A guest post by Jeremy Dawson:

In defence of Israel Folau (kind of)

The ongoing assault on Israel Folau has reached absurd levels. Keep in mind that the comment that triggered this fury occurred on 3 April – 16 days ago. Yet the media continue to pimp for new voices to condemn him. 

The question that needs to be asked is why? Why has the media reaction been so extreme in the case of Folau that they keep trying to find new ways to feed the story more than two weeks later? Anthony Mundine, earlier this year, made a comment where he said the only way to solve the problem of homosexuality was capital punishment. That story fizzled within a few days. 

One guy says gay people should be killed. Another says it his belief that gay people will go to hell unless they repent their sins and choose God. It isn’t hard to spot which statement should cause the greater offence. It also isn’t hard to see what the difference is between Folau and Mundine – to spell it out, one is Christian, the other is Muslim. 

What troubles me in particular about the Folau case is the willingness of commentators to throw around terms such as bigot, homophobe and hate speech. Except Folau is not a bigot, nor a homophobe. And neither is saying sinners go to Hell hate speech. I am not going to defend his choice of words in his initial response to an obvious social media troll. If he changed just two words he would have got his message across in a more positive fashion. It would then have read: “Heaven… If they repent their sins and turn to God.” Because that is the truth – reaching heaven is no different whether you’re gay or straight. It is a choice to give your life to God, and each individual is accountable for themselves. 

The article Folau penned to explain himself is far more articulate and deserves to be respected. You can disagree with his biblical interpretation, but it is clear there was no malice, no hate, intended. He wants to speak the truth, as he believes it. As a Christian, I shook my head when I saw the words Folau chose. I agree that how he initially responded had the potential to cause harm to people struggling with their sexuality. The words you choose do matter. But I’m not going to vilify him for failing to think that part through, and ultimately I commend him for standing strong in his faith as everyone piles on the self-righteous bandwagon. 

One of the problems society has long suffered from is grandstanding about the flaws they see in everyone else, because it allows them to ignore their own. How many of these rugby players who are suddenly speaking out really think they can take the moral high ground on anything. If Folau’s social media post disgusts them so much that they don’t want to even be on the same field as him, then how can they take the field with teammates who abuse strippers or cheat on their wives or partners. And then you have the media – an industry well-known (particularly in Auckland) for being partial to snorting cocaine despite the thousands of people who are murdered each year just so they can get high. Or maybe selective morality sits well with them.

It’s time the media put a stop to their campaign. As the Bible says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That is not to say that Folau should not be challenged on the impact his words have, he should and he has. Faith is a journey, and he is learning. But the relentless media campaign has been over the top and is starting to smell more like an excuse to run an attack on Christianity in general. It’s always fun to have a crack at Christians, after all. We just turn the other cheek. 

Jeremy makes very valid points about the double standards between what Folau said, and what Mundine said. I recall a former Labour MP who said that the Koran was correct to recommend gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death. His words attracted far far far less attention that what Folau said.

Having said that, I think Folau is an idiot for his choice of words. If he needs some assistance on how to speak about homosexuality from a Christian perspective without being an offensive ass, he should try following Pope Francis.

And Kim Baker Wilson has written a horrific and brave account of his brain injury after being the victim of a homophobic attack.

Christian scripture also has pre-marital sex as a sin. Does Folau go around saying everyone who has had pre-marital sex is going to hell? If so, I doubt any of his rugby colleagues will be safe!

So Folau’s words do deserve criticism, but the 16 days of almost non stop condemnation is a double standard.

Had a phone call from a reader. He was reading up on the candidates for Northcote and checked out their Linked In profiles. He saw a MBA from AUT listed for Shanan Halbert (the Labour candidate). He checked out the AUT graduate page and they do not have Halbert as a graduate.

He then checked back Halbert’s Linked In page the next day, and the MBA mention was gone. So looks like tracks being covered. However the Internet tends to leave footprints.

But a Holaconnect page for for Halbert says:

Education
Master of Business Administration (MBA)@Auckland University of Technology

Tova O’Brien writes:

These are just a few of New Zealand’s close friends who got in behind the United States, United Kingdom and France when they launched airstrikes against the murderous Syrian regime and its chemical weapons sites. 

• Australia says it “supports” the airstrikes in Syria – it’s even considering joining the next round.

• Canada “supports” them too. 

• Germany called them “necessary and appropriate” and also used the S-word, “support”.

• NATO “supports” them.

• The European Union “stands with our allies on the side of justice”.

The attacks came after yet another gas attack that killed 75 people, including children. 

Jacinda Ardern may “understand” the strikes, even “accept” the strikes but it will be a cold day in hell before the Prime Minister joins our allies in “supporting” airstrikes in Syria. 

Accept is such a weasel word. You should support or oppose it. If you don’t support it, then what would you to do to discourage Assad from using chemical weapons?

