A guest post by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust:

Considerable angst has been expressed by some, mostly progressive organisations and political parties, at New Zealand’s prison population exceeding 10,000 earlier in the year – as though 10,000 were some special number that shall not be exceeded. It is a nice round number, but the symbolism is lost on us as we’re pretty sure New Zealand judges are not imprisoning people lightly.

It will not surprise anyone that the Sensible Sentencing Trust stands for the rights of victims, and justice being served for the harm they have suffered. Often, but not always, that means prison is the just outcome for the offending, and we support its generous use for serious and repeat offenders. For low level and first-time offenders, generally not so much.

We have always been confident New Zealand was not imprisoning low level and first time offenders – the many cases we deal with that should have resulted in imprisonment but, outrageously, did not, confirms that on a daily basis. But we thought it would be instructive to find out for sure.

We filed an OIA to Corrections asking, amongst other things, how many persons were imprisoned or on remand by lead offence – such as ‘aggravated robbery’ or ‘murder’. Those familiar with the sentencing process will know it is the ‘lead offence’ which largely determines the length of sentence imposed. The data was supplied by Corrections in a raw format so we had to do some compilation, sorting and analysis. The results are astounding, not only confirming what we already suspected, but
are in fact more damning than even we could have imagined.

On average, the persons imprisoned or held on remand in New Zealand have 46 prior convictions on their record. And that excludes any they have in the Youth Court.

Think about that for a minute. Forty-six occasions where the prisoner offended, a complaint was made to police, evidence was collected, the offender was caught or identified, the decision to prosecute was made, the offender was convicted and finally the offender was sentenced – mostly not to imprisonment. Think about all the offences not convicted, where evidence was not sufficient to prosecute, where the victim chose not to lay a complaint, where police chose not to prosecute.
Those 10,000 prisoners are, by and large, 10,000 individual crime waves. No wonder the injustice system never publishes an offender’s criminal history. The excuse given is ‘privacy’. The real reason is embarrassment – to the system.

We accept that a proportion of those convictions will be for lower-level matters such as driving, breaches of court orders and perhaps drug offending, but nonetheless those 10,000 men and (increasingly) women together share about 460,000 convictions between them, and who knows how large a trail of destruction and victims in their wake. New Zealand judges are not known for their
tough on crime attitude – as much as we’d wish they were. So do those 10,000 men and women, that some in our society seem so intent on making excuses for, deserve to be in prison? The answer is obvious. In many cases they should have been imprisoned for earlier offences.

Which brings us to another question. When Labour Deputy Leader, Kelvin Davis, says he wants to reduce the prison population by 30% as he did in April this year, just who does he want to let out of prison?

The murderers, who serve less than 12 years on average of the ‘Life’ sentence?

The burglars and home invaders, who are rarely caught and serve a fraction of the 10 year maximum for their repeated predatory invasion of people’s homes?

The aggravated robbers gutlessly targeting shopkeepers and others trying to make an honest living?

Because once those serious offenders, and others such as sexual and violent offenders are accounted for, they make up fully 71% of the prison and remand population. That leaves 29% committing other offences – 1% less than Kelvin Davis wants to let out. So what kind of offenders make up the 29% who some might argue are not so serious and should be let out?

Around 12% are imprisoned on drugs and drug-related convictions – almost exclusively manufacturing, dealing and importing. Perhaps a dozen or so people are imprisoned for ‘possession’ of drugs. So the quantities must have been huge. We don’t imprison people for smoking cannabis in New Zealand – despite what Jacinda Ardern might think – as she indicated in the Three Leaders Debate last Monday.

Another 5% are imprisoned on driving offences – mainly drink driving (for the umpteenth time) or driving while disqualified (again, for the umpteenth time). Not the crime of the century, but seriously risking the lives of other road users and pedestrians, and no doubt these individuals have finally run out of excuses in the Judge’s eyes, or the Judge has finally run out of patience.

The 12% balance of the prison population is ‘rats and mice’ in statistical terms –3% and 1% here and there for various offences such as fraud, weapons, breaches, arson, neglect or ill-treatment of a person, contempt and handling the proceeds of crime. There are just no big numbers to work with, and we suspect that those imprisoned on such matters will have some very serious priors which
contributed to the Judge choosing imprisonment on this occasion. The Sentencing Act actually requires a Judge impose the ‘least restrictive’ sentence, so the prior offending must be damning in those cases.

We would be much more supportive if Mr Davis said he wanted to reduce by 30% the serious and violent offending along with sexual offending, burglaries and the shameful level of family violence in New Zealand. That would be a laudable goal. But he doesn’t say he specifically wants to reduce offending – just the number of people imprisoned. And that is a critical distinction. It means fewer people imprisoned for the same level of offending. He could choose, like Sensible Sentencing Trust does, to seek reduced offending, fewer victims and improved justice for victims.

