Local Government NZ has released a 10 point plan on how to fund local government and incentivise economic growth.

I’m against an increase in the overall funding for local government, but do think the current rates based system is inadequate, and we should look at other complementary methods.

One problem with having local government funded by rates, is that local councils do not benefit from local economic growth, and hence are often not incentivised to support economic growth. Central Government does benefit from economic growth – an increase in the economy leads to more income tax and GST revenue.

Their 10 points are:

1. An agreed priority and action plan to advance “special zones” for growth to test new ideas and drive economic prosperity
2. When new centrally imposed costs are considered (and particularly where national benefit applies) a cost benefit analysis and agreed cost sharing with central government should be mandatory
3. Mandatory rating exemptions should be removed
4. The application and administration process of the rates rebate scheme should be simplified to increase uptake
5. Better guidance is needed to assist councils make decisions on trade-offs about whether to fund services from prices (user charges) or taxes
6. Road user charges, targeted levies and fuel taxes should be allowed where it is economically efficient
7. Councils should be able to retain a share of any value uplift arising from additional economic activity related to local intervention and investment
8. Local authorities should receive a proportion of any mineral royalties attributed to local activities
9. Allow councils to levy specific charges and taxes on visitors where economically efficient
10. Reconsider the decision to limit the range of community amenities funded through development contributions

I especially like the first proposal – the ability to trial new ideas in special zones. We should have the flexibility to trial out different ways of funding new areas. To some degree, a lot of the economic growth in China has come from areas with special zones.

I also support the ending of most mandatory exemptions from rates. Everyone should pay their fair share whether they be the Government or churches.

Also been a long term advocate of road user charges and congestion charging so that transport is funded on a user pays basis, not on the basis of the value of your house.

And there is much merit in allowing local authorities to get a proportion of mineral royalties from their regions, as that would incentivise them to support economic activity in these areas.

Well done to LGNZ and their review group for a useful document. However again I would caution that these should be seen as alternate way to fund activities, not additional ways on top of rates – ie any new income sources should be compensated for by reductions in rates.

Brittany Raleigh (standing for President)

“I’m blue through and through. At intermediate we held mock elections where a buddy and I convinced our entire class to vote National (and this was in 2002). As a fan of the free market, low taxes and high personal freedoms, joining the Young Nats and the National Party was always going to be inevitable for me.When I turned up to my first event, I expected the organisation to be a place of debating the nuances of policy and waving signs on the side of the road from dusk til dawn (which it is). What I didn’t expect was that it would be a place where I would meet some of my closest friends, where my ideas would be listened to, and where I could have a lasting impact. The Young Nats have a special place in the National Party – we challenge, we support, and most importantly we are its future. 

The Young Nats need strong, experienced leadership that represents the voice of members. This weekend at the Young Nats’ AGM we have an important opportunity to build on the success we’ve had so far, and take the organisation to a new level. We can only do this if we have a team with a vision and a proven track record leading the charge from the front. 

It is crucial that we have an organisation with a culture of inclusion, that we broaden our base to include high schools, uni students, young professionals and tradespeople, and  expand our regions beyond just the metro areas. We need to run the best events with an equal focus on all regions, promote and win on the policies members feel passionately about, and ensure we have the financial resourcing to achieve our goals. We need to be preparing now to win a fourth term in 2017. We’ve had our platform available here on our website for the last three months. 

It’s important to be upfront about what you’re promising. Here’s our 100 day plan, our immediate priorities if elected: 

1. Unify. Reunite the organisation as one – where everyone works together for our common purpose
   2. Set the date for a 2016 Ball & start planning an election year 2017 Ball in Christchurch
   3. Plan a national event hosted by each region
   4. Bring back Young Nats Merchandise
   5. Call a national policy forum so you can tell us what you support
   6. Grassroots expansion. Grow our uni presence to new campuses, establish ourselves in high schools, forge relationships with YoPro groups & assist branch expansion in rural areas & smaller cities
   7. Fill the coffers. Kickoff fundraising initiatives & work with regions to raise operational money & 2017 campaign funds
   8. Prepare for 2017 now. Start campaign planning, training & work shops now to win 2017
   9. Review & clarify rules & standing orders to ensure ongoing transparency & compliance
   10. Review digital strategy. Utilise our tools for grassroots engagement & policy input, restore direct membership access & email authority to regions