Liam Hehir writes:

Outside the few hundred objectivists in this country, I think we can all agree that taxation is essential to maintaining a modern civilisation. Without tax, there can be no state. And the state has a natural and indispensable function in securing the common good. So without tax, life would be Hell.

 But does that mean there’s something wrong with you if you don’t have a song in your heart when paying provisional tax? Hardly. Resenting the taxman doesn’t make you morally inferior. It makes you human.

 In our house, we regularly serve broccoli to our sons. Our oldest really hates it because of its bitter taste. But that has to be balanced against all the fibre, vitamins, potassium and other health-promoting agents packed into those small, green, flowery heads. So the rule is that he has to eat some minimal amount of the stuff.

 Of course, we don’t insist that he actually like it. We’ve never tried to browbeat him into enjoying broccoli because “broccoli is love.” We’re not that controlling and he’s not that dumb.

The campaign is an insult to our intelligence.

Most of us work really hard and take on a lot of stress to earn a living. It will never feel great to see a large share of it pass out of our control. We all have things we would rather do with that money.

And that’s why, for example, individual spending scandals will always stick in our craw. It doesn’t matter how small it is in the scheme of things. When the Crown takes such a big share of what you had to struggle so hard to earn, how can it not be frustrating to read about a government department spending $70,000 on a sign?

Are you really supposed to comfort yourself with thoughts about much love that wasteful sign represents?

That being said, and speaking as somebody who believes in moderate taxation, I can only encourage the “tax is love” theme. Please. I mean it. Don’t let me stop you.

True – it is so pathetic it backfires.

New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young writes:

I’m not disappointed – I’m angry!

A kick in the guts, a wrecking ball for the region, killing the golden goose. All these phrases express the emotional response to the Ardern-Peters Government’s announcement to end new offshore oil and gas exploration. Without doubt more bad news is still to come as the Green Party and Greenpeace make onshore exploration their next target. 

Hard to imagine that won’t have the same fate unless the Government changes.

The Ardern-Peters Government has made a significant misstep in their approach. New Zealand has 10 years of known gas supply lefts. We haven’t had a gas discovery for eight years. With existing exploration hoping to make a discovery, it has a 10-15% chance of success.

When a discovery is made, it will take a further ten years of development before gas is available for market. Just do the math, without considering any chilling effect on investment the Government’s decision has created, we should get ready for a gasless future. 

With every fifth day of our electricity generated from fossil fuels, mostly gas – we have a problem. When electricity demand increases because of the growth of electric vehicles in New Zealand, we have a compounded problem. Wind and solar energy might contribute, but both are intermittent. This will require overbuild and capacity charging, leading to higher electricity prices. With gas possibly gone, and any shortfall in renewables, we’re left with coal to keep our lights on. Emissions will likely rise rather than fall. 

Yep the Government has managed to come up with a policy that both effs over Taranaki and increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Gas replacing coal is one of the key reasons why energy emissions stalled in their growth in 2014, 2015 and 2016 according to the International Energy Agency.

James Shaw has said no to that, because according to the Paris Accord, the market for gas is going to dry up and no one will need it. That’s an unrealistic proposal. The IEA have said in 2050, 50 per cent of world energy will still be fossil fuel based. 

The Government has taken a purist position that harms the environment and harms New Zealand – just so they can boast overseas about what good works they are doing.

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s desire for a movie museum, a pricey indoor arena, and its need for resilience, will bump the city’s debt to more than $1 billion for the first time.

Wellington City Council’s debt level is set to rise from $507 million to $1.16 billion over the next 10 years to pay for investments such as water reservoirs, earthquake strengthening the Town Hall, Let’s Get Wellington Moving, cycleway infrastructure and the arts.

Reservoirs are a must have. A 2nd concert venue on top of the MFC is a nice to have.

Councillor Andy Foster was concerned the council was proposing to more than double the amount it borrowed and was warning ratepayers it will cost them in interest payments.

The spending is within the council’s financial guidelines but Foster, who holds the finance portfolio, estimated the council would go from paying $1m every two weeks in interest to more than $1m every five days.

There’s only 75,000 households in Wellington City so that is $13 every five days per household – just on interest.

“It’s debt heavy. The proposed increase and the costs of debt servicing is a concern… I want to know if ratepayers are comfortable with that or rather we trimmed the costs. I would struggle to put my hand up and vote for the current budget.”

Don’t. Trim the nice to haves.

The Youth Justice Indicators Summary report shows that actually youth offending has been dropping under the last Government. It compares 2009/10 to 2016/17. The findings are:

• Child (10 to 13) offending rate down 59%
• Youth (14 to 16) offending rate down 63%
• Pasifika youth offending rate down 61%
• Maori youth offending rate down 59%

This is very encouraging as if someone starts offending as a child or youth, they are far more likely to keep offending and end up in prison.

Guyon Espiner writes:

Unfortunately for the PM the narrative has been blown off course by the timebomb Peters placed in the coalition agreement – his wish for a free trade deal with Russia.

It was France and Britain, two of the big stops on Ardern’s trip, who joined the US in missile strikes against the Russian-backed Syrian regime, in retaliation for gas attacks.