Why would Mr Davis, and presumably the Labour Party generally, seek not reduced offending, but reduced imprisonment? We appreciate that prison is expensive, and a great deal of taxpayer funding goes into building and running our prisons. But it is money well spent, and justice doesn’t come cheap.

Questions have been raised recently about whether there is a hole in Labour’s budget plans. We don’t know – we ‘re not accountants. But could letting 30% of prisoners out early be one of the ways Labour intends to save money to fund future increases to other services? We don’t know -Labour’s website is silent on their plans for Corrections. Why is that? It’s a major item of expenditure and public concern. If Labour is to lead our next Government, the public of New Zealand have a right to transparency on their plans to reduce the prison population. Because every
one of the 10,000 currently imprisoned has thoroughly earned the judge’s decision to protect us from them.

Garth McVicar
Founder, Sensible Sentencing Trust

It will be interesting to know who are the 3,000 prisoners that Labour thinks should be let out of jail, despite an average of 46 prior convictions. I guess we’ll find out if they’re in Government!

The cumulative cost of Labour’s policies on exporters is looking to be quite huge. Here’s my ballpark estimates:

• ETS on Agriculture – $830 million/year
• Capital Gains Tax on farms – $1.3 billion/year (scheduled for 2021)
• Land Tax – $1.05 billion year (1% on $105 billion of agricultural land)
• Water Tax – $200 million/year
• Renege on TPP – $2.7 billion/year

So we’re a small trading nation that relies on exports to grow our economy and provide jobs and fund public services.

And over time Labour’s policies will lead to a revenue loss of around $6 billion a year for the export sector. Why would you want that? It’s akin to economic vandalism. We should be helping our export sector, not punishing them.

Stuff reports:

Many New Zealanders may be unaware the maker of their favourite breakfast cereal is owned by a church.

The breakfast staple Weetbix is owned and made by Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company, which was established by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1898 to promote and produce plant-based health foods.

On its website the company said this was based on the church’s belief that plant-based diets are designated by God for the health of the human race.

But because it is a church, Sanitarium have never paid income tax.

Under New Zealand law, churches are exempt from income tax because they have a charitable purpose – they promote religion.

I don’t think the promotion of religion should be a charitable purpose, anymore than the promotion of politics should be. They are both just about promoting viewpoints.

If a religion does charitable works (soup kitchens etc) then that work should be charitable and tax deductible. But merely promoting their version of belief in a supreme being should not be.

While Sanitarium is a commercial business, it’s sole shareholder is The New Zealand Conference Association, which is a registered charitable trust.

Britain amended this charitable tax loophole in the 1920s and ACT party leader David Seymour wants New Zealand to catch up and do the same.

“I don’t know what their [Sanitarium’s] purpose is. They would argue they do charitable stuff to the same value as what they would have paid in tax,” Seymour said.

I’m sure they argue it, but I’d rather have their tax revenue.

In the year to 30 June 2016, Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation Limited made a net profit of $210 million, but only distributed $44m to the trust.

A Ngāi Tahu spokeswoman said the remaining profit was reinvested into Ngāi Tahu Holdings Corporation.

“Our distribution model is similar to many of the larger community trusts in New Zealand and internationally renowned Yale and Harvard Endowment Funds, so we compare well with nationally and internationally recognised intergenerational funds,” she said.

Seymour said the charitable tax loophole gives Ngāi Tahu’s Go Bus business a competitive advantage to bid for the Auckland Transport bus contract.

“People should be able to get a tax exemption for donating to charity, but when you’ve got those companies that are kind of like charity, kind of like a business, then it would make sense to split them,” Seymour said.

The commercial side of the charity can then donate to its charitable side, he said, and claim the tax credit of 33.33 per cent that applies to all charitable donations of at least $5.

That is a good way to do it.

Duncan Garner writes:

 Being a political party leader requires having a sharp and highly tuned radar. Judgment is crucial. …

That’s why I simply can’t believe Labour took so long to realise its tax policy was its biggest weakness – the party was walking around with a big target marked TAX on its forehead. “Hit me now,” said the T-shirt. A far cry from “Let’s Do This”.

This week that slogan became, arrgh: Let’s not do this.

Why would anyone with half a brain and even the smallest dose of political nous tell voters that a controversial housing and land tax would be developed in secret and behind closed doors, and it just might be introduced as law without any kind of public mandate or vote.

Yep and it was the Captain’s Call. So what does that tell us about judgement?

But Captain Jacinda forgot to ask the next question. In an attempt to look bold, strong and different the captain fluffed it. The Captain’s Call become the Captain’s Fall. In her first big call, she failed.

Jacinda became Taxinda, and she’s just learned a harsh lesson: Don’t believe the hype, heat and stardust, look at risk. And get rid of it.

Ardern may have got in early enough to limit the damage. But it still raises serious questions about her judgment. Robertson doesn’t come out smelling of Botanic Garden roses either.

It was arrogance in demanding the public of New Zealand give them a blank cheque on tax policy.

