A very good article by Stacey Kirk at Stuff on the negotiations between Pharmac and Merck over Keytruda. Well worth a read to see how vigorous the negotiations are, and how Pharmac gets good deals for the taxpayer by playing one drug company off against another.

What stuck me reading the article is how important it is that politicians don’t give in to lobbying campaigns to undermine Pharmac negotiations by promising to fund a drug regardless. Not only does it result in a bad outcome for that particular drug (taxpayers pay more for it than otherwise), but it undermine Pharmac’s ability to hang tough in other negotiations and incentivises more drug companies to focus on wining and dining MPs rather than negotiating with Pharmac.

Article 19 writes:

Today, 23 November 2016 – ARTICLE 19, together with Human Rights Watch, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Open Net Korea, Derechos Digitales, Reporters sans Frontières, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and PEN International, intervened in a case at the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest administrative court, concerning the worldwide application of a national concept of “the right to be forgotten”. We urged the Court to consider international standards on freedom of expression when reviewing the case.

The so-called “right to be forgotten” usually refers to the possibility of having certain results, produced from an online search of one’s name, delisted from search engine results pages. In its 2014 decision, the European Court of Justice stated this should be done when such search results are ‘inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant’. Subsequently, Google adopted a practice of removing the contentious results from the European versions of their search engine, when they accepted delisting requests from users based in the EU. More recently, after the French regulatory authority for data protection (the CNIL) approved complaints from web users that the delisting was not sufficiently effective, Google decided to make contentious search results inaccessible to all web users located in French territory.

In a decision of 16 March 2016, the CNIL found the geolocation-based solution to implementing accepted delisting requests to be insufficient, and imposed a €100,000 fine on Google for restricting the removal of contentious results to only those web users based in France. In the CNIL’s view, the effective application of the “right to be forgotten” would require that the contentious search results be rendered unavailable to all web users, regardless of their location. In essence, this position is tantamount to having the French data protection authority determine what can be found on search engines worldwide.

The French decision is the worst in a long line of decisions.

First the European Court of Justice invented this right to be forgotten, which means the right to hide material on the Internet.

At first it applied just to European versions of Google – such as google.fr.

Then they expanded it to all versions of Google, if someone is using a European IP address.

And finally the French authority declared that Google must remove mention of the material in every version of Google in every country.

Must be tempting for Google to just announce they are banning everyone in France from using any Google product until such stupid directives are repealed.

Newshub reports:

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for most of the 121 MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 4.3 (+0.2 from 2015), which is a small increase after a drop in 2015. Average Ratings per Party

1. ACT 7.0 (-1.5)
2. United Future 6.0 (+1.0)
3. Maori 5.3 (+1.3)
4. National 4.7 (+0.4)
5. Labour 4.1 (nc)
6. Green 3.5 (-0.4)
7. NZ First 3.1 (-0.1)

Of the four main parties, their average rankings in order are National, Labour, Greens, NZ First

Top MPs

1. Amy Adams 8.5 (+1.0)
   John Key 8.5 (+1.0)
   Bill English 8.5 (+0.5)
2. Murray McCully 8.0 (nc)
3. Simon Bridges 7.5 (+0.5)
   Chris Finlayson 7.5 (+1.5)
   Winston Peters 7.5 (+0.5)

Bottom MPs

1. Mahesh Bindra 1.0 (-1.0)
2. Meka Whaitiri 2.0 (-1.0)
   Rino Tirakatene 2.0 (nc)
   Barbara Stewart 2.0 (-2.0)
   Scott Simpson 2.0 (-0.5)
   Richard Prosser 2.0 (-0.5)
   Jono Naylor 2.0 (-1.0)
   Clayton Mitchell 2.0 (nc)
   Tracey Martin 2.0 (nc)
   Nanaia Mahuta 2.0 (-2.0)
   Melissa Lee 2.0 (nc)
   Nuk Korako 2.0 (-0.5)
   Catherine Delahunty 2.0 (nc)
   Marama Davidson 2.0
   Barry Coates 2.0
   Steffan Browning 2.0 (-1.0)
   Ria Bond 2.0
   Todd Barclay 2.0 -1.0)
   Kanwalkit Bakshi 2.0 (-1.0)