I believe I have the experience and the results to take us forward. Since 2011 I have been involved in all facets of the Party and the Young Nats – volunteering in positions ranging from policy chair, secretary, treasurer, campaign manager, youth rep, list ranking committee member, women’s advisory group member, to ball committee member. As Northern Region Chair from 2013-2015 we saw our membership double, we fund-raised over $15,000, we passed multiple remits at a national level, we ran a campaign team of over 100 volunteers, and our social events regularly drew in over 100 people. Born and bred in Tauranga, I now live and work in Auckland as a Key Account Manager at a national freight company, which has given me invaluable commercial and professional experience. 

It is a privilege to seek election with such a talented and diverse team of Young Nats from around the country. Clive Antony is seeking election as Vice President, Ben Wooding as Treasurer, Michael Little as Secretary, Jason Howarth as Policy Chair, Jared Jamison as Grassroots Coordinator, and Sarah Fenwick as Projects Coordinator. Each region in the country is represented on our team and we all bring something unique to the table. Our full bios and backgrounds are available here on our website. 

The Young Nats have an exciting future – one which I hope to be at the helm of. “

I’ve observed (or been involved in) the Young Nats for almost 30 years, and I’ve never seen the organisation stronger. Their membership is well into the thousands, with active branches on every campus. I suspect they almost have more individual paid up members than the entire Labour Party.

In the last few years they’ve had a big impact on policies. Their lobbying helped get voluntary membership of student associations through Parliament, kept the alcohol purchase age at 18, and convinced a number of National MPs to vote to allow same sex marriages. They’ve also played a huge role in digital campaigning, and helping marginal electorates at election time.

Many people have been part of their success, but a lot is due to Sean Topham and Shaun Wallis who are retiring after four years as President and Vice-President respectively. They have done a great job in making Young Nats a vibrant fun group that people want to join and is relevant.

This weekend, delegates will elect their replacements, and it is great to see that there is healthy competition for every position on their national executive. It’s great when so many people want to be involved at the top level. There’s even tickets and campaign websites.

As a lot of Young Nats read this blog, I’ve agreed to run guest posts by Joel Rowan and Brittany Raleigh, who are both standing for the presidency. Joel’s post is below and Brittany’s will follow later today.

Joel Rowan (standing for President) and Katy Hendrikse (standing for VP)

I’m running to be the new Young Nats president.

You may have known that already. But you might not know why.

I decided to do this because I believe I’m the best person to lead our organisation through an important time. We’re supporting a third-term government and we have to work harder to keep winning support, and to win enough votes for a fourth term.

I led the Young Nats Digital Team, and our social media campaign throughout 2014. In that time we grew from under 6,000 fans to over 19,000 on Facebook. I led a team from around the country, and we delivered unprecedented results. Thanks to our campaign, thousands of young voters who probably would not otherwise have heard from National, saw at least one of our campaign posts. National won the campus booths at Otago University – renowned as a Labour stronghold. Our efforts online (and on the ground) made a difference.

I’m driven by a desire to make the Young Nats even better than we are today. I joined in 2011 and I’ve seen the very best of the Young Nats – great parties, policy victories, and a co-ordinated, successful ground campaign for the 2014 election. I’m really proud of our organisation.

But we can’t rest on those laurels. We can’t continue in the same way and expect to sustain the success of the last three years. That’s why I’ve assembled a team around me that is talented, smart, and made up of students in touch with the University campuses where we have the greatest potential for growth. They have the campaign experience needed to lead another winning effort in 2017.

We’ve built our plan based on things we want to do differently to positively change our organisation. We’re going to change the events that the Young Nats hold, and make it easier and more attractive to sign up, so we expand our membership. We’re going to change the way we form policy so that our supporters are engaged and have ownership of it. We’re going to better prepare for campaigns and equip our activists with the skills and resources they need to ensure National wins again in 2017.

My vision is to lead a friendlier organisation where new members feel welcome and everyday students can join, make great friends and strong networks while they learn valuable skills along the way. I believe when we do that we will grow in size, and gain influence, and be ready to win in 2017.

