A really good joint report from the NZ Initiative and InternetNZ on analog regulation in a digital world.

They propose a number of ways to update our regulatory provisions for the digital age, such as:

• Copyright must adapt to technological changes that open new ways of making, marketing, and accessing content. One example here is making our current “fair dealing” system more flexible, complementing copyright protections with room to innovate, and apply new technologies which open creative ways to reuse works and reach audiences.
• The government’s commitment to open data principles needs to be seen by greater open data practice. New Zealand has a wealth of microdata from surveys and we can do much to make access easier without compromising confidentiality.
• Anti-Money Laundering legislation should be more sensitive to the size of potential risks so it does not hinder digital innovation. The delay in setting up Bitcoin exchanges is a case in point.
• Regulatory Impact Statements should note whether compliance with comparable jurisdictions’ rules could also be adequate for New Zealand purpose.
• Film and television censorship regimes must be updated to better account for how users can learn about and access content with modern technology.
• The scheduled review of the Harmful Digital Communications Act should consider whether the Act has been proportionate to the harms targeted and whether it has chilled non-infringing speech.
• Small tweaks can sometimes make a big difference. Confirming that supersonic aircraft need only comply with chapter 3 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation noise specifications for take offs and landings will see New Zealand ready for the next generation of supersonic passenger aircraft – and six-hour trips to the California coast.

The report notes:

The fiercest opposition to digital innovations generally comes from
incumbent industries. This is not surprising given their bottom line is under threat from new entrants. That the industry demands to apply
regulation to new digital competitors rather than abolish it for themselves shows regulation as a barrier to entry. Note the response of the taxi industry to Uber or hotel chains abroad to Airbnb.

Both new services which have been great for consumers but bad for incumbents.

Incumbents suggest new entrants should follow the same rules as
existing players. Calls for level playing fields earn some sympathy. But
regulation should focus on protecting consumer rights or addressing
harmful effects on third parties. If new technology can solve those
problems just as well as existing regulation, shackling new players with rules designed for older systems hurts consumers and competition.

Technology can be much better at solving problems. The fact my journey in an Uber is GPS tracked is much more reassuring to my safety than whether a taxi has a video camera in it.

The report also looks at the issue of copyright and how the law has to keep being amended as new technologies arise.

The VCR meant we had to change our copyright laws in 1994 to make them legal.

Reverse engineering was only made legal in NZ in 2008, 16 years after the US.

Digital video recorders and cloud services are technically in breach of NZ copyright law.

We need a copyright law that is flexible and focuses on the use, not the copying.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s Finance Minister Grant Robertson has backpedalled on Revenue Minister Stuart Nash’s promise to start requiring overseas retailers to collect GST on goods bought by New Zealanders, saying the government was still looking at the issue.

This morning on Newstalk ZB, Nash said the Government would “absolutely” extend the law to cover all goods as well as services purchased from overseas.

Absolutely! Can’t get firmer than that.

However, Robertson later said the Government was only looking at the issue and no decisions had been made.

Absolutely no decisions!

Nash declined to do further interviews on the matter.

It normally takes years for Ministers to start hiding from the media.

The Business Committee has agreed select committee memberships. The breakdown by party on each select committee is:

• Economic Development, Science and Innovation – National 5, Labour 3, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – tied between Government and Opposition
• Education and Workforce – National 5, Labour 4, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – Government majority
• Environment – National 4, Labour 3, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – Government majority
• Finance and Expenditure – National 5, Labour 6, NZ First 1, ACT 1 – Government majority
• Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade – National 4, Labour 3, Greens 1 – tied
• Governance and Administration – National 4, Labour 4 – tied
• Health – National 4, Labour 4 – tied
• Justice – National 4, Labour 4 – tied
• Māori Affairs – National 4, Labour 2, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – tied
• Primary Production – National 4, Labour 3, NZ First 1 – tied
• Social Services and Community – National 4, Labour 3, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – Government majority
• Transport and Infrastructure – National 3, Labour 3, NZ First 1, Greens 1 – Government majority
• Regulations Review – National 3, Labour 3 – tied

So of the 13 select committees, eight are tied. That means that unless National agrees no amendments can be agreed to, or even get a recommendation a bill proceed. This is not fatal as the recommendation can be overturned at second reading and amendments can be done at committee of the house stage. But that is messy. Basically Ministers will need to work with the Opposition if they wish bills to get through those eight select committees.

