Stuff reports:

“See you in court” – that’s the message from Scenic Hotel Group founders, the Hagamans, to Labour leader Andrew Little.

Little looks set to face defamation proceedings after ignoring an ultimatum and failing to apologise to the Hagamans.

In a statement from Lani Hagaman she said she would “see Mr Little in court” after he failed to retract and apologise his comments that a Niue resort deal they were awarded “stunk to high heaven”.

Little has written to Hagaman’s lawyers saying he has a “constitutional duty to challenge the actions of the Government over the expenditure of public funds”.

Little had every right to ask the Auditor-General to investigate. However by saying the tender “stunk to high heaven” he went well beyond what was advisable. He effectively accused them of corruption.

The Herald further reports:

In a statement released this evening, Lani Hagaman said she would “see Mr Little in court”.

“The reasons we’re taking defamation action have been widely reported in the media and I won’t be repeating his allegations that Earl and I find hurtful, highly offensive and totally false”, she said.

“While Mr Little may be entitled to call for an investigation there is a correct process in which to do this. In my opinion a public flogging is not the correct process.

“We’re incredibly disappointed he hasn’t apologised and retracted what he said.”

Again it isn’t the calling for an investigation which was an issue.

I was one of the hundreds or thousands who helped crown fund this documentary, which has had rave reviews, and even been promoted by Rolling Stone magazine. Hollywood Reporter reviewed:

When David Farrier came across social-media notice of a “competitive endurance tickling” event in Los Angeles, he thought he’d lit upon another amusingly weird topic for his lighthearted reports on New Zealand television. But the Donkey Lady, frog-eating survivalists and Justin Bieber were nothing compared with what the pop-culture journalist would uncover.

In the captivating and jaw-dropping Tickled, he and fellow first-time director Dylan Reeve chronicle an investigation that would take them down a rabbit hole of legal threats and private investigators, leading to a mysterious deep-pocketed exploiter of young men in the name of a fetish subculture. But the erotic-torture appeal of tickling (who knew?) is only a piece of the suspenseful puzzle. In its genial, low-key way, the film, premiering at Sundance, is a chilling account of cyberbullying, perpetrated on a disturbingly wide scale over many years.

I’ll be moderating the Q+A at The Roxy after the 8 pm showing on Monday 23rd, so if you want to see it in Wellington, come along to that session.

Links to tickets are on their website here.

Bernard Hickey reports:

Green Co-Leader and Housing Spokeswoman Metiria Turei said the Greens were also open to Labour’s package of relaxed city limits, relaxed density controls and new infrastructure financing, as long as it included integrated planning with public transport and protection of special land.

“That deals with a lot of our general concerns about just freeing up land on the rural boundary to allow for more sprawl. On the face of it, it looks like something we could consider and support because it has all of the parts of the puzzle integrated. The devil is in the detail always, but we’re certainly interested in their proposal,” Turei told me, adding she was also open to the infrastructure funding idea.

“If this is a measure to help with the affordability question, then this is a measure that should be given some serious thought. With the housing crisis as it is, every idea needs to be explored. We can’t afford to dismiss any idea outright.”

Wow, not quite a total endorsement, but a real sign that that the facts are winning through in this debate – if you don’t allow for more land, then nothing else will work.

Auckland Mayoral candidate (and favourite) and Labour MP Phil Goff stopped short of endorsing Labour’s proposal for the abolishment of the RUB, saying other measures would have to be put in place to control growth or fund the subsequent higher infrastructure costs of housing developments well beyond the fringes.

“If you abolish them you’ve got to put other measures in place,” Goff said, referring to the bulldozing of farm land he had seen near Kumeu which he did not approve of.

“You have to have controls. You have to have a situation that if somebody wants to build way out of the city, the developer and therefore the property purchaser, will pay for the internal infrastructure — the streets and the water supply — but the Auckland ratepayers pay the cost of getting infrastructure to that area and the further out you go the more expensive it is,” he said.

“And unless you’ve got a user pays system in place there you can’t have open slather.”

Goff, as usual, won’t commit to anything at all. As other candidates release detailed policies, he seems to have none.

John Palino some weeks ago explicitly advocated scrapping the RUB. Labour has now endorsed Palino’s policy. But Labour’s Mayoral candidate will not.

The Washington Post reports:

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

This shows how a small number of politically correct activists are so out of touch with the vast majority of the people they claim to speak for.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.

