Stuff reports:

Curran stumbled over her answers in Parliament’s debating chamber, as she was forced to admit that Government business was conducted on her personal email. She was not forthcoming with a response about why she used her Gmail account for official business from “time to time”. 

Asked “what Government business has she conducted via her Gmail account”, Curran appeared flustered and claimed she’d answered the question before being told by the Speaker she had to answer it directly – she then required Lee to ask it again. 

Curran answered: “To the best of my recollection, um, ah, ah, I haven’t, um, I haven’t used my, um I’ve answered um OIA, ah, ah, OIA responses and personal, um and parliamentary questions correctly and to the best of my recollection, um, ah, you know, that, that has, that’s what I’ve done.”

Now if you have no idea what Curran said, you are not alone.

That moment when the sign language interpreter has absolutely no idea what Clare Curran is saying. Join the club! #nzpol #NZQT pic.twitter.com/snlSULRYzB

— Christopher Bishop (@cjsbishop) September 5, 2018

Anyway we sort of now know Clare Curran is using Gmail to do official Government business. Is this is a good or a bad thing. I know, let’s ask Clare Curran about it. Stuff reported in 2012:

Labour’s information technology spokeswoman Clare Curran said she was “bemused” to learn the minister was having emails forwarded to a private accounts.

“There are questions to be answered.”

If it was easier for the minister to access a private account when he was overseas, that was an issue that needed to be addressed by Parliament’s information technology department.

But it was concerning if there was another reason, she said.

“What sort of correspondence would be going on between a minister and officials through a private account that wasn’t subject to the Official Information Act?”

So what would 2012 Clare Curran make of 2018 Clare Curran?

Audrey Young writes:

It has been one step forward, and three steps backwards for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as she seeks to establish some momentum for the Government since her return from leave.

Shane Jones, Helen Clark and Meka Whaitiri have all put the brakes on some of that momentum this week in their own ways.

In doing so, they have also allowed Ardern’s critics to portray her as a weak leader.

Don’t forget Curran also.

The revelations by Newsroom back in March about incidents at the boozy summer camp in February have been without a doubt the lowest point at Ardern’s leadership and the only glaring example of weak leadership.

It is still unbelievable that Ardern did not expect her senior party officials to have informed her of the serious allegations, did not publicly admonish officials for failing to do so and did not believe any of the young people’s parents should have been informed.

Comparisons were made at the time – including by me – between Ardern’s expectations and what Helen Clark’s would have been.

Unhelpfully for Ardern, Clark reminded the public this week of those differences in saying heads would have rolled.

Labour’s response to the issue was far far weaker than Russel McVeagh’s.

The Speaker has tabled a report which proposes a massive massive increase in funding for MPs, almost all of it to benefit Government MPs.

We’ve got the Government turning down a 3% pay rise, which is chicken feed compared to the 20% increase in funding that has been proposed for them.

The details will make your blood boil. They overwhelmingly benefit the Government. The major changes proposed are:

• List MPs to get the same funding as Electorate MPs. 34 of the 49 List MPs are Government MPs. It is a huge boost for Labour, Greens and NZ First. It is also wrong as Electorate MPs have far greater demands on them. They represent an actual constituency and need extra staff to deal with all the constituent issues. Many List MPs do very little constituency work, and any extra funding will go on advertising and campaigning.
• Parties won’t lose funding if they lose MPs at an election. At the moment a party gets funded based on their actual number of MPs. Totally sensible. This report proposes a gerrymander where National and Labour get guaranteed 38% of the funding regardless of their number of MPs, and NZ First and Greens get 8% minimum, again regardless of their number of MPs.
• Also outrageous is it proposes Ministers get extra staff. Ministers already get totally funded for their staffing needs through Ministerial Services. And the number of staff is already 13% higher than the last Government. This report proposes each Minister also get an additional staffer funded through The Parliamentary Service. So a huge boost of 30 more staff for the Government. It also may allow Ministers to avoid the OIA by having one of their staff working for The Parliamentary Service instead of Ministerial Services.
• And bad enough this $13 million increase in funding for MPs, but they want to have it get even bigger every year. They recommend an automatic 3.3% to 3.7% increase every year, which means Parliament will be the only public sector organisation that doesn’t have to make a business case to justify extra spending.

