The Herald editorial:

Health Minister David Clark said the targets – for things such as waiting times for emergency attention, elective surgery and cancer treatment – had “perverse outcomes”, meaning poorer health overall.

Perverse outcomes? Independent research concludes thousands of lives were saved due to the ED six hour waiting time target. How is achieving 95% immunization rates a perverse oucome? Do cancer patients think getting treatment within four weeks is a perverse outcome?

The next day the minister retreated somewhat, saying the performance data would still be collected but it would no longer be published. That is a cop-out. Targets have to be published to have their desired effect. They impose a discipline on ministers and their departments to produce results, but only if the Government has to answer to the public if the targets are not reached.

I predict the Government will eventually back down. Apart from anything else am sure media will OIA the information, so it will get released eventually anyway.

A great deal of taxpayers’ money is poured into the public health system every year, $17 billion this year. It is very hard for governments, let alone the public, to know whether it is being used for as many operations and other services as it could possibly provide. Targets provide a check on whether we are getting as much value for that money as the Government had reasonably expected.

It’s called accountability.

Dr Powell’s Association of Salaried Medical Specialists probably want the only measure of their services to be the amount of money put into them. Politicians are much the same. It is easier for them to trumpet an increase in funding than to produce desired results. 

Very astute. The interests of the union and of politicians is not the public interest.

Stuff reports:

The Ombudsman is calling on the country’s top law officer, the Attorney-General, to launch enforcement proceedings against the Christchurch City Council over its continued refusal to release the cost of a touch wall in its new library.

Despite the instructions of the Ombudsman more than a month ago, the council is still to make the cost public.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier​ said he was disappointed the council had failed to release the cost within the timeframe required under the law.

“My role as a watchdog for Parliament is to make sure official information law is not undermined by agencies ignoring their public duty when it arises. I take any breach of public duty extremely seriously. I do not have enforcement powers myself so I am referring the case to the Solicitor-General.”

He said he has written asking that the Attorney-General, David Parker, consider issuing enforcement proceedings against the council. …

Ombudsman Leo Donnelly told the council on May 31 it should make public the cost of the digital and touch walls at the new library Tūranga, after it declined the Taxpayers’ Union’s request for the information. The council had up to 21 working days after the date of the recommendation to consider whether to do so or not.

The Christchurch City Council is flouting the law, having ignored the ruling by the Ombudsman. The Attorney-General needs to uphold the authority of the Ombudsman and start action against the Council, despite it being led by his former Labour Party colleague.

Dalziel has not spoken to media about the touch wall cost, but a council spokeswoman earlier said the decision sat with the staff project team and was within the library budget.

A lot of people at the Council could be in trouble over this. The LGOIMA states that the public duty imposed on the local authority to comply with the Ombudsman is imposed not just on the local authority, but also:

• every member, officer, and employee of that local authority to whom that recommendation is applicable
• every body within that local authority to whom that recommendation is applicable
• every statutory officer to whom that recommendation is applicable

Christchurch residents should be asking their Councillors why they are allowing their Council to flout the law and ignore the Ombudsman.

Ratepayers who paid for the “digital and touch walls” deserve to know how much they cost. The Ombudsman has said they have a right to know. What is the Council hiding by refusing to comply?

The Herald reports:

Marking the end of his nine-year stint as chief science adviser, Sir Peter said the science had shown genetic modification was safe.

“The science is as settled as it will be,” Sir Peter told TVNZ’s Q + A today.

“That is, it’s safe, that there are no significant ecological or health concerns associated with the use of advanced genetic technologies.”

If we should listen to the science (and we should) on climate change and meth testing in houses, we should also listen to it on GE. But I can guarantee the Government won’t. Despite 25 years of GE and no adverse impact, they will say we need to take the precautionary principle and do nothing.

Sir Peter listed some of the areas where genetic modification could be used.

“We’re facing issues of biosecurity. We’re facing issues of predators and the desire to be predator-free. 

