Arthur Briggs is a second striker.  He is currently serving a sentence of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment for violently attacking a prison officer, wounding him with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That was Briggs’ second strike offence, which he committed while serving his first strike sentence.

His first strike offence was also for attacking a prison officer, leaving him brain damaged and unable to work again.  The officer had two skull fractures, a fractured eye socket and damage to his right eye and brain. Briggs received a sentence of 10 years, 6 months imprisonment for that violent offending.  He committed his first strike offence while serving a sentence in prison.

Even in court he was violent, smashing into walls and shouting obscenities.

So both strike offences have happened while in jail. Sadly prison officers are at risk from him, but at least the rest of society is protected.

Briggs has nearly 50 criminal convictions, including convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery.  He is a repeat violent offender and has destroyed the life of at least one prison officer doing his job, and violently assaulted many others.  Aged in his mid-30s, he has many years of violence and mayhem ahead of him is he is allowed out in the community early.  Three strikes prevents him being released early by the Parole Board.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want the Parole Board to be able to let him out of prison early, something that doubtlessly will allow him to continue his lengthy criminal career of seriously harming others.

Under Three Strikes, he has to serve his entire 3 years 10 months term of imprisonment, without being released early on parole.  Three Strikes keeps him in prison for an additional two and a half years. Otherwise he would be eligible for parole after just one year and three months.

Arguably the Judiciary should have imposed Preventive Detention on Briggs years ago, but have refused to do so, naively convincing themselves that he can be rehabilitated.

Briggs sadly is almost certain to graduate from a Second Striker to a Third Striker – the only question is will be commit his Third Strike in the community, or in prison?

At least in prison there are guards around who can intervene quickly. In the community the victim may end up dead before anyone can intervene.

John Tamihere writes:

To cap it off, for the first time in decades, Budget 2018 actually took money away from Māori. Te Puni Kokiri loses $3 million of baseline funding over the next four years. No amount of spin by Labour’s 13-strong Māori caucus – five of whom are at theCabinet table – can hide that fact.

13 Maori MPs in Labour and they delivered a funding cut for Vote Maori Development.

Brendan O’Neill at Spiked writes about three things re Rosanne:

1) Her tweet was racist as hell. It wasn’t a joke. It wasn’t ‘un-PC’. It wasn’t a political remark that got a bit too spicy. It was racist. Barr likened Valerie Jarrett, an African-American woman who worked as a political adviser to Obama, to an ape. That is racism. She tweeted: ‘muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj [Valerie Jarrett].’ So she was repeating both an alt-right cesspit internet conspiracy theory – that Jarrett, and probably Obama too, were effectively agents of the Muslim Brotherhood charged with Islamifying America – and also comparing a black woman to a creature from Planet of the Apes. Nuts and nasty all in one. What an idiot.

Yep offensive as hell.

2) ABC is within its rights to cancel shows. This is what has happened to Barr: her recently resurrected sitcom Roseanne has been pulled. The president of ABC Entertainment described Barr’s Twitter comments as ‘abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values’ and said ‘we have decided to cancel her show’. 

Their studio, their decision. But what puzzles me is that different platforms are now saying they refuse to screen episodes already broadcast. That seems a huge over-reaction. Does one tweet really mean an entire TV series can never ever be viewed again?

3) The unrestrained glee with which the liberal media and Twitterati have greeted the cancellation of Roseanne is not about Barr’s comments on Jarrett. Or more accurately, it isn’t only about that. They’re delighted primarily because they hate Barr. They loathe that she is an extraordinarily popular comedienne who bristles at and mocks the liberal elite. She hates Hillary. She has said positive things about Trump, the greatest no-no in LA. And her rebooted show plonked in millions of Americans’ living rooms a working-class family in which the matriarch – Roseanne – voted for Trump and, worse, likes him because he ‘talked about jobs’, as she said in the opening episode that got 18million viewers.

A good analysis.

The Herald reports:

An overhaul of the Holidays Act is planned to make it simpler and prevent confusion which left thousands of workers shortchanged on annual leave and some government departments and employers with large bills for historic underpayments.

Workplace Relations Minister Iain Lees-Galloway announced a joint taskforce of Business NZ, the Council of Trade Unions and the Government to review the law, with recommended changes expected in a year’s time.

