Stuff reports:

Syria’s army has declared victory over the Islamic State terror group, saying its capture of the jihadists’ last town in the country marked the collapse of their three-year, hardline reign in the in the region.

The army and its allies were still fighting Islamic State in desert areas near Albu Kamal, the last town the militant group had held in Syria, near the border with Iraq, the army said.

But the capture of the town ends Islamic State’s era of territorial rule over the so-called caliphate that it proclaimed in 2014 across Iraq and Syria and in which millions suffered under its hardline, repressive strictures.

Not an end to terrorism, but it is freedom for the millions who were under their rule. That is worth celebrating.

Professor Dave Frame writes:

National climate targets could be assessed in a range of ways – there is no single perfect measure. Ultimately, Mother Nature cares about cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide, plus a little bit besides, but exactly what we use at the national level to evaluate relative national efforts is a fairly open question. Two obvious (but not perfect) ways of comparing international climate targets are 1) to compare among countries and 2) to look at what would happen if the whole world adopted the target. On both these measures, New Zealand’s targets are reasonable.

Firstly, our 2030 target – a -30% reduction on 2005 emissions – is similar to, or more stringent than, those of Australia (-26–28%), the United States (-26–28% by 2025), Canada (-30%) and Japan (-25.4%). Our target is roughly halfway between the European Union’s and Japan’s. So we have plenty of company in terms of our target, and these targets are generally at the strong end of the spectrum, as is expected from the world’s richer countries.

Secondly, if the rest of the world matched New Zealand’s climate change commitment out to 2050, then the world would be on course to meet its goal of warming by less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In AR5, which remains its most recent Assessment Report, the IPCC said that by 2050 global emissions need to be somewhere between -35% and -55% compared with 1990 levels. New Zealand’s 2050 target is -50% compared with 1990, which is clearly within range, and is in fact toward the more stringent end. Our 2030 target is slightly less ambitious but still broadly consistent with the IPCC’s 2°C-compatible emissions range.

So the targets set by the (previous) Government are not letting the side down. They are quite reasonable compared to other countries.

So if the targets are reasonable, why the fuss about “inadequacy”? The answer is that climate activists – such as the cursory but influential Climate Action Tracker website – make these accusations about every developed country, including the EU. The result is a profusion of fairly puritanical assessments that are not useful for real governments. These assessments are a “view from nowhere” in the sense they are made by people who do not have to consider the trade-offs necessary for decarbonisation to take place. They do not need to worry about economic performance, social cohesion and the other things that actually form the main parts of what we expect from governments in liberal democracies.

This is a key point. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is about trade offs. It is not a painless thing to do. It means less income and fewer jobs for some people. It costs real money.

The real issue for New Zealand is not the targets, but achieving the targets. It is not ambition we lack, but action. Current policy will not get us to the targets we have set. This is also the case in other developed countries. The answer is to work on the policy, not to fiddle with the targets. We are like a boxer trying to drop a few kilos before a weigh-in who discovers his weight is increasing. Rational advice would suggest we focus on diet and exercise (policy), not on choosing a still more ambitious weight class (target). We need to eat less and get into the gym, not make new and more demanding promises.

I agree with this. Fiddling with targets is a distraction. You can even legislate targets, but to be blunt without policy to back them up, the targets are nonsense, even if law.

Policy is much harder. That is where trade offs bite. If you tax agricultural emissions you may just damage the export sector, help other countries to export more and end up increasing global emissions. If you ban petrol vehicles, you impose significant extra costs on households buying vehicles.

Labour is going to go on a lot about their targets. But that is really just sending a virtue signal that they care. What really matters is what policy they put in place.

Justin Stevenson writes:

It is important to realise that most government expenditure (approximately 83 per cent) is spent equally on all New Zealanders – a form of a universal basic income mainly provided through services instead of cash.

The big ticket items are public healthcare, compulsory primary and secondary education, superannuation, and core government services such as roading, law and order, and defence.