Of the other five committees, on four the Government only has a majority of the Greens vote with them. They are not bound to support Government bills to the same degree as NZ First is, so they will also be influential.

There are so many maiden speeches I can’t cover all or even most of them. But this one from Denise Lee was particularly poignant, so I want to highlight it.

I drove into the local petrol station after the election to return yet another hired trailer used for signs, and the station attendant approached me and remarked, “Hey, are you that lady from the signs—the one that won? I’ve been watching you. If you know how to back a trailer like that, you deserve to win.” I laughed. I introduced myself to Lester, and he told me that he was a regular middle New Zealander working hard to make a living, and now that I was elected, “Miss lady from the signs”, he said, “don’t forget about us.” Pressing a little further about what he meant, I discovered it meant that he felt OK about working hard as long as he had enough to take his family on a holiday. He didn’t want lawmakers to take away that opportunity. It wasn’t complicated; he was outgoing and optimistic, and he felt strongly that he wanted to keep more of what he earned so he could choose how to spend it.

Most people want to earn more and get to keep more of what they earn.

One night, I woke, as a young parent, and decided to check on my two-year-old son Riley, to discover that he had died in his sleep. 

Every parent’s worst nightmare.

What ensued was a series of random interactions with a cold-hearted, function-driven system. The failure of police inquest officers, pathologists, and coroners to sensitively inform and communicate their process to two shell-shocked parents still mystifies me today.

Loss comes in all forms, not just death but loss of careers, loss of confidence, and loss of relationships and marriage—my own succumbing to the high percentage of those that end upon the death of a child. With all our collective legislative wisdom, there shouldn’t also have to be loss of faith in a system supposedly designed to protect those that need it at precisely the time that they need it.

Trying to keep up with where Riley’s body had gone, what they were doing to it, and what they were retaining from it; receiving an abruptly worded police letter informing us of our Coroner’s Court hearing date—it was all too much. No explanations, no frequently asked questions brochure—just a summons. You’ll understand, I thought that we were being put on trial for the death of our son. 

Treated more like criminals than victims.

Walking through the valley of the shadow of death, trying to understand the legalities, and desperately wanting to just stay away from the world to get on with grieving, my sense of indignance grew. I was the one who had to ask to meet with the police and the pathologist and others to get a handle on who else might face what we did. The indignance formed a seed that merged into a big part of the driving force that sees me standing here today.

I’m subsequently relieved that the coronial system has improved for people. The 2006 Coroners Act and later reviews better protect the interests of grieving families. Politics really did become personal for me then. 

Hopefully no one else has to go through what Denise did.

Stuff reports:

The new Government will not repeal the ‘Hobbit law’, but instead plans to make changes to the controversial legislation. …

Lees-Galloway said it was more important to get new legislation right than to do it in 100 days, and that was what industry and unions wanted.

“It would be pointless to stick to a manifesto commitment that didn’t actually get us the result that we were looking for.”

The Government would set up an advisory group to develop new legislation for the film and television sector.

Lees-Galloway said there needed to certainty to encourage continued investment in the industry.

“My message to the international film industry is that New Zealand will remain both a premium hub of film craft and innovation, and as easy to do business with in future as it is today.”

The new Labour Government had promised to set about changing the controversial ‘Hobbit law’ in its first 100 days in office.

A huge but welcome back down from Labour. It looks like they discovered just how many productions and jobs would be lost if they repealed the law.

Working with industry on an acceptable solution is a far better way to go, than their manifesto commitment of an urgent repeal of the law.

Stuff reports:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson maintains the Government still plans to cut New Zealand’s debt levels, as economists warn billions more will be borrowed over the coming years.

In Opposition Labour laid out a fiscal plan which would borrow around $11 billion more than National had proposed, but still cut debt as a share of the total economic output from 24 per cent to 20 per cent by 2022.

The plan formed a major point of contention during the election campaign, as National finance spokesman Steven Joyce was widely mocked for his claim that Robertson’s plan had a major “fiscal hole”.

But bank economists, who monitor the likely issuance of government bonds, are warning of pressure for Treasury to borrow billions more than Labour had signalled because of new spending promises.

