Very interesting on Wednesday that we have seen several National members’ bills get passed, and a Labour one voted down. NZ First are actually voting quite independently on these bills.

A National bill to exempt small volunteer associations from some OSH liability passed first reading 65 to 54 with Labour and Greens opposing.

Chris Finlayson’s bill to reform contempt of court passed first reading without dissent.

Scott Simpson’s bill to increase litter fines passed 109 to 10.

But a Labour bill to allow oaths to be taken in a foreign language was defeated 54 to 65.

This reflects a sensible strategy from National to put up bills which can attract cross-party support. They may not be big game changers (Government bills generally do the big stuff) but they do show a constructive opposition.

This was quite different to Labour’s strategy in opposition which was to use members’ bills to try and overturn government policy or just embarrass the Government.

Three of the four bills drawn on Thursday were also from National MPs, so we should see more bills progressing hopefully.

New National MP Nicola Willis made her maiden speech on Wednesday. Her six year old took this quite literally:

Me: Yay, it’s my maiden speech day.
6y/o: Will there be maids helping you Mum?
Me: No, bit junior for that.
6 y/o: But will you wear a princess dress?
Me: Er, no, sorry darling.
6 y/o: Don’t worry Mum, I’ll clap for you anyway.#truefan

— Nicola Willis (@NicolaWillisMP) May 1, 2018

It was an excellent speech, well worth reading in full. Some extracts:

Having worked jobs selling clothes, shoes, and bagels, I was incredibly fortunate to land a role as a researcher, working with then Opposition education spokesman, Bill English. Bill taught me that politics is not about personal ambition; it is about making a difference for people. I look up to Bill, not only as a political mentor, but as proof that juggling multiple children is compatible with a successful life in Parliament.

I went on to work for Sir John Key, whose infectious enthusiasm, respect for all, and sheer intelligence had a profoundly positive impact on our country. Thank you, Sir John, for your support, your belief in me, and your constant ribbing.

Sir John was the MC for Nicola’s after match function. He would have enjoyed this exchange:

Wonderful to have so many colleagues, friends and family members in Parliament for my maiden yesterday. Our five-year old had a good chat with John Key who asked if he remembered him “Yes, I know you, you used to work for Mummy” ? https://t.co/VpJw2bSSkl

— Nicola Willis (@NicolaWillisMP) May 3, 2018

Anyway back to the speech:

Economic growth ensures New Zealanders can have better jobs, better incomes, and aspirations for their children’s futures. It doesn’t just happen. We must back our risk takers, innovators, and entrepreneurs who put their capital and livelihoods on the line to produce a product, idea, or new way of doing things. We must back the hard workers, those who go the extra mile, who toil day in day out to make progress for themselves and their families: the dairy owner who works 12 hours a day six days a week with one week off at Christmas; the student who holds down two part-time jobs; the cleaners working night shift; our social entrepreneurs; the single mum who starts an online business, picking up her laptop the minute her daughter is asleep, sacrificing rest for the chance of a better future—these people are the best of us. It is their efforts that will ensure New Zealand gets better and better. The Government can too easily take their effort for granted or, worse, invoke the politics of envy against them.

Or treat them as a cash cow with tax increases.

My desire to better understand business led me to work for our largest cooperative. I wanted to experience the reality of managing a bottom line, of selling New Zealand’s products to the world, and striving to maximise their value. Fonterra opened my eyes. I saw our country from new perspectives: from high-rises in Shanghai, trade offices in Jakarta, and a factory floor in Columbo. I saw that New Zealand has so much more to gain from embracing trade than we do from fearing it. We must remain open to the world, its markets, and its people. Best of all, I got to walk in gumboots alongside Kiwi farmers, who know that nobody owes them a living, who go out each day rain or shine, high milk price or low, to earn their way in the world. These men and women share my view that New Zealand’s land and water are taonga for which we are stewards. Farmers should be respected as a partner in the vital environmental work New Zealand has before it, to combat climate change, to clean our rivers, and to protect our biodiversity.

In other words don’t treat farmers as the enemy.

I’m hugely fortunate to have married Duncan. He understands that caregiving is a responsibility and a privilege to be divided according to circumstances and not gender. He has again and again made sacrifices to further my dreams. We are parents to four beautiful children aged eight, six, five, and two: James, Harriet, Reuben, and Gloria—that’s you, darlings.