This proposal is a huge rort designed to massively increase funding for Government MPs.

And it is the Government that effectively decides whether or not to accept the recommendations.

They will vote to give themselves this massive boost in taxpayer funding, unless the price for doing so is too high. Taxpayers and voters need to demand that the recommendations in the report not be adopted. How dare MPs consider giving themselves 20% more resources when they say there is so little money for schools and hospitals.

So be prepared to make this a real battle. If the Government moves to give themselves 20% more resources, we have to make sure every voter in NZ knows what their priorities are – more money for List MPs.

The Herald editorial:

Perhaps the most concerning facet of the Government’s latest ministerial embarrassment was a comment yesterday from a former Labour Party president, Mike Williams. He told Newstalk ZB the incident reflected a lack of training for those appointed ministers. “I think it’s probably lack of supports,” he said. “Ministerial Services don’t seem to think it’s their job to give these new ministers basic instructions on staffing.”

It certainly should not be the service’s job. It shouldn’t be anyone’s job to give a minister basic instructions in how to manage a small staff. Voters and taxpayers have a right to expect that all of the people a political party offers for election — let alone those chosen to be ministers in a government — possess the personal qualities needed at any level of leadership.

Support and training is given to Ministers. The Cabinet Office and Ministerial Services provide advice and support.

Also traditionally the PMs Office plays a key role. If a Minister is struggling, the PM’s Chief of Staff may arrange for a senior Minister to mentor a junior Minister. Or they may assign more staffing support. Or they may tell the Minister they need to pull their head in.

This is part of being a competent Government.

Some of the MPs promoted to lower ministerial ranks these days are hardly known to the public. Few outside her home region probably knew we had a minister named Meka Whaitiri until Thursday’s announcement of her suspension while an investigation is held into an alleged altercation with a new staff member. But it turns out that before being elected to Parliament from Ikaroa-Rawhiti she was chief executive of the country’s third largest iwi, Ngati Kahungunu, for four years.

That suggests she has some experience in dealing with staff. Nor is she new to the culture of the public service and the Beehive, having been a senior adviser to a previous Minister of Maori Affairs. 

And she is a staunch unionist, which should mean dedicated to being a good employer.

Willie Jackson has blogged a response to my blog post fisking the employment stats he cited on The Nation.

Good on Willie for responding. Nice to see a Minister blogging. But he may have made things worse for himself. Let’s go through his points:

This morning on that great bastion of National Party propaganda, Kiwiblog, David Farrar wrote a very unbalanced and quite frankly sloppy article titled “Willie wrong on almost every stat”.

We can’t stand by and allow this nonsense to go by without a response and it needs to be called out for what it is, which is downright lazy racial stereotyping.

Umm, I’m not sure how pointing out the Minister of Employment has his stats wrong is racial stereotyping, let alone lazy. It took me at least five minutes hard work.

The figures I used on The Nation are correct and I stand by them. I used the recent HLFS survey and compared them to the same point in time as last year, and I used the seasonally adjusted figure, which removes the quarter to quarter volatility that occurs with the figures that David has used.

So Willie has said he didn’t compare the latest figures to the end of the last Government, but to a year ago. That means he was taking credit for the improvements in the third and fourth quarters of 2017.

And he is right that you should use the seasonally adjusted figures. That is what I used, where available. But that means you can compare a June figure to a December figure.

Now let’s look back at exactly what Willie said:

When I came in, into the portfolio, I inherited 4.9 per cent

Now he didn’t say it was 4.9% a year ago.  He said he inherited 4.9%. He didn’t. He inherited 4.5% or if you are generous 4.6%.