National worked so hard to get us back into surplus so we could stop borrowing. So how much more do the economists think Labour will borrow?

ANZ has forecast that Labour will borrow $13 billion more than its pre-election fiscal update maintained it would over the next four years, although around $3b of that would go to the NZ Super Fund. This would see net Crown debt at 23 per cent of gross domestic product, 3 percentage points higher than Labour’s plan.

So Labour said they will borrow $11 billion more, ANZ reckon it will be $24 billion more.

Now there are around 2.4 million households in New Zealand so Labour are going to borrow an extra $10,000 per household to fund their promises.

Stuff reports:

The Green Party is considering opposing NZ First’s “Waka Jumping” bill – a deal struck in coalition talks – unless Labour gives it a national “Parihaka Day”.

Green Party justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman, in an internal email obtained by Stuff, suggested some horse trading with Labour to acknowledge the fact the party has long opposed waka jumping legislation.

Ghahraman’s suggested her colleague Marama Davidson’s bill, which recognises the anniversary of the invasion of Parihaka by making it a National Day, be put on the table for Government support.

So the Greens oppose the waka jumping bill but will sell out their principles and support it, in exchange for a Parihaka Day.

Nice to know what price they put on electoral law.

The proposed waka jumping bill is odious as it gives party leaders huge power, effectively to expel MPs from Parliament who challenge them.

If the Greens are willing to support a waka jumping bill in return for Parihaka Day, what would it take for them to support extending the term of Parliament to five years – a statue of Hone Heke?

A spokesperson for the Green Party said this was an “internal document that was sent in error”.

The Greens used to support extending the Official Information Act to Parliament. Do they still do so? Then we could see all their other internal documents detailing what they will sell out for what price.

Radio NZ reports:

A New Zealand man who worked at the Manus Island refugee detention facility is warning the government against taking any refugees, saying the ones still at the centre are dangerous men.  

Ian, who only wants his first name used, worked as a security guard at Manus Regional Processing Centre for 18 months, and said about eight incidents of violence, threats and illegal behaviour were recorded each day.

There were numerous refugees who had integrated into the community, some who even married, and did not pose a danger. But the ones who remain at the centre and have refused to leave after Australia closed it earlier this month, are people New Zealanders should fear, he told Checkpoint with John Campbell.

“We know what these people are capable of, we know there’s footage on hard drives that they’ve got of child pornography, etcetera. They are not the calibre of people you want to come into a country and try and re-establish themselves.

As I understand it the ones left (as in refusing to leave the former detention centre) are the hardcore.

Ian, who lives in Australia, said the refugees were living in good, air-conditioned converted containers while the centre was open, had Wifi, a volleyball court, took classes and went on fishing excursions.

Terrible.

If the refugees were able to come to New Zealand and gain residency, then they would be able to move to Australia.

“It opens a back door into Australia and if that happens you are looking at irreparable damage done to the Special Category Visa deal between New Zealand and Australia, which would affect a lot of people.”

He expected the Australian prime minister would respond by changing legislation so Kiwis have to apply for a visa before entering and living in the country.

I don’t think it would get that bad. But the more Ardern attacks Australia on this, the harder the response will be.

Radio NZ reports:

Solo mothers who don’t name the father of their child will no longer have welfare payments cut, under the Labour-led government’s changes to social security.

What this means is that deadbeat dads will escape financial responsibility for their kids and taxpayers will get left with the bill.

You will see a huge increase in solo mothers not naming the fathers of their children. That gets them off the hook for child support payments.

Child support liability for just one child can be as high as $340 a week. So of course many Dads don’t want to be named. They’ll happily pay say $40 a week unofficially to avoid paying the $340 a week they should be paying.

This policy change rewards dead beat Dads and punishes taxpayers. Watch and see the growth in Dads not being named.

The Herald reports:

New defence minister Ron Mark has been wearing military medals in a way which puts his foreign service above that which he performed for New Zealand.

The way Mark has his medals arrayed across his chest is in breach of NZ Defence Force protocols and not permitted for soldiers over whom he holds sway.

And it has led to questions about whether he is even entitled to wear the four medals awarded while in the service of the Sultan of Oman in the Middle East.

