Stuff reports:

Energy Minister Judith Collins has vowed to “get to the bottom” of rising petrol margins, signalling an announcement of an inquiry could come next week.

As official figures suggest the margins Kiwis are paying to fill up at the pump rose again in 2016, and have doubled over the past decade, the AA claims two price rises in January came despite the price petrol companies pay being flat.

The AA has called for petrol companies to explain what is going on, with areas including Wellington and much of the South Island frequently charging motorists 30c a litre more than towns such as Levin and Masterton, despite being further from where fuel is imported.

I think an inquiry would be useful, and have said so previously when Stuart Nash asked for one. The margin between wholesale and retail prices has risen massively over the last decade and this suggests the market isn’t very competitive.

An inquiry could be useful to look at how to improve competition.

Part of the problem is that people tend to choose their petrol station on location (closest to them) rather than shop around. And part of the challenge is there is no easy way to know on any particular day which petrol station is cheapest.

An idea I had some years ago was a petrol prices app. It could be done as a public-private partnership with say MBIE and the AA where every day the petrol prices for every petrol station is updated and displayed. And users could configure it to show the prices of every station within x kms or y minutes drive. Then you could make an informed decision about whether it is worth driving an extra km to fill up, if it will save you say $3.

The Herald reports:

If Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull got Grumpy Trump, English got “friendly, warm, thoughtful” Trump and even an invite to the White House “if you’re passing by.”

English has given more detail on his phone call with the US President Donald Trump, describing Trump as “warm, civil and very thoughtful” during a call which ranged from immigration bans to the Super Bowl.

He said the call, which he took from the roadside on Auckland’s waterfront in between Waitangi Day fixtures, was “a warm and friendly conversation.”

English said Trump had even extended an invitation to the White House – although it was not in the usual diplomatic fashion.

“He has a more casual attitude to diplomatic relationships than is usual, but he conveyed his enthusiasm for meeting at some stage in the White House … ‘well, if you’re passing by’.”

Despite the warm offer, English said he was unlikely to get there before the September election. “I’d imagine it will take some time for the new administration to bed in, and then we’ve got the election campaign. I wouldn’t anticipate getting there this side of the election.”

He said Trump appeared to be positive about the relationship with New Zealand. “He thinks it’s a fantastic place. He likes the idea we are a long way away so therefore we aren’t under the same pressures as everybody else.”

They talked about Trump’s attempt to ban citizens from seven countries entering the US – an Executive Order which has been suspended by the US courts.

English told Trump he disagreed with the action and it was not something New Zealand had done. “He just noted our views. I don’t think that he was surprised by people having a different view.”

The pair also discussed the different ways they dealt with border security.

“The discussion focussed on what steps we take and the US takes to as a way of protecting our citizens from high-risk people coming in, which is clearly at the top of his agenda.”

Normally such a call would be routine and of little news interest. But after the Australian call, there was a lot if interest as to how this call would go.

Stuff reports:

Westpac Stadium’s chief executive believes the Wellington Sevens were “hung out to dry” after a change in the liquor laws, and the party atmospheres of old will never come back.

Shane Harmon said the 2014 sevens became a “poster child” for the enforcement of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which came into full effect in December 2013, and made it an offence to have intoxicated people on any premises serving alcohol. 

“I would go so far to say it is almost impossible for any venue to comply with that act, and I think it is unfortunate what happened in 2014,” Harmon said.

Nor remember all the activists claimed the 2013 Act did not go far enough, was a cop out to industry, not tough enough etc etc. Well look at what the outcome has been – the death of the best sporting event and party in New Zealand.

However, she admitted she “struggled” with “police’s interpretation of the alcohol laws”, and said Wellington police were “particularly officious when it comes to events”.

In some areas the Police are reasonable, but in Wellington they seem to be zealots on a mission.

Yahoo reports:

President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday that will seek to dramatically pare back federal regulations by requiring agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new rule introduced.

“This will be the biggest such act that our country has ever seen. There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be normalized control,” Trump said as he signed the order in the Oval Office, surrounded by a group of small business owners.

