Stuff reports:

Labour is to treat the Greens as “first cab off the rank” for post election talks in a signal it is firming up its plans to work in coalition with its allied party.

No surprise, but it is meaningless unless Labour and Greens can get 61 seats between them. If Labour poll around 40% this means something, but at 26% it means almost nothing.

But would he be prepared to leave the Greens out of government if Winston Peters insisted and Labour needed NZ First to govern?

“I think that is unlikely.”

Far from unlikely, it is highly likely. Winston has made this clear many many times. In fact I understand he has said he won’t even support Green MPs becoming Under-Secretaries.

Stuff reports:

Neighbours are furious a landmark tree in Christchurch is being cut down.

“This owner has spat on the whole community,” said Mt Pleasant resident Eddie du Plessis, who lives two doors over. “We have almost 50 people who are passionate supporters of saving the tree. He has to live with himself now. “

The neighbours don’t really understand the concept of private property do they. It is not their tree.

The 21-metre manna gum tree was thought to be about 90 years old and was dangerous, owner Simon Harty​ said. “We believe this species of tree drops limbs without warning. In our opinion, this tree has outgrown this site.”

Maybe the neighbours could plant their own trees.

The Herald reports:

The details of Goff’s policy on “sensitive spending”, flagged in December and still being worked on, could include elected representatives and officers having to release details of credit-card spending, including hotel, meal and entertainment costs, he said.

That would be a good step.

Goff was concerned at a 43 per cent rise in staff travel costs over two years at Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (Ateed), saying he had received an assurance from the agency that there were robust business cases and spending was appropriate in each case.

This is the same agency that wanted to throw hundreds of thousands at a boxing match.

Also in good news:

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has ruled out the city stepping in to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games, should Durban fall over as the host city.

South Africa’s sports minister Fikile Mbalula has cast major doubt on the Games, because of the costs involved.

He says he doesn’t want to raise expectations and say everything looks good, because it doesn’t.

“We gave it our best shot but we can’t go beyond. If the country says we don’t have this money, we can’t,” Reuters quoted Fikile Mbalula as saying.

Goff has told Radio Sport that 2022 would be too soon for Auckland to host the Games with the city already under incredible fiscal and infrastructure pressure.

A good call.

From Eventfinda:

In April 2017, women’s rights activist, champion of free speech and best-selling author Ayaan Hirsi Ali will make her first appearance in New Zealand to discuss the current world political climate, Islam, and a plethora of other vital topics.

Infidel. Heretic. Apostate. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has courted controversy over her years in the public eye, earning widespread criticism amongst the liberal left and death threats from the religious right. April will see her come in Auckland to add her voice to the heated debate about Islam’s place in a modern liberal democracy.

Born in Somalia to a devout Muslim family, Hirsi Ali underwent female genital mutilation as a child and escaped an arranged marriage in 1992 by seeking political asylum in the Netherlands. Leaving her religion behind, she famously collaborated with director Theo van Gogh to produce Submission, a short film that ultimately led to van Gogh’s assassination and the subsequent call for her own.

Moving to the USA in 2006, Hirsi Ali is now an American citizen and has since founded the AHA Foundation in defence of women’s rights, and served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank. Hirsi Ali has been previously named as one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World and is a New York Times number one bestselling author.

Following on from the release of her 2015 book ‘Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now,’ April will see Ayaan Hirsi Ali in New Zealand for the first time and Think Inc., in association with Loop, invite you to step inside the controversy with ‘Hero of Heresy.’

The event will consist of a lecture from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, followed by a discussion with the event host, and conclude with an audience question and answer session.

I’d love to go to that. It is 6.30 pm Sunday 9 April at the Bruce Mason Centre.

Tim Worstall at Forbes writes:

The economic numbers for Scotland haven’t added up for some decades now, that’s why the English have had to subsidise the place for so long. Given the various talk about a second independence referendum and the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union that is the UK a new attempt has been made at totting up quite how badly the numbers do work out. And the answer is that the gap between spending and taxation is so vast that Scotland would be, effectively, bust as a government and rectifying that would entail cuts of such magnitude as to produce a Greek-style depression in the country.