Even without NZ’s slightly progressive tax rate this results in a transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest as those above the average income pay more tax than they get back in services, and vice versa. This is generally seen as a good outcome as it helps to alleviate inequalities in society.

Government expenditure on tertiary education is an exception. Those studying clearly receive more benefits than those that do not and, while technically available to all, attendance in tertiary education is highly correlated with the social status of one’s parents.

Therefore, government subsidies are effectively a regressive tax where the richest have their education subsidised by the poorest. In NZ, those who do not study at tertiary level miss out on approximately $1000/year (or $80,000 over the average lifetime) in government benefits.

And those who get a degree earn an extra $1.5 million extra in the average lifetime. So Labour’s policy is to steal from everyone to give the rich.

The Law Society reported:

Clifton Killip Lyon has been censured and fined $10,000 by a lawyers standards committee, following two findings of unsatisfactory conduct. …

However, it found that Mr Lyon had permitted S to draft court documents (which falls within the definition of regulated services), knowing S had been suspended and considered that to be unsatisfactory.

The committee also concluded that a response from Mr Lyon to the committee’s enquiries had been “unforthcoming in the extreme” and “at best, misleading” and that that was unsatisfactory. When asked what role S played in drafting court documents, Mr Lyon wrote “I do not know who drafted the court documents”, in circumstances where all indications were that S had drafted them.

So the Law Society is basically saying Lyon misled them and allowed a suspended lawyer to work for him.

Lyon by coincidence is the lawyer that has put together the conspiracy theory for Winston’s lawsuit.

Simon Cowan at the CIS looks at what a UBI would cost where no welfare recepient ends up worse off (which is the only politically achievable way to do one).

In Australia the net cost would be between $103 billion and $231 billion a year.

To pay for this, they would need to either:

• Increase GST to 40%
• Have a land tax of $20,000 to $30,000 a year
• Have marginal tax rates of 60% for median income earners and 80% for high income earners

The sums would be much the same in NZ per capita.

SBS reports:

Victoria’s euthanasia bill has passed the Upper House 22 votes to 18 in its second reading after robust debate over the controversial proposal.

It earlier passed the Lower House by 47 to 37.

It will be interesting to see if it passes the third reading and becomes law.

The End of Life Choice Bill will not come up for a first reading for a while. Ahead of it in the queue is:

1. New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill – committee stage and 3rd reading
2. Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill – 3rd reading
3. Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill – 3rd reading
4. Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) – committee stage and 3rd reading
5. Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill – 2nd reading, committee stage and 3rd reading
6. Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill – 1st reading
7. Employment Relations (Restoring Kiwis’ Right to a Break at
   Work) Amendment Bill – 1st reading
8. Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools)
   Amendment Bill – 1st reading

I’d estimate that is 19 hours of debate. Each member’s day had around 4.5 hours so maybe on the 5th members day which is after ten weeks or so of house sitting.

So best guess is March or April.

You can’t spend three years railing against the impact of migrants on NZ and then claim to be upset when this is pointed out.

The Herald reports:

Ministers from countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) “agree in principle” on the trade pact after a meeting in Vietnam, Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said on Thursday.

Ministers from the 11 member countries met in the resort of Danang in Vietnam on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit to discuss how to proceed with the deal after the United States withdrew.

When asked what the results of the talks had been, the Japanese minister said “agree in principle”, according to Reuters.

This is good news. Labour look set to do a u-turn on their previous opposition and support TPP. National has pledged to give them the numbers in the House to implement it even if Greens and NZ First oppose it.

Some good innovations to date from Speaker Mallard. The three main ones are:

1. Pinging MPs who interject during the asking of a question by deducting a supplementary question from them (if an Opposition MP) or giving an extra one to the Opposition (if a Government MP). This has led to a much quieter House during the asking of questions. You can of course still interject for the answers.
2. Allowing an MP asking a supplementary to keep asking further supplementaries without having to seek the call each time. This means rather than have the Speaker constantly in the frame, you just get a back and forward between a Minister and MP.
3. Allowing an MP extra supplementaries if a Minister does not give an informative reply (Speaker Carter did this also)
4. Dropping Jesus from the Parliamentary Prayer. If there is to be a parliamentary prayer it should be one that all religions can subscribe to, not just one religion.

