First the arrogance:

The new and improved way of not answering questions. This time from Rt Hon Winnie. pic.twitter.com/7Fmz0k6Mr7

— Jami-Lee Ross (@jamileeross) December 5, 2017

Yes a Government that says in its coalition document it is going to champion open government is again refusing to answer any question at all around meetings they have had. Basically they have decided to give absolute nonsense replies to every written question. This is a level of arrogance that people should be alarmed about. It is entirely reasonable to ask if a Minister has met with any Mayors.

The Government must be very short of ideas – they’re still putting backbenchers up to filibuster on innocuous bills in committee stage to waste time. It’s now week 4 of Parliament. #disorganised

— Jami-Lee Ross (@jamileeross) December 6, 2017

A Government filibustering their own bills because they are so incompetent they don’t even have speakers lined up for the next bills on the order paper. And remember they control the order on the order paper!

The sublime has now reached the ridiculous – the Government is so scared about starting new legislation that they’re now blocking closure motions on Government Bills. I have never seen this before.

— Jami-Lee Ross (@jamileeross) December 6, 2017

I can’t ever recall a situation where a Government is voting against closure motions on a Government bill. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t highlighting the levels of incompetence involved.

Gwynn Compton summarises:

Labour’s ineptitude in the House appears to have been capped off this evening as Labour first deployed its backbenchers, then had to rush eight ministers to the House, including Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson, to filibuster legislation on their own Order Paper. At the time of writing, government MPs are having to literally read subparts of the legislation they’re speaking on and make up fluff around it. We’ve even had a speech on the meaning of the word “is”.

What’s phenomenal about this is that normally the government treasures House time, there’s typically such a demand on it that it’s difficult to get new legislation introduced because there’s such a backlog to deal with. What we’re seeing instead is a government who on the one hand claiming that they’re busy, and on the other revealing that they’re not so much asleep at the wheel, but that they’re completely missing from the car of government, having fallen out of the driver’s door some four miles down the round.

It’s like a Forrest Gump Government!

One News reports:

Russia’s Olympic team has been barred from competing at next year’s 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea, amid claims of systematic doping.

The country’s government officials are forbidden from attending and their flag will not be flown during the opening ceremony or games.

Athletes with rigorous drug testing histories will be able to compete as neutrals, but the Russian national anthem will not play should they win gold.

The IOC has also imposed a lifetime Olympic ban on Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vitaly Mutko, organizer of football’s 2018 World Cup.

IOC President Thomas Bach said the actions taken protect clean athletes while targetting the systematic doping schemes allegedly undertaken by Russia.

This is a very good thing. All countries have some athletes that cheat with steroids etc. But Russia is unique in having a steroid programme organised and administered by the Government, and covered up by the Government. The only way to discourage Governments from doing this is consequences such as non-competition.

Stuff reports:

Former US vice president Al Gore has commended Jacinda Ardern and the new Government on its bold direction on climate change.

Lots of rhetoric so far, but few actual policies.

Ardern said New Zealand had to be a responsible member of the international community and a responsible neighbour.

Just because New Zealand’s carbon emissions accounted for about 1 per cent of the global total, that did not diminish the country’s responsibility.

We’re not 1% of greenhouse gas emissions. We’re 0.17%. If we were 1% we’d be the 16th largest emitter. We’re in 60th place. That is a huge difference.

Also Ardern said carbon emissions. That is a sub-set of greenhouse gas emissions. I assume she meant greenhouse gas emissions but if she didn’t then we’re even lower. We’re at 0.09% and in 71st place.

Ardern also talked briefly of the Government’s policies specifically related to climate change – including the target of net-zero carbon by 2050, planting 1 billion trees over 10 years, 100 per cent renewable energy by 2035 and transitioning to a zero-emissions government vehicle fleet.

Here’s the problem. Those three policies will have a small impact on our level of net emissions. They’re cosmetically attractive but not substantive in terms of that target.

Stuff reports:

Sir Peter Jackson is threatening to pull the pin on Wellington’s $150 million Movie Museum, amid concerns over the city council “reneging” on its contract with him.

Wellington city councillors, chief executive Kevin Lavery, and mayor Justin Lester all received a letter on Tuesday on behalf of The Movie Museum Limited (TMML), signed by Jackson, Sir Richard Taylor, Fran Walsh and Tania Rodger.

