Stuff reports:

A racially-charged debate is igniting over research that has revealed “white supremacist” comments made by the prime minister Massey University is named after.

Now, almost a century on, a top academic is calling for the university to consider a name change.

The controversial call comes from Massey lecturer and recent PhD scholar Steve Elers, who was startled to uncover blatantly racist comments made by William Ferguson Massey.

A farmer and entrepreneur, Massey was prime minister of New Zealand between 1912 and his death in 1925. The then Massey Agricultural College was founded in 1926 and named after him.

Elers of Ngati Kauwhata, said he was surprised to discover Massey’s beliefs, during his research into Maori representation in newspapers.

He presented the findings at a talk on the Manawatu campus on Wednesday, challenging the institution to consider the symbolism of using Massey’s name.

Some of Massey’s quotes presented included: “New Zealanders are probably the purest Anglo-Saxon population in the British Empire. Nature intended New Zealand to be a white man’s country, and it must be kept as such”; and, “I am not a lover or admirer of the Chinese race. I should be one of the very first to insist on very drastic legislation to prevent them coming here in any numbers, and I am glad such is not the case.”

During Massey’s lifetime many people freely expressed views considered unacceptable today, Elers said. However, any justification that his comments were made “a long time ago” and in another context was “irrelevant”.

Context is everything. Judging people off their beliefs 100 years ago will find 99.9% of the population unworthy. It’s ridiculous.

In 100 years no doubt someone like Elers will demand that a university named after Barack Obama be renamed because Obama started his presidency opposed to same sex marriage.

Victoria University head of history, associate professor Jim McAloon, said there should be a “fairly high threshold” for an institutional name change, but the good and bad should be remembered together.

“If we only memorialise the perfect we’re not going to have anyone to memorialise.

Exactly.

Rather, let us debate the lives and legacies of those who are memorialised and ensure that memorials represent the breadth of our history.”

Much more sensible.

Queen Victoria no doubt had some terrible views in the 1800s by today’s standards. We must rename VUW also! And I am sure Lord Auckland and the Duke of Wellington said some awful things – so let’s rename these cities too.

Stuff reports:

Dame Patsy Reddy has been officially sworn in as New Zealand’s 21st governor-general at a ceremony in Wellington.

Hundreds of people, including film-makers Sir Peter Jackson and Reddy’s former neighbour James Cameron, were at Parliament’s grounds on Wednesday morning.

Reddy, who succeeds Sir Jerry Mateparae, accepted the Rakau Tapu ceremonial challenge and was welcomed to the ceremony.

She and husband Sir David Gascoigne then met with mana whenua for hongi, several short haka and met Prime Minister John Key.

Pomp and ceremony continued as she moved to the saluting base, receiving a general salute from the Royal Guard of Honour and was then sworn in.

The formalities continued with Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias administering the affirmation of allegiance and affirmation of office.

Later, Reddy, 62, inspected the Royal Guard in front of Parliament.

Key then addressed the ceremony. He said governors-general in recent years had better reflected New Zealand’s diversity.

The first New Zealand-born governor-general was not sworn in until in 1967. 

Reddy said she was happy to have been approached about the job. “I want to encourage greater diversity in our leadership,” she said.

“When the prime minister first asked me if I would consider being New Zealand’s 21st governor-general, he pointed out that the role would provide me with a unique opportunity to make a worthwhile and lasting contribution to New Zealand and the lives of New Zealanders.

“That was a challenge that I could not easily ignore.”

The national anthem was played, while the air force band also played Pokarekare Ana, understood to be Reddy’s choice, and the New Zealand Opera Chorus sang Hine e Hine. 

In her new role, Reddy is commander-in-chief of New Zealand’s armed forces and the Queen’s representative in the Realm of New Zealand, which includes Niue, Tokelau, the Cook Islands and the Ross Dependency in Antarctica. 

Reddy thanked her husband, whom she called her “confidant and adviser”.

The new governor-general also thanked other family members, friends, and previous governors.

She made special mention of immediate predecessor Mateparae, and Dames Cath Tizard and Silvia Cartwright, New Zealand’s first and second female governors-general.

She approached her role with “some trepidation, but also enthusiasm”, she said, after spending about six months preparing for it.

Cameron told NZME that Reddy was an “astonishingly talented and competent woman”.

“We got to be quite chummy … She has got a big vision of what she can do as governor-general.

“She has done a good job with everything she has ever done, and she has done an awful lot of things.”

Dame Patsy is out 21st Governor-General, or our 36th if you include the Governors also. She becomes our effective head of state, representing the Queen.

Vernon Small writes:

Even if things should fall apart, it seems the centre cannot hold Labour leader Andrew Little’s interest.

In a strangely intense rejection of Helen Clark’s suggestion that parties on the left must “command the centre ground” to win elections, Little dismissed the idea as “meaningless” and “a pretty hollow view”.