Top Labour MPs

1. Andrew Little 6.5 (+0.5)
   Kelvin Davis 6.5 (+0.5)
2. Chris Hipkins 6.0 (nc)
   Annette King 6.0 (-0.5)
   David Parker 6.0 (+2.0)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Winston Peters 7.5 (+0.5)
2. David Seymour 7.0 (-1.5)
3. James Shaw 6.0 (+0.5)
4. Te Ururoa Flavell 6.0 (+1.0)
   Peter Dunne 6.0 (+1.0)
5. Julie Anne Genter 5.5 (+1.5)

Biggest Increases

1. Judith Collins +3.0
2. Mark Mitchell +2.5
3. Barbara Kuriger +2.0
   David Parker +2.0

Biggest Decreases

1. Kevin Hague -2.0
   Iain Lees-Galloway -2.0
   Nanaia Mahuta -2.0
   Barbara Stewart -2.0
2. David Seymour -1.5
   Louisa Wall -1.5
   Grant Ribertson -2.5
   Nick Smith -2.5

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.2 (+0.3)
2. Cabinet 6.7 (+0.4)
3. National frontbench 7.4 (+0.7)
4. Labour frontbench 5.1 (-0.2)
5. National backbench 3.6 (+0.3)

So the average rating for the Labour front bench has dropped 0.2 while for National it has increased 0.7

Overall 59 MPs got a higher score, 32 MPs stayed the same and 27 MPs got a lower score.

A reminder these are the opinions of the three authors at Trans-Tasman, not mine. I’d love to publish my own scores for all 121 MPs but I value my relationships too much to do so!

Newshub reports:

MPs are calling on the Government to close tax loopholes which allow the kids of some of New Zealand’s wealthiest families to receive a student allowance.

The non-repayable allowance is designed to provide the kids of low- and middle-income families up to $175 per week while they study.

But a 20-year-old Victoria University student whose parents own a multi-million-dollar business told Newshub she gets the allowance because her parents “technically don’t receive an income”.

“Everything goes into the trust, so on paper we look like just your average struggling family.”

A 21-year-old Waikato University student whose parents own a multi-million-dollar farm in the Waikato also told Newshub they get the allowance.

Last week, Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse proposed a crackdown on abuse of the student allowance system. His proposed changes will see the Ministry of Social Development receive parents’ income statements directly from IRD. Presently, parents submit payslips or a declaration of estimated earnings.

But some MPs say the proposed changes don’t go far enough.

I’ve blogged the results of the November 2016 One News Colmar Brunton poll at Curia.

It shows National at 50% and Labour at 28%, or a 22% gap. Even with the Greens an 11% gap.

This is the same gap as Colmar Brunton had in September when Andrew Little denounced the poll as “bogus”. The October Roy Morgan also has the gap at 21.5%. So the last three polls have all had a gap of 22% between National and Labour and 10% to 12% if you include the Greens.

Yet Andrew Little insists the polls show Labour/Greens neck and neck with National.

There is only one way to resolve this dilemma. Last month he released Labour’s internal polling to try and discredit the September ONCB poll. He obviously should again release their internal polling now he has set a precedent.

If he refuses to now release his internal polling, you wonder why that would be? Would it be he only releases it when it supports what he is saying publicly?

Green MP Steffan Browning writes on Facebook:

I’m saddened by the death of Fidel Castro. He represented so significantly the battle against the worst of the forces of capitalist greed and the tyranny of oppression by the USA industrial military complex. Cuba has problems but its achievements and humanitarian reach have been significant too, especially considering the blockades and measures against it. I was disappointed by this Stuff announcement that has so much about those celebrating Fidel’s passing, when millions will be mourning.

