Duncan Garner writes:

Hi Iain,

Bet this wasn’t how your Labour mates saw this weekend’s party conference playing out. 

Can’t imagine, Iain, you’ll be dragged up on the stage as ministerial eye-candy either. 

Standing ovation anyone? Iain Lees-Galloway for services to a foreign crook and an unsafer New Zealand.

Actually he might get a standing ovation for that.

Lesson # 1 avoid shafting the guys that help. They’ll only get you back later.

I actually thought throwing them under the bus was weak and bad form.

You are the boss, Iain, you are elected, you get the salary; and they can’t be blamed. It’s called accountability. You needed to ask more questions.

You know you’ve let yourself and your country down.

Iain, why did you even give this jailed drug-smuggler the valuable  prize of New Zealand residency? Just give us one reason.

He didn’t even ask for it. What’s next? A KiwiBuild home for him and maybe one for the Hell’s Angels, his associates.

Don’t give the Government ideas.

I just can’t believe you didn’t stamp his red card with the word “deport”. We’re teeming with recent arrivals and sure don’t need this guy. Even the Parole Board said no to him. I’m struggling to cite a worse decision on matters like this.

And where’s the chief coalition church mouse? Winston used to roar on this sort of issue, but not now.

Winston said he backs the decision!

Did you actually do anything to protect our country when it came to this man? 

Because this week I think you were found guilty yourself, sir. Guilty of incompetence. 

I’m struggling to see how you could have made this decision to allow this serial thug to live among us and incredulously, he must only keep his nose clean for five years. So in six years he’s free to go ape again? 

Come on, Iain, this shocker is now in its seventh day, deport him asap, give your job to someone who gives a toss and don’t bother with Cabinet on Monday. 

They are going to try and blame it on officials. But if they do, then what the officials said will have to come out under the OIA. And I doubt you will find the officials recommended giving him residency.

An interesting analysis of the surveys of NZ secondary school students in 2001,2007 and 2012. This study looks at how Maori youth have done. Some of the positive changes from 2001 to 2012 for Maori youth are:

• Attempted suicide rate down from 11.8% to 6.5%
• Monthly cigarette use down from 27.5% to 10.1%
• Binged drinking in last month down from 51.2% to 32.5%
• Cannabis use down from 34.1% to 14.3%
• Pregnancy rate down from 10.1% to 6.4%

They are pretty large changes. Still too high, but a very good trend.

Stuff reports:

A “bizarre” restriction that allows only ice cream trucks to sell food in residential areas has shut down a start-up’s meal delivery idea.

Fed co-founder and director Becky Erwood​ was surprised to find roaming mobile vendors licences were exclusive to icecream vendors.

Erwood’s plan was to create a Mr Whippy-like community experience where customers could purchase chilled meals minutes before dinner time right outside their doorsteps; but she claims Auckland Council told her only icecream vendors could sell food in residential streets.

What a great business idea. You hear the tune and you go out and buy some chilled meals.

In an email the council’s street trading inspector Karen Sayers said: “The roaming mobile vendors licence is specifically for the mobile ice cream trucks and is not available for any other food businesses to use.

A great example of how ridiculous many regulations are. The Council needs to follow its own rules, but the moment this application was received, they should begin the process of seeking a change to allow it.

Even better a good Council would proactively review its rules and ask why should a mobile licence be restricted to ice cream trucks?

The Herald reports:

Just a handful of “standout” racehorses a year would qualify for Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ $4.8 million tax break, according to the racing industry.

Some are concerned that so few horses would meet the tax deduction threshold and have called for a rethink on what constitutes a “standout yearling”.

According to Budget documents from Treasury, a “standout yearling” is identified by the “virtue of its bloodlines, looks and racing potential”.

The only tax cut from this Government!

In Budget 2018, Peters earmarked $4.8 million over the next four years for tax deductions to be claimed for the costs of high-quality horses acquired with the intention to breed.

To qualify for the tax deduction, the horse would need to be worth at least $402,000 and must have been bought by a New Zealand resident who was a first-time horse breeding investor.