Strange, because it is truism. Winning power requires 50 per cent plus one of the voters – and Mr 50 and Mrs 51 are by definition in the centre.

No NCEA achieved grade for Little.

He may even have been worried his own insiders would take “centrism” as an abandonment of his mandate.

As he explains it, he is constructing a “coalition of constituencies” ahead of next year’s election. It is one that transcends simplistic Left and Right, but is focused on some salient issues, such as health, housing, inequality and the needs of small business.

But whatever the explanation, it seems odd that Little would allow himself to be seen as offside, or peeved, with Clark’s view.

Publicly slapping down her advice was stupid. What he should have said is “Yes I agree which is why we are targeting the aspiring home owners who have been locked out of the housing market and families who have been locked out of the education system etc etc”

Beyond the altruistic reasons for seeking a top slot for a Kiwi on the world stage, it is unlikely Key will be blind to the domestic advantages for him.

Clark was, after all, popular with many a centrist and women voter in her time and still commands respect. Showing magnanimity towards her can hardly harm his prospects of a fourth term – and might well improve it.

Which underscores just how odd it was that Little would distance himself from her comments – especially when the UN secretary-general vote is coming to a head.

Was basically just bizarre.

Politico reports:

In a stunning reversal, a large majority of Republicans are repudiating their party’s traditional support for free trade, and falling sharply in line with nominee Donald Trump’s insistence that trade costs Americans more jobs than it creates.

Meanwhile, Democrats, whose representatives in Congress have traditionally been far more skeptical of trade deals — and largely voted against giving President Barack Obama the “fast-track” authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership last year — are now far more apt than Republicans to see the benefit of trade, according to an exclusive poll conducted for POLITICO and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Forty-seven percent of Republicans surveyed said that trade deals have hurt their communities over the last 10 years, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic voters. Only 18 percent of Republicans surveyed said that trade deals helped, while 33 percent of Democrats believe free trade helps.

Sadly I’d say this kills off TPP.

Fast track authority only got through with massive Republican support. Trump has led the GOP to abandon a belief in trade being good, and this climate will mean even in the lame duck period, there will not be votes for TPP.

Time for the rest of the world to give up on the US as a lost cause, and let’s focus on expanding TPP to China and even India.

Trade has “gone from the gold standard to being something that’s bad,” Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s former chief strategist, told POLITICO. “I think it’s a disaster across the board for the Republican Party, because you’re betting against all these trends [in globalization] that are not going to stop.”

Yep.

The ODT reports:

University of Otago staff and students protested against cuts to the  humanities division during a visit by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English yesterday.

Mr English was met by about 70 people, many holding signs with slogans calling for the Government to stop staff cuts,  when he visited the campus to give a talk to commerce students.

In August, humanities pro-vice-chancellor Prof Tony Ballantyne announced plans to cut jobs in  anthropology and archaeology, English and linguistics, history, languages and cultures, and music.

The cuts were necessary because of a decline in the division’s roll since 2010, Prof Ballantyne said.

So fewer students are deciding to do a humanities degree, which of course means fewer staff are needed. This is not surprising, and is how it works. But somehow the precious few at Otago think it is the Government’s fault and that Bill English somehow is to blame.

Radio NZ reports:

NZ On Air is shaking up the way it spends public money on programmes. Mediawatchlooks at why the government’s broadcasting funding agency is making the change, and the potential pitfalls in the proposal.

Last weekend, Fairfax Media published a major investigation into racism in the justice system. At the heart of it was a 20 minute video for the stuff.co.nz website by journalists Paula Penfold and Eugene Bingham and videographer Toby Longbottom.

Just last year, all three were producing similar work for TV3’s prime time current affairs show 3D. NZ On Air funding supported the show’s journalism, but TV3 canned the programme because it didn’t attract enough viewers and advertising.

Traditional TV fare shifting online like this is one of the reasons NZ On Air is adopting a “platform agnostic” attitude and – as announced today – planning a move to a single public media fund.

Research on viewing habits commissioned by NZ On Air has shown New Zealanders – especially the young – are increasing going online for their screen time, using on-demand services like Netflix, Lightbox, Neon and YouTube.  

In the past, NZ On Air sought to ensure the public got bang for its bucks by ring-fencing most money for programmes screened by mass-audience free-to-air TV broadcasters such as TV3, TVNZ and Prime.

The proposed new NZ Media Fund will instead create four new streams – factual, scripted, music and platforms – which will mean television loses its place as the centre of gravity.

NZ On Air will still send big budgets to free-to-air broadcasters for TV shows, but online and on-demand services will also be able to bid for money to make a wider range of content.

In principle this is a good idea. If we are to have taxpayer funded content, then it shouldn’t be focused on broadcast media only. So this is sensible.

