The Government on Tuesday moved for an extended sitting to be held on Wednesday morning from 9 am to 1 pm. Governments do this because they have so many bills they want to get passed, they need the extra sitting time to do it.

But in another display of incompetence, the extended sitting ended at 10.48 am because no Minister was ready to take a call on one of their bills.

Now this stuff is not rocket science. The Office of the Leader of the House prepares (or did under National) a running sheet that tells the Whips and Ministers when they have to be in the House, and even what to say. It’s just basic scheduling.

This is the second time in 12 months the Government has had a sitting adjourn due to incompetence. I don’t recall this happening even once to a previous Government.

The question it raises is how do you expect the Government can run the country competently, when they seem unable to even run their own parliamentary operations competently.

Richard Harman reports:

POLITIK understands that NZ First wants the right of employers to opt out of MECAs restored.

However, it is apparently prepared to compromise and have the right limited to provincial employers.

Some employers exempted is better than none, but you can’t really have employment law that discriminates based on where your business is located.

One political source told POLITIK that the dispute between Labour and NZ First over this could turn into a real “shit fight”.

Well if NZF roll over, they will struggle even more to make 5%.

In a lengthy and detailed submission to the Select Committee, the Council of Trade Unions said the ability of employers to opt out contravened International Labour Organisation conventions and was partly responsible for the decline in union coverage of workers in New Zealand.

So this isn’t about workers. It is about increasing union membership which in turns increases their finances and allows them to donate more to Labour or campaign for them.

This is why Labour won’t back down.

The Auckland Employers and Manufacturers’ Association in their submission complained that forcing multiple employers into what would in effect be a national award ignored the different characteristics of running a business in regional New Zealand compared with Auckland.

“There are many significant geographical differences within New Zealand, “ their submission said.

“Thus rates and conditions for Auckland are profoundly different to Southland.

“If a MECA was agreed to the employer in Southland would be disadvantaged in having to pay Auckland rates and conditions.

“The cost of running a business in Southland is significantly different from the costs of running a like business in Auckland.

Yep. It punishes smaller employers by forcing them to agree to the same conditions as large employers in large cities.

But if you think this is bad, wait until Labour tries to bring back national awards.

Judith Collins writes:

Unlike Australians, most New Zealanders do not face the annual nightmare of complex income tax returns. When I was Minister of Revenue, I strongly supported the view that the need for tax returns should be rare, not standard.

A capital gains tax is likely to change all that. Capital gains tax is known to require some very complex rules, have high compliance costs, involve filing lengthy tax returns and be very intrusive.

If we have a capital gains tax it should have as few exemptions as possible to minimise compliance costs. But even then it will probably mean hundreds of thousands of people who do their own tax returns will have to now hire an accountant.

The impact on the most vulnerable – those living in rentals could be disastrous.

The rental yield on houses in my electorate is maybe 2 per cent to 3 per cent. That is not an economic return for landlords.

Presumably it is the prospect of capital gains that has let landlords accept such low returns. Yes, tax speculators – the last National Government did that with the two year brightline test. But do not introduce a new tax that increases rents.

We’ve just purchased a new house and had to decide whether to sell or rent out our existing one. As Judith says, the rental return is very small – below the interest you pay on a mortgage. So renting a house out only makes economic sense if you think the capital value will increase.

There are numerous issues like this:

• Will farmers be taxed on the rise in the value of their farms and their livestock?

• Will a small business person be taxed on the sale of the firm on retirement?

• Will iwi face another land confiscation as settlement assets are taxed or will Māori get a special exemption?

• Will the family bach be taxed?

• Will the capital gains tax rate be the same as the normal income tax rates or like almost all comparable countries (such as Australia) will the capital gains tax rate be set at a much lower rate?

• Will amounts left in an estate on death be taxed under the guise of capital gains tax despite election promises not to have an inheritance tax?

All big questions.

A capital gains tax is obviously an internal issue within the Labour Party. David Cunliffe wanted it. Andrew Little was quick to remove it.

To appease Labour’s radical left it has come back to life. 