Also if I wanted to be picky I would point out that in June 2017 it was 4.8%, not 4.9%.

Farrar has compared the unemployment rate for December 2017 which was 4.5% to the September 2017 figure which was 4.6% and then states as fact there was no drop. Actually had he compared it to the same point as 12 months ago when it was 5.3% as I have done he would see there has been a significant difference. This is the danger when you cherry pick the figures you use.

Yes unemployment did drop from 5.3% in December 2016 4.5% in December 2017. A drop that happened under National. So thanks Willie for highlighting how much unemployment dropped under National and how it has stayed stagnant under Labour.

I am the Employment Minister for all New Zealanders and I stated that as fact, and we are doing tremendous work, but you cannot escape the fact, that Māori, Pacific Islanders and Women are all considerably higher than the general population so of course this Government should be focused on reducing that deficit.

I don’t disagree with that. My post pointed out that the unemployment rates for Maori and PI actually increased in 2018, not decreased. I support Willie in his aim of having them come down. He may find some of his Government’s policies though won’t help his aim.

The Herald reports:

Weeks after Auckland drivers were hit with an 11.5c per litre regional fuel tax, more than half of Aucklanders in a survey said the new charge was a bad idea.

Fifty-seven per cent of the small sample of Aucklanders in the poll done by research firm Ipsos disagreed with the decision to introduce the tax. This was more than double the 22 per cent who supported the tax, while 21 per cent said they didn’t know or neither agreed nor disagreed.

These results mark a collapse in support since a Colmar Brunton poll, done before the tax was introduced, found 52 per cent support among Aucklanders, with 43 per cent opposed.

What Aucklanders say in the polls about the regional fuel tax
Colmar Brunton (released in April, before tax introduced)
• Support: 52%
• Opposition: 43%
Ipsos (poll done in late July, after tax introduced)
• Support: 22%
• Opposed: 57%

You have to be careful comparing polls from different companies which may have had different questions. But when the support falls from 52% to 22%, that is definitely significant.

This graph shows headline petrol prices since 2010. Over the last year the price has gone up over 40 cents a litre. For a 50 litre car that is an extra $20 per tank.

Good news from the latest survey of Year 10 students by ASH.

Since 2001, the following changes:

• Number who have ever smoked gone from 65% to 18%
• Number of regular smokers gone from 25% to 5%
• Number of daily smokers gone from 14% to 2%
• Number of Maori daily smokers gone from 26% to 5%

A lot of the change has been in just the last ten years. The daily Maori smoking rate for Year 10s has gone from 18% to 5% and for all Year 10s from 7% to 2%.

It is very hard to kick smoking once you start. So having fewer kids start smoking is a very good thing.

The Herald reports:

The Housing Minister plans to override Auckland Council and scrap the Unitary Plan in specified parts of Auckland.

The Government wants more houses built, more quickly, and does not trust that the council has the planning processes in place to deliver.

Twyford is probably right.

Housing and Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford discussed the new plans this week in an exclusive interview with the Herald. He said he is taking a proposal to Cabinet “very soon” to change the way key developments are planned.

Twyford plans to establish a new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and in Auckland he will set up an Urban Development Authority (UDA).

An Urban Development Authority has merit. It will be focused on making sure enough houses are built in Auckland.

Stuff reports:

Anonymous benefactors have paid the bill of about $170,000 so Hamilton woman Abby Hartley can be flown back to New Zealand from Bali, where she is in a coma.

National Party leader Simon Bridges said the New Zealanders who paid the invoice for the medical evacuation had approached him in the middle of last week, wanting to help. He contacted Hartley’s husband Richard and, during several conversations, was able to facilitate the payment.

Incredibly generous.

Hartley’s family has also raised $237,602 through a Givealittle page. Bridges said any of that Givealittle money left over would be used to reimburse those people who paid for the medical evacuation.

There was some uncertainty around Givealittle donations, and it took time to collect, Bridges said. Hartley would also be facing significant medical bills.