“We’re facing the fact that our farming system needs to change because of the environmental impact of the greenhouse gas emissions, the water quality issues, et cetera. 

“We are, fundamentally, a biologically-based economy. Now, the science is pretty secure, and science can never be absolute… 

“But the uncertainty here is minimal to nil, very, very low. I think it’s a conversation we need to have.”

Environment Minister David Parker said there were no plans to change the existing regime, which took a precautionary approach.

So predictable. You can justify doing nothing with the precautionary approach. The impact of motor cars is unknown so lets stick with horse and carriage.

Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage, a Green MP, has forbidden the use of genetic modification or gene-editing as part of the goal to wipe out predators by 2050.

Why? I thought they cared about conservation?

Sir Toby Curtis writes:

My preference as a Māori would be to discuss the Government’s unilateral decision to close partnership schools Kura Hourua, kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) with them.

However, the Government denied us that opportunity.

It is my fervent hope that through this medium, the Minister of Education might be appraised of the concerns I raise on behalf of many Māori.

More and more people in the education sector are turning to the media, as the Minister refuses to meet with them.

In a few days’ time a colleague and I will meet the Education Select Committee in support of our submission opposing the closure of these schools and the kura hourua model. But even before the Committee has heard submissions, the minister has terminated the contracts of 10 of the schools.

To compound the injustice, the Government has silenced the schools by holding over them the prospect of joining another state school status.

The arrogance of this is breathtaking. These are schools where hundreds of Māori students are experiencing educational success, some for the first time in their lives.

The large majority of the kura are being run by Māori for Māori, some by Pasifika for Pasifika. All have close relations with their whanau and families who send their children there. Sometimes that’s the first time a family has had the chance to make a considered choice about their child’s education, and it’s the beginning of becoming empowered.

But empowerment means choice, and choice is a bad thing. Parents need to learn that they should just go to the state school the Government tells them to.

In my role on the authorisation board for the schools, I’ve visited every one of them. I’ve talked to the whanau, the teachers and the children. I’ve seen what they are achieving and studied the evidence of their performance.

The schools report on their educational achievement and the students’ attendance and engagement at school. Most are performing well above national averages and some are far above the rest of the country, in particular in results for Māori students. Attendance is high.

But the Government ignored all this. They refused to visit the schools or study their results or talk to any of the people involved in them. Does the minister think we can’t be trusted to take responsibility for building our own capability to do things for ourselves?

Normally Governments only close down schools that are failing or have too few students to be viable. Even them the process normally takes years. This is the first time a Government has closed down schools that are wildly successful.

The state school system has largely failed Māori and is now failing Pasifika. A majority of Māori are leaving school without qualifications. On an average school day around half of all Māori and Pasifika secondary school pupils are truant. The truancy rate in my home town of Rotorua is one of the worst.

My plea to the minister is to stop this injustice. My plea to all New Zealanders is to speak up against it. Hold our politicians across all parties, Māori and Pakeha, to account for it. And stop the cold-hearted removal of a model that is giving 1300 young New Zealanders, and hopefully many more to come, a better chance at life.

But by closing charter schools, everyone will be equal again!

Barry Soper writes:

It was a tired looking Jacinda Ardern with her “human hot water bottle” draped across her lap telling us on a Facebook video how she designed the $60-a-week baby bonus some years ago on the floor of a friend’s home in Hastings.

The most important years of a child’s life are the early years, the nursing Prime Minister told us from her lounge, and it’s a time in New Zealand when children were facing the most persistent poverty.

So that’s the rationale behind it. Trouble is it’s paid to everyone when they have a baby, regardless or how much dosh they’ve got.

Yep, even the PM on $500,000 a year would have got it if her daughter was born a couple of weeks later.

There’s an old story about giving a man a fish but not teaching him how to fish.

And that’s the trouble with welfare, some get so used to it, that’s the only life they know of and indeed are interested in knowing.

This Government is certainly handing out plenty fish but if the recipients can’t be bothered learning how bait a hook, or to cast a line there’s no need, or compulsion, for them to learn how to.