Against a back drop of Russian-Western conflict not seen since the Cold War, uncomfortable questions follow Ardern around Europe.

Why, just weeks ago, was her country still clinging to the notion it could pursue a trade deal with Russia? Why did it take so long to drop the idea and why was it there in the first place?

Everyone assumes because a donor wanted it.

The demand to re-start the deal didn’t come from a free trade champion. Peters has largely opposed FTAs, including with South Korea and China.

This is why it is so interesting. It clearly isn’t belief in trade.

Why did Peters cast doubt on Russia’s role in bringing down MH17 and meddling in the US elections? Why did the government insist there were no Russian spies here and buck the trend of its allies, who expelled Russian diplomats?

The questions continue after the missile strikes on Syria. While Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull and Canada’s Justin Trudeau support the strikes, New Zealand “accepts why” they occurred.

Almost everytime the issue involves Russia, NZ is on the wrong side of it, or has to be poked and prodded into being on the right side.

What is it that Winston Peters wants to achieve in foreign policy?

Among the first of his stated aims was improving the relationship with Australia. Given the fallout over New Zealand pressing its case to take refugees from Manus Island that looks a difficult box to tick.

Yep Aussie is one of many countries peeved at this Government.

And what of China? Why has the Prime Minister not planned a visit to our second biggest trading partner at a time when we are supposed to be upgrading the China FTA?

Will it be the job of Winston Peters to take the relationship forward?

Doubtful as he campaigned against the China FTA.

An interesting speech from Simon Bridges to his old college – Rutherford College.

Some extracts:

As Leader of the Opposition there is a view that I’m supposed to be grouchy and always complaining about things.

But that’s not me.

For a start, we live in the best country in the world.

OK, I am biased, but there’s evidence.

Of 200 countries, New Zealand is ranked first for overall prosperity, first for personal freedom and first for civil rights. You live in the least corrupt country in the world, and the easiest to do business in.

Good to see Bridges not doing what Labour always did in Opposition, and say how terrible things are in NZ.

My career in the law led me to become a Crown prosecutor.

I was responsible for making the case to a judge or jury in court that someone was guilty and should go to jail. …

One particular case will be with me forever.

One morning, outside a Tauranga school, a guy called Tony Robertson, who already had a string of convictions, managed to convince a 5-year-old girl to get in a car with him.

He pretended to talk to her mum on the phone, and promised the girl Christmas presents.

Thank God, her brother, who was seven, went in to school and told the teachers what had just happened. They called the Police.

Immediately, Police organised a district-wide manhunt. One officer – Sergeant Dave Thompson – had a hunch on where such an offender might go.

He drove way out of town to Kaiate Falls.

There he found Robertson and the girl still in his car, crying. To this day, I believe Sergeant Thompson saved her life.

Like so many of our Police, he is a true hero.

For him, it must have been as rewarding as policing gets.

For me, my job was to prosecute Robertson. I tried to get him the strongest sentence New Zealand has, which is preventive detention. It means a person can be kept in prison their whole life.

Instead he was given seven and a half years in jail, and was let out in December 2013 because he’d done his time.

Less than six months later, he abducted a woman. This time there was no heroic police officer to save her.

Her name was Blessie Gotinco and Robertson raped and murdered her.

After that, he got preventive detention.

Some people like Robertson can’t be rehabilitated or let out.

I believe in most people getting another chance, and I am a strong believer in rehabilitation to help people move away from a life of desperation and crime.

But I also believe that jail is absolutely the right place for some offenders.

It bothers me that the Government is talking about lowering the prison population, without explaining how it will lower the crime rate first.

The way to lower the prison population is to lower reofffending. It isn’t to let recidivist criminals out early on parole and give them bail.

National has pointed out the Government now has more reviews and working groups than it has MPs. They are up to 75. If they keep this up we should hit zero unemployment for consultants in the near future. The 75 reviews are:

1. 31 October 2017 Review of Whanau Ora.
2. 3 November 2017 Investigation into circumstances around former Waikato
DHB boss Nigel Murray.
3. 5 November Govt reviews six contracts for new charter schools.
4. 5 November Govt review to look at how to control prison population.
5. 17 November 2017 Youth advisory group on education.
6. 21 November 2017 Review of Christchurch Regeneration Anchor Projects.
7. 23 November 2017 Tax Working Group.
8. 25 November 2017 Housing stocktake report.
9. 5 December 2017 New Ministerial Advisory Group on Health.
10. 7 December 2017 Crown Irrigation Review.
11. 7 December 2017 Investigation into potentially contaminated water.
12. 13 December 2017 Government inquiry into fuel pipe outage at Marsden
Point.
13. 13 December 2017 KiwiFund member’s bill to establish an independent
working group.
14. 14 December 2017 Review into NCEA system.
15. 15 December 2017 Digital Advisory Group.
16. 18 December 2017 Climate Commission.
17. 18 December 2017 Continue to review New Zealand’s copyright law.
18. 18 December 2017 Government plans review of kauri dieback programme.
19. 19 December 2017 Independent Expert Advisory panel to review Reserve
Bank Act.
20. 19 December 2017 New Chief Technology Officer role created.
21. December 2017 Review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.
22. 10 January 2018 Local Government rates inquiry.
23. 15 January 2018 Primary Growth Partnership review.
24. 19 January 2018 Review of Waste Minimisation Act.
25. 23 January 2018 Mental Health Inquiry.
26. 23 January 2018 Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles
reconvened.
27. 29 January 2018 Film Industry Working Group.
28. 31 January 2018 Pike River Recovery Agency.
29. 31 January 2018 Small Business Advisory Group.
30. 1 February 2018 State Care Abuse Royal Commission.
31. 2 February 2018 NZ aid spending review planned.
32. 8 February 2018 Review of Electricity Sector.
33. 9 February Working group formed to tackle Auckland housing crisis.
34. 13 February 2018 Independent review into National Bowel Screening
programme.
35. 15 February 2018 Review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act.
36. 16 February 2018 Review into whistleblower laws.
37. 16 February 2018 Justice Minister Andrew Little takes on abortion law
reform.
38. 21 February 2018 Review into culture at the Human Rights Commission.
39. 21 February 2018 Three Year Review into Education System.
40. 22 February 2018 World Digital Rights Working Group.
41. 23 February 2018 Upper North Island Supply Chain strategy development.
(Ports review)
42. 25 February 2018 Public Media Advisory Group.
43. 1 March 2018 Independent Ministerial Advisor to speed up EQC claims.
44. 2 March 2018 Australia-New Zealand review into how to work better
together.
45. 2 March 2018 Joint NZ-AUS project to boost trans-Tasman exports.
46. 7 March 2018 Bid to host International Working Group on Women in Sport
in 2022.
47. 7 March 2018 Comprehensive review of Charities Act.
48. 8 March 2018 Working Group to develop solutions to freedom camping.
49. 8 March 2018 Review of New Zealand’s insurance laws.
50. 13 March 2018 Shane Jones reveals the panel who will help steer the $3b
provincial growth fund.
51. 15 March Review to weigh up tobacco tax.
52. 16 March 2018 A broader digital economy and inclusion network.
53. 17 March 2018 Andrew Little announces a review into the Family Court.
54. 17 March 2018 Review of legal aid is planned.
55. 19 March 2018 Hui to help shape Crown/Māori Relations.
56. 19 March 2018 Review of the Residential Tenancies Act.
57. 19 March 2018 A new Future Technology Leadership Group.
58. 20 March 2018 Review of the Threat Management Plan (TMP) for Hector’s
and Māui dolphins.
59. 20 March 2018 Independent inquiry into EQC.
60. 21 March 2018 Review the Defence Capability plan.
61. 26 March 2018 Set up a Criminal Cases Review Commission.
62. 26 March 2018 Creation of a committee for monetary policy decisions.
63. 26 March 2018 Ardern urges DHB’s to establish ‘independent panel’ to
reach settlement.
64. 29 March Govt to hold road safety summit.
65. 4 April Vehicle recall monitoring group.
66. 5 April Early Learning Strategic Plan Ministerial Advisory Group.
67. 5 April Early Learning Strategic Plan Reference Group.
68. 9 April Review of a new trade policy.
69. 9 April MBIE future of work.
70. 11 April Operation Burnham Inquiry.
71. 12 April Refresh of the Cyber Security Strategy and Action Plan.
72. 12 April Australian racing expert to review NZ racing industry.
73. 16 April Establishment of IGIS Reference Group.
74. 17 April Interim Climate Change Committee Announced.
75. 18 April Criminal Justice Summit.

Whale Oil blogs:

Recently the role of chief press secretary has made the news after Mike Jaspers moved to a new role. …

The position reports directly to the chief of staff for the prime minister. 

And the key is the recruitment company used is part owned by the partner of the Chief of Staff. The recruitment fee could be as high as $45,000, which is significant.

This is a terrible look. I know the PM’s Chief of Staff and he is a good guy. I don’t think he would have personally been involved in the decision as to which recruitment company to use. But it is still a conflict of interest that should have been avoided.

I don’t even know why a recruitment company was used. Ministerial Services has no less than five “Resourcing Specialists” whose jobs I presume are to recruit staff for ministerial offices.

The company in question is a well respected one, which has done some work for Ministerial Services before. But as far as I can recall a recruitment company has never been used in the past for the role of chief press secretary. This is the most high profile job in the administration and normally you just head hunt whom you want for it. If you advertise there tends to be no shortage of applicants, so it is not a role that has needed a recruitment company. They normally get used for harder to fill roles.

So again I don’t think the Chief of Staff would have been involved in the decision, but I think it does create a conflict which should have been avoided.

I blogged previously on the Otago University study that found kids are bombarded with 27 junk food advertisements a day. They of course used this to argue all such advertising should be banned.