According to data from Karaka horse sales, – the biggest race and breeding horse sale of the year – which was read to MPs at this morning’s Finance and Expenditure select committee, the number of horses that would have met that threshold this year was just two.

Chapman Tripp Partner David Patterson, who was representing the racing bloodstock industry at the committee hearing, said the industry’s concern was that the legislation, as proposed, “may not deliver the intended benefit to the industry.”

He said the number of horses that should qualify for the tax deduction needs to be closer to 20 or 30, not a just a few.

Far better to just abolish the tax deduction so no horse qualifies. We don’t need more corporate welfare for racing.

Stuff reports:

Former politician John Tamihere has been sounding out Auckland councillors as he ponders launching a bid for the mayoralty.

Tamihere told Stuff only one councillor told him they opposed his possible candidacy, and he’d make a final decision in the New Year.

Nine councillors confirmed they had been contacted by Tamihere, but none expressed a view on whether they supported or opposed him.

Tamihere said he had an exploratory committee looking at the viability of a mayoral campaign and whether to run a team of ward candidates.

Tamihere vs Goff would be very interesting.

Goff would dominate in central Auckland. Tamihere would do well in West and South Auckland. So Eastern and Northern Auckland would decide. And while they are both former Labour MPs, I suspect Tamihere would be the lesser of two evils for those residents.

Stuff reports:

Tony from Turangi knows how to hustle a quick buck.

He makes up to $120 a day and is one of a small but growing number of beggars appearing on the streets of Petone.

Although  there have been a number of complaints about beggars, they are an elusive bunch and it takes seven or eight attempts to find Tony. …

One person who agreed with him, was Annabel White from Trade Aid. “I made one fellah a cup of tea and I made a new sign for him because he could not spell.”

The beggars had appeared over the last 18 months and she found they were less aggressive than Greenpeace direct marketers. Every beggar had a story and she believed in treating them with compassion.

I guess people are more likely to give to beggars than the multinational Greenpeace!

The beggars have three favourite spots including Mr Bun, where owner Ana Sor said they did not cause any problems.

A core group of six take turns in front of her shop. She believed they had a home to go to and were making a good living. “They come in and swap big notes for small coins. Sometimes they make $350 a day.”

She had offered them work but they preferred their current lifestyle.

$350 a day funds a pretty good lifestyle!

Chris Trotter writes:

Labour’s flagship housing policy promising first-home-buyers 100,000 affordable dwellings by 2028, is a dog. It started out as a political fix and has yet to mature into coherent policy. Nowhere are Labour’s ambitions for KiwiBuild matched by the resources needed to fulfil them. Worst of all, the people most in need of 100,000 extra dwellings – beneficiaries and the working poor – are not the scheme’s targets. KiwiBuild is a perverse mixture of corporate and middle-class welfare, offering a handsome subsidy to builders and a generous hand-up to young professionals.

A great summary.

Twyford is willing to buy Labour’s promised houses straight off the property developers’ plans. At a stroke, bad financial bets are transformed into sure things. Phil’s happy. The developers are happy. The banks are happy. And the winners of KiwiBuild ballots are over the moon.

About the only people who aren’t happy are those who believe that publicly funded social interventions on the scale of KiwiBuild should be directed first to those most in need. Tragically, however, the Coalition Government is selling the poor a pup.

Kiwibuild is all about helping get votes for Labour, not helping those who most need housing assistance.

More and more info is coming out about Karel Sroubek, whom Labour gifted residency to. Here’s what we now know:

1. Entered NZ with false passport in 2003
2. Arrested with two Hells Angels on aggravated robbery, kidnapping and blackmail charges in 2011, but acquitted
3. Found guilty of passport fraud in 2011
4. Arrested in 2011 for manufacturing drugs. Convicted but later overturned
5. Arrested in 2014 for importing drugs. Jail sentence of 69 months.
6. Parole Board in 2018 refused parole, finding him manifestly untruthful
7. Interpol has an arrest warrant for him, for charges in Czech Republic of disorderly conduct, damaging of another’s property and attack of an law enforcement officer
8. Twice traveled to Czech Republic in 2009, despite claiming he fears for his life if deported there
9. His ex-partner is seeking a restraining order against him

Not only did Lees-Galloway not deport him, but he gave him permanent residency!

