From Hansard:

I was privileged to be elected by my caucus to Cabinet in 1984 at the tender age of 31 years, which I think still makes me the youngest Cabinet Minister in New Zealand’s political history.

I think he is overlooking Deborah Morris, who became a Cabinet Minister at age 26 off memory.

Education was a challenging portfolio for all of those Ministers who have carried it out. I remember this cartoon. I inherited it from David Lange. It had David Lange floating down serenely on a parachute and had me plunging to the ground with this lead weight around my leg, called education. And David is calling “How’s the portfolio going, Phil?

Heh.

One of the small changes that I made, looking back at my colleague who was also a Minister of Education, was the Education Amendment Bill in 1989. We enabled public institutions to take on international fee-paying students. It was not, Trevor, always the popular decision with all of my colleagues and with the education establishment. It was going to ruin education, I was told. International education today is a $3 billion enterprise that employs highly skilled people at high rates of pay, and again I was proud to be part of the group that made that change.

Strangely he does not mention his most significant educational reform – introducing fees for tertiary students. A policy he is now against today.

I was later privileged to become Minister of Defence. In that role, I was aware that, one day, I might have to explain to parents that their son or daughter had died in their country’s service. Sadly, the first New Zealander to die in Afghanistan was my nephew Matthew, who was serving with the 173rd airborne division of the American Army. Our family still keenly feels that loss 9 years on.

So sad.

I pay tribute to David Walker, who was my chief negotiator on the China free-trade talks. That was an amazing deal, to get the first free-trade agreement that any developed country had with China, and, Prime Minister, I think that that helped us immensely with the trebling of our exports, and that helped us not to sink into the severe recession that we might otherwise have suffered from.

It was Goff’s greatest achievement. Very sad to see Labour turn their back on free trade now. Goff was the only Labour MP to back TPP.

Stuff reports:

The median weekly earnings from paid employment rose $44 to reach $924 a week between June 2015 and June 2016. That is the largest percentage increase since 2007.

But looking further into the data, of those on wages and salaries, those earning less than $500 a week had the biggest year-on-year percentage pay rise, up 4.8 per cent between June 2015 and 2016.

The median income for that bracket increased from $271 a week to $284.

That was followed by a 2.6 per cent increase for those earning between $500 and $770. The median income in that bracket is now $670, compared to $653 a year ago.

Everyone earning more than $770 as week is now earning marginally less than they were the same time last year.

So why is this happening?

Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said it was a trend that had been seen internationally – job growth had happened in unskilled and manufacturing sectors and people were transitioning from benefits to employment, which increased their income.

Sounds good if correct.

The Herald reports:

More people have died on New Zealand roads this year than the entire amount killed in 2013.

AA has issued a warning to road users following the concerning figures, which show 255 people have been killed this year compared to 253 in 2013.

AA motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said 2013’s toll was a record low, but with 81 days left of this year, things were not looking good.

“In 2013 New Zealand had a record low road toll of 253 deaths but since then the number of road deaths has sadly gone back up,” he said.

“The AA is extremely sad and concerned to see more people hurt and dying in crashes.

“Our population has grown and the amount people are driving is increasing but the question of why we have seen the road toll go up significantly from 2013 is something authorities need to be looking at.”

Comparing to the low of 2013 is a bit silly, but we do seem to have a problem with a growing road toll.

The 255 to date this year compares to 243 to date in 2015. So it is a small increase, but still against a trend of decreases most years.

In the debate of the Electoral Amendment Act 2016:

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): … There are a lot of Scandinavian countries that now use the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) system. Virtually everyone in New Zealand has an IRD number. You have got to have an IRD number if you have got a student loan. You have got to have an IRD number if you are on a benefit. You have got to have an IRD number if you are a superannuitant. You have got to have an IRD number if you are in employment. Virtually everyone in New Zealand has an IRD number. Why can we not use IRD numbers as being a legitimate representation of your ability to vote?

Well almost every foreign student in NZ has an IRD number. So Parker would allow them all to vote.

Can I return to the point that I made at the start. I think we should be able to use IRD numbers together with a declaration that someone is either a permanent resident or a citizen at the time they vote that should be enough to enable a person to vote. Thank you.