I’m saddened by the fact an MP who has never had to live under an authoritarian dictatorship praises it so much and can’t understand who the hundreds of thousands who actually lived under it despised it.

Castro imprisoned gays, killed political opponents, tortured prisoners, censored the Internet, banned trade unions, made strikes illegal etc etc. But because he was an enemey of the US, Browning thinks he was a great guy.

I look forward to reading how sad he is when Mugabe dies.

Browning is attracting huge negative feedback on his Facebook page for his tears of sadness at the death of an authoritarian dictator.

The data above is from the Registrar of Unions. While the big fall off in union membership was in the 1990s, it has continued. The percentage of the labour force in a union has gone from 18.5% to just over 15%.

The Herald reports:

Thirty-three of New Zealand’s most senior editors have urged the Commerce Commission to rethink its plan to reject the NZME-Fairfax merger. They are at loggerheads with a group of 11 former editors who say the Commerce Commission got it right.

The current editors, all in senior roles at both companies, say the commission has misinterpreted the state of New Zealand journalism and believe a merger is the best option to sustain quality journalism.

They say that editorial independence would not be lost under a merger: It is “at the core of what we do”.

Hmmn they claim editorial independence would not be lost yet they all have signed a letter presumably written for them by management.

“We believe – no, we know – that the rapid dismantling of local newsrooms and journalism at scale in this country is inevitable if this merger does not proceed.”

They may be right about that. The status quo is not attractive.

Yesterday, a group of 11 former daily and Sunday newspaper editors said they backed the commission’s preliminary view that a merger should not go ahead.

“Though we acknowledge that such a merger is seen by some of us as a pragmatic response to the singular challenges that newspapers face, we all accept that the destruction of great mastheads and all that they have stood for at the heart of our communities since New Zealand settlement cannot possibly enhance content – it can only diminish it,” said the former editors, including Gavin Ellis, Tim Pankhurst, Suzanne Carty and Suzanne Chetwin.

You tend to think the former editors who are not free agents are saying what they really think, while the current editors have to toe the party line.

Death of a legend #FidelCastro https://t.co/GugscVJAXd

— Clare Curran (@clarecurranmp) November 26, 2016

Labour MP Clare Curran declared Fidel Castro a legend. Now you can claim as Clare does that this wasn’t meant as praise, but that is certainly how it came across to many people. I pointed out the legend banned independent trade unions and made strikes illegal plus executed 15,000 political opponents. Someone else pointed out he imposed massive Internet censorship. Some other comments were:

@clarecurranmp um Clare he massacred thousands of his own people with his firing squads. #butcher

— Paul Foster-Bell MP (@PARFosterBell) November 26, 2016

@dfbensonguiu @clarecurranmp And Mussolini made the trains run on time while Hitler built the autobahns, right?

— Paul Kasner (@Paul_Kasner) November 26, 2016

@clarecurranmp are you sure you want to say legend? This man murdered a lot of people. There is nothing legendary about him.

— Claire Cooper (@Clairecnz) November 26, 2016

@clarecurranmp No. Death of a mass murderer. A power-hungry and heartless homocidal maniac.

— Dane Giraud (@DaneGiraud) November 26, 2016

@clarecurranmp @MattMackowiak Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Polpot, were all legends too. In a technical sense, I guess.

— deplORANGEable (@GeordanNorris) November 26, 2016

@clarecurranmp he was a psychotic fruit loop who imprisoned thousands, sent dissidents to re education camps & killed many. #FidelCastro

— Corey ? (@cpslieker) November 26, 2016

Also interesting to note the statement by President Obama and President-Elect Trump on his death. Obama said:

At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.  …

Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro’s family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.

So not a single mention of his human rights abuses, executions etc.

Trump’s statement is:

“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.

“While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.

“Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty.

While there is much I don’t like about Trump’s foreign policy, I have to say on this issue I like him calling it straight.