The Herald reports:

Auckland-based cryptocurrency startup Vimba says it has landed a $315,000 grant from Crown agency Callaghan Innovation.

“This is a truly significant investment from Callaghan Innovation and a real show of faith in the future of this very exciting asset class,” Vimba CEO Sam Blackmore says.

Vimba’s platform lets its customers save and trade bitcoins.

Good God. Why not just burn some hundred dollar notes.

The Minister (and Associate) of Immigration has discretion in immigration matters. This is generally a good thing as the complexity of individual cases means a non negotiable enforcement of the rules can lead to some unfair outcomes.

There are cases where someone may have lived here for 15 or 20 years, built a business, started a family, and it transpires their paperwork wasn’t in order.

Ministers generally get three types of cases:

1. Easy call to allow to stay
2. Border line calls
3. Easy call to not allow to stay

Now with border line calls, reasonable people may disagree. Sometimes the applicant may get the benefit of the doubt as the impact on NZ by allowing them to stay is minor and the impact on their family by making them leave is major.

The Karel Sroubek case was not a border line call. It may have been when his use of a fake identity was first detected. At that stage he had no criminal record or associations and was running a successful business.

But when Lees-Galloway considered his application he was a convicted criminal, serving a five year term for drug dealing. He was a known gang associate and had been charged twice before for offences.

The Parole Board said he was a liar and the Court of Appeal pretty much said the same also.

This was an easy “no”.

Aspects which make the Minister’s decision even worse are:

• Sroubek it seems didn’t even apply for residency. He just asked not to be deported. For some reason the Minister threw in permanent residency without even being asked!
• The officials (I understand) did not recommend Sroubek be allowed to stay. So this was the Minister’s independent decision.
• He accepted Sroubek’s version of events without asking for any proof or verification. Did he read or ask for the Parole Board decision? the Court of Appeal ruling? Did he ask officials to check if he had travelled back to the Czech Republic (it now emerges he has twice)

This was never a border line call. You may give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant when they have a clean record. But when someone has a serious criminal record, you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Their case has to be over whelming for you to consider not deporting them, let alone gifting them residency.

The approval rating of the incumbent US president has been found to have a significant impact on how people vote in mid term elections. We hear a lot about how low Trump’s rating has been. But the story is not quite that simple. Trump has a low average rating, but his current rating is not far from other US Presidents at the same stage. Let’s look at the last foru presidents:

Trump is at the bottom. He has never been above 50%. He came in under 50% and has stayed there. His ratings have in fact not changed much.

The top line is George W Bush. He was slightly over 50% and then 9/11 had a rallying effect and he shot up to 90% and by the mid terms was still over 65%.

The next line is Obama. Started over 60% but kept declining and at mid terms was 44%, the same as Trump today.

Clinton started in the high 50s, went down and up and down again and at mid terms was around 46%.

So Trump is at where Obama and Clinton were.

Let’s look at the three before that:

The green line is Bush 41. He was around 55% at the mid terms. It was the next two years he went down as economy tanked.

Reagan came in on 51% and went up to 68%. He then declined until at 42% at the mid terms.

Carter came in at 66%, made 75% and then declined, He was at 49% at his mid terms.

So Trump’s rating is not historically low. His average rating is low because he never had a honeymoon.

Still highly likely to lose the House, in line with most mid term downswings. Five Thirty Eight have only a 15% chance they retain control. But for the Senate a 86% chance of keeping a majority.

Stuff reports:

A couple say they face going broke after the council told them to remove all but 12 chairs inside their cafe – or stop operating.  .

Jimmy Fairweather, 34, and Katie Funnell, 28,  bought the Black Rabbit Kitchen & Bar in Bannockburn, on the outskirts of Cromwell in Central Otago, a year ago. 