However as more diverse platforms emerge, it is important to have transparency over how many people view something funded by the taxpayer. Ratings are not the only criteria (as the point of funding is to help produce NZ content that may not be commercially viable) but it is important to understand how many people actually viewed something.

I’d like to see NZ on Air report annually (or more often) on every show funded by them, and including:

1. Total contribution from NZ on Air
2. Number of viewers (broadcast, streaming, online, download etc)
3. Cost per viewer

The Dom Post editorial:

It is extraordinary that Wellington City Council’s chief executive could give large sums to an airline and leave almost no record about it. Kevin Lavery’s decision might mean as much as $8m for Singapore Airlines over ten years. The documentation of the deal is slender, amounting to perhaps two pages. This seems a funny way to do business with public money.

Deputy mayor Justin Lester says the spending was within Lavery’s authority and he would be “highly surprised” if there was nothing else in writing. Presumably the politician is now very surprised, as he should be, although he also offers the thought that Lavery “doesn’t send emails.”

Nobody is accusing Lavery of doing anything dishonest, but his handling of this matter has been far too casual. Anyone with this much discretionary power to spend ratepayers’ money owes them a corresponding accountability. That means carrying out and recording a proper analysis and putting the deal and discussions about it in writing.

The issue is not Lavery, but accountability.

It is the Council that set up a secret slush fund for corporate welfare. It is the Council that delegates spending approval to the CE. Councillors should have a policy that any payments must include a detailed business case and analysis.

It is a failure of Council leadership here.

It’s a sign of Lavery’s extraordinary power at the council that an elected politician such as Lester finds no particular problem here.

So elect a Mayor dedicated to making changes.

The issue is not the CE, but the fact the Council has delegated spending authority with no requirements for transparency and analysis.

In the Wellington constituency there are 11 candidates seeking five positions.

Some are easy to eliminate. Some candidates have said they wish to waste up to $1 billion on a light rail system that will provide benefits of just $50 million. Yes $950 million down the drain. The Council’s own study has said the BCR is a minuscule 0.05 yet they still support it. This rules them out on rational grounds.

So Paul Bruce, Sue Kedgley, Daran Ponter, Roger Blakeley, John Klaphake and Russell Tregonning are all big nos. It is a pity in the case of Roger Blakely who has a good CV as a department CEO and Porirua Council CEO but I can’t support anyone who ignores evidence as these six are.

So that leaves five candidates you should rank as your top five. They are:

1. Ian McKinnon
2. Chris Laidlaw
3. Keith Flinders
4. Norbert Hausberg
5. Sam Somers

McKinnon is my top pick. An excellent former Deputy Mayor.

Laidlaw has not been a favourite of mine but he seems to be doing a good job as Chair and is rational. I’d rank him No 2.

Flinders and Hausberg seem okay so 3 and 4.

Somers does not seem to have any particular background with public policy or governance. But at least he isn’t campaigning to waste $950 million.

Lower Hutt has eight candidates for three spots.

• Kath Allen
• Leonie Dobbs
• Sandra Greig
• Ken Laban
• Prue Lamarson
• David Ogden
• John Terris
• Derek Wilshere

I rate Ken Laban highly and would have him in a top spot. David Ogden and Prue Lamarson as incumbents seem good also.

Porirua – Tawa has four candidates for two positions. They are:

• Jenny Brash
• Barbara Donaldson
• Heidi Mills
• Joern Scherzer

Brash and Donaldson are incumbents and seem solid. Scherzer seems to have a useful transport background.

Kapiti has three seeking one seat. They are:

• Peter Bollmann
• Penny Gaylor
• Nigel Wilson

They all seem quite good. Wilson is the incumbent and seems to have been good.

The latest Roy Morgan poll is out. As usual it is as bouncy as a kangaroo.

Matthew Hooton makes the case for an extensive Cabinet reshuffle and calls for the following MPs to be promoted to the ministry:

• Todd Muller
• Alfred Ngaro
• Mark Mitchell
• Alfred Ngaro
• Parmjeet Parmar
• Andrew Bayley
• Chris Bishop
• Barbara Kuriger
• Sarah Dowie

I don’t have any comment on which individual MPs should be promoted, and which should be told it’s time up. My list would be different to Matthew’s list if I published one.

But what I would say is that I think it is important the National continues its pattern of renewal of both the Cabinet/Ministry and Caucus. The chances of winning a 4th term are significantly harder if your government looks like the same figures as in 2008 and even 2011. This was a significant mistake Helen Clark made – she left renewal too late, and too little.

Key has to date been successful at ministry renewal. The following Ministers have left:

1. Simon Power
2. Tony Ryall
3. David Carter
4. Tim Groser
5. Wayne Mapp
6. Georgina te Heuheu
7. Chester Borrows
8. Phil Heatley
9. Pansy Wong
10. Kate Wilkinson
11. Chris Tremain
12. Maurice WIlliamson
13. Richard Worth
14. John Carter

Most did not leave because they were performing badly. Far from it. But renewal means even good performers move on after a while to make space.