A guest post from a reader:

They say that in election campaigns you should keep families out of it, especially children.

Obviously both the NZEI and RNZ Checkpoint did not get the memo.

In an extraordinarily uncritical piece on Friday September 15, Checkpoint ran a piece detailing how primary school children in Porirua and Wainuiomata were encouraging their parents to enrol and vote.

The reporter, John Gerritson, even acknowledged the role the NZEI was playing in this piece of political treachery by saying the children were taking home “resources” provided by the union.

This soft piece on union and Labour Party promotion began with some vox pops from children. They were of primary school age. They’d been asked why it was important to enrol to vote. The first three or four answers, out of the mouths of babes, said that it was because you ”could vote for change.”

My goodness. I wonder who’d told them that ?

Not one of them said anything like “so you can vote to keep the country on a sound economic footing” or “so you can vote to keep unemployment at low levels.”

We are constantly told that children of all ages need to be taught civics as part of the school curriculum. I couldn’t agree more. They should be taught about democracy, about how it’s important to vote and about how all sides of a political argument should be explored before a vote is cast.

They should not be indoctrinated with resources supplied by a teachers’ union which is supporting the Labour Party.

The principal of one of the schools featured then had the temerity to say that it was important to get children to encourage their parents to enrol and vote ! What’s more they were holding parent evenings where parents could enrol on the night. Then they were opening an early voting booth next week so parents could cast their vote.

Am I being too cynical, but do you think the teacher/union member addressing the parents might have suggested a vote for Labour was the best way forward for the country ?

Dear me. If a parent does not know their duty and responsibility to enrol and vote by the time they have children of school age, then you wonder just what kind of education they had. At any rate, it is not the role of a primary school to be telling parents what to do politically.

Incidentally, Whaleoil has posted on this before and shown some of the brochures that children have been given to take home with them. The display of the political party symbols has Labour top left  i.e. in the most prominent position.

So this piece went on, unabated on RNZ for about 4 minutes. Not once, did the journalist think about offering a critical or inquisitive line asking whether it was the NZEI’s business to be enrolling voters through vulnerable children.

And at the end, all John Campbell could say was “lovely, thank you John Gerritson, lovely piece.”

No wonder the Labour Party want their RNZ comrades to run a TV station for them too. Just think of the propaganda Campbell et al could spout on their behalf.

A great guest post. It is outraegous that NZEI are using children to get their propoganda to parents.

An amazing score line against the Springboks, especially considering recent games. There was plenty of speculation that the All Blacks may lose.

Eight tries against the Springboks is almost unheard of. I think it is their worst ever loss. The top winning margins between the two teams are:

1. 55 points to All Blacks, Albany, 2017
2. 42 points to All Blacks, Durban 2016
3. 36 points to All Blacks, Pretoria, 2003
4. 33 points to All Blacks, Wellington 2011
5. 28 points to All Blacks, Christchurch 2016
6. 28 points to All Blacks, Dunedin 1999
7. 20 points to All Blacks, Auckland 1997

Some people have said dealing with the IRD can be like having a prostate exam. Now in one of his most bizarre policies, Winston wants it compulsory.

The Herald reports:

“Prostate cancer is a psychological condition more than anything else – mainly of men who need a good kick up you-know-where,” Peters told the gathering.

“Frankly, if I had my way I would have further compulsory requirements for every male in this country, so it goes something like this – your taxation is that, but you are not getting it back until I see you with an annualised check or a two-yearly check.

Is this really who we want deciding who gets to form a Government? Someone who thinks a tax refund should be linked to a prostate exam?

Why only require it of men. Will women have to have a cervical smear in order to get a tax refund also?

Another day another roading announcement in the regions, this time Rotorua – National will accelerate plans to four-lane the road between the city and the airport.

National’s East-West link could be the most expensive stretch of road in the world at $327 million per kilometre.

National’s last minute ditch to get the Trans Pacific Partnership 11 agreement across the line just a day before the general election smacks of desperation.

Reporter who questioned Winston’s health starting a filthy rumour, and dirty campaign (see here).

We can work with NZF, but a referendum on Maori seats is off the table.

Horizon Research poll shows we can have more than 1 MP after the election.

Horizon Research: National 38.5% Labour 38.2% NZF 9.8% Greens 7.7% TOP 2.3% ACT 1.4% – Winston is kingmaker

Roy Morgan: National 40% Labour 39.5% Greens 9% NZF 6% TOP and Maori 2% – potential Lab/Green/Maori coalition.

Two polls which still have the major parties neck and neck.

Latest update as of 9am Tuesday:

National Party $8.17b; Labour Party $22.91b; Green Party $13.28b; NZ First $27.53b; Maori Party $12.17b; ACT -$2.43b; TOP $13.69b. Full details here.

Final Bribe-O-Meter update coming Monday.

Reuters reports:

A majority of Americans support military action against North Korea if economic and diplomatic efforts fail, according to a Gallup poll released on Friday amid rising tension over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program and recent missile launches.

