Judith Collins summed it up best:

There is one reason why we are here today debating this bill, and that is because that is the price of going into Government with New Zealand First. So let’s be frank about it. That’s the truth. They’ve said that; we know that, so let’s not try and sugar-coat it. That is the price. The reason is they have such a terrible history of keeping their members of Parliament as members of Parliament who do exactly what they’re told.

Labour have to vote for this terrible bill. The Greens are choosing to vote for it. Shame on them.

Nick Smith also struck home:

The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) represents 178 Parliaments around the world. … 

 In every one of those democracies there is a tension between the views of the political parties and the individual MPs, and things get difficult when there are fallings out in the party, but only in some of the most ramshackle, awful places are such laws promoted. The courts in Europe had struck-down the very sorts of laws that are being proposed here.

Let me read exactly what the Inter-Parliamentary Union said. It said, “These laws create political party dictatorships.” It goes on to say this: “While party loyalty and discipline are necessary, they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that party, since these are fundamental human rights.” Fundamental human rights—this isn’t some arbitrary organisation; this is the Inter-Parliamentary Union that has been around for 150 years as societies have tried to develop the rules to make our Parliaments effective democratic institutions. I bring to the attention of the Parliament the view of well-respected New Zealand constitutional law expert, Professor Andrew Geddis, who says using this law to quash internal party disagreement comes at far too great a cost to our parliamentary democracy.

This bill allows party leaders to sack MPs that disagree with them, so long as they can get two thirds of their caucus to agree. As not agreeing would get you next in line to be sacked, this will be a trivial requirement in parties like NZ First.

I want to conclude by challenging the Green Party. The Green Party wants to champion human rights in all corners of the globe for others. My challenge to the Green Party: there’s no more important place to champion human rights than in this Parliament, the heart of the New Zealand democracy. I ask those Green Party members to go look at the speech content of your founding leaders of the Green Party when this absolutely identical was introduced into the Parliament. I say absolutely genuinely to the Green Party: to vote for this bill on to the law books of New Zealand will be an embarrassment for our democracy, and will be an embarrassment in terms of our human rights, of which your party so adequately, and, in my view, in times rightly, champions. I plea to the Green Party to stand up for the values that matter and to ensure that this Parliament remains a House of Representatives.

I believe this bill can be defeated. I will be encouraging people to submit to the select committee against this, and for people to e-mail Green MPs especially asking them to vote in line with their party policy, and not in line with Winston’s demands.

The PM announced:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern today released her Child Poverty Reduction Bill to drive a significant and sustained reduction in child poverty that lasts beyond successive governments.

“The Bill is the framework for measuring and targeting child poverty. It sets in law four primary and six supplementary measures of poverty and material hardship. It requires the government of the day to then set targets to reduce child poverty.

This is a typical Ardern bill – full of nice sounding intentions but devoid of useful content.

First of all the Government already reports on various measures of poverty and material hardship. MSD publish this annually and the latest one is here. So the first aspect is compelling the Government to do something it already does.

The second aspect is having ten different measures is a fudge. The more measures you have, the less important they become.

The third aspect of setting targets is akin to their climate change policy. What matters is not the targets you set, but the policies you have to achieve them.

Labour is big on redistributing income – making people pay more tax and paying more in welfare. But they are very shy about treating the causes of poverty such as benefit dependent households, kids leaving school with no educational achievement etc.

Basically this bill is about putting pressure on future governments to put up taxes on people earning the average income and above, and paying more in welfare to people earning less.

The Heritage Foundation report:

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

The most effective way to reduce the numbers in poverty is to have people in work not on welfare.

Incidentally that $22 trillion doesn’t include social security or medicare.

The Herald reports:

Vegan protesters stormed a Melbourne steak restaurant on Saturday night chanting slogans through loudspeakers and yelling at customers.

Thirty-five activists from Direct Action Everywhere Melbourne and Melbourne Cow Save Animal Liberation Army entered the Rare Steakhouse on King St in the CBD at 6.30pm “to speak up for animals where their dead bodies were being consumed”.