And in terms of new Ministers who were not there in 2008 we have:

1. Amy Adams
2. Jonathan Coleman
3. Simon Bridges
4. Hekia Parata
5. Nathan Guy
6. Nikki Kaye
7. Michael Woodhouse
8. Todd McClay
9. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
10. Maggie Barry
11. Craig Foss
12. Jo Goodhew
13. Nicky Wagner
14. Louise Upston
15. Paul Goldsmith

So there has been good renewal to date. But this is not a time to sit on one’s laurels. The last time a Government got a fourth term was in 1969. Voters want to see renewal, not complacency.

Being a Minister is not a job for one’s parliamentary life. It is important that new talented MPs who entered in 2011 and even 2014 have opportunities to become Ministers. It’s good for the Government and also good for re-election.

So I hope that any reshuffle in early 2017 is significant to maximise National’s chance in the election later that year.

Stuff reports:

Upper Hutt Mayor Wayne Guppy wrote a character reference helping a promising rugby player to be discharged without conviction for a brutal assault.

Wellington rugby player Losi Filipo assaulting [sic] four people, including two women.

So he bashed two guys and two girls and got off because he is a rugby player. Disgusting.

Morgan, 21, said the assault happened in October about 3 o’clock one morning on Wellington’s Wakefield St.

“We heard footsteps running up behind us and it was three guys looking for a fight. We repeatedly told them we didn’t want to fight and to just let us go to our car which was around the corner.

“And that’s when it started, I don’t remember much but I do remember being smashed on the ground and my head being stomped on.”

So it was unprovoked and brutal.

Morgan said he had a potential contract with Wellington Rugby, but following the assault he was told he could never play rugby again.

He was devastated to see the guy who took away his dream go without punishment.

“We had the same potential and it doesn’t feel right that I’m still dealing with migraines and fatigue, and he is enjoying playing rugby.”

It isn’t right, no.

Police charged Filipo with assault with intent to injure, two counts of male assaults female, and injures with intent to injure following the incident.

However, Newshub said the judge opted to give Filipo a chance despite the charges demanding a starting point of at least one-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

The judge ruled Filipo should be able to fulfil his potential, saying  “I have to ask myself are the courts in the business of destroying people’s career prospects?”, Newshub reported.

Wrong question. Filipo destroyed his prospects by assaulting for strangers.

Hayden Williams, 22, another of Filipo’s victims, saw the rugby player about a week after the court case while standing outside a bar in Wellington.

“He walked passed me and I asked him if he was still punching girls,” says Williams. “He signalled out to his friends and two of them came over and yelled at me asking for a fight.

“Losi was laughing at me and kept saying he’d been through court. I felt like he was laughing that he’d been through court and got off.”

So unrepentent. He could have apologised to one of his victims.

“His brother was charged with four lesser charges and was convicted. It’s just not right.”

Presumably the brother was not a rugby player.

After the public shaming, the Wellington Rugby Union has terminated his contract.

The Herald reported:

A book, two bottles of wine and a $5 note were the star lots at a Chinese dinner that raised $250,000 for Labour MP Phil Goff’s mayoral campaign on Saturday night.

About 350 people attended the fundraising dinner at the Imperial Palace restaurant in Ellerslie where bidding on a book, The Governance of China, written and signed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, started at $5000 and sold to a phone bidder from China for $150,000.

There are no issues around having successful fundraisers and auctions.

But I am surprised that there has been no comment on the $150,000 donation from a Chinese resident (not a Chinese New Zealander).

Such a donation is not illegal under the Local Electoral Act but if Goff was standing for Parliament, it would be illegal. The maximum donation from a non-resident or citizen is $1,500 for parliamentary elections.

If Goff was a centre-right candidate who received a $150,000 donation from a Chinese resident, I suspect the left would condemn it as corruption and call for it to be refunded. They’d claim Goff was the tool of Chinese house buyers.

But as usual a double standard applies. Goff’s $150,000 donation from a foreigner doesn’t even get a comment.

UPDATED: Radio NZ reports that Phil Goff has said the donor is a NZ resident. It is a pity we can’t verify this until after the election. The Local Electoral Act should be changed to align with the main Electoral Act and require any large donations to have the donor’s identity disclosed immediately (within 10 days).

Stuff reports:

Crown limousines have clocked more than enough kilometres to drive from Wellington to Auckland 5618 times in the past five years. 

Information released under the Official Information Act reveals that the Government’s 34 chauffeur-driven cars clocked up 3.5 million kilometres during the past five years.

Drivers were also nabbed 19 times for speeding tickets. While individual drivers seemingly picked up the speeding fines, the Department of Internal Affairs confirmed all operating costs for crown limos were paid for by taxpayers.