He wasn’t sure when the mother-of-two would return to New Zealand.

“There are medical issues about when safely and optimally Abby can go,” Bridges said. “I don’t know if that’s going to be sometime this week, or a bit longer.”

With the medical evacuation paid for, it would now only be the medical factors that would determine when she travelled.

Hopefully she can travel soon.

Stuff reports:

Embattled Labour MP Meka Whaitiri will likely not be in Parliament this week, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

Despite the House returning from a two-week break on Tuesday, Ardern said the suspended minister would likely be working from her home constituency office throughout the week.

Whaitiri, who had been the customs minister, was stood down from all of her ministerial positions on Thursday night while an investigation is carried out into an issue between her and a staffer. …

It’s  alleged a physical altercation took place between Whaitiri and a member of her staff, which other media has reported as an assault.

Different sources have offered differing versions of events, but all allege Whaitiri got physical during the confrontation after yelling at the staffer.

The press secretary was a new addition to the office, which Stuff understands has gone through an entire rotation of staff during Whaitiri’s time as minister. …

Ardern said she hoped the investigation would take “in the order of weeks”.

Weeks?

A simple employment investigation should not take weeks.

Did the Minister get physical with her press secretary? Yes/No. If, yes – sack.

If Whaitiri were to leave Parliament, it would spark a by-election in her Māori electorate of Ikaroa-Rawhiti.

It seems some in her caucus already believe she is unlikely to return to the executive, with Labour MP Peeni Henare telling Māori Television’s Te Kāea the situation could be an opportunity for up-and-comers within the party.

“For example, Willow-Jean Prime and Kiritapu Allan, who would make excellent ministers. 

Not a good sign for her when her colleagues are already naming whom they want to replace her.

Newshub reports:

Winston Peters has poured cold water over the Government’s much-lauded plans to double the refugee quota to 1500, which would be a remarkable backdown on a key policy.

His announcement made in Nauru at the opening of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), seems to have taken the Prime Minister by surprise. …

National increased it slightly to 1000 per year in response to the Syrian refugee crisis, and the Government has promised to lift that to 1500 a year – a doubling of the original quota.

Though perhaps no one told Mr Peters.

“We never made a commitment to double the refugee quota,” he said.

That’s not what the Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said in July.

“It is still my intention to see an increase in the refugee quota to 1500,” he said at the time.

He reiterated that just two weeks ago in a press release celebrating Christchurch reopening as a refugee resettlement centre.

He said that would “go some way to help us achieve lifting our refugee quota to 1500 per year in this term of Government” – but Mr Peters is now dampening down that claim.

“We’ve agreed to take it to 1000… but we’ve made no announcement to double it,” he said.

Peters is humiliating Labour and the PM, especially by announcing this at the Pacific Islands Forum.

Radio NZ further report:

This appeared to be news to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

“I would want to check the context of all of those questions [to Mr Peters], but as I’ve said that commitment still remains.”

Ms Ardern said the policy to double the quota was still on the table.

“We haven’t finalised all the details of that commitment, but that remains part of our policy.

“It hasn’t come through cabinet, that’s an accurate representation, but that is still a commitment that we have.”

Mr Peters argued there were other priorities.

“We’ve got 50,000 people who are homeless back home, and I can show you parts of the Hokianga and elsewhere, parts of Northland, with people living in degradation.

“We have to fix their lives up as well before we start taking on new obligations of the level that some people would like.”

It is very clear that the power in the coalition rests with Peters.

It is also very clear that this is not a cohesive Government with an plan for New Zealand. The contradictions appear daily.

The PM is introduced by the CEO of a major bank, and the next day Shane Jones is attacking her bank (and all other banks).

Even worse the PM appoints the CEO of Air NZ to chair her business advisory council, and the same day Shane Jones (a senior Minister) is personally attacking that CEO. What the hell is business meant to think?

