Stuff reports:

More than half a million houses will have their winter power bills partially paid for under a new Green Party policy to slash bills by up to $300 a year. 

Rather ironic as making something cheaper means people use more of it, and so the Greens will be increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The policy has noticeably scrapped the platform Labour and the Greens stood on during the 2014 election campaign – to establish a national “Pharmac style” purchaser, to buy all electricity generation on behalf of the country. 

That was a terrible terrible policy. It was a de facto nationalisation of the entire generating industry, and government imposed price controls.

Their new policy is miles miles better than their old policy.

Business NZ manager for energy, environment and infrastructure John Carnegie said the policy was a “thoughtful reassessment of the NZ Power proposal”.

“They’ve been working with us and the rest of the sector, to get their views on board. So we think it’s a steady solid, return.” 

There were parts of the policy that “pushed the edges”. 

“The proposal to ban new thermal power stations in an effort to get to 100 per cent renewable energy – but other than that, we’re pretty happy.”

A Labour/Green Government in 2014 would have been a disaster. In 2017 far less so with a commitment to keep spending to under 30% of GDP and abandoning policies such as destroying the energy generation market. I still think their policies aren’t great overall, but they are far far more benign than in 2014.

The Guardian reports:

Greenpeace has become the first organisation to be fined under the government’s Lobbying Act which critics warned would silence legitimate campaign groups.

Ministers said the legislation, dubbed the “gagging law” by charities, would hold corporate lobbyists to account when it was introduced in 2014.

But the act has faced intense criticism from civil society groups which have repeatedly warned that the restrictions it imposes on spending during an election would hamper the activities of legitimate groups.

Greenpeace says those fears have been borne out after the charity revealed it had been fined £30,000 for refusing to register as a “third-party campaigning organisation” in the run-up to the 2015 election.

The position of Greenpeace is that the law should only apply to organisations that disagree with them, not to them.

I actually agree the UK law is overly broad, but that doesn’t mean you ignore the law.

Stuff reports:

The funding freeze on schools has drawn in Green MP Marama Davidson and Manurewa MP Louisa Wall to get behind support staff who have been hit by it.

Support staff from various south Auckland schools have voiced their concern over the financial issue. Many fear hours being cut or even worse losing their jobs.

The staff appealing are members of teachers’ union NZEI Te Riu Roa.

Joining teachers and support staff in Manurewa, Davidson visited Homai primary and Wall was at Rowandale school.

The staff at Rowandale school gathered signatures from parents on a petition calling on the Ministry of Education to improve the pay of support staff in schools.

“I think support staff are core staff. They are critical to our ability to meet the needs of our students,” Wall says.

“Their wages should be paid for in the same way teachers are – by the state – not from the Operations Grant which is for the day to day running of the school. They also deserve to be paid for the full year as teachers are.”

Another crazy expensive Labour policy made up on the hoof which they could never afford if they are serious about keeping spending under 30% of GDP.

Teachers get paid for a full year as when classes are not on, they are marking homework, working on lessons, doing professional development etc etc.

But Labour is demanding that for example secretaries and receptionists must be paid, even though there is no work to do and the school is closed. That cleaners must get paid to clean a school that is closed.

I can only assume Labour’s new policy is based on this Yes Minister episode.

News.com.au reports:

Abbott seems to be turning into the Liberal version of Kevin Rudd. Very sad.

NZ Doctor reports:

NZMA president Pippa MacKay says the lobby group’s future will be imperilled if a medical student becomes chair of the association.

But Elizabeth Berryman, a sixth-year medical student who is one of three candidates for the position, says the organisation needs a change.

Voting in NZMA elections opened on 29 March, and members have until 24 April to have their say.

Dr MacKay says the fact a medical student is running for chair is unprecedented and poses a risk to the future of the organisation.

“I’m concerned someone who is not yet a doctor could represent me and other senior doctors,” says Dr MacKay, a Christchurch GP.

She says medical students make up a significant proportion of the NZMA’s membership, because they can join for free, and a student block vote could see Ms Berryman elected.

Berryman may only be a medical student but she is 29, not 22. Good on her for shaking things up by standing.

Having said that I agree it would damage the credibility of NZMA to have a President who isn’t even a registered doctor. What if she failed her final exams?

But if NZMA is silly enough to give away free voting membership to medical students and not have any eligibility clause for officers saying you must be a registered doctor, then they are partly the author of their own troubles.

