An interesting site by Straterra about coal.

The burning of fossil fuels is driving climate change. All of us – collectively, globally, including the coal industry – face the challenge of reducing CO₂ emissions to stabilise average surface temperatures, as agreed by 195 countries (including New Zealand) in Paris in late 2015.

That’s the problem definition. How to do this is the hard part.

Fossil fuels currently provide 78% of global primary energy. Fossil fuels, including coal, remain the fuel of choice for many developed countries, and for developing countries where priorities are clearly aimed at raising standards of living rather than environmental cost.

Straterra, the industry association representing New Zealand’s minerals and mining sector, has created Let’s Talk About Coal to contribute to an informed debate on how we respond to climate change by reducing the effects of fossil fuel use in New Zealand, and globally.

This is the problem. Coal use does have to decline over time, but you can’t just turn off 78% of the world’s primary energy overnight.

Over the past 30 years, at least 650 million people have been lifted out of energy poverty, mostly in China where most are now connected to a largely coal-generated grid.

In the words of World Bank Vice President Rachel Kyte: “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty. It is energy that lights the lamp that lets you do your homework, that keeps the heat on in a hospital, that lights the small businesses where most people work. Without energy, there is no economic growth, there is no dynamism.”

The developed world can transition to renewables reasonably easily, as NZ has. But the developing world has a far tougher challenge.

Also of interest is how much coal is needed to make everyday products:

• 1100 kgs of coal to make one tonne of steel
• 1800 kgs of coal to make one tonne of tomatoes
• 1.5 kgs of coal to make one leg of beer
• 310 kgs of coal to make one tonne of salt
• 160 kgs of coal to make one tonne of cement

Stats NZ reports:

Median weekly earnings from paid employment rose $44, to reach $924, between the June 2015 and June 2016 quarters, Statistics New Zealand said today. This increase of 5.0 percent was the largest annual increase since the June 2007 quarter. Paid employment includes both wage and salary earners and self-employed people.

So we have inflation of just 0.4% and the average worker is earning 5% more than a year ago. Great.

We also have close to the strongest economic growth in the OECD, falling unemployment and the government accounts in surplus (again rare in the OECD).

Sure there are challenges, especially around housing, but my God New Zealand is looking so much better than almost everywhere else.

Green MP Marama Davidson has some great peaceful shipmates on board her feminist peace flotilla (of one ship!). Tablet Mag has details.

First we have Ola Abed who is a video game inventor. How cool. What does the game do? Encourage kids to shoot Israelis. You even get extra points for headshots!

We also have Norsham Abu Bakr who has said Israel is actually behind the Islamic terrorist attacks in Munich and Nice.

Wendy Goldsmith seems to thinks Israel was behind 9/11

And we also have Fauzia Hasan who has openly advocated banning Sisters in Islam, a Muslim women’s movement working for gender equality within the religion.

Surprised the Herald left this up on their Facebook page from several days ago:

Saying that the Jews deserved the Holocaust is close to as bad as you can get.

John Milford of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce writes:

World of Wearable Arts, Wellington on a Plate, Festival of the Arts, Rugby Sevens… they’re just some of heavyweights of the Wellington events scene that bring in hundreds of thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars.

They help make us the events capital of New Zealand. 

Not only do they each attract people in their own right, but together they encourage other events: the touring shows, the bands, and the one-offs that wouldn’t come here if we didn’t have a record of putting on a good night and selling-out a good show.

It’s hard to imagine Wellington without them. Year after year we enjoy them while acknowledging the huge spend they bring in.

There’s one ingredient they have in common – they all receive, in some form, ratepayer assistance, from either the city growth fund, the events development fund or Positively Wellington Tourism’s budget.

They’re all great things to have. And I’m not opposed to potential ratepayer assistance where there is a clear benefit to Wellington, but that is not enough by itself.