Time will tell.

Stuff reports:

A voluntary rental warrant of fitness scheme has accredited just three Wellington rentals in its first year, and completed less than 20 inspections. 

But those behind the Wellington City Council scheme don’t consider the low interest a failure, but an example of why a mandatory warrant of fitness (WOF) is required. 

Their dopey scheme is a total failure, and their response is oh lets make it compulsory then.

A very amusing video on how the left calling everyone who disagrees with them racist is a losing strategy.

The Press editorial:

The most feted New Zealand politician of the past week is one who has not been in Parliament for 10 years. While today’s members of Parliament grapple with the everyday compromises, disappointments and rare triumphs of political life, a former leader has taken on a new, Olympian role as an oracle who is above it all. 

Helen Clark’s book of speeches from a life in politics, titled Women Equality Power, was probably timed for the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. Its publication has led to Clark filling concert halls, bookstores and other venues up and down the country. Audiences have enjoyed her stories of determination and her wry commentary on the sexism of politics. 

At a sold-out event in Christchurch, she told former underling turned mayor Lianne Dalziel and a rapt, largely female crowd that “There’s no such thing as a glass ceiling, just a thick layer of men”. 

At times, it has been like seeing a former monarch in exile who believes she was somehow usurped or deposed and even feels under-appreciated. 

That’s a great analogy.

In this narrative, Clark’s failure to win the top job at the United Nations boils down to institutional sexism and an unwillingness to allow a strong leader to make dramatic changes to a stolid organisation, rather than any other personal or historical factors. A New Zealand-made documentary endorsed Clark’s version of events. 

Clark was always a long shot. I actually think she would have done a better job that most of the contenders. But she was from the wrong region, didn’t speak French, and had little support from members of the P5.

In that context, then, Clark’s input into the current travails of the party she once led seem unhelpful at best. Clark has said that she would have handled Labour’s infamous summer camp scandal differently. Under her watch, “people didn’t keep their jobs”, as she reminded us. 

Clark also praised aspects of Ardern’s leadership, including her approach to business confidence, but this clear indication from Clark that she would have expected heads to roll sent a strong signal. It cemented an impression, already developing in the public mind, that Ardern was weak and compromised whereas Clark had been swift and decisive. 

It was not helped by poor timing for Ardern. The reappearance of Clark, and the reminder of her steely resolve, coincided with a series of destabilising problems for the Ardern Government. Should Ardern have been tougher on underperforming minister Clare Curran? What would Clark have done about the allegations against Meka Whaitiri? Would Clark have allowed herself to be embarrassed on Nauru as Ardern was this week? 

It is almost beyond doubt that Clark would have sacked Curran and Whaitiri within days, rather than drag things out for weeks or even months.

And it is unthinkable that Peters would have undermined Clark on refugee policy as he did with Ardern.

As Sir Ray Avery has recently learned, Clark is also a formidable opponent with a ferocious intellect who may be remembered as the most competent and capable prime minister of the MMP era. But she risks being both underemployed and overexposed in her role as a “freelance political advocate”, and nostalgia for the days of Aunty Helen does the Ardern Government few favours.

The prominence of Clark seems to do two things.

For those who liked her, it highlights the weakness of this Labour Government in contrast to Clark’s one.

For those who were sick of her after nine years, it is like a bad acid trip, and makes people more anti Labour.

So Clark’s prominence is hurting Labour on both sides.

Which means we should in fact encourage her to stay as high profile as possible!

The Herald reports:

A vegan cafe owner who was issued an ultimatum to serve cow’s milk has generated 14,000 signatures of support, but will still close shop to walk the length of New Zealand barefoot in protest.

Morgan Redfern-Hardisty roused controversy last week after he revealed the community trust that controls his Cool Beans Cafe in Mangawhai insisted he serve dairy options on the menu.

Redfern-Hardisty had altered his menu on July 27 to exclusively plant-based products, including homemade oat milk for coffee, in an effort to reduce his environmental impact.

But the Mangawhai Activity Zone (MAZ) Charitable Trust that owns the land, premises, and pays all the overheads for Cool Beans Cafe, said amid public complaints he must include some dairy options.