Yep, that bad. The numbers are:

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) forecast the gap between public spending and taxes raised will hit an “unsustainable” 9.4 per cent of GDP in 2017-18.

This is more than three times a prediction for the rest of the UK as a whole at 3 per cent and follows the dramatic collapse in oil revenues.

Douglas McWilliams, the think-tank’s chief executive, also said if Scotland were independent today the deficit would be even higher at 12 per cent.

So what would Scotland have to do:

Because of Keynesian multiplier effects, there would need to be cuts of about 15 per cent of GDP. That’s roughly on the scale of what has happened in Greece, which has led to a fall in GDP of a quarter

That would be a depression on par with the Great Depression.

David Seymour announced:

ACT has announced a policy of Rewarding Self-Improvement in Prison at today’s party conference.

“The cost of crime and the prison system is running away. This is largely due to a reoffending blowout which sees 48% of prisoners return within four years,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“The fact is, a large chunk of the prison population simply lacks the skills to lead normal, productive lives. 60 to 70 per cent of prisoners lack the functional literacy required to read a tenancy agreement, an employment contract, or even the road code. It’s no wonder they return to crime after leaving prison.

“ACT believes that incentives matter; that individual responsibility works. Penalties should be tough on repeat offenders. But at the same time, prisoners need positive incentives to become productive, law-abiding citizens after their time in prison.

“Prisoners should be able to earn a reduction in their overall sentence by successfully completing literacy, numeracy, and driver licensing courses. This would provide an incentive for prisoners to upskill and ready themselves for a normal, non-criminal life outside of prison.

“The policy wouldn’t apply to the worst violent or sexual offenders. And it wouldn’t help white-collar criminals study for diplomas or degrees. Prisoners who are already literate, numerate, and licensed to drive could instead be eligible for incentives if they act as mentors to other prisoners, helping them earn qualifications.

“As seen in similar programmes overseas, this policy would save taxpayer money through reduced sentences and lower rates of recidivism.

Sounds like a great policy to me.

It has been praised by Kim Workman, the Sensible Sentencing Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform.

The Telegraph reports:

An autonomous drone that can transport humans will start ferrying passengers around Dubai this summer. 

The head of Dubai’s transportation agency said that self-flying taxis would start taking people across the city starting from July.

The city will use the Ehang 184 for the airborne service. The Ehang is a drone that can fly without human direction and carry a single passenger and their bag. It can take one person on a journey up to 23 minutes long. …

The Ehang is electric-powered and can travel for about 31 miles with a person and bag that weigh up to 100kg. It can go at speeds of up to 63 miles an hour and takes two hours to charge fully. 

Air taxis sounds good to me.

Barry Soper writes:

Figures show how desperate it is with emergency housing with the Government budgeting two million bucks for 1400 people to live in motels for the last three months of last year. Yeah well, they ended up spending just on eight million for almost nine thousand needy people.

Many of them are hardly ideal tenants though having been blacklisted in the private sector, evicted from state houses, have criminal records and are violent to their families.

And that’s the conundrum, when does the state stop taking responsibility for them?

That’s a question that no one seems to have, or is game enough to have, an answer to.

We now have the perverse incentive that the worse you behave, the more money you get from taxpayers for your accommodation.

Chris Cillizza writes:

US President Donald Trump delivered a strong speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, an address sure to embolden both the chief executive and Congressional Republicans who support him.

Here are some notes on the best and the worst of the night that was.

WINNERS

• Donald Trump: This was the best “big” speech he has given as president. It may well have been the best speech Trump has given since he entered politics way back in June 2015. Trump didn’t walk away from his decidedly dark vision of the current state of the country but his overall tone was more conciliatory and optimistic than I’ve ever heard him.