There have been calls for an overhaul from both business and the unions after confusion around the calculation of holiday pay caught out several government departments and private companies and meant some workers were not given what they were due. …

Lees-Galloway said the 15-year-old law which sets minimum entitlements for holiday, sick and bereavement pay needed reviewing to ensure it was fit for the modern workforce. It catered to a nine-to-five working day, which was no longer as common. “It can be very challenging to work out exactly what people’s entitlements are when they work what would traditionally be called irregular hours, but which these days are a normal part of working life.”

The current law is a nightmare. It is overly complicated.

There are basically two areas to it – annual leave/holiday pay and public holidays.

For annual leave it gets very complicated working out how much leave is due, and at what pay rate as meant to be average of the last year.

I’d set annual leave as the following:

• A week’s annual leave is deemed equal to 2% of hours so an employee with four weeks entitlement is 8% and five weeks 10%.
• The amount of leave earned is simply 8% (for four weeks) of the hours worked. So for every 100 hours worked you earn 8 hours annual leave. Simple and easy.
• The rate at which the leave is paid is the current ordinary pay rate of the employee. Far too difficult to work out average hourly rate for the last year. It will actually favour employees to use current pay rate as the current rate tends to be higher than the average
• No need to technically wait a year before you can use annual leave. The moment you get a positive balance, you can use it (subject to employer agreeing the dates are suitable)

For public holidays I’d be tempted to do similar. The current law is you only get paid if you are rostered on those days, but some people don’t always work the same day of the week. Also a bit harsh on say people who work Tuesdays to Thursdays and get almost no public holidays while those who do Mondays and Fridays get most of them.

So for public holidays why not just make it all employees get 1/250th of their earnings for the last year on each public holiday. So if you have earned $50,000 in the last year you get $200 extra pay on a public holiday. Obviously if you work that day also, then you get paid for that work also.

Basically the law should be something that small employers can cope with, and that payroll software can easily calculate.

Stuff reports:

A wide-sweeping review of New Zealand’s public health system will consider new funding arrangements and whether the District Health Board system “helps or hinders” the provision of healthcare. 

Health Minister David Clark announced the review and the appointment of long-time Labour operative and former Helen Clark confidant, Heatheer Simpson, to spearhead it. 

This is a huge conflict of interest.

Simpson is certainly well qualified in the health area. But she is currently employed in the Prime Minister’s Office. She also happens to be Jacinda Ardern’s former boss in Clark’s office.

You can’t have a member of the PM’s Office in charge of a major review. It’s the opposite of independent.

This is number 2 is what will be a long series.

Billy Matara is a second striker.  He attempted to murder a man by shooting him with a shotgun. The victim was lucky to survive.  That was Matara’s second strike offence.

Ironically the attempted murder took place at a hostel for prisoner rehabilitation!

His first strike was an aggravated robbery in which he and another offender terrorised a shopkeeper in their antique shop.  He committed his first strike offence while on bail.

Matara has 129 criminal convictions.  He is a very dangerous man and a hard-core recidivist offender.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Andrew Little want him out of prison early to continue his lengthy criminal career of seriously harming others.

Under Three Strikes, he has to serve his entire 10 years, 2 months term of imprisonment, without being released early on parole.  Three Strikes keeps him in prison until at least July 2026.

Without Three Strikes he would be eligible for parole after just 3 years, 4 months imprisonment – around September next year – almost 7 years less than under Three Strikes.  The sentencing Judge suggested that without Three Strikes, a minimum term of 40% – or 4 years – would have been imposed.  That’s only 6 months more than the bare minimum!

How many more victims will he create in those extra 7 years he gets to be out in the community? Does anyone think he is going to stop at offence no. 130?

Stuff reports:

A legal strategist wants to see Auckland’s North Shore split away from the rest of the country and establish its own independent city state with a separate economy.

Miriam Clements ran for North Shore MP in the 2017 general election with policies of low tax and high government spending, is initiating a citizen’s referendum on the idea, which she believes will gain support.

What is a legal strategist? Someone who wants to be a lawyer but isn’t?

And anyone else see the problem of proposing low taxes and high spending?

“I believe people on the North Shore have the confidence to try something like this. Functionally, it [the North Shore] has huge potential to become a luxury travel destination.”

This would make the area, which according to the 2013 Census is home to 300,000 people, an independent country functioning in a similar manner to Monaco or Singapore.