So on average that is one speeding ticket every 185,000 kms. Remarkably low I would say.

As usual the Herald Mood of the Boardroom has asked CEOs to rank the performance of Ministers and senior Opposition figures. The combined ratings (out of five) are:

1. Bill English 4.51
2. John Key 4.04
3. Steven Joyce 3.51
4. Amy Adams 3.47
5. Jacinda Ardern 3.37
6. Nikki Kaye 3.36
7. Paula Bennett 3.24
8. Chris FInlayson 3.23
9. James Shaw 3.21
10. Jonathan Coleman 3.17
11. Simon Bridges 3.12
12. Annette King 3.10
13. Anne Tolley 3.09
14. Michael Woodhouse 3.06
15. Phil Twyford 2.93 
16. Nathan Guy 2.91
17. Todd McClay 2.90
18. Winston Peters 2.90
19. Grant Robertson 2.86
20. Judith Collins 2.85
21. Hekia Parata 2.85
22. Murray McCully 2.77
23. David Shearer 2.72
24. Gerry Brownlee 2.66
25. David Parker 2.55
26. Nick Smith 2.52
27. Chris Hipkins 2.46
28. Julie-Anne Genter 2.42
29. Metiria Turei 2.37
30. David Clark 2.35
31. Maggie Barry 2.34
32. Andrew Little 2.22
33. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 2.15
34. Ron Mark 2.13

A few interesting things to note:

• Andrew Little has a disastrous rating. He is seen as the least impressive Labour front bencher.
• James Shaw is well regarded by CEOs. There has been some amusing exchanges on Twitter as Shaw has complained that this aspect has not been highlighted, and others have suggested it may not endear him to their base.
• Ardern and King the only Labour MPs rated above a three
• English and Key only MPs rated four or higher
• National’s average rating is 3.03, Labour is 2.73

UPDATE: Ministers not in the online edition now included

Open thread for live commenting on the 1st Trump vs Clinton presidential debate.

UPDATE:

The first 20 to 30 minutes were quite even, and I’d even say advantage to Trump. He connected better on the economy and has specifics compared to Clinton. And he killed Clinton on TPP. It was depressing however to see him advocate a tariff on basically every import into the United States – a protectionist agenda to the left of most Democrats and also in breach of WTO rules.

But the last hour was not even, and not even close to even. I may be wrong, but thought Clinton overwhelmed him (unlike the first half hour which I thought favoured him). A few stand outs:

• Clinton was expert at baiting Trump and getting him to bite. She’d bring up his business dealings and he’d then talk in detail about them, rather than about his policies or plans for the US. Who cares about what he did in the 70s.
• He was tone deaf often. When she said many years he paid no income tax at all, and he responded along the lines that is because he was smart is one example.
• On the birtherism issue, he was awful
• Clinton dominated at NATO and foreign policy generally.

Unsure whether undecided voters will shift by this, but my expectation is a lift for Clinton in the polls. We’ll see.

There are five candidates seeking two positions. Three candidates have kindly completed the Kiwiblog candidates’ survey. The candidates are:

• Brendon Bonner
• Brent Pierson
• David Lee
• Don McDonald
• Paul Eagle

What is the maximum average annual rates increase, if any, you would vote for over the next three years?

• David Lee – 30 cents a day per household, based on a RV of $500,000.
• Brendon Bonner – Given circumstances where nothing like the CHCH earthquake occurred, then I would like the maximum average annual rates increase to be no more than 3%. Clearly ratepayers are unhappy with the 4.9% rise this year. Normally I would like to see it around the Local Government Cost index figure, this year 1.9%. However I would like to at least try to get it even lower. In these hard times aiming for a 0% rise would at least show citizens that WCC is listening – this may only be possible with a reduction in services as a quid pro quo and people would need to understand that.
• Brent Pierson – 3%

DPF comment: Lee’s 30c a day is $110 a year. a house with an RV of $500,000. WCC says the WCC rates on that value is $2,374. So that is around a maximum 4.6% increase. Bonner and Pierson are around 3%.

Do you support the proposed runway extension for Wellington Airport?

• David Lee – No.
• Brendon Bonner – Yes.
• Brent Pierson – Yes.

DPF comment – Lee against and Bonner and Pierson in favour

What is the maximum contribution ($ or %) from WCC toward the runway extension you would vote for?

• David Lee – It a private company, so no public money should be used for private infrastructure.
• Brendon Bonner – Given that WCC owns 33% of the airport company then that seem like the percentage WCC should pay as it’s share of the runway extension. However given that there is a case to be made that the possible benefits would flow more to the country and the region rather than just the airport owner then WCC should vigorously pursue ‘contributions’ from other local governments as well as central government.
• Brent Pierson – 90 million

DPF comment – Lee against any contribution, Bonner favours in line with shareholding and Pierson a $90 million contribution.