Mark would not answer those questions yesterday, but provided a statement in which he said: “I have the greatest respect for military service, and the way in which it is recognised. I am proud of the people I served alongside in both the New Zealand and Omani Defence Forces. 

“I have sought advice from the Honours Unit on the wearing of the medals I was awarded, and will take that advice when it’s received.”

It is an embarrassment for Mark, having worn his medals in front of senior officers who knew he was breaching the standards expected of all New Zealand military personnel.

Medal protocol is very important to Defence Force members and veterans, and the Minister of Defence has to be meticulously correct with what he wears.

There is no question about whether Ron Mark has earnt the medals he wears. It is about whether his wearing of the Oman medals is in line with the rules for New Zealand.

If Mark did have permission – which medals’ experts believe is unlikely – he has been caught out by the way he wore them.

The rules around wearing medals dictate that those earned in the service of New Zealand must be worn first.

Mark wears his medals from service in Oman first, giving them a pre-eminent position over his New Zealand medals.

Not a good look for the Minister of Defence.

NZ Medals Ltd owner Aubrey Bairstow – an expert in constructing medal boards – said: “His Oman medals must be after his New Zealand medals.”

Bairstow constantly deals with military veterans and said many were upset by the way the medals had been displayed.

I’ve had several contact me on this issue also.

“They are saying this guy values a foreign country over our own and he’s the Minister of Defence.

“It’s also ironic he’s party is called New Zealand First but he seems to put New Zealand after Oman. This is one thing where he didn’t put New Zealand first and given his capacity as Minister of Defence, you would expect him to.

New Zealand second!

Newshub reports:

Speaking on Tuesday morning, acting Prime Minister Kelvin Davis appeared to cold-shoulder National’s idea, saying Labour is happy with the bill as is.

“We’re really excited by the fact that by 2020, parents will be able to take 26 weeks’ paid parental leave.”

“We’re happy with the bill that we’ve put forward.”

But his colleague, Willow-Jean Prime said she knows how difficult being a new mother can be and would be talking to Minister for Workplace Relations Iain Lees-Galloway about adopting National’s amendment.

“That is one of the most challenging times – as soon as Mum has given birth – and I know in our own situation, that was a time I really appreciated having my husband there. Being a school teacher he only had about a week and that was difficult.”

It is amazingly difficult for parents to only have the other parent around for a couple of weeks. National’s amendment would give flexibility and allow parents to work out what best suits them.

The first three months after birth is to be honest a bit of a living hell. You love your baby to pieces, but my God it is hard. The sleep deprivation makes you unable to function well and working out how to stop your baby crying can be Mission Impossible. It is all worth it when they then smile at you, but it is damn hard. Allowing parents to both take paid leave at the same time so they can cope together, rather than apart, will really help.

Labour should swallow its pride and do what is best for parents by giving them flexibility, rather than keep insisting they know what is best.

Even the author of its previous bill on paid parental leave, Sue Moroney, has come out and endorsed National’s policy.

Ms Moroney, who retired at the 2017 election, said “getting everyone that attachment and bonding opportunity would be a great place to go to”.

She said men are as capable of looking after children as women are, and she wants families to have the flexibility to allow both parents to care for their child or children.

Exactly. Flexibility. Not we know best for everyone.

The Guardian reports:

Robert Mugabe remains in detention at his home in Zimbabwe more than 12 hours after the military declared on national television that it had temporarily taken control of the country to “target criminals” around the head of state.

The move by the armed forces appears to have resolved a bitter battle to succeed the 93-year-old president, which had pitted his former vice-president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, against Mugabe’s wife, Grace.

Mnangagwa was reported to have returned to Zimbabwe on Tuesday evening from South Africa, where he fled last week after being stripped of his office by Mugabe in an apparent attempt to clear Grace Mugabe’s path to power.

It is hard to think of a worst ruler than Robert Mugabe so this coup may be an improvement. From all accounts his wife would have been even worse, and it was his promotion of her than finally led the Generals to rebel.

One high-profile opposition leader said there was “a lot of talking going on”, with the army reaching out to them to discuss the formation of a transitional government after Mugabe steps down.

Negotiations had been ongoing for several months with “certain people within the army”, a second senior opposition official said.