Which is what universal welfare combined with no sanctions will mean.

It’s long been said welfare for the sake of it, without the proper checks and balances, and without any expectation from those receiving it to get off it, simply entrenches the poverty cycle.

But this Government wants welfare dependency. The more people they can get onto welfare, the more people who will vote for a party that promises to maintain it.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has released a report investigating complaints about the work done by the GCSB in the Pacific.

It is a fascinating report because we learn quite a lot more about how the GCSB operates.

The key findings are:

1. GCSB did undertake signals intelligence-gathering in relation to New Zealand’s interests in the South Pacific, including the collection of satellite communications. There were statutory authorisations in place enabling it to do so and the Bureau had policies and procedures in place to govern its foreign intelligence activities.
2. No evidence that GCSB acted outside the relevant authorisations and statutory prohibitions to any significant extent
3. No evidence that any complainants’ private communications were deliberately targeted
4. If NZers private communications were collected by the GCSB, using collection methods that inherently involved collecting some non-targeted communications, there is no evidence that GCSB retained any such data relating to any complainant
5. It is unlikely any communications from the complainants were shared with Five Eyes partners, given the targeted nature of intelligence sharing and access arrangements, and the safeguards against unauthorised access to the communications of New Zealanders.

So let’s take these in turn, because each is significant.

1. GCSB does monitor communications in the Pacific. This is no surprise and they would be negligent if they didn’t. The Pacific is an area of significant geopolitical interest and to ignore it would be bad. the only areas that GCSB does not have a potential interest is the US, UK, Australia and Canada due to our Five Eyes agreement.
2. The work in the Pacific was authorised and found to be legal.
3. There was no targeting of New Zealanders. The GCSB doesn’t do this.
4. The nature of some collection methods means the GCSB may sometimes intercept communications of New Zealanders. It is basically impossible not to. You can’t tell a cellphone tower to perform citizenship checks on the phones connected to it! But if information from New Zealanders is intercepted, it is deleted, not retained
5. Any information shared with Five Eyes partners is subject to authorisation agreements. They can’t just grab whatever they want

This advances our understanding greatly of what GCSB does, and is a useful counter to allegations that have been made by various people.

The Inspector-General has full access to all GCSB staff, systems and documents. She has shown herself to be extremely thorough and vigorous in her accountability role. If she says everything thing was kosher, we can be reassured.

If you have time, read the full report.

Stacey Kirk writes at Stuff:

Can you smell that? 

That sour odour that comes with being spun something that is in no way for the public good, but for the good of the Government’s bare arse alone. 

It’s wafting from the direction of Health Minister David Clark and his decision to stop the public reporting of National Health Targets, which aim to keep District Health Boards in line on a number of key measures. 

Kirk makes a good point that the only person who benefits from scrapping the publishing of the health targets data is the Minister of Health.

They weren’t perfect – but there is hard evidence and medical research to show the ED target alone saved thousands of lives since its implementation. That is only a good thing. 

New Zealand’s rates of childhood immunisations have reached nearly 95 per cent for babies aged eight months and two years – the magical “herd immunity” number, up from just over 80 per cent in 2010. Again, only a good thing.

The cancer target had improved wait times for cancer treatment, though patients were undoubtedly still falling through the cracks. We knew this, because we knew what standard was expected.

And that’s where the Government’s decision takes away power from patients. People who had not received their first cancer treatment within a month knew that was not acceptable, and they knew when to start demanding answers of their clinicians.

It was a public commitment from the Government that cancer patients should never have to wait more than a month, ED patients no more than six hours etc.

David Clark’s entire decision appears to be resting on a single claim of “perverse incentives”, for which he uses a single uncited news story published last year, that claimed avastin eye injections for macular degeneration, and skin lesion removals, were being used to bump up surgical stats at the expense of more complex, and typically more urgent, elective surgeries like hip and knee replacements. 

One uncited story with no proof.

So refine the target. Fix that issue – direct those procedures be performed at primary and secondary level – if that is indeed the issue he has.