Chris Bishop has done a post at The Spinoff listing 10 big achievements from the last Government. They are:

1. Getting the country through the global financial crisis – and back into the black
2. Building a more productive, diverse and competitive economy
3. Dealing with the Canterbury earthquakes
4. Significant reductions in child poverty
5. The Better Public Services programme and Social Investment
6. A more competitive, affordable, secure and renewable electricity system
7. Reforms to welfare to reward independence and work
8. A big lift in the number of young Kiwis achieving educational success
9. Treaty of Waitangi Settlements
10. A turnaround in net migration

I wonder what the achievements of this current Government will be?

Tom Switzer at CIS writes:

Next week marks the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution. November 7, 1917 was not just one of the most influential events of all time, it ushered in the most terrifying period in human history. In the matter of scale, the Russian revolutionaries and their later successors in China and elsewhere achieved a record of far more deaths than either world war. According to the London-based project to create a Museum of Communist Terror, 15-18 million people died in World War One; 40-80 million died in World War Two; and 80-100 million died under communist regimes.

A Museum of Communist Terror is a great idea.

Yet 100 years later, many young people in the West are ignorant of the ideology that inspired Lenin, Trotsky and millions of their worldwide followers. According to YouGov surveys, only 55% of American millennials think communism was, and still is, a problem. A third of young people believe US president George W. Bush murdered more people than Soviet dictator Josef Stalin did. And about 70 per cent of young British people have never heard of Mao Tse-Tung, the communist revolutionary whose regime murdered tens of millions of Chinese.

Ignorance of the past can doom us to repeat it. Fox News reported:

Nearly 45 percent of millennials polled said that they would prefer to live in a socialist country compared to the 42 percent who said they preferred a capitalist one.

Yet for some reason they’re not moving to Venezuela.

The report also found that one in five Americans in their 20s consider former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a hero, despite his genocide of Ukrainians and Orthodox priests. Over a quarter of millennials polled also thought the same for Vladimir Lenin and Kim Jong Un.

Great role models.

One of the most troubling findings of the report is that over 40 percent of Americans believe that there should be restrictions placed on the First Amendment and free speech to ensure that anything being said is not “offensive.”

Sad little petals.

Bryce Edwards writes:

And for Hipkins’ most challenging media interview, you can listen to the six-minute interview with an exasperated Guyon Espiner, who says to Hipkins: “Do you really expect us to believe that?!” – see RNZ’s ‘First day farce’ for new govt in Parliament – Hipkins. 

I also went on The AM Show today to discuss the matter, and expressed my disappointment that the new Government was so quickly moving into heavy spinning mode: “That’s one of the worst things about this story for Labour. Not just that it was such a shambles for them and they lost this manoeuvre by National, but they then tried to spin it… And the public hate politicians that are just so obviously spinning it.

So Ardern had the first day of Parliament going from St Jacinda to being seen as a liar” 

It is such an implausible lie also. They really must think people are stupid.

Tim Watkin also writes on Pundit:

Labour’s response to National’s ambush yesterday was, frankly, pretty pathetic. Remember Jacinda Ardern saying in the debates she could survive politics without lying? Well that didn’t last long… Her claim that Labour knew it had the numbers and really had the Speaker’s vote under control the whole time, is clearly a load of hooey. Otherwise, it’s a display of ineptness. Who would really by choice trade-off years of grief in select committees for a symbolic gesture of unity on a single vote? 

Really, if you believe Labour’s spin on that, I have a unicorn in my backyard for sale.

They both seem very unconvinced.