Yet no one would check that they are in fact a resident or citizen under his proposal – merely that they have an IRD number.

Stuff reports:

Not one person convicted of burglary or aggravated burglary has received the maximum penalty for the crimes in recent years.

And in most cases in which burglary was the most serious charge a person faced, jail sentences were avoided.

Data released under the Official Information Act comes at a time of heightened pressures on police to attend every burglary.

The maximum jail term for burglary is 10 years. For aggravated burglary, it is 14 years.

Despite more than 11,000 convictions for both offences, nobody for at least the past four years has received the maximum penalty.

And some burglars will have been convicted scores of times.

ACT leader David Seymour favoured a “three strikes” approach, with a mandatory three-year jail term for burglars found guilty of the crime a third time.

“I don’t believe anyone will be opposed to incapacitating them for three years.”

Seymour said some young burglars might deserve a second, or even third, chance.

“Once can be a mistake. Twice can be a mistake. But three, you’re a serial burglar.”

Sounds good to me.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland vegetarian cafe were shocked when the Auckland City Mission declined their offer for free, healthy food.

But Auckland City Mission says declining the deliveries was a mistake which happened because of a miscommunication and the charity would like to start up the partnership again.

Lisa Burne, operations manager at Revive, said the cafe had been providing the Mission with leftover food every Thursday and Friday for six to eight weeks when a City Mission staff member called to tell her the donations were no longer needed because the Mission’s homeless clients wouldn’t eat them.

She said the conversation left her “completely dumbfounded”. “I would have thought it would be in their best interest to provide wholesome food.”

Staff at the Mission had initially been “very, very keen and excited” to receive the food, Burne said, but less than two months later they asked for the deliveries to stop because clients preferred the cakes and pies provided by other supporters.

Revive founder and owner Jeremy Dixon said the charity did “amazing” work, often under difficult circumstances, however, he had been surprised by its response.

“We were absolutely flabbergasted.”

We obviously need a tax on pies to solve this problem!

David Cumin, Juliet Moses and Paul Moon write:

The sovereign integrity of states is one of those building blocks on which the modern world operates.

 It is a guiding tenet of international law, and one of the founding principles of the United Nations.

In the case of Israel’s protection of the waters on the southern end of its country, these principles are confirmed by the Oslo Accords and more recently by the UN Security Council.

So when a New Zealand politician openly and unashamedly decides to violate international law and another country’s sovereignty for the sake of a media stunt, that act will inevitably reflect poorly on that politician, the party they represent, and sadly, even on our Parliament.

What made matters worse in this case was that the politician concerned – Green MP Marama Davidson – participated in a breach of Israel’s sovereignty for no apparent purpose. When the protest ended more mundanely than expected, she was forced to resort to melodramatic language to dramatise events.

Ms Davidson described the Israeli Navy’s female crew taking her and the other activists to safety as a “kidnap,” and herself as a “hostage.”  Both terms are wildly inaccurate, and seem designed more to achieve provocation than reconciliation.

As I understand it the activists were treated wonderfully. They were even asked as they were departing if they had any complaints over their treatment, if the food was good enough etc – almost like a Trip advisor review. And Marama even had Israeli taxpayers pay for her flight home.

Women do suffer in Gaza, at the hands of the governing power  Hamas, an Islamist organisation.

But Hamas’ honour killings, persecution of gays, genocidal charter, and state-sanctioned misogyny do not rate a mention by these activists on the “women’s peace boat”.

Of course not.

Nor does Egypt’s stricter blockade of Gaza.

What many don’t realise is that while there is a total blockade by sea, there is regular passage by land. Thousands of trucks every week go into and out of Gaza. The only thing is they pass through a security checkpoint where it can be verified they are not smuggling guns etc.

The “peace activists” include a woman who created a video game that encourages kids to shoot as many Israelis as they can and another who accused Israel of orchestrating the recent terrorist attacks in Munich and Nice. Are these aligned with Green party or Kiwi values?

Now Kiwi values.

There was no aid on board.

This is something not publicised much. The boat had no aid or supplies on board at all. It was just an expensive PR stunt that backfired.