538 blog:

According to a report Tuesday in New York Magazine, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers have approached the Hillary Clinton campaign with evidence they believe suggests the election might have been hacked to make it appear that Donald Trump won the Electoral College when Clinton really did. The hacking claim appears to be based on concerns about tampering with electronic voting machines. We’ve looked into the claim — or at least, our best guess of what’s being claimed based on what has been reported — and statistically, it doesn’t check out.

The report is being used by some of those in denial to demand recounts. Basically they claim Clinton got 7% less in Wisconsin in areas that used electronic-voting machines and that this indicates she was robbed of 30,000 votes and lost by only 27,000.

But 538 say:

For each county in those states, we looked at Clinton’s vote share and whether it was associated with the type of voting system the county used, based on voting-system data compiled by a nonprofit electoral-reform group called Verified Voting and 2016 vote data from Dave Leip’s U.S. Election Atlas and ABC News.³ It doesn’t make much sense, though, to just look at raw vote counts and how they differed, because we know there are many factors that affect how a county voted, both in those states and everywhere else around the country. So we separated out two of the main factors that we know drove differences in voting results: the share of each county’s population age 25 and older with a college degree, and the share of the county that is non-white.⁴

We found no apparent correlation⁵ between voting method and outcome in six of the eight states, and a thin possible link between voting method and results in Wisconsin and Texas. However, the two states showed opposite results: The use of any machine voting in a county was associated with a 5.6-percentage-point reduction in Democratic two-party vote share in Wisconsin but a 2.7-point increase in Texas, both of which were statistically significant.⁶ Even if we focus only on Wisconsin, the effect disappears when we weight our results by population. More than 75 percent of Wisconsin’s population lives in the 23 most populous counties, which don’t appear to show any evidence for an effect driven by voting systems.⁷ To have effectively manipulated the statewide vote total, hackers probably would have needed to target some of these larger counties. When we included all counties but weighted the regression by the number of people living in each county, the statistical significance of the opposite effects in Wisconsin and Texas both evaporated.⁸

Anyway I’m enjoying seeing those in denial over the results.

Newshub reports:

Mr Leggett had previously been tipped as a future leader of the party, but there are now rumours he might jump ship and stand for National in the Mana electorate next year, currently held by Labour’s Kris Faafoi.

“I’m not particularly worried – we’ve got a fantastic MP in Mana who’s established himself,” Mr Little told Newshub.

“I said at the time when Nick stood for the Wellington mayoralty that he wasn’t true Labour. He claimed that he was. He wasn’t elected.

“I think that New Zealanders actually see through people who say they are one thing but they’re not, and they get backed by the 1 percent to challenge Labour MPs and Labour candidates. I think people are past that so no, I’m not particularly worried.” …

Mr Little also attacked Mr Leggett over his disloyalty to the Labour Party.

“People who are aligned to the Labour cause actually genuinely take action about improving housing, about lifting incomes, about making sure that schools are properly funded, and our hospitals are properly funded.

“What they don’t do is go around looking for those on the highest incomes to back them – to challenge whoever because that’s all they want. Labour people, passionate Labour in their heart – they stick with Labour, they campaign on Labour issues, and for the Labour Party. Nick’s not one of those people.”

Why doesn’t he just go all the way and call Nick a dirty rotten scab.

Little seems obsessed by the fact Leggett may have received donations from the detested “1%”. This seems to make him a traitor or something. Now to be a member of the hated 1% you need to earn over $200,000 a year approx.

So can Labour confirm that neither their party nor any candidate will solicit or accept a donation from a member of the 1%?

Fidel Castro has died aged 90, eight years after he handed power over to his brother Raul.

Fidel’s record includes:

• Around 15,000 executions of political opponents
• 1.2 million Cuba exiles fleeing his paradise from 1959 to 1993
• Torture of prisoners
• Bottom ranked country in the press freedom index
• No independent trade unions and no right to strike

Stuff reports:

The hundreds of thousands of dollars taken by a cancer sufferer during decades of benefit fraud will never be paid back, a court has been told.

The Christchurch District Court heard on Friday that Diane May Pihama has cancer, but the prognosis is not bad.