The official said Mugabe would resign this week and be replaced by Mnangagwa, with opposition leaders taking posts as vice-president and prime minister. There was no independent confirmation of his claim.

That would be a good thing, if this leads to a government of national unity.

Stuff reports:

As United Future shuts down, its leader fears any chance of legalising cannabis will stall.

Damian Light said for him personally, United Future’s biggest achievement was the drug reform measures that were implemented during its time in government. 

“It’s unfinished though, that’s the problem. It needs to be carried on, and that’s one of our concerns, is who’s going to carry it on,” the United Future leader told The AM Show.

United Future was a valiant attempt at having a moderate centrist party in the MMP environment. One more socially liberal than National but more economically rational than Labour.

But unless you are a populist, the centre can be a very small place.

United started in 1995 with the defection of seven MPs to it. Peter Dunne, Clive Matthewson and Margaret Austin from Labour and Bruce Cliffe, Pauline Gardiner, Peter Hilt and John Robertson from National.

They only got 0.9% of the vote in 1996 with Peter Dunne the sole survivor in Ohariu-Belmont. 1999 was much the same with 0.5% of the vote.

They merged with the former Christian Democrats (now Future NZ) in 2000 and in 2002 was their peak with 6.7% and eight seats.

2005 saw them get 2.7% and three seats. The christian wing mainly left in 2007 and formed the Kiwi Party, later merging with the Conservatives.

2008 saw them drop to 0.9% and just one MP, Peter Dunne. 2011 was 0.6% and 2014 0.2%. In 2017 with Dunne retiring they got just 0.07%.

They’ve hovered up a lot of minor parties over the years. Parties that have been part of them over the years are:

1. Future NZ 1
2. United
3. Advance NZ
4. Ethnic Minority
5. Conservatives/ROC
6. Christian Democrats/Future NZ 2
7. Outdoor Recreation
8. WIN Party

The public have spoken and it is a resounding vote in favour of same sex marriage in Australia.

The key stats are:

• 12.7 million voted or 79.5% of the electorate
• 61.6% voted yes to changing the law to allow same sex couples to marry and 38.4% no
• All eight states and territories votes yes
• 133 out of 150 electorates voted yes

The yes vote in each state was:

1. ACT 74.0%
2. Victoria 64.9%
3. Western Australia 63.7%
4. Tasmania 63.6%
5. South Australia 62.5%
6. Queensland 60.7%
7. NT 60.6%
8. NSW 57.8%

The electorate most against was Blaxland that was only 26.1% yes and most in favour was Melbourne with 83.7% yes. Blaxland is actually a safe Labor seat (used to be Paul Keating’s).

The farce over dual citizenship grows larger. How can so many Australian MPs not have checked their eligibility in advance. The latest is Jacqui Lambie. So MPs toppled to date include:

1. Scott Ludlam, co-deputy Greens leader
2. Larissa Waters, co-deputy Greens leader
3. Malcolm Roberts, One Nation Senator
4. Barnaby Joyce, Deputy PM and Nationals leader
5. Fiona Nash, National Senator
6. Stephen Parry, President of the Senate
7. John Alexander, Liberal MP
8. Jacqui Lambie, Independent Senator

The Herald reported:

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) no longer applies to investor screening.

Anyone who takes up contracts with the government would have to sue under domestic procedures instead of ISDS and a third aspect has been agreed around financial services.

Those provisions have been suspended, so while they will remain in the deal, a separate side treaty notes that they would not apply unless all nations agreed to re-include them.

As well as the reciprocal agreement with Australia to scrap ISDS provisions Ms Ardern said New Zealand was also continuing to seek side letters with a handful of other countries, but won’t detail who they are until an agreement has been ratified.

That implies it was an initiative from this Government to do an agreement with Australia to scrap ISDS provisions. But Richard Harman at Politik reports:

That is confirmed in a little-noticed section in the TPP National Interest Analysis produced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January last year which said: “Consistent with ANZCERTA and the Australia-ASEAN-New Zealand FTA, TPP’s ISDS provisions would not apply between New Zealand and Australia. “

Notice of this was posted as an “associated document” to the TPP on the MFAT website in late 2015.

But speaking in Sydney on November 5, after her meeting with Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appeared to suggest that the pair had exchanged letters agreeing not to invoke ISDS procedures against each other.