Trump’s latest executive action will prepare a process for the White House to set an annual cap on the cost of new regulations, a senior official told reporters ahead of the signing.

That’s one Trump policy I agree with.

Jarrod Gilbert writes:

Richard Spencer is a prissy looking neo-Nazi who got punched in the head. Thwack. Sucker-punched while he was being interviewed on the telly. Given its endless replaying on the internet, it seems few things bring such joy to so many as an overt racist receiving a handful of swiftly delivered knuckles.

The act has been widely condoned and even encouraged.

Including by a fellow Herald columnist who advocates we do the same in New Zealand.

If we are happy to punch people espousing Nazi ideology, who else are we allowed to punch? And perhaps more importantly, when can people punch us?

My grandmother was no fan of Nazis but she was pretty damned racist. Her views were not as extreme as Spencer’s, though, so perhaps we punch her but not so hard?

How about people who make up false claims about immigrants? Can they be punched also? Even if they are an MP?

How about abortion? Many people see abortion as the murder of a child and an affront to God, are pro-lifers cool to start cracking those who argue in favour of a woman’s right to choose?

Yep, once you start to cheer violence against those you disagree with, where does it stop.

In fact, we enshrine the right to free speech and celebrate it. Voltaire’s principle states: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

Voltaire would get howled down on Twitter were he alive today.

I like this quote from Noam Chomsky:

“If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

The fact Spencer has such repulsive views is exactly why we should condemn the man who punched him, not cheer him.

And let me finish with another Chomsky quote:

“With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards. It is unfortunate that it remains necessary to stress these simple truths.”

Pleased to see Gilbert as a defender of free speech.

Christchurch East MP Poto WIlliams has facebooked:

As the Labour Party Spokesperson for Family and Sexual Violence, I am concerned that Willie Jackson is becoming a Labour Party candidate with a prominent ranking on the list.

White Ribbon encourages everyone to break the silence around domestic violence by challenging comments and actions that are abusive or condone abuse. I was a vocal opponent of Mr Jackson’s comments during the ‘Roast-Busters’ incident and I do not believe that his attitude towards victims of sexual abuse match what I expect of a member of the Labour Party. Especially a member of our caucus.

I appreciate that Mr Jackson may regret his comments, but I am yet to hear that he understands his attitudes and views are highly offensive to many New Zealanswrs. I’m yet to hear that he wishes to work on putting that right and apologise for his behaviour.

Violence is not just physical, but also covers emotional and verbal abuse. Not speaking out against abuse of any kind is condoning or tacitly endorsing that behaviour. The comments Mr Jackson made around the ‘Roast-Busters’ incident are never OK, but it is OK to ask for help.

White Ribbon calls for us to support people who wish to change their abusive behaviour, so I welcome the opportunity to support Mr Jackson in apologising and making those changes.

Until then, as someone who speaks for the victims of family and sexual violence, and as a survivor of such abuse, I can not in good conscience support him as my colleague.

This is a serious challenge to Little’s leadership. Little personally recruited Jackson, tried to push Peeni Henare out of his seat and when that failed promised Willie Jackson a high list place. Williams would have known this when she wrote her piece.

Background on the Roastbusters stuff is here.

Again this is pretty unprecedented to have a sitting MP publicly attack the candidacy of an aspiring candidate, let alone one hand picked and announced by the Leader. If they are they disunited in opposition, imagine what they would be like in Government!

An interesting article from Andrés Miguel Rondón who talks about how they tried to beat the populist Chavez and what did and didn’t work.

The summary:

• Don’t forget who the enemy is.
• Show no contempt.
• Don’t try to force him out.
• Find a counterargument. (No, not the one you think.)

A specific example:

The worst you can do is bundle moderates and extremists together and think that America is divided between racists and liberals. That’s the textbook definition of polarization. We thought our country was split between treacherous oligarchs and Chávez’s uneducated, 15gullible base. The only one who benefited was Chávez.

Good food for thought.

Tim Blair profiles two of the organisers and speakers of the US Women’s March.