Defence counsel Paul Johnson said the 68-year-old’s offending spanned more than 20 years, but she did not have a flamboyant lifestyle. Pihama told him that 90 per cent of the funds she took were sent overseas.

Jennifer North, representing the Ministry of Social Development, said there was no evidence that Pihama was making payments to a third party.

Judge Tom Gilbert said Pihama had been on a benefit for most of her life, and had received multiple benefits during many of those years.

Why has she been on a benefit most of her life? Has she never been able to work even part-time?

She had lived with her partner since mid-1993, but had not informed the ministry.

In that time, she received a sickness benefit of $22,923, an invalid’s benefit of $137,030, an accommodation supplement of $11,093, a disability allowance of $36,285, a transport access scheme of $34,965, an Internal Rate of Return subsidy of $106,815, and $6471 in superannuation payments.

Not bad work for fraud.

Stuff reports:

Timaru’s port is well-placed to cope with increased demand for coastal shipping after the North Canterbury earthquakes, PrimePort chief executive Phil Melhopt says.

The vulnerability of roading and rails meant businesses could look for alternative transportation in light of the earthquakes last week.

Transport Minister Simon Bridges anticipated there would be a “big shift to ships”.

I suspect most rail freight could go by ship, and it would probably be environmentally more friendly.

Labour Party MPs have been advocating for a national port strategy in light of the earthquakes, which Bridges dismissed.

The proposal would see the creation of a New Zealand-wide port strategy for the shipping network, instead of a hierarchy built by competition.

However, Bridges said “heavy handed” central directives would get it wrong.

“Let a natural hierarchy of ports emerge from competition,” he said.

Melhopt echoed Bridges and said “PrimePort doesn’t believe that a central planning approach, National Port Strategy, is required”.

“The market will ultimately adjust to the transport challenges posed by recent events. Coastal shipping is already responding.”

So Labour basically want the Government to decide where the ports are, and which port does what – rather than allow for competition between ports.

Sad.

Stuff reports:

A man who grabbed a prison officer on her bum has been sentenced to seven years in prison.

The length of the sentence for the offence involved – and the legislation that enforces it – has earned stern criticism from sentencing judge Kit Toogood.

Auckland man Raven Casey Campbell, 25, was facing the distinct possibility of having to serve out the full term of his sentence, with no chance of parole, when he appeared for sentence in the High Court in Hamilton on Thursday.

Campbell had committed two violent offences previously – and was now on his third strike, meaning he would have to serve out the full term of the maximum available sentence.

The maximum for indecent assault is seven years.

It was the first time a “third-strike” sentencing has been imposed under the law, brought in six years ago.

On considering submissions from defence counsel Thomas Sutcliffe and Crown prosecutor Rebecca Mann – as well as letters written to the court and the prison officer by Campbell himself – Justice Kit Toogood opted to refrain from imposing the full available sentence for the crime.

That crime happened in Waikeria Prison on May 17 this year, where Campbell had been serving a three year, four month sentence for an aggravated robbery, for which he had been convicted in April 2014.

A female Corrections officer had been supervising prisoners in an area called the kit locker, where they exchange their clothing, towels and bedding for fresh items.

Campbell approached the officer from behind and grabbed her right buttock, squeezing it hard, and holding on for about one to two seconds. 

“You were told to go to the guard room but you did not make any attempt to move,” Justice Toogood told Campbell.

“When the Corrections officer went to leave the yard through a set of steel gates, you followed her, grabbed the gate, and asked if you could talk to her.”

Campbell was told to move, and he did so. But his actions had already had an effect: The prison officer was distressed by the bottom grabbing incident and consequently had to take time off from work. 

“You have said that you really liked the officer, that you grabbed her as a bit of a joke and you thought your actions would be taken that way,” Toogood said.

As well as his aggravated robbery, Campbell had been convicted of robbery and demanding to steal in 2013 – offences that earned him a stage one warning to accompany his sentence of community work and supervision.

