The Washington Post reports:

The Drudge Report, in big red letters, summed up President Trump’s announcement of a temporary end to the shutdown with three words: “NO WALL FUNDS.” Ann Coulter tweeted, “Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States.”

Ouch, Coulter knows how to burn.

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, who described himself as an “an animated, energetic supporter of this president,” conceded that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “has just whipped the president of the United States.”

Yep Nancy kicked his arse.

Eric Crampton writes:

Every January, Oxfam releases a report on global wealth inequality. This year’s Oxfam report contrasted the drop in wealth held by the less wealthy half of New Zealand with the rise in wealth enjoyed by the two Kiwis who made it on to Forbes‘ 2018 list of billionaires.
The report, and the  Stuff story on it, suggested that New Zealand’s rich have got richer while the poor have got poorer.
But Oxfam’s reports rely on the Credit Suisse annual reports on global wealth, released every October. The actual Credit Suisse figures vary considerably from how Oxfam has presented them.

The data didn’t back Oxfam’s narrative so they ignored half of it. Oxfam is basically a socialist lobbying organisation pretending to be a charity.

Oxfam’s report reached a vastly different conclusion to the underlying Credit Suisse figures because Oxfam ignored half the data in the Credit Suisse report. The contrast between the wealth increase for two Forbesbillionaires and the wealth decline in the Credit Suisse figures was painted as an increase in overall inequality.
But the wealth holdings of two billionaires, in a country of about five million people, really do not tell us much about what is going on overall.
Credit Suisse’s report uses the Gini measure of inequality in wealth holdings. The Gini measure compares everyone with everyone else rather than relying heavily on two billionaires.
Credit Suisse’s figures show that wealth inequality dropped from a Gini figure of 72.3 in 2017 to 70.8 in 2018. New Zealand currently sits between France and Canada – about where you might reasonably expect.
Discussing the report on Newstalk ZB, Oxfam’s Rachael Le Mesurier said “this gap is getting bigger”.
According to Newstalk, “she said the gap had been continuing to grow since the inception of their reports about five years ago”. But the Credit Suisse 2013 wealth report, which would have formed the basis for Oxfam’s 2014 report, had New Zealand’s wealth Gini coefficient at 71.8 – again, less equal than 2018’s figure.

So basically Oxfam lied. Inequality has been shrinking according to the official data. So they ignored it and just focused on two billionaires in the classic politics of envy.

Kate Newton writes:

Voices of younger, poorer and ethnically diverse communities in Auckland are being drowned out by older, wealthier, Pākehā residents, an RNZ investigation has found.
The 26,000 submissions made on Auckland Council’s long-term Auckland Plan 2050 were dominated by Pākehā in particular – even in areas of the city where they are a minority.
The plan, adopted in June last year, sets out six high-level goals for Auckland’s long-term future, including fostering a sense of belonging and participation among every resident.
However, analysis of ethnicity, age and gender data showed three-quarters of submissions on the plan were made by Pākehā, despite Pākehā making up only half the region’s population.

Submissions from people living in local board areas with above-average incomes outnumbered those from poorer areas by two to one.
The overall age of submitters was also significantly older than Auckland’s general population – seven out of 10 submitters were above the median age of 34.

This is an interesting analysis, but it also reinforces why submissions should not be seen as representative of the community.

A great saying is that submissions are for reading, not counting. You consider the points they make, but you don’t just go with the view that is most popular or frequent.

If you really want to know what the community thinks, you do a scientifically representative poll.

The Herald reports:

One of New Zealand’s most high-profile prisoners, who has been behind bars for four decades, will be released.
Arthur William Taylor was granted parole today after being denied 19 times prior. He was due to remain in prison until October 2022.
A New Zealand Parole Board spokesperson told the Herald parole was granted for Taylor at a hearing this afternoon.
His release date will be next month, while a full written decision outlining the Parole Board’s reasons will be available within the next two weeks.