Stuff reports:

Lianne Dalziel and Gerry Brownlee have written to the agency fixing Christchurch’s red zone to express a lack of confidence in its work programme.

The March letter, obtained by Stuff under the Official Information Act, shows both the mayor and Greater Christchurch Regeneration Minister have concerns about Regenerate Christchurch’s work programme, which outlines its work in the city. 

The joint Crown-Christchurch City Council agency is tasked with developing plans for the residential red zone, New Brighton and the central city, but can also develop plans for other parts of the city.

Brownlee and Dalziel said it was “concerning to us, that to date, it appears there is no troubleshooting capacity in your work programme to address regeneration opportunities outside those we have set in the letter of expectations”

i’m not over the details of this but if you have both the Minister and the Mayor expressing concern, that suggests things are probably quite astray.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little has vowed to slash immigration by “tens of thousands” of new arrivals but won’t be more specific about exact numbers.

Speaking to Focus after the Government announced a tightening of immigration rules, Little said Labour would go much further in order to give the country a “breather”.

“The commitment I am making is we have to be serious about it, we have to cut immigration. It has got to be in the order of tens of thousands,” Little said.

“And it has got to be immigration that meets the genuine shortage of skills that we’ve got, not just the open slather policy we’ve got right now.”

Asked by how much would Labour cut immigration, Little said he did not have an exact number and flexibility was needed from year to year in order to match the right migrants with skill shortages.

This is the stench of desperation as Labour searches for traction, so Little is trying to emulate Peters without success.

What Little hopes no one notices is his pretend policy is basically impossible because so much of the gain in net migration is from Kiwis staying and Aussies moving here.

The level of residency visas (for people not from Australia) in 2008 was 15,607 and in 2016 was 16,535.

The rest of the increase is student and work visas. And while there are areas of tightening, you simply could not knock off tens of thousands without a massive hit to the economy.

If Little was at all serious, rather than a desperate soundbite, he’d detail an actual policy change. Instead he sounds like a wannabee Winston.

Lloyd Burr at Newshub looks at Little’s numbers and finds they don’t add up. Little has said he wants 50,000 fewer immigrants which is more than even the total number of work visas. And he points out some problems there:

Andrew Little cannot abolish the essential skills visa category, unless he comes up with a way to rapidly train thousands of Kiwis to work in areas where there are skill shortages.

If he abolishes the Working Holiday Scheme, then our friend nations will likely retaliate and prevent Kiwis from having working holidays too.

The Family/Spouse visa could be culled, but he’d be breaking hearts across the globe, and if he abolishes the study-to-work scheme, that would have a serious impact on the number of international students coming to New Zealand universities and polytechnics.

The seasonal working visas are only five percent of the work category, and are a vital part of our role as a responsible Pacific neighbour.

Then there’s the ‘other’ category which is so complex, there cannot be a blanket abolition without breaching free trade deals, or regional agreements.

We should demand Little details exactly which categories he will abolish or change. As Burr says any change to working holiday visas will see young Kiwis overseas retaliated against.

The Guardian reports:

Dozens of Labour MPs are on course to lose their seats if the election result reflects the current polling for Labour, prompting some to challenge Corbyn’s decision to support May’s push for a contest in seven weeks’ time.

John Woodcock, a persistent critic of Corbyn, said he would seek to stand but did not endorse his party leader.

Woodcock, the Labour and Cooperative MP for Barrow and Furness, said he would be seeking re-election as his party’s candidate but he “will not countenance ever voting to make Jeremy Corbyn Britain’s prime minister”.

So you have Labour MPs openly saying their leader is not up to being Prime Minister. Hard to see them convincing the British people of something their own caucus doesn’t believe.

Photo: Catherine Cattanach

Stuff reports:

Oriental Bay’s famous shop dog Bernie has died following a terminal illness.

The 10-year-old bernese mountain dog had been a fixture outside Wellington’s Freyberg Pool on Oriental Parade and was the namesake and logo of Bernie’s on the Bay cafe.

Cafe owner Nick Ryan said Bernie was put down on Tuesday night but had had a good innings as the breed usually only lives between six and eight years. His illness had never been fully diagnosed.

Such a lovely dog Bernie was, and he was indeed an institution. I run around the waterfront a lot and would always be happy if Bernie was there outside the pool.