Matthew Hooton makes eight points on Twitter:

1. Men do not tend to talk much in the locker room at all.
2. If we do, the talk is mainly about exercise, sport, family, work etc (and, for some losers, even politics).
3. It would almost always be seen as weird to talk about sex while getting changed or showering with other men.
4. When at the pub, a long boozy lunch or on a lads’ weekend etc, men talk about sex a great deal.
5. Almost all this talk is purely and passively voyeuristic, e.g. “Man that chick at the pub last night was hot.”
6. Going beyond voyeuristic talk is not unknown but it is uncommon because talking about acts risks being creepy even in such settings.
7. Even if talk is about acts, the concept of consent is implied. Anyone who boasted about a non-consensual act would be utterly shunned.
8. I’ve never heard anyone talk like Trump did. Even in my non-PC circles, it would mark someone out as a creep, a loser & dangerous.

I agree with Matthew.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu writes:

Throughout my life, I have been fortunate to have spent my time working for dignity for the living. I have campaigned passionately for people in my country and the world over to have their God-given rights.

Now, as I turned 85 on Friday, with my life closer to its end than its beginning, I wish to help give people dignity in dying. Just as I have argued firmly for compassion and fairness in life, I believe that terminally ill people should be treated with the same compassion and fairness when it comes to their deaths.

Dying people should have the right to choose how and when they leave Mother Earth. I believe that, alongside the wonderful palliative care that exists, their choices should include a dignified assisted death.

Tutu has been a priest for 55 years, a Bishop for 40 years and Archbishop for 30 years.

Two years ago, I announced the reversal of my lifelong opposition to assisted dying in an op-ed in the Guardian. But I was more ambiguous about whether I personally wanted the option, writing: “I would say I wouldn’t mind.” Today, I myself am even closer to the departures hall than arrivals, so to speak, and my thoughts turn to how I would like to be treated when the time comes. Now more than ever, I feel compelled to lend my voice to this cause.

I believe in the sanctity of life. I know that we will all die and that death is a part of life. Terminally ill people have control over their lives, so why should they be refused control over their deaths? Why are so many instead forced to endure terrible pain and suffering against their wishes?

That is the crux. The current laws impose pain and suffering on people who wish to choose to be relieved of that pain and suffering.

Regardless of what you might choose for yourself, why should you deny others the right to make this choice? For those suffering unbearably and coming to the end of their lives, merely knowing that an assisted death is open to them can provide immeasurable comfort.

I welcome anyone who has the courage to say, as a Christian, that we should give dying people the right to leave this world with dignity. My friend Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has passionately argued for an assisted-dying law in Britain. His initiative has my blessing and support – as do similar initiatives in my home country, South Africa, throughout the United States and across the globe.

In refusing dying people the right to die with dignity, we fail to demonstrate the compassion that lies at the heart of Christian values. I pray that politicians, lawmakers and religious leaders have the courage to support the choices terminally ill citizens make in departing Mother Earth. The time to act is now.

Obviously I agree.

The Herald reports:

Act leader David Seymour has slammed comments made by an education union president – saying teacher stress has nothing to do with serious offending against children.

But Angela Roberts, president of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), says Seymour has misconstrued her comments – and probably done so deliberately.

Seymour today called on teachers to demand the resignation of Roberts, over comments made to Newshub on Friday.

“Inappropriate conduct can severely damage a child for life,” he said.

“Over the past three years 75 teachers have been investigated and 54 struck off, but the PPTA show no remorse, simply citing ‘stress’ and ‘bad decisions.'”

Roberts was quoted by Newshub for a story on the number of teachers censured and deregistered in the past three years, including for sexual misconduct, assault and sex abuse.

The report quoted Roberts as saying it was important for the Education Council to monitor the statistics for any trends.

“They may find that there is an increased trend of teachers who are suffering from significant stress, and some really poor decisions get made,” she told Newshub. …

Roberts told the Herald that Seymour had misconstrued those comments, perhaps deliberately.

They were made as part of a longer interview, and were about the wider issue of dealing with both disciplinary and competency matters, Roberts said.

“If what I had said was, teachers are under stress and they make poor decisions – if I had been referring to cases of serious misconduct, then, yes, that would be dismissive and inappropriate.