The NY Post reports:

President Trump interrupted his Labor Day holiday to launch a raging mid-afternoon tweetstorm at Attorney General Jeff Sessions — apparently blaming him for last month’s indictments of a pair of “very popular” GOP lawmakers.

“Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff,” he wrote, referring to California Rep. Duncan Hunter and New York Rep. Chris Collins, who were both smacked with corruption charges by the feds.

This is almost beyond belief.

Bad enough to have a President publicly attack his own Attorney-General.

But he is attacking him because the Department of Justice is prosecuting politicians for corrupt behaviour.

Trump seems to honestly think that that Department of Justice shouldn’t prosecute corruption if it involves members of his party.

He seems to think the job of Attorney-General is to protect the President, rather than uphold the law of the land and have it apply to all.

For those interested in the details, Hunter is accused of using $250,000 of campaign funds on personal expenses such as vacations in Italy.

Collins is charged with insider trading, with substantive evidence against him.

If the GOP loses those seats, the ones to blame are Collins and Hunter for their conduct. Not the Attorney-General for upholding the law.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has defended having an Air Force Boeing 757 fly back from Nauru after dropping off Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters to collect her and deliver her to the Pacific Islands Forum on the island for one day.

The round trip comes at a cost of $80,000 on fuel alone.

While Peters and a contingent today flew to Nauru, about five-and-a-half hours from New Zealand, Ardern will go on Wednesday for the leaders’ retreat.

The Prime Minister is still breastfeeding her 11-week-old daughter Neve, who does not have immunity to visit an environment such as that on Nauru.

“I spent quite a lot of time deliberating over whether or not I would attend the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru. I analysed all of my options,” Ardern told reporters today.

Ardern made a decision that she would fly to Nauru early on Wednesday, necessitating the return of the 757 to New Zealand to pick her up instead of flying one hour on to the Marshall Islands to await the return flight on Wednesday. …

“The other option was for me not attend at all but, given the importance that we place on the relationships with the Pacific Islands in the reset, that equally didn’t feel like an option.

I think this is reasonable. The Pacific is important to us and having the PM there builds relationships at the top level. With the Australian PM not attending, even more important the NZ PM is there.

$80,000 is a lot of money, but that is part of the cost of governing. Just as it is paying for the Opposition Leader to attend meetings around New Zealand.

If the PM lives in Dipton or Te Kuiti it costs the taxpayer more than if the PM lives in Parnell or Mt Albert. If PM has a baby, it costs more than if they don’t. If the PM is in a wheelchair like Roosevelt, it also costs more. So be it. Who cares.https://t.co/cG13yKd9M0

— Matthew Hooton (@MatthewHootonNZ) September 3, 2018

This is a good way of looking at it.

The current Anglican Church Schism in New Zealand

A guest post by John Stringer (former Anglican pastor).

I attend a Christchurch Anglican church that is 170 years old and was here before my suburb. It’s where Charles Upham double VC is buried in our historic cemetery. For several years I was also an Anglican pastor under license to the Bishop of the Canterbury diocese. I also attend another local non-Anglican church. I suppose I’m a ‘double-dipper.’

The 2018 NZ General Synod of the Anglican church of Aotearoa and Polynesia passed a resolution that same-sex unions are ok and can be blessed by God in Anglican churches. Synod changed the constitution and canons of the church to reflect this. It was largely a pastoral response, to make gay people feel more welcome in the church. It was argued the Anglican church has moved on “doctrine” before (on slavery; on women in ordination; divorcees being able to remarry; etc). The African wing of the church disagrees with the 2018 resolution, as do many Australian bishops. The Maori and Pacifica branches of the Anglican church in NZ also disagree, but abstained from the Synod vote, so the decision was a ‘minority’ one when it passed.

This shocked many conservative parishes in NZ. Parishes around the country have met and conducted a series of informational meetings and invited speakers from both sides to put their case. This was respectful, informed, and dug down deeply in to the issues. There were published notes and commentaries for parishioners to read, study and consult as discussion over many months progressed. Other parishes are happy with the decision; some have ignored the issue altogether.