The survey of 1,022 U.S. adults last week found that 58 percent said they would favor military action against North Korea if the United States cannot accomplish its goals by more peaceful means first.

If a conflict does eventuate between Japan, the US, South Korea and North Korea, it is likely to send the global economy into a recession. I suspect the NZ economy would follow. All those parties’ spending plans based on surpluses may find the world has changed.

John Armstrong writes:

Like the sands through the hourglass – it has taken just four short weeks for Jacinda Ardern’s “campaign of our lives” to become more akin to the The Days of Our Lives.

Labour’s Wonder Woman has found herself cast in a long-running soap opera – but not as a super hero. …

The tax was the early product of Ardern’s Brave New World – a world where she intends demonstrating Labour can make the hard decisions.

It took precious little time for Labour to back off the idea as fast as decency allowed. “Let’s do this” became “Let’s not do that”.

Let’s tax this – but later!

Of particular note has been her declaration that she will not shy away from tackling the “big generational issues”.

When it comes to such issues, they do not come any bigger or more vexed than the fairness of the country’s tax system and the affordability of current state-funded pension entitlements. With regard to the latter, she has gone Awol.

She has adopted John Key’s pledge to resign as prime minister were the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation to be raised under her watch. Likewise were there to be any reduction in current entitlements enjoyed by those who qualify for the state pension.

For someone portraying themselves as giving voice to younger voters, such a stance is an absolute cop-out. It is little short of betrayal.

What is strange about Ardern’s pledge is that there was absolutely no pressure for her to do so. Key’s equally bad pledge was made because Labour had made it clear they would run a fear campaign on superannuation, and his “I’ll resign” pledge was a necessary evil to prevent that.

But there was absolutely no pressure on Ardern to do the same. National had said it would slowly raise the retirement age. All Ardern had to say is that they planned no changes in the next term, kicking it for touch. But instead she stuffed up and said she’ll resign rather than ever let the age of superannuation increase. And as Armstrong says, this is a betrayl of future generations who will have to have taxes massively increased on them to fund keeping the age at 65.

NBR reports:

Labour has left the door open to its tax plans being fiscally neutral, with its finance spokesman Grant Robertson saying this outcome is “quite likely” if Labour wants to rebalance the tax system.

This comes as a Taxpayers’ Union petition calling on Labour to make any new taxes fiscally neutral gains traction.

This is excellent news. If Labour don’t use their proposed Tax Working Group as a way to soak New Zealanders out of more tax, but simply to broaden the base – that is commendable

After Labour’s shift, the Taxpayers’ Union started a petition calling on Labour to make any new taxes fiscally neutral – when taxes and government spending are neutral (also referred to as revenue neutrality).

The lobby group’s executive director, Jordan Williams, says the petition has already received 5000 signatures.

“New Zealand’s government books are in a healthy shape, with enormous surpluses projected forward. What Labour needs to do to inoculate any criticism around its tax plans is say they will be fiscally neutral.”

He is calling on Labour to reduce income tax and GST to compensate households for the new taxes – “the problem with our economy definitely isn’t that households aren’t being taxed enough.”

Addressing media yesterday, Mr Robertson was keeping the door open to that possibility.

He says fiscal neutrality will “certainly” be one of the areas the tax working group will be looking at.

“It is quite clear that, if we are rebalancing the tax system, a revenue neutral outcome is one of the outcomes that is quite likely.”

Having Grant say a revenue neutral option is quite likely is highly encouraging. And this is one of the reasons I co-founded the NZTU. Without a lobby group out there pushing the message that we don’t need to increase the tax burden on New Zealanders, then politicians would not be getting asked about this.

I actually favour a capital gains tax and a land tax, so long as income and company taxes are reduced to compensate (and they have minimal exemptions).

Matthew Hooton writes at NBR:

In 2008, Republican Party operatives discovered when preparing vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for her debate with Democrat Joe Biden that “she doesn’t know anything”. In 2017, New Zealand Labour may have similarly landed itself with a prime ministerial candidate without the basic background knowledge to be a credible candidate for high office.

Is this a fair comparison? I don’t think it is. I think Arden is more substantive than Palin.

Ms Ardern’s most obvious weakness is tax policy. …

What has really damaged Ms Ardern is that it has become clear she has never given tax policy any thought even in the broadest brushstrokes.

  Initially, she ring-fenced increasing GST and income tax from the TWG’s work, except for promising to reverse the $1000-a-year cuts to income tax that National legislated for next year.  When asked by the Australian Financial Review, Ms Ardern later extended her commitment to company tax.