“But that wasn’t what I was referring to. I was talking about all cases of deregistration – there is a huge range. There is conduct, but there’s also competence. And I was talking about all cases referred to the council.

Maybe the full transcript of the interview could be released so we can ascertain whether or not the comments were around all deregistrations or misconduct.

Louise Upston said:

Minister for Women Louise Upston says she’s disappointed to see an increase in the gender pay gap.

The New Zealand Income Survey released today by Statistics New Zealand shows the gender pay gap is now 12 percent, up from 11.8 per cent in 2015.

“While it’s been encouraging to see a downwards trend in Gender Pay Gap figures over the past 17 years, this year’s result is disappointing.”

It would be good for there to be no gender pay gap, but we also need to compare apples with apples. What I think should be the focus is on people doing the same job getting the same pay. For example a female lawyer specialising in torts with five years experience should get paid the same as a male lawyer specialising in torts with five years experience. This doesn’t happen, and it would be good to have men and women paid the same for doing the same job.

But let us be careful about what we decry. Just as you could reduce income inequality by cutting the pay of the poorest by 10% (so long the the pay of the richest dropped by 12%), what does this increase from 11.8% to 12.0% gap mean?

In fact hourly earnings for women increased 3.6%. This is a good thing with inflation at just 0.4%.

Sure hourly earnings for men increased a smidgen more at 3.9%, but what would you rather have?

A – median earnings for women increase 1.5% and men increase 1.2% (closing gender gap)
B – median earnings for women increase 3.6% and men increase 3.9% (increasing gender gap)

Of course you might prefer an outcome of say 3.9% for women and 3.6% for men, but the point I am making is that the gender gap is not as important (to those on struggling incomes) as whether or not your income is rising in real terms. They’ve both important, but not equally important. Having men get a smaller increase than women, doesn’t help pay the bills.

Incidentally the gender gap of 12% is slightly lower than the 12.5% it was under Labour in 2008.

Fascinating to see the endorsements of the daily newspapers to date in the US.

111 newspapers have run an editorial to date, and their endorsements in order are:

• Hillary Clinton 90
• No-one 9
• Gary Johnson 6
• Not Donald Trump 6
• Donald Trump 0

Yep Trump has 0 out of 111 endorsements. And you might say well the media are all left leaning. Well let’s look at the 24 newspapers who endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. They have gone:

• Hillary Clinton 17
• Gary Johnson 3
• No-one 3
• Not Donald Trump 1
• Donald Trump 0

So not a single newspaper that endorsed Mitt Romney has endorsed Trump.

Cr Chris Milne writes on FB:

At the last meeting before the election the Wellington Regional Council has resolved to pay a “Living Wage”. Question: would you donate to a charity to assist the lower paid if you were told that 72% of your donation would be gobbled up in overheads? What if you were told that the government was applying a 72% tax on your donation? Here’s how it works. To pay a living wage you must gather funds via rates. Rates include GST, which gets paid to the government. Then the recipient of the wage pays PAYE, ACC and has their income support reduced due to the higher income (called “benefit abatement” in tax jargon).

Worked example:
$100 in rates rates
GST content: $13.04

Payment to Living Wage recipient therefore $86.96 from the $100 charged to ratepayers.

The recipient then has to pay PAYE, ACC and also suffers an abatement of their other income support (eg Working for Families).

Assumed 50%* abatement of $86.96 is $43.48.
PAYE and ACC of 18%* is $15.65

So, from the $100 taken in rates, the split is:

Central Govt: $13.04 + $43.48 + 15.65 = $72.20 = 72.2%
Living Wage recipient: $27.80 = 27.8%

So from the $100 charged to ratepayers to fund the Living Wage, $72.20 goes to Central Government.

So ratepayers are the loser.

A living wage is a very bad way to try and help families because it treats all families the same – the 16 year old first time employee living at home and the 50 year old parent of three paying a mortgage.

The best way to help families is through a targeted welfare system which takes into account their income, their number of children, their accommodation costs.

The Herald reports:

It will now be tougher for would-be migrants to gain residency under the skilled migrant and family sponsored categories.

Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse today announced that there would be fewer residence approvals planned for the next two years to 85,000-95,000, down from 90,000-100,000.

The number of points required for residence will also be raised from 140 to 160 points under the Skilled Migrant Category and the number of places for the capped family categories would be reduced to 2000 per year from 5500.

This is sensible, and even overdue. I’ve been saying for a while that I am very pro-immigration but the numbers we have are putting a strain on infrastructure. This will take the pressure off a bit.

It won’t have a huge impact as the overall net migration is influenced more by the fact fewer NZers are leaving, more Kiwis are returning and more Aussies are moving here. But it will help a bit.

Stuff reports:

The by-election in Mt Roskill to find a replacement MP for Phil Goff has been set down for December 3, Prime Minister John Key said.

It follows the former Labour leader’s win in the Auckland mayoralty.

“On the basis that Mr Goff resigns this week it is my intention that the by-election will be held on Saturday, December 3,” Key said.

Almost a waste to elect an MP for just nine months or so. The law currently allows no by-election if within six months of a general election. Maybe it should be if within 12 months?

Key reiterated that no sitting Government had ever won a by-election in a seat it did not already hold.

“So I think we need to accept that’s a bit tricky.”

But National would select a good candidate and it believed it had a “good story there” and would “give it a good go”.

Labour has already chosen Michael Wood as its candidate, and the Greens have announced they will not stand to lessen the chance of National winning the seat.

I look forward to Michael Wood campaigning on Labour’s Chinese surnames policy.

Stuff reports:

Former Wellington Tenths Trust chairman Sir Ngatata Love has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

His lawyer, Colin Carruthers QC immediately made an urgent application for Love to be released on bail while an appeal against the sentence is lodged. 

Justice Graham Lang took a short adjournment after delivering the sentence to find out when the Court of Appeal may be able to hear the application. When he resumed he rejected the appeal.

The disgraced Maori leader, aged 79, was found guilty of obtaining property by deception on September 1, following a trial in the High Court in Wellington in August. The charge carried a maximum sentence of seven years in prison.

This seems appropriate.

While he was entitled to a discount for his health, Justice Lang said the conditions could be managed in prison.

He granted Love an additional discount of nine months, giving a sentence of two years, six months in prison.

While Lang said it was in his power to grant Love an additional discount to take the sentence down to two years in prison, as an act of “mercy” he would not do so, as Love showed no remorse.

He read part of the victim impact statement from the Wellington Tenths Trust, which said the most important thing trustees and beneficiaries wanted was a full apology for what had happened, but Lang said he had seen no sign of this.

“I do not see any remorse for what has occurred,” Lang said, adding that during the trial he had seen no sign that Love had shown comprehension of his offending and its impact.

This is key. Love has not shown any remorse. He said he had done nothing wrong and blamed everyone else.

Danyl McL blogs on Helen Clark’s campaign for the UN Secretary-General:

Domestically the big winner in all this is Key, who got to demonstrate to a couple hundred thousand female swing-voters what a progressive, balanced women-leader-supporting, generally great guy he is. It’s conventional wisdom on the left that Key et al are morons, and the left is morally and intellectually superior, and I’m not sure how this squares with Key and his party constantly doing very smart things, and the left’s parties and leaders mostly, consistently being pretty dumb.

At least the left leadership is consistent!

But we have all those withering take-downs of neoliberalism and books on Gramsci! It’s almost as if we congratulate ourselves on metrics that have nothing to do with success in modern democratic contests.

Like going to Gaza to demonstrate solidarity!

Bernard Orsman looks at the three most likely contenders:

Penny Hulse 

Hulse has been deputy mayor to Len Brown for six years. She is a centre-left independent from West Auckland where she was deputy mayor to former Waitakere City Mayor Bob Harvey. …

Goff is expected to include Hulse in his inner circle with a senior role, but he will want to put plenty of distance between his council and the Brown-Hulse regime that has left trust with council’s performance at 15 per cent. Goff says this is a “fail”.

Choosing Hulse would make it look like business as usual.

Bill Cashmore 

Cashmore, a second-term councillor for the rural ward of Franklin, farmer and National Party member, is highly regarded by some of Goff’s advisers. …

Cashmore is also associated with Brown’s fiscal policies(he was the architect of transport levy that propelled rates rise to 9.9 per cent in 2015) and is easily captured by the bureaucrats.