Can example of current WCC spending that you would vote against in future?

• David Lee – The indoor arena. We already have such venues and facilities.
• Brendon Bonner – The Island Bay cycleway
• Brent Pierson – Not answered

Do you support four laning (through additional tunnels) the Mt Vic and Terrace tunnels at an estimated cost of $250 million?

• David Lee – Only a Mt Vic tunnel, with the proviso of walking and cycling infrastructure.
• Brendon Bonner – No. I believe that if public transport was made better and cheaper, then hopefully that would remove a lot of cars from the road as people were economically incentivised (saving $) to use the bus. Folks would use their car only when necessary. The rest of the time, any road trips would be a lot easier because many commuters are off the road happily sitting in their clean, green bus. That would lessen demand on the roading system – and the demand for more roads! I suspect we’d still need to do the 2nd Mt Vic tunnel and ‘cut and cover’ around the Basin. This will probably be forced on us by Wellington’s ever increasing population. However the 2nd Terrace Tunnel proposal needs a lot more scrutiny and the $250 million for both sounds like a builder’s estimate rather than a quote!
• Brent Pierson – Yes.

DPF comment: Pierson supports both tunnels expanding, Lee one of them and Bonner neither

Do you support a change to the structure of local government in the Wellington Region, and if so to what?

• David Lee – No – any change must be by way of a referendum.
• Brendon Bonner – Yes. The control of the public transport of Wellington city needs to be returned to the public of Wellington city. We know best how to spend our tax dollars on the public transport of Wellington. It is unacceptable that currently this vital piece of Wellington city’s infrastructure is controlled by a committee of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and that this committee is headed by someone from Upper Hutt. It seems to be be a system set up to fail the public of Wellington – and it is.
• Brent Pierson – No

Do you support the current closing times for CBD bars of 4am. If not, what time would you prefer?

• David Lee – No! I support 3am, the social and economic costs of longer hrs outweigh the benefits to the bars and establishments.
• Brendon Bonner – Yes.
• Brent Pierson – 4 am is okay.

DPF comment: Lee supports 3 am. Bonner and Pierson 4 am,

Do you think WCC should make it a condition for any business tendering for a contract with WCC to pay their staff at least $20 an hour?

• David Lee – No! But, it should be an evaluation criteria ie. are you a living wage employer?
• Brendon Bonner – Yes – to me it is simply the right and fair thing to do given the cost of living in NZ today. The business tendering for the contract must be the one actually doing the work – they are not to win a tender and then sub-contract it on to a ‘cheaper’ firm and pocket any difference.
• Brent Pierson – Yes, the “Living wage”

DPF comment: Bonner and Pierson support the living wage for contractors. Lee thinks it should be a criteria but not a requirement.

Should fluoridation of the Wellington city water supply continue?

• David Lee – Yes! What next… do away with chlorination, like Havelock Nth.
• Brendon Bonner – Yes
• Brent Pierson – Yes.

DPF comment: All candidates in favour of fluoridation.

If Council had an additional 10% revenue, or $40 million, what would be your priority spending areas?

• David Lee – $20m for earthquake strengthening fund. $10m as seed money to help startups and business activation. $10m to partner up with business to fund graduate programmes, scholarships, apprenticeship, internships
• Brendon Bonner – Housing
• Brent Pierson – Help homeless, beggars and community housing

Vegemite or Marmite?

• David Lee – Marmite
• Brendon Bonner – Marmite.
• Brent Pierson – Marmite

DPF comment: Vegemite not wanted in the Southern Ward.

The table above is a simple scoring system of responses against my own personal views of low rates, no subsidy for the runway, four lanes on SH1, 4 am closing, no living wage requirement and pro-fluoridation.

Not a big difference between the three candidates.

The scores on policy are not the only factor in deciding how I will vote. Ability to work with others, communicate, work hard etc all factor in also.

Note Paul Eagle did not respond to the survey but from what I know of him he is a sensible and effective Councillor so would vote for him (despite his Labour candidacy).

A good story in Stuff on the black market in tobacco:

For smokers, the habit is getting increasingly expensive as the Government ups its tax to discourage smoking and recoup some of the health costs.

A pack of 20 cigarettes is expected to cost about $30 by 2020. A 50g packet of premium loose tobacco, used in roll-your-owns, currently costs about $78.

That is big money for hard-up smokers who are turning to the black market to buy stolen cigarettes and illicit loose tobacco.

Customs estimates the market for illegally manufactured or smuggled tobacco represents 2 to 4 per cent of consumption and is “not a significant problem”. Its figures are based on a 2013 report by Action Smoking and Health (Ash), which excludes stolen tobacco products. 

Police believe the black market is fuelling armed robberies and burglaries, with criminals targeting dairies and stealing tobacco products for resale rather than for personal use. 