  On the proposed capital gains tax (CGT), Ms Ardern ruled out including the “family home” – whatever that means in contemporary New Zealand – but was unable to answer whether the “family home” exemption would also extend to a land tax, seemingly not understanding the difference between the two. After a painful few hours, Labour moved to rule out all taxes on the “family home”, but that raises all sorts of questions about where the “family home” ends and the shop, farm or other business begins – or when a big urban backyard stops being a place for kids to run around and becomes land-banking. Maori might argue with some legitimacy that their marae is in some sense more the “family home” than where the whanau happens to live now.

  The surprising thing is not that these can be difficult questions – exactly the sort of thing a TWG might be best to resolve – but that Ms Ardern seems never to have contemplated that they might even arise.

Everyday she had to make up more tax policy on the hoof.

Tax could perhaps just be dismissed as not Ms Ardern’s thing, but there is a wider pattern of flakery.

  The still-likely next prime minister has declared climate change “my generation’s nuclear-free moment” but her actual policy appears to extend no further than implementing the Emissions Trading Scheme as legislated and setting up a new Climate Commission.

  Ms Ardern has said her “entire reason for being in politics is to rid this country of child poverty” but in nine years in parliament she has proposed not a single meaningful initiative to do so, other than launching a Child Poverty Reduction and Eradication Bill which would have established a new Child Poverty Reduction Board.

The bill is here in case you don’t believe Matthew. It solves child poverty by setting up a board. Just as you solve climate change with a commission and solve tax with a working group.

None of this suggests the prime minister-assumptive is the policy wonk she claims. The inadequacy of Labour’s policy positions is more indicative of a person whose experience is limited to moving from school, to a Bachelor in Communications Studies at the University of Waikato, to being a parliamentary staffer, and then a list MP.

And the Morrinsville Fish & Chip shop.

After six weeks, even the daily left-wing media has now woken up to the fact Ms Ardern is indeed a flake. But the polls have already been open for five days as part of the Electoral Commission’s effort to attract the left-leaning “missing million” to vote, including by dropping in to gang headquarters.

  In fact, by the time you read this, more than 200,000 people will already have cast their votes. By the time the final leaders’ debate is held on Wednesday night, the number may be over one million. It will hardly matter how badly Ms Ardern performs that night – with the help of the Electoral Commission, she may already have wrapped this one up.

I already know of people who have advance voted and now want to change their vote!

Stuff reports:

National will direct Landcorp to offer farms to young farmers because “there is no clear public good coming from Crown ownership and little financial return to taxpayers”.

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy said the young farmers would have to “work the land” for five to 10 years, after which they could lease the farms before buying them.

It was envisaged about 100 young farming families would benefit from the programme.

A great policy. It is nuts that a Government company owns over 100 farms up and down New Zealand.

“Not all of Landcorp’s around 140 farms will be sold. Many are subject to Treaty claims and others have a right-of-first-refusal for Iwi – and these rights will of course be respected. Some of Landcorp’s larger farms will be divided into smaller units more appropriate for first-time owners,” Guy said.

Federated Farmers president Katie Milne said it was an “exciting prospect” for young farmers.

Yep great to be creating opportunities for young farmers, rather than trying to tax them to death.

Labour will make Te Reo part of all students’ learning in school up until high school.

‘Will not rule out’ fiscal neutrality for any new taxes introduced – Robertson.

Big push for Bishop in Hutt South. $72m to upgrade the motorway intersection at Melling.

Labour still promising more taxes (view tax ad 2.0 here).

Polls are still crap.

Last night’s poll means a truly progressive government is within reach.

We will bolster public transport in Christchurch, and make it a cycle-friendly city.

Under Act victims of crime will get reparation paid immediately and in full, with the cost recouped from criminals by docking their pay or even selling their property.

Last nights’ Colmar Brunton: Labour (44%) and Greens (7%) can form a Government. NZF (6%) no longer kingmaker. National up one to 40%.

RNZ poll of the two main polls: Labour (41.6%) and National (41.9%) neck and neck. NZF 6.8%; Greens 5.5%. Neither Labour or National could form a government with NZF alone.

The flip-flopping of the two main television polls. Also, the confirmation that Murray McCully misled the public and Parliament on Saudi Sheep legal advice.

Latest update as of 9am Tuesday:

National Party $8.17b; Labour Party $22.91b; Green Party $13.28b; NZ First $27.53b; Maori Party $12.17b; ACT -$2.43b; TOP $13.69b. Full details here.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has clashed with RNZ host Guyon Espiner in a testy – and at some times bizarre – interview.

The 25-minute interview on Morning Report on Thursday was fiery throughout, with Espiner trying to establish early on how much NZ First’s policies were expected to cost.

After some back and forth. Peters put it at $10 billion over 7-8 years “if you’re talking about investment and borrowings”.

Actually it is more like $15 billion just in the next three years.

Espiner asked about NZ First’s policy of taking GST off food. Peters corrected him: “No, off basic food”.

“It’s a huge difference. You see, off food you get a huge bill. Off basic food you’re talking somewhere in the zone of about $6-700 million,” Peters said.

Espiner said NZ First’s website had it as a $3b policy.