Women’s March organiser Linda Sarsour wants to beat up genital mutilation survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “take her vagina away”. There’s your feminist hero, anti-Trumpers.

Really showing love for the sisterhood. Ali it seems is not a true woman as she wants to reform Islam.

The Women’s March on Washington last week featured as a speaker convicted felon Donna Hylton who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death …

Hylton, along with three men and three other women, kidnapped 62-year-old real-estate broker Thomas Vigliarolo and held him for ransom, before eventually killing him. As noted in a 1995 Psychology Today article, when asked about forcibly sodomizing the victim with a three foot steel pole, one of Hylton’s accomplices replied: “He was a homo anyway.”

And these people are worried about a “grabbing pussy” comment.

Charming. If they are the face of the anti-Trump movement, then he’ll get four more years. and that would be a shame.

And you don’t read about this in hardly any of the mainstream media – which is why again they become less relevant. Imagine the headlines if Hylton was involved in a pro-Trump march.

Again I am not a Trump fan. I wanted Clinton to beat him. But in this case the enemy of my enemy is my ally certainly does not hold true.

I suspect that the antics of the anti-Trump forces will actually lead to him gaining support. Trump’s own actions are what is most likely to lose him support.

Love this video. Some moronic protesters decided to use a megaphone in a library and this student shut them down with three words.

The Independent reports:

Germany has decided to abolish a law which defends the honour of foreign leaders.

International heads of state will no longer be able to ask the German government to prosecute people deemed to have offended them under an obscure passage of German law.

The decision comes just days after Donald Trump‘s inauguration as US President and a year after Angela Merkel authorised the investigation of a TV comic who wrote a crude poem about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

If they didn’t repeal it they/’d be arresting 50,000 people a day!

Audrey Young writes:

Little’s incredible tin-ear on Waitangi has persisted for several weeks. Despite his own MP Kelvin Davis now expounding on the dysfunction at Te Tii Marae, Little is still going on about English not going to Waitangi as a failure of leadership. As English said yesterday: “I hope he keeps on saying it.”

Little’s position is that if he is Prime Minister he will go to Waitangi even if he doesn’t have speaking rights and even if media are charged $10,000 to attend. So desperate.

The ODT reports:

New Zealand’s major supermarket chains have successfully fought Dunedin City Council efforts to restrict alcohol sales in the city.

The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Arla) ruled that parts of the council’s local alcohol policy (LAP) were “unreasonable”, including the proposal to cut off-licence hours from 7am-11pm to 9am-9pm.

Arla also ruled that a proposed moratorium on most types of bottle stores in North Dunedin, which the council hoped would help curb problem drinking in the area, was unreasonable.

They were deemed unreasonable because there was no evidence they would reduce harm from alcohol. The legislation requires policies to be based on evidence, not emotion.

I’ve done some research in this area and the people buying alcohol from supermarkets before 9 am or after 9 pm are not people planning to drink it that day. They are simply mums and dads with jobs and kids who do the weekly shopping at these times, and like to purchase some wine with their groceries. So the policy would have not reduced harm from alcohol, but would have massively inconvenienced shoppers.

Someone buying wine from a supermarket at 9.30 pm as part of their groceries is very different to someone rushing to the bottle store in the late evening to get more supplies for their party. Not all off licenses are the same.

Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday said he was disappointed with the decision and the council would consider appealing.

The decision sent a clear message alcohol legislation the Government had brought in could not work, Mr Cull said.

“We have now joined a growing list of councils who have been knocked back for providing solutions to their own circumstances.

The legislation is working fine. It is the politicians like Mr Cull who think that they can ignore the need for evidence that is the problem. The legislation does not allow Councils to set restrictions on a whim. Any restriction needs to have sound justification behind it and evidence of harm reduction.

In its written decision, the authority said the council provided “no evidence” that sales between 7am and 9am were associated with alcohol-related harm.

No evidence, because there is none.

It also noted that council liquor licensing co-ordinator Kevin Mechen acknowledged during the appeal hearing the council was under the mistaken impression the maximum hours of sale in the LAP were a guideline and exceptions could be granted.