The first question has to be whether these events would occur without ratepayer assistance. Some like WOW could well go elsewhere while the Rugby Sevens probably would not. The Sevens location is more about the ability to get great crowds. Would we really have no Wellington on a Plate without ratepayer assistance?

We need people who will do a hard headed analysis of the business case for each, and the probability they would not occur without ratepayer assistance.

Exact payments aren’t disclosed.

Mostly this is because the council doesn’t want to give away even the slightest commercial advantage by letting competitors know what it’s prepared to pay to secure an event.

Oh sorry but crap. Is there another Sevens event that might negotiate? Plus publishing the amount paid could be great for attracting other events. They could say “Hey you were willing to pay $x for this event, we can do another event for $x-10”

At the end of the day ratepayers deserve to know. When central Government does similar deals, the amounts are published.

Anyway, most of us don’t care what is paid – we don’t ask because we know the benefits far outweigh the likely costs.

This attitude is why my business is not a member of the Chamber. Appalling to have a business leader argue businesses don’t care how much money is paid on their behalf.

Has the Chamber ever surveyed its members and ask them if they support secrecy around the corporate welfare?

For example, WoW drags in $20 million-plus for  two weeks’ work, while the Sevens once earned a little less than that in just three days.

So how can we judge that when we don’t know the level of subsidy? Also all these economic benefit cases assume the money spent on an activity would not have been spent otherwise. When in reality if you didn’t go to the Sevens, you might have gone out to dinner or a movie and spent money also.

Now when events get people from outside the region, you are creating a benefit for the region, but it is not as simple as calculating the total spent on an event and assuming it is all “benefit”.

So if we’re happy with spending undisclosed amounts on these events, why make a big thing about not disclosing the size of a marketing package to encourage a Singapore Airlines service between us, Canberra and Singapore?

Particularly when all events have the exactly the same aims and all have to meet an acceptable return on investment.

BECAUSE IT IS SECRET AND WE DON’T KNOW THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency is in no doubt as to the benefits of the air service, saying it “will boost visitor numbers…opens doors for more investment, international student attraction, a faster route to market for local fresh food producers and increased connectivity for business travellers.” 

Actually according to the Council no external advice was sought on the benefits. They just took whatever the Airport said as gospel.

If it is such a good deal, then publish the numbers. Tell us how much is being subsidised, and publish the report calculating the benefits so it can be independently scrutinised.

The chamber is always first to speak up when there’s an issue around transparency of spending ratepayer money.

Really? You seem to a a cheerleader for secrecy at the moment.

We’ve made it our mission to keep a close eye on this, and the council will get no change from us if something smells.

How do you know if it smells when you don’t know the amount being spent, don’t know the estimate of the value, and the Council itself says there is no documentation at all.

And the Singapore Airlines deal, which connects us directly to the world and is worth an estimated $95 million a year, may never have got off the ground.

How do you know it is worth $95 million a year? A lobbyist has told you so. Have you seen any independent verification of this? Has there been a public report that could be scrutinised for its assumptions?

There’s an old saying – if it is too good to be true, then it is. The notion than you can get a $95 million a year benefit for $800,000 falls into that.

Wellington needs a business lobby that is a watchdog, not a cheerleader, for secret Council spending.

An interesting profile of Nick Leggett by Guyon Espiner in The Listener:

Just before 7pm on a wet Wednesday in August, the doors close on a wood-panelled room at the back of a central city restaurant. Inside are some of the leading lights of the left. They’ve held leadership positions and Cabinet posts. They’ve been chiefs of staff and speechwriters, strategists, hellraisers and fundraisers. …

Over the next few hours, the table talk buzzes around but returns to a common theme. The Labour people in this room see themselves as more electable than the ones in the caucus room. They think Little has veered too far left, are scathing of the relationship with the Greens and think Labour is heading over the cliff for a fourth consecutive defeat.