“We discussed a signed letter on the ISDS clauses which we see as being mutually beneficial,” she said.

“That acknowledges our positions on ISDS – at least between each other.”

The exchange of letters (if it was new) was not necessary; MFAT had already established that the ISDS clauses did not apply to Australian investment in New Zealand.

So Labour tried to spin that the agreement with Australia was something they achieved, when in fact it was National that had negotiated it in the original TPP.

The Courier-Mail reports:

PEOPLE smugglers are moving to cash-in on a left-leaning New Zealand as it can be revealed

Operation Sovereign Borders has turned back four boats trying to get across the ditch.

In shock new details, it can be revealed crime syndicates have tried to bypass Australia’s tough immigration measures and attempted to send four boats, carrying 164 asylum seekers, to NZ.

It comes as there are genuine fears within intelligence communities that the direction of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who has kept her predecessor’s offer to resettle 150 refugees but has been highly-critical of Australia’s policy may be used by people smugglers to encourage desperate people to risk their lives at sea.

Maybe Jacinda should just announce that any asylum seeker that can sail to New Zealand is welcome here.

It is not know when the boats were intercepted or what country they started from but it is believed they told OSB they were headed to NZ. They were turned or towed back to near Indonesian waters.

So if Jacinda continues to attack Australia, maybe Turnbull will direct his Navy to not turn back any boats so long as they head to New Zealand, not Australia.

“New Zealand is seen as we know from our own intelligence, New Zealand is seen as effectively part of Australia by the people smugglers,’’ Mr Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“Do you know, we have intercepted and turned back boats which were heading to New Zealand?

“I mean the people smugglers, the only reason New Zealand does not have thousands of people arriving in an unauthorised way on their shores is because of our border protection policies.

“New Zealand is a prime beneficiary from our strong border protection policies.”

And that may change.

This story was obviously planted by the Australian Government. So you now have the Australian Government so pissed off at the new New Zealand Government, they are hitting back. Great diplomacy from us.

Stuff reports:

The Government intends to block moves from National that would amend its paid parental leave extension so both parents of a newborn could take leave together. 

Such a change could be detrimental to the baby, says Labour; If both parents were off at the same time, that would be a shortened total time spent on leave with that child, said Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. 

But National spokeswoman for workplace relations and safety Amy Adams said her amendment was about flexibility and letting families choose what was right for them. 

Lees-Galloway doesn’t know what he is talking about. This is about paid leave, not total parental leave.

As someone who has just started a family, National’s proposal would be a Godsend for many families. We’re lucky as I work from home, but you have no idea how tough it is for (mainly) mothers to be looking after a new born by themselves after their partners return to work after a couple of weeks.

If both parents could take say 13 weeks paid leave each, rather than just one for 26 weeks, that would be hugely desirable for many families.

Others might choose not to. It is called flexibility.

Labour is saying that parents may make bad decisions and choose too short a time period away from work. What condescending crap.

Lees-Galloway said: “Our concern with that is the likelihood it would reduce the amount of time that baby has to bond with their primary caregiver. 

First of all most babies have two caregivers – we call them parents. It is important to bond with both of them. Secondly it just changes the paid leave, not the ability to still take up to 12 months total leave.

Adams said she could see no real reason why Labour would be opposed to giving new families greater flexibility. 

“It seems to me they’re embarrassed that they rushed this bill and there was no need to do it. This has been their policy for a long time and they still haven’t properly turned their mind to some of the important issues, like how paid parental leave works and how it can be made more flexible. 

“I think they are aware they have been caught out by not having the select committee process, dispensing with it, when actually there was plenty of time; the bill doesn’t take effect until July 1, next year.” 

Labour was being “dogmatic” in refusing to bend to a National Party amendment.

It’s just arrogance. They are just saying no because National proposed it.

Stacey Kirk notes:

Parenting 101 from your friendly Labour Government. 

New parents may relish the idea of both parents being home together, able to bond as a family in those first few weeks of a newborn’s life.

But the Government advises “no”, that’s not necessarily in the interests of your baby.

That’s why it intends to vote down a National Party amendment to the Government’s paid parental leave extension, that would let both parents take their paid leave together. 

Labour knows better than you how to raise your baby. You can’t be trusted to decide whether or not to take 26 weeks for one parent or say eight weeks for both parents and then a further 10 weeks for one.