I remember our excitement and confidence when I first became pregnant. We read all the books, drafted sleep schedules, and planned an infancy of structured excellence. Then our son arrived, and he seemed determined not to adhere to our plans in any way at all. Each of our children has continued to confound us like this. This imperfection has been a gift to me. It has taught me that much is beyond our individual control, that plans only take you so far, and that the messy bits in life can be a source of joy. Parenting has deepened my well of empathy and helped me understand that sometimes sugary treats, takeaways, cartoons, and disposable nappies are the keys to sanity.

As a new parent myself I could absolutely relate to this. All your plans just go out the window. We look back and laugh at the difference between what we thought it would be like, and the reality. It’s great but damn challenging.

I will not be a Government-knows-best politician, because I know just how imperfect family life is. I’ve had the fortune of parenting with the support of a village and the means to fill our supermarket trolley, heat our bedrooms, and buy ever bigger shoes. Even with all that support, parenting is sometimes a tough gig. There is no getting away from the broken sleep, the tantrums, the hospital visits, the worry, and the heartache. I respect the many Kiwis who day in day out do the hard work of parenting well, without fanfare, and often in difficult circumstances. It is time we did more as MPs to honour and support the work of Kiwi parents. They are the heroes of New Zealand’s homes. Too often, our public institutions and services ignore the realities and demands of modern family life.

Why is it that in a country of working parents we have 12 weeks of school holidays, which leave many families stressed and scrambling for childcare? Why is it we can’t access our children’s medical and education records online? Why when some parents choose to work an extra shift or take a promotion do they end up financially penalised by the blowback of childcare costs, tax hikes, and loss of tax credits? Why do we so seldom acknowledge those who forego paid employment to care for their children and contribute to their community? And why don’t we better target investment at those crucial first 1,000 days in a child’s life?

Would be far better to spend more on early childhood education than giving future lawyers and doctors free fees.

We should put whānau and family at the heart of policy. Let me be clear, families come in all shapes and sizes: one parent, two-parent, four, grandparents as caregivers, blended, gay, married, not married, adopted, whāngai—I am not concerned by the form a family takes but by the function it performs. What matters is the strength of the bonds, the shared values, the getting up at 2 a.m. to change the nappy or give the feed, cheering on at assembly and from the sidelines, asking the questions when progress stalls at school, and providing the comforting words when worries loom large at night—support, belonging, unconditional love.

Hear hear.

Politics is not just about the what; it is about the how. We do our best as leaders when we listen well, when we treat each other with civility, and when we bring people together, not when we drive them apart. Duncan and I have taught our kids that my political opponents are good people. They share a motivation to make this country better, but have different ideas about how to achieve it.

The vast majority of MPs are motivated by a desire to help improve things. We can disagree strongly on policies, but not end up in the US with a growing chasm between supporters.

Many households have a Weber gas bbq. We love them.

But we have a problem.

The Government has said no more gas, and we may have just seven years of supplies left.

So what do we do with our Webers after 2025?

Surely some enterprising reader out there can design a new bbq – a solar or wind powered Weber.

Submit your designs in the comments.

A reader sent me this document which nicely illustrates how one sided Labour’s IR policies are.

Labour Policy Snapshot by David Farrar on Scribd

Did my oral submission today against the waka jumping bill. Thought it went well with some good questions. My submission is below:

I’d like to start with some time travel through history. I’ll start with the MP for Grey Lynn. Not the Rt Hon Prime Minister but an MP called John Alfred Alexander Lee or more famously John A Lee. He was kicked out of Labour in 1930 for demanding they become more socialist and democratic. I can’t say I agree with Mr Lee that the 1st Labour Government wasn’t socialist enough but his departure from Labour was on a point of policy and principle. We went on to form the Democratic Labour Party and stayed an MP until the election. I’d have little doubt Peter Fraser would have used this proposed law to expel Lee from Parliament

35 years before that a number of Liberal MPs defected form the New Liberal Party as they didn’t think Richard Seddon was progressive enough. Seddon was called King Dick Seddon for a reason. You don’t need much imagination to conclude he would have expelled those MPs from Parliament.