“Bill is too much of a prefect and apologist for council management,” says one colleague.

The staff’s choice!

Desley Simpson

If Goff wants to be bold and rev up the Super City he will appoint Desley Simpson as his deputy.

Simpson offers the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward.

An early challenge for Goff’ will be to build a united team round the council table. If he wants to be a centrist mayor, Simpson can deliver the right to the table, and open doors at the highest levels of Government.

The risk is she might outshine Goff and pose a threat in three, or six years. Then again, she could be a bigger threat outside the tent.

I’d rather have Desley on my time working with me, than working against me!

The Herald reports:

World champion pole vaulter Shawnacy Barber was cleared to compete at the Rio Games after an arbitrator accepted claims he had accidentally ingested cocaine after kissing a woman he had solicited for sex on the internet.

Barber tested positive for cocaine after winning the Canadian Olympic trials. He was later cleared to compete in Rio where he finished 10th.

According to Deadspin, the decision was made by the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada two days prior to the beginning of the Olympics, but had only become public information today.

Barber stated he had posted on the casual encounter section on Craigslist, looking for a disease-free, “professional” woman to help ease stress ahead of the trials in Edmonton.

A man responded with a woman who Barber was told was a mother of two, which Barber liked as he believed that meant she would be “more cautious” and “reserved”.

The woman, who spoke at the hearing, had snorted cocaine prior to arriving at the hotel Barber was staying at, and again in the hotel bathroom upon arrival.

Heh, an unusual defence. I did not snort cocaine, the prostitute I hired did.

I wonder if they got any scientific evidence about whether you can get enough cocaine in your system from kissing, for it to show up?

A very good article from the Washington Post at Stuff. What especially got to me was:

Gannon tracked down the family’s neighbours.

Many agreed that he had “done the right thing.”

“I am proud of this man,” said one. “He has done the right thing to kill her. When the news spreads they will praise this man.”

Said another, Babar Ali: “I am proud of this man that he has done the right thing, to kill her. We cannot allow anyone to marry outside our religion. He did the right thing.”

Killing people for marrying outside the religion is barbaric. But so is supporting the death penalty for apostasy.

As for the father, Gannon said, he was the most reluctant to talk of all. When she showed up at his doorstep, he was preparing to leave Lahore for the village from whence he had come. He told Gannon his big regret was no longer having the small amount of money Rajhu brought in from his job and the notoriety, now, of his son and the family.

He had this to say: “My family is destroyed. Everything is destroyed only because of this shameful girl. Even after death I am destroyed because of her.”

So the father blames his daughter, not his son for killing her. You see where the son got it from.

Stuff reports:

A Sydney-style lockout law that bar owners feared would cripple Wellington’s nightlife has been rejected. 

Police and public health officials wanted the Wellington District Licensing Committee to impose a 3am lockout condition on Siglo bar, in Courtenay Place, which was applying to renew its 4am licence.

Police and bar owners have been anxiously awaiting the committee’s decision on what all sides regarded as a test case for the city licensing laws.

On Thursday it granted Siglo a 4am licence and rejected the one-way door condition, which would have prevented anyone entering or returning to the bar after 3am. Those already inside could have stayed until 4am.

The committee accepted that alcohol-related harm was a problem in Courtenay Place, but it was not satisfied a lockout would reduce that harm “by more than a negligible degree”.

This is a good outcome. As I have previously blogged the Police have been trying to usurp the powers of law makers and unilaterally determine licensing hours. Parliament voted against having a one way door condition policy and so did the Wellington City Council. But the Police has threatened license holders they they want them to agree to one, or have the Police object to their licence. That threat has been neutralised now by the Wellington District Licensing Committee.

This reinforces for me that the abuse of their powers by the Police should see a law change. Their role should be changed to merely reporting on how a license holder has complied with the law, rather than advocating what they think the hours should be.

Wellington area commander Inspector Chris Bensemann said the decision would be carefully reviewed before police decided whether to appeal. 

I doubt an appeal will be successful as the Police case has no evidence behind it at all.