It is understood Jackson penned the leaked letter – described by councillors as a “divorce letter” – because he was angry at how the council, as an overbearing landlord, had been pushing ahead selfishly with the museum, for which he would pay $3m in annual rent.

In bold print he wrote: “WCC seem intent on reneging on many of the terms already agreed in the November 2015 signed contract.

“This is the principal cause of ongoing delays, and it feels that WCC are attempting to sabotage the project. We hope this is not the case and common sense can be allowed to return to process.”

Under the signed agreement, the council would pay for the new building, while TMML would fund the museum fitout, and feature Jackson’s extensive collection of movie memorabilia.

In the leaked letter, he says it is no longer in a collaborative partnership, and questions whether the council understands TMML’s investment.

To date, his company had invested millions of dollars on consultancy and and management fees, and had given up its time for free.

It would also spend a further $50m on the fitout for his $200m collection of sets, props and artefacts.

He said he was “somewhat disheartened” after the overall version of the project had been lost.

An unacceptable update on the development agreement (including a change in rent terms, scrutiny of TMML and its books, need for approval and lack of freedom) had raised many concerns.

There was “no way” TMML would agree, he said.

The proposed movie museum could easily become the top tourist attraction in Wellington. It would be a real kick in the guts if it didn’t occur.

Lester said he would be gobsmacked and incredibly disappointed if Jackson pulled out.

You’re the Mayor. Go sort it out.

Jenesa Jeram writes in the Herald:

The actuarial approach assesses the predictable fiscal risks of people with different profiles. By calculating how much individuals with different risk factors are likely to cost the welfare system, a government can target services to reduce that liability.

But measuring fiscal liability is not primarily about cutting costs. Nor is it about reducing our colourful and intricate lives to dollar figures. It is about highlighting and understanding the complexities that lead to those figures. …

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the most valuable outcomes from applying the actuarial measure are not the big fiscal numbers churned out at the end. The juiciest part of those chunky actuarial reports is how the numbers are reached.

The actuarial reports can reveal what has been out of sight, or affirm what has always been in plain sight but where government action has not been effective.

The actuarial reports remind us of the costs of getting public policy wrong. More needs to be done to help young people receiving benefits gain independence. In fact, 75 per cent of total liability for those in the benefit system is attributable to those who first entered the system under the age of 20.

While Labour and National agree that early intervention is important the actuarial reports can measure its effectiveness.

This last sentence is I think the key. The actuarial reports allow you to judge if these policies are effective and successful. I think a hallmark of this Government will be that they don’t want to be judged on outcomes – just outputs. That spending lots of money and trying hard is what counts, rather than measuring actual change.

High fiscal liabilities are not a failure of the individual, but a failure of government to help them into independence. And the actuarial measure need not lead to punitive welfare policy. Forcing people into jobs they are not suited for or that are unsustainable will not reduce long-term fiscal liability. Treating beneficiaries like liabilities does not reduce fiscal liability.

Of course, the actuarial measure does not reveal everything policymakers need to know. Critics argue it would be best to dump it for a range of well-being measures. That is like saying a builder should dump her screwdrivers because she already has a hammer.

The Government needs both well-being measures and actuarial measures to track its progress and highlight what it has neglected.

All too often people argue it is one or the other. They argue rail not roads when we need both. They argue grow Auckland up not out, when we need both. And with welfare we need both well-being measures and the actuarial approach.

Tim Murphy wrote:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has told the High Court he wants to be paid monetary damages by two journalists who reported his seven-year overpayment of national superannuation.

That is outrageous. Considering Metiria Turei lost her job as an MP over her revelations that she was overpaid a benefit (due to false declarations) it is clearly a matter of public interest if another MP was in a similar situation. And we still don’t know how the overpayment occurred as Peters refuses to allow MSD to reveal details. We only have his version of events and MSD is gagged.

Peters, aged 72, is also alleging in an unorthodox draft Statement of Claim filed with the High Court at Auckland that prominent Newshub political reporter Lloyd Burr is a “National Party political activist”.

This is almost demented. Many National MPs think Burr is a hybrid cross of a jackal and a hyena (I’m sure they mean it as a compliment Lloyd!) so to file a court document saying he is a political activist for National is bonkers.