I have no problem with this sentence. A third strike is not just about the most recent offence but also the previous offences. He seems an unrepentant criminal and we’re safer with him in prison – even if the prison officers are not.

The purpose of three strikes is a deterrent, and this case should act as one.  Already the three strikes law has seen strike recividism rates fall 62% according to Graeme Edgeler.

“I have no option but to sentence you to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence – seven years’ imprisonment. I agree that is very harsh given that what you did was not the most serious assault of its type, but Parliament has determined that your history of violent offending requires a very stern response to protect the public from you and to act as a deterrent to you and others.

“It may seem very surprising that this consequence could be required by law for an offence of this kind, but that is the law and I have no option but to enforce it.

“Were it not for the requirement to sentence you to the maximum term of seven years, the need to denounce your conduct, hold you accountable and deter others and you from such offending, it would likely have resulted in a period of no more than 12 months’ imprisonment.”

Toogood sentenced Campbell to seven years in prison, but Campbell is still able to apply for parole once a third of that term has passed.

So a good outcome. If he behaves well he can be out in two years four months but he continues to assault female prison guards he’ll be in for seven years or even longer.

Hopefully he has learnt a lesson about the consequences of criminal offending when you already have two strikes offences.

First NZ Herald reports:

A staffer in East Coast Bays MP Murray McCully’s local office has been selected to contest the seat at next year’s election.

Erica Stanford works in a senior role in McCully’s local electorate office and has worked overseas in export sales roles.

McCully has been MP for East Coast Bays since 1987 and in February announced he would not contest the seat next year, saying he would retire from Parliament when his time as foreign minister ended.

Stanford is highly likely to enter Parliament next year – the North Shore electorate is a safe National seat, with McCully holding an almost 17,000-strong majority over closest challenger Colin Craig in 2014.

Stanford said she was thrilled to be selected.

“Having been raised here, and now in turn raising my own kids here, I’m not exaggerating when I say I think it’s the best place to live in Auckland.

Describing Erica primarily as a staffer is very much underselling her. She’s also a self-employed story producer for television, a sales director for Powerforce and has extensive export experience.

Also Newshub reports:

One of Prime Minister John Key’s confidants and former senior advisors is set to enter Parliament, with Newshub learning she is being lined up as National’s Wellington Central candidate.

Nicola Willis has launched a challenge against incumbent candidate and list MP Paul Foster-Bell for the party’s nomination, which opens in January.

Ms Willis is a corporate high-flyer, currently holding a senior position at Fonterra as the general manager of nutrient management, pushing sustainability initiatives across some of the dairy giant’s farms.

Before that, she was in charge of Fonterra’s stakeholder management portfolio which saw her wining and dining important figures from the public and private sectors, and from overseas.

She worked as John Key’s senior advisor from 2006 – 2011, when he was Opposition Leader, and then Prime Minister.

“When nominations do open, it is my intention to put forward my nomination and to stand for the candidacy,” she told Newshub.

“This is a decision I’ve come to after lots of conversation with my family. It’s up to the National Party members to decide who their candidate is, so it’s them I’ll be focused on,” says Ms Willis. …

Ms Willis lives in Auckland with her husband Duncan Small, and their four children. Mr Small used to work for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet before taking a top job at Air New Zealand.

She grew up in Wellington and her parents live in Kelburn.

And Newshub also reports on another possibility:

The Dom Post editorial:

A senior Muslim cleric in Auckland has been preaching hate, to judge by videos of his lectures.

“Jews are using everybody because they think that their protocol is to rule the entire world,” says Mohammad Anwar Sahib in one such clip. Sahib was until this week secretary of the religious advisory board of FIANZ, the largest Islamic body in New Zealand, and head of Manukau’s at-Taqwa mosque.

There’s more in the same vein, across multiple lectures – paranoid anti-semitism of the sort that has infected the world for centuries.

Sahib denies spreading hate and says his comments have been taken out of context. Videos of his full lectures have been taken down from public view, but this seems highly unlikely. What context could excuse such dangerous and contemptible talk?