Well Christopher Snowdon has for his sins read the entire paper and discovered it is even worse than we thought. He blogs:

The researchers put a small camera on a bunch of 11 to 14 year olds for a few days to see what they were seeing. The cameras took a photo every seven seconds and provided the researchers with 1.3 million frames of footage.

So this was based on video footage.

So the kids were ‘exposed’ to ‘non-core food marketing’ 27 times a day. But it transpires that the vast majority of the ‘marketing’ was not marketing as most people understand it and it was certainly not ‘advertising’, as the media reports claimed.

Of the 27 ‘exposures’, 17 involved nothing more that kids seeing food products, often while they were consuming them. 

Now just think about this. Their claim of 27 advertisements a day was based on the majority being that a kid sees a food product they are about to eat.

Amazing, isn’t it? Every time you think you’ve seen it all from the ‘public health’ racket they find a new way of flabbering your gast. Their latest wheeze is to portray kids glancing at the food they are eating as marketing.

How the hell did this study get $800,000 of taxpayer funding!

These ‘exposures’ make up two-third of the total. Most of the rest are signs inside and outside of shops, accounting for a further 7.6 frames per day. The number of actual advertisements seen is incredibly small. The kids saw an average of 0.2 ‘junk food’ advertisements on television per day and an average of 0.6 in print media.

So two thirds were kids glancing at food they were about to consume. Most of the remaining third was advertising in or on shops. Only a miniscule proportional were traditional advertisements.

No wonder the authors had to widen the definition of ‘marketing’ so dramatically. If they had actually looked at ‘junk food advertising’ they would have been forced to admit that kids hardly see any of it.

And then no more $800,000 grants.

Stuff reports:

A story and subsequent tweet from the Wall Street Journal in September compared Ardern to Trump on immigration (‘Meet New Zealand’s Donald Trump’), before the headline and tweet were altered after backlash to read: ‘Meet New Zealand’s Justin Trudeau – except she’s more like Trump on immigration’.

“That infuriated me, it infuriated me. We are a party who at the same time were campaigning to double our refugee quota. We are a nation built on immigration. I’m only a third generation New Zealander,” the 37-year-old PM said.

“The suggestion in any way that New Zealand wasn’t an open outward facing country, the suggestion that I was leading something that was counter to that value, made me extremely angry.”

The truth hurts.

Her party, led by her, campaigned to slash immigration by tens of thousands. Her party blamed Auckland house prices on buyers with Chinese sounding surnames.

A reader writes in:

As you will be aware, Auckland Transport uses cycle trip recorders and recently put out a report saying there were 3.6m trips in 2017, a 6.2% increase on 2016. The NZH used this in a recent editorial and it often crops up when people advocate the construction of more cycle ways. But what does it actually mean?

3.6m is just under 10,000 a day. But my understanding is the counters don’t discriminate as to direction, so assuming anyone who bikes to work, etc, will also return home, thus passing the same counter twice in a day. So that’s actually 5,000 cyclists a day. (In fact Sunday and Public Holiday numbers should be discounted by some factor as the purpose is not cycle ways for recreational use but to get cars off the roads, but let’s be generous.)

But there are 28 counters in various sections of cycle way so it’s highly likely someone cycling a reasonable distance (eg Te Atahu to the CBD) will pass several counters. So again let’s be very generous, and just halve the figure again which means 2,500 actual cyclists a day.

A 6.2% increase on the previous year means 155 extra cyclists, or 3 a week. (155 x 2 x 2 x 365 = 226,300/3.6m = 6.27%) So all the investment is only getting 3 extra people on a bike a week! Or have I made a big mistake?

If it’s correct, how on earth can AT claim (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/news-events/cycle-counters-show-surge-in-bike-rides-in-2017/) “In 2016, 46,000 people, the equivalent of a full Mt Smart Stadium, took up cycling,” or the even more exaggerated claim “In 2017, AT’s Active Modes research showed that 35 per cent of Aucklanders cycled, up from 31 per cent in 2016.” 500,000+ Aucklanders or one in three cycling? It’s a nonsense.

If 46,000 people “took up cycling” the majority would need to buy a bike and there would be bike shops springing up everywhere. There would also be a high annual churn as some people realise it’s not for them. TradeMe currently has 300 street bikes listed for all of Auckland.

I’m not opposed to cycling per se but I am opposed to patently inaccurate information used to justify huge amounts of rate and tax payer expenditure.

It does look like the stats are rather inflated.

Oliver Hartwich wrote:

To say that the past weeks were not quite ideal from the coalition’s viewpoint would be an understatement. The Radio NZ saga, the farce over Russian spies and dubious events around the Provincial Growth Fund did not make it look like the most competent of administrations.

But instead of announcing something positive for a change and getting out of their hole, the Government added yet another policy blunder to its record.

To be clear, I am not talking about the substance of the decision to end offshore drilling.