Yep the North Shore is just like Monaco.

Meanwhile, Clements also has a High Court judicial review proceeding against the New Zealand Government for its use of the “chemical weapon” 1080, something she believes is capable of causing Mycoplasma bovis.

One can also believe the Earth is flat. Both seem as likely.

Ms Clements is also a self declared candidate for UN Secretary-General.

Tony Randle has set up a blog about Wellington commuting. He is a data expert who goes through detailed accounts and info on public transport spending.

In his first post he highlights how GWRC has saved $18.6 million on bus contracts but instead of lowering fares, they’ve used it on rail which had a $17.9 million blow out.

In his second post he calculates that 9% of bus fare revenue is used to subsidise rail fares. User fares are meant to cover 55% to 60% of the costs of a service. But rail users are paying just under 50% of their costs and bus users over 59%. So GWRC will be breaching their own policies.

The real scandal is nowhere have they been upfront on this. Randle has had to go the Ombudsman to get the data released.

In his third post he exposes how GRWC reclassified $9.5 million of rail capital expenditure as operating expenditure to justify fare increases.

The combination of the three posts show that GWRC has a lot to answer for. Local territorial authorities and media should be holding them to account.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Application of “manifestly unjust” exception a constitutional outrage

On 22 May, I sat among the grieving family members of Aroha Kerehoma, listening to the appalling injuries inflicted on her by third strike murderer Dylan Davis. What the family members heard – judging by their comments and questions of me – was to them an incomprehensible judicial farce.

Whenever “life without parole” was mentioned during what was a lengthy sentencing, family members would say “YES” in  a loud stage whisper. Sadly it was  obvious to me fairly early on that LWOP would  not in fact be imposed. Whenever  Davison started on a “however….” section, a woman I later learned was Aroha’s auntie would lean forward to me, the white guy in a suit muttering to himself, and say “What does he mean Boss?” The family members had no way of knowing that Davis would eventually escape his fate due to judgments made in a superior court almost three years ago.

I mean no disrespect to Justice Davison, and the family seemed to understand what I explained to them: that Davison’s  hands were largely tied by the Court of Appeal, which  misinterpreted both the meaning and intent of the “manifestly unjust” proviso to the three strikes (3S) law relating to murder.

The “unless it is manifestly unjust” out clause was insisted on by National as its price for agreeing to support the 3S law in the first place – without that, we would not have a 3S law at all. That notwithstanding, I now feel something of a dupe for recommending to the ACT caucus that we agree to it. It was intended to be something that was very rarely used; we never envisaged it being applied in every case  of murder – all eight of them – which have now  come before the court as a second or third strike.

I agreed to the insertion of the “manifestly unjust” proviso for the sound lawyerly reason that the phrase had been used before – most notably in s.102 (1) of the Sentencing Act  (s.102 deals with  the presumption of life imprisonment in cases of murder). Sub-section (1)  allows a Judge to depart from the presumption of life imprisonment  “ if a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust”. To my knowledge, the proviso to s.102 has only been resorted to only a handful of  times in the hundreds of cases of murder since the Sentencing Act came into force in 2002.

As far as I am aware, the proviso to s.102 has been used only  in cases where a spouse, often an elderly husband,  has killed a much loved wife who was suffering from a painful terminal disease; in other words, a mercy killing or euthanasia. There may be other cases; if so one of my brethren at the criminal bar will correct me.

In the Court of Appeal case which constrained Justice Davison, the court not only  re-wrote the meaning of “manifestly unjust”, and explicitly said that a different meaning must prevail when applied in  3S murder cases, but inserted the crucial words “…or grossly disproportionate” into the definition – words parliament never intended to be part of the law. Something the Judges would have known if they had referred to Hansard, which they carefully refrained from doing.

In fact it is even worse than that. I spoke at every stage of  3S  passing through parliament, and numerous times during the Committee of the Whole stage.  The issue of the “disproportionality” of 3S sentences was raised numerous times by the Labour Party; it was raised and responded to  so often I wondered if they were simpletons.

I made it clear that disproportionality was the whole point of the 3S regime; it was intended  that consequences get exponentially worse for repeat offenders.  At no stage did any of the National Party speakers on the  Bill  suggest that “…or grossly disproportionate” ought to be explicitly added to, or implicitly understood to be included in, the “manifestly unjust” proviso.