This is the policy challenge. It is clear increasing the tax on tobacco is an effective tool to reduce smoking rates. But the higher the cost becomes, the more enticing the black market becomes. This is the same reason prohibition of alcohol failed in the 1930s – if you have demand, and no legal affordable supply, then the black market flourishes – and crimes become more profitable.

As an example, Stuff  visited an Aranui home and bought 80g of loose tobacco for $80 from 21-year-old Jasmine Lasseter, who was advertising on Facebook.

Lasseter claimed the tobacco was “factory seconds”, sourced from a local business owned by her friend’s father. She got a kilogram at a time so she never ran out.

Initially acknowledging she avoided paying tax on the tobacco, when confronted later she changed her story.

Lasseter’s Facebook page indicates her sales amount to at least 1kg of tobacco each week. She offers discounts for regulars.

Surprisingly sellers like Lasseter appear to be operating unhindered by Customs, which is responsible for collecting the duty on tobacco.

A Customs spokeswoman said the agency would look into reports or information “provided to us” and “enforce any offences discovered in relation to illegal tobacco”.

Customs did not ask for details of Stuff’s sting although those were supplied later.

So Customs is not at all proactive in this area, and even when informed, they don’t even ask for details.

BAT spokesman Saul Derber estimates the size of the black market has at least doubled since the 2013 Ash report.

“I would say 1 to 2 million 30g pouches (worth about $45 each) are being sold on the streets of New Zealand without any tax being paid, without any health warnings applied and no concerns about what age group they’re selling to. Sales are rife of chop chop (illicit tobacco).”

The tobacco giant acknowledges a vested interest — illegal sellers are eating into their profits.

It believes the Government, which collects more than $1 billion in tobacco tax annually, should be more interested in tackling the issue.

Again this is the policy challenge. The more you tax and regulate the legal product, the more the illegal product flourishes which has no age limits for selling, no effective regulation and no tax.

This is not an argument against taxing tobacco and regulating it. But it is an argument that you should always look at the unforeseen consequences and how to mitigate them.

The Herald reports:

Maori Party co-founder Dame Tariana Turia has blasted the Government for “institutional racism” in its proposed reform of child protection laws.

She said a proposal to abolish a principle requiring child protection staff to consider the effects of decisions on whanau and iwi, as well as on the child’s well-being, was “a big step backwards”.

“I am going to speak to MPs, and I am going to speak to various iwi around the country to get them to understand what institutional racism really is, which is what we are experiencing yet again,” she said.

Cabinet papers released by Social Development Minister Anne Tolley last weekrevealed that the Government plans to axe a provision that gives priority to placing abused children with foster parents from the same extended family or tribe.

A new law, which will create a new Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamakiri, would require that any child who was removed from its family and cannot be returned to immediate family “must be placed with a safe, stable and loving family at the earliest opportunity”.

The change would remove a provision in the 1989 Children, Young Persons and their Families Act that gave priority to placing a child with “a person who is a member of the child’s or young person’s hapu or iwi [with preference being given to hapu members], or, if that is not possible, who has the same tribal, racial, ethnic, or cultural background as the child”.

The current law is well intentioned but has been a failure. The Government is being brave in confronting this.

If everything else is equal, of course you would want a child to go into extended family rather than strangers. But this ignores the reality of many families. If a mother and/or father are so dysfunctional that they abuse or neglect their child, then often the wider family has significant issues also. Bad parents do not get created out of nothing. So placing a child with an aunt or a grandparent or a cousin often leads to the child continuing to live in unsafe environments.

Instead, the first principle in the new arrangements for children removed from their parents is that “decisions should be centred around the child or young person’s best interests and understanding the views and needs of the child”.

That is the correct focus. If the best interests of the child is with extended family, then that is great. But there should not be a legislative priority to extended family, when our sad history is this is often from the frying pan to the fire.

Turia’s target is another proposed change axing a principle in the 1989 law that “consideration must always be given to how a decision affecting a child or young person will affect (i) the welfare of that child or young person; and (ii) the stability of that child’s or young person’s family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group”.

The Cabinet paper proposes replacing this with a single focus on the child’s well-being, proposing a first principle that “a child or young person have a safe, stable and loving home”.

If we didn’t have 30 years of history and evidence, I’d agree with Turia. But the reality is the current law has failed to make children safe, and the focus must overwhelming be on the safety of the child, not the welfare of the wider family, whanau, hapu or iwi.

Turia said a child’s well-being depended on having a good relationship with its family.

Not when they are the problem.

“The principle is that the well-being of the child primarily lies within the whanau,” she said.

If the parents were not coping, she said the law should continue to prioritise finding foster parents within the wider whanau and iwi.

“I’ll use my own [Whanganui] iwi as an example,” she said. “You can’t tell me that within 8000 people connected by our river, you cannot find someone to care for a child.”

Wrong question. You probably can, but will they be the best person for the child?