We’ll miss you Bernie

Ken Orr has written to a number of MPs demanding they declare their gender identity.

Paul Foster-Bell has replied, and said I can publish to below:

Dear Ken

I am in receipt today of your letter dated 10 April.

While there are too many factual errors, logical fallacies, instances of deliberate misinformation, ignorant ditherings and contorted failures of reason for me to address each of these individually, I did want to respond to your key demand: the electorate’s supposed ‘right to know’ my gender identity – and that of other members of the Cross-Party Rainbow Network which I am happy to co-Chair.

Simply put, this is neither a great secret nor any of your damned business.

I fail to see how the genotype (chromosomal sex), phenotype (anatomical characteristics), psychological gender identity or sexual orientation of any individual holding public office – be it in a parliamentary, policing/judicial, governmental, military or media capacity – is in any way pertinent to their ability to execute the requirements of their role.

One of the great privileges of being an MP has been meeting many amazing people who personally exemplify the fact that members of the LGBTIQA community can become high achievers who contribute much to our society. This ranges from our most senior public servants, to highly courageous military officers, to leading clergy in several different denominations, to the captains of industry.

Having taken some time to browse the ‘Homosexual Agenda’ section of your website, all I can say is thank goodness for Family Planning and Rainbow Youth, among other organisations, for their provision of helpful advice derived from the lived experience of people who do not conform to traditional gender/sex/sexual orientation norms. These views inform sensible policy and allow us to develop useful resources such as those provided by InsideOUT.

In my role as a Director of Commonwealth Youth NZ I was very pleased to see InsideOUT’s National Co-ordinator Tabby Beasley honoured for her work with a prestigious Queen’s Young Leader award. I am delighted that the helpful teaching tools InsideOUT have provided are being deployed in the curricula of New Zealand schools, and generally well received by young Kiwis who are increasingly open-minded compared to previous generations. In my view, these tools are instrumental in countering the ignorance perpetuated by organisations such as yours.

I’m proud to be part of a Government which cares for all New Zealanders, including those from the most vulnerable minorities. These groups may be small in number. But they have the same right to a safe school environment, and a sound education underpinning the achievement of their hopes and dreams, as any other citizens of our great country. Hopefully, in time, your organisation will develop a more compassionate and better informed view on these issues rather than following your current trajectory, which seems to be lapsing into a latter-day Holy Inquisition.

Yours sincerely

Paul Foster-Bell MP

If you write such a stupid letter, you should expect a robust response.

A guest post by Jonathan Darby:

The upcoming final part of Bill English’s cabinet reshuffle brought about by the retirements of Education minister Hekia Parata and Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully needs to be a carefully managed piece of political choreography with an eye to the General Election in September.

 It is a near certainty that Nikki Kaye is lined up to replace Parata as Education Minister.  Kaye has returned to work following her leave for breast cancer treatment and is keen to get on with the job.

 The replacement for McCully in Foreign Affairs is less clear.  A number of names have been suggested, Mark Mitchell, Chris Finlayson, Jonathan Coleman and Gerry Brownlee.  In her opinion article, Audrey Young dismisses the chances of Mitchell given that his elevation to the Ministry is only recent and therefore he is too junior in terms of ministerial experience for a role with such a high profile.  It is possible though that he could be offered an Associate Foreign Affairs role.  Young also questions whether Finlayson is a viable option given that he is highly regarded for his work in Treaty Negotiations, a role that he would likely have to give up if he were to take Foreign Affairs.

 This leaves Coleman and Brownlee as possibilities.  As we know, the General Election is less than six months away and Bill English will want to minimise the swapping of portfolio’s as much as possible, especially those highly visible roles that play a major part in election campaign discourse.

 This is where Coleman’s chances take a dive.  If he were to take over, he would have to surrender the Health portfolio, potentially to Michael Woodhouse, leading to a redistribution of some of Woodhouse’s portfolios.  Would English be happy to make this change in a portfolio like health, especially staring down the barrel of September 23?  I’m doubtful.

 This leaves Gerry Brownlee, in my opinion the most likely option.  Changes could be kept to a minimum and lessen disruption.  Brownlee’s Greater Christchurch Regeneration portfolio could be cleanly transferred to his associate Nicky Wagner.  She already has a profile in the portfolio and is well placed to pick up the full role.  The full role would likely bring with it a promotion to Cabinet to fill the slot vacated by the departures of Parata and McCully.  The Cabinet was extended to 21 Ministers following John Key’s resignation; this brings it back to the normal 20.