Trump hit a few very nice notes: His condemnation of threats against Jewish community centres at the start of the speech was a very nice grace note and his honouring of the widow of the Navy SEAL killed in the recent Yemen raid was remarkably powerful moment.

The tribute to the Navy SEAL and interaction with his widow was incredibly moving.

• Steve Bannon and Ivanka Trump: If you are looking for the two biggest influencers in terms of what Trump said and how he said it, look no further than Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, and Ivanka, the president’s eldest daughter. The unapologetic nationalism and indictment of the political system was pure Bannon. The push for paid family leave and focus on education was all Ivanka.

An unlikely combination.

LOSERS

• The devilish details of replacing Obamacare: In the runup to the Trump speech, Republican members of Congress voiced hopes that Trump might give them guidance about how he’d like to replace Obamacare. What Trump did talk about – lowering the price of prescription drugs, keeping the pre-existing conditions provision – are widely popular idea. The issue, of course, is how to pay for all of this if you strip out the rest of the elements of Obamacare.

• People rooting for Trump’s imminent demise: He’s not going anywhere, folks. And that speech suggests he might have more upside than almost anyone thought.

He’s here for 202 more weeks or even 410.

David Lee, Wellington City Councillor, is standing for the Greens in Ilam.

Real dedication to Wellington.

So he will spend most of the year campaigning in Christchurch, but being paid to be a Wellington City Councillor.

Stuff reports:

But a close look at the statements announcing the aspiring MPs reveals many are singing from the same song sheet – to a suspicious degree.

Take National, which appears to have tapped into a rich vein of “proud boys” for its electorate candidates.

Current MP and Hutt South candidate Chris Bishop, a “proud born and bred Hutt boy”, is in good company.

Northland candidate Matt King declares himself “a proud Northland boy”, while the biographical notes for Waikato candidate Tim van de Molen note he is a “proud Waikato boy”.

However, Labour has been a particularly egregious offender, with no less than seven candidates using near-identical phrasing in their pledges to fight for their would-be constituents in Parliament.

Hutt South candidate Virginia Andersen was the first to start the trend in October last year, saying: “Hutt South is made up of strong communities and I will be working hard to make sure those voices are heard loud and clear.”

She was followed by Maungakiekie candidate Priyanca Radhakrishnan the next month: “Maungakiekie is made up of many strong communities and I will be working hard to make sure these voices are heard loud and clear in Wellington.”

Well done Fairfax. You have discovered that political parties use press release templates. Who would have guessed.

Each party has a staffer at HQ whose job it is to do a press release for each of the 71 candidates selected. And no surprise, they use a template. Each one is varied as appropriate as the candidate wants, but of course most of them will have phrases in common.

Patrick Whittle writes:

A ban on Muslims is not racist. Nor is raising concerns in New Zealand, as elsewhere, about immigration – or indeed questioning the very idea of “multiculturalism”.

For many liberal-minded people these very statements could themselves seem racist. But the term “racist” no longer has concrete meaning, beyond being simply a slur for anyone who questions the progressive consensus on culture or race.  

And yet in this period of “post-truth” and “alternative facts” it is doubly important that we apply real meaning to the words we use in political debate. And with our own Race Relation Commissioner demanding review of legislation on acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech, we need to draw a clear line between “hate crimes” and “thought crimes”. The accusation “racist!” is all too often used to simply silence debate.   

Yes, Donald Trump’s attempted travel ban on citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries is irrational, idiotic, hypocritical and wrong. And yes, it’s undoubtedly designed to pander to his more xenophobic supporters, many of whom almost certainly hold racist views. But the proposed ban itself isn’t racist, at least not if this word has any true meaning.

Agreed.

To make an obvious point, “Muslims” are not a race (although many of the travel embargo’s supporters probably don’t realise this). The seven countries originally singled out in Trump’s executive order are home to a wide range of “races”, and for his actions to be truly racist, he’d have to single out a particular people – Arabs, for example. Needless to say, a ban on all Arabs would also include American allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, where – surprise, surprise – the USA (and its President) have strong business interests.