As the Trust owns the land, buildings and pays the overheads, it is really their business, which he managed for them on a profit share.

If he wants to run his own cafe, and carry all the risk, then great luck to him. If he thinks he can make a dairy free cafe work, then he needs to find one where he’ll have sole ownership or control.

Redfern-Hardisty confirmed last week he still plans to end his business this Labour Day, October 22, because he refuses to make the choice between “taste and suffering”.

He did, however, raise questions over the true motives for the pro-dairy menu demands thrust on him, claiming MAZ only cited nine complaints.

Only nine complaints? That’s a lot of complaints, especially considering people would have had to contact MAZ to complain.

I suspect what many didn’t like wasn’t the fact there was no dairy but that he seemed to lecture people on their preferences. If you just had almond milk instead of dairy milk, and didn’t make a bog fuss of it, I doubt many would care. But he was using the cafe as a campaign tool.

“Mangawhai’s surrounded by dairy farms so there’s heaps of suspicion around that,” Redfern-Hardisty said.

“I don’t think the trust has received any donations from dairy money but I don’t know.

Oh please. I really don’t think the dairy industry is worried if one small cafe stops using milk.

“We have been extremely fair and generous and it is squarely his decision not ours that he changed from offering both dairy and vegan additives to coffee for our customers, to vegan only.”

Choice is generally a good thing, If you don’t want to give choice that is fine – but you need to have ownership and control of the business so all the risk is yours.

He says business is up 25 per cent since the menu vegan changes, and he’s had no complaints to his face.

If if it that popular then he should set up his own exclusive cafe. The fact there were no complaints to his face suggests people were intimidated by his zealotry.

Redfern-Hardisty says he plans to walk the length of New Zealand barefoot, along the Te Araroa trail.

He is calling it “the barefoot walk for those who can’t talk” and hopes to raise funds to fight animal cruelty.

So he’s going to walk barefoot the length of New Zealand, because he had to serve milk. Whatever.

The Herald reports:

A Private Member’s Bill sparked by a fatal punch at a Kerikeri pub 15 years ago now has a chance of becoming law.

Northland MP Matt King’s Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill was drawn from the Parliamentary ballot on Thursday, to the envy of fellow MPs who’ve been waiting three terms for a chance to create a new law.

The Bill would create a new offence covering serious assaults causing death, especially a punch to the head known as a ”king hit” or ”coward’s punch”.

So why is this needed?

It was prompted by an assault at Kerikeri’s Homestead Tavern about 15 years ago, when he was working as a police officer, in which a 60-year-old man from Te Tii was punched without warning in the side of the head by a man almost twice his weight. As the victim fell his head struck a bar leaner.

”He never got up,” King said.

So why not just charge them with manslaughter?

King said a new, stand-alone offence was required to send a message about the seriousness of that kind of assault.

He also knew of past cases in which juries had been reluctant to convict an offender of manslaughter even though a death had resulted. A new charge would offer an alternative to juries as well as defence lawyers who wanted to plea-bargain to avoid a trial.

The new charge would carry a maximum sentence of 20 years, placing it between wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (14 years) and manslaughter (life).

That seems a good rationale. If a jury is reluctant to give a manslaughter conviction, then this new offence could fill a useful hole.

However you need to be careful that it doesn’t accidentally result in offenders getting lighter sentences. If someone who would have had a manslaughter conviction gets charged and convicted of this offence, they may end up with a lighter sentence despite killing someone.

Anyone who kills someone in an unprovoked violent assault should face serious jail time.

The Herald reports:

A school fundraiser faces a battle with bureacracy to continue to sell alcohol after a medical officer objected to the event which has been running for 10 years.

The Napier District Licensing Committee will tomorrow hear an objection to plans to sell liquor at a suburban Hawke’s Bay school fundraising event.

The objection has been lodged by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board against an application by Port Ahuriri School to sell liquor over the three-and-a-half hours of its Food and Music Festival in the school grounds on the evening of Friday, November 9.