Taylor was serving 17 and a half years for charges of explosives, firearms, kidnapping and conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, among other crimes.
The 62-year-old has more than 150 convictions for offences including bank robbery, burglary, fraud and drugs and has spent almost 40 years behind bars.
His first charge dates back to 1972 when he appeared in the Youth Court on a forgery charge.

Taylor is obviously a very smart man. As a bush lawyer he has won many cases in court around the rights of prisoners etc. He could presumably get a job, when released, such as working for a law firm (not as a lawyer, but legal researcher etc).

I hope he puts his considerable intellect to worthwhile pursuits, and doesn’t end up back in prison.

The Guardian reports:

Alex Salmond, the former first minister of Scotland, has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and two of attempted rape.
Salmond, who appeared at Edinburgh sheriff court for a private hearing on Thursday afternoon, was charged with 14 offences: nine charges of sexual assault, two of attempted rape, two of indecent assault and one of breach of the peace.

Wow, this is huge. There had been complaints of sexual harassment etc, but it was not thought his conduct included alleged criminal acts.

He was Scotland’s Head of Government. This is equivalent to a former Prime Minister being charged with attempted rape and sexual assault.

An interesting OIA find over here. A feminist who is against the changes to the Births Act to allow a change of sex on the birth certificate had been writing op-eds that were published on Scoop. After complaints Scoop not only stopped her contributing further, but deleted all her previous contributions without informing her.

She complained the Media Council. As part of Scoop’s defence the then editor wrote to a Green Party Minister and Under-Secretary asking for assistance with the complaint (which was dismissed).

What is interesting is the editor of a media outlet, asking a Minister and Under-Secretary for help. Scoop is known to be left-leaning but this interaction seems to be something new.

The Herald reports:

Police are investigating a text message, allegedly sent from the phone of National Party MP Sarah Dowie, to her former colleague and ex lover Jami-Lee Ross.
The police investigation is said to focus on whether the text message – which came after the break-up of their extra-marital relationship – constituted an incitement to self-harm, which is punishable by up to three years in prison.
Ross, 33, has previously named Invercargill MP Dowie, 43, as one of the women with whom he had an extra-marital relationship while National MP for Botany.
The text message included the words: “You deserve to die.”

I’m saddened but not surprised the media have named Sarah. The pretext of the Police investigation is just that – a pretext. The idea that a solitary “I hate you and wish you were dead” text message as a relationship broke up could be in breach of the law, is risible. If so, hundreds of thousands of people are probably also criminals.

Merely saying I wish you were dead is not the same as incitement. If there was a pattern of such messages, maybe. But a solitary angry message? Extremely doubtful. The fact the Police haven’t even bothered to interview Sarah Dowie suggests they don’t see this as a issue of prosecution.

The full text message was published on Whale Oil a while ago. It was sent two months before JLR was sectioned, and before the inquiry into Simon Bridge’s expenses leak. It was sent at 2.27 am, never a good time for texting.

The text message is full of hate and loathing, as sadly you often see when a relationship breaks up. In this case, it was more than that as Dowie’s marriage had also ended. People often lash out, in this situation. One may well make judgments on those involved for the relationship in the first place, and disapprove of such a text, but that is a long way from seriously suggesting it breached the law.

I also doubt the story that it was re-reading the text message two months later that led to JLR breaking down. That is all rather too convenient to make him the victim and Dowie the victimiser in all this. One could well argue he saw the old text message and jumped at a chance to make her feel guilty. I don’t know what is the truth, but I’m certainly not going to accept self-serving assertions as fact.

Anyway the worst kept secret in New Zealand is now out. I don’t see any public interest in covering the disintegration of a relationship between two MPs. It was obviously a horrendously painful experience, and they should both be allowed to get on and rebuild their lives.

We also should have great empathy for others who have been harmed by this, and will be suffering. Kids will be reading about their parents, and ex spouses having to cope also. They have my sympathy.

Finally, one interesting item. The Herald story has multiple photos of Ross and Dowie together. They are credited as having been “supplied”. That raises the question as to who supplied them. Pretty easy to guess I’d say.