Peters not only wants the court to require Burr and myself to hand over phone records, notes and documents relating to his superannuation windfall story but to pay him “general damages” as compensation for allegedly breaching his privacy. 

So because they helped expose that Peters had been claiming too much money, he wants them to pay damages to Peters. This is really outrageous.

He also wants money from one of the country’s top civil servants, the head of the Ministry of Social Development, Brendan Boyle.

Having the Deputy PM sue a Government Chief Executive is a very bad look. How can the Chief Executive defend himself fully when doing so could cause political instability to the Government?

If Peters wasn’t Deputy PM, then Boyle could respond to the lawsuit with details of whether MSD thought the overpayments were accidental or not. But if MSD’s conclusion was that they were not accidental (and we don’t know as Winston won’t allow the documents to be released) then that would be lethal to Peters. So MSD may just need to pay money to Peters rather than defend themselves.

If Ardern wasn’t dependent on Peters, she should tell him that he can’t remain Deputy PM and sue a Government Chief Executive.

Peters calls the group of National ministers and staffers, which also included Steven Joyce, English’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson and party communications officer Clark Hennessy, by a made-up title, the National Party Re-election Committee and gives it the acronym NPRC throughout his document.

I thought legal papers needed to have a basis in fact, not just be a hysterical conspiracy theory. He invents a committee!

On the media’s reporting of the story, Peters alleges the “NPRC” arranged to leak the fact of his overpayment “to the media by use of journalists who were part-of and/or sympathetic to the National Party campaign to be re-elected

That would not be Llloyd Burr!

If any National staffer or MP did leak the material, then I’m all for them facing the consequences for doing so. But an imaginary conspiracy theory is not a good basis for a lawsuit.

I have no idea who did leak the material but it is just as plausible that a left leaning MSD staffer who knew of the Peters situation thought it was hypocritical that Turei was being pilloried for her welfare over-payments and that Peters situation was similar to Turei’s and hence they leaked it.

Now I’m guessing also, but I’m not suing people on the basis of guesswork.

Stuff reports:

A report published in the prestigious New Zealand Medical Journal has attacked acupuncture businesses for widespread abuse of rules around advertising claims.

Report author Daniel Ryan, who is a member of the Society for Science Based Healthcare, also said ACC should withdraw funding for acupuncture treatments because they don’t work and they are now costing taxpayers $33 million a year. …

Ryan searched acupuncture business websites in New Zealand for illegal claims that acupuncture can treat or prevent serious conditions.

Section 58(1)(a) of the Medicines Act bans any advertisements that claim a treatment can “prevent, mitigate or cure” from a list of about 40 named serious conditions.

Ryan found that for the 101 included websites, the three most frequent claims were around the treatment or prevention of mental illness, infertility and arthritis (all on the list).

Combined, these claims appeared on 73 per cent of the websites. He also found 11 per cent of sites claimed acupuncture could treat or prevent cancer, 23 per cent made diabetes claims, 19 per cent targeted thrombosis and 14 per cent offered help for heart disease.

That’s an outrageous level of deceit in those websites. Acupuncture can have some therapeutic benefits such as pain relief, but if most of the providers in NZ are touting it as preventing arthritis and infertility then they are in danger of being seen as quacks.

Ryan said ACC subsidises acupuncture treatments at $67 an hour. He said ACC spent $33.2 million on acupuncture claims in the 2016/17 financial year and a total of $210 million had been spent over the last decade.

Ryan said the best scientific evidence suggested acupuncture was “no more than a theatrical placebo”.

“We need to ensure that taxpayers’ money is only used to pay for evidence-based treatments,” he said. “The government needs to review its funding of acupuncture and stop wasting money.” 

He called for the two acupuncture professional bodies to revoke practising certificates from acupuncturists which made advertising claims that breached Section 58 of the Medicines Act. Without the practising certificates, the acupuncturists couldn’t access ACC money.

That seems a very sensible idea.

But Roberts said Acupuncture NZ wouldn’t do that.

“The only reason we would remove someone’s practising certificate is if they were in breach of gross misconduct – so if there were complaints about the actual treatment being provided. We wouldn’t remove someone’s certificate just for some complaints on what’s on their website. We would continue to work with them to improve the website.”

How about you give them three months to stop deceiving people and then yank their accreditation if non compliant?

And if Acupuncture New Zealand is unwilling to do that. then maybe a new regulatory body is needed.