In a video posted to Facebook, the group can be seen protesting on both levels of the restaurant as about 25 bemused customers eat their dinner.

I would have ordered an extra steak for the protesters and delivered it to them!

I love how these people think they have a right to try and force their views on everyone else.

Newt Gingrich says Trump has achieved more in his first year than any President since Reagan. I disagree, considering the failures to repeal Obamacare and get any funding for his promised wall.

But here is what Gingrich says:

• Trump promised to appoint conservative judges to the federal courts. – no other first-year president has seated this many appellate court judges in the 228-year history of the appellate courts.
• President Trump is also now, without question, the all-time champion of rolling back red tape – The current estimate is that the Trump administration is repealing 22 regulations for every new one it has created.
• President Trump promised a new, smarter, lower-risk strategy to enable the military to do its job and defeat ISIS. ISIS has lost virtually all its territory at minimum risk.
• Announcing that the American Embassy in Israel would be moved to Jerusalem is another campaign promise on which the president followed through
• The president methodically waged a disciplined 11-month campaign to get the large tax cut he believes the American economy needs if it is to grow faster.
• President Trump is also making good on his pledge to make better trade deals for America. Saudi Arabia alone signed as much as $400 billion in contracts with American companies during the president’s visit to Riyadh.
• The black unemployment rate is down dramatically, and CEO and small business confidence are up dramatically.

The Herald reports:

Grey Power is urging MPs to support the Green MP Chloe Swarbrick’s bill on medicinal cannabis, which is set to have its first reading on Wednesday and potentially pave the way for greater access.

The Wednesday vote – a conscience vote – will be a day after the first reading of the Government’s bill on medicinal cannabis, which will take place tomorrow.

The Government bill would establish a framework to ensure safe and quality products for a domestic market, and introduce a legal defence for cannabis use for people with a terminal illness – defined as having less than 12 months to live.

It is expected to pass with the support of Labour, NZ First and the Greens.

One criticism of the Government bill is that the legal defence is not extended to those who suffer from chronic pain, following advice that it would create issues around what the legal definition should be.

Grey Power president Tom O’Connor said MPs should support Swarbrick’s bill at the first reading so it can be explored by a select committee.

“Those with chronic pain should also have access to medical cannabis, if it offers them some relief.”

I agree with Grey Power on this.

The sensible thing for MPs to do is vote for both the Government and the Swarbrick bill to go to select committee, so the select committee can hear evidence on both bills, and work out which regime would be best to provide relief to those suffering from chronic pain.

It is worth reflecting that there is overwhelming public support for cannabis to be available for pain relief. A poll Curia did for the Drug Foundation last year had 78% support for medicial use of cannabis not to be a criminal offence and only 17% opposed.

The net support for not having medical use of cannabis being a criminal offence by party vote is:

• National voters +60% (78% to 18%)
• Labour voters +61% (78% to 17%)
• NZ First +54% (77% to 23%)
• Greens +77% (88% to 11%)

The Herald reports:

Women now outnumber men in the legal profession

Although women have long made up the majority of law graduates, this is the first time that they have dominated the ranks of practising solicitors and barristers.

The Law Society says that of 13,103 lawyers currently practising in New Zealand, 6553 are women and 6550 are men.

This is no surprise as 60% of law students are female. I suspect in time 60% of lawyers will also be female. It is part of the growing trend for fewer males to do as well at school and at tertiary education.

Stuff reported:

1 News political editor Corin Dann is moving to weekend current affairs show Q+A, he announced on Friday. 

Dann has been with 1 News for five years, after leaving Breakfast in 2012. 

Before starting with TVNZ as the network’s business presenter, Dann spent six years in the Beehive press gallery reporting for Radio New Zealand.

A good move for Dann. He is a good interviewer. But will be a loss to the gallery where he was one of the more analytical reporters.

Both 1 News and Newshub are now needing new political editors. Will be interesting to see who gets those jobs.

The Herald reports:

Taxpayers forked out almost $66 million last year to pay 444 people to run the country’s 20 district health boards.

The bulk of that money, up to $60m, pays for 231 chief executives and their senior executives while 209 board members and four commissioners are paid almost $6m for just 30 days of work each year.