A reader writes:

I’m a concerned West Auckland ratepayer who has raised some issues about lack of transparency about money in charities linked to art and politicians. In 2015 the charities commission required significantly more detail on accounts saw a number of charities then fail to file accounts.

1. Lopdell Trust (Charity cc2875). Accounts not filed since 2015. 2014, 2015 accounts unaudited, unsigned incomplete. The trusts summary page on charities.org.nz estimates they’ve received $16 million but have expenditure of $400k. Concerns were raised with charities commission about late filing and lack of auditing and Council with no result. Trustee includes Greg Presland.

2. Lopdell Gallery. (Aka Te Uru) (CC41215) Accounts unaudited and haven’t filed accounts since 2014. 2014 accounts unaudited. They receive about $600k from Council per annum. Concerns raised with Council and charities commission without result.

3. McCahon House – (Cc10637) Also hasn’t filed accounts since 2015. An artists residency charity out west where senior artists are given residencies in a 2 bed modern house and studio with stipend next to Colin Mccahons house. From their 2014 accounts Item 14 Note “The Trust holds, for sale, a number of “Limited Edition” art works created by the residents as part of the residency agreement. These have been provided to the trust at no cost , and in accordance with accounting policy are carried at the lower of net realisable value and cost which is Nil.”

The Auckland Council should make it a requirement that any charity they give money to is in compliance with the Charities Act and has up to date financial statements filed.

An interesting report from Pew on satisfaction with democratic Governments in 38 different countries.

The net satisfaction with how democracy is working in their country is:

1. Sweden +59%
2. Germany +47%
3. Canada +40%
4. Russia +23%
5. Australia +17%
6. UK +5%
7. US -5%
8. France -31%
9. Italy -36%
10. Venezuela -48%
11. Spain -49%
12. Greece -58%

You can see how deep the malaise in parts of Europe is.

Another question what whether they trust the national government to do what is right for them. Those saying a lot or somewhat trust were:

1. Germany 69%
2. Sweden 67%
3. Canada 67%
4. Russia 67%
5. US 51%
6. UK 49%
7. Australia 48%
8. Venezuela 29%
9. Italy 26%
10. France 20%
11. Spain 17%
12. Greece 13%

We’re lucky with where we live.

Stuff reports:

Thousands of Uber drivers have been blocked from the ride-sharing company’s platform as it strives to finally operate within New Zealand’s transport laws.

Most of the drivers involved are believed to rarely use the service, if at all, although the group includes some who are in the process of gaining the necessary accreditation.

The US company, which allows customers to find, book and pay for rides using their phone, has been operating outside the law since it arrived in New Zealand in 2014, allowing drivers who do not hold passenger endorsements (known as P endorsements) to offer rides for money.

But new laws which came into force on October 1 regulated ridesharing for the first time, and the company has been granted a small passenger service licence by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

As a condition of the licence, Uber has taken steps to require drivers to hold the endorsement before taking money on rides.

Uber has confirmed that since October 29 its mobile app based platform has only been available to drivers who hold a current passenger endorsement.

I’m glad Uber are doing this. Better to change the law than ignore it.

We now know who the four presiding officers will be for this Parliament.

Trevor Mallard has been elected Speaker. Trevor has the potential to be a very good Speaker, but the test will be whether he can as tough on the Government as Lockwood Smith was with National. He certainly has the knowledge needed, and most MPs say he has done a good job as an Assistant Speaker.

Anne Tolley from National will be Deputy Speaker. In the past this has been a Government appointee also but Labour to their credit has recognised that National’s size in the House would see their appointee more appropriately as Deputy Speaker.

Anne has had much experience as Deputy Leader of the House for National and should do well.

Labour’s Assistant Speakers are Poto Williams and Adrian Rurawhe. They are not particularly well known as contributors in the House, so how they go as presiding officers is harder to predict. They may have a steep learning curve, and Speaker Mallard may have to help tutor them. Almost all existing Labour MPs have become Ministers or Whips so Labour didn’t have a lot of choice.