Stuff reports:

The chief executive of the Pike River Recovery Agency will be held responsible if anything goes wrong with the re-entry of the drift.

Last month, the Prime Minister and Andrew Little – the Minister Responsible for the Pike River Re-entry, announced the Government would establish a government department by the end of January 2018 to assess the risk associated with a manned re-entry, and the best way to carry out the entry.

The entry of the mine’s drift, and the recovery of any remains of the 29 men killed in 2010, would be completed by March 2019.

At the time of the announcement, Little said the agency – Te Kahui Whakamana Rua Tekau ma Iwa (The Empowering Voice for the Pike 29) – would answer to him, and as the minister in charge, he would have the final decision.

He refused to respond to questions on who would be held liable, under New Zealand health and safety laws, if something went wrong.

However, documents relating to the establishment of the agency show the chief executive of the agency would be held legally responsible if something went wrong.

A ministerial briefing paper from November 3, said the liability would rest with those instructed by the minister, not the minister.

Who would want to be that Chief Executive? Little gives the order but you’re the one who goes to jail if anyone is seriously harmed in the reentry!

I don’t normally blog on columns by Rachel Stewart as she has the habit of threatening to break my legs when I do. However her column on free speech and hate speech is too important to not respond to. The views she expresses are I am sure not unique to her, but many on the left would share them – which concerns me.

Stewart wrote:

Of late, and for some unknown reason, there’s been a noticeable surge in openly expressed opinions held by racists, sexists and homophobes. …

Last week a column appeared in the Otago Daily Times by one Dave Witherow. In it, he expressed his contempt for te reo Māori being spoken in everyday discourse, and on Radio New Zealand. He called supporters of te reo Māori “boring bigots” and argued that “inflicting te reo on the entire population is contemptuous”. That’s the brief version of an extremely ugly rant.

Regarding the column, Don Brash wrote on Facebook that “I found myself in strong agreement. I’m utterly sick of people talking in Maori on RNZ in what are primarily English-language broadcasts.”

The response to the Witherow column has been so over the top it is not funny. He has been declared a racist (along with Brash) for wanting less te reo on National Radio. The reaction on Twitter has been as if this is the greatest threat to civilisation since the industrial revolution.

Now before I also get declared a racist my personal view is it is a good thing to include some conversational te reo in broadcast media. You can overdo it, but it is a nice way to have more people acquainted with the language. When picking an early childhood centre for our son, one of features we liked in the one we chose with they had a strong commitment to biculturalism and te reo.

But just because you don’t agree with National Radio including more te reo in its broadcasts, that in no way makes you a racist. Here’s what I regard as a racist:

• Someone who says they would never hire someone of a particular race
• Someone who says they don’t want to associate with someone of a particular race
• Someone who says that all members of a particular race are stupid/violent etc
• Someone who doesn’t want to live with someone of a particular race

Basically racists are those who treat the group characteristic of a race as more important than the individual.

Now yes there is also structural racism, but that is different to personal racism. And what we see on the left is a growing tendency for anyone who disagrees with a left policy to improve a racial inequality to be deemed a racist. So basically they are saying if you disagree with anything we put forward as worthy, then you are racist. It is an attempt to close down honest debate.

Don Brash said we don’t need more te reo on National Radio as taxpayers fund around 17 Maori language radio stations already plus Maori TV. That is a point one can debate. You can accept the Crown has a duty to promote the Maori language, but disagree that National Radio is the right vehicle for it. And there is a sliding scale between the occasional kia ora and say half of the broadcast being in te reo (which would lose many listeners as so few understand it). Again this is an issue that should be debatable without the pitchforks.

But Stewart goes further. She says:

Am I overstating it to call it hate speech? Hate speech is language that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. I think it fits the bill.

No hate speech is not saying you think there is too much te reo on National Radio. Hate speech is saying:

• Kill all the Jews
• Wipe out the Hutus
• Bash up the fags
• Lynch the n*****s

If you want an example of what gets close to or meets the definition of hate speech read this article on the trolls sent by the Daily Stormer to a Jewish women:

• “You have no idea what you are doing, six million are only the beginning.”
• “Death to Tanya” was repeated more than 30 times followed by: “This message came from ‘Satan Your King.’ “
• One photoshopped an image of her young son to make it appear as if he was being “crushed by Nazi trucks,” and sent the image to him.
• “There are only 6000 Jews in the entire state of Montana, yet they’re 100 per cent of the people trying to silence Richard Spencer by harassing his mother. So Then – Let’s Hit Em Up.