The Judges of the Court of Appeal have  not only thwarted the clear will of parliament, but have inserted words into a definition that are not there, and were never intended to be there. In my view, this is nothing less than a constitutional outrage, and if it were occurring regarding a law passed by a government of  the left, there would be loud protests in the street.

Our constitution is very clear: the laws are made on one side of Molesworth Street, in parliament, and ultimately applied on the other side of the street in the Court of Appeal. Because the Judges of the Court of Appeal don’t like the 3S regime, they have rewritten it. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

In this third part, Sir Roger looks at what the outcomes of his policy prescription would be:

1. Retirement Debt

A. – 30 billion dollars (indexed) gross savings each year stops the rot and ultimately solves New Zealand social welfare problem.
B. – Net savings offsets growth in debt from year one and starts to offset existing debt within 10 years.
C. – By year 2060 savings for future welfare spending exceed $600 billion (offsetting much of the debt owed to retired).
D. – Government financial accounts now mirror what the private sector has to do.
E. – New Zealand no longer going broke.

2. Fiscal Position

A. – A small surplus ½% of GDP year one instead of a deficit of 3.4% of GDP today.
B. – A turnaround year one of 3½% of GDP (9 billion dollars).
C. – Fiscal position improves year-on-year to be 20 billion dollars better off in 20 years’ time., relative to where it will be under today’s policy.

3. Government – Government budgets are now fully funded for future
welfare commitments (health and superannuation).

4. Productivity – Lower taxes, savings, lower debt, competition and
individual decision-making will all add to productivity improvements over time.

5. Inequality

A. – The turnaround in inequality starts day one.
B. – Individuals in work will have savings of $6,240 (super and $11,960 gross for health and risk). Double this for two income families.
C. – A 20 year old today who worked every year until retirement would most
likely retire with $1 million+ (super), plus $100,000-$200,000 in their health account.
D. – Compared to savings of almost nothing today.

6. Institutions

A. – Educational choice and an education tax credit available for every child whose family would like one.
B. – In retirement, New Zealanders would receive not only the existing pension but a lump sum super and health savings account.
C. – Health – Choice and competition have largely solved the waiting list and staffing problems while efficiency has improved as it did with all SOEs.
D. – Welfare has improved as self-provision/decision-making have largely removed dependency.

7. Power – Has been moved away from politicians and transferred
back to individual New Zealanders who now spend their own money.
– Politicians’ role is to act as regulator and insurer of last
resort.

8. Con Game – Politicians no longer take your money from you – you
save your own money $18,200 a year plus interest earned and buy your own insurance cover or pay directly for the services you wish to buy.

9. Politicians – No longer able to create dependency in order to
win votes,
– They no longer spend your money, you do.

10. Privilege – Government handouts amounting to $7-8 billion have
been removed and that is a large part of the reason why a 20-year old will retire with a million dollars in their pocket, a 40-year old $400,000+ in their super and health fund accounts.

11. Taxation – Low – no tax on first $52,000 of income ($65,000 single
income families) and 24c on income above $52,000. No
bracket creep.

12. Incentives – Improved low marginal tax rates.
– Huge rewards in the system if you stay healthy, and stay
in a job.

13. Capture – No longer possible when New Zealanders have choice and
there is competition in the social service marketplace (instead of compulsory government delivery).

14. Resource Distribution – Distribution of social services will be determined by individual New Zealander’s purchasing decisions, not politicians’ decision-making or provider capture.

15. Housing and Infrastructure – 3 billion dollars of government investment (via savings accounts) along with regulatory changes will, over a 10 year period, help solve today’s disastrous housing and infrastructure situation.

Newshub reports:

The three strikes law will be repealed in two weeks, Newshub can reveal – and Justice Minister will also push for sentences shorter than two years to be served as home detention. 

This comes after Newshub Nation obtained a dossier of documents that gives the biggest insight yet into radical plans to overhaul the justice system.

The Government is preparing to soften bail, sentencing and parole laws, and Newshub can reveal it’s already discussing how to reassure the public in the event of a high-profile crime.

From a partisan point of view I should be pleased. Government MPs are so out of touch with the average New Zealander on these issues that their moves will significantly increase their chances of losing the next election.