We’re the Team To Win not because we want to win on July 26. We’re the team to win because our plan will ensure we win new members, win new influence, and win the general election in 2017. That’s why I’m here.

If you want to know more about my team, visit teamtowin.nz

This video is going viral. The host is aged just 22 but has struck a real chord with many.

Go to TV3 and watch Andrew Little melt down and lash out at Patrick Gower as he is questioned over Labour’s targeting of Chinese sounding surnames.

Jesus. Could Andrew Little have handled this any worse? http://t.co/5RVWwBXjbu

— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) July 21, 2015

I’m sure he could if he tried.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the international economy, and its effect on the New Zealand economy?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to affordability of homes in Auckland that “there’s a general view that housing prices are not overvalued”, given that the homeownership rate has fallen to its lowest level in 64 years?
4. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I’d bet my bottom dollar that there would be considerable debate and discussion in New Zealand about whether the flag should change”?
5. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the number of B4 School free health and development checks completed in the last financial year, and what do they show?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that bad news about the New Zealand economy is overblown, and that while dairy prices are down, “95 percent of our economy is not involved in that”?
7. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government delivering more of the skilled ICT graduates that New Zealand needs?
8. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement that Mount Eden Corrections Facility is “the highest performing prison” for measures of core security, rehabilitation, and reintegration?
9. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on how the Kickstart Breakfast initiative is supporting vulnerable children?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Trade: Does the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement purport to restrict a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of existing New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?
11. RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?
12. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Will she be raising benefit levels given official advice that shows that a family of four living on a benefit has $72 less per week than what they need to provide the “core essential items”; if not, why not?

National: Four questions on the economy, school health checks, ICT graduates and Kickstart Breakfasts

Labour: Four questions on Auckland housing, the economy, Mt Eden Prison and the TPP

Greens: Two questions on the flag referendum and benefit levels

NZ First: Two question on PM standing bu his statements and confidence in Ministers

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill – committee stage

This Bill authorises the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2016.

• Introduced May 2015
• 1st reading: May 2015, passed without dissent
• 2nd reading: June 2015, passed 63-58 with Labour, Greens, NZ First against

The debate is an 11 hour debate divided into ten sector debates. The sectors are:

• Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector
• Education Sector
• Environment Sector
• External Sector
• Finance and Government Administration Sector
• Health Sector
• Justice Sector
• Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector
• Primary Sector
• Social Development and Housing Sector

Each debate is a minimum of eight speeches of up to five minutes each, led off by the relevant select committee chairperson.

For the third month in a row, more people have come to NZ from Australia than vice-versa. Monthly figures can change though so I always look at the 12 month rolling data which is above.

In the 12 months to 30 June 2015, net migration to Australia was only 1,100 – so around three people a day.

In the 12 months to 30 June 2008, net migration to Australia was 31,730 or around 87 people a day.

Stuff reports:

Up to three additional Christchurch City councillors could be elected at next year’s local body elections as part of a post-quake representation shake-up.

After studying population shifts since the 2010 and 2011 quakes, council staff are putting forward two options for re-jigging the city’s representation arrangements. …

Under the first option, Christchurch and Banks Peninsula will be carved into 14 wards. Under the second option, they will be divided into 16 wards.

Each ward will be represented by one councillor to deliver either a council of 14 or 16, plus the mayor.

The current Council has 13 Councillors (plus the Mayor). So both options are to increase the number of Councillors. That’s a claytons decision. How about an option for the status quo or reducing the number?

A governance body larger than 12 members tends to struggle to do its job well, and you inevitably get an inner circle of key decison makers the bigger you get. The current total size of 14 is large enough – no need to go to 15 or 17.

I do support though the proposal to have one councillor per ward. I think you get far better informed voting in smaller wards with just one councillor to be selected, than a larger ward where you have to pick multiple councillors.

Anne Tolley announced:

Social Development Minister Anne Tolley says the latest benefit figures show the number of people receiving welfare is the lowest for any June quarter since before the Global Financial Crisis.

There were 285,349 people on a benefit at the end of June 2015, a drop of 8,237, or 2.8 per cent, compared to a year ago. This is the lowest June quarter since June 2008.

“I’m pleased to see the strong downward trend is continuing as Work and Income supports more people into work,” Mrs Tolley says.