Now even that stuff may not meet the very high threshold to be hate speech. It is hateful but that is different. But to call a column saying there should be less te reo on National Radio as akin to hate speech is worrisome.

Surely there’s got to be a limit to the principle of free speech when what’s being expressed is harmful to certain groups. Or does the principle of free speech – hate-filled or not – trump all?

All speech can be deemed harmful to certain groups? Attacking a politician can be harmful to members of the political party that support him. Denigrating columnists as old white men can be harmful to old white men.

Yes free speech should trump censorship except in the very limited cases of advocating violence (something Stewart herself has actually done!)

Well, as an opinion writer myself, I’m firmly of the view that free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Absolutely. But I struggle with what basically amounts to gratuitous hate speech passed off as worthy discourse. It isn’t.

Which is saying free speech but …

Maybe, if your media platform is consistently seen to be enabling hate speech, it’s nothing short of complicity? Sure, the platform is not actually saying the offending words, but they’re handing over the microphone, that they plugged in, to the very people who do say the words. 

So let’s not just censor the columnists who say things we don’t like, let’s go after the publishers also.

Hate speech in New Zealand remains largely unenforced. It is prohibited under the Human Rights Act 1993, and Dame Susan Devoy this year called for politicians and others to address the problem, saying: “We need people at the very top to take some leadership on this.”

And I agree. I also know it’s fraught and complicated, and some academics at universities worry about robust debate being curtailed; believing freedom of expression to be sacrosanct.

But surely New Zealanders have the intellectual heft to solve it? Columns like Witherow’s will continue to appear with monotonous regularity, and hurt whole sectors of society in the process. It is deeply divisive rhetoric, and the media knows it. But divisive sells.

Again advocating less te reo on National Radio is not hate speech. It is insulting to true hate speech.

This mindset is part of how Trump got elected. A spectrum of society starts to say that your views are racist/sexist/homophobic and you must not be allowed to state your opinion in public. And then they even suggest your views are so terrible that they must be labelled hate speech and you potentially face criminal sanctions for daring to disagree with the liberal orthodoxy.

And the backlash to this is what fuels people like Trump. He may have many many flaws, but at least he is standing up to the speech bullies. People see US universities becoming places to denounce speech, not support it.

And I’m not suggesting that Witherow (and his ilk) be locked up for his hate speech. But I am suggesting that – and maybe I’m being naive, given the financial constraints on journalism these days – any editor worth their ethical salt would have rejected it.

Some small mercy that Stewart doesn’t think you should go to jail for advocating less te reo on National Radio. Maybe just a fine?

Now while these views are shared by many on the left, it is not universal. Was pleased to see Gordon McLauchlan do a robust response.

It’s now yet Christmas and Labour are already more than 1,000 houses behind in their pledge to build 10,000 affordable houses per year. The counter is at 1,105.

For trees it is even worse. They are now over 10 million trees behind. The counter is at 10.9 million.

Will we see these deficits shrink next year or just keep growing?

Stuff reports:

Looking up to the public gallery from his seat in Australia’s House of Representatives, Liberal MP Tim Wilson neared the end of his speech and paused.

“There’s only one thing left to do,” he said, choking up slightly. “Ryan Patrick Bolger, will you marry me?”

It was, in all likelihood, the first marriage proposal to be made on the floor of Parliament. And the answer came back fast and loud: “Yes.”

The word has been heard ad nauseam in recent weeks, but rarely in a context so personal. The Melbourne pair have considered themselves fiances for years, and now, as same-sex marriage enters the final stretch of parliamentary debate, their long-awaited wedding day finally nears.

“I take great pride in being able to say at every single occasion I stood up and defended our institutions, traditions and freedoms ahead of the politics of the day.

“Some took a stop-change-at-all-costs approach, and the full costs now come with it. That was their choice – not those seeking change, and not mine. My conscience is clear.”

The Liberal Party should “reflect on this debate and learn from it”, Wilson said. 

“Some of us are liberals, real liberals, living [Robert] Menzies’ address to his 1965 federal council that we are not the party of the past, not the conservative party dying hard on the last barricade, but one with a lively mind and a forward-looking heart,” he said.