The resolution also stated that no conservative parish must be forced to conduct same-gender union blessings in their churches, and where vicars leave on an issue of conscience, the new bishop (appointed last week, the Rev Dr Peter Carrell, who supports same-gender blessings but not same-sex marriage) must appoint a like-minded vicar (a tenet of “continuity of theology”). A general principle now reigns in the Anglican church, that there are “two truths” and that Anglicans in NZ “choose to disagree.”

This is a position many cannot accept. Some Australian bishops view it as “apostasy.”

The consequence is, that many NZ vicars have already, or will, resign from the Anglican church of NZ and Polynesia. Some parishes will leave on mass with them to form a new Anglican denomination under the oversight of another bishop (perhaps from Tasmania). If they leave, they must forego their buildings and assets and depart.

Continue reading »

Duncan Garner writes:

The aim of this week was to effectively arrest the narrative back into the positive, to draw a line under, through, around, whichever way works, this winter of concern if not discontent.

How did that go? Disastrous. What a bloody mess  By the end of the week, Labour was further behind than when they’d started out.

I put this down to a few crucial things. 

Labour’s ministers are struggling. Not all of them. They have a handful who get it. The rest are pretenders and threaten the stability of the Government itself. 

They are not match-fit and simply lack the experience or smarts to be players in the big dance. 

Of the 30 Ministers, only around half a dozen are on top of their game.

Jacinda Ardern acted swiftly to stand Whaitiri down, she had no choice. But her lax treatment of Clare Curran was weak and makes her look like a prime minister who is afraid to be too tough on her own. 

As even Helen Clark has effectively pointed out.

Almost a year into this Government I don’t see a plan, I see pockets of progress and hordes of committees.

The Pike River re-entry is a model in how to respect the dead and treat their families with dignity. 

On the flip side, leaving gravely ill Abby Hartley in Bali to battle her insurer to get home looks cold and callous, not compassionate and caring. When did the dollar trump common sense and concern for people so ill.

Not a great week for the Government indeed.

The Press editorial:

But Labour’s internal processes and soul-searching are also important. Following a review, parents of future activists will be pleased to know that new parental consent and alcohol policies will be in place at future Young Labour events. In what should be a no-brainer, “at least one Labour Party representative [will] attend the entire event and be available throughout”.

Actually this is insulting to Young Labour. It’s saying they can’t ever be trusted. Young Nationals have been running events for decades and I’ve never known the senior party to have a representative there to “manage” it. A few may attend because they enjoy it, but the Young Nats are trusted to run events sensibly. The leaders are not 18 and 19 year olds but often people in their mid 20s.

And going forward, perhaps Labour could rethink whether it really needs to make alcohol available at all at youth events that include teenagers, even if the drinking is supervised by party representatives. The party should hope that its ideas and guest speakers are intoxicating enough. 

A rather silly idea. Young people are capable of enjoying alcohol without causing problems. Don’t punish everyone for one mismanaged event.

Stuff reports:

Nine local bodies should know by Christmas whether online voting can be trialled in their elections next year.

The councils are seeking proposals from providers but the big question is whether legislation will be passed in time for the October 2019 poll.

The nine hope to jointly trial online voting alongside the traditional postal poll, with time tight to agree on a system without knowing exactly when Parliament would give the OK.

I hope the Government gives the okay in time.

Online voting doesn’t even need to be a web based system that people worry about hacking over.

You could do it by still posting everyone their ballot paper, and they fill it in manually. But have an option that instead of having to post it in, you can take a photo and e-mail it to the returning officer. They print them out and count them the normal way.

And if you think that is too insecure I have bad news for you. We already allow this in general elections – for overseas voters.

Bjorn Lomberg writes:

Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.

Trying to help 24 million people by imperiling 78 million people’s lives is a very poor policy.

Pretty daft.