And:

Since the nearly half-century-old debate regained national attention in 2013, opponents of the name have won a string of high-profile victories, garnering support from President Obama, 50 Democratic U.S. senators, dozens of sports broadcasters and columnists, several newspaper editorial boards (including The Post’s), a civil rights organization that works closely with the National Football League and tribal leaders throughout Indian Country.

So the political and media elites all decided what is offensive to Native Americans, without actually consulting them.

Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.

That is an overwhelming result.

Richard Harman writes at Politik:

This weekend sees the last of National’s regional party conferences.

Over the past three weeks, hundreds of party members have met in Hamilton, Auckland and Wanaka and will meet on Saturday in Palmerston North.

And Richard has attended most or all of those conferences.

I regard Politik, written by Richard, as a must read. It comes out at 5 am every morning and is my first read of the day.

It almost never talks about who said what in the House, who won question time etc. But almost every day I read something there which gives me an insight I don’t get anywhere else.

Richard is focused on policy and policy issues.

He attends not just the national conferences but the regional conferences of the parties. He talks to members to get a feel of where the party is at. I see him at obscure briefings such as the 40 year energy forecast from Exxon Mobil.

I’m not sure if he even bothers to attend question time, but when I do see him at Parliament he is almost always engaged in a discussion with an MP – gathering intelligence and insights. And I think MPs are much happier talking about stuff to him, than other media – because it’s not about a headline that will sell newspapers, or get click throughs for advertising. His model is providing valuable content and insights that people will pay for.

In no way do I mean to disparage the many good journalists in the press gallery who provide some excellent reporting and also analysis. But the nature of the media they work for means they can’t do what Richard does. Their employers won’t pay for the cost of sending them to regional conferences just to gather intelligence. They need stories every day to justify their investment.

As the media look at the very challenging commercial environment, they could do worse than look at the model of Politik – a daily newsletter that provides enough insights you don’t get elsewhere that you are willing to pay for.

Stuff reports:

Labour has selected its challenger to try and turn the safe National seat in Kaikoura red.

Former farmer, mediator and community advocate Janette Walker is the first confirmed Labour candidate in New Zealand for the 2017 general election. …

Walker was defeated by National’s Stuart Smith in the 2014 general election after Smith won with a final majority of more than 12,000 votes.

Walker said this time around she was better known but she would not be making any changes to her campaign style.

The campaign style was relentless negativity and gloom.

The result was Labour got a miniscule 17.1% of the party vote in Kaikoura.

The Marlborough economy was not booming, exemplified by 23 empty shops in the town centre, she said.

The electorate is more than Blenheim. Stats NZ reported in March:

For the year ended March 2015, Marlborough’s GDP increased 2.2 percent, which was influenced by volatility in agriculture, largely offsetting increases in other industries.

From 2010–15, Marlborough’s economy increased 28.0 percent. This was led by the manufacturing industry (food, beverage, and tobacco product) – Marlborough’s largest.

28% increase over five years is pretty damn good.

Forbes reports:

On Wiles’s figures, German house prices in 2012 represented a 10 percent decrease in real terms compared to thirty years ago. That is a particularly astounding performance compared to the UK, where real prices rose by more than 230 percent in the same period. (Wiles’s commentaries can be read here and here.)

A key to the story is that German municipal authorities consistently increase housing supply by releasing land for development on a regular basis.

If you don’t release land, then prices can go only one way. You need to do more than just release land but nothing else will work if you don’t do that.

The Washington Post reports:

As the Nevada Democratic convention voted to award a majority of delegates to Hillary Clinton — an accurate reflection of her victory in the state’s February caucuses — Sanders backers charged the stage, threw chairs and shouted vulgar epithets at speakers. Security agents had to protect the dais and ultimately clear the room.

Sanders supporters publicized the cellphone number of the party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, resulting in thousands of abusive text messages and threats:

“Praying to God someone shoots you in the FACE and blows your democracy-stealing head off!”

“Hey bitch. . . We know where you live. Where you work. Where you eat. Where your kids go to school/grandkids. . . Prepare for hell.”

Veteran Nevada reporter Jon Ralston transcribed some of the choice voicemail messages for the chairwoman, some with vulgar labels for women and their anatomy:

“I think people like you should be hung in a public execution. . . . You are a sick, twisted piece of s— and I hope you burn for this!”

“You f—ing stupid bitch! What the hell are you doing? You’re a f—ing corrupt bitch!”

Such charming people. And these were not e-mails or Facebook rants but voice messages and text messages.