It is legitimate to debate the cases for and against offshore exploration. Concerns about job losses in the industry and fears of a potential Deepwater Horizon disaster in New Zealand waters are both understandable.

It is much harder to link yesterday’s announcement to climate change. Whatever we do on exploration in New Zealand will do nothing to domestic, let alone global, consumption of hydrocarbons.

Actually it will probably increase greenhouse gas emissions as NZ natural gas will be replaced by imported coal.

However, what is neither understandable not sensible is how this Government decision was made.

Of the three partners in this Government, only the Greens had committed themselves to ending oil and gas exploration. Parts of Labour may have been sympathetic to it but it was not part of Labour’s manifesto. And New Zealand First never was in favour of a policy that would do serious damage to regional economic development.

This is key – this was not a known policy before the election.

The problem is that no-one else had been asked to submit their views on the decision.

This is a Government that purports to be in favour of openness and transparency. It is led by a Prime Minister who promised us in her election campaign that “The Government I lead will be a government that listens, then acts.”

Such promises ring hollow when pivotal decisions like ending oil and gas exploration are forced on the country without consultation, cost benefit analysis or public debate.

This is key – there was no consultation, no analysis and no debate. It was decision by fiat.

This is not how to govern a country. The Government just dug itself deeper into its political hole. 

As far as I can tell they made their decision because the PM did a photo op with a Greenpeace petition.

A guest post by Simeon Brown, MP for Pakuranga:

In the long run, a Government will be judged on what it achieves for the future of our country. Contrary to what the Labour Party might believe, a successful government is not composed only of the ingredients of an ‘ambitious’ agenda and rapturous applause. Our new Government is a coalition of contradiction with persistent indulgence in inconsistent principles. This will ultimately be the defining trait of its short tenure.

Virtue signalling has become the norm of this new government, however the virtues it signals are consistently contradictory. Whether it be promoting Smoke Free NZ 2025 while the Greens seek to relax cannabis laws, New Zealand First now heralding the triumphs of free trade in the CPTPP after opposing its near identical predecessor for nearly a decade, or Labour calling for ‘open government’ whilst refusing to release the coalitions foundation document, it is fairly impossible to know what contradiction will be pursued next.

Most recently, the Government has flouted its disregard for any sense of ideological or logical consistency by promoting contradictory pieces of legislation with regard to human rights. In just a few short weeks, the Government has argued that courts should be able given the power to declare legislation as inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, while also progressing legislation that will destroy freedom of speech through the so-called ‘waka-jumping’ Bill.  The Waka Jumping legislation, Winston Peters’ desperate attempt at self-preservation, puts party politics over public representation. It gives much more power to the internal structures of a party, rather than letting a MP act according to the views of those they represent. This piece of legislation is a dangerous change to New Zealand’s constitutional framework and curtails the rights of both Members of Parliament and their constituents. Just because Winston Peters has a perennial problem with his MP’s breaking rank, that does not justify the curbing of MP’s rights and their duty to respond to the voice of those in their electorates. But when you’re King-Maker and appointer-in-chief-of-Government, the views of constituents and the public at large are disregardable.   

This legislation is being pursued at the same time as legislation is being brought forward that undermines the fundamental principal of Parliamentary Sovereignty by allowing the court to declare legislation inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, something previously reserved solely for the Attorney-General. To be fair, we should expect little else than such disjointed and contradictory legislation when the Government is made up of parties with such radically different views of the world, such as NZ First and the Green Party. These Parties virtually encompass the poles of our political spectrum, so there should be little surprise that in the need for these two to collaborate, the Government appears bi-polar.

Parliamentary Sovereignty is one of the greatest hallmarks of Westminster democracy. The right of Parliament, which is the embodiment of the will of the people, to be uninhibited by the beliefs and views of a few unelected individuals, be they monarchs, judges, or international bodies, is paramount. The New Zealand Bill of Rights is an important piece of legislation that reflects our country’s belief in and respect for the rights of all people, but that is not to say that the perspective or agenda of a handful of appointed individuals should dictate what is or is not acceptable law. The irony is that Peters’ Waka Jumping legislation would most likely be declared inconsistent with the Bill of Rights by a court empowered with the power to do so. How can the Government support both?

Without greater cohesion within the Government, this Parliamentary term will be defined by a mismatch of conflicting laws that come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, with the Greens and New Zealand First cooking up policy with little supervision from a Labour Party prone to empty rhetoric, half-baked ideas are probably all that’s on the menu; unfortunately, contradiction looks like it will be here for a while. A famous saying goes, ‘The signature of mediocrity is not an unwillingness to change. The signature of mediocrity is inconsistency.’ The mediocrity of this Government continues to plumb new depths, as a wilful disregard for inconsistency continues to define its entire agenda, as ambitious as it supposedly may be.

The Spinoff has been running a campaign on how tax is really about love. I propose they show they mean it, by paying 84% of their profits in tax, instead of 28%.