Fairweather said their dream had turned into a nightmare.

Three days before Labour Weekend the Central Otago District Council emailed the couple, co-owner Matt Crimp, and their landlord, to say they were operating outside the bounds of their resource consent by having seating for more than 12 people inside, and more than 12 people outside.

What a mad restriction? Maximum seating inside for 12 people? What public good is served by such a restriction?

Council staff arrived on Friday morning to check the chairs had been removed, and warned they would be monitored over the weekend. 

Central otago ratepayers paying for them to check no more than 12 chairs are out!

When they were buying the business, no-one disclosed there was a limit of 12 seats inside, he said. Had they known, they would not have gone through with the purchase.

It would be near impossible to be profitable with that restriction.

The couple, who are 30 weeks pregnant with their first child, have turned hordes of customers away, and looked on with embarrassment as patrons stared at chair-less tables. Some customers left. Others chose to stand. Some sat on the ground.

“I am wild about it. It’s ridiculous. All the tables that are here now were here before, and there was seating for about 40 inside and 40 outside when we bought the place.”

The only limit should be based on how many one can comfortably fit in.

More than 2000 people had signed a petition started by a patron in support of the cafe, he said.

“The council have discretion in their enforcement. Why can’t CODC give them a few months to fix the consent, have their baby and give them a fighting chance a keeping the business alive?” 

Stuff asked the council for comment on Friday, but it did not respond. However on October 21, council executive manager of planning and environment Louise van der Voort emailed the couple. She said the petition and “misinformation” about the consent and the position of the neighbours could “antagonise neighbours” and affect their new consent application.

And now the Council is trying to heavy them.

MYOB released:

New Zealand’s small businesses are sounding the alarm as confidence drops sharply in both the economy and their own enterprises, driven by falling revenue and a range of growing pressures.

More than half (53 percent) of the SME business operators surveyed in the latest MYOB Business Monitor Snapshot believe New Zealand’s economy will decline over the next 12 months, with nearly a fifth expecting the economy to contract sharply. Just 27 percent are expecting an improvement in the local economy in 2019.

The response is a significant reversal in confidence from just prior to the 2017 election, when 42 percent of business owners were confident the economy would improve, while 23 per cent predicted a decline.

From +19% to -26%!

Over a quarter (26 percent) of business operators state that their revenue had fallen over the last 12 months, while just 23 per cent saw revenue rise. Forty-seven per cent said their revenue had remained static over the last year. This is the first time since mid-2011 that more businesses have reported revenue falls than gains, and again marks an abrupt turnaround from the previous survey in September 2017, when 37 percent saw their annual revenue increase and just 18 percent reported a fall.

So this is about actual revenue not just sentiment.

by John Stringer

Been sent a copy of the submission by Barry Brill. He’s a former Under-Secretary of Energy and a former president of both the New Zealand Manufacturers Federation and the Electricity Supply Association. So he knows a bit about this area.

Some extracts:

• The apparent purpose of the Bill is to expel the future mining of oil and gas from the New Zealand region. That outcome would contribute nothing to the international goal of reducing global CO2 emissions.
• Everybody interested in climate change policy is familiar with the problem of “carbon leakage”. Every tonne of product that is displaced from New Zealand is certain to mean an additional tonne being produced elsewhere in the world. That substitute source may well have much looser standards against flaring, fugitive gas, spills, etc than New Zealand. The relocation cannot produce any environmental upside but can readily produce downsides.
• Unless and until the industrialised world abandons hydrocarbon fuels, New Zealand will continue to use gas for much of its industrial heat as well as for firming the electricity system. If that gas cannot be produced here and piped through the existing network, it will have to be shipped in the form of LNG. The inherent inefficiency of that transport system will add significantly to the world’s CO2 emissions. Existing assets will be stranded while new resources are unnecessarily redirected.
• Only yesterday, the CEO and Chair of Genesis Energy explained that this Bill would defeat their company’s earlier commitment to remove coal by 2030. In continuing its mission of preventing blackouts in dry years, the Huntly station will have to burn coal or import LNG – if this Bill is passed.
• The policy was apparently agreed at a confidential meeting of three MPs, and then announced. The three authors were unaware that their covert plan was (a) illegal and unenforceable and (b) financially and environmentally disastrous – because all the normal protections for bureaucratic advice were by- passed. No formal consultation was undertaken with the industry or anybody else. The plan was not considered by the cabinet or any other constitutional organ of government. This was the worst example of autocratic and unaccountable governing since the days of “King Dick” Seddon.