Stuff reports:

Labour will legislate for medicinal cannabis “pretty quickly” after taking office, leader Andrew Little has confirmed.

Little said cannabis products should be available to anyone suffering chronic pain or a terminal condition if their GP signed off on it.

Labour MP Damien O’Connor has drafted a bill for Parliament that would shift the onus of decision making on medicinal cannabis away from the minister to GPs and medical professionals.

In a wide ranging Facebook Live interview with Stuff on Wednesday, Little said Labour would pass O’Connor’s law “pretty quickly” after the next election, should it win.

But on the wider issue of decriminalising cannabis, he wanted to see more evidence.

“I don’t have a moral thing about recreational drugs…my own experience of dealing with it as an issue was when I was a union lawyer, when employers started to do drug and alcohol testing and I did a lot of work on that.

“The medical evidence that came back to me overwhelmingly was that a lot of the cannabis available in New Zealand had very high THC (mind altering substance tetrahydrocannabinol) levels. For brains that are still developing in their late teens and early 20s cannabis use even to a modest degree can still cause long term brain damage. So I’d want to know we are addressing that real risk to that issue.”

Both approaches seem sensible. I’d wait to see the results of legalisation in the three US states which have done so, and see if drug related harms have increased due to legalisation. If not, then we should follow cause.

After a trough in the polls, Little believed Labour was bouncing back and said that was shown by the response to him out and about New Zealand. People were stopping him in the street, shaking hands and taking “selfies”.

“There is a mood shift, there’s a changing expectation.”

I agree there is a mood shift about Labour, but not a good one for them!

Stuff reports:

While 7-year-old Emma battles a lung disease at Starship children’s hospital, her mum is facing another struggle against “discrimination” as she tries to find a place for them to live.

The family is one of many finding it difficult to put a roof over their heads in Auckland, as the Government comes under pressure to deal with those living in cars, garages and on the streets.

Mother-of-three Rhiannon, 44, told media at a Green Party event she had been struggling to find a house after her landlord decided to sell their current place in March.

She had been made redundant two years ago while her relationship also ended, and faced “discrimination” from private landlords and property agents when trying to find a rental.

“As soon as you tell them you’re a sole parent with three children, or that you’re on a Work and Income benefit, they’re not interested in you in this kind of competitive market.” …

Work and Income had offered to lend her money for the family to stay in a boarding house, but she didn’t want to take her children there.

They were on the Housing New Zealand waitlist, but were told it would take at least 18 months to find a place – even though they were high-priority because of Emma’s health.

“I felt like being sick – I was sitting in my car when they rang me and said that, and I just felt like I was going to have a breakdown.”

Rhiannon said she and Emma were currently at Starship children’s hospital while her other two children stayed with family and friends, but she wanted a proper roof over their heads.

“I’m a good tenant, I’ve always paid my rent, and I just really want to get my kids together and back to their schools and live a normal life.”

What is interesting in this story is no surname is given. The media asked for it, but it was refused. Despite this the media have reported the claims.

Now I’m not saying that the situation is not exactly as it has been portrayed. It could well be, and probably is. There are some people who have very tough circumstances and need more assistance.

But there have been dozens of other cases where claims have been made, and further information has come out which gives a different version of events.

Without a surname, it is simply impossible to verify the claims. Media should refuse to report such claims, unless they can be verified. Otherwise it is just propaganda.

Without a surname, you can’t check if there have been any cases at the Tenancy Tribunal involving the person, – for example.

I would have less of an issue with the surname being supplied to the media and then being asked not to publish it – because at least then the media themselves could verify the claims. But the media have agreed to report the claims, without having any information to allow them to verify it. That is a very bad thing.

Stuff reports:

Reading Cinemas Courtenay in Wellington lowered the price of its standard tickets from $16 to $10 – indefinitely. It has taken a similar step in Auckland.

Gold Lounge tickets, which gives gave you more wriggle room in recliner seats at back of the cinema, are now $15.

Victoria University senior lecturer of film Miriam Ross said: “There have been concerns for a long time now that movie attendance is in decline – and that is definitely the case in the US, the UK and wider Europe.

“Now we are seeing that general decline in Wellington.”

Reading Cinemas Courtenay had possibly come to the realisation that they could not compete with the niche audiences that the smaller cinemas attract, Ross said.

“So if they drop the prices, they may be able to entice their own audience back . . . I think this is part of an incentive to get bums back on seats.”

Great to see the prices drop. We’re seeing competition work in two ways.