“It might say it on the website. It should have been corrected,” Peters said.

“Oh come on, come on mate,” Espiner said. “How are voters supposed to know when they look at your website and they see it there, and you’re saying it’s wrong?”

“I admit it’s a mistake. In fact I had a discussion with my team just about two days ago about correcting that because they said, ‘is it on food, and I said no, it’s on basic food’,” Peters said.

We now get a glimpse into the NZF policy making process. The staff ask Winston and he decides unilaterally.

Incidentially it is a terrible moronic policy. We have such a clean effective GST and Peters would bastardise it by having a plethora of bureaucrats going through every food item sold in New Zealand and deciding if it is “basic” food or not.

Colby cheese won’t have GST on it but Gruyeye cheese will have GST.

Apples won’t have GST on it but Mangoes will have GST.

Lamb won’t have GST on it but Duck will have GST.

Bread won’t have GST on it but bread rolls will have GST.

Plain yoghurt won’t have GST on it but strawberry yoghurt will have GST.

This is your future people if you vote for it!

The Wash Post reports:

President Trump and top Democratic leaders late Wednesday agreed to work out an agreement that would protect the nation’s “dreamers” from deportation and enact border security measures that don’t include building a physical wall, according to people familiar with the meeting.

The president discussed the deal during a dinner at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

So Trump’s voters thought he was a Republican who would build a wall and deport illegal immigrants and he’s cutting a deal with Democrats to protect children of illegal immigrants and no wall.

At what stage will they realise they got conned?

A guest post by David Garrett:

I recently stumbled across the update of a series called “The Prize”, about the history of the international oil business. The series first came out in 1988, and was updated in  the mid 90’s. Now, 25 years on from the update, it is fascinating to see how much has changed – and how much has stayed the same. The original  doco called the 20^th century “the oil century” – it is quite clear that the 21^st will be an oil century also, albeit in a somewhat different way.

The oil business has, since at least the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement, been inextricably entangled with international geopolitics. World War II was an “oil war” in the sense that both sides depended on it as a transport and aviation  fuel. The North African campaign was all about trying to gain control of first the oilfields of the Middle East, and then the Caucasus. A case can easily be made that Hitler’s obsession with capturing the oilfields of the Caucasus was, along with “General Winter”, a major reason for his failure to take Russia.

There is no doubt that the way oil is used this century will be very different from the last – but in my view Green fantasies that all presently undiscovered oil  must and will remain in the ground are just that – fantasy. Here’s why:

Oil as transport fuel

It has long been argued that oil is far too valuable a commodity to burn  to propel cars. It is not widely known that at the beginning of the 20^th century, electric cars – along with steam powered ones – vied with the internal combustion engine as the mode of transport of the future. By the end of the 1920’s the internal combustion engine had won: its fuel was just too efficient for electricity to compete.

It is interesting that in the 1993 update of “The Prize”, several Japanese car companies were  then testing electric cars. Prescient oil men acknowledged even then that one day – perhaps in 25 or 50 years hence, electric cars could take over – but only if there were significant advances in battery technology to give performance and range. It is probably well arguable that  we have now reached the point where, for cars at least, electricity will become the propulsion of the future – probably the near future.

But what of heavy trucks, locomotives and heavy earth moving machinery? I believe there are experimental electric powered trucks – but D9 bulldozers and other earth moving machinery? I stand to be corrected, but I think it will be a long time – perhaps never – before such machinery will be even mostly electric. Especially those  used for civil engineering far from charging stations.

Jet aircraft are powered by kerosene, a petroleum product.   Since “The Prize” was first made in the 80’s, jet engines are hugely quieter and more fuel efficient than they were.  The supersonic passenger aircraft experiment came and went, but to the best of my knowledge there is currently no alternative to kerosene powered jet engines  for the ever bigger passenger planes moving an ever more mobile international population around the globe. While I suppose battery powered propeller aircraft might be theoretically possible, I think  the Greenies will be planting trees to assuage their guilt every time they fly  for a long time yet.

Fertilizers and chemicals

As I have noted, far sighted oil men have seen the end of petrol driven cars for at least the last 25 years, and that time is now upon us. But what of the bewildering array  of pesticides fertilizers and other chemicals upon which our very lives now depend?

Crude oil is an incredibly versatile molecule which can be endlessly rearranged to make plastics, paints, fertilizers, pesticides and a bewildering array of other chemicals.  Down in Taranaki, one of the lesser known and arguably the  only successful “Thing Big” project from the 1980’s is the Ammonia-Urea plant. This plant converts what was then seen as surplus gas – the government was tied in to so called “take or pay” contracts which meant they paid for it even if they didn’t take it – first to  ammonia and then into urea, a versatile fertilizer for the grass land farmer.