In some cases, even many cases they may be. But not in all cases. The welfare of the child must come first, second and third.

Current Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox declined to comment on the proposed changes last week. But after Turia issued her statement today, the other co-leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, said children “should be placed with whanau”.

Sadly whanau are often the problem, including the extended family. Listen to the evidence.

Hamish Rutherford reports at Stuff:

A decision to subsidise Singapore Airlines new Wellington flights for the next decade saw virtually nothing put in writing.

Documents released by the Wellington City Council show that apart from a presentation made to councillors after the decision was made, the council generated a single two page document, which refers to the subsidy only in passing.

Decision by powerpoint!

In January it was revealed that Wellington City Council chief executive Kevin Lavery had approved a subsidy for a new Singapore-Canberra-Wellington route from the Destination Wellington fund. The route launched on September 21. 

The council has never disclosed the maximum Singapore Airlines, one of Asia’s largest airlines, could be paid, but documents suggest it could be $800,000 a year for 10 years.

So $8 million of taxpayer money given to Singapore Air on no paperwork. I’d expect a very detailed economic impact report and business case as a minimum.

The Ombudsman, the authority appointed to monitor the official information disclosures of government agencies, has investigated the council on the information it released, and concluded that no other written documents exist.

The release suggests Lavery neither sent nor received a single piece of correspondence on the request, commissioned no analysis on Wellington Airport and Singapore Airlines’ claims about the route, or had any written contact with Singapore Airlines on the payment whatsoever.

On Monday Lavery and the council refused to comment on the subsidy or the decision making process behind it.

Justin Lester, who as deputy mayor was involved in the negotiations to bring Singapore Airlines to Wellington, defended the process, saying the spending was within Lavery’s authority.

That’s not the issue. Lester is defending $8 million of secret corporate welfare that even worse has no written justification for it. This is outrageous behaviour and there needs to be accountability for it.

The 5th straw poll has seen Clark slip further going from 6-2-7 to 6-0-9. As I said previously I don’t see any credible path to victory.

The net support for each candidate in the 5th straw poll was:

1. Guterres +10 (12-2)
2. Jeremic +2 (8-6)
3. Lajcak +1 (8-7)
4. Malcorra 0 (7-7)
5. Turk 0 (7-7)
6. Bokova -1 (6-7)
7. Kerim -3 (6-9)
8. Clark -3 (6-9)
9. Gherman -8 (3-11)

So only one candidate is below Clark.

Clark’s score’s each round has been

1. +3 (8-5)
2. -2 (6-8)
3. -2 (6-8)
4. -1 (6-7)
5. -3 (6-9)

This suggests that the neutrals have now decided her candidacy is untenable and are giving her the signal to exit.

Please please please please will Labour listen to the advice of Bryan Gould.

This may be where Labour is falling short. It has perhaps failed to grasp that what it is really up against is a hegemonic force – a neo-liberal revolution – that has shaped political attitudes in western democracies across the globe for more than a generation and that now represents a norm so powerful that it is not even recognised as such by those who might be expected to oppose it.

This hegemony cannot be changed or challenged just by nibbling at the edges – by attacking short-term policy failures on specific issues, or by sharpening up campaigning techniques. What is needed is a fundamental statement of what the Labour Party stands for, and a persuasive account of why it will produce a better and more successful society than has been delivered by the current neo-liberal orthodoxy.

Many of those who might consider voting Labour do so precisely because they are looking for a different set of values than those demonstrated by our current Government and than are reflected in today’s New Zealand.

This is the approach taken by the UK Labour Party with electing Jeremy Corbyn – reject basically the last 35 years and try to turn the clock back to the 1970s. And that is working so well for UK Labour isn’t it.

In the same article Michael Cox responds and notes:

You have to give it to Bryan Gould. He is persistent in his claims that the politics of envy and socialism are the only saviours for the people of New Zealand.

As a British Labour MP he failed to convince his own parliamentary colleagues that he should be their leader way back in the 1990’s. Even they rejected his hard left philosophies.

Recently we have seen another socialist government fail dismally. Under President Dilma Rousseff’s Brazilian Workers Party government for the past 13, the once wealthy Brazil has gone down the fiscal tubes.

She led her country into its worst ever recession. The people she hurt the most with her socialist policies were those she tried hardest to protect. One in nine workers is jobless, up a third in the past year and inflation is close to 10 per cent. The economy has shrunk by 3.8 per cent.

This is just another modern day example of how socialism, as proposed by the likes of Professor Gould, doesn’t work.

Just as the Prof was making his bid for the leadership of the British Labour Party, the painful 60 years of Russian Socialism was beginning to crumble and his opponents for the leadership, John Smith and Tony Blair, sensibly moved into the centre ground, leaving Bryan floundering on the left; and he still is.

Just because socialism has failed in every other country that has adopted it, is no reason to stop pushing it eh!