The first is between cinemas, with many people choosing smaller more cosy cinemas over the larger ones. So the larger ones need to drop prices to attract people back.

The second is between watching it at the cinema, or watching at home with a home theatre system.

John Bishop writes in NBR:

The advocates of a sugar tax also argue that price rises worked for tobacco, so why would they not also work for sugar.

I think there are three differences.

The first is that over time smoking became more and more socially unacceptable; smokers became social pariahs. That hardly applies to sugar consumers, whatever health damage their habit might be causing.

Second, the places where one could smoke were progressively reduced. No one is suggesting that consumption of sugar should be confined to certain designated areas.

Should there be a ban in cafés on sugar sachets on the table, or on selling cakes with a sugar content over a certain level? Good luck with that idea.

Third, the price increases in tobacco were large and regular. But even then it took years for people to cut out tobacco (and there was taxpayer funded assistance to do so through Quitline and the like). None of that will likely apply to a sugar tax. (Or a fat tax for that matter.)

The tax on tobacco is now around 400%. A pack which would normally cost $4 costs $20 due to the tax.

A 10% or even 20% tax on sugar would raise a lot of revenue but have minimal impact on sugar levels, let alone obesity.

I blogged on a troubling case in the Netherlands involving a woman in her 20s who was allowed to have an assisted suicide/death due to PTSD.

I’ve been e-mailed by an MP a translation of her case notes, which indicate she had ailments beyond PTSD. The translation is:

Character suffering, information and alternatives By patient, a woman of 20-30 years, had serious mental suffering, including a refractory posttraumatic stress disorder and severe refractory anorexia nervosa. there Also, there was a chronic depression, chronic suicidality, self-mutilation, dissociation / pseudo-hallucinations and obsessions and compulsions. Were her complaints Fifteen years ago started after sexual abuse.

The patient has had various therapies, both ambulatory and in various clinical centers. Also is They treated very intensively with medication. Her suffering was increasing and more and more came somatic problems. She was tube feeding through a PEG tube, suffered from urinary retention, which a suprapubic catheter was placed, and was suffering from constipation, which they got colonics. She also had chronic anemia, electrolyte disturbances and renal impairment.

About two years before the death has taken place for multidisciplinary consultation Following the euthanasia of the patient. There is then a second opinion from an expert asked trauma treatments. On the advice of these expert then has an intense occurred trauma treatment. This treatment was temporarily partially successful.

According to her treating psychiatrist no other treatment options were more present and there was no sight more to improve her quality of life. His vision was confirmed by a another psychiatrist and the medical superintendent of the mental health institution to which he was attached. Healing was no longer possible. The treatment was still only palliative in nature.

The suffering of the patient consisted of continuous mental suffering by continuing mood swings and flashbacks, ongoing abdominal discomfort and the very poor physical condition and deplorable condition in which it had found itself. Despite years of fighting and contributing to the intensive treatments were her mental and physical condition as bad backward that they experienced no quality of life anymore. Patient was cachectic severely weakened and almost completely become bedridden and dependent on the care of others; there was no perspective or hope for her. She had constantly felt that she was dying, but did not die.

They suffered from the hopelessness of her situation.

The patient experienced her suffering as unbearable. The doctor was convinced that suffering for the patient was unbearable and hopeless prevailing medical opinion.

There were no acceptable options for the patient more to relieve the suffering.

So seems it was a more complex case than the media reported.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

It is a common misconception that socialism is about helping poor people. Actually, what socialism does is create poor people, and keep them poor. And that’s not by accident.

So true.

Under capitalism, rich people become powerful. But under socialism, powerful people become rich.

Also very true.

The daughter of Venezuela’s socialist ruler, Hugo Chavez, is the richest individual in Venezuela, worth billions and billions of dollars. In Cuba, Fidel Castro reportedly has lived — pretty much literally — like a king, even as his subjects dwelt in poverty. In the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as Hedrick Smith reported in his The Russians, the Communist Party bigshots had lavish country houses and apartments in town stocked with hand-polished fresh fruit, even as the common people stood in line for hours at state-run stores in the hopes of getting staples.

Socialism means everyone but the socialist rulers are poor!

George Orwell explained the phenomenon in his Animal Farm, many decades ago. But people keep falling for it: Like Ponzi schemes, socialism is an evergreen form of fraud, egged on by suckers eager to believe the lies hucksters tell them.