It is  fair to say that today the world is fed on food grown with the assistance of artificial fertilizers – and protected by pesticides – all made in some way from petroleum.  One of the policies Green parties world wide don’t like to emphasize is the perceived  need to radically reduce the world’s population. This is not just to protect Gaia; they know that if fertilizers and pesticides derived from oil are unavailable, because oil production is eliminated or drastically reduced,  there simply won’t be enough food to feed anything like the current world population. In short, we would be returned to pre oil age agricultural techniques – and the consequent much smaller yields – attempting to feed a world population  many times what it  was before the oil age began. At the very least, that would lead to mass starvation.

I could in my lifetime be proved wrong, but based on current trends the nutty Greens won’t be actually calling the shots; already it is argued both here and in other countries that Green parties’ work is done – everyone is now fully aware of both the challenges of climate change and the need to  protect the planet from pollution. Just as cutting the New Zealand dairy herd by 2/3 is both utterly impractical and not likely to happen any time soon, humankind is  in my view unlikely to ever accept that we also  must be culled by a similar margin.

That being the case, we will need to go on using oil based fertilizers and pesticides until some unspecified time in the future –  a time which I don’t believe is even yet on the far horizon – when some alternatives are available to oil based chemicals.

Plastics

The oil age is also the plastics age. I am writing this on a computer – every home has at least one – with a plastic case. My printer has a plastic case. Our milk comes in plastic bottles – granted they could probably be replaced with much more environmentally friendly glass – at a greater cost of course. Look around your home or workplace. Can you imagine either without plastics?

Our electric cars will have a large percentage of their components made of plastics – computers in their plastic cases,  fans, belts, gears, dashboards, body panels – what isn’t made of metal  will for the foreseeable future be made of plastic or fibreglass. Unless I am much mistaken, to make plastics and fibreglass, you need petroleum. There simply is no alternative.

War

I am prepared to accept the terrifying possibility that humanity may cease to exist as we know it due to a nuclear conflagration breaking out – although the chances of that are very much less that they were a generation ago. The cold war has been over since about the time  “The Prize” was last updated – and the former Soviet Union has since, with western  technology and capital, once more become the major oil producer it was at the beginning of the oil age.

But sadly I think war will, in some form or another, always be with us. Perhaps the most “successful” war  in a generation was the 90 day long  first Gulf War in 1990. The machines used to fight it were not  so very different from those in WW II – diesel propelled tanks, trucks, armoured personal carriers and the like.

Can anyone imagine a battery powered tank?  Let us imagine such a thing exists, and has a battery which lasts twice as long as any battery which exists now. But as gas tanks eventually empty, batteries eventually go flat. In a conflict situation, possibly in enemy territory,  how would be they be recharged?  With diesel powered generators perhaps, transported to the battlefield by electric powered trucks, which it turn depend on the generators they carry?

Again, as throughout this piece, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge. I suppose there might already be a battle tank powered by electricity, but I certainly have never heard of such a thing.

So, the oil age is not over, and it won’t be over for a long time,  if ever. The stuff is just too valuable, and too versatile. At least with current knowledge, our lives would simply be unimaginable without it. But we certainly need to stop burning it in cars, and the sooner the better.

Newshub reports:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern cancelled her planned visit to Canterbury’s Selwyn River on Thursday because it was “flooding” – but problem was, it wasn’t flooding at all.

She intended to use Coe’s Ford to highlight the party’s pledge to clean up rivers. This part of the Selwyn River is often used as an example of how farm runoff is affecting the health of waterways.

Ms Ardern’s office pulled the plug on the visit, with a message to media saying: “With regret we have had to cancel the Coe’s Ford media event with Jacinda Ardern, due to flooding”.

However when Newshub arrived, the river wasn’t flooded or flooding at all.

Whoops. Misled the media.

A Labour Party spokesman says another reason for the cancellation was because the party was told the gates to the reserve were locked. However, a local says the gates are always locked through the winter months.

Whoops didn’t check in advance.

There was ample parking on the side of the road and full access to the river. Cars and trucks were driving across the ford.

Whoops no one with local knowledge.

A number of local farmers had gathered at the site too, after hearing on the radio Ms Ardern would visit. One of them was David Birkett.

“It’s a little bit disappointing. It would have been a good opportunity to talk to her about some of her policies,” he says.

Whoops avoiding the locals.

“Labour has made a big hoo-rah about the Selwyn River, and one of the reasons she’s not here is probably because it’s looking really good at the moment.”

Whoops, the photo op would have backfired.

Mr Birkett claimed the water was so clean that he’d drink it. Newshub asked him to prove it, and he did.

Whoops, that became the photo op!

The data is from the OECD. Doesn’t it tell a story. Now I tell you what will change that story – Labour’s policies. More taxes, more protectionism, a less competitive export sector.

And if you look at how much each economy has grown in real per capita terms in US$ PPP, NZ economy is 7.8% larger and Australia just 2.0% bigger.

Economic growth is what allows us to produce more jobs, pay people more wages, produce the taxation that funds public services.