In the UK in the first half of the century an obscure MP defected from the Liberal Party to the Conservatives. Even worse than that he was a double defector as he had previously defected from the Conservatives to the Liberals. He was even proud of this, having said “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”

That obscure MP was Winston Churchill who went on to do some quite useful things. Imagine how different history might be if the UK Parliament had this proposed law.

Mat Rata left Labour in 1979 due to dissatisfaction with their Maori policies.  Formed Mana Motuhake, a party which went on to become part of the Alliance and got Sandra Lee into Parliament. This was a principled departure.

Jim Anderton left Labour in 1989, or as he says Labour left him. He want on to form New Labour and was re-elected in 1990.

Winston Peters left National in 1993.  He chose to have a by-election but if National had the power to expel him from Parliament I suspect they would have done so much earlier in his career. It could have happened in 1991 or even 1989 and Peters may not have been in a position to set up a new party.

And finally in 1999 the Alliance MPs Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons left the Alliance to stand for the Greens. Would that have happened if Jim Anderton could have kicked them out to replace them with Dave McPherson and Hone Kaiwai.

But this bill is not just about MPs who formally resign from their party. It also allows party leaders to expel MPs from Parliament so long as two thirds of their caucus agree with them.

Can anyone doubt Sir Robert Muldoon would have thrown out Derek Quigley from Parliament, not just Cabinet? Mike Minogue would have been a goner also and instead of having a general election in July 1984, Marilyn Waring would have been outski and it would have been a by-election only. History could be very different if 1984 had not seen that early snap election.

Nick Smith crossed the floor in 1991 to support a minimum wage for young workers – something Government MPs should applaud.  Nick wasn’t as universally popular then as he is today, so Jim Bolger could well have been happy to throw out Nick out for doing so, especially as his floor crossing mate was Michael Laws – two for the price of one.

Nikki Kaye publicly opposed National’s plans to mine on Great Barrier Island in 2009. Would she have been able to do so if she could have been expelled from Parliament for doing so?

Damien O’Connor crossed the floor in 2014 to support a bill on West Coast logging. He was being a good local MP. But if his party could expel him from Parliament for doing so, I daresay he may resisted.

Outside the two major parties, every new party in Parliament under MMP (bar ACT) has got here through current MPs defecting. This bill will protect incumbent parties and prevent that natural evolution of new parties.

The history of New Zealand is you can’t just lump every MP who leaves a party in together. For every Alamein Kopu you have a John A Lee. For every NZ Independent Coalition party you have the New Labour Party.

Parties have splits. MPs fall out. There are disagreements on policies. This is part of politics. And the NZ public have proven very able at sorting it all out at general elections. Our democracy will not be well served by a law that gives party leaders and their caucuses a power previously reserved for voters, to remove an MP from Parliament.

Stuff reports:

Victoria University could be renamed the University of Wellington as the tertiary institute tries to eliminate confusion for potential overseas students.

Vice-chancellor professor Grant Guilford said a name change was on the cards to provide “clarity” and avoid other universities taking credit for work done at the Wellington campus.

“The achievements of our staff and students, and for that matter our city, can be attributed to other institutions and countries, dimming our international standing.”

Domestically there is no confusion at all. Everyone knows Victoria University and most of its degrees are held in very high esteem. The University of Wellington just sounds very small.

Radio NZ reports:

The Māori electoral option opened on 3 April, giving Māori a chance to choose which roll they wanted to be on for the next two national elections.

Their choice would determine whether they voted for a local MP in a Māori seat or a general seat.

Results from the first of three updates by the Electoral Commission showed 215 new enrolments of Māori descent in the general roll and 431 in the Māori roll.

Of those on the Māori roll, 7093 switched to the general roll and of those on the general roll, 4610 switched to the Māori roll.

This is unusual. Normally more Maori go from the general roll to the Maori roll. This might be happening as a result of Labour having won all seven Maori seats, and hence they are now seen as noncompetitive.

It is possible that the number of Maori seats could shrink from seven to six, if large numbers continue to switch to the general roll.