Tim is a true classical liberal. He was appointed by the Abbott Government to the Human Rights Commission as a Free Speech Commissioner. National should have done the same here. Someone whose job was to defend free speech – even unpopular speech.

Stuff reports:

Newstalk ZB host Leighton Smith has announced he will leave the station next year.

The veteran talk back radio broadcaster has worked on Newstalk ZB for 32 years.

“We have come to a conclusion; the conclusion is I’m going to hand over the microphone,” Smith said at the end of his Monday morning show. 

Smith would continue his show until the end of next year and said ever after that, his listeners would still be able to find him somewhere. 

Kerre McIvor would then take over his slot.

Huge shoes to fill, but I think Kerre is up to it.

Smith said he had tried to leave the station two years ago, but stayed on thanks to “some arm twisting”.

He had worked on the morning show alongside his producer and wife Carolyn Leaney​ for 30 years. When he hands over the microphone late next year, Smith said he would have been at Newstalk ZB – called 1ZB when he started in 1985 – for 33 years.

Your wife as producer – that would be interesting. I wonder if they were a couple first, or were working together first?

Stuff reports:

The Director-General of Health, Chai Chuah, has announced his resignation, stepping down from the role as health boss two-and-a-half years into a five-year term. 

The new Government, and in particular Health Minister David Clark, have been highly critical of Chuah from the Opposition benches and Chuah said it was “important for the sector to operate in a unified way”. 

Chuah had informed State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes in July, he was considering stepping down. 

I have little doubt that the reason for the departure is that the new Minister would have expressed a lack of confidence in him. When this occurs, the State Services Commissioner will normally arrange a departure. It isn’t tenable to have a CEO who doesn’t have the confidence of their Minister.

So it’s a early win for Clark. Chuah was controversial in the sector and had very strained relations with some DHBs. This will make things smoother for Clark.

Finding a replacement may be difficult though. It is arguably the worst job in the public sector because the demand for spending in health will always outstrip supply. There are always new technologies, new drugs, more procedures, more staff needed. The DG of Health has to try and get efficiencies of a system that is often resistant to them.

Of interest is this announcement:

Health Minister Dr David Clark has announced the urgent establishment of a new Ministerial Advisory Group on the Health System.

Dr Clark has appointed Sir Brian Roche as chair of the group. Professor David Tipene-Leach, Muriel Tūnoho, Dr Karen Poutasi and Dr Lester Levy have also been appointed members for a term of two years. They will report directly to the Minister of Health. 

“These five individuals are extremely experienced and highly regarded in the health and disability sector.

“I’ve asked them to advise me on lifting the Ministry’s performance and leadership, strengthening relationships across the sector, and helping to deliver the Government’s strategic direction for health. This work is critical to improving the quality of our health services. 

I don’t know all the members but Roche, Poutasi and Levy are well regarded and could well play a good role in improving the performance of the Ministry of Health.

Stuff reports:

Students, parents and staff at two of the country’s 10 charter schools say they are in “limbo” over whether they’ll have a school to attend in the new year.

Education Minister Chris Hipkins is reviewing all 10 charter schools on a case-by-case basis and he has written to them saying the Ministry of Education will meet with them individually in February, but until then all contractual agreements remain in place.

But Alwyn Poole, who oversees two charter schools in Auckland, says everyone is in “limbo” waiting to hear the fate of the schools under the new Government after Labour campaigned to get rid of them.

“There’s been this underlying expression of concern, from our students as well, who are quite politically aware. Even though they’re relatively young they follow what’s going on and they’re concerned about their own education,” he said.

“There’s some strange things going on and we think there’s some Ministry officials who have pre-empted Mr Hipkins taking anything to Cabinet. We’ve had one comment come through that we’ll all have to close and reopen after some new configuration if that’s possible.”

Poole believes the Ministry is “overstepping their jurisdiction” given no specific directive has been given by Hipkins yet.

In the meantime, he says he has a growing waiting list of 100 at South Auckland Middle School and the end-of-year prizegiving next week at both schools run by Villa Education Trust, but no answer for parents as to whether they’ll face closure at some point next year.

Last month Hipkins said there were currently about 1200 young people attending charter schools and he wanted to “take the time to work to find a solution that works for them”

They have a solution that works for them. They’re doing really well at them.