To the average xenophobic bigot, of course, this is just hair-splitting – the fact that “they” have a different language, religion or culture, plus a different skin colour, is enough to distinguish “them” from “us”.

The difference is important. No one can choose their race. But religion is a choice, a belief.

Unfortunately, this simplistic conflation of culture and race – of mistakenly assuming that people’s behaviour and beliefs are somehow linked to the colour of their skin – is not the sole preserve of narrow-minded right-wingers. Although they don’t realise it, many anti-racist liberals think and argue in the same way, especially when they dismiss any criticism of “other” cultures’ practices as racial prejudice.

 

But by being too ready to slap the term “racist” on anything that challenges their own admirable (but often naive) beliefs about multiculturalism, liberals inadvertently play into the hands of populist demagogues. “Racist” has become a vacuous term – one that is now treated as just so much white-noise by the right.

Yep.

It is not racist to ask how people from different cultural backgrounds, with potentially widely differing beliefs and attitudes, should be expected to co-exist in a given society. Nor is it racist to disagree over the best means of creating a harmonious multicultural/multiracial society.

The furore surrounding the ban on Muslims, for example, has served to further cloud the genuine and much-needed debate about how countries should best integrate or assimilate large numbers of immigrants who may hold vastly different religious, political and social beliefs.

And the US has generally done very well in integrating immigrants. It is in Europe, that integration has failed in some areas.

Much modern multiculturalist belief eschews criticism of “other” cultures. In the Port Hills case, and the much more serious Cologne one, this leads to a tragic irony – that by attributing groping to cultural misunderstanding, progressives imply that what is unequivocally wrong in one culture may in fact be acceptable in another. In other words, that sexual assault is only a crime against “our” women but not “their” women. This is a genuinely racist attitude, one brought about by the unwillingness of many  progressives to think deeply about their self-proclaimed anti-racist beliefs.

There is a real double standard.

Stuff reports:

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has to revisit a decision over whether a longer runway safety area is needed if Wellington Airport extends its runway, a court has ruled.

In a decision released on Tuesday the Court of Appeal has agreed with the NZ Airlines Pilots’ Association (NZALPA) that the CAA must consider if longer runway safety areas (RESA) can feasibly be constructed, and also consider the use of arresting systems if appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found that in ruling that Wellington’s existing 90 metre safety area as compliant and appropriate for Wellington Airport’s proposed extension, the director of the CAA “made material errors in law”.

Under international aviation rules, regulators must ensure that airports operate with RESAs of at least 90m, and if “practicable” of at least 240m.

The court ruling is quite interesting. It says the CAA needed to seriously look at a 240 metre RESA and only if it concluded it was impracticable, look at shorter lengths.

When the matter came before the the High Court, Justice Karen Clark ruled that what was “practicable” was a balancing exercise between safety considerations and the cost and difficulty involved.

However the Court of Appeal decision differed from Justice Clark, saying that while cost had some “limited relevance” in considering what was practicable, the real test was what was able to be constructed.

“[C]ost is not a predominant factor to be balanced against the requirement of promoting safety; given its removal from the amended primary legislation, “reasonable cost” is now a factor of subordinate importance,” the Court of Appeal decision said.

This means, if not appealed, the CAA has to redo its consideration of what length RESA is required and if it is more than 90 metres, this would significantly add to the cost of a runway extension.

The hysterical Dom Post editorial:

Could money be about to wash over New Zealand politics in a way unprecedented in the modern era?

No, there has been no change in how much you can spend as a third party.

Last year, the court decided (rightly) that a satirical song about former Prime Minister John Key should not have been censored before the 2014 election. But it also upended a longstanding assumption that only political parties could broadcast partisan TV and radio advertisements in the three months before an election.

Which is great. Why should political parties be the only ones who can advertise on radio and TV?