Enjoyed reading the submission by Lindsay Perigo to the Tax Working Group, and figured others may enjoy it also so am sharing here:

Dear Sir Michael and members of the Tax Working Group,

I submit the following interim tax regimen, as a meaningful step towards the overthrow of the Nanny State and against the propensity of unproductive and anti-productive politicians to mess with the lives and earnings of the productive:

1) Income Tax: 15% across the board, with the first $15,000 exempt. The one exception to this to be the aforementioned politicians:

1a) Politicians Tax: Politicians to be taxed at 85%, in order not to encourage them.

2) GST: 15% across the board.

3) Company Tax: 15% across the board.

4) Excise taxes: all product-specific taxes such as those on fuel, tobacco and alcohol to be abolished. Ordinary GST only to apply.

5) Behaviour taxes: all proposed taxes on Nanny-disapproved behaviour, such as a sugar tax, fat tax, tall tax, laughter tax, joke tax, existence tax, being white tax, heterosexuality tax, etc., to which power-lusters are pathologically attracted, to be definitively disavowed on the grounds that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit and should be left alone to do so. Politicians to be required to spend their first year in office in re-education camps where this principle will be painstakingly explained to them. Incorrigible cases to be deported to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe or California.

Beyond the points made above, I endorse the broader submission made by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Yours sincerely,

Lindsay Perigo

The ODT reports:

A formerly homeless woman who was the subject of a public protest by a Dunedin MP has been convicted of drug offences.

Amy Leigh Stuart (26) was one of two women receiving emergency accommodation in motels who prompted Clare Curran to pitch her tent in the Octagon in July last year.

There was some online backlash at the time about the women’s lifestyle but Ms Curran said that was irrelevant.

Her outdoor remonstration ended after four nights when the Ministry of Social Development found Stuart stable accommodation.

Less than six months later, police raided the woman’s house where they found two cannabis plants (about 34cm tall) growing outside in a bucket along with a couple of seedlings.

There were another two seedlings indoors on the window sill and a further search of the address turned up 0.05g of the class A drug methamphetamine.

There was no evidence of commerciality, Judge Dominic Flatley acknowledged.

Stuart pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis, possession of methamphetamine and breaching a previous sentence of community work.

The world is about consequences. If you don’t want to be evicted from your accommodation, don’t grow drugs there.

Now will Labour MPs do another tent protest in support of this woman?

The Herald reports:

The Government is set to announce further measures today to collect 15 per cent GST on low-value goods bought by Kiwis online from overseas, a so-called “Amazon tax.”

The tax will be on anything under $400. Anything above $400 already attracts duties.

It follows on from the “Netflix tax” which started in October 2016 and which required foreign providers to levy GST on digital services sold to New Zealanders including Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, Kindle, online games and software.

In November, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash promised further action, saying that leaving out low-value physical goods gave an unfair advantage to overseas sellers compared with New Zealand sellers.

The big reputable firms like Amazon will presumably comply with the law and charge and pay GST on purchases. I don’t have a problem with that.

But what happens if people buy from a firm that doesn’t? Say you buy a $40 toy for your baby from an overseas retailer that doesn’t charge GST. Will Customs intercept the parcel and hold it at the border until you personally pay the $6 GST? That will piss a huge amount of people off, if so.

So the devil will be in the detail.

A Herald article details how these has been rumours about Clarke Gayford, which have been categorically denied by the Police.

A reminder that it is defamatory to publish something that is untrue and lowers the reputation of another person, and it is also a breach of Kiwiblog’s policies.

If any comments are drawn to my attention they will be deleted, and the person making then suspended if they carry on.  You can report comments to [email protected].

There has been a lot of attention on Trump’s more public trade acts such as walking away from the TPP and imposing tariffs on steel. While they are significant in themselves, they pale into comparison with what the US is looking to do to the WTO.

The WTO replaced GATT as the home of rules for trade. Countries would voluntarily join the WTO, and agree to follow the rules of the WTO. The WTO lies at the heart of having order and predictability for trade.

A key aspect of the WTO is that if two (or more) countries have a dispute over whether a country is following the WTO rules, it gets referred to a WTO dispute panel. The panel decision can then be appealed before it is final.

Over 500 disputes have gone to the WTO, with 350 of them resulting in a binding ruling. New Zealand has been a beneficiary of this system as we have won every dispute we have brought to the WTO. They are:

• Australia – apples
• Hungary – agricultural subsidies
• EU – butter tariffs
• India – quotas
• Canada – dairy subsidies
• US – lamb tariffs and steel tariffs

This rules based system helps smaller countries especially.