UPDATE: I’ve been informed that the photos the Herald used were not supplied by anyone, but taken off Facebook and social media. If correct, then describing them as supplied is misleading.

The Herald reports:

Traditional six-monthly school reports to parents may be axed in a revamped school curriculum with more localised teaching topics.
A review group on curriculum, progress and achievement, set up to develop new ideas for primary schools after national standards were abolished in 2017, wants parents to get real-time digital information about their children’s learning instead of traditional reports.
A spokeswoman for Education Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed that he received a report from the review group just before Christmas, but said Hipkins was “still considering the advice”.
However, National Party education spokeswoman Nikki Kaye said she would fight to keep “standardised information” being reported to parents.

Is there any limit to the contempt for parents? First the Government wants to remove parents from any significant say in running the schools their kids go to. Now they don’t want them to get school reports.

Real time digital info is a good idea, but not as a substitute for a regular report that clearly sets out how a student is doing.

The Herald reports:

Any capital gains tax recommended by the Tax Working Group will be judged for fairness by the Taxpayers Union against five measures, including exempting inflationary gains and it being tax neutral overall. …

The union released a report today setting out its five measures of fairness:
• No valuation day – it favours grandfathering assets into a tax regime upon their first sale after the tax takes effect rather than the tax applying to all assets assessed at a certain value from day one.
• Exempting inflation – it says the tax should not apply to the inflationary part of the capital gain on sale, and only to the real capital gain.
• Revenue neutral – any additional revenue from a capital gains tax to fund tax cuts in other areas.
• Roll-over relief – Allowing for the deferral of capital gains tax on inherited assets until the first realised sale after the inheritance.
• Discounted rate of CGT – it favours a rate much lower rate than as suggested in the interim report, at the taxpayer’s highest tax rate.
Jordan Williams said if the Government put forward a reasonable proposal focused on fairness and steady reform, the Taxpayer’s Union would accept a tax shift.
“In contrast, if the Working Group process was just an excuse for aggressive tax hikes, we’ll fight it to the end.”

It will be interesting to see both what the Working Group recommends, and also what the Government decides to try and do.

Many in National will be sad at the passing today of Alan Towers, from pancreatic cancer. He was only in his mid 50s, so got taken far too soon.

Alan was the Northern Regional Chair of the National Party for several years, and also on the Board of Directors.

He was a very popular and gregarious person, who gave massively to the party which was in his DNA. A wonderful drinking companion.

I expect there will be a huge number of MPs and other party members at his funeral next week.

Stuff reports:

The justice minister’s United Nations speech in which National says he “apologised for being a Kiwi” has also been compared to David Cunliffe’s apology for being a man.
Little lead a delegation to New Zealand’s third Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where he said: “It is fair to say the justice system is broken”.

I can’t believe we have a Justice Minister who tells the rest of the world that NZ has a broken justice system. Ministers are now bad mouthing NZ internationally.

National’s Justice spokesman Mark Mitchell likened Little’s speech to ex-Labour leader Cunliffe’s 2014 apology for being a man, where he pledged to invest $60 million to tackle domestic violence.

“Now you have got Little apologising for being a Kiwi,” Mitchell said. He said the minister had “talked-down” the nation.

If Little thinks the justice system is broken, then as the Minister for the last 18 months he should resign.

During his speech, Little explained the Government’s wellbeing approach and achievements such as paid parental leave, the Child Poverty Reduction Act, healthy homes and the child, youth and wellbeing strategy but acknowledged New Zealand must still improve when it came to its broken justice system.
New Zealand had one of the highest incarceration rates per capita in the world and it has risen in recent years, he said.
He said the damaging effects of colonisation were still being felt today with Māori facing “considerable disadvantages and having a disproportionate number of Māori in state care and prison. 
There was no escaping the fact New Zealand had very high levels of family violence and the system was failing NZ women, girls and families, he said.

So Little calls the justice system broken because of high incarceration rates and high levels of family violence.

Using such cherry picked statistics, I reckon every country in the world could find their justice system broken.