It concluded that while the parties could still do so, using a limited pool of state money, anyone else could join them. That opens the way for significant spending by outsider groups, and perhaps an onslaught of the “attack ads” that blanket the airwaves in the US.

No, as the third party spending limits are unchanged. The only change is that a third party could spent some on their money on radio and TV now, as well as newspapers, direct mail, Internet, billboards etc,

If this interpretation is right, such third-party pressure groups will face a $315,000 spending cap for the three months before the election, and no limits on spending at all until then. (By way of comparison, the NZ First Party had $200,000 in state funds to spend on TV and radio ads before the 2014 election).

A false comparison. A party contesting every electorate can spend $2.98 million on advertising as well as the $200,000 in state funds. The limit for political parties is far higher than third parties. As a matter of free speech, I don’t think there should be any limit on third party spending. The link between amount spent and impact is pretty low (ask Colin Craig and Kim Dotcom).

The vast majority of third party spending comes from unions trying to help Labour and attack National. If they want to run ads on radio or television, they should be able to.

Once upon a time there may have been a case for broadcast ads being so powerful, they need to be restricted. But this is long past. All forms of advertising should be treated the same.

If I was running a third party, and someone gave me $300,000 to spend on political advertising, I wouldn’t spend a cent of it on television advertising. I’d spend it all on video adverts on Facebook where you can target voters with huge precision.

So the Dominion Post, and Professor Geddis, are creating much ado about nothing.

It’s not clear that the airwaves really will be swamped in partisan ads funded by vested interests this year, but it’s alarming that they might be.

Almost as alarming as the fact third parties can use carrier pigeons to distribute flyers.

Whoever wins the 2017 election should urgently fix this and other anomalies in the law.

No urgency at all. A non existent problem. All it does is allow third parties a greater choice of mediums to advertise on. The only fix needed is to remove the restrictions on parties being able to use broadcast media for advertising – beyond their state allocation.

If various Labour supporting unions want to waste their money on television adverts against National, let them do so.

Newshub reports:

Labour’s deputy leader Annette King is retiring – and has thrown her support behind Jacinda Ardern to replace her. 

“After some reflection, I have decided to step down from the deputy leader’s position in the Labour Party,” she announced on Wednesday morning.

Ms King is a long-serving MP for Rongotai, and Labour’s health spokesperson. Ms King told Newshub “there has been absolutely no pressure on me to stand aside at all”.

Yeah right.

A poll comes out showing them at 26%, which would mean almost no List MPs. They have realised they can’t win with Little, so they are hoping the celebrity star factor of Ardern will give them a boost.

“I actually think that Jacinda is ready to be the deputy. Having that win in Mt Albert – having a base – being grounded in an electorate is really important. And she has worked hard, she’s stood in seats that are unwinnable, and she’s won, and she’s ready, and I think she’ll make a really good deputy.”

Stood in unwinnable seats? She’s stood in Auckland Central the last two elections, which is a historically safe seat for Labour – but has been unable to win it for Labour.

Ardern’s roles to date within Labour have been:

• Youth Affairs 2008 – 2011
• Youth Justice 2008 – 2011
• Employment 2011
• Associate Arts 2011, 2013
• Social Development 2011 – 2013
• Children 2012 –
• Police 2013 – 2014
• Corrections 2013 – 2014
• Arts 2013 –
• Justice 2014 –
• Small Business 2014 –
• Auckland Issues 2015 –

Stuff reports:

An Auckland woman has been filmed refusing to wear a seatbelt because she said it doesn’t fit across her waist.

The driver questioned the point of wearing it, and said that if she was fined it could be seen as discrimination against overweight people.

“I can’t fit it, so what’s the point of wearing it. If they’re going to give me a fine for not fitting my seatbelt, that’s just being racist, to the fat people,” she said.

Oh dear, I did giggle when I read it. I never knew being fat was now a race.

I would also point out you can get a seat belt extender for around $20.

