cyber issues at multilateral fora. This year, two dedicated negotiating mechanisms are expected to be established to deal with international information security: the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG), which all the UN Member States can join, and the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE). It is interesting to note that even though the first one is being established on Russia’s initiative, and the other, de jure, on America’s; in fact, both groups were first proposed and sponsored by Russia, while Western countries were
sceptical about the UN track and took every opportunity to criticise it.

Nonetheless, the reality is that the UN will now have two groups working in parallel, and it is essential that we define today the principles of their interaction.

We do not believe that getting into “gladiator fights” on international
information security is the right option to pursue at the UN. Russia, just like any other state, is interested in ensuring that these groups work in a complementary, non-adversarial, constructive and cooperative manner.
Out of common sense we suggest that it would be best to “share the burden”. According to this plan the OEWG is to focus on major political tasks concerning the majority of the international community: the rules of responsible behavior of states in the information space, confidence-building measures in this field, assistance to developing states and the future format for the negotiations on this matter (a standing committee of the UN General Assembly or Security Council, or some other option).

As for the GGE, it could in its turn address, as a matter of priority, an
equally important, yet more specialized issue of applicability of the existing norms of international law to the information space.

Harmonization of efforts is the second pivotal principle of coexistence of the two groups. Their discussions should be non-politicized and pragmatic, and there should be complementarity rather than competition between their outcomes. The mandate of both the OEWG and the GGE demonstrate that the groups are to address an enormous set of issues, which can only be achieved with constructive engagement of all participants.

I would like to stress that back in November 2018, we offered such plan – a kind of programme of joint actions – to the United States. We suggested, as we had done many times before, that we should meet and discuss these matters. As before, we have not received any reply. There is not much time left before both groups set to work. We can only hope that our partners’ common sense prevails and they will take advantage of this window of opportunity before it closes. We stand ready to engage in the dialogue.

The Herald reports:

Business New Zealand chief executive and Tax Working Group member Kirk Hope says the proposed capital gains tax could cost the economy billions of dollars in compliance costs, administration and lost productivity gains.
Business NZ yesterday released a report that estimates the “economic drag” over the first five years of the proposed CGT regime at between $2.75 billion and $6.81b.
Hope — one of three Tax Working Group members who did not back the capital gains tax proposal — says it is the first serious estimate of costs associated with the proposal.

That’s a huge cost, even if at the lower end of the range.

Compliance includes Valuation Day costs, included in TWG calculations, which the Business NZ report estimates to be worth $800m.
“Based on evidence from Australia, CGT compliance costs could be as high as 16 per cent of tax revenue, we have assumed 10 per cent on the basis that NZ’s CGT is less complex,” Hope said.
Business NZ had not included valuation costs for private businesses as they were not included in TWG calculations, he said.
They could potentially take the real cost of the CGT even higher.

So a conservative estimate.

Stuff reports:

Government Statistician Liz MacPherson is facing contempt of Parliament after being ordered by MPs to produce census information.
In an unusual move, a select committee invoked a standing order compelling Statistics NZ chief executive to produce the number of partial responses were received in Census 2018.
MacPherson was first asked by to provide the answer by the governance and administration select committee during its annual review in February, and again on Wednesday. Both times she declined.
The chief statistician now says she will provide the information – which could further reveal the extent of Census 2018 issues – not on the given April 10 deadline but as part of an announcement promised later in the month.

What part of parliamentary accountability is not understood? Giving information to select committees is not voluntary.

Stats NZ has remained tight-lipped about its efforts to patch up the long overdue Census 2018 results, which failed to count one in ten New Zealanders.
National state services spokesman Dr Nick Smith said the committee unanimously decided such an extraordinary measure was required after MacPherson again refused to answer on the basis it would require “extensive contextual information”.

What nonsense. This sounds like they just want to spin it on their timetable. The request is a simple one – how many responses were there.

“If the chief statistician does not comply with a unanimous select committee to provide a simple answer by next Wednesday she’s effectively giving the fingers to Parliament.”
MacPherson was unavailable for an interview on Friday, but in a statement remained firm that it was not the appropriate time to release the number of partial responses to Census 2018. 
“It is my hope that the committee will appreciate that I have made this determination after careful thought and application of statistical best practice.
“Without the appropriate context, these individual numbers would be open to misinterpretation,” MacPherson said.

As in people might conclude the census failed to get enough responses.

University of Otago professor Andrew Geddis said it was “very unusual” for such an order to be placed on state sector chief executive.
“I can’t remember a time a public servant has refused after being told they must answer.”
If a complaint was taken to the speaker or the House, Macpherson could be forced to apologise or be censured by the privileges committee. 
“That would be a very major escalation. I would expect that the House treat it as contempt.”

The behaviour of Stats NZ in this regard adds to the shaken confidence in the census data. I’ve been forwarded on an e-mail from a Stats NZ staffer which is illuminating:

I work in Stats and I worked on Census in the field ops support. It was the biggest mess imaginable. I was meant to support field officers and was given no training at all on the IT systems used. I could write a book on how horrendous the whole process was. And at the end of Census – the Census general manager was promoted to the position of Deputy Government Statistician!!!