But it would come at a terrible cost. Families will be destroyed by their policies as more violent crims are let out early to rape, bash and kill more New Zealanders.

As much as the political side of me would like to see them repeal the laws and suffer the electoral consequences, the price is too high too pay. We need to stop these law changes.

The type of crime they’re referring to could include the November 2011 murder of teenager Christie Marceau by Ashkay Chand while he was on bail. 

At the time of the fatal stabbing, Chand was on bail charged with kidnapping and threatening to rape Ms Marceau just months earlier. He later pleaded guilty to those charges and received a three-year sentence.

Far too many crimes are still being committed by those on bail or parole.

The three strikes law has actually seen reoffending rates drop for those convicted of a first strike. The answer to over crowded prisons is not to let violent criminals with a high risk of reoffending out early. The answer is to reduce the reoffending rate.

CNBC reports:

Oil prices look set to temporarily hit $90 a barrel during the first half of next year, if not sooner, and risk spiking to as much as $100 a barrel, depending on geopolitical events and other factors, say Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts.

But they do not see an immediate major jump in prices. For this year, they forecast an average price of $70 a barrel for Brent crude, the international benchmark. They forecast $75 for next year. Their previous forecast was $60.

Prices could climb significantly next year, however. The analysts have a target of $90 a barrel during the second quarter of 2019, with a risk it could go to $100 a barrel. Futures on Brent were trading as high as $78 Thursday.

The price of oil per barrel was as low as $30 a barrel three years ago.  It is now forecast to exceed $90 a barrel.

So obviously a great time to stop any local exploration, so that we have to import more from overseas.

The Birkenhead Primary School Newsletter promotes the Labour campaign launch:

This Sunday Jacinda Ardern and Shanan Halbert will launch Labour’s campaign for the Northcote by election. All local  families are invited. Date: Sunday 13 May; Time: 2:30pm to 4:30pm Location: Birkenhead Primary School hall.

In addition to speeches by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Labour Candidate for Northcote Shanan Halbert, the launch will feature performances from local school children  that reflect the diversity of the electorate.

Did the school promote any other candidate’s launches? A very bad look for a taxpayer funded school to be playing party politics.

Kirk Hope of BusinessNZ writes:

First, provisions of the bill will legislate to compel businesses to collectively bargain.

But the basis of bargaining in New Zealand and international law is that it is voluntary. Making it compulsory to bargain is a breach of ILO conventions ratified by the last Labour Government.

But it will make Labour’s union donors very powerful.

Second, under the proposed legislation, union officials will have much greater access to workplaces to recruit members. I don’t have any problem with access to workplaces to discuss union business, and even to recruit.

But I do have a problem with the unfettered access this legislation provides. Union officials won’t have to seek permission to enter the workplace, nor will they have to give notice of their visit. For context, even labour inspectors have to provide notice when they want to arrive for a labour inspection.

So union officials will have greater powers than the Government itself. Amazing what they get in return for their donations.

Federated Farmers in their submissions noted that this would mean in the case of farmers – where their home is often their office – that union officials could access their home without permission. I doubt this would seem reasonable to most New Zealanders

So much for your home is your castle.

Third, if a union recruits two members from a workplace then, as noted above, the union can then compel a business to collectively bargain, even if the rest of the people in that workplace are not union members.

So say two of your 300 staff join a union. They can compel the employer into a collective contract that all new staff will automatically be joined to.

If you are a working parent who needs to leave work at 3pm to pick up the kids, and the collective agreement says your hours of work must be 9-5, and if you haven’t opted out, you will need to negotiate with both the union and your employer to be able to pick up your kids. This is onerous and unnecessary.

Great – need to ask the union for permission to change your hours.

Fourth, the legislation would compel employers to provide personal information about a new employee to a union. Given the recent furore around Facebook’s use of personal information for marketing purposes, I doubt if many would see it as fair and reasonable for legislation to compel your employer to provide your information to any third party, no matter who they are.

Where’s the Privacy Commissioner when we need him!

UPDATE: The Commissioner did submit on this issue.

Stuff reports:

A bombshell report shows there is no real risk to humans from third-hand exposure to houses where methamphetamine has been consumed.

This means tens of thousands of homes have been needlessly tested and cleaned at the cost of millions of dollars, with some demolished and left empty.

