Today

• Japan lost to NZ and Sweden
• NZ beat Japan and France
• Sweden beat US and Japan
• US lost to Sweden
• France lost to NZ

Overall results

• NZ won 8 lost 1
• US won 6 lost 2
• Sweden won 4 lost 5
• UK won 3 lost 5
• Japan won 3 lost 6
• France won 2 lost 7

Points

1. NZ 8
2. US 7
3. UK 5
4. Sweden 4
5. Japan 3
6. France 2

It is significant that NZ is now ahead of Oracle on the points table for two reasons.

If we remain top of the points table (or top after Oracle) than in the semi-final we get to pick our opponent.

But more importantly if we win the qualifiers and make the America’s Cup final, then we start with a one point advantage against Oracle (or they start at -1).

The Herald reports:

The law requires women to name the father to apply for child support or face sanctions of up to $28 a week per child off their benefit.

Logie said about 15,000 women had their benefits docked for refusing to do so.

“Is it appropriate to deprive women of essential income when the reasons people don’t name a father are personal, private and, frankly, none of the state’s business?”

Beneficiary groups have called for the clause to be dropped altogether.

If you don’t want money from the state, then no need to tell the state who the father is.

But if you do want money from the state, well taxpayers have an expectation that the father will contribute to the child’s needs, rather than be 100% funded by taxpayers. It is called parental responsibility. Why should fathers leave others to pay the bills?

Without any sanction for not naming the father, then tens of thousands of fathers escape responsibility.

Also it is quite common that the father will pay the mother not to name him, so that again taxpayers are left paying much more than they should, as the father ends up paying less than he would under the law.

Now of course there should be exemptions for cases such as rape, and it is horrible that WINZ stuffed up this case so badly. But that is no reason to change the policy so that tens of thousands of fathers can escape any responsibility for their children.

Stuff reports:

A controversial ‘bed tax’ will go ahead, with Auckland Council’s Governing Body voting 10-7 in favour of the proposal on Thursday afternoon.

The targeted accommodation rate will see hotels and motels charged extra to partially offset the cost of staging major events in the city.

The accommodation sector gets only 9% of the benefits of tourism, yet they are the only sector that gets this extra rate. Totally unfair and discriminatory.

At a minimum they should be given power of appointment to the board of ATEED so they can them determine what their money is spent on.

It will see nightly room rates bumped up between $3-$6 for hotels and $1-$3 for motels.

No it won’t.  It is a massive increase in their rates, not a room or bed tax. Some places will put rates up, but others may not as they will lose business if they do. Hotels and motels face competition with Air BNB and the like.

Stuff reports:

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s gamble on a snap election was under question after the latest opinion polls showed her Conservative Party’s lead was dwindling just a week before voting begins.

Failure to win the June 8 election with a large majority would weaken May just as formal Brexit talks are due to begin while the loss of her majority in parliament would pitch British politics into turmoil.

On Thursday (Friday NZ Time), in the strongest signal yet that the election is much closer than previously thought, May’s lead has collapsed from 24 points since she surprised both rivals and financial markets on April 18 by calling the election.

Their bungled Budget has hurt them badly. There is a real possibility now of a hung Parliament which would mean a very weak Government negotiating with the EU increasing the chance of leaving with no deal.

Today

• Japan beat France and lost to US
• France lost to Japan and UK
• NZ beat UK
• UK lost to NZ and beat France
• US beat Japan

Overall results

• US won 6 lost 1
• NZ won 6 lost 1
• Japan won 3 lost 4
• UK won 3 lost 5
• Sweden won 2 lost 5
• France won 2 lost 6

Points

1. US 7
2. NZ 6
3. UK 5
4. Japan 3
5. Sweden 2
6. France 2

The Washington Post reports:

President Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he is withdrawing the United States from the landmark Paris climate agreement, a move that honors a campaign promise but risks rupturing global alliances and disappointing both environmentalists and corporate titans.

But Trump said he would seek to negotiate a new climate deal that is, in his view, “fair” to America’s interests.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers,” Trump said.

“We’re getting out,” he added, “but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.”

Trump promised to pull out of TPP and the Paris agreement, and he has done both. All those who cheered him on for pulling out of TPP are probably less happy on this one.

I think he shouldn’t have pulled out of either.

The first is that the whole system of international agreements will fall down if everytime a country has a change of Government, they simply withdraw. It is incredibly hard to negotiate an agreement in the first place, and if there is little chance they will endure, then why bother.

Businesses want certainty about domestic and global rules.

In terms of what the other signatories to Paris now do, I think they should take their lead from the TPP countries – just carry on without the US. The US is going through an isolationist phrase, so let it. I doubt it will last for long, as when his protectionist policies start to hit consumers there will be a big backlash.