It will be the fourth year in a row the selling of liquor at the event has been opposed by the board through Medical Officer of Health Dr Rachel Eyre, who argued the consumption of alcohol on school grounds in the presence of children was inappropriate.

The application was not opposed by the police and no concerns have been raised by Napier City Council licensing inspector Darryn Waugh.

Eyre said her view held it was inappropriate to have liquor on school grounds consumed in the presence of minors and this view was shared by Medical Officers of Health throughout the country.

Oh nonsense. It’s a food and music festival. There are problems with alcohol in this country but it isn’t parents having a glass of wine at a festival in front of their kids.

Do these interfering MOHs realise that shock horror most parents drink alcohol at home in front of their kids. Parents have wine with dinner. They have a beer at a bbq.

But this DHB spent God knows how much money preparing 700 pages of objection to this licence application. Hospitals are crying out for more money, and they spent their precious health dollars on this.

The PM was asked about the incorrect transcript at question time. Hansard reports:

Hon Simon Bridges: Who in her office provided the media with an inaccurate transcript of her interview with Chris Lynch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think what the member might be referring to is a request that was made to my office to provide a transcript, which, I should point out, is publicly available. The interview was public. My understanding—I’m advised by my office that in providing that, they didn’t repeat one of the questions from the interviewer. That obviously would have been obvious if the individual who asked had listened to the interview that’s publicly available.

This isn’t correct. The PMs Office proactively contacted me because my blog was based on a Herald story which they said was an inaccurate reflection of the PMs comments, and was being changed. They told me the PM had merely said she was not firing Curran, rather than “her job is safe”.

They offered to send me through a transcript. I said that would be helpful, and they did. I edited my post in fact before I got the transcript, and then added it on.

And the bit that was missing wasn’t an entire question, but part of a question. It showed she wasn’t just asked if she would be firing Curran, but also if she was cutting ties with her.

Hon Simon Bridges: When did she first find out that her office had provided an inaccurate transcript of her interview?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I reject the premise of that question.

Is she saying it wasn’t inaccurate?

I should point out that the PMs Office did apologise to me for the transcript, which was appreciated. In their apology they explicitly say it “wasn’t 100% accurate”.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Prime Minister disputing that a doctored transcript went from her office to media on Friday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is insinuating that my statements weren’t accurately transcribed. My understanding is that the transcript—as so-called—didn’t include the full questioner’s details, rather than my answers. But, again, at the core of this issue is whether or not what I said was publicly available; it was, it was a radio interview.

I think calling it doctored is too harsh, and I haven’t. I do think (as is often the case) it is a stuff up, rather than malice. Someone junior probably typed it up and paraphrased it (there were a number of minor changes plus one significant change) and the senior staff didn’t check or realise it wasn’t a verbatim transcript. I don’t agree with most of the policies of this Government, but I know quite a few staff in the PMs Office and have always had respectful dealings with them.

Newsroom reports:

Former New Zealander of the Year Sir Ray Avery has laid a complaint against Newsroom.co.nz under the Harmful Digital Communications Act over a series of news reports on his background, products and promises.

Avery has told Netsafe, the legal agent for considering complaints under the Act, the reports have caused him serious emotional distress and amount to a form of digital harm – and wants Newsroom to consider removing them and to agree not to write further news stories about him. …

Newsroom co-editor Mark Jennings said: “This action is a misguided attempt to stop journalists highlighting important issues of public interest, by co-opting the harmful digital communications regime to try to keep investigative stories off the internet.

“We don’t believe this is what Parliament had in mind and we will oppose this tactic, on behalf of all news media. The public has a right to know, especially when it is being asked to donate money.”

Researcher and media commentator Gavin Ellis raised the spectre of someone using the Harmful Digital Communications Act to suppress news stories about themselves in his book Complacent Nation in 2016.

“My firm view is that this is a misuse of legislation which, unfortunately, was drafted too loosely to prevent this sort of complaint. I was told when I raised my concerns that the threshold (for accepting complaints) would be set high. This complaint, if accepted by Netsafe, suggests the bar has not been set high enough.”