“Sole parents continue to lead the way with a 6.5 per cent reduction nationally, including a 10.7 per cent drop in the number of Sole Parents who only have obligations to prepare for work.

“This puts more money in the pockets of these parents, and it improves the future prospects of both parents and children.

“Getting off a benefit and into employment or study reduces long term welfare dependency and allows individuals and families to thrive,” Mrs Tolley says.

Good to see the trend continuing.

Over the last five years we’ve seen:

• 47,500 fewer people on main benefits
• 25,000 fewer people on a benefit for more than a year
• 14,500 fewer under 25s on welfare
• Reduction by ethnicity is 21% for Pasifika, 18% European and 7% Maori
• 28,300 less on jobseeker benefits
• 19,000 fewer on sole parent benefits (21% down)

The NZ Initiative prints some feedback on their report about the cost of the MBIE campaign to reduce falls from heights of under three metres:

• I’m a qualified licenced builder and it adds 20 k to the build costs of a average house build. It may have reduced some claims but I don’t believe it is 30% reduction in what I read in the building magazines . But the cost to train and police the scaffolding is huge . So I’d wonder if the savings in acc claims would justify the costs in all the policing of it. In most tradies opinions its way over the top and to pc. If your good at what you do your experienced enough it should be up to the tradies if they need or want scaffolding on there jobs.
   
• I applaud the initiative of NZ Initiative. I just wish our compliance bureaucracy could adopt a balanced approach rather than inflexible adherence to the book at all costs. Ultimately, it is the public who pay.

• Talking to a tradesman about an Chch earthquake repair, a handful of nails on some roofing needed hammering back in; a 10 minute job – not allowed to do it without several thousand dollars worth of scaffolding.
   
• Just finished a renovation of our house and the scaffolding costs added a significant cost to the build. I ended up installing some windows myself as the scaffolding requirement doubled the cost of the windows and the height from the ground was laughable. I built my own low scaffold out of wood and did the job myself and saved a heap of money!

• The cost of compliance is a joke in this country. We had a quote for $2500 for scaffolding to do a $250 roof repair that would take an hour. If you don’t play the dumb game and Work-shaft catch you, the fine’s huge.

• Whats laughable Helen [Kelly] I have worked in the building / housing industry for 50 years we always built our own scaffold on housing projects this did not include safety netting never a bad accident Currently building a small house 150m3 the cost of scaffolding has increased the build cost by $15000.Keep laughing Helen you are out of touch.
• Totally agree… Had a quote to do the roof on my house… Additional cost of $10000.. Just for scaffolding to comply with the new rules…. For a new house build of course this adds to the total overall cost…

One day you’ll need scaffolding for tree huts!

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little says banning smoking outside bars, cafes and restaurants would be a step too far, describing a smoke after a drink as one of “life’s little pleasures” for some people.

About 70 per cent of councils at the Local Government NZ conference yesterday voted to ask the Government to ban smoking outside cafes, bars and restaurants.

The former Labour Government banned smoking inside bars and other workplaces in 2003 but Mr Little did not believe that should be extended to outside areas.

“I agree people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke inside buildings which the public have access to. But in the end, people are able to lawfully buy tobacco products, they must be able to lawfully use them somewhere. We can go a bit too far sometimes in banning their use outside in public places.”

Bar owners had told him restrictions did impact on them and smoking was already restricted to outside areas. “There are some people, they go to a bar, they have a drink and they have a smoke and it’s a part of life’s little pleasures.”

Pleasing to see a Labour leader take a balanced approach and reject a ban. I suspect Andrew is remembering his days a EPMU leader, knowing that a fair proportion of his members would like to have a smoke down at the pub – and Labour won’t win them back by demanding that they lose the ability to do that.

This week’s quote is inspired by our recent examination of sugar taxes, and comes from some of the strongest advocates of such a tax here in New Zealand.

Below is an excerpt from Gareth Morgan and Geoff Simmon’s book, Appetite for Destruction, regarding the trade embargo imposed against Fidel Castro’s Cuba:

“Food had to be rationed, the average daily food energy intake dropped – according to some reports by up to half. For some, this caused real problems – around 8% of people were malnourished and some people even starved. But once this initial crisis was over, there were many positive side effects: obesity fell 50%, heart disease 35%, stroke 18% and overall mortality fell by 20%.”