Vernon Small writes:

Labour leader Andrew Little’s iPad-assisted first speech was a tame and lame affair, which wound up before its allotted time.

Tame and lame – I like it. And I can’t recall a previous occasion where the Leader of the Opposition has been unable to speak for 20 minutes in what is meant to be leading the response to the Budget.

In an interview with Susie Ferguson on Radio NZ – that he consistently seems to fluff – he got down into the weeds

He really is hopeless on Morning Report more often than not.

By that morning’s media stand-up in Parliament he was tighter on message, but then he threw the party’s tax strategy into doubt by failing to rule out other tax increases.

A few weeks ago Little sincerely promised no tax increases under Labour. Now he may be reneging on it.

Barry Soper writes:

As a first anniversary gift, the Greens breached their Memorandum of Understanding on Budget Day by voting with the Government it has pledged to replace.

Labour leader Andrew Little told media he only knew the Greens were crossing sides when they started voting.

The MoU commits both parties to treat each other with integrity and openness, with a no surprises policy which means they give each other prior notice and the details of any major announcements and speeches.

Not telling your MOU partner that you are voting for the centre-piece of the Government’s Budget seems a rather big thing to overlook.

Imagine if there is a Labour, Greens and NZ First Government – wonderful chaos.

The deal with Labour is the Greens’ biggest mistake.

They may think their association could attract some Labour votes for them – but if that’s their thinking, they misunderstand the tribal nature of that party’s followers.

If they were free agents they could easily have hooked up with National, which given their Budget vote, they don’t loathe as much as Labour does.

By saying they will only back a Labour Government, they have given all the power to Peters. And in return he will try and lock them out if he can.

I was reading an article about how our job growth is so strong, and it got me interested in how does it compare to previous years.

Each bar shows the change in the number of people in employment in New Zealand over the calendar year, seasonally adjusted. So basically how many jobs were created or lost.

Since recovering from the Global Financial Crisis, the job growth has been pretty incredible. In the last four years we have had two years with 60,000 job growth and last year there were almost 110,000 net new jobs created.

This is why we can afford tax cuts, can afford record extra spending in health and education, can afford to spend more on infrastructure.  The more people in employment, the more tax gets paid and more spending by families. We are fortunate to be one of the very few countries in the world with a record like this. Most are not even back into surplus.

Stuff reports:

The Government has a key opportunity to change how tobacco is supplied and sold. Limiting the number and type of retailers permitted to sell tobacco, such as by establishing specialist R18 retail outlets as the only stores able to sell tobacco, would reduce opportunities for crime.

Removing tobacco from all current outlets would create a level-playing field and thus address an important concern retailers in our research studies have voiced. Store owners’ fears that customers would go elsewhere to purchase tobacco, and other more profitable products they might buy at the same time, would no longer apply. Only specialist stores would sell tobacco, and that would be their only product range.

In this scenario, specialist store owners who sold tobacco could invest in enhanced security to minimise the risk of theft; store owners no longer selling tobacco would enjoy increased safety and reduced crime.

This proposal from academics shows the ivory towers some of them live in.

Who the hell would invest their capital in setting up a store that was only allowed to sell one product, and would be the biggest armed robbery target in town?

And considering that smoking prevalance is dropping (which is good), again who would invest in a retail store that can only sell one product?

This proposal would fuel the black market even more. It would turn tobacco into a drug mainly supplied on the black market, and would be a boon for criminals and gangs.

Stuff reports:

House price growth has dropped below 10 per cent a year for the first time in two years.

QV’s latest data shows that property values nationwide increased 9.7 per cent in the year to May, to an average $634,018.

In Auckland, values were up 9.3 per cent year-on-year, the slowest rate of growth since November 2014. They moved just 0.1 per cent over the quarter.

That’s good news.

“Sales volumes are lower than they were this time last year particularly in Auckland and its possible market activity may now remain more subdued until after the election,” she said.

QV Auckland Homevalue manager James Steele said record prices were still being achieved for well-positioned and well-maintained properties but, for other properties, sellers sometimes had to settle for a lower price than they might have achieved last year.

“We are also seeing vendors who are willing to withdraw their properties from the market if they do not achieve the price offer they are wanting,” he said.
 
“Entry-level homes in South Auckland suburbs such as Mangere, Papakura and Manurewa where you can still find a property for under $650,000 are being sold mostly to first-home buyers with investors no longer very active in this part of the market.”

Hopefully it is a combination of both the demand and supply side measures implemented in the last couple of years taking bite.

Claire Trevett writes:

MPs are certainly thinking about the next leader if Little can’t pull it off and they remain in Opposition.