The only existing Labour MPs who have not become a Minister, presiding officer, PUS or Whips are Raymond Huo, Rino Tirikatene and Louisa Wall.

This suggests that some new Labour MPs will become Select Committee Chairs immediately.

Was it out and about wandering? If so does this reflect the value the PM puts on NZ wildlife?

— Gareth Morgan (@garethmorgannz) November 7, 2017

99% of people are consoling Jacinda on the loss of her cat. Many of us have lost cats to cars and know how devastating their deaths can be.

Gareth shows zero empathy at all. He doesn’t realise that people won’t vote for you if they think you have no empathy. It is not all about policy analysis. People vote for humans they like.

Lecturing Jacinda on the death of her cat and wildlife is like hearing someone’s child has died in a car crash and lecturing them on how cars cause global warming.

It’s a pity that Gareth makes TOP unelectable as they have some decent policies.

Jane Kelsey writes:

Tomorrow and the day after, David Parker will sit down in Da Nang, Vietnam, with fellow trade ministers from the 11 countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and decide what to do with the deal, now the United States has withdrawn.

The new minister knows that agreeing to proceed will contradict the position Labour took in Opposition. Its minority opinion in the select committee report said: “The TPPA will have ramifications for generations of New Zealanders. For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society.” …

The new Government will suffer a serious blow to its integrity if it proceeds to endorse an agreement that its three parties have previously opposed.

Of course Labour will sign TPP11 because they now have the responsibility of Government, rather than mindless slogans in Opposition.

If Kelsey thinks Labour were ever sincere in their opposition, well that’s naive.

A guest post by David Garrett:

I have watched with some amusement the restricted coverage in the MSM of the violence and riots before and after the Tonga – Samoa rugby league test in Hamilton on Saturday. While the teams themselves apparently toed the party line and made the game itself a festival occasion, out in the streets of Hamilton and Otahuhu, the picture was very different, both before and after the game.

We have all heard this term “pasifika” which, as far as I can work out, is a recently invented  term encompassing people from all Pacific Islands, and implying that underneath the superficial differences in language and culture, all “pacific peoples” are really  one big happy family. The one place one never hears the term is in the Islands themselves! The reason is very simple: the whole “construct” is bollocks, and  a  fantasy of lefties in academia. The truth, for historical and cultural reasons, is that  various Islanders hate each other.

I hasten to make clear that my familiarity with the enmities between Island groups is largely limited to Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji. There may be more truth in the “pasifika” thing as between – say – the Tahitians and the Hawaiians, but I  would be a little surprised if that is the case.

So, far from being one big happy family, the Samoans and  Tongans hate each other  with a vengeance, and the Fijians and the Tongans don’t like each other much either. Why is that? Well, the reasons go back 1000 years or so, and like Maori, Islanders have very very long memories. Grievances can lie latent beneath the surface for a couple of generations until   vengeance – utu for the Maori, huhu’i ho mamahi for Tongans – is exacted.

Why do the Samoans hate the Tongans? Very simple. From about 800 AD so far as modern historians can tell, the warlike Tongans controlled an empire that included the Samoas and Rotuma in Fiji.  This empire lasted until perhaps 1200 AD, and other than the clear genetic evidence of Polynesian influence in Rotuma – which is part of Melanesian Fiji – there was no evidence of it by the time Europeans began to colonize the Pacific in the early 1800’s. Like Maori, neither the Tongans nor Samoans had a written language, so this was all oral history.

Although they don’t talk about it much, the inhabitants of all three Island nations are very well aware of this historical reality. You would never know it at pan-pacific gatherings – at least until cocktail  hour – but the resentments on the part of the two  subject nations, and the matching huge pride on the part of the Tongans is very real and palpable.

While the historical enmities  quickly show themselves after consumption of alchohol – yes folks, as anyone who has lived in the Islands can tell you, most Islanders don’t handle booze too well – alcohol is not necessary for old hatreds and resentments to emerge.