• The Minister has further relayed the misinformation that “the world is moving away from fossil fuels”.  Thousands of highly-qualified analysts and policy advisers make a living from studying and projecting the demand curves for oil and gas. Their consensus view is reflected in the official projections of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which has just reiterated its previous official advice that demand is expected to RISE by 2040.
• The Minister also relies upon her impression that MBIE “does not take into account the fast pace at which China and India are cutting emissions”. This foundational belief contrasts strongly with what last week’s Financial Times reported: China’s carbon emissions are on track to rise at their fastest pace in more than seven years during 2018, casting further doubt on the ability of the Paris climate change agreement to curb dangerous greenhouse gas increases, according to a Greenpeace analysis based on Beijing’s own data.

So who do we believe – Megan Woods or the thousands of professional analysts and advisors?

Been sent a copy of the form that all new board members in NZ First have to sign. It shows their paranoia as members have to sign a legal agreement that they can’t get involved in any other political party until three months after the next election.

Guess they are not big on trust.

Board Confidence by David Farrar on Scribd

Mike Hosking writes:

I think we can fairly safely conclude that when you hide behind a pillar on your way to the house so you can avoid the media, you know you’re not having a good week.

And so it was with Iain Lees-Galloway yesterday at Parliament, who has ended up exactly where we said he would, and we said it on Monday.

The urgent review is underway as it was always going to be. The information that’s triggered the review is not new – it’s contradictory.

In other words the info was always out there, and the Government got stitched up, as we said they had been. Iain Lees-Galloway has had so much wool pulled over his eyes you could call him Shrek.

That’s a great analogy. Shrek.

We should all refer to him as Minister Shrek in future. Let it be his new nickname for now and into the future.

The UK version of a charter school is a free school. Mark Lehain looks at how they have gone in the UK:

Yesterday’s GSCE results make fine reading for free school advocates. For the second year running, free schools have come out on top of the tables, and this time they’ve absolutely smashed it.

Looking at the Progress 8 scores – a key assessment measure that captures the progress pupils make from the end of primary school to their GCSEs – free schools were the top performing type of state school, with an average score of 0.24. In layman’s terms this means that their students typically achieved roughly a quarter of a grade higher than expected in each subject.

That’s a huge difference.

Some sceptics have claimed that free schools don’t offer value for money, but these stunning outcomes have been achieved at schools that were, on average, 29 per cent cheaper to build than previous school building programmes. Once opened, free schools receive the same per-pupil funding as any other school, and they’re clearly using it well.

Just like NZ. The difference is the funding flexibility.

Stuff reported:

NZTA regional relationships director Emma Speight said the new two-lane highway would co-exist with the existing State Highway 1 route, and could be extended to four lanes if there was enough demand.

It will connect to the south with the Peka Peka to Ōtaki highway, which is under construction, and the recently-opened Kāpiti expressway between Mackays and Peka Peka.

This is a bad decision. When a lour lane expressway turns into a two-lane highway you get huge delays as they merge.

The spin from the Minister is hilarious:

All the routes will receive four lanes of capacity in total, when combining the improved existing highways with the addition of new two lane highways and urgent safety improvements.

Twyford has outdone himself. He claims the routes have four lanes of capacity if you include two totally separate roads.

This is like claiming there are four lanes of capacity between Wellington and Auckland as there are two on SH1 and two on SH2.

The difference between two and four lanes is immense.

A two lane road means all traffic travels at the speed of the slowest car. A four land road means one lane of traffic can flow at the speed limit.