“This misunderstanding is evidence on unreasonableness as the [restrictions] cannot be said to reflect the policy sought to be implemented.”

The DCC didn’t even understand the basic provisions.

The authority turned down an appeal from police and Dunedin Hospitality Group against the creation of a special licence for “entertainment premises”, allowing them to operate between 5pm and 4am.

The decision said neither presented “any evidence” to support their concerns.

Police’s failure to present evidence was “notable and somewhat surprising”, given they had submitted they would have to “stare down the barrel of another year of dealing with alcohol-fuelled assaults and disorder [that] we know could have been mitigated by this policy”.

Again no evidence.We saw this in Wellington also with Wellington Police trying to bully bars into one way policies and admitting to the Council they had no evidence for their approach.

The Herald reports:

A scheme funded by New Zealand taxpayers netted billionaire Peter Thiel tens of millions of dollars while his publicly funded investment partner barely broke even.

The partnering of Thiel’s Valar Ventures and the Government-owned New Zealand Venture Investment Fund (NZVIF) was launched by minister Steven Joyce in March 2012, nine months after Thiel took his oath of citizenship at the New Zealand consulate in Santa Monica.

Joyce said at the time the venture was “part of the Government’s comprehensive business growth agenda”, but a Herald investigation has discovered the arrangement was quietly ended in October when Thiel activated a generous buyback option allowing him and his private partners to claim all profits from the venture by cheaply buying out his public co-investor.

A Wall St analyst told the Weekend Herald the clause left the Government facing a “horrendous risk-return proposition” that had no place in agreements between commercial parties.

“If a professional investor signed this deal, they would be the butt of their colleagues’ jokes all the way out the door,” the analyst said.

“This is a clear ‘heads I double win, tails I lose’, ‘heads the taxpayer loses, and tails the taxpayer loses’ proposition, and a very savvy deal for Thiel.”

This assessment is echoed by Auckland-based Castlepoint Funds partner Stephen Bennie, who said he would leap at the chance to sign up to a deal if a partner offered such a clause.

“You’d take it. And obviously a fairly smart guy did. Thiel didn’t need to be asked twice,” Bennie said.

The play appears to have left Thiel with an investment worth least $30 million after contributing just under $7m. The NZVIF, by contrast, confirmed in a statement to the Weekend Herald that it received just $10.2m following the October move after having earlier contributed $9m.

So a crappy deal for taxpayers which shows why the Government shouldn’t be doing something which is better suited to the private sector – venture capital. As the article says no professional investor would have signed such a deal.

Finance Minister Joyce, who was Minister for Economic Development at the time the Valar partnership was signed and operated, was asked if the buyout option represented a good deal for taxpayers.

“On the face of it, no,” the minister said.

Joyce said he had inherited the settings for the NZVIF, including the buyout clause, and suggested Lees-Galloway direct his criticism elsewhere.

“If he’s got a problem with it — and I don’t argue with him that he should — then he needs to go back and talk to the Labour ministers at the time [2002] who set this up,” Joyce said.

The point of changing governments is to change policies and settings also. A policy where taxpayers take all the risk, but can get left out of the reward is one that should never have been left in place.

The existence of the buyback option, described by a Wall St source as having exposed the Government to a “horrendous risk-return proposition”, meant Thiel was able to cheaply acquire the NZVIF’s share if the investment performed well, but share losses equally if it failed.

The NZVIF said the buyback option had been a standard part of its investment partnership since 2002 and was intended to encourage private-sector involvement.

“Rather than making an investment return, NZVIF’s primary role has been to develop market activity, participation, awareness and capability,” a spokesman said.

If an investor is concerned with a return on investment then they will take greater care with their investment.

The Express reports:

A NEW poll has revealed that Ukip leader Paul Nuttall is on track to easily win the Stoke Central by-election and cause a political earthquake.

According to the poll commissioned by Labour Leave, Ukip has a strong lead in the Labour stronghold with 35 per cent 10 points ahead of Labour.

The by-election is set to take place on 23 February after leading moderate Tristram Hunt quit to become director of the V&A museum.