Ten years ago, a biofuels craze swept rich countries with the full-throated support of green activists who hailed any shift away from fossil fuels. Food crops were replaced to produce ethanol, and the resulting spike in food prices forced at least 30 million people into poverty and 30 million more into hunger, according to UK charity ActionAid.

Unintended consequences.

Around 800 million people are undernourished today, mostly because of poverty. The single most significant initiative that could be undertaken tomorrow is not a policy that slows the global economy, but one that cuts poverty: a global trade deal.

The Doha free-trade deal was allowed to collapse with just a fraction of the attention given to global climate-change negotiations.

Reviving Doha would lift an extra 145 million people out of poverty by 2030, according to research commissioned by Copenhagen Consensus. It could make the average person in the developing world $1,000 better off every year — allowing them to not only better feed themselves and their children, but also afford better health care, more education and lead more prosperous lives.

Free trade is the best cure for poverty.

The flawed Paris agreement, which is the closest we have to a global scheme, will achieve at best merely 1 percent of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C, according to the UN. It’ll cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually. This is money that can’t be spent improving nutrition, health or education.

$2 trillion a year for a 1% reduction.

My think tank asked 27 top climate economists to explore all the feasible policy responses, and the conclusion was that the best long-term investment is in green energy R&D. For every dollar spent, $11 of climate damages would be avoided.

I have great faith that science will provide the bulk of the solution to climate change.

The latest ANZ business confidence survey has net sentiment down a further 5% to -50%.

The data on firms own indications is a better indicator of the impact on economic growth. They show:

• Net +4% expect to do better in the next year (long term average is +27%)
• Net -5% expect to reduce investment
• Net -6% expect to reduce employment
• Net -17% expect profits to fall

ANZ comment:

But firms have real concerns about industrial relations policy, minimum wage hikes and costs more generally – and particularly about their ability to pass on higher costs and maintain profitability.

Troubles in the construction sector appear to be starting to cause stresses in related firms. And exporting firms will be keeping a nervous eye on signs that global growth has peaked.

It is mixed, to be sure, and we certainly do not expect growth to rocket away any time soon. But nor are we forecasting a painful slowdown.

The fundamentals remain in place for ongoing growth, albeit at a more modest pace – provided we don’t talk ourselves out of it.

The next few months will be key.

Employment Minister Willie Jackson on The Nation said:

So, unemployment – currently 4.5 per cent or thereabouts. Is the government still aiming to get down to 4 per cent in this first term?

Oh, absolutely. That’s always been the goal, and we’re on track. When I came in, into the portfolio, I inherited 4.9 per cent, so I think we’re doing well.

The unemployment rate in December 2017 was 4.5% not 4.9%. Even if you go back to September 2017 it was only 4.6%. So there has been no drop.

What’s driving the drop, do you reckon?
We’re investing in areas that the previous government forgot all about. You know? So when I came in, the employment figures were 4.9 per cent, but the reality was that—
They were on a downward trend, though.
They were on a downward trend, but there’s statistics, and then there’s statistics.

Yes there are the real stats and Willie’s ones.

The unemployment rate dropped in 2017 from 5.3% to 4.5% – a definite downward trend. So far in 2018 it has stayed at 4.5%.

The reality is you know and I know that the stats for Maori, the stats for Pacific Islanders, the stats for women, were terrible, basically.

In December 2017 the stats for PI was 7.7%, it is now 8.8%.

In December 2017 the stats for Maori was 9.0%. It is now 9.4%.

In December 2017 the stats for women was 5.0%. It is now 4.7%.

So the unemployment rates for PI and Maori have increased this year. And the unemployment rate for women is down slightly from 5.0% which is far from terrible.

And so we’ve seen some turnarounds in terms of youth, in terms of NEETs. We’ve taken that from 80,000 down to 72,000, and Maori unemployment has come down, and Maori employment has gone up.

The number of Maori unemployed has gone from 31,600 to 33,200 since 2017.