The measure of success of a justice system isn’t the number of people in prison, but the number of victims of crime and the severity of the crimes.

Little seems to think the goal of a justice system is to have as few people in prison as possible, rather than having as few victims of crime as possible.

Our justice system is of course far from perfect. I support for example the proposed commission for miscarriages of justice. But I’d say our system measures up very well to most OECD countries. For example:

• A non-corrupt Police force
• Declining crime rate for the last couple of decades
• A huge reduction in youth crime
• A large fall in victims of crime since 2008
• A fall in recidivism

Again far from perfect. But there is a massive difference between imperfect and broken.

A reader writes in:

I think this might be worth a quick blog.
 
https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/content/our-people
 
In fact, of the 13 legal and polocy advisors apparently employed at the Law Commission, 11 are female and just 2 male.  Is this healthy for an organisation that deals with some very important legal and policy issues, which often become law in one form or another?
 
For instance, presently, the Law Commission is working on proposals to change the Property (Relationships) Act in a way that massively change the way pre-relationship and post-relationship acquired property is divided in a separation.  It also proposes an unprecedented, radical change to Trust law that would essentially render Trusts of no value in relationship property matters – the division of property would be assessed essentially as if the Trust did not exist, under their radical proposals.
 
To what degree have these radical proposals been able to gain momentum due to the heavy female representation of the LC’s legal and policy staff?

I think the reader has a fair point. An organisation dealing with such legal and policy issues should be more balanced in terms of gender representation. If it was 85% male, I’m sure it would be criticised for a lack of diversity.

I’ve personally found the work output by the Law Commission to generally be very good. But the area of property relationship law is incredibly controversial and complicated, and you often do see things through your own personal experiences and perspectives. That is why diversity is a good thing.

Radio NZ reports:

More than six months into KiwiBuild, only 33 homes have been built – well short of the 1000 target for its first year of operation.
Mr Twyford told Morning Report it had been tougher to get the number of houses built than was expected.
“I can’t guarantee that [1000 built by July this year]. I think it’s going to be tough to meet that target.”

I’m not sure what he means by tougher than expected. Every person who knew anything about the industry said that their policy was flawed and would not achieve their targets. Nothing which has happened since they went into Government should be a surprise.

The 1,000 target by 1 July is only 1% of their 10 year target and they are well off even that.

In 158 days they would have to build 967 houses.

However, Mr Twyford said if “you’ve got a household income of $100,000, you can afford to buy a home of $650,000”.
“That’s a deposit of $35,000 approximately. You can get $20,000 of that through the government’s homestart subsidy.

Well that is bullshit.

$100,000 happens to be the average household income. This means we also know what the average expenditure is. First take off tax and that leaves $76,000.

Next the household expenditure survey tells us the average household spends $52,000 a year on food, transport, communications etc etc, excluding mortgage or rental costs.

That leaves $24,000 a year for mortgage payments.

A $615,000 mortgage at the maximum term of 30 years and the default assumption of 6% requires weekly repayments of $850. The $100,000 couple can probably afford $500 a week.

This is why some Kiwibuild houses are not being bid for. They are not affordable for someone on $100,000.

Nicholas Kristof at the NYT looks at the good news that rarely gets reported. It includes:

• Around 295,000 people a day gained access to electricity
• Around 305,000 people a day gained access to clean drinking water
• Around 620,000 people a day gained access to the Internet
• Child mortality down from 19% in 1960 to 4%
• Those living in extreme poverty dropped from 44% in 1980s to under 10%
• 86% of all one-year olds are now vaccinated

Very sad news. Rob was one of the smartest and nicest guys you could meet. He started in the press gallery around the time I started at Parliament so I have known him for over 20 years.

He was one of the most policy focused and wonkish journalists around. That is why he was always so good to talk to and deal with. He focused on what was important, rather than the sound byte of the day.

He was only in his 50s, so has left us at far too young an age.

Rob was one of those guys who I doubt you can find someone to say a bad word about. His colleagues, MPs and staffers all liked and respected him.