As the evening wears on and the beer and wine loosen the lips, it becomes more and more obvious: they see themselves as the Mainstream Labour Party in Exile and, tonight at least, their champion is Nick Leggett. He may be standing for mayor of Wellington, but having resigned from Labour, he’s also sending his old party a message: this is what Labour might look like if it actually wanted to win.

I know lots and lots of former staffers, and even MPs, who are distressed with the direction Labour has gone in, and the state it is in.

The Utopian Strand, Leggett says with a sigh. It sounds like a young-adult dystopian novel, but according to Leggett, it’s the dominant faction of the Labour Party right now. It’s May when we first meet for this story and Leggett has recently announced his departure from Labour after 20 years of membership.

“There’s the Utopian Strand and the Pragmatists. I fit into the Pragmatists, but it’s a much smaller group now,” he explains. “The Utopians are quite happy to sit in Opposition and have their positions validated by a small echo chamber on social media and in activist groups. They don’t really seem interested in the much harder task of actually building a plank for government.”

He identifies another closely related strand. “The Hate John Key Movement. They have failed to impress for eight years. They need to say why they are better than John Key and why they have got ideas that are more compelling.” He sees Labour’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a classic example of caving in to bloggers and tweeters rather than preparing for government. “If you are arguing from a perspective that says, ‘Yep, we are thinking about when we are in government’, their stance was wrong. I think that we should be a free-trading nation.”

Very few supporters of free trade left in Labour. Clark gone, Goff going, Shearer on the outer. Jones gone.

Leggett says these kinds of positions have led to the exit of almost all of the business-friendly MPs, including Shane Jones, Phil Goff and Clayton Cosgrove. Others have been marginalised, such as David Shearer, who was sanctioned by Little for his support of the TPP, and Nash, who has been refused permission to speak at Leggett’s dinner.

The treatment of Nash – who scored a rare Labour win in the provinces in 2014 – particularly alarms him. “Labour is dead outside the main centres now. It’s just not on the radar of provincial areas,” he says. “Labour dropped to 25% last election and Stuart Nash won Napier, but he’s not held up as a champion. In fact, you are viewed with suspicion if you win votes.”

You’d think they’d see those who can win seats such as Nash and Davis as role models.

Leggett says that mentality leads to an unrealistic election strategy. “These are people who think they can get into government with 32% of the vote. When Helen Clark lost, Labour got 34%, so they are not even close. I want to be part of a movement that says: we are a 40%-plus party and we are taking New Zealand with us. We don’t want to be part of a two- or three-headed coalition. We want to be the leader.”

Labour now thinks 30% in a poll is a great result. National thinks 50% is a great result.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Leader of the Opposition is calling for an overhaul of the country’s sentencing laws.

Labour Leader Andrew Little is pushing for changes around rules for discharge without conviction, to stop violent offenders from qualifying for the sentence.

It follows recent high profile judicial decisions such as that of Wellington rugby player Losi Filipo, who was let off after assaulting four people.

Mr Little said he’s not sure that was intended by Parliament when it passed sentencing laws.

“And it looks to me like there needs to be a clarification that has to come from parliament indicating when discharges without conviction are not to be used.”

I’d be quite happy to have violent and sexual offences removed from eligibility for a discharge without conviction.

This does mean of course that if say a Labour MP assaulted someone and faced a charge with a maximum penalty of more than two years, would be ineligible to get a discharge without conviction and would be automatically expelled from Parliament if found guilty.

Stuff reports:

Tauranga City Council has decided the New Year’s Eve tradition on Mount Main Beach will end.

The decision was made on Tuesday, with the council opting instead for a youth-focused event at ASB Arena.

This comes after increased concern around public safety at the council-organised events over the past three years.

Council said the event did not provide a safe environment for residents and visitors and has become financially unsustainable.

The NYE party place for two generations of teens. I doubt they will all now stay at home watching TV on NYE. I suspect other locales will become party central.

I recall one NYE where I was sitting with someone under a tree and then stood up directly into an overhanging branch that knocked me to the ground and I basically passed out for a minute or so. But then felt fine (alcohol is a good anesthetic) After I parted ways with my acquaintance, I decided to walk back to the house a group of us were staying in.