Trans-Tasman doesn’t give ratings to the new MPs as there hasn’t been enough time but they do make some comments on them. Most of the comments are just on their background, but some are on their prospects.

The more substantive comments I have highlighted her.

Labour

• Tamati Coffey –  A former broadcaster who rates himself higher than others.
• Paul Eagle –  Solid, reliable and experienced.
• Marja Lubeck –  Lawyer and former union worker. Won the respect of employers and unions.
• Kieran McAnulty –  Smart and sensible.
• Willow-Jean Prime – highly regarded in the party.
• Deborah Russell – Possibly the smartest new MP in the House for a decade. Watch her get promoted and very quickly.

National

• Lawrence Yule –  Accomplished local govt politician but they don’t always transition well.

NZ First

• Jenny Marcroft –  Award-winning broadcaster and a trained teacher, should be an asset to the party.

Greens

• Chloe Swarbrick –  Plenty to say for herself.

Stuff reports:

The Parade in Island Bay rang with chants of “paint it back” as hundreds of protesters marched against plans to spend an additional $4.1m revamping a Wellington cycleway.

Protest organiser Vicki Greco, of the Island Bay Residents’ Association, told the crowd on Sunday that residents were working to bring legal action against Wellington City Council, which opted for an eleventh-hour “common sense” solution from Mayor Justin Lester despite the majority of residents supporting a return to pre-cycleway design.

Councillor Diane Calvert, who holds the council’s community planning and engagement portfolio, said Lester’s solution satisfied 31 of 34 requirements, as laid out by the residents’ association.

But what are the three it does not? Not all requirements are equal.

UNFULFILLED RATEPAYER ASSOCIATION REQUIREMENTS 

1. No raised platforms to be included in the design – rejected on engineers advice that raise areas made cyclists safer by stopping cars coming onto The Parade at speed from side streets.

2. The cycle lane will be on the carriageway side of the parked cars, not kerbside – rejected 

3. Within the shopping area the current shared space is to be retained – rejected, with footpath width is 4.6 metres, no business were deemed to lose any outdoor dining space.

I’m of the opinion that the way the road used to be was way safer for cyclists than with the new cycleway.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for most of the 121 MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 4.9 (+0.6 from 2016), which is a significant increase. Average Ratings per Party

1. ACT 5.5 (-1.5)
2. National 4.0 (+0.3)
3. Labour 5.0 (+0.9)
4. Green 4.8 (+1.3)
5. NZ First 4.5 (+1.4)

Note that the 2016 comparisons are all MPs in Parliament. The 2017 data is for existing MPs, but not the new MPs.

Top MPs

1. Jacinda Ardern 8.5 (+4.5)
2. Bill English 8.0 (-0.5)
   David Parker 8.0 (+2.0)
3. Amy Adams 7.5 (-1.0)
   Simon Bridges 7.5 (nc)
   Christopher Finlayson 7.5 (nc)
   Steven Joyce 7.5 (+0.5)
4. Anne Tolley 7.0 (nc)
   Andrew Little 7.0 (+0.5)
   Trevor Mallard 7.0 (+3.0)
   Grant Robertson 7.0 (+2.5)
5. Nikki Kaye 6.5 (+1.0)
   Paula Bennett 6.5 (-0.5)
   Chris Bishop 6.5 (+1.0)
   Judith Collins 6.5 (+0.5)
   Julie Anne Genter 6.5 (+1.0)

Bottom MPs

1. Rino Tirikatene 2.0 (nc)
   Melissa Lee 2.0 (nc)
   Jian Yang 2.0 (-1.0)
2. Nuk Korako 2.5 (+0.5)

Top Labour MPs

1. Jacinda Ardern 8.5 (+4.5)
2. David Parker 8.0 (+2.0)
3. Andrew Little 7.0 (+0.5)
   Trevor Mallard 7.0 (+3.0)
   Grant Robertson 7.0 (+2.5)
4. David Clark 6.0 (+2.5)
   Chris Hipkins 6.0 (nc)
   Stuart Nash 6.0 (+1.0)
   Damien O’Connor (-1.5)
   Phil Twyford 6.0 (+0.5)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Julie Anne Genter 6.5 (+1.0)
2. Winston Peters 6.0 (-1.5)
   James Shaw 6.0 (nc)
3. David Seymour 5.5 (-1.5)
4. Shane Jones 5.0
   Ron Mark 5.0 (+1.0)
   Eugenie Sage 5.0 (+1.0)