Ellis, a former editor-in-chief of the New Zealand Herald and chair of the Media Freedom Committee, said complainants over news coverage had other ways of seeking redress. “Ray Avery has other regulatory and legal avenues that he can pursue. If he must, he should use them. This law was designed to curb cyber-bullying, not as an alternative to the New Zealand Media Council.”

I agree that the appropriate avenue for Sir Ray is a complaint to the NZ Media Council rather than using the HDCA.

It was one of the concerns about the HDCA that people may use it to stop stories that are critical of them.

I have no doubt the complaint will be unsuccessful, but it still imposes a cost on media to deal with it.

It does raise an issue about whether Netsafe should automatically accept every complaint, or whether it should decline to try and mediate when they see a case such as this one.

Matthew Hooton writes at RNZ:

Ms Ardern is under fire for the alleged $80,000 cost of her one-and-a-half day trip to Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ retreat and dinner.

More mysteriously, Mr Bridges was attacked for apparently spending a similar amount on land transport for his tour of 70 provincial towns. Newshub judged both matters worthy of leading its 6pm TV news.

Whoever is Prime Minister in some sense personifies New Zealand. We expect them to attend all the most important events from one end of the country to another.

She or he will be rightly criticised if they fail to speak at major industry conferences and award ceremonies, wherever they are held.

They are expected to visit a fair range of schools, hospitals, police stations, community projects, universities, early childhood centres, housing developments, factories, farms, orchards and other businesses to remain in touch with every aspect of the nation’s progress.

Which is why it is petty to criticise their travel expenses, as Labour often did of John Key.

All this comes at a significant cost but it is miniscule compared with the approximately $85 billion of spending the Prime Minister and Cabinet oversee each year.

Moreover, for military aircraft or VIP cars, the “cost” reported in the media is a mere transfer from one government account to another, with the exception of fuel and a bit of wear and tear. From the taxpayers’ perspective, it costs more if the money goes to Avis, Uber or Emirates.

This is a fair point – it tends to be a notional cost. The actual cost to the taxpayer of someone using VIP Transport is basically the petrol.

Part of the criticism of Ms Ardern is that her 757 is making a special trip back to New Zealand to pick her up, on account of her being a breastfeeding mum of a two-and-half-month-old baby.

But, for better or worse, Ms Ardern is our democratically elected Prime Minister and we pay what it takes for her to fulfil her duties, based on her individual circumstances.

This is hardly new. If a Prime Minister lives in Dipton, Ashburton or Te Kuiti, like Bill English, Jenny Shipley and Jim Bolger, their travel costs more than if they live in Parnell or Mt Albert, like John Key, Helen Clark and Ms Ardern.

If we are lucky enough to elect a Franklin Roosevelt as our Prime Minister, he will come with the cost of getting his wheelchair on and off the plane.

A very good defence of the PM’s spending.

Stacey Kirk writes:

In the immediate hours following charges laid by the British Government against two named Russian spies, for the Novichok attack on the streets of Salisbury, New Zealand offered no formal condemnation of the Russian Government. It did come later, once it was asked for.

But it didn’t go unnoticed by the diplomatic community. It was a second offence after the Government was slow off the mark to quash plans to resurrect a Russian free trade deal, in the aftermath of the attack in March. 

Call it diplomacy, or perhaps put it down to the most British of manners, but considerable leeway was given to our Government this week as the UK waited patiently for a second statement to be released. 

“We very much hope that with the full intelligence briefing that the prime minister and deputy prime minister will have had, that they will be able to condemn in unequivocal terms, what has happened,” British Minister of State for Asia & the Pacific Mark Field said. 

“But I fully appreciate and understand there is a great desire for them to see the intelligence that is right and proper in the circumstances.”

Arguably something the minister should not have had to feel the need to say. The Government did condemn the attack once questions were put to them. But again, raised eyebrows where there needn’t be. 

Quite unusual that a British Minister had to publicly prompt our Government before it would publicly state that the Russian state was behind the poisoning.