The governance costs seem reasonable, but the cost of 231 senior executives is significant.

DHBs have been governed by 11-member boards, seven elected and four appointed by the Health Minister, since their inception in January 2001. Their remuneration and that of executive managers does not include expenses for mileage, travel, meals, accommodation and other costs associated with the job.

While managers work full-time, board members are only expected to attend one monthly board meeting and some committee meetings, around 30 days of work each year.

The workload on board members is often much more than that because of the huge demand on costs and no ability to change their income.

Many professional directors avoid DHB appointments because you have little power yet become the fall people when things go wrong.

Waikato District Health Board member Mary Anne Gill, a former manager at the DHB, said New Zealand had too many health boards and wanted the number cut by three quarters to free up desperately needed health dollars.

Gill believes DHBs should be culled from 20 to five, located in Auckland, Waikato, Wellington and two in the South Island, even if it means she might lose her seat.

That sounds reasonable. You could argue for another for the middle of the North Island.

She accepted the argument for democracy within DHBs but questioned whether the system was working.

“The reality is, as we saw in Waikato last year, that some things actually happen and the board don’t know a lot about it.

“You have to question exactly how much influence elected board members have.”

Elected board members are a sham. They are a mechanism for the Government to avoid responsibility for its funding decisions, by being able to blame DHBs. The Government should appoint all DHB members, so we can then hold the Government to account if things go wrong.

Downs said policy decisions were being made based on the short-term fiscal impacts of 20 different entities as opposed to what was best for patients.

“Almost everyone I spoke with (including chief executives of DHBs) agreed that these issues are exacerbated because there are too many DHBs,” the report said.

“Amalgamation could streamline data sharing, support collaboration between the sectors, reduce administration, increase accountability and simplify shared risk.”

Consolidation would create a larger patient base, free up clinical staff to spend more time with patients rather than focusing on administration and allow more thought to go into where funds would be best spent, she told the Weekend Herald.

I hope the Government does this.

Stuff reports:

An Italian-born restaurateur living in Wellington is upset the law is preventing him from continuing to offer Kiwis a little slice of his home.

Antonio Cacace​ owns two hospitality and grocer businesses in Wellington: La Bella Italia in Petone, which he opened 17 years ago, and Bel Mondo in Rongotai, which he opened in 2016.

Both his businesses were designed to offer an authentic Italian environment, allowing patrons to dine while sipping on a glass of wine, and then shop in the food store for Italian food and wine to take home afterwards.

Been there several times. Lovely food and its great you can shop around in the store while you wait for your order.

However, when Cacace applied to renew his liquor licences last year, he was told he was operating outside of the law by holding an on-licence and off-licence under the same roof.

Cacace said he was told that if he wanted to continue to hold both licences he had to physically separate the dining area from the food store with a wall. He would then have to operate the two as separate companies.

A silly requirement. There was no harm at all from the status quo.

Stuff reports:

He was the best boyfriend she ever had. 

Kind-hearted, helpful and selfless, she said. 

But seven weeks on, she was thinking differently – and irrationally. He was a snake, a snitch and spreading rumours. 

Over four hours in a friend’s kitchen, she tied his hands behind his back, stripped him and assaulted him with punches and kicks. 

She then marched him out of the flat and took him to the desolate state house where she lived with her pregnant sister. There she wrapped a computer cord around his neck and strangled him. Police found his body the next day wrapped in a red faux mink blanket under a double bed. 

Cory James Protos, 30, died on Saturday, April 26, 2014. It took nearly three years and three months for Zariah Jae Samson, 25, to plead guilty to his manslaughter. For all that time she was on remand in jail. 

 

Last July, Justice Cameron Mander sentenced her to six years and three months’ jail, imposing a non-parole period of three years and three months. 

A laughably light sentence for a life.

Am I the only one who thinks if the roles had been reversed, the killer would not have got off so lightly?

He was tortured and killed in an unprovoked attack.

Stuff has details of the benefits Labour is going to provide to the unions that fund them. They are significant:

Employers will once again have a duty to conclude collective bargaining unless there is a “good reason” not to.