Which brings me to Bernie Sanders. The Washington Post recently ran a pieceoriginally entitled “Bernie Sanders’s plans have surprisingly small benefits for America’s poorest people.” Among other things it noted that “In general, though, Sanders’s health-care plan would benefit affluent households more than it would poorer ones.”

Likewise, a paper from the left-leaning Brookings Institution notes that the biggest beneficiaries of Bernie’s free-college proposal would be rich kids:  “Under the Sanders free college proposal, families from the top half of the income distribution would receive 24% more in dollar value from eliminating tuition than students from the lower half of the income distribution.”

Labour in NZ is pushing for the same – a massive wealth transfer from taxpayers to the wealthiest people in NZ – college graduates.

Stuff reports:

The Government has no plans to sell Landcorp despite it being labelled by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English as a “poor investment”.

The government-owned farming company was grappling with a significant drop in its revenue against increasing debt levels caused by the fall in milk price, English told farmers at the DairyNZ Farmers’ Forum at Mystery Creek.

“It’s a very low returning asset, so you have $1 billion tied up in that organisation and it pays taxpayers very little, in some years nothing so it’s a poor investment. However, we’re committed to keeping it.

Why? NZ has thousands of dairy farms owned by farmers. Why does the taxpayer need to own scores also?

Landcorp made a net operating loss of $8.9 million for the half year ending December and its half year revenues were $108.8m, down from $115.1m. The state owned enterprise blamed the fall in revenue on 22 per cent contraction in milk revenue.

Landcorp expected to report a net operating loss of between $8m and $12m for the 2015-16 year, below that of the previous year where a net operating profit of $4.9m was achieved. The report blamed the fall in milk prices as the reason for the loss.

There is a huge opportunity cost having $1 billion tied up in Land Corp. If that was released one could use it to pay for say $1 billion of new schools or hospitals. Alternatively reduce interest payments by $60 million a year or so freeing up that money for health or education spending.

The Herald reports:

The Ports of Auckland must be moved for the growth and prosperity of the city, say three mayoral candidates.

Their comments came after a survey of 328 small business representatives by MYOB revealed 39 per cent would vote for a mayoral candidate who proposed to move the port.

The survey also found 31 per cent opposed a move while 32 per cent said it would not affect their vote.

During a mayoral debate yesterday on Newstalk ZB, Phil Goff, John Palino and Victoria Crone said moving the port was important.

Good to have three candidates in favour. What matters though is how explicit they’ll be in taking steps to make it happen. Platitudes are easy, policy is harder.

Speaking to Leighton Smith, Mr Goff said the port would reach capacity for bulk cargo probably within the next three to 10 years and for container traffic within the next 24 to 40.

“At a certain point Auckland port will not be able to take any further traffic and I am not in favour of the port expanding into the harbour.

“The second reason is that there is 75ha of prime central business district land there that I think would produce a better return than a port.”

He said moving the port would also reduce congestion on Auckland’s motorways.

Great, so what is your plan? Where would the money come from to pay for a move?

Victoria Crone said the port couldn’t grow with the city and was therefore obsolete.

“We have moved on and our economy is no longer driven by [the port]. It is an important part of it but it is not the main driver.”

She said it was important to take a 50 to 100-year view of the port, which would enable people to see the port would not have the capacity to serve the city.

“Our focus has to be on how do we move it, how do we move it cost-effectively, how do we keep the business communities in Auckland as little affected as possible when we go through the move and then we have an incredible piece of land with significant infrastructure opportunity that we can then open up to all of Auckland.”

Ms Crone suggested the land could then be used for “a combination of economic and social living, vibrant night life, we need a ferry terminal, people have said we need a stadium, we could look at a Sydney opera house”.

Would be amazing to have that land available for other use.

John Palino argued the business part of the port should be sold.

“If we sell the business part of the port, the value in the port is really the real estate … so we could look at Tauranga and Whangarei and possibly create a deal with them where we sell them the port or we sell someone else the port.

“We [then] give them the ability to run that port for up to 10 years but the deal would be that in 10 years the port has to be removed.”

A specific idea as to how it could be done.

The Herald reports:

Few beneficiaries had benefits cut for taking drugs last year.

Beneficiaries with work obligations are now required to take and pass a drug test when asked to as part of a job application, with sanctions applied to their benefits for failing the tests.

Last year, there were 31,791 referrals for drug testable positions nationwide and just 55 sanctions for failing a drug test, according to Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures.

Whangarei Citizens Advice Bureau co-ordinator Moea Armstrong said the low number of beneficiaries failing drug tests proved most people were “really desperately keen” for a job and not doing