Since Peters became Foreign Minister there have been half a dozen incidents where we have appeared sympathetic to Putin. Off memory they are:

• Desire to pursue an FTA with Russia
• Said no proof Russia behind downing of Malaysian Airlines flight
• Said no proof Russia interfered in US election
• Didn’t condemn Russia for the poisoning attack in the UK when almost every other Western country did
• Didn’t impose any sanctions on Russia
• Didn’t condemn Russia again when charges laid against Russian GRU agents for the poisoning

Now this is not a coincidence. Every single time there is a public issue about Russia, the NZ Foreign Minister is either on the wrong side of it, or has to be coaxed to get to the same position as the other democratic countries.

Three more columns lamenting the lack of leadership. First Barry Soper:

Politics is a tough business but if you answer questions honestly and in good faith you generally survive relatively unscathed.

And that brings us to the Prime Minister. In answer to a question on Friday morning, whether she was considering cutting ties with Curran, or fire her, Jacinda Ardern said no, she believed the minister had paid the price.

Yeah well the night before she’d accepted her resignation and the perception left from her comment was that Curran was safe.

That doesn’t reflect well on what was clearly obfuscation by Ardern – nor does this whole saga reflect well on her leadership. Curran committed what were two significant strikes, meeting secretly with people who sought to gain from her role in Government, she should have been fired after the first and after the second it was a no-brainer.

Yep.

Her bumbling confession about her use of her private emails to conduct government business simply added to her unsuitability to hold ministerial warrants.

Amazingly Ardern still insists that she had confidence in Curran to continue as a Minister.

Then Mike Hosking:

I assume no one is missing the irony that poor old Clare Curran could see what needed to be done, but her boss once again couldn’t.

And because of that it raises once again the question as to just what, in Ardern’s mind, you have to do to get sacked.

Bash up your press secretary maybe?

Now, in her mind Ardern might well still be sitting there this morning having convinced herself she is right, and we are all wrong. And that some sort of touchy-feely approach to discipline is the modern way.

But it doesn’t add up. You can’t, on one hand, stand there talking about the high standards you expect of your ministers, while on the other hand defending a serial offender and refusing to sack them and offering up excuses about having a bad day at the office.

The two don’t gel.

And Audrey Young joins in:

Jacinda Ardern is as much to blame as Winston Peters for the debacle last week over refugee numbers.

Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister should be admitting to their colleagues at tomorrow’s cabinet that they were equally culpable for creating a perception of Coalition chaos, and they should be looking for way to avoid it.

Peters was largely blamed for contradicting Ardern last week over a commitment to double the refugee quota.

In fact, she contradicted him – although that is a minor point.

He was interviewed first by reporters in Nauru and when the reporter substituted “Labour policy” for “Government policy” as though they were the same thing, like Pavlov’s dog he went into aggressive denial.

That reaction was then misinterpreted as Peters insisting there was no way he would ever in a million years ever agree to a refugee quota of 1500.

And the aggression to a television viewer appeared aimed at Ardern, rather than the press pack he was addressing.

A short time after Peters’ interview, Ardern was asked in Wellington if the Government was committed to doubling the refugee quota to which she foolishly said yes.

They were both unwittingly complicit in setting a trap for the other.

Maybe they should you know talk to each other, as they are meant to be PM and Deputy PM.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she’s “gutted” to learn of the death of New Zealander Abby Hartley in a Bali hospital.

Hartley, 41, was on a second honeymoon when she became ill. She had been in an induced coma in hospital with her family by her bedside. She had been taken to hospital at the start of August. The Hamilton woman died on Sunday.

Her family had asked the Government for help to medevac her back to New Zealand but Ardern ruled out the assistance.

Today the Prime Minister offered her condolences to the Hartley family.

“I learned yesterday, late afternoon, of Abby’s passing. There’s no doubt that this obviously is gutting and including for all the New Zealanders who reached out to support the family,” Ardern said on Radio NZ.

“The money was raised to bring her home and it is incredibly sad that that opportunity just didn’t eventuate.”

Condolences to her family and friends. 41 is far too young to die.