This means that so long as unions hold firm, the employer will be forced to eventually give in.

Prospective employees will be provided with information about unions in the workplace, and employers will have to pay union delegates for time spent reasonably representing other workers.

Employers have to promote unions to their staff and pay their staff to do union work. A huge subsidy to Labour’s paymasters.

Unions will be able to access workplaces without gaining prior consent from an employer, but will still need to come at reasonable times and not unduly interrupt business continuity.

The Police need a warrant but the union can enter at will!

New employees will again be required to be employed under terms consistent with any collective agreement for the first 30 days of their tenure.

De facto compulsory unionism with an opt out provision.

Ardern indicated earlier in the week that more controversial changes like “fair pay” laws would take more time.

This is the huge payoff. A return to national awards as in the 1970s.

The party’s plan for sector-wide fair pay agreements has seen many business leaders worried about industry-wide strikes, but Ardern has specifically ruled out allowing strike action to enforce fair pay agreements.

That’s because they have the one thing worst than strikes lined up – compulsory arbitration. Employers will be able to be forced into a national award even if every employer in the country is against it.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Recently  I lost a very old friend – Herbert Anthony Perry, of Sacramento California. Although I had known Herb for  40 years, I only relatively recently learned that he was at D Day in June 1944. After a few years in the American merchant navy, Herb found himself – at age 23 – the Chief Engineer on an LST (Google it) on the morning of 6 June 1944.

On that day troops from the US, the  UK and Canada went ashore on  five invasion beaches. Twenty four hours later, they retained a very tentative foothold on mainland Europe, occupied since the (northern) summer of 1940 by the Germans. Herb’s death got me  thinking about just now near the world  came to a Nazi victory 70 odd years ago.

Chronologically, the first disaster – and puzzle – came in the northern summer of 1940, as the British Expeditionary Force (the BEF) was driven back to within 50 miles of the minor French port of Dunkirk. Why did the German panzers then  halt, after cutting through the Low Countries like a knife through butter,  while the “miracle of Dunkirk” managed to evacuate 10 times the 30,000 people Churchill and his advisors had hoped to get off the beach? Answers vary from Hitler’s reluctance to utterly humiliate the British, who he  regarded as natural allies rather than enemies, to the need to service the panzers who had cut such a swathe through northern Europe. Either way, it was a decision that allowed most of  the BEF to escape, and fight another day.

The next  massively significant strategic blunder  was the Germans’  alteration of  targets during the Battle of Britain  from the airfields used by Fighter Command to British cities. All the recognized histories see this decision as absolutely crucial: in short had the targeting of the airfields continued as  hitherto, the ability of the RAF to resist German attacks would almost certainly  have  been lost. The RAF would have been beaten on the ground, before they could even engage the foe. Had that happened, a successful invasion of Britain would have inevitably followed.

Next, during that same battle  the utter misuse – or rather non use –  of the Messerschmitt 262, the world’s first jet fighter.  Work on the Me 262 began before the War, but technical problems and high level indifference  prevented the aircraft playing any part in the conflict  until 1944, when allied superiority in the air made it largely irrelevant. In one of his many strategic blunders, Adolf failed to recognize the significance of the 262, and saw it as a light bomber rather than the devastating fighter aircraft it could have been had resources been devoted to solving its many problems.

Churchill once said that the U boat was the only thing he really feared – and with good reason. The UK was virtually entirely dependent on imports for fuel, food, and sufficient raw material for its industry. All of that had to cross the Atlantic. Until the US entered the war at the beginning of 1941 British  convoys had to cross the Atlantic – or at least part of it – utterly unprotected. The bravery of the merchant seamen, some of whom got torpedoed and rescued twice or even three times, remains one of the less recognized bits of heroism during World War II.

The Battle of the Atlantic lasted from the commencement of hostilities until the very end. It was, as much as anything else, a constant battle of technology between the hunters and the hunted. Better weapons and methods of detection versus U Boats with greater range, the ability to recharge batteries underwater, and to dive deeper for longer. Despite US involvement from the beginning of 1941, Britain remained at serious risk of being starved into submission right to the very end.