Biggest Increases

1. Jacinda Ardern +4.5
2. Trevor Mallard +3.0
3. David Clark +2.5
   Nanaia Mahuta +2.5
   Grant Robertson +2.5
   Scott Simpson +2.5

Biggest Decreases

1. Poto Williams -1.5
   David Seymour -1.5
   Winston Peters -1.5
   Jonathan Coleman -1.5
2. Jian Yang -1.0
   Michael Woodhouse -1.0
   Nick Smith -1.0
   Gareth Hughes -1.0
   Alfred Ngaro -1.5
   Kelvin Davis -1.0
   Amy Adams -1.0

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 5.4 (-0.8 from last Govt)
2. Cabinet 5.7 (-1.0 from last Govt)
3. National frontbench 6.8 (-0.6)
4. Labour frontbench 6.2 (+1.1)
5. Labour backbench 3.3

So the Labour frontbench has improved and National frontbench dropped, but National on average still rates higher.

Overall 53 MPs got a higher score, 18 MPs stayed the same and 18 MPs got a lower score.

A reminder these are the opinions of the three authors at Trans-Tasman, not mine.

The Herald reports:

Regional Development Minister Shane Jones wants welfare payments to be cut if beneficiaries refuse to take part in his new Government work programme, which will look to plant trees and build up a railway network for tourists.

Jones will take four projects to Cabinet for his Working For Your Country scheme before Christmas, which will give beneficiaries a chance to work for at least the minimum wage in industries such as tree planting, riparian planting or regional railway development.

“In order to plant one billion trees, in order to deliver on riparian planting, in order to prepare a workforce for recapitalising the railways, the ne’er-do-well nephs will be required to take those jobs,” Jones told the Herald.

“If they are unwilling, then I will spend every thinking and waking moment ensuring they do not fall back on the dole and be permitted to do jack, while the rest of us are out there working.”

Sadly for Shane this is the exact opposite of what Labour and Greens want. They want fewer sanctions for beneficiaries that don’t seek or take up work.

Shane is good at the talk. But it will probably be just talk.

Stuff reports:

US Senate Republicans passed a $1.5 trillion (NZ$2.1 trillion) tax bill early Saturday morning (US local time) that bestows massive benefits on corporate America and the wealthy while delivering mixed blessings to everybody else.

After a frantic round of negotiations, Republicans came together in near unanimity behind the landmark legislation. The final vote was 51 to 49, with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) the lone GOP holdout. Democrats unanimously opposed the bill.

The measure still has to be reconciled with an earlier House-passed version before being sent to President Trump. Yet in getting the bill through the Senate, Republicans succeeded where they failed earlier this year, when their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act collapsed in mortifying fashion.

This time, urged on by donors and fearful of facing voters in next year’s midterm elections without a legislative achievement to show, Republicans said time and again that failure was not an option.

“The American people wanted change,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). “We were able to deliver.”

The centrepiece of the GOP plan is a move to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 per cent to 20 per cent, starting in 2019. The Senate tax bill would also temporarily cut tax rates for families and individuals until 2025.

It’s a big win for Trump and the drop in company tax rate from 35% to 20% is huge. This will put pressure on NZ to lower its rate of 20% as more and more companies do decide where to locate based on corporate tax rates.

The downside for the US is they are running a huge deficit, and this will increase the deficit. When you have a surplus, absolutely you should cut taxes. But the US political system seems unable to control on reduce spending, so this just increases the deficit and debt which makes an economic crash in the future for the US more likely.

Stuff reports:

Barnaby Joyce, the deputy prime minister booted out of Australia’s Parliament because of his dual New Zealand citizenship, has claimed a stunning byelection win to return to his seat.

Joyce’s staggering win in the seat of New England is being touted by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as the biggest byelection swing to a sitting government in the country’s history.

In what will be a major shot in the arm for the Australian government and could restore some confidence after a grim few weeks, Joyce appears to have lifted his primary vote by at least 10 points, meaning after the distribution of preferences he will have as many as seven in 10 votes in the New South Wales seat.

That’s a huge swing and result. It indicates voters don’t think the balance of power in Parliament should change due to the by-elections caused by the dual citizenship fiasco.