He will be greatly missed.

Mike Hosking writes:

In the most open honest and transparent Government we have ever seen, just where are the relevant operators to shed light on exactly what’s happened to Barclay and presumably a shed-load of taxpayers’ money, our money?
Was he paid to do nothing? Was he paid out? Why did he quit? Was he pushed? If so, why was he pushed? Why after such a spectacularly short period of time do we not have a boss of the biggest policy the Government has? Given it’s public money, why the silence? Where is the accountability?
One of two things happened, either he didn’t like it, didn’t want it, and couldn’t bail fast enough. Or he wasn’t liked, wasn’t competent, didn’t do the job, and they wanted him out.

Losing your CEO after four months is highly unusual. The public pay the bills so should know what happened.

Here’s the net approval rating of each US President at the two year mark (which occurred this week for Trump). They have a strong correlation to re-election but not absolute. For example Bush 41 went on to lose and Reagan to win. But still very important.

1. Bush 41 +71%
2. Kennedy +56%
3. Eisenhower +53%
4. Truman +40%
5. Johnson +39%
6. Bush 43 +23%
7. Nixon +16%
8. Obama +8%
9. Ford +5%
10. Clinton +2%
11. Carter +2%
12. Reagan -17%
13. Trump -22%

The Herald reports:

A hard, no-deal Brexit could be damaging for New Zealand business, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has acknowledged.
Speaking to reporters in London ahead of a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Ardern agreed that if Britain left the European Union on March 29, which would see it exit with no deal in place, it could “absolutely” be damaging for New Zealand business.
“My job is to highlight and focus on the best interests of New Zealand business … and there’s no question that a no-deal situation would be very damaging and very difficult.”

So Ardern says a no-deal Brexit is a disaster and bad for NZ businesses. I’m not so sure about that incidentially. It would be bad for UK businesses, but if the UK loses preferential access to the EU, then in fact they are more likely to want to import from New Zealand.

But anyway the main thing is our Prime Minister is saying a no deal Brexit is very very bad. So what does our Foreign Minister say:

When asked if he believed New Zealand could go back to a relationship with Britain before the European union was introduced, Peters was optimistic it may actually benefit Kiwi farmers if that did happen.
“I saw opportunities for New Zealand farmers a few years in the farming area because of a consequence of Brexit. The real issue is the outcome was always going to be a hard Brexit, and a soft negotiating one.”

So Winston says hard Brexit will be good, the exact opposite of what the PM says.

Now normally two politicians disagreeing is not a big thing. But time and time again we see the PM and the Foreign Minister saying totally different things on foreign policy – and that is bad.

Jami-Lee Ross writes:

Leaving bitterness and hatred behind
The last time I actively took part in public debate, over three months ago, I found myself at the apex of a mental health crisis that became a life and death situation. My absence from Parliament and the media since then has understandably raised questions. I hope to now answer some of them.
I’ve been to hell and back. I almost lost everything, including my own life. I just can’t be driven by hatred anymore, or the pursuit of getting even with Simon Bridges, Paula Bennett or anyone else in the National Party. Life is too short for that. My time and energy needs to be focussed on doing everything I can for my family, my constituents and my country.
If I could go back in time, my biggest wish is that I could have spared Lucy from this painful experience. She never deserved any of this, and politics is always harder on those loved ones in the background, than on the MPs themselves.
I can’t spare Lucy that pain or take back any hurt I have caused. But what I can do is dedicate myself for however long I have left in public life to making those around me proud of the good work that I can, and will, do.

I wish Jami-Lee well in his focus on doing good work in public life.

David Cormack writes:

We’re getting screwed. We’re getting screwed and it’s dressed up as convenient and fitting in with our lifestyle. We’re getting screwed and it’s so that those with power and money can entrench their power and money while at the same time reduce protections, stability and security for those actually doing the work.
It’s called the “gig economy”, a name to make it sound cool and accessible. “Hey man, want to work for yourself? You don’t have to answer to the man anymore! You just work when you want to and don’t when you don’t.”
Except you also get paid less, you have no worker safety-nets and the workers are doing more and more work for somebody else who does very little but still takes ridiculous amounts of money.