Yep, easy to do.

These targets did not always paint a glowing picture of DHBs and where there was an issue, the Government had to answer to it. 

That’s where the targets become a stick with which to beat the Government over the head with, and Clark has taken the stick away.

They allowed the public to hold the Government accountable.

Newshub reports:

The New Zealand First website is finally active after being down since November last year. 

The website became unavailable on November 14, 2017 after someone moved a folder, causing elements to disappear from pages. Since then, the new website has been “coming soon”. 

It takes a special level of incompetence to have a website down for seven months. Just as well they’re not doing anything important like being in Government.

Stuff reports:

Broadcaster John Campbell has resigned from Radio New Zealand to take up a role with TVNZ.

He will leave the state broadcaster to start a new role at 1 News in September.

TVNZ head of news John Gillespie confirmed the move in a statement, saying Campbell would be working as a reporter across many of the network’s shows.

Smart move by TVNZ, and a big loss for Radio NZ. Hard to imagine who they will replace him with for Checkpoint.

Stuff interviews a corrections officer about life working in a prison:

Jails across the country are short hundreds of frontline staff, despite burgeoning prisoner numbers – and several staff have contacted Stuff claiming they’re being put in harm’s way. Corrections denies the prison system is short-staffed.

“The current prison situation with the muster crisis can’t go on,” said a female Corrections officer who contacted Stuff. “It’s a pressure cooker right now. It’s going to get to a point where it will blow. 

Yet the Government won’t act. Their response is to just catch and release.

She said a 600-bed prison at Waikeria announced by the Government for completion by 2022, would not put a dent in the country’s prison muster.

“I see the types of people we house. I handle the rapists. The murderers. The paedophiles. I handle other people’s nightmares.

“Where else are we meant to house these people? Those that oppose prisons, well, where are we supposed to put these offenders? The guys that try to spit on you when you walk past; the guys that openly tell you they will re-offend once they are out.”

They’re just misunderstood I am sure.

The impending closure of Waikeria’s high-security unit would mean the new 600-bed prison would simply be replacing beds, she said. The prison system would only be about 100 beds better off.

“The original [National Government-proposed] 1500-bed unit is what is required,” she said. “It’s not a political thing. It’s not a game. It’s a major safety concern.

To me it is simple. You have enough prison beds to house all the prisoners.

Amanda Larsson from Greenpeace wrote in Stuff:

electricity prices are set based on the cost of the most expensive form of electricity. That’s generally the coal and gas-fired electricity provided by companies like Genesis and Contact Energy. Clean energy like wind, solar, and hydro have no fuel costs, so once built they are much cheaper to run.

This is such an economically illiterate argument it is hard to know where to start. It is basically saying if you ignore the cost of capital, then these energy types are cheapest.

It’s like saying that it is cheaper to have a $50 million robot make coffees than a barista as the barista is paid $25 an hour and the robot is not.

Sensible people look at the total cost of electricity generation which includes cost of capital, the discount rate, operating costs, fuel costs and maintenance. A key part of this is how long a plant can produce electricity for.

Here’s some costs from various countries.

France:

• Hydro 20 euros/MWh
• Nuclear 50
• Gas 61
• Wind 69
• Solar 293

US:

• Geothermal 48
• Hydro 84
• Nuclear 95
• Coal 95
• Gas 142
• Wind 197
• Solar 240

Each country is different. The key thing is that ignoring the cost of capital, as Greenpeace does, is nuts.

The Energy News Editor points out some other issues:

In the last week of January – the height of summer – coal and gas-fired plants were delivering about 30 per cent of our power.

They didn’t cause those high prices – that’s the cost of having plants that can run at short notice but sometimes don’t run for months at a time.  It’s the necessary insurance policy – in our already 80 per cent-plus renewable power system – for when the lakes are low or the wind isn’t blowing.

Renewables are great. In NZ we are blessed with good water and wind. But when you have no wind and no rain, you still need power. That is why backup supplies are always desirable.