Ardern said help could be provided to Kiwis abroad, but that did not absolve insurers of their obligations to customers.

“When it comes to significant medical events, then that’s when we’re always hoping and seeking the assistance of insurers to support New Zealanders, when there are situations like medevacs,” she told TVNZ.

I agree the state shouldn’t step in to cover people without insurance. However that is exactly what this Government has done in Christchurch. So there is a lack of consistency.

Newshub reports:

Nelson College Headmaster Gary O’Shea dons his black gown and walks on stage to address a sea of students. 1,100 curious faces stare back at him, from fresh-faced new entrants to seniors sprouting stubble. He starts to speak about strength, love, honour and mateship – what it means to be a man.  

“There is this oasis of single sex calm,” he says. “Those personal conversations you can have support them at a really fragile time in their lives. I see strength in that.”

Fewer than 2.5 percent of New Zealand’s schools are boys’ only. But Mr O’Shea believes their students have a significant advantage. A newly-released report, commissioned by the Association of Boys’ Schools of New Zealand, backs him up.

The study, by Victoria University’s senior education lecturer Dr Michael Johnston, compared the performance of young men in Years 11-13 at single sex schools with those at co-educational schools. Examining results from 2013-2015, he found students at boys’ schools were higher achievers, regardless of the school’s decile rating or the students’ ethnicity. Maori students at low decile schools performed significantly better in single sex education.

• In 2015 the median percentage of male school leavers attaining University Entrance was 48% in boys’ schools, versus 28% in co-ed

• In low decile (1-4) boys’ schools 32% gained UE, versus 15% in co-ed

• For Maori in low decile schools, 22.7% gained UE, versus 7.6% in co-ed

So very clear evidence that on average boys do better in single sex schools. Not all boys, but on average.

We know that boys are doing badly in the NZ education system. They do worse than girls at all levels. They leave earlier than girls, and far fewer boys go on to tertiary education.

So surely one solution is to make sure that we have enough single sex boys schools around, so families have that choice available for them.

But off memory there has been no new boys schools for over 20 years. The Government will only agree to new schools that are co-ed. If so, this is wrong. Parents should have the choice of both a co-ed and a single sex school within a reasonable distance. Otherwise I fear boys will overall continue to do badly at school.

The Herald reports:

Labour backbencher Greg O’Connor has received a “stern phone call” from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after criticising her handling of Clare Curran’s resignation.

O’Connor told Heather du Plessis-Allan on NewstalkZB today that Ardern’s handling of Curran’s decision to resign on Friday “could have been done better”.

“Yeah it could have been done better, I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. I’ll tell you what, it will be done better next time,” he said.

So O’Connor said that the handing of the resignation could have been done better. This surely is a self-evident truth. And he gets hauled over the coals for it.

This suggests that the PM thinks her handing of it was perfect and couldn’t be better!

A spokesman for Ardern confirmed that Ardern gave O’Connor “a stern phone call” about his comments tonight.

“She has relayed her disappointment to Greg O’Connor around his remarks, and he has affirmed his support and confidence in the Prime Minister,” the spokesman said.

Rather sensitive.

Modern Girls in Bed was one of the best plays I’ve been to for a long time.

The synopsis is a couple of millenial girls decide to stay in bed forever because life sucks. And they get visited by five famous New Zealand women from the past.

Now on the basis of that summary, you might think it won’t be very good. But in fact a very clever plot and some great acting makes a great production. It has heaps of laughter, lots of drama and some very poignant sadness.

The main actress is Maria Williams as Ally. She is the one who decides to stay in bed forever. Williams makes Ally funny and real with her insistence on peppering every sentence with “absolutely.

Her BFF and “sister” is Petra (played by Isadora Leo). She is less convinced of the wisdom of a bed-in but joins in to support her friend.

The five women from the past quite literally pop up in their bed. You have Katherine Mansfield (Alex Lodge), Kate Sheppard (Amy Tarleton), Heni Pore (Bronwyn Turei), Helen Hitchings (Renée Sheridan) and Akenehi Hei (Maia Diamond).