Fast forward to June 1944 and the invasion of Europe by the allies. Both sides knew there were  only two real alternatives (although Norway was a long shot) – the Pas de Calais, or Normandy. Having decided on Normandy, the allies had to try and convince the Germans it was actually to be the Pas de Calais.  The deception operation – Operation Fortitude – was and probably remains the biggest and most successful deception operation ever carried out.

Most readers will be familiar with the inflatable tanks, trucks, artillery and planes which were massed in south east England. But there was much more to it than that. An entire fake army was established – FUSAG – headed by the very real General Patton. Fake radio traffic, some in code some not, filled the airwaves. Fake trains transported fake troops to fake camps – and the Germans, including crucially Adolf himself, bought the deception  hook line and sinker. Even days after the successful Normandy landings, Hitler was still convinced Normandy was the side show, and the real event was to occur a hundred miles away.

One of the main reasons the allies were able to pull the deception off is because of  a lesser known triumph of WW II. Every single German agent dropped by parachute or landed by submarine into Britain was quickly caught, the unluckiest of them within hours of their insertion. Such men – they were all men – were given a stark choice: become a double agent and feed what they were told back to their masters, or face the gallows. While a brave few decided to die by the hangman’s hand, most chose to become traitors.

Despite all of this, the Battle of Normandy was a close run thing for the first few days. Had the invasion failed, the entire post war history would have been utterly different. By the middle of 1944 the war in the east was effectively over bar the shouting. Stalin’s 200 plus  divisions were relentlessly retaking captured territory. The German war machine was fatally crippled, and could never have recovered.  By the time a second invasion could be attempted in the early summer of 1945, the Russians would have occupied all of western Europe to the Spanish frontier – and beyond if they felt like it. God knows when, or even if, the Soviet Union would have collapsed if it had encompassed all of Europe.

Yes, it was a close run thing, with a good number of holes in the Swiss cheese lining up in the Allies’ favour. My friend Herb died  at age 94 after a full and happy life. Countless brave men like him – and equally countless back room boys like Ewen Montagu – gave us the world we now enjoy. Thank God for them,

The ODT editorial:

Sugar-sweetened drinks provide energy with little or no nutrients. A higher cost, it is argued, should discourage consumption. Governments in New Zealand and Australia, however, have been reluctant to pursue the tax, at least for now. They have good reasons.

First is the issue of how much difference a tax would make. To really affect consumption it would have to be large, especially to significantly affect prices for the large drink containers from supermarkets. And it is always likely to be much cheaper than milk. Consumers could also just shift to the cheapest brands.

As with so many “worthy” social causes, the poor will be hit hardest. The educated middle classes are already likely to have limited consumption.

An Australian health survey found sugar drinks contributed only 3.2% of total energy intake, and numbers drinking them and the amount they drink has been falling. Among discretionary foods, sugar drinks were actually seventh in energy supply – after confectionery, sweet biscuits, alcohol, pizza, burgers and tacos, pastries and fried potatoes.

In NZ it is even lower. Off memory sugary drinks are under 2% of total energy intake.

It is too easy to call for the Government to step in to “fix” problems. Surely, that should be considered last after other options. Surely, within limits, freedom of choice and action and personal responsibility are worthwhile ideals. A new form of puritanism appears rampant.

Yep. Back to the 1930s!

Where, too, should such a tax end? In the spirit of battling obesity, why not tax sugar in sauces, confectionery, ice cream? Why not tax saturated fat? Denmark tried a fat tax before rejecting it. What about double extra taxes on alcohol, one for the damage drunk people cause and its direct health impact, and one for sugar content?

Don’t give them ideas!

Sugar-sweetened drinks are an issue. But before taxes are imposed, it is worthwhile intensifying pressure on manufacturers to reduce sugar quantities. Education efforts can be stepped up and “switch to water” campaigns initiated. Schools can be encouraged, as some already do, to introduce water-only policies. An icon on drinks might help, showing how many teaspoons of sugar are in each.