Our report, Fizzed Out: Why a sugar tax won’t curb obesity, is available here. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

Rob Salmond wrote in the SST:

After I published Labour’s method online, Keith Ng, Tze Ming Mok, and Chuan-Zheng Lee – all skilled analysts, all otherwise critical on this topic – agreed the name-based ethnicity analysis was statistically sound, robust, and accurate.

Of course, they and others retained other criticisms of our work, relating to the steps after the main data analysis. I’ve engaged with them online through the last week, addressing their concerns and presenting additional data to support Labour’s conclusions.

To say Keith is not happy with how Rob describes his views is putting it lightly. He blogs:

Hey Rob, don’t put the words “statistically sound, robust, and accurate” into our mouths to describe your work. …

If you need clarification, let me restate it: The method is fine, the data is broken, and those problems render it unscientific and utterly useless. Not sound. Not robust. Not accurate.

Salmond also said:

Having said that, one group I think did not overreact – despite their strongly critical stance – was the New Zealand Chinese community, including Keith, Tze Ming, and Chuan-Zheng. Their criticism was less about Labour’s intentions, and more about the impact of these revelations on ethnically Chinese New Zealanders.

Ng responds:

Thanks for the flattery, but I was very critical of Labour intentions and I thought I was bloody clear about it.

I said that Phil Twyford was knowingly “straight-up scapegoating” Chinese New Zealanders and offshore Chinese alike and “fueling racial division in this country”. I said it was “cynical, reckless dogwhistling“.

What part of this was ambiguous for you??? Did you think I meant “cynical, reckless, but ultimately well-intentioned dogwhistling”?

Even after a week where Labour has been trying to take the “reverse racism” highground, trying to pretend that we didn’t blame Labour is a new delusional high, Rob.

I should point out that both Keith and Rob worked for Helen Clark. They are former colleagues. This makes his condemnation even the more remarkable.

Please do not mistake me for thinking that this is well-intentioned. This is a cynical attempt to bamboozle the media and the public by hiding your utter lack of evidence behind fancy jargon. It’s a travesty and a sad excuse for analysis. You ought to be ashamed, Rob.

Rob is so determined to defend it, I can only imagine that he actually thought up the whole idea.

Also, Sunday-Star Times: These claims Rob made about me are incorrect and defamatory. Please issue an correction in your next issue.

One former Clark staffer claiming another former (and effectively current) staffer has defamed him. Not sure I can ever recall this occuring before.

Stuff reports:

French President Francois Hollande has called for the creation of a eurozone government and for citizens to renew their faith in the European project, which has been weakened by the Greek crisis.

Reviving an idea originally put forward by former European Commission chief Jacques Delors, Mr Hollande proposed “a government of the eurozone [with] a specific budget as well as a parliament to ensure its democratic control”.

If you want to keep the monetary union of the Euro, then you need fiscal union also. Greece has shown you can’t have a country in monetary union that doesn’t follow the same basic fiscal policy as the rest of the union.

But I can’t see national governments giving up fiscal policy control.

The Australian Speaker that is.

News.com.au reports:

The hefty travel bill for the member for the Northern Beaches electorate of Mackellar does not include two extra charter flights to Young for another fundraiser — just days after her $5227 Geelong helicopter trip — and Nowra for two seniors forums.

A Daily Telegraph analysis of the speaker, who has rapidly lost the confidence of the government front bench, has revealed the enormous expenses the politician costs Australians.

It has also been revealed Mrs Bishop’s trip to Young was just five days after she racked up $5227 for an 80km luxury helicopter trip between Melbourne and Geelong for a party fundraiser.

It can be revealed that in 2014 Mrs Bishop claimed;

●$309,581.99 in overseas trips

●$47,086.14 in domestic trips

●$32,471.12 in limousine travel

●$350,909.63 in office costs

The office costs should not be included, but the total travel costs are staggering – and spending $5,000 to travel 80 kms is indefensible.

As a comparison, The NZ Speaker had just $51,160 in overseas travel costs last year.