But there is a grave threat to this system. You see the finding of dispute panels is not binding until an appeal has been heard and concluded by the Appellate Body. It has seven members and each appeal must be heard by three members.

Now here’s the big problem. Appointments to the Appellate Body need to be made by consensus. This has happened up until recently. But the United States in the last couple of years has been blocking any new members, to replace the retiring ones (they have a four year term).

They are not blocking new ones because they are unqualified. They are blocking any person at all being appointed so that the number of members will fall below the level needed to hear appeals.

This means no appeals can be heard and hence no disputes can be settled and enforced. So the Trump Administration is actually trying to cripple the entire dispute resolution system for world trade.  That is far more significant than the steel tariffs or even TPP.

There are now only four members left on the Appellate Body. They are:

• Shree Servansing (Mauritius) until September 2018
• Ujal Singh (India) until December 2019
• Thomas Graham (US) until December 2019
• Hong Zhao (China until November 2020

If the WTO disputes process grounds to a halt because of the US, this will have huge consequences. It may not be possible to put it back together again. Countries will be able to ignore their agreements and obligations without consequence.

Such a shame to see a country which should be the foremost champion of trade, working to destroy the WTO.

Stacey Kirk writes:

 A “trail of broken promises”. 

The much-loved political standard is a track on repeat with Oppositions throughout history. Howled across the aisle at the slightest change in direction or policy by the Government, used to highlight a perceived failure to voters, no matter how small.

It’s been a while though, since it had such a tangible example to hinge off. Health Minister David Clark’s admission that the Government will not be delivering cheaper GP visits in full this year, is a clear breach of an election campaign promise. 

Yep a big fat broken promise. They spent all their money on giving to be wealthy students free fees.

A campaign refresher: National announced a key election plank to cap the cost of GP visits for 600,000 low-income New Zealanders to $18. It would also expand the community services card to an additional 350,000 people, with low incomes and high housing costs giving them access to $18 GP visits too. 

One week later, Labour announces the exact same policy but with a consumer price guarantee to beat National’s offer by an additional $10 and extend it to all of New Zealand.

So National had an affordable policy that was targeted at lower income families. Labour trumped that by saying they’ll extend it to everyone – and people got conned and believed it.

Stuff reports:

A senior Labour MP has been forced to explain an “error” resulting in a complaint she misused public funds.

Independent Citizens, a local body political organisation in Christchurch, wrote to Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard on Monday with a complaint about Port Hills MP Ruth Dyson.

It alleged Dyson used public funds to send a letter to hundreds of households in Lyttelton endorsing a Labour-backed candidate, Tyrone Fields, in an upcoming by-election to a local community board.

The publication used Dyson’s letterhead and included the House of Representatives crest, typically used to indicate a publication has been paid for using Parliamentary Service funding.

So a letter went on parliamentary letterhead urging people to vote for the Labour candidate for the community board. That is a total no no. And from the office of the Government Chief Whip is worse.

Spending rules, set out in the Speaker’s Directions, prohibit the use of Service money and resources for electioneering publications. This includes the use of email, phone services, postage, email, and staff time.

Dyson said Field’s campaign team “correctly” accessed her letterhead for the publication, but an “error” was made in not removing the crest before it was sent out.

The issue isn’t just the crest. But who paid for the letterhead? Who paid for the printing? Who p[aid for the postage? If the answer to any of those is The Parliamentary Service, then Labour should refund the money involved.

Liam Hehir writes:

But all of a sudden, things seemed to have changed. North Korea agreed to reconnect the Seoul-Pyongyang hotline. North Korea has suspended missile launches and nuclear tests. Kim has visited South Korea, the first time any leader of the North has done this and agreed with the president of the South to work towards some kind of peace agreement. 

And this is all good.

As events continue to unfold, however, we must not lose sight of how evil the Kim dynasty is. Those who preach understanding and peace would do well to be sobered by this. 

Almost 5 per cent of North Korea’s population exists in a state of slavery. The rule of law does not exist. Torture, cruel punishments and unjust executions are not failures and lapses in the country’s justice system, but central features of it. Not only are abortions forced, but children born with physical defects are murdered by the state. 