No, the preacher is wrong to deny responsibility and deeply wrong to have spoken like this. He is also wrong to say that criticising him is an attack “on all Muslims in New Zealand”.

That is completely backward. The comments are outrageous and deserving of the wide censure they have received (including the stripping of his FIANZ post), but they do not reflect on the tens of thousands of Muslims who live in New Zealand and reject such ugly sentiments. They are his responsibility alone.

They are his responsibility. But what does it mean that all those who heard him preach never complained? If a Catholic priest got up and said Jews are using everyone to control the world, I suspect the Catholic parishioners would be in an uproar, and would complain about him to the local Bishop.

Stuff reports:

Women will be able to file complaints over pay equality with their employers, rather than the courts, following a Government decision to back the recommendations of an expert panel. 

It has been described as a “landmark” win by unions, which have applauded the decision. 

The announcement was made by senior ministers, who confirmed the Government had agreed to principles that would provide guidance to both employers and employees in how to assess and resolve claims.  …

Council of Trade Unions President Richard Wagstaff was a lead negotiator in the development of the Principles.

“I am pleased that the Government is committed to being on the right side of history in making real progress to paying working women what they are worth,” he said. …

The Public Service Association said New Zealand could “once again claim to be a leader in gender equality”.

National Secretary Erin Polaczuk said it was a “huge step forward” for workers of any gender in New Zealand. 

“There are many jobs in New Zealand that have historically been done by women, like support work or administration and clerical – and their work is undervalued.

“Today’s decision by the government sets about righting that wrong, and we’re delighted.”

A National Government has abolished zero hour contracts and agreed to pay equity claims. Maybe the unions should affiliate to National instead of Labour.

Jo Moir writes:

It was an exercise in stamina and patience when Uber took on a room full of politicians on Thursday – most of whom had no idea how the ride-sharing technology worked.

The exchanges between Uber’s New Zealand general manager Richard Menzies and MPs on the transport committee bordered on ridiculous at times.

Menzies was at Parliament to call for looser regulations in the Land Transport Amendment Bill to allow Uber to operate lawfully in New Zealand.

But MPs spent the best part of his 20-minute submission tying themselves up in knots over questions that were completely irrelevant to how Uber operates.

No matter how many times Menzies tried, he (through no fault of his own) failed, to get through to MPs that Uber was an app service and passengers couldn’t simply “hail” a driver or nab one from a rank.

National’s Alastair Scott kicked off with his concern that “you could get some gypsy operators who are not licensed by anyone appearing on the taxi rank.”

Only taxis can use taxi ranks and Uber does not do casual pick ups.

Next it was Moroney’s turn, asking, “how does the consumer know – because there’s no branding – about what service they’re using?”

Menzies: “A consumer knows a car is an Uber vehicle because when they request a ride through the Uber app they see the licence plate and photo of the driver.”

Which is great. Often if you have ordered a taxi you have no idea which taxi pulling up is yours. With Uber you have the made and model of the car, the licence plate, the name of the driver and a photo of the driver.

Next the committee chair, National MP Jonathan Young, weighed in asking, “what would the driver then do if somebody tapped on his window, would he say you need to go through the app?”

Menzies: “Yes, any ride facilitated through Uber needs to go through the app – that’s how the entire service works…it’s important to note Uber doesn’t work in the rank and hail space. That’s very much the taxi market.”

Young: “But what I’m saying is they might be parked on the street waiting for a notification to come through for a pick up and somebody might come and say, ‘that’s an Uber car, I’ll just walk up’. The system won’t allow for that?”

No. There is no ability to pay, unless the pick up is done through the app.

Uber have been in the firing line of Transport Minister Simon Bridges for not complying with passenger (P) endorsements – a vetting process that checks criminal and medical records amongst other things.

Bridges has threatened to take them off the road if they don’t start complying but Uber has softened its stance in the last few weeks and agreed to get P endorsements for all its drivers immediately if Bridges adopts the proposed cheaper and faster process.

Which would be a good outcome.