Assuming Brownlee keeps Defence, there would only be the small matter of transferring his Leader of the House responsibilities, most likely to Simon Bridges and his Earthquake commission and Civil Defence portfolios to other Ministers.  Civil Defence and one of Nicky Wagner’s portfolio’s, possibly Customs could be handled by a new Minister outside Cabinet which will also form part of the announcement.

All in all this would be a tidy reshuffle, which does what needs to be done, but no more.  A significant reshuffle at this point in the cycle could be electorally risky and that is a chance that Bill English just does not need to take as he looks to lead National into battle to secure a fourth term.

We will find out on 1 May.

The graphic is from 538.

The overall point is that US polls have been out by an average 5% to 6%, around double the average 2% margin in the US.

But what I find more interesting is that the errors almost all favour the Conservative Party or the conservative side of a referendum. Since 1992 the error has been against the Conservatives everytime except 2010 (which was close to spot on).

So yes the polls may be an inaccurate forecast of what will happen in June. But if they are, history is the Conservatives will do even better than the polls show!

The Herald reports:

Immigration changes announced today will “safeguard the position of New Zealand workers”, says BusinessNZ.

They will also help New Zealand get more higher skilled migrants, the business lobby group says.

Under new rules announced by the Government this morning, migrants will need to earn more than $49,000 to qualify for a skilled worker visa.

Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said the changes are aimed at increasing the quality of people coming to New Zealand, rather than reducing the number.

Two remuneration thresholds will be introduced.

•One will be set at the New Zealand median income, about $49,000 per year. Anyone earning less will no longer be classified as highly-skilled, and permanent residence applications will no longer be able to claim points for jobs that are paid below the median income.

• The other threshold will be set at 1.5 times the New Zealand median income of $73,299 a year for jobs that are not currently considered skilled but are well paid

BusinessNZ chief executive Kirk Hope said that the pay threshold will reduce “the potential for migrants undercutting Kiwi workers’ pay”.

“Employers have faced real difficulties in getting higher skilled workers and today’s changes will help get more focus on actively-sought skills,” Hope said.

“At the same time, proposed stand-down rules for lower-skilled migrants will reduce the potential for residence applications to be dominated by lower-skilled workers. There will always be a tension between the need for in-demand skills and the requirement for optimal access by Kiwis to the employment market.

The changes aren’t major, and seem pretty sensible. Immigration overall is a net benefit to New Zealand, but that doesn’t mean every immigrant is. Policy settings that focus more on higher value migrants are good.

The Herald reports:

Teenage marriages were more common in the 1970s. In 1971, 285 boys and 2304 girls aged 16 and 17 were wed.

In the most recent data, for 2015, 12 boys and 36 girls were married aged 16 or 17. That was a slight increase on the previous year when 33 girls and nine boys were wed.

Wow can’t believe so many teen marriages in the 70s.

Also in the article an interesting contrast between Labour MPs:

Labour’s spokesman for Pacific Island Affairs, Su’a William Sio, said he had not heard of forced marriages in Pasifika communities.

“I’m not sure what she’s aiming at. This is the 21st century. That just doesn’t happen.”

Total denial from Sio.

Ardern said the Family and Whanau Violence Legislation Bill, which is before the select committee, has proposed a new offence for the coercion of marriage with a sentence to imprisonment for up to five years. This would cover marriages not governed by New Zealand law or those not legally binding.

“We’re very supportive of taking action.

“People are surprised to hear forced marriage is an issue in New Zealand, but it absolutely is.”

While Ardern says it is a real issue.

Don Brash writes:

But Mr Gould went further than Mr Robertson to praise Sonny Bill Williams’ highly negative attitude to banks in general. He said banks like to pretend they provide a useful service to the community by channelling resources from those who have no immediate need for them (savers) to those who do need them (borrowers), charging a modest spread for rendering that service.

But, said Mr Gould, this “benign view of [bank] operations is inaccurate and misleading. The banks do not lend you mortgage money deposited with them by someone else. They lend you money they themselves create out of nothing through the stroke of a pen or, today, a computer entry. The banks make their money, in other words, by charging interest on money that they themselves create”.

He then goes on to blame this money creation for the housing affordability crisis which Auckland now finds itself in, and to attack the Government for washing its hands of this aspect of the housing crisis.