The study by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Peter Gluckman found that New Zealand authorities had made a “leap in logic” setting standards. Essentially, a standard used overseas based on what “clan labs” should be cleaned to was now being used as a trigger to start cleaning here, despite no real health risk at that level.

“In the absence of clear scientific and health information, there has been an assumption among the general public that the presence of even trace levels of methamphetamine residue poses a health risk,” Gluckman said.

“There is absolutely no evidence in the medical literature of anyone being harmed from passive use, at any level. We can’t find one case.”

A very persuasive report.

In response to the recommendations, Housing Minister Phil Twyford has announced new standards and less stringent standards will be set for houses within the next year – with Housing NZ immediately changing its policy.

The current level of 1.5 micrograms per 100cm2 was only useful as a barometer of what to get houses cleaned to after manufacture – not as a trigger to start decontamination, the report said.

A measure of 15 micrograms per 100cm2 – 10 times higher – would make more sense as a trigger.

Gluckman said he wouldn’t be worried about “toddlers crawling around on the floor” until the meth residue reached the level of several hundred micrograms per 100cm2 – not the current standard of 1.5 – and this was based on a 300-fold safety buffer.

He stressed the government’s recommendation was still very far below a level where it could become dangerous.

“We’re looking at a 1000-fold safety factor minimum in our recommendations, for a naked toddler crawling around the floor licking every bit of the floor up to several hours a day,” Gluckman said.

Heh toddlers will possibly do exactly that!

Miles Stratford, director of meth testing company MethSolutions, said the report presented no new evidence and ignored people who had come forward wanting to tell Gluckman about their issues with meth contamination.

“You’re never going to find evidence if you don’t go looking for it,” Stratford said.

“What we’ve got is a whole bunch of scientists who can’t agree and a report that aligns with Government policy.”

Research analyst Anne Bardsley at the advisor’s office, who worked on the report, rubbished this claim, saying she reached out many times to try and find the evidence behind the “real world” cases companies came forwards with.

“It always fell apart,” Bardsley said.

Stratford said more research should be done and jumping to conclusions based on the current science was “reckless”.

Has been a nice earner for the meth testing companies, but a business model based on paranoia is not a good one.

Following on from the earlier guest post, these are the policy recommendations for New Zealand’s situation from Sir Roger Douglas:

• A tax-free income of $52,000 for single taxpayers or $65,000 for one-income families (cost $15 billion)
• A tax of 24 cents in the dollar on income above $52,000. (cost $5 billion)
• A corporate tax rate of 20 cents in the dollar. (cost $ 4- 41/2 billion)
• Yearly savings of $18,200 per year on incomes above $52,000, slightly less for those on incomes below $52,000 (Super $6,240, Health and Risk $11,960).
• Savings paid for by personal tax reductions 50% (9,100), employer 35.7% (6,500)(In lieu of lower company taxes, no super or ACC contributions) individual 14.3% (2,600). (In lieu of ACC and kiwi saver contributions)
• Savings and contributions indexed to an appropriate index.
• A guaranteed minimum income for low-income families (replacing working for families).
• Healthcare – Savings
• $8,660 each year (inflation adjusted to go into individual’s Health Fund.
• $12,480 each year to go into one-income families’ Health Fund. NZ wide savings of $15 billion a year)
• Healthcare – Expenditure – A chronically ill fund to be established with contributions from savers and government.
• – A catastrophic insurance policy to be taken out each year by every New Zealander for events costing $20,000 or more.
• Healthcare – A government underwrite.
• Healthcare during retirement – objective to retire with a fund of at least $80,000 (real) after 25 years, $150,000 after 40 years of contributions. Any balance at death goes to surviving spouse or estate.
• Superannuation
•      $6,240 savings per year (indexed to wages).
•      Savings (earning a real 4%) likely to have a fund size of $750,000 after tax on retirement, given 40-50 years of employment.
• NZ wide savings of $10.2 billion a year
• Risk Cover (unemployment, sickness and accident compensation)
•      $3,300 savings a year.
•      A catastrophic insurance policy to be taken out each year.
•      A government underwrite.
•      No variance in rate of payout if out of work (e.g. ACC same as sickness).
•      Any balance in account on retirement goes into individual’s Health Account.
• Education – an education tax credit for every child whose family wants it.
• Housing and Infrastructure
•      Use 10% of gross yearly savings equal to three billion dollars for housing and infrastructure.
•      Policies to ensure sufficient land is zoned for section development.
• Out of Work Beneficiaries
•      Special training for those who need it (compulsory).
•      Reformed management structure for out of work area.
• Retirement  
• Age of retirement to move from 65-70 over 20 years                                                                                              –     
• Opportunity to retire before 70 if individual is prepared to use own savings to do so.
• Existing government pension to continue at age 70 as it is today.                                                             
• Privileges
• Middle class privileges withdrawn.
• Corporate welfare privileges withdrawn.                                                                                                                
• GST rate of tax increased by 2½%.                                             