The Herald reports:

It launched with huge fanfare, with its hosts literally singing and dancing their way onto our screens. But Three’s new venture The Project has taken a major hit in the ratings since launching last Monday.

Last night’s episode saw 100,000 viewers tune in, down 82,000 from its launch episode.

More concerningly for the broadcaster, ratings in its key commercial demographic (25-54) have fallen from 74,000 to just 36,000. A decrease of 51 per cent in just one week.

Around half the audience gone in just one week. What will it be at in one month?

It seems there is one way the audience stays high, according to Stuff:

A major lift, however, was given to The Project in the form of Henry.

On Thursday night, when Henry was a guest host on the panel show, 172,500 viewers aged 5+ tuned in to watch.

They should ask Paul Henry to become a permanent host on The Project. The only downside will be a huge increase in suicides in certain Auckland suburbs as Labour luuvies realise their choice at 7 pm is between Mike Hosking and Paul Henry 🙂

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister Bill English has downplayed a surge in demand for emergency housing grants, saying the government support is “flushing out” Kiwis in need of help.

The Government set up a special needs grant for emergency housing last year, following reports of a rise in homelessness.

However, while it planned to give out 1400 grants a year, 8860 grants were made in the last quarter of 2016 alone, Newshub reported.

This is no surprise. Once the emergency housing went from an advance to a grant, of course demand would skyrocket. Smash up your state house and get evicted, and you get put up in a motel for free!

The latest Roy Morgan poll is at Curia.

Richard Harman writes:

A former top Green official .and leadership contender in 2015 has resigned from the party because he believes it has lost its way and  he is now working with National.

Though he has not joined National, Vernon Tava is part of the campaign team for Erica Stamford – an old friend — who is standing for National in East Coast Bays.

As for the Greens, he said he began to part ways with them because he began to doubt whether the environment was seriously at the top of their agenda.

He also began to doubt that there was any genuine will on the part of the party to work with the Government whoever they were.

The Greens have given up on a constructive relationship with National. Their job now is to be cheerleaders for Labour it seems.

“When I stood for co-leader one of the great things about that was that we travelled around the country and I was contacted by a lot of the older, founder members who thought it was no longer the party of Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald.

“And the composition of the party did change very significantly with the collapse of the Alliance.

“A lot fo those people did move into the Greens and being people who had backgrounds in teaching, union organising, and they were people who were very good at working with an internal structure.

“I do feel that there was a point where the emphasis and the balance of the part shifted.

“I  had joined what I thought was an environmental party and I did find that on the whole, it was more of a socialist party.”

Yep. And remember this is not some junior person, but a former Northern Region Convener.

Tava says his fundamental question of the Greens was to ask how serious they were about the environment.

“Is it that we will only protect the environment when it feels good or will do what it takes to work with whoever is in Government.”

And he says that in 2012 the Greens began to change the way they dealt with the National Party.

“I was very disappointed, and I know some members and MPs were too, that a decision was taken to personalise the attacks against the National Party.

“When Russel Norman really started going after John Key, a lot of us were very unhappy about that.

“It was like we’d burned the bridge, and the party was traditionally always meant to be above the fray, and you didn’t hear Jeannette Fitzsimons or Rod Donald making personalised attacks against people.

I recall Russel Norman comparing John Key to Muldoon.

Stats NZ reports:

Migrant arrivals numbered 128,300 in the January 2017 year, a new annual record.

“About a fifth of all migrant arrivals were from Australia,” population statistics senior manager Peter Dolan said. “Almost two-thirds of the migrant arrivals from Australia were New Zealand citizens.”

 Visa types contributing most to the migrant arrivals were:

• work visas (42,400 – up 4,200)

• New Zealand and Australian citizens (37,900 – up 1,700)

• student visas  (24,300 – down 3,600)

• residence visas (16,700 – up 2,600).

I keep thinking migration is going to peak, but every month fewer NZers are leaving and more Aussies are moving here!