I got the odd stare walking home and it was only when I got home did someone say “What the hell happened to you”. I said “nothing”, why. They then told me to look in the mirror and I did, and I looked like a victim of Sweeney Todd with blood all over my face and neck and chest. It seems my head butting the branch had cut my head but I was sufficiently umm lubricated that I didn’t notice.

The Economist writes:

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%.

Free trade benefits the poor the most as it makes goods more affordable.

The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.

Jobs are good, but not at any cost.

I blogged last month about how former Fairfax columnist Rachel Stewart tweeted on how she want to meet me in a dark alley and break my legs. She even emphasized she was in no way joking.

At the time I blogged I described her as a Fairfax columnist as she had been, and there had been no public notification of any change of status. I had a senior staffer at Fairfax ring me up and tell me she’d done her last column three days earlier, and no longer worked for them. I got the strong impression that if she was still a columnist for them, they would find her threats of violence incompatible. They were very keen for me to emphasize that she was a former columnist.

So what happens two weeks after I have highlighted how Stewart publicly made violent threats towards me. The fucking NZ Herald hires her as a columnist.  It is fair to say I am disgusted with the Herald and God help me if they ever get sanctimonious about threats of violence again. I’m someone who has had death threats against me, has had to go the Police previously about them, and in one case even seek a non-contact order through the courts. Threats of violence do do damage – even if not carried out.

To make it absolutely clear I have absolutely no problem with the Herald hiring Stewart because of her views. The media should have a diversity of opinion in their columns. My objection is purely that just two weeks after she threatens violence, they hire her – knowing what she has done, and knowing she has been totally unapologetic about it.

And no I am not calling for the Herald to sack her. The damage is already done – mainly to their reputation. I don’t want people to contact the Herald and complain. I just want people to remember their hypocrisy.

The Herald reports:

Auckland electoral officer Dale Ofsoske is calling for online voting to increase participation at local body elections.

Latest figures show just 18.2 per cent of votes have been returned in the region so far.

That’s slightly higher than the last election, but down from the election in 2010.

Today, Ofsoske said online voting would be a good solution to increase the voter turnout, particularly among young people.

He said there was a push this year to re-engage with young people, whose lives revolved around technology. He favours using both online and postal voting.

Postal voting is a dying medium, It was fine 20 years ago when people would post letters several times a week. Now the average under 40 uses the post office maybe two or three times a year at most.

Even the PM has said he hasn’t voted yet as he was still looking for a postbox.

We don’t need online voting for parliamentary elections as turnout there is high, and it is important enough for people to go to a polling place to vote.

But only allowing postal voting for local body elections is bad for democracy.

Eight councils put up their hand for online voting, but the initiative was canned by the Government in April because of security issues.

At the time, Associate Local Government Minister Louise Upston said: “Given real concerns about security and vote integrity, it is too early for a trial.

I disagreed with this decision. The DIA working group (which I was on) found a trial was viable. Postal voting is in fact far more insecure than Internet voting. E-voting is not about having a computer that can be hacked determine the winner. It is merely allowing people to send their ballot paper to the returning officer over the Internet – something that overseas voters can already do.

Stuff reports:

Green Party MP Marama Davidson is being detained by Israeli authorities in international waters near Gaza, according to reports.

Davidson left New Zealand last month to join the Women’s Peace Flotilla, intended to highlight the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Kia Ora Gaza, part of the NZ Palestine Solidarity Network, said Israeli defence forces had illegally intercepted the boat in international waters, forcing it off course.

“Early this morning all contact with the Zaytouna-Oliva was lost and the Israeli Occupation Navy has illegally surrounded it in international waters.”

Davidson and her comrades did this, explicitly so they would get detained and get the PR stunt they are after.