Garrett & Associates of Nuku’alofa only ever employed one male lawyer – my predecessor was right when he said “only hire women; the men are mostly useless”. My one male employee told a great story about what happened when his school rugby team played in Samoa. If the Tongan team were winning as full time approached, the team bus would quietly edge forward  from the parking lot to the edge of the field. Then, a few minutes before full time, the captain would shout a code word, and  Tongan boys would race for the bus. The reason? If the final whistle blew with Tonga winning, there would be an instant brawl, involving both the two teams on the field and their supporters.

My employee was a bit coy on what happened in reverse, when a Samoan schoolboy team played in Tonga and won, but I suspect exactly the same thing happened, with the Samoans making for the bus rather than getting a beating.

What is my point in all this? Of course I will be labeled a racist – yawn – but I don’t believe I am. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another merely by reason of their race. To my shame, I admit to having been somewhat racist when I first went to Tonga in 1999. Six months in the country quickly disabused me of the notion that whitey was superior  or that  brown people were inherently inferior: there is a bell curve of Tongan intelligence and other traits just as there is a bell curve for every other race, and every other trait. In all  races there are dumb ones and very smart ones, with most falling in the middle.

My point is that Polynesians are inherently TRIBAL – they like their own kind and tend to strongly dislike “the other”. That has been the case for hundreds of years, and, regardless of the handwringing that might occur in university sociology and anthropology departments, I suspect that will remain so for another few hundred years. Or forever, much as the various “tribes” in the Balkan countries hate each other.

Tribalism, and its close cousin nationalism, is  to a greater or lesser extent, part of the human condition. New Zealanders and Australians have, by and large, reduced it to a friendly rivalry, with much accent mocking and sheep shagging jokes, with the butt of the joke  depending on which side of the Tasman you are on. The rivalry between the Norwegians and the Swedes is similar – the Norwegians are the butt of Swedish “Irish” jokes.  The Tongans and Samoans haven’t quite got there yet. Let’s not pretend otherwise for the sake of political correctness.

Note that guest posts are the views of the author, not of Kiwiblog.

Tracy Watkins writes:

So far so shambolic. If this is a taste of things to come in the new Parliament, get ready for a wild ride.

Labour has run hard up against the reality of dealing with the biggest single Opposition party ever, and the panicked scenes as it tried to bargain its way out of an embarrassing vote to elect the new Speaker are a memory it will want to bury quick smart.

While Labour was still scrambling to recover from that debacle, Foreign Minister Winston Peters dropped a bombshell, serving legal papers taking broad aim at a bunch of Opposition MPs, political staffers, a government department chief executive, and journalists, before heading overseas.

It’s a fair bet that this is not what Labour’s strategists and senior ministers wanted day one of the rest of the next three years to look like.

Winston will be the gift that keeps on giving. He’ll push his personal agendas at the expense of the Government’s.

Ardern insists Labour knew it always had the numbers, but wanted the Speaker elected by consensus, rather than by a vote.

That may be so.

It’s bullshit. There is no way they would have agreed to the select committee changes unless they were crapping their pants that they did not have the numbers.

Their claim that they did it because the Speaker should not face a contested election is farcical as it was Chris Hipkins himself who nominated Mallard vs Carter in 2013. Ardern and Hipkins are lying rather than admitting they stuffed up.

There has been a lot of posturing about the select committee issue in recent days but Hipkins’ refusal to even return National’s calls seems to be what got the Opposition particularly incensed.

That’s a lot of arrogance in their first week on the job.

But Labour should take it as a lesson to live by for the next three years. National is a new phenomenon in our Parliament – a large, well-resourced, and popular Opposition that has a hard-earned reputation as a formidable and well-oiled machine.

A lot of that reputation was earned through its exploitation of the huge resources that go with a Beehive office. The loss of those resources will be telling over time. But if Labour expected National to come back weakened and demoralised from the election loss, it has been given a big wake-up call.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how motivated many National MPs are.