I doubt many MPs will have confidence in using this data to redraw parliamentary boundaries.

UPDATE: To clarify the Privileges Committee is the only committee that has the power to compel information in its own right. Other committees need to ask the Speaker to order the information, if it is not released to them.

The Herald reports:

More than half of the KiwiBuild homes built since the flagship policy started were underway before they were brought into the programme.

No surprise. Kiwibuild is having a minuscule impact on actually increasing the housing supply.

In January, Twyford and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern scrapped the KiwiBuild targets and announced a “recalibration” of the policy.
The Government had previously said it would build 1000 KiwiBuild homes by July 2019, 5000 in 2020, 10,000 the year after, and 12,000 every year after that until 2028.
“[Those] targets have not been a useful way to demonstrate our delivery programme, that’s why the minister is looking at that again,” Ardern said.

When the PM says “not useful” she means “highlights our failure”.

Speaking to The Herald, Twyford said he would be unveiling the new-look KiwiBuild in a few weeks.
But he said the recalibration would not include yearly targets, as it had previously.
“We’re committed to the 100,000 over 10 years – but we won’t be setting a new range of interim targets.

Which means no accountability. Their only target is one so far in the future it is meaningless.

It’s also stupid as the interim targets at least allowed them to have more modest targets at first. Without interim targets people will do what I do, and just divide the ten year target by 10, to get annual targets.

Stuff reports:

Deputy Police Commissioner Wally Haumaha has finally addressed the findings of an employment investigation which found he belittled two women staffers and spread confidential information to try and discredit a third.
In his first in-depth interview since being re-instated to his role late last year, an unrepentant Haumaha refused to apologise over conduct described by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as “clearly inappropriate”.

The irony is the PM personally chose him for the job.

Stuff reports:

After months of criticism over its handling of Wellington’s problematic bus system, a divided Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) has secretly voted to extend the contract of its chief executive.
The council, which manages Metlink public transport services and will play a major role in overhauling the capital’s transport network at part of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project, voted to extend the contract of Greg Campbell by two years to 2021.
It has not publicly disclosed the decision, which was made in late February.

The Regional Council has had the single biggest transport failure of recent times on its watch. And as a reward for this failure they not only extend the contract of the CEO, but they do it in secret and tell nobody.

There is widespread speculation that GWRC chairman Chris Laidlaw used his casting vote in the decision to retain Campbell, suggesting councillors were deeply divided over the issue.
With Lower Hutt ward councillor David Ogden absent from the meeting. the vote was split 6-6. Laidlaw then cast a deciding vote to extend Campbell’s contract, a well-placed source said.

Will they reveal who voted each way, so we can vote them out?

Actually it doesn’t matter. The Council has does such a terrible job with public transport that really the only way to get an effective message across is sack all 12 of them. There’s probably a couple of decent ones in there, but this is not a time to be subtle. Incompetence should have consequences.

Stuff reports:

An Uber-style rideshare trial is running nearly 200 per cent over its projected cost per trip, prompting a local board member to label Auckland Transport “financially irresponsible to continue”.
AT Local, operating in Devonport on Auckland’s North Shore, is an on-demand service aimed at reducing congestion in the harbourside suburb. Residents use an app to request a pick-up by one of five dedicated electric vehicles, which then takes them home or to a nearby ferry wharf.

The residents could of course just use Uber or a taxi or Super Shuttle or numerous transport companies.

“We were originally told that this ride share would be subsidised by $14 per ride,” he said.
“Four months into the trial the figures have come out that the true subsidy to date is $41.48 per ride – it is financially irresponsible for [Auckland Transport] to continue this trial.”

So ratepayers are paying a subsidy of $41 a trip!! A typical Uber trip is around $15 so the level of waste is huge.

“This is a test and learn trial and we are making changes based on public feedback – for instance, we have changed the booking procedure slightly after requests from our customers.
“We have also added more meeting points to reduce the maximum distance anyone has to walk from 250 metres to 200.”

With Uber the maximum you have to walk is around 10 metres. They pick you up from anywhere and deliver you anywhere. So this costs more and is less useful.

Stuff reports:

A former Air New Zealand flight attendant who has made six previous claims about alleged employment issues has had a seventh claim thrown out for being “frivolous and vexatious”.
British citizen Kathleen Milne was a flight attendant for the airline for 32 years. She moved from Australia to take up the job but was dismissed in 2004 because she was medically certified unfit to fly.
Still, about seven years later, in 2011, Milne took Air NZ to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) claiming her dismissal was unjustified. But the ERA found no proof behind her claim.
After six failed claims, including one taken to the Employment Court, Milne’s latest claim was a personal grievance for being separated from her family.

Good God. She lost her job 15 years ago and she’s still pursuing litigation. Really, just get over it.