The world’s largest taxi company is Uber. It owns no vehicles. The largest hotel chain is Airbnb, it has no hotels. Largest retailer? Alibaba. It has no stock. Despite these companies owning very little of anything tangible they receive inconceivable amounts of revenue. While the people who do the work – the Uber driver, the Airbnb host – those people are seldom able to live on just that income alone.
There are websites where I can put up a piece of work that I want done and then individuals “bid” on that work, offering me that piece of work for a fixed cost. All this does is create a race to the bottom in terms of what people get paid.
Nearly every service in the “gig economy” offers nothing more than what already exists, but allows some Silicon Valley jerk to clip the ticket while taking zero responsibility.

This is such a misunderstanding of the gig economy, I can’t let it pass.

Let’s look at some of these companies or sites that Cormack sees as offering nothing more than what existed. We’ll look at Uber, Airbnb, Trade Me (our Alibaba) and Builders Crack.

Uber. Customer service before Uber was crap. You couldn’t call a cab through an app. You had no idea if the cab was actually coming or not. You didn’t know which cab was picking you up. You had no idea of the fare. You had no idea of when it would arrive. You had to wait for a call to be answered and hope they got the address right.

Uber improved the customer experience massively. That is why tens of millions use it. Not because it is cheaper. But because it is better. And you get better drivers also as Uber allows you to effortlessly give feedback.

But Uber wasn’t just better for customers. It allowed hundreds of thousands of people to start making money by driving passengers about. In most cities or countries you had to pay shitloads of money to become a taxi driver and you had to work the hours set by a taxi company in the area they assign you to etc. Uber allowed people to earn revenue from their car whether it would be 5 hours a week or 50.

Now AirBnB. Finding a holiday home to stay at previously was a nightmare. You’d have to go to four different websites and search them all. Each site had different search features and criteria. Worse of all most of them didn’t tell you if a place was available so you had to fire off dozens of e-mails. And you couldn’t pay a deposit through them, so couldn’t get an immediate confirmed booking.

AirBnB changed that. They were so successful everyone listed with them. They provided you with much better info on the holiday homes but best of all allowed you to see dates they could be booked and book it online. No more dozens of e-mails. And you could set criteria such as a room in a house or a whole house to yourself.

And for house owners, it has been great also. I stayed at an AirBnB last weekend. It has in fact been a holiday home for rent since 1977. The current owner has owned it for 20 years. I asked if he listed on other sites. He said no. He found the quality of “tenants” through Air BnB much better because of course both owner and tenant can give feedback for ratings which incentivises both sides.

Now Trade Me, our Alibaba. Do I even need to argue it has added value. Who doesn’t use it to buy and sell stuff. We got so many great second hand baby clothes through it. It has saved us thousand of dollars, and also allowed us to easily sell stuff we no longer want.

And Dave Cormack also complained about sites where you can put up work to be done, and people bid to do it. Well one such site is Builders Crack. You describe the job you need doing, and builders tender to do it. You may go with the cheapest, or like me, you also look at their ratings for quality etc. Where once choosing a builder was near blind luck or work of mouth, you can now easily see customer satisfaction and get a reasonable price.

And the builders seem to like it also. For many it is a great source of new customers, who become repeat customers if they do a good job.

Historically you could get a job that would pay you a salary so you have the security of knowing how much you would get every fortnight or month, and that you’d continue to get paid if you fell ill, or wanted a holiday.

And this is Cormack’s real problem with the gig economy. It’s different to how things have been done the last 100 years. But he ignores the massive benefits to both customers and “suppliers” from the gig economy. It has allowed people to succeed, to earn more money, to grow their business, to earn more money.

Sure it doesn’t work for everyone, but painting companies such as Trade Me, Uber and AirBnB as offering nothing beyond what traditionally existed is about as wrong as you can get.