Anyway David Seymour responded to their campaign, which they also ran:

Where to start? How about the abuse of language. The key words he uses are not just a little misused, but used to convey the opposite of their usual meaning.

He says “tax is love”. The trusty Oxford English Dictionary says tax is “a compulsory contribution to state revenue…” And, in its more generic form “A strain or heavy demand.” Love, meanwhile, is “an intense feeling of deep affection, or a great interest and pleasure in something.”

This is the kind of doublespeak Orwell warned us about when The Party said freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. Duncan thinks deep affection can be compelled. Creepy.

Tax is love so hence anyone wanting to pay less tax is a villain.

He goes on to say that paying tax is a “contribution to the country”. This is lazy writing. Nobody can give money to “the country”. You can give money to the Inland Revenue Department (who used taxpayer money to fund Duncan’s article)

Yes the IRD is paying for this rubbish.

Tax is not love, it is violence. If you do not pay, then, after a series of letters, people will come and put you in a cage. When citizens do this it is extortion and kidnapping, but the state calls it tax.

Or in the case of Penny Bright, take your house away from you for unpaid taxes (rates).

We believe there is a case for ‘public goods’ to be funded by taxes. They are not just things that are “good for the public”, but that fit an economist’s definition: Public goods are non-rivalrous; one person’s consumption doesn’t take away from another’s. They are non-excludable. There is no way to exclude a person from access to such a good if it is produced at all. If everyone can have it without contributing to its cost, nobody will contribute and the good will not be produced. …

National defence is a public good. Once a nation is safe from foreign aggressors, it is safe for everybody who lives there. My living safely does not detract from you being safe. It is also difficult to exclude non-payers. People who refuse to fund the military still get protected by it so long as the invaders are kept at bay.

As Milton Friedman concluded, the violence inherent in tax collection is better than that of foreign thugs and bullies. The same can be said for domestic thugs and bullies. If the police catch a criminal, everyone is safe from her, whether or not they’ve contributed to the policeman’s salary.

So few people are against funding a national defence and the Police. Well outside the Green Party anyway.

There are other public goods. Before it became a pulpit for second-rate academics to lecture us all on our personal choices, public health was actually about public health. Installing sewer systems and rubbish collections stopped infectious disease in cities, benefiting payers and non-payers alike who might have been infected otherwise. There is a strong case to fund these kinds of services from compulsory revenues.

If you add up all of the government spending on law and order, defence, environmental protection, and something called ‘Core Government,’ you get to about $11 billion per year. That much money could be raised by a GST of 10%. But last year central and government spent about $76 billion dollars. What was the other $65 billion about?

A good question.

The rest is government spending on private goods. Things that are rivalrous (one person’s consumption takes from another’s) and excludable (it is practical to prevent non-payers from benefitting). What does that look like? Welfare spending made up $25 billion of that government bill: that’s cash transfers to individuals so they can buy private goods. Just over half of that was superannuation payments to over 65s; the balance Working for Families and various other benefits. About $29 billion was spent on health and education – private goods served up to specific individual. The balance was transport, arts, culture and heritage, and “economic and industrial services” mostly giving taxpayer money to private businesses.

The most favourable interpretation of welfare, health, and education spending is that the government is operating a nationwide insurance scheme. The government must operate it, the argument goes, because there will always be people who no private insurer would cover. About 60,000 babies will be born in New Zealand next year. Some of them will have congenital conditions such as Down syndrome, some will have parents unable or unwilling to fund them an education, others will have a catastrophic accident. Seeing as it could be any of us, we should all want the insurance at birth, but it won’t be there if the lucky ones can leave when they work out they don’t need it.

So few people against funding health, welfare and education. But that doesn’t mean all spending in those areas is good. It is silly to pay a pension to someone earning $250,000 a year and it is silly to spend $1.2 billion a year to give tertiary students a 100% fees subsidy.

Collecting a dollar of tax doesn’t just take a dollar from the person taxed, it deters them from doing things they might have done absent a tax. The best estimates tell us that every dollar the government raises in tax actually takes about $1.20 to $1.60 out of the economy due to forgone opportunities. For tax to make sense, every dollar the government spends has to be worth not just the dollar that’s taken directly, but the 20-60c of “deadweight loss” as well.

Also the administrative cost of collecting the tax.

Income tax was introduced in 1891 at 5% on only the very highest incomes. Now it is 10.5% on the lowest incomes and 33% on the highest. By the time Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said “taxes are the price we pay for a free society” (in 1904), government spending in New Zealand was about one tenth of the economy. When the First Labour Government introduced the welfare state in 1935, government spending equated to a fifth of the economy. Today the government spends about a third of all money in the economy. When you allow for the incredible advances in technology since that time, the real resources applied by government per person per year are actually several times greater than when the welfare state began.

What is slightly encouraging is Labour and Greens pledged to keep government spending to under 30% of GDP.

Stuff reports:

Taxpayers are being asked to fork out $25 million to help pay for the $165m construction cost of Sir Peter Jackson’s movie museum and Wellington convention centre.