Labour has almost no policies on growing the economy. Their policies will increase taxes, increase debt, impose massive costs on exporters and cripple provincial employers through the imposition of national awards.

On September 6^th in The Spinoff (https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/06-09-2017/what-life-looks-like-at-nzs-largest-decile-one-high-school/) a Manurewa teacher write a rather depressing and society blaming piece re teaching in schools in the suburb. As Natasha Miller, an English teacher at South Auckland Middle School, points out – there is another way of looking at things:

Like Sam Oldham, I also drive down Manurewa streets to work, clustered with election hoardings. It all blurs together as background noise, Black, Green, Red vs. Blue – under National it feels unlikely as a single mother that I will ever be able to afford my own home. Labour makes threats to get rid of a job in which I feel, for the first time, that I actually have the chance to make significant change in the life of my students. Having made my own policy-based choice on who to vote for already, I choose to focus on the day ahead.

I park my car in the staff car park. A student sprints through the school gates, calling my name. “I finished my business pitch! Can I email it through to you for feedback?” We walk the rest of the way into school together discussing their current phase of production for the products they are developing for our Year 10 Market Evening. Another student approaches me to check out one of the classic novels that I have stored in my office; a passion recently spurred off by our study of The Great Gatsby. I walk past a miniature-scale colosseum built by a student in response to a Math task into a buzzing office that I share with a Technology teacher and Science teacher. We’re not the tidiest people. Paper-mache urns from the archaeology unit await painting, print outs of art-inspired student poetry need to be filed in the student anthology and there’s straws and strawberries for something I’m told has to do with teaching the students about DNA.

Our students come from a similar catchment to Mr. Oldham’s; it would be worse than naïve to claim that they don’t have significant barriers in front of them when it comes to achievement. We know what we’re facing, and for middle New Zealand, it’s not pretty. In the one and a half years that I’ve been working at South Auckland Middle School we’ve dealt with abuse disclosures, CYFS referrals of students who are no longer welcome anywhere else and the widespread grief that occurs with the death of parents. That doesn’t even touch on the students in that cycle of intergenerational poverty who we regularly support with dry shoes, food to eat or transport to and from their homes in neighbourhoods where walking alone may feel unsafe. While students in higher socio-economic areas start their academic races with a sprint, with some of our students we have to acknowledge the exhaustion that they face in just getting to the starting line.
But we still expect them to finish. Every last one of them.

The sign in the foyer reads “Every student can develop exceptional skills and knowledge sets with expert teaching, coaching and mentoring, significant purposeful practice and opportunities to express themselves”. It’s not just a slogan – it’s something you need to believe if you are ever going to thrive as a student or a teacher in South Auckland. We believe in a growth mindset – deficit theorizing does nothing to enhance a student’s ability to succeed.

I work in a charter school, it’s true. We’re a school full of fully registered teachers (contrary to popular opinion) who have chosen to buy into the philosophy that each and every one of our students can do exceptional things. For some of our students it is a matter of making the appropriate referrals to external agencies and working alongside them so that they can make extraordinary leaps in their literacy and numeracy. For others it is achieving academic excellence, or learning how to run businesses and events; giving them skills to thrive in the modern world.

How we do it is not a matter of funding. I’d argue that our ability to ensure student success is our integrated approach – our project based curriculum ensures that we, as teachers, have a necessity to work in a cross-curricular nature. I’m not sure of any other school where I’d be able to equally utilise my tertiary qualifications in business, the arts and education. Perhaps it’s that so many of us had real world experience in our fields before we came into the teaching profession and have the passion to think laterally about our subjects, while still keeping a professional toe in our former employment fields. The accessibility of senior management also helps; both our principal and academic director are easily approached if we’re wishing to differentiate our approach to the New Zealand curriculum (another non-negotiable) to capture the engagement of our students. We are repeatedly used as a political hot potato and it can be confronting at times to have people prod at the work that you do, searching for reasons to disparage the job that you love – why aren’t all schools able to produce the results that you do? I think the answer to that lies in educational policy far beyond my scope of understanding as a classroom teacher. What I do know, though, is that I’ve never worked at a school where kids are quite as passionate about knowledge.
It’s hard to feel negative about the future of our children (and we all consider them our children) when your classroom is literally buzzing with the excitement of students who are learning to code their own computer games using our school laptops and fantastic free resources. It’s hard to feel negative when you hear them reciting Othello as they perch in the plum trees on our grounds. It’s hard to feel negative when you’re engaging with students about market analysis, the Jazz Age, the Russian Revolution or having existential conversations about the nature of reality – all conversations I have had this year with our Year 10 students, students of fourteen and fifteen.
I have no qualms that I’m raising these students with big dreams. A former principal I worked under called me “subversive, in the best way” with a sparkle in his eye. I will tell them that I expect their very best, and that to get there, we will support them every step of the way. Stories about the negative side of South Auckland are a dime a dozen… I choose to tell my students that no matter how their story starts, they get to write themselves a better ending.