The blockade has been found to be legal by a UN investigative committee chaired by our own Sir Goeffrey Palmer as a state has a right to self-defence. They found:

Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza … The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.

The Greens talk all the time about the UN and international law. Yet they have an MP taking part in a stunt designed to break a blockade deemed legal under international law. Such hypocrisy.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said the Israelis needed to swiftly release Davidson and the rest of the crew, as well as ending the illegal blockade of Gaza.

Again it is not illegal.

Before leaving for Gaza, Davidson said she wanted to draw attention to the role of women in keeping their communities afloat, “particularly in post-conflict situations”.

Maybe Davidson could highlight how terribly women are treated in Gaza by Hamas such as banning them riding motor scooters with men, banning them from marathons and tried to get them to need a male escort to go outside.

The Telegraph reports:

She added: “Countries including Canada, China, India, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea have already told us they would welcome talks on future free trade agreements.  And we have already agreed to start scoping discussions on trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand.

That’s good news. Australia and NZ may be first to do an FTA with the UK.

Hopefully it could be a true FTA. We agree they can sell anything they like to us with no quotas or tariffs, and they agree we can sell anything we want to them.

Radio NZ reported:

Mr Little has called the National-led government cowardly for refusing to accept the Children’s Commissioner’s challenge to reduce child poverty rates by ten percent by the end of next year.

He told Morning Report he accepted there were 150,000 children with material deprivation and said he was committed to tackling that.

He said most children would receive an extra $60 a week in their first year as part of Labour’s policy to end child poverty.

Seemed a pretty clear statement to me.

Then the next day:

Labour leader Andrew Little has had to clarify Labour’s child poverty policies after he appeared to recommit to the party’s 2014 policy of $60 a week payments for newborn babies.

Little was asked how Labour would address child poverty on Radio NZ and referred three times to the Best Start policy as an example of how Labour would lift incomes.

Asked whether Labour would increase benefits, Little said yes describing Best Start as “a benefit for children.”

He has since denied he was recommitting to the policy for 2017, saying those policies were yet to be announced.

“I haven’t committed to it, I committed to measures for poverty alleviation. I referred to our 2014 policy and said part of the package has to be income related policy, but I didn’t specifically say we were going to do Best Start all over again.”

Another backtrack. Says one thing to one audience and another thing later.

Labour’s best start policy is very expensive ($500 million a year) and would see taxpayers paying more in taxes so welfare can be paid to families earning up to $150,000 a year. It is a hugely expensive middle class welfare bribe, rather than something targeted at lower income working families.

Stuff reports:

Helen Clark’s bid for the top job at the United Nations has finally been sunk, with the Security Council unanimously endorsing another candidate.

In the sixth straw poll for the UN secretary-general position, former Portugese prime minister Antonio Guterres was announced as the winner, with a formal endorsement “by acclamation” to take place on Friday (NZ time).

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin made the announcement to reporters surrounded by ambassadors from the 14 other council nations after they held their sixth informal poll of the 10 candidates behind closed doors.

Guterres received 13 “encourage” votes and two “no opinions” from the 15 members of the UN Security Council, giving him an unassailable lead.

Clark herself received six “encourage” votes, eight “discourages” and one “no opinion”, with three vetoes used against her by the Security Council’s five permanent members.

Guterres led every ballot. He is not Eastern European, so the tradition of regional rotation has now broken down which is good.

My guess for the three P5 members against Clark are US, France and Russia.

The final voting was:

1. Guterres 13-0
2. Jeremic 7-6 (3 P5 against)
3. Lajcak 7-6 (2 P5 against)
4. Bokova 7-7 (2 P5 against)
5. Clark 6-8 (3 P5 against)
6. Malcorra 5-7 (1 P5 against)
7. Turk 5-8 (4 P5 against)
8. Georgieva 5-8 (2 P5 against)
9. Kerim 5-9 (3 P5 against)
10. Gherman 3-11 (3 P5 against)

So Clark ended up with her best rating on the final ballot.