Hard to see a case for significant taxpayer support. Only if we think the museum and convention centre will bring more people to NZ, should support be justified.

The centre and museum will certainly bring more people to Wellington. There is a case for ratepayer support. But will someone fly to NZ just because of the movie museum?

The convention centre will attract conventions to Wellington. But this is probably instead of them being in Auckland or Christchurch. Will it bring conventions to NZ that otherwise would not have occurred?

The project was first budgeted to cost $134m, then increased to $150m and has now grown to $165m, which council documents say is related to changes to the exterior cladding and building design.

I’m keen for the project to succeed, but not at any cost.

The Herald editorial:

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons poison and kill indiscriminately, as distinct from weapons that can be precisely used against military targets. That is why weapons of mass destruction have been proscribed and powerful civilised nations must ensure any use of them is effectively punished. The only question arising from the punitive strike at Syria’s regime at the weekend is, will it be effective? …

Russia and its client regime may be able to ignore the latest “message” just as they did the previous responses, but it is nevertheless vital that the world does respond in this way. Ideally, the United Nations would have the cohesion and strength to deal a punitive blow to any country that uses a chemical weapon against another or against its own people. But in the real world, the use of these weapons has to be punished by those who possess the necessary principles and power.

The US could perform this role alone if it had to. This time it has had the active military support of Britain and France and the moral support of other Western allies. Sadly, it is not clear whether New Zealand is among them. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has expressed regret that the UN is hamstrung and “accepts” the US, France and Britain have taken action. “Accepts” is not exactly support.

Her Government should unequivocally support the message that chemical weapons can not be used with impunity. To let these weapons go unpunished would be dangerous for us all.

The Government’s position is hopelessly confused. They claim that one must act in accordance with international law, but don’t support any action taken against Syria for breaching international law unless Russia agrees with it.

The Herald reports:

Judges are being protected at their family homes by police as angry dads protest outside with placards and megaphones.

A group of fathers, many of whom are disgruntled at losing custody or visitation rights to their children, are gathering outside the homes of Family Court judges in Auckland, say multiple Herald sources.

It is understood the protests, which have largely taken place during weekends over the past few weeks, against about three judges have so far been peaceful with no reports of trespassing or property damage.

However, Minister of Justice and Courts Andrew Little called the protests “very disturbing” and said there was no excuse for people taking their case to the front door of a judge.

 

“I would not be persuaded or convinced by anybody who thought it was okay to target judges and their families in this sort of way,” he told the Herald.

“The reason for that sort of protest is to create some level of intimidation and that is entirely unacceptable.”

I agree. Protests should not be outside homes or judges or politicians or anyone. It is a form of intimidation and can be very disturbing for young children.

Protest outside the courts, outside offices etc. Not outside homes.

Nikki Kaye stated:

National’s Education Spokesperson Nikki Kaye says a bill supported by the Labour Government will undermine educators throughout the country by restricting the use of the term ‘teacher’.

“The Education (Protecting Teacher Title) Amendment Bill removes the ability of those who do not have certain recognised teaching qualifications from calling themselves ‘teachers’. Anyone who breaches this is liable to pay a $2000 fine,” Ms Kaye says.

“This bill jeopardises many of our current teachers and early childhood teachers whose current qualifications and experiences fall outside of the criteria.

“It has the potential to undermine and devalue our many educators who contribute to the wellbeing of our country. There are already provisions in the law to penalise people who may be misleading people about their qualifications.

“The impact of the bill is not even isolated to the education sector. Are we going to fine every music teacher, dance teacher, and swimming teacher?

This does seem to be an exceedingly stupid one.

This is a NZ First bill being supported by Labour.

The Dom Post last week:

Children and beauty pageant contestants say the darnedest things: Talk with them about some of the trickiest global issues and the reply is invariably the same.

What would you do about war, famine, poverty? I’d make them go away.

Those of us who understand that complex issues lie behind all of those, and that some sectors actually benefit from such cycles of misery, share their idealism but not the naivety.

At this point we should make it clear that we are being deliberately patronising.

To be patronising is to treat someone or something with apparent kindness but, ultimately, condescension.

Julie Anne Genter appears to have both nailed. It is laudable that the Associate Transport Minister cares deeply about the people she represents and is passionate about making our roads safer. We too share her view that the road toll must come down.

But it is condescending and patronising that she would promote a nonsensical target of zero road deaths.

It is condescending and patronising. If the Government really thinks it is a good idea, they should also announce:

• Target of zero drownings
• Target of zero child abuse
• Target of zero poverty
• Target of zero unemployment
• Target of zero workplace accidents
• Target of zero medical misadventures
• Target of zero crime
• Target of zero greenhouse gas emissions
• Target of zero abortions
• Target of zero mountain climbing deaths
• Target of zero ACC claims
• Target of zero suicides

Genter is neither a child nor a beauty pageant contestant. She is a Minister of the Crown, which means she should be delivering facts, not fantasy.

I want world peace and a zero road toll!