Little might even survive if Labour’s vote rallies, especially if the fickle thumb of the Emperor, NZ First leader Winston Peters, is the reason Labour is not in government rather than Labour’s own polling.

If not, the name with the most traction is Jacinda Ardern – whether she wants it or not – and Grant Robertson as deputy – the reverse from the ticket order Robertson stood on in his two pitches to be leader.

There is another problem to the theory Little will be rolled. It would require a willing and able replacement.

On the able front, very few of the current MPs would be able to step in at such a late stage, straight into the white heat of a campaign. Grant Robertson, Phil Twyford and David Parker could cope but would likely do no better than Little.

Ardern does not yet have the breadth of knowledge and experience required, especially on economic matters which are always a crux of a campaign.

On the willing front, things are even more dire. Nobody wants to be a kamikaze candidate.

For the good ship Labour it will remain 31 souls on board, Little safe.

Can’t blame them for not wanting to step up.

How is this for great service beyond and above the call of duty.

We ordered a bathroom vanity off Cherrytree. I was away in Copenhagen when it was ready and it became apparent when my partner went to their store to pick it up that it was too heavy for her to get up the steps at our place.

The kind people at Cherrytree said no problems, and they would drop it around in a ute, and get it up the steps for us. And they did.

We are huge users of Cherrytree and have saved thousands with them. Even the savings on small households items (laundry liquid etc) soon add up, let alone the larger purchases.

Stuff reports:

Christchurch religious leaders have rallied to support Anglican bishop Victoria Matthews in her battle over the Christ Church Cathedral.

Eight religious leaders from all the major Christian denominations – including Presbyterian, Methodist and Catholic – have written a letter to The Press calling for Anglicans to be “left to make decisions as to the future of the cathedral”.

“The role of the wider community (including other Christian denominations) is to respect their decision (whatever it might be) as being one that is true to their understanding of their call from God, in this place, at this time,” the letter states. …

The letter states church buildings are primarily places of worship.

“The costs – spiritually, emotionally and financially – of all our buildings are borne by those for whom these places of worship are their spiritual home,” the letter states.

“First and foremost the Cathedral in the Square, like all Christian church buildings, is a place of worship to the God we know in Jesus Christ and a reminder to the wider community of God’s presence. The reason why all churches exist is to make Jesus Christ known and to enable people to gather in community and worship. The church is not primarily a landlord tasked with caring for stone or wooden edifices.”

Either someone should buy the cathedral off the church, so they can turn it into a tourist attraction or they should leave the Anglican Church alone to make a decision.

A guest post by Simon Lusk:

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff’s targeted rate on accommodation providers is one of the riskiest political moves in New Zealand political history. By charging a small section of the community millions of dollars per year he has created a natural funding stream for his opponents at the 2019 election.

From a straight business perspective he has created a powerful incentive for those who will pay the tax to remove him from office. A sensible right wing mayor elected in 2019 would likely remove the targeted rate, so funding a credible right wing candidate would save businesses tens of millions of dollars. Funding a campaign to remove the mayor and councillors who vote for the targeted rate will cost a fraction of the rate.   

Goff’s extensive political experience has not included being directly opposed by a well funded group of people he has personally cost vast amounts of money. If those being forced to pay the targeted rate get moderately organised and fund a sensible right wing candidate over the next two and half years Goff is very, very beatable. So are the councillors, especially the councillors in right wing wards who vote for the targeted rate.

Even if Goff is not beaten, a political near death experience caused by angry hoteliers will likely mean Goff is unwilling to increase this rate every year to cover his budget gap. Removing one or two sitting councillors in 2019 will have a similar effect. Councillors will be terrified they will face a well organised and well funded campaign because their vote has cost businesses a very large amount of money.

Any industry campaign against Goff and councillors who vote for the targeted rate would be completely legal under the Local Electoral Act. Donations to candidates would have to be declared, but any third party campaign asking voters to vote against Goff and against councillors supporting targeted rates would not have to be disclosed. There are no spending limits for negative campaigns against local government candidates, and the Local Electoral Act does not mention campaigning against candidates, only campaigning for candidates.

Goff appears not to have thought through the implications of the targeted rate. It could easily be career ending for him, or leave him with a right wing council for his second term. While the Auckland Mayor has some executive power, a right wing council could prevent him from promoting his agenda a second term.  

Simon is right that there is no spending limit in the Local Electoral Act for a campaign against a candidate – only for campaigns for a candidate.

Eric Crampton writes:

Keith Ng’s ‘mythbusting’ around net taxpaying annoyed me enough that I started digging around for more of the literature on this stuff.