Guterres has yet to be formally nominated by the SC and then endorsed by the General Assembly, but that is a formality.

Chris Cillizza does winner and losers:

Winners

* Mike Pence: From the very beginning, Pence was the more comfortable of the two men on the debate stage. Pence repeatedly turned to the camera when he answered questions, making clear he understood that the real audience wasn’t in the room but watching on TV. The Indiana governor was calm, cool and collected throughout — a stark contrast to the fast-talking (and seemingly nervous) Kaine. Did Pence respond to Kaine’s dozens of attacks on Donald Trump? Only sort of.  What Pence seemed to be doing was making the case for Pence-ism, a, dare I say it, compassionate conservatism — a case for Pence 2020 or 2024. Regardless, Trump will very much take it, as Pence’s performance will offer a reset of sorts for a campaign that is scrambling badly due to self-inflicted wounds from the nominee. Win or lose next month, Pence did himself real good in the eyes of the Republican world on Tuesday night.

Losers

* Tim Kaine: Someone must have told the Virginia senator he needed to always be on his front foot in the debate, always be the aggressor. It didn’t work. Kaine started the debate talking so quickly and trying to load so many Trump attacks into every answer that it made it virtually impossible to grasp any one attack. In the middle of the debate, Kaine seemed to relax into it — delivering an effective attack on Trump’s comments on women. But that Kaine was the exception, not the rule. When he wasn’t trying to stuff 10 pounds of attack in a five-pound bag in his answers, he was relentlessly interrupting Pence.  Every single time Pence started to level an attack against Hillary Clinton, Kaine immediately began to talk over him. I’m not sure if that was on purpose or not, but it didn’t come across well — at all. One glaring example: As Pence was recounting his personal experience on Sept. 11, 2001, Kaine interrupted to say, “I was in Virginia.” Um, okay. Not a good look.

Kaine was far far too aggressive, but also robotic. He just had a series of pre-planned lines he tried to keep repeating.

Alan Duff writes:

According to Maori lecturer Steve Elers, the name of his university – Massey – should be changed because back in history Prime Minister William Massey was a racist who believed in the superiority of the white race, had a particular dislike for Chinese and no doubt looked down on Maori.

The alleged “white supremacist” of the early 20th Century is being judged by present-day views. Not only does Mr Elers want to revise history, he wants to reverse it. Come on, mate. When would it stop? Different Maori war chiefs, pre-European and post, believed their tribes were superior to others and went out attacking other tribes all over the land. (It wasn’t a country then.) Should we toss them into the hall of shame? The planned slaughters spared none: not women, not children, not the elderly. Nor were any necessarily spared being eaten or being taken as slaves to be later eaten. It’s all right, Mr Elers, they are my tupuna too. However, I don’t judge them for doing what was perfectly normal back then.

Two great fighting chiefs’ names come to mind: Hongi Hika and Te Rauparaha. Our national sports teams perform a haka composed by Te Rauparaha. Hongi’s name lives on in Hongi’s Track, the place his men dragged their canoes through the forest between lakes Rotoehu and Rotoiti, thence onto Lake Rotorua. He slaughtered and ate and enslaved many of my Te Arawa ancestors. But that’s all right, Hongi. It’s what went down in your day. Are we not, each generation, of the times we live in?

This is a good point. If we are to judge politicians from 100 to 150 years ago based on today’s standards, should the same apply to Maori leaders?

My Maori ancestors kept and ate slaves. My Pakeha ancestors, somewhere along the line, may have traded slaves; or as slave overseers dished out brutal punishment. They too murdered enemy women and children in battle, took part in torture practices and as well participated in unjust acts against innocents.

Both lots did what was normal in their time. We have no right to look back and judge them by our standards.

The key is to judge them on the entirety of what they did, not just one aspect. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson beyond doubt were forces for great good in the world. They were also slave owners.