• Taxation of Superannuation
•      No tax on income earned by the fund on investments while individual is working and contributing.     

•      A 25% tax applies on retirement to the balance held in the fund.

A great prescription for NZ.

Mike Hosking writes:

I’ll say this about your New Zealand First voter: they’re straight up and down.

I am receiving large levels of correspondence, and I am not the only one, from people saying they are embarrassed or ashamed that they voted New Zealand First.

They feel duped, ripped off, if not hoodwinked.

And it’s the foreign aid package that’s tipped them over the edge. …

Hence him having to swallow that massive dead fish on oil exploration, not to mention irrigation bans and the dairy crackdown. But the Foreign Affairs package – and it’s $900m worth of aid and more diplomats – is not what a New Zealand First voter would have had at the top of their priority list.

The regional fund might have been. And that still has potential, potential to help the regions and get the party votes. And the key, and this is what virtually all the correspondence is saying, the key is in the name. New Zealand First.

Where’s the New Zealand First in foreign aid? And all this on the back of the news that cheaper doctors’ visits in this country have been delayed.

This is the stuff a classic New Zealand First voter would have expected and embraced – you miss out, so Mr and Mrs Tokelau can get some more help. And to what end? We can’t subsidise a doctor, but we can hand out thousands to a person who doesn’t even live here.

NZ First voters are feeling betrayed but Winston may be able to woo some of them back.

However the straw that may break the camel’s back is law and order. NZ First has always campaigned on very hard line law & order policies. If they sign up to Labour’s law changes to repeal three strikes and make bail and parole easier – well that will be the death of them I’d say.

DHBs are constantly saying they don’t have enough money. And it is true that there is always unmet demand in Health. But perhaps we should focus on the amount of money they waste on areas with minimal health benefits.

Have a read of this High Court case, and get angry at the huge waste of taxpayer money.

Dannevirke New World applied to renew its liquor licence.  The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act specifies that all alcohol has to be together in an alcohol area. The idea is that you have to specifically go into the alcohol area to purchase alcohol, rather than just pass it while buying other stuff.

Now the local Medical Officer of Health (employed by the DHB) objected to the alcohol licence on the grounds that the shelves on which the alcohol was stocked was not at right angles to the wall, but at an angle.

No that is not a mistake. They objected based on the angle of the shelves. I guess their rationale is someone might feel compelled to buy alcohol because they glanced it more easily due to the shelf angle.

The objection was filed with the District Licensing Committee. There was no other objection. Not the Police, not the  licensing inspector, not a single member of the public. Just the District Health Board.

The DLC sensibly said the angle of the shelves made “little or no difference” to the exposure of shoppers.

Bad enough the DHB did an initial objection. But they then appealed the decision of the DLC to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. This is a quasi-judicial body and the costs involved can be significant, let alone time.

The ARLA dismissed the appeal entirely saying the argument of the DHB “strained” the meaning of the Act.

Having lost twice, the DHB appealed again to the High Court. All over the angle of shelves in a supermarket. Nurses are crying our for a pay rise, and this DHB is spending time and money on trying to dictate that the shelves must be at a right angle to the wall.

The High Court also dismissed the appeal. So that is three times the DHB acted and lost – all over the angle of supermarket shelves. An issue on which the health benefits, if any, must be miniscule.

People should be angry over this. It is our taxpayer dollars being spent on this misguided activism. To not just object, but appeal twice, on the issue of the angle of shelves in a supermarket is just nuts.

Someone should OIA MidCentral DHB on how much money they have wasted on this stupidity and have to deducted from their allocation for next year. They obviously don’t need it.