Despite being a very close third in the general election in 2017 the Tories are lagging behind on 10 per cent.

Stoke had one of the strongest Leave votes in the referendum with almost 70 per cent of voters backing Brexit.

Labour may regret selecting a candidate who was pro-remain in an area so heavily in favour of Brexit.

Stephen Jacobi writes:

In Asia, there is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a complex trade negotiation involving 16 economies, including Australia and New Zealand. RCEP also includes China but is not led by China, (as some commentators insist on believing) but by ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). RCEP has been underway for a number of years and is grinding on at a slow place. Whether that quickens as a result of TPP’s demise remains to be seen. India is a reluctant participant and the current level ambition in the negotiations is not high. RCEP at present is not an alternative to TPP, but is a useful initiative nonetheless – and could be particularly so for New Zealand if it delivers better access to Japan and India which we currently lack.

RCEP is useful but the benefits will be less than TPP.

Then there is the TPP(11) option. As of today Japan, a key player, has said TPP is “meaningless” without the United States, while other players including Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have expressed interest in exploring the options. Japanese reticence needs to be seen in the context of their critical security relationship with the United States. On the other hand, Japan, like New Zealand, has already ratified TPP. We need to let some quiet diplomacy proceed to see if the remaining 11 parties, or a sub-set of them, see merit in amending TPP to take account of US withdrawal. This should include deciding whether or not to strip out of the agreement those things that were essentially US demands. It’s too early to jump to conclusions; the TPP ratification process has in any case another year to run.

A lot of what is in there is due to the US so stripping out their demands would not be a quick process. And will Japan and Canada concede much on tariffs without incraesed access to the US to match? I see little chance or value in TPP less the US – but again better than nothing.

New Zealand has been seeking to obtain a bilateral FTA with the United States since the turn of the century. Two problems have bedevilled that effort: first, a poor political and security relationship, which has now been fixed, thanks to efforts over years by certain politicians and diplomats on both sides, supported by leaders from business and the wider community. And second, on the economic front, the small size of the New Zealand economy and the perceived – if highly exaggerated – risk which our agricultural sector poses to American farmers.

This will make it difficult for New Zealand to get ahead in the queue and may make a purely bilateral agreement ultimately no easier to negotiate than TPP. While we simply do not know the detail of the new President’s trade policy, he is not likely to do us favours on agriculture and may seek to go beyond the TPP outcomes on issues like investment and intellectual property. Nor is likely to be any more flexible on allowing professionals to work temporarily in the US as many services exporters especially in the tech sector would wish.

There is much irony here – TPP’s lengthy negotiation was in part because the other 11 partners were seeking to counter the full extent of American ambition across a range of issues as well as a wider framework of trade rules for the region. This was largely achieved: the final TPP text was a carefully structured consensus, which represented a balance of interests of all parties. For New Zealand TPP delivered substantial benefits with little change to existing policies, even if we did not achieve all we hoped.

This is key. TPP allowed us to resist most of the US demands and the final agreement meant relatively minor changes to our existing laws and policies. In a bilateral we would have very little ability to do this, and I doubt a bilateral would be of net benefit to NZ.

One News reports:

He was expected to run for the Maori Party, but at Waitangi on Sunday it’s anticipated he’ll announce he is taking up Labour’s offer.

That hasn’t impressed Dover Samuels.

“I thought the only waka jumper in the parliament was going to be Tau Henare but looks like Willie has superseded that,” he said.

While the list won’t be released for several months, feathers are already ruffled, as a high list place would mean he leap-frogs existing Labour Party members, and perhaps even current MPs.

Newshub reports:

Waitangi’s lower Te Tii Marae is seeking to charge media outlets up to $10,000 to film dignitaries and politicians arriving on Saturday and Sunday. 

The marae’s communications liaison, known simply as ‘Tana’, says the tradition of media companies gifting a koha to the Marae has been scrapped, and replaced with a ‘coverage fee’. 

The cheapest ‘coverage fee’ is $1200, which gives entry to journalists, photographers, and camera operators – but restricts them to two areas of the marae grounds. 