His NZ air travel costs were $33,704 and NZ surface travel costs just $8,389. So a total of around $90,000 compared to almost $400,000 by the Australian Speaker.

Victoria Young writes at NBR (where she was a reporter, and is now on her OE):

When I first read the article, I was enraged at the party I voted for and felt frustration toward the journalist, who is a person I respect.

So Young voted Labour in 2014.

I am a born and bred New Zealander, and for the first time in my life I doubted whether the society in which I grew up actually wanted me.  

Why? Because my last name sounds as if it could be Chinese. 

Labour’s PR stunt will have made many NZers feel this way.

But Phil Twyford, by releasing this data in this way, has made me uncertain about how welcome we almond-eyed black-haired folk are. 

Words cannot encapsulate the unsettling feeling that perhaps the country you love and adore, and is your only home, doesn’t actually want you, or at least views you as the cause of a major social problem. 

As you’re buying up 40% of the homes!

This behaviour, from a senior politician, has planted doubt in my mind. It has made me wonder how many out there agree that the Chinese are the problem but won’t say it out loud.  

I don’t own a home but my boyfriend (who just so you know was born in the US but is Taiwanese and a New Zealand citizen) put a deposit on a yet-to-be built apartment before we left for our UK OE. 

Unfortunately, the developer raised the price and so my boyfriend cancelled, ironically a victim of the rising Auckland house price inflation we people with Chinese sounding last names are said to be the cause of. 

When we do come home with our hard-earned pounds, euros and dollars, after exploring the world as Kiwis do, we will want to buy a home. 

Do we dare show our yellow faces at auctions or open homes?

No way. 

Thanks, Labour.

Well said.

Another Chinese NZer with a media background also writes in the Herald:

The Labour Party’s message to the Chinese people is clear. We are not racist. We just don’t want people with Chinese sounding names voting for Labour.

Mission accomplished.

The Labour Party has yet to provide examples of Kiwi property sellers rejecting an above market price for a house from people with Chinese sounding names in favour of a lower price made by a struggling Kiwi family.

A useful reminder, than when you restrict buyers, you reduce the value for sellers.

In the 1930s in Europe similar debate also began with a list of names. It was a list of names which did not sound like proper German names. The names on this list were also viewed as the problem in denying hard-working Germans their rightful share of business and property ownership. In the 1990s Slobadan Milosovic’s minions no doubt had a similar list of names.

The Labour Party’s targeting of people with Chinese sounding names is of course justified as being in the national interest, expressed through democratic means with the socialist agenda of indoctrinating Kiwis into believing that home ownership is their manifest destiny, an inalienable right. But Labour’s approach is clearly the continuation of nationalist socialist democratic politics by other means.

Carrying on with Little and Tywford’s logic, which seems to have adopted the xenophobic fear-mongering tactics of New Zealand First, lists of other ethnic names could also be used to generate national debates on other topics.

Lists of Muslim sounding names buying property could be used to generate debate on possible terrorist activity in specific suburbs. Lists of Maori and Pacific Island names could be used to generate debate on credit risk and propensity to commit crime. By the Labour Party’s logic, none of this would be racist. It would merely be a means to the ends of generating a national debate.

Harsh but not unfair.

We must respond to Labour’s call to arms by attacking their centre of gravity- at the polling booths at the next election. Spread this message through the bamboo networks. Vote strategically in the next election because a vote for Labour is a vote for second class status in a country we are proud to call home.

I consider myself a New Zealand patriot. I have worked for the New Zealand Army, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the New Zealand Stock Exchange. But because I have a Chinese sounding name, Labour views me as part of a problem for which it has a solution in mind. But of course it’s still not racism.

But people with Chinese sounding names do not have to fight alone. We welcome people with Korean, Indian, Muslim, Pacific Islander, Maori sounding names to stand with us at the next election. Vote strategically against the new Labour Party- the party with nationalist, socialist democratic agendas.

I wonder at what point Labour might admit they made a mistake.

The Herald reports:

That may have changed after a New York Times report, in which Cosby’s own words – not those of his alleged victims – seem to lend even more credence to the portrait painted by dozens of women who steadfastly maintain that beneath Cosby’s charming exterior lies a devious sexual predator.