As Transpower notes in its Te Mauri Hiko – Energy Futures report, the cost of renewables should continue falling, and they should be the cheapest long-term option for electrifying more of the economy.

But Transpower is also clear that the biggest challenge will be covering the potential winter and dry-year shortfall that will result from greater reliance on wind, hydro and solar. The potential deficit could triple by 2050, the national grid operator says.

I’m personally keen on more hydro, But everytime there is a proposal to dam a river somewhere to create a hydro power station, you can be sure Greenpeace and other groups end up opposing it.

Stuff reports:

NZ First says the lower drink-driving limits have targeted the wrong people, and it’s calling for the old limit to be reinstated. 

NZ First MP Darroch Ball has submitted a members’ bill seeking to repeal the 2014 law which lowered drink-driving limits.

The stricter limits had “demonstrably failed” at lowering both the rate of offending and the number of fatalities on New Zealand roads caused by drink-driving, Ball said.

“The vast majority of drivers in fatal drink-driving accidents have been in the range of twice the legal limit. These are the recidivist, high-level drink drivers we need to be targeting – not hard-working Kiwis who have a beer or wine after work.”

I think it would be worth having this bill, if drawn, go to select committee. It would be useful to look at the evidence around whether it has been successful, and where the limit should be.

John Milford writes:

Which was why, when a government minister recently said one of the biggest business confidence surveys going around was “junk”, I was puzzled.

I assume he didn’t like its findings, which showed confidence continuing a subdued trend since the election. That means he also won’t like the Wellington Chamber’s quarterly survey or the others that do the rounds, because they’re all telling the same story.

Business confidence surveys ask businesses about how they’re feeling and what they expect to happen to themselves and the national economy. They reflect what I’m being told face-to-face, and I doubt the minister would be willing to tell too many of these businesspeople to their face that what they’re saying is junk. …

The problem for the Government is that confidence is not going to improve as long as they insist on pushing ahead with their proposed changes to industrial legislation.

Two weeks ago in this column, I expressed serious concerns about the effects the removal of 90-day trial periods from companies with more than 20 employees would have on employment, workers and the economy.

But there are three other parts of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as it’s drafted that will further reduce flexibility and harm the growth prospects of businesses.

They are provisions that allow union reps to enter a workplace without permission, force businesses to settle collective agreements even if they don’t or can’t agree, and force them to join a multi-employer collective agreement (MECA).

Every single change proposed by Labour greatly benefits unions and harms businesses.

Similarly, rather than improving industrial relations, removing the right of employers to opt out of bargaining is likely to make it worse. Both parties can now opt out but removing only the employers’ right to do so is asking for trouble and bad agreements created under duress.

Not even pretending it will be an equal playing field.

If that doesn’t cause its own friction, forcing businesses to join a MECA will. This provision forces every company in an industry that has workers in the same union to agree to the negotiated multi-employer collective, irrespective of how well the company treats and pays its employees, or wants to. What’s more, employees not in the union won’t be able to negotiate better conditions than those who are.

Again this is designed to get more money into unions, so unions can spend more money and resources helping Labour get elected.

Employers agree with the goal of developing a modern, high-performing economy, but they would like to understand how dredging up failed and divisive labour laws will help that happen.

No matter what the question, Labour’s answer seems to be the 1970s.

Matt Nippert reported:

The New Zealand taxpayer has forked out nearly $600 million to Hollywood producers since 2010 to support the Wellington-dominated film industry, and despite commissioning numerous studies the Government is unclear whether this represents money well spent.

I’ve got mixed feelings on film subsidies.

Films are unlike most other economic activity because they are truly globally mobile, and are for limited duration. So decisions on where to film do get impacted by local subsidies.

It’s not like deciding where to build a factory that will be there for 30 years. And there are no issues such as goods being produced and freighted etc.

So there is a significant economic benefit to a local economy by having films and TV shows produced here. Locals gain work, there is increased tax revenue, there are tourism benefits.