The people starve. If they are suspected of insufficient loyalty to the government, they are imprisoned. The government indoctrinates the people with a race-based nationalism. 

North Korea is a country that combines the poverty of communism with the xenophobia of fascism while sharing the tyranny of both. For all the talk of hope and optimism, that is the type of regime being accommodated. The desirability of peace does not detract from that harsh truth. 

A useful reminder of how bad North Korea is. Yes we want peace. But ultimately we want North Korea to open up and change. The human beings born in North Korea deserve a better future than modern slavery.

Mike Lee writes:

Light rail from the CBD to the airport risks being a costly failure. …

To most Aucklanders I speak to the idea of trams to the airport remains something of a joke — and now not so funny given the cost of $4b just for an airport and Westgate tram line. Aucklanders are being told they will have to pay for this not only in their rates but also in an extra fuel tax. Extraordinarily, on the advice of tyro transport ministers Phil Twyford and Julie Anne Genter this tax is to be imposed for a project that has no business case.

That’s okay. They also decided to close down an entire industry with no business case or analysis.

Light rail (trams) to the airport will be slower to build, provide a slower journey, serve a more restricted catchment and cost far more than extending the existing rail network. Why isn’t the Government capitalising on the huge strategic investment going into the City Rail Link? …

There certainly is a role for light rail in Auckland as we max out bus capacity on our inner city routes — but light rail will be a hugely expensive failure as a rapid transit airport solution.

Mike Lee is Labour-aligned and a former director of Auckland Transport. If he says light rail to the airport will be a huge mistake, they should perhaps listen to him.

Stuff reports:

One of Labour’s key election promises appears set to be broken at the Budget, with the Health Minister refusing to confirm if cheaper GP visits are still on the table. 

Under Labour’s policy New Zealanders with a community services card would be charged $8 to see the doctor – $10 cheaper than National’s proposed $18 fee. Charges for teens would reduce from $12 to $2, and under-13s would still see the doctor for free. 

The average adult GP cost would go from $42 to $32. Both parties promised to bring in their policies from July 1, this year, but the costings of their respective policies differed greatly. …

Health Minister David Clark said the Government would meet all its promises over the course of the term, but its GP policy would have to be phased in. 

Phased in does not sound like starting on 1 July. That was an explicit manifesto commitment so this looks like a huge broken promise.

This also exposes the priorities of Labour. They managed to find $1.2 billion a year to give students who will be wealthy in the future free fees, but can’t find even one fifth of that to help families who are sick better afford a GP visit.

I guess more students vote than sick people!

Anyway all those people who ripped into Steven Joyce for saying Labour’s policies didn’t add up, should get ready their apology cards.

David Clark announced:

Health Minister Dr David Clark has announced new chairs to lead Auckland’s three District Health Boards.

The Auckland, Waitemata and Counties-Manukau DHBs have had acting chairs since December following the resignation of Lester Levy, who had led all three boards.

“No one should underestimate the task of governance in our public health service. DHB chairs play a vital role overseeing the delivery of health services to New Zealanders.

“These are demanding and important roles. I am more than pleased with the calibre of people that have agreed to step up to lead the DHBs,” said Dr Clark.

The new chairs are:
•    Pat Snedden, Auckland DHB (from June 1)
•    Judy McGregor, Waitemata DHB (from June 10)
•    Vui Mark Gosche, Counties-Manukau DHB (from May 3)

“All three incoming chairs are experienced leaders with long records of public service. I know they will provide strong leadership and support the Government to deliver on our vision of a high quality public health service.

This is a mixed bag.

Pat Snedden is an experienced director and chair, and has specific health governance experience. He’s Labour aligned but no doubt a qualified person to be Chair.

Judy McGregor has a solid career behind her as a newspaper editor, academic and Human Rights Commissioner. But none of these are really core governance roles, let alone for such a difficult creature as a DHB. To be appointed Chair without having even been a Director first is risky.

Mark Gosche is of course a former Labour Minister. It is rare for a former MP to be appointed a DHB Chair. Not sure I can recall any others. As he is so associated with Labour, it means that any future problems at that DHB will see the Government held fully accountable as they appointed one of their own to be Chair.

Stuff reports:

A top health manager has likened a proposed Ronald McDonald House at the new Dunedin Hospital to accepting beer and cigarette sponsorship.