The latest public polls. Note only one poll in October which was done after the election but before the coalition decision.

The monthly newsletter summary is:

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 113, September and October 2017

There were six political voting polls in September – a Roy Morgan, two Newshub Reid Research and three One News Colmar Bruntons.  Since the election there was one Roy Morgan poll in October.

The average of the public polls in September had National just 3% ahead of Labour, a smaller gap than the actual 7.5% gap in the election. In October, the Roy Morgan poll had National 15% ahead of Labour but this was done before the Government was formed.

 The seat projection for September was centre-right 54 seats, centre-left 57 which correctly forecast NZ First holding the balance of power. In October, it is CR 58 and CL 52.

We show the current New Zealand poll averages for party vote, country direction and preferred PM compared to three months ago, a year ago, three years ago and nine years ago. This allows easy comparisons between terms and Governments.

National’s party vote in October was 2% below a year ago and 2% higher than three years ago.

 Labour’s party vote was 4% higher than a year ago and 8% higher than three years ago.

In the United States Trump’s net approval rating has worsened to -18%.

In the UK, Theresa May’s net approval slumps further to -24% as rumours of a leadership challenge abound.

In Australia, Turnbull has also had a very bad month with his net approval falling to -28%.

In Canada, the Liberals are currently projected to win 179 out of 338 seats.

We also carry details of polls on medical cannabis as well as business and consumer confidence.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

Liam Hehir writes:

Ever seen an ordinary young person in a T-shirt bearing the visage of Benito Mussolini? Ever dined at a restaurant bedecked with Third Reich propaganda? Ever listened to a new recording of the Horst Wessel song by a popular contemporary folk singer?

It would be unthinkable for the National Party leader to quote Alfred Rosenberg, ideological architect of National Socialism. No prime minister would ever declare a sympathetic treatment of Reinhard Heydrich to be his or her favourite movie. No credible political figure would argue that the problem with fascism is that it has never been tried properly.

Yet on the centenary of The October Revolution – the coup d’etat that saw the creation of the Soviet Union – communism retains a grasp on the imaginations of Western progressives.

I went out to dinner in Wellington recently. The restaurant, not chosen by me, shared its name with a Soviet propaganda outfit. On the counter stood a giant bust of Vladimir Lenin. The same Lenin who, to give just one example, approved of the summary execution of more than 50,000 prisoners of war and civilians in the Crimea in 1920. The same Lenin who said “we need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved”.

Wellington has Pravda, Fidel’s and Havana. All very good eating places. But Hehir is right that no one would name a restaurant after a fascist leader.

You also know you’re in Wellington when the cafe and bookshop patrons are wearing Che Guevera T-shirts. Fifty years after his death, the Butcher of la Cabana remains a romantic icon of radical chic.

Most of them probably don their garments in ignorance of his role in the enslavement, torture and murder of class enemies. One can only hope that they have no idea that this was a man who said “a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate”.

He both proclaimed that violence was necessary for socialism, and put it into practice. He also said that newspapers must be eliminated as a free press is a barrier to socialism.

Now, most would grant that the Nazis were worse than the Soviets. The British historian Robert Conquest, a fierce critic of the USSR and Stalin’s Western dupes, certainly thought so. When asked if Nazism was worse than communism, the great chronicler of Soviet mass murder said it was. Asked to explain himself, Conquest said he “could only answer honestly with ‘I feel so'”.

I agree. There is a unique perversity about the Nazis. Their position as the signal evil of the 20th century is uncontestable. “Not as bad as the Nazis” is a pretty weak defence, mind you. Ted Bundy, an American serial killer, may have murdered more than 100 people. The Zodiac Killer, on the other hand, claimed to have killed less than 40. You still wouldn’t hire him to babysit your kids.

Great analogy. Slightly less evil doesn’t do it.

And communists have killed an awful number of people. The Black Book of Communism, published in 1997, is a scholarly work aimed at determining the extent of communism’s crimes. Looking at things like man-made famines, extrajudicial killings and full-blown genocides, the authors arrived at a total of 94 million fatalities. This number included, among others, 65 million deaths in the People’s Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union and 2 million apiece for Cambodia and North Korea.

94 million dead due to a failed ideology.