Keith argued that it’s a myth that 40% of households pay no net taxes. While he’s right that the commonly cited measure just focuses on income taxes paid versus cash transfers received, it isn’t like correcting for that shows the system is less progressive or relies less heavily on the top deciles’ tax contribution. When Aziz et al had a look, they found this:

So in fact the bottom50% of households received far more from the Government than the taxes they pay.

Those nasty rich pricks in the top decile are funding a huge proportion of the Government.

This breaks down net contribution by gender and age. Basically men pay net tax between around age 25 and 65 while women only between age 45 and 65. This reflects many things such as higher earnings, parental leave etc.

Today

• NZ beat Sweden
• Sweden lost to NZ and UK
• US beat France
• France lost to US
• UK beat Sweden

Overall results

• US won 5 lost 1
• NZ won 5 lost 1
• Japan won 2 lost 3
• France won 2 lost 4
• UK won 2 lost 4
• Sweden won 2 lost 5

Points

1. US 6
2. NZ 5
3. UK 4
4. Sweden 2
5. France 2
6. Japan 2

Stuff reports:

For some time now, Dunne’s been talking up the merits of Portugal’s drug laws, where every drug is decriminalised – albeit with a caveat: If you’re caught with less than 10 days of any drug – cannabis, heroin, methamphetamine, or anything in between – you won’t be prosecuted. Instead, you’ll be fined or sent to treatment.

Rather than creating a free-for-all, Portugal saw its people’s drug use slump: in the 1990s, one in every 100 people in Portugal was addicted to heroin; since then, overall drug use has dropped 75 per cent.

Dunne wants to see that replicated in New Zealand.

“I think the full Portuguese solution, personally, might be the way for us to go long term. That might be where we head,” he says.

This seems sensible to me. Several US states have legalised also and so far there seems to be no evidence of increased ill effects.

Parliament announced:

Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, the definitive text on how our Parliament works, has been updated to reflect key changes in parliamentary law and practice over the last decade.

The fourth edition was launched at Parliament yesterday by current Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson, former Clerk Mary Harris and previous Clerk and original author David McGee.

Well-known by MPs, parliamentary staff, lawyers and the state sector as the definitive work on the practice and procedure of the New Zealand House of Representatives, it was first published in 1985 and last revised in 2005.

David Wilson says the new edition updates the key changes that affect how things are done in the House.

“Parliament operates within its own rules so it can maintain independence, hold the government to account and work for the public good” he says.

I purchased a 1st edition in 1985 when I was still at school. Yes I was that tragic. McGee was then the Deputy Clerk and it was clear he would be Clerk one day.

The rules of Parliament are very abstract to some people, but they are what makes our Parliament one of the more effective ones around. They protect the rights of the minority and stop the Government determining everything.

The fourth edition of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand is published by Oratia Books and now available in bookshops. An e-book is also available for quick browsing and searching. An electronic version will soon be available free of charge on the New Zealand Parliament website.

Any candidates who get elected to Parliament in September should make this book their summer reading!

The final top 20 for the Green Party list is below with changes from the initial list in brackets:

1. Metiria Turei (nc)
2. James Shaw (nc)
3. Marama Davidson (+1)
4. Julie Anne Genter (-1)
5. Eugenie Sage (nc)
6. Gareth Hughes (+1)
7. Jan Logie (-1)
8. Kennedy Graham (+3)
9. Chloe Swarbrick (+4)
10. Golriz Ghahraman (+5)
11. Mojo Mathers (-3)
12. Barry Coates (-2)
13. Jack McDonald (-4)
14. John Hart (-2)
15. Denise Roche (-1)
16. David Clendon (nc)
17. Hayley Holt (+13)
18. Teall Crossen (+1)
19. Teanau Tuiono (-2)
20. Leilani Tamu (-2)

The top 14 are likely to be MPs on current polling so they may get new MPs of Swarbrick, Ghahraman, McDonald and Hart and lose Roche and Clendon. That’s pretty good renewal, and I have to say a pretty strong party list which will appeal to their target voters.

However the Greens seem to have ignored their rule that men should make up at least 40% of the list at each rank after the first three. The male percentage at each rank is:

• 4 – 25%
• 5 – 20%
• 6 – 33%
• 7 – 29%
• 8 – 38%
• 9 – 33%
• 10 – 30%
• 11 – 28%

Now I personally think a rule demanding equality is stupid and if they have better female candidates than male candidates they should be able to rank them higher.

Their rules are a bit complicated and require each place to be allocated by looking at the next three places on the member voted list. If there is some-one there from an under-represented gender then they should be given the place.

So for there to be only three men in the top 11, means that the members voted only three men in the top 13 – or they ignored their own rules.