The only other option is an ‘exclusive package’ costing $10,000 which gives access to all parts of the marae, including inside during speeches. 

And people wonder why the PM is not attending. I suspect at the other marae around NZ, there will be no such charges.

Stuff reports:

Shane Jones’ rumoured political comeback with NZ First has faced a setback, with party members setting up a “Never Shane” group to protest his potential candidacy. …

However, a Facebook page described as “a network of NZ First members and supporters opposed to Shane Jones” has been set up ahead of a potential announcement.

NZ First member Curwen Rolinson, the group’s founder, said many party members were concerned about the possibility of Jones standing at the September 23 election and ruining what could be “a watershed year”.

“His personal background as a politician is so diametrically opposed to our values in NZ First, we just don’t see how he could conceivably fit in.”

Jones is pro TPP and pro asset sales according to the group so shouldn’t be a member.

Curwen blogs in detail why he is opposed to him.

There is no doubt Winston wants him in caucus, and for Shane to become Deputy Leader and eventually Leader. But there is significant opposition to this in NZ First, not least from the current caucus and Deputy Leader!

Stuff reports:

Kiritapu Allan is sitting with a cup of black coffee, a crown of tight dark brown curls, a bone-white linen blazer on top of a crisp white shirt. …

She already has a hash tag for her social media campaign – #tolleygetonyourtrolley.

Allan says Tolley, at 63, has had her run, and her time representing the region should be up.

Yes I am sure that hashtag will win her the seat.

Tolley has a 7,934 majority.

Johan Norberg looks at the progress humanity has made in recent years:

• Where 150 years ago it took 25 men a whole day to harvest and thresh a ton of grain, one person with a modern combine harvester can do it in six minutes
• In 1947, 50 per cent of the world’s population was chronically malnourished. Today that’s down to 13 per cent.
• Chlorination of water led to a massive drop in infant mortality. Such benefits have now been extended to the Third World, with the result that 91 per cent of the world’s population (2.6 billion people) have clean water, as opposed to 52 per cent in 1980.
• In the 1830s, in western Europe life expectancy was still only 33. Today, average life expectancy in the world is an amazing 71.
• Homo sapiens evolved on this planet 200,000 years ago, since when there have been 8,000 generations of humans. But most of this reduction in mortality has been only in the past four generations.
• Deaths from mosquito-borne malaria have halved since 2000, and in Africa more than half the population now sleep under mosquito nets. Modern science has also turned HIV/Aids, which has killed 40 million people, into a chronic condition that can be handled.
• Major inroads have also been made with cancer treatment, and rates of cancer deaths have fallen 22 per cent in the past two decades.
• In 1981, 54 per cent of the developing world’s population lived in extreme poverty — defined as living on less than $2 a day. Last year, it was just 12 per cent.
• On May 15, 1984, the world’s major powers had managed to remain at peace with one another for the longest stretch of time since the days of the Roman Empire.
• The average war between states killed 86,000 people in the Fifties. Today, it kills slightly more than 3,000 people.
• An analysis of 457 terrorist groups active since 1968 shows not a single one of them succeeded in conquering a state, and 94 per cent of them failed to secure even one of their goals.

• Two hundred years ago, only one in eight of the world’s population could read and write, and many in the European elite preferred it that way. They feared that if the poor got an education, they might stop accepting their lot in life. All that has changed. Today, only a seventh of the global adult population can’t read and write, and going to school has become the norm.

Don’t turn the clock back.

Stuff reports:

It’s illegal for Prime Minister Bill English to live in Premier House, the official prime ministerial residence.

In a quirk of the law, English isn’t allowed access to taxpayer-funded accommodation in the capital – because he’s based there.

Somewhat bizarre that the rules won’t allow the Prime Minister of New Zealand to reside at the official residence of the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

As it happens, he doesn’t want to. He has a family home in Karori and while Premier House is grand, it is somewhat sterile. I’d rather be in my own home also.

If Andrew Little becomes Prime Minister, he’ll also have the same issue – as a Wellington based MP he will be ineligible to live in Premier House.