Mr Gould is not alone in peddling this nonsense, but that certainly doesn’t make it correct.

The banking system does create money. When Bank A lends money to one of its customers, the customer may use those funds to buy something from somebody who banks with Bank B. Bank B then finds itself with an additional deposit, a part of which it can lend out to its customers (keeping some of the additional deposit as a liquidity reserve). So an initial loan may end up considerably increasing the total lending by the banking system.

But from the point of view of each individual bank, it can only lend out a part of the money which its customers deposit with it, or money which it borrows from other sources, possibly overseas.

If individual banks really could create money by “the stroke of a pen or a computer entry”, as Mr Gould contends, why do they bother paying interest on deposits, why do they borrow funds from parent banks overseas, why do they borrow funds in the international market, why do they need to hold some funds in government securities as a liquidity reserve, why do some banks occasionally run out of money when customers lose confidence in them?

As well as being a former Governor of the Reserve Bank, I now chair the small New Zealand subsidiary of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the largest bank in the world. It would certainly make life very much easier if we could, “by the stroke of a pen or a computer entry”, simply create the money which we lend out to New Zealand borrowers. Unfortunately, we can’t.

I always think of Bryan Gould as the 1990s version of Jeremy Corbyn!

The Herald reports:

Embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro yesterday announced plans to expand the number of civilians involved in armed militias as tensions in the crisis-wracked South American nation continued to rise.

Maduro said he hopes to expand the number of civilians involved in the Bolivarian militias created by the late Hugo Chavez to 500,000, up from the current 100,000, and provide each member with a gun.

The population is starving, and Maduro’s solution is to buy more guns for his socialist militias.

Several media outlets have reported that the OECD found NZ has the second lowest level of taxation in the OECD. This is incorrect, as media have not understood the difference between tax wedge and tax.

The OECD did report that for a family with kids, the tax wedge is the second lowest. What the tax wedge is, is the difference between gross and net pay. Here is what it includes and does not include:

• GST – not included. We pay a high proportion of tax through GST as it has few exemptions. GST brings in $19b and income tax $32b.
• ACC levy – not included
• WFF Tax Credits – included as a negative tax even though they are actually a welfare payment delivered through the IRD.
• KiwiSaver – not included as not compulsory while most other countries have compulsory savings and this is included in the tax wedge

So for a family with two kids, the tax wedge or difference between gross and net pay is very small because includes a welfare payment (which is funded by tax from others) and we don’t have compulsory superannuation (which is not a tax as it is money that stays owned by you).

The Taxpayers’ Union points out the better measure of tax burden is total government outlays as a percentage of GDP – NZ is at 39.1% which is around the OECD average of 40%.

The Herald reports:

Care workers in women-dominated industries will get pay rises worth up to a $5000 a year after a historic settlement with the Government.

In all, the package will cost more than $2 billion and could require a lift in ACC levies or higher fees for aged care residents.

It will cover 55,000 care workers, mostly women, in the aged residential care, home support and disability service sectors.

The settlement comes after a pay equity claim brought by E Tu (previously the Service and Food Workers Union) on behalf of care worker Kristine Bartlett against her employer TerraNova.

It is the first legal settlement in New Zealand which recognises that some jobs pay less because they are done mainly by women.

It’s great of course for those 55,000 workers but I can’t support something that costs $2 billion and doesn’t result in a single extra person being provided care.

Announcing the deal today, Health Minister Jonathan Coleman described it as the largest pay increase in New Zealand’s history.

It would benefit some of New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers, he said. The workforce was mostly female and part-time, with average wages of between $16 and $18 an hour.

As a result of the agreement, carers who were on the minimum wage would receive a pay rise of between 15 and 49 per cent, depending on their qualifications.

A 49% pay increase for no productivity gain. If this was a private sector employer they’d go bust. Instead we’ll just pay more in taxes and ACC levies.

It is probably the biggest victory for unions in the last 30 years.

The Telegraph reports:

Theresa May is due to make a statement in Downing Street at 11.15am amid speculation the Prime Minister could call an early general election. 

Mrs May is scheduled to make her statement immediately following a meeting of her Cabinet. 

The BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg confirmed the news and said such a statement is “only normally used for most serious moments”. 

We’ll find out in 45 minutes!

UPDATE: It is an election – 8 June. Will need a super majority vote in Parliament tomorrow.