Yeah for a cheeseburger is just like a cigarette.

He also met with unnamed representatives from the charity in Christchurch on December 11, and received several emails from DHB staff supporting the facility.

“McDonald’s don’t run a drive-thru in the car park,” one said.

“We have stayed at Ronald McDonald House more times than I care to count and I cannot speak higher of a charity,” another said.

Exactly. This is not a mobile McDonalds store. It is simply a place where families of kids with cancer can stay.

Sean Rush at Stuff writes:

I became a criminal defence lawyer in Napier, my home town, in the early 1990s. I was the son of hard-working parents who often relied on the former family benefit to get by so I thought I knew a thing or two about the tough side of life. But criminal law exposed me to an even tougher New Zealand.

It was disheartening to see young men, disproportionately Māori, go through the system. They could be the sort of guys I went to school with and played rugby with. These kids were smart, fun, and a bit cheeky, in many ways, just like me.

They fell into a cycle that soon became apparent: small misdemeanours which ended in youth court. Then car conversion, drugs, burglary and jail time, and after that the offences become more serious: armed

robbery, assault, grievous bodily harm, and sometimes drugs and gang involvement. Suddenly that cheeky kid is doing a lengthy lag in jail.

What’s this got to do with the Government’s oil and gas announcement? In one fell poorly thought through swoop, the Government dashed the hopes of many New Zealanders, and primary among them are those cheeky kids I grew up with, and their kids and mokopuna. What the sector offered New Zealand was a growing industry; energy of course, but mostly hope. Hope for a more positive economic future, for everyone.

Yep 11,000 jobs with no future, and all for a decision that will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions.

My family and I took a punt and came home in 2013. Two kids later, it’s worked out for us. I also saw a future where the industry I had grown to love could do something for the kids I saw being left behind.

​The Government’s announcement that it is halting exploration has well and truly ended that dream. It will have a chilling effect on new investment as well as eliminating the possibility of growth.

The rhetoric that current exploration permits can last for 40 years is a glib half-truth. Most permits require an upfront expensive commitment to seismic acquisition, worth millions of dollars, within the first three years and, if something looks “interesting,” a well that might cost over $100 million within the following two.

Only if that well can be successfully developed will some of the permit area stay “live” for 40 years, but that requires another government consent and there is now considerable uncertainty about whether it will be given.

This is the key. The current exploration permits are basically worthless unless you will be given a mining permit in the event of an area being worth mining or drilling. But absolutely no one thinks this Government would ever allow an exploration permit to become a mining permit, so effectively the current permits are worthless.

Investors can choose other destinations to put their money. This move will not change global exploration – it will be carbon leakage in action. There won’t be any emissions reductions, and in all likelihood emissions will go up in New Zealand as we start to rely on coal again. I expect the existing permits will be handed back within 5 years.

They may wait to see is a more rational Government is in place after 2020, but if not they’ll all head off.

Investment in infrastructure bankrolled by oil companies brings jobs, from holding the stop/go sign, digging pipeline trenches, hot trades, catering, taxis, trucking, wharfs to higher-skilled jobs like civil engineering, financing and everything in between. Royalties from one medium-sized field, like the UK’s “Buzzard” field would, at current oil prices, earn nearly $4 million a day in royalties.

Maybe the cycle of offending could be broken with a good job and the economic independence, choices and freedom a job brings – people like freedom when they get it and make better life choices to hang on to it. Jobs bring economic independence. A gas discovery brings jobs.

Big oil companies – the sort we need in New Zealand – do not invest in countries with unstable policy regimes. They don’t invest in a country where politicians make industry altering decisions without any consultation nor a dearth of analysis on what the decision means for the country and the New Zealanders who face ripping out their gas cookers and heating in a decade’s time.

This part needs to be stressed again.

• This decision was not Labour party policy
• It was not a coalition commitment
• There was no consultation
• There was no analysis of its impact

This is Mickey Mouse territory.

This new policy will hurt New Zealanders. And it will really hurt the kids of the kids I grew up with and saw in court as a criminal lawyer; who without hope of economic opportunities in the communities they live in are vulnerable to the same fate as their dads. And that, from a country that is committed to ending poverty, is the real cost of this decision.

A great op ed.