In my day kids were leather-strapped – hard – on the hands by our primary school teachers. At high school they used the cane. One principal caned me so violently my shorts and undies were stuck to my rumps by blood. (I deserved it.) Is that generation to be revisited and any tributes and painted portraits in school assembly halls taken down, their names deleted from history because they did what was normal in their time: inflicted violence upon children? Taking out of generational context makes all of them guilty.

Also a good point. Every former principal will be seen as a brute by today’s standards.

The Daily Mirror reports:

Newborn babies are being kept in cardboard boxes due to Venezuela’s healthcare crisis, an opposition party claims.

Heartbreaking images were posted online by Mesa de la Unidad Democratica today showing dozens of tiny infants lined up in makeshift cots.

Each is wrapped in a blanket in half a cardboard box with their medical notes sellotaped to the front on a piece of paper.

So sad.

Amy Adams announced some minor changes to the Electoral Act. They include:

• Allowing electoral officials to use an online electronic roll look up and roll mark off
  function in voting places to enable real-time checking of voters’ enrolment status in
  polling places;
• Allowing the Electoral Commission to investigate a new approach to advance vote
  counting, including bringing forward the start time for the counting of advance votes from
  2.00pm to 9.00am on election day, the location of the count, and the use of technology,
  given the increasing number of advance votes;
• Extending the current exemption from electioneering on election day for party
  headquarters signage to any members’ fixed parliamentary signage on an electorate
  office;
• Enabling all submissions regarding objections to proposed electoral boundaries, to be
  made available online, instead of the current requirement to produce a summary of all
  submissions;
• Prohibiting campaigning and the display of campaign material within, and within 10m of,
  Advance Voting Places (AVPs) and with discretion for the Electoral Commission to
  reduce this for any voting place if it is impractical;
• Removing references to the historical separation of services between the Chief Electoral
  Office, the Electoral Enrolment Centre and the Electoral Commission;
• Providing that the date from which hoardings can be erected be “Saturday-ised” by
  making the start date for this 9 weeks prior to the polling day for a General election;
• Clarifying section 199A (publishing false statements) to cover material first published or actively republished, promoted or distributed on election day or the two preceding days.

All sensible stuff which will help. But a great pity they are not doing more significant reform such as removing the Police as the prosecuting authority for electoral offence.

A group of philosophers and bioethicists had a nice junket in Switzerland where they decided on some ethical guidelines for doctors to follow. The august gathering included someone from Otago University.

A couple of interesting aspects:

Healthcare practitioners who wish to conscientiously object to providing medical treatment should be required to explain the rationale for their decision.

Sounds like a board of inquisition.

The status quo regarding conscientious objection in healthcare in the UK and several other modern Western countries is indefensible. Healthcare practitioners can conscientiously refuse access to legally available, societally accepted, medically indicated and safe services requested by patients in practice for any reason. This is in part due to the cost-free environment in which practitioner choice of service occurs, and in which the practitioner bears no substantive burden of proof. The burden of proof to demonstrate the reasonability and the sincerity of the objection should be on the healthcare practitioners.

So a Catholic doctor against abortion shouldn’t be allowed to decline to do abortions, just because of their beliefs.

Accordingly, in such countries, the reasons healthcare practitioners offer for their conscientious objection could be assessed by tribunals, which could test the sincerity, strength and the reasonability of healthcare practitioners’ moral objections to certain medical services.

God, it is like the Spanish Inquisition.

Healthcare practitioners who are exempted from performing certain medical procedures on conscientious grounds should be required to compensate society and the health system for their failure to fulfil their professional obligations by providing public-benefitting services.

What terrible arrogant language. Require practitioners to compensate society because they may not wish to do abortions, or take part in euthanasia.

I’m 100% pro-choice and pro-euthanasia, but do not think any healthcare practitioner should be forced to provide a treatment against their conscience, let alone have to justify themselves to a tribunal and do penance to compensate society.

The Guardian reports:

Theresa May has given her strongest indication yet that the UK’s exit from the EU will lean towards a “hard Brexit”, suggesting that regaining control of immigration was more important than access to the single market.