A guest post by Sir Roger Douglas:

During (1987) while still Minister of Finance I wrote a book ”Toward Prosperity”.  The last chapter (20) looked forward at what still needed to be done.  On page 237 I said “I believe there are three main economic and social challenges facing New Zealand in the next decade. New Zealand’s fate in the 1990’s depends on whether, as a nation, we recognise the problems, and support governments who are determined to address them.  The three areas most urgently in need of change are the debt situation, taxation, and social services and although many people do not realise it, they are all interconnected and reliant on each other”.  31 years later these three issues remain at the top of New Zealand’s agenda in terms of what needs to be done.

Debt – Retirement debt e.g. stands at 850 billion dollars, that is the amount owed by government to New Zealanders of working age and the retired (3½ times GDP). This debt is currently growing by 12-13 billion dollars a year and will reach 1400 billion dollars by 2068. A time when the ratio of people aged 65 and over as a proportion of people aged 15-64 is projected to more than double, from 23% in 2016 to 50 % in 2068.                                                                                               

Taxation – No consideration is currently been given by government to how future tax policy can be used to solve, not only New Zealand’s debt problems, but intergeneration equity and social service delivery as well.  The current bias is clearly towards new taxes, such as capital gains (see Treasury paper “the future of tax”).

Social Services – In the area of social services the issues and problems remain the same today as I outlined in 1987, only they have become more pressing. What I said in 1987 about these issues (Page 241 Toward Prosperity) “fifty years ago (1937) we recognised that there were people amongst us who needed extra help and made a decision, as a nation, that those needs should be met. At the end of the 1930’s we established a welfare system to act both as a safety net and a base from which people could re-enter productive society. Part of that system was a number of institutions whose role was to act as conduits for aid given by the community, through the government, to those who were to receive it.  But something has gone terribly wrong with the system, and the institutions, as society has changed around them”.    

I went on to outline why the welfare state was failing to deliver on many of its goals.

                                                                                                                Institutional Capture-Huge increases in funding have done little to deliver better services or better access to services.    

Distribution of Resources – among and within the social service institutions is ridiculous, in terms of any reasonable priorities for health need or educational benefit To fix this situation requires a radical review of the system for us to make any serious and lasting impression on the problem.                                                        

Middle Class Capture – In the education system the middle class capture most of the money spent on tertiary education often at the expense of those that left school without any real qualifications.                                                                                  

Change of Attitudes – there is one other reason for change in the social welfare system which is much more subtle. The system itself, over the years, has had an effect on society; it has changed people’s attitudes, partly because it tended to create poverty traps. The institutions were set up to free people, and move them away from dependence. Now they actually make many of those who use them more dependent. The means took away some of their chances of achieving the end – the social objectives. The benefit system should support without taking away the incentive to work from those who are capable of it.                                 

What we have to concentrate on as we move into the 2020’s are the fundamental social objectives.  What we have to decide, as a nation, is how to achieve them.  What we did before in this respect is not important.  What we do now, for the future, is.

With courage, an open mind, and a set of principles to guide us we can protect and promote both the freedoms and welfare of all New Zealanders.    

Those principles would look something like this—Each generation would pay for itself

– each family would as far as possible pay/provide for themselves.  Government policy (lower personal taxes) would help them do so. Other policies would include the opportunity to save in order to provide security; government privileges (middle class capture and corporate welfare) would be removed in order to pay for the changes. In the process, power over their own lives would be returned to individual New Zealanders.

The Herald reports:

Government ministers are peddling a range of “incorrect or misleading” arguments about the impact of its ban on issuing new licences for offshore oil and gas exploration, says leading oil and gas sector analyst John Kidd in a note for clients of investment advisory house Woodward Partners. …

However, Kidd said he expected a dump of government papers on June 1 that would show “little due diligence and preparatory analysis was undertaken before the decision”, announced on April 12, to end the granting of any future offshore oil and gas exploration licences.

BusinessDesk has requested Cabinet papers relating to the decision, with Energy Minister Megan Woods’s seeking a one month extension to June 18, while Climate Change Minister James Shaw has responded to an Official Information Request on analysis from the Ministry for the Environment with a two sentence answer saying he had received a verbal briefing from officials.

It is understood that offers of analysis for ministers from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment on the impact of the decision were declined in favour of advice on how to implement such a ban

So it seems the Government actually told officials we don’t want you to analyse the impact of this decision. They didn’t care how many jobs would be affected, and didn’t want to know.