The interactions with the girls and each other are often funny. Katherine Mansfield flirts with everyone and seems very taken with Helen Hitchings. Kate Sheppard is extremely preachy and a highlight of hilarity is Ally telling her to STFU.

The first half is funny and light hearted. You are wondering a bit though about what it is all about.

The second half provides the answers. Katherine Mansfield, Kate Sheppard and Heni Pore turns into Ally’s aunts. Helen Hitchings her mother and Akenehi Hei becomes a more modern nurse.

Some of the characteristics carry through. For example the self righteous Kate Sheppard is now a Green Party List MP always going on about how hard it is to save everyone.

You become aware of why Ally is really so upset and refusing to come out of bed. You see her relationship with her BFF tested. And you see the struggles of a family facing a terrible challenge.

The all female cast do a great job of bringing their characters alive – the idiosyncrasies of their historical characters and the foibles of their modern characters.

As I said this was one of the best plays I have seen in recent years. It’s on at Circa until 22 September.

Rating: ****1/2

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Winston Peters and Jacinda Ardern are in danger of moving towards a co-prime ministership in all but name.

It won’t be formally described that way. But the New Zealand First leader — who is officially Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister — is demonstrating that he is prepared to go against Ardern if she announces policies that are either not already announced in the Speech from the Throne or are not contained in the coalition and support agreements which Labour signed following last year’s election.

This week’s kerfuffle over how many additional refugees should be allowed into New Zealand was a stark illustration of just how aggressively the NZ First leader will play his hand on such issues.

Right now, Peters has considerable power in the Coalition and is not afraid to use it.

We have a situation now where anything a Minister says can’t be taken as a Government position, unless Winston says so. Up until then, it is merely a ministerial preference!

Stuff reports:

The Tax Working Group is understood to have stopped short of recommending a broad-based capital gains tax, in an interim report due out within days.

The working group chaired by Sir Michael Cullen was tasked with designing a capital gains tax for consideration by the Government, but is expected to push back any firm recommendation to its final report which is due to be published in February.

It had been widely expected that the Tax Working Group (TWG) would recommend a broad-based capital gains tax on the likes of sharemarket and property investments as the centrepiece of tax reforms on which Labour would fight the next election.

However, doubts began creep in earlier this year that the Government would ultimately back the plan, amid concerns the new tax would be unpopular and would cause rents to rise without delivering much in the way of extra revenue for at least a decade.

This will be very interesting.

I’ve heard that in fact a Capital Gains Tax will result in a drop in revenue for the Government in the first few years. So if Labour wants one so they can fund more of their big expensive promises like free tertiary fees, then the CGT won’t help them much.

Paul Drum, chief executive of accounting body CPA Australia, said in a newspaper column that “a close reading of the tea leaves” suggested the “highly important and politicised” issue of the capital gains tax “is probably to be parked for further consultation and input”.

Sir Michael Cullen hinted that was on the money, saying he had “not reacted strongly to that comment”.

So sounds like it is right.

One was that there was “no money” in the medium term for any government from introducing a conventional capital gains tax (CGT) – if it was assumed that house prices and stock markets were close to reaching a plateau.

“The only way to raise any revenues from it would be to tax unrealised gains that have accrued to date. That would be bad policy and suicidal politics.”

Can’t rule out Labour wanting to do it.

The best Capital Gains Tax would be one on all capital gains, including the family home. However it would need to be accompanied by significant cuts in income tax to compensate. And I can’t see Labour ever cutting income tax.

It had been widely reported that NZ has the 2nd lowest business confidence ratings in the OECD.

But I have good news. In the latest stats, we have moved from 2nd to 4th lowest. We are now in 35th place!

But alas the reason we are now 4th lowest, not 2nd, is not that things have got better in NZ.

South Africa has slipped behind New Zealand. Yes if you try and pass a law to confiscate land based on race, without fair compensation, you fall below even NZ in business confidence.

Turkey has also now fallen behind New Zealand. Their economy is collapsing along with their currency, so good to see we are now ahead of them.