Excessive sugar consumption is serious. But sugar should not be viewed as an evil poison because in moderation it is not a problem. Taxes should be a last resort.

Well argued.

Stats NZ reports:

Prices rose 0.1 percent in the December 2017 quarter, Stats NZ said today. Higher petrol prices, air fares, and housing-related costs were countered by lower prices for vegetables, new cars, and a range of household goods.

The relatively flat result this quarter leaves the consumers price index (CPI) inflation rate at 1.6 percent for the December 2017 year. Inflation was 1.9 percent for the September 2017 year.

Inflation robs money of people on fixed incomes. It is good to see it remained low in 2017. I hope it remains so in 2018.

The Herald reports:

The Government will scrap the controversial 90-day trial for all but small businesses, as a result of lobbying from New Zealand First.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will announce the first tranche of employment law reforms today, including 15 measures that it promised in its 100-day plan.

The Herald understands that the 90-day trial period for new workers will only be available to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. All employers will still be able to use probationary periods, which unlike 90-day trial periods do not allow unjustified dismissal.

According to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 29 per cent of all workers work for businesses with fewer than 20 employees; 97 per cent of all enterprises have fewer than 20 employees.

I’m pleased Labour has backed down and will keep 90 day trial periods for small businesses. They are the ones who need this, as a bad hire can cripple a small business. Larger businesses are not so vulnerable.

NewstalkZB reports:

Winston Peters is renewing his call for a state-owned insurance company.

It comes as the country’s largest insurance company – IAG – looks to move more than 100 jobs from Christchurch to the Philippines.

The Deputy Prime Minister says the country needs a domestic competitor because the market is dominated by offshore ownership. 

“[We have] excessive premiums and a loss of jobs to other countries, and this will go on until we make a stand and say ‘well we should have our own insurance company’.”

More economic insanity.

We have dozens or scores of insurers in NZ. Huge choice and variety. I’m with a NZ owned insurer – AA. They have good prices and service.

Consumer lists 17 insurance companies that do house and contents insurance.

Peters says jobs going offshore are eroding our own economy but National MP Gerry Brownlee is warning people not to jump on an emotional band-wagon about a state-owned insurance company.

He says we’ve already been there, done that – with the cost of AMI going under in the Christchurch earthquakes hitting tax payers in excess of $1.5 billion.

Last thing we need is taxpayers having to fund an insurance company.

Also Kiwibank does insurance already, so Peters really is just talking shit.

Liam Hehir writes:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson, a veteran student politician, is quite concerned about rent increases.

According to Radio New Zealand, he recently wrote “there are rules in the Residential Tenancies Act about not putting rent up above the market rate, and we are looking very closely at some of the examples that have been put to us today to see if they would breach that act”.

But if people are still desperate to sign up for flats at these higher rents, then the rents are hardly above “market value”. One would hope Robertson understands that when supply is low and demand is strong, prices go up. The subjective theory of value has been with us for a long time, after all.

It is a bit of a worry that the Finance Minister is surprised that rents increased as student allowances increased. When supply is largely fixed, then this was very predictable.

In our response to all this, there are two words that should terrify us. They are “rent control” – proposed laws to cap rents to a certain amount or restrict increases to a certain percentage. …

So, what is the consensus on rent control laws among those who study them?

Well, as Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner and left-wing media darling has said: “The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and – among economists, anyway – one of the least controversial.”

When you interfere with the market by dictating maximum rents, the effect is to drive more landlords out of the market. It also discourages landlords from investing in improving the housing they provide by limiting the potential return on that investment.

This is why, as Krugman noted, a survey of professional economists once found that 92 per cent agreed with the statement that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing”.

Rent control laws will lead to fewer houses available for rent. I suspect AirBNB would do very well though.

In 1989, Nguyen Co Thach, foreign minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, gave a speech in which he spoke frankly of the harm caused by rent control in his country’s capital city. “The Americans couldn’t destroy Hanoi”, he said, “but we have destroyed our city by very low rents”.

Until matters stabilise, we should refrain from doing anything else that makes investment in housing less attractive.

Even socialists get it – well those who have experienced it!