However film studios are very ruthless and can and will play countries and even cities off against each other, trying to get bigger and bigger subsidies. And if no-one played the game, it would be good. Eventually the marginal return on any subsidy is small, if they keep growing.

Parker said, given the escalating costs of the scheme, he was now considering advice from Treasury about limiting the amount the Government would spend each year.

“We certainly haven’t made a decision to axe the subsidies. One of the questions that has been raised with officials with Treasury is whether you can somehow cap it,” he said.

Parker said he was open to such a move, but mindful of competing advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment it could create uncertainty making New Zealand a less attractive filming destination

The Sapere review said while the industry was growing strongly – faster than the rest of the economy – it had lost the competitive advantage enjoyed a decade ago with innovations forged during filming Lord of the Rings and was now effectively part of a commodity industry competing on price.

As I said, this is a tough issue. If we no longer have a competitive advantage, then merely competing on a subsidised price might not be beneficial.

Newshub reports:

Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis has issued an embarrassing clarification after saying he didn’t see the latest prison population projections before deciding to build a smaller prison at Waikeria.

The newly released Ministry of Justice report, from 2017, has the prison population increasing by an additional 2000 people compared to the previous forecast.

It’s now forecast to increase by more than 4000 by 2027 – that would take the prison population from 10,300 in June 2017 to 14,400 in June 2027.

The projections were completed in October, the report says, with the figures not released publicly until last week.

On Monday morning Mr Davis said he hadn’t read the report until Sunday night.

The admission that he hadn’t read a months-old report before making a crucial decision on the size of Waikeria Prison was met with surprise, leading the news at the next hour.

Who knows now if he had or hadn’t read the report. Several of his colleagues boast how they don’t read their papers, so quite possible he didn’t.

But either way another own goal which adds to the impression of a Government that is struggling to actually govern.

The Independent reports William Hague:

William Hague has urged Theresa May to consider legalising cannabis as he claims the war on the drug has been “comprehensively and irreversibly lost”.

The remarks from the former foreign secretary heap political pressure on the prime minister amid an escalating row in the cabinet over the government’s approach to medical cannabis and growing outrage over a 12-year-old epileptic boy’s use of the drug. …

Ms Caldwell had purchased the drug in Canada to treat her son, Billy, who was rushed to Chelsea and Westminster hospital on Friday evening in a critical condition having suffered multiple seizures. It led to Sajid Javid, the home secretary, granting a 20-day emergency licence of the oil.

You shouldn’t need to get permission from the Home Secretary to help your 12 year old boy.

“It must now be asked whether Britain should join the many other countries that permit medical-grade marijuana, or indeed, join Canada in preparing for a lawful, regulated market in cannabis for recreational use as well,” he added.

As do many US states.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, he joined those who have called for a change in approach over cannabis, claiming the idea the narcotic can be “driven off the streets and out of people’s lives by the state is nothing short of deluded”.

The war on cannabis has failed for over 30 years. So why do we persist?

“Everyone sitting in a Whitehall conference room needs to recognise that, out there, cannabis is ubiquitous, and issuing orders to the police to defeat its use is about as up-to-date and relevant as asking the Army to recover the Empire.

“This battle is effectively over.”

I love Hague’s pith.

Stuff reports:

A review into the appointment of Deputy Commissioner of Police Wally Haumaha will look at whether the State Services Commission received or sought all relevant background information. 

Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters also confirmed on Monday the inquiry would look into the information the commission had, and whether that information was made available to the relevant ministers. …

Peters said the inquiry would be delivered to Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin, as it was not appropriate to have either the State Services Minister or the Police Minister oversee it. Martin would be appointing an independent person to undertake the inquiry, in the coming week. 

That’s nonsense. It has nothing to do with Internal Affairs. The appropriate Minister is the State Services Minister, as they ran the appointment process.

Peters batted away suggestions her role as a NZ First MP might compromise her. Haumaha had sought selection to be a MP for the party in 2005, but withdrew from the process. …

National Party police spokesman Chris Bishop however, called into question the “close ties” Haumaha had with NZ First. 