The Times reported that Cosby said he used money, multiple prescriptions for sedatives and calculated manipulation to seduce at least five women.

If you are sedating them, then it is rape not seduction.

By John Stringer

The Herald editorial:

Teachers’ unions always insist they are professional bodies serving the interests of education, not just their members.

How disappointing, therefore, to discover the Post Primary Teachers’ Association’s secondary principals’ council has suggested schools limit the number of pupils admitted to their new “trades academies” so as not to put staffing positions at risk.

Trades academies — technical courses, as they were — have been reintroduced to schools for 15- and 16-year-old students who do not want to take academic subjects much further and can get NCEA credits in subjects of more use to their employment prospects.

The courses are funded from an account for all industry training providers and the funding of schools is reduced accordingly.

The PPTA principals have warned schools that “depending on how many you enrol (in trades academies), the changes would also be likely to reduce the number of salary units, middle management and possibly the number of senior management allowances the school would receive”.

Their concern is understandable to a degree. It seem fair that salary units would be reduced since the technical classes are being funded from another source, but with the total number of pupils in the school remaining the same, management positions should not be reduced. A professional response, though, would not make the pupils suffer.

Unfortunately, that is what will happen if principals follow the advice of the PPTA to cap admissions to trades academies. One of them in our story today admits, “It doesn’t make me feel very good at all.” Yet she is following the advice, reducing opportunities for students in her school.

The purpose of schools is to give students an education, not to ensure there is a certain level of salary units and managements jobs.

I didn’t think it would take long for Donald Trump to implode, but this was even quicker than I expected.

Trump said John McCain wasn’t really a war hero because he got captured.

There are few things that unite Americans, but those who serve in the military is one of those – and especially those wounded doing so.

Trump has never served at all. McCain was a bombing pilot in the Vietnam War and after being shot down spent five and a half years as a POW. He actually could have got released quite early on as his father was an admiral and the North Vietnamese wanted to appear merciful for propaganda. McCain refused until every POW captured before him was also released.

During his 66 months in captivity he lost 50 pounds, had his hair turn white, was beaten constantly and spent two years in solitary confinement. To this day he can’t lift his arms above his heads.

To have Trump criticise McCain as not being a hero because he got captured goes beyond offensive.

When Hillary Clinton becomes President, she should send a thank you card to Trump. Interestingly she attended one of his weddings, so maybe he is a plant from her!

Stuff reports:

Plastic shopping bags will now be recyclable under $1.2 million government project. 

Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith announced on Saturday the government is partnering with the retail sector and packaging industry to allow recycling of thousands of tonnes of plastics like shopping bags that currently cannot be recycled.

“The problem is that soft plastics like shopping bags, bread bags, frozen food bags and food wrap are not accepted by kerbside recycling services and cannot currently be recycled in New Zealand. We are investing in a new drop-off recycling service at stores and new recycling infrastructure that will enable soft plastics to be re-used,” Smith said.

That’s way preferable to banning them.

The initiative will be funded through a $700,000 grant to the Packaging Forum and a $510,000 grant to Astron Plastics Group from the Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund.

The Packaging Forum grant will part fund a trial of the new recycling service at The Warehouse, Pak ‘n’ Save, New World and Countdown stores across Auckland.

A new dry-cleaning facility in Auckland will have the capacity to recycle 2000 tonnes of soft plastics and will reduce the requirement to import new “plastic polymers,” Smith said.

“This approach has proved successful in Australia through the Coles Group and saved thousands of tonnes of plastic going to landfill. The longer-term objective of this initiative would be for 70 per cent of New Zealanders to have access to a drop-off facility for soft plastics within 20 kilometres of their home.”

“This is a more sensible approach than a ban or a compulsory levy on just plastic shopping bags. These bags make up only 0.2 per cent of waste going to landfill, and only 10 per cent of plastic waste. Nor can a ban or a compulsory levy be justified when plastic shopping bags only make up 1.5 per cent of the litter items in nationwide litter surveys,” Smith said.

New Zealanders use over 1.6 billion plastic bags in the home every year, according to Lyn Mayes, manager of the Public Place Recycling Scheme which will manage the project. 

The number of plastic bags we acquire from supermarkets tends to be exactly equal to the number we use to wrap up the trash. They’re very useful.