Addressing the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the prime minister also promised that all EU workers’ rights would remain protected for as long as she was in power.

Controlling immigration would be the key basis for departure, May said. The government would seek access to the EU’s single market if possible, she said, adding: “But let me be clear. We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.”

So they want control of their borders and their law making ability. Not unreasonable.

Controlling immigration would be the primary concern, May said: “We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully independent, sovereign country. We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws.”

It will be fascinating to see what sort of arrangement they come to, with the EU. I suspect the EU will play hard ball, but neither side will be negotiating from a position of great strength.

Earlier on Sunday, May promised to trigger article 50 before the end of March 2017, having also announced plans for a “great repeal bill” to incorporate all EU regulations in UK law as soon as Brexit takes effect.

So on Brexit day no law will change, but afterwards the UK Parliament can make changes.

A guest post by a reader:

Working in the public sector I hear much of the management-speak employees are meant to listen to like ‘customer focused’, ‘intelligence led’, ‘pro-active’, ‘focus on the greatest harm’, etc, etc. The public sector is also meant to be making it as easy as possible for the population to comply with the various rules and regulations they are subject to.

You would pretty much have to be a hermit not to have noticed that there has been much debate recently about ever increasing house prices and who is responsible. You might have noticed that investors make up a high proportion of property buyers in some areas like Auckland, where the average house price has topped $1 million – which makes for a very hefty mortgage and large tax deductions. You might also have noticed that the Reserve Bank is imposing a 60% limit on the amount investors may borrow against a property. However, that won’t stop investors borrowing 100% of the purchase price by also using equity they have in another property.

Does IRD have any problem with property investors borrowing 100% of a property’s purchase price and claiming all the interest payments, even when they are paying $1 million for a property returning only about $600 a week in rent? This strongly suggests the property has been purchased with the intention of resale as I pointed out previously https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/08/guest_post_minsky_the_property_market_and_ird_failing_to_properly_tax_landlords.html.

We don’t know if IRD has any concerns about negative gearing because they haven’t made any comment about investors borrowing heavily to buy into the overheated property market. There is little on IRD’s website to give investors guidance apart from the simplistic advice that it all depends on intention at the time of purchase – was the property purchased with an intention of resale? Surely pointing to something more concrete and verifiable would make it easier to ensure property tax provisions are compiled with?

Intention by itself is exceptionally difficult to prove. The property tax ‘intention provision’ is therefore very difficult to enforce. IRD spends a lot of money in ‘an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ sort of fashion trying to police it. The Minister of Revenue informed me a few months ago that Budget 2015 provided IRD with a further $29 million for property tax compliance and enforcement, taking its total budget for work in this area to $62 million. This was expected to generate around $420 million of additional tax assessed over the following five years.

While the payback on IRD’s property tax policing seems reasonable, the fact so much money has to be spent on enforcement and compliance with a few, very short property tax provisions should ring alarm bells! The huge spending suggests particularly poor guidance is being provided to taxpayers and/or the law itself fails nearly all the tests of good tax policy. Ideally, tax law should be simple, certain and equitable.

While the property tax intention provision is certainly simple – it contains only a few words – it is certainly not certain or equitable. There is no certainty at all that a property purchased with the intention of resale will actually be taxed on the likely gain on sale – particularly if it was purchased by a property investor and rented out for a while. How would IRD ever prove the intention?

The intention provision is certainly not equitable because only the unlucky and silly are likely to ever be caught by it. Meanwhile, many other property investors buying expensive real estate with borrowed money will claim large tax losses to reduce their tax bill only to sell the property a few years later for a tax-free capital gain!

I wonder if IRD is too scared to limit the losses that can be claimed by negatively geared property investors or at least give some guidance that the negative gearing will be taken as an intention of resale? Or is IRD just not paying any attention to what is going on in the real world because it is asleep at the wheel?