“Mr Peters must explain whether he disclosed this conflict at Cabinet given Mr Haumaha was once a candidate of his party, and how this conflict was managed during the appointment process.

“He must also explain his completely inappropriate appointment of NZ First MP, and former party official, Tracey Martin as the minister in charge of the inquiry,” Bishop said.

It is a bad look having a NZ First Minister in charge of the inquiry of the appointment of someone who sought to be a NZ First candidate.

The first photo is 27 year old NZ MP, Simeon Brown.

The second photo is the 31 year old Chancellor of Austria.

Shane Te Pou writes:

The welfare state is about those of us who are doing OK to help those who are not – manaakitanga. The goal is to give our neighbours, our sisters and brothers a hand to help them back to dignity and self-sufficiency when life deals them a tough hand. This is why the father of the welfare state, Michael Joseph Savage, called it “applied Christianity”. Today’s smart young left-wing thinkers might call it “the politics of love”.

Given our experience of colonisation, we Māori should be especially alert to the dangers of welfare becoming much more than that. There is no shame in needing a helping hand from time to time but there is no personal tino rangatiratanga or mana in being permanently reliant on the state if you don’t need to be.

This is not how Grant Robertson see things. It is now very clear that his goal is to have everyone – Māori and Pākehā – permanently dependent on the state.

Yep. If they can get over 50% of the population reliant on the state, then they will get over 50% voting for parties that promise to give them more money from other people.

Other examples include the Government’s Winter Electricity Payment, which will cost taxpayers about $1.8 billion over the next four years. This goes to everyone over the age of 65, from struggling working-class widow to billionaire. It will be paid even to wealthy superannuitants who escape this cold New Zealand winter with a Grand Tour around Europe. To his credit, Simon Bridges has said a National government would cancel that con and look at ways to help those elderly people and beneficiaries who really do need help with their winter power bills.

Winston gets around $400,000 a year and he’ll get the winter electricity payment.

But the worst example is Phil Twyford’s KiwiBuild. This was meant to help young Kiwi couples struggling to save enough for a house deposit take their big first step towards self-sufficiency by buying a modest government-built home. Now Twyford says KiwiBuild is for everyone: young Max Key will qualify for a KiwiBuild house, as will English’s kids and Ardern’s new baby when it comes of age. Each one of the 100,000 houses Twyford is promising to build that is bought by one of these well-to-do kids is one fewer for a young couple from West Auckland.

It’s ridiculous.

The old conservative Labour left wants us all on the welfare hook and unable to get off because that’s the way to make us docile Labour voters for life. Those of us on the progressive Labour right need to stand up for Savage’s original vision and for tino rangatiratanga in our own lives. I don’t want to be the last socialist left standing as I say welfare should be about helping poor.

Shane is entirely correct. Sadly he is a small small minority in Labour.

A reader writes in:

Winston owes the taxpayer $158,000 from 2005.

If you apply IRD interest rates to the debt over 13 years you get $983,000.

The late payment penalties are here (IR240):

http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/0/f/0f49a4e9-7fe0-4165-b397-987d67b6e8e8/ir240.pdf

We charge late payment penalties on all overdue payments. We charge the penalties in stages. This means that the longer a payment remains overdue, the more penalties we’ll add. The stages are: 

• 1% the day after the due date 
• 4% seven days later 
• 1% each month the tax to pay remains overdue.

This is what the taxpayer should now counter sue Winston to recover.

Sadly for the reader the debt can’t be collected as they retrospectively changed the law to prevent it.

Infometrics assesses the Government’s free tertiary fees policy. Their summary:

• Accessibility: B- (most benefits high spending households)
• Student numbers: C+ (no significant increase in enrolments)
• Skills gaps: F (is discouraging people from trades training)
• Improving quality: F (tertiary funding per student is frozen)
• Wasting taxpayer money: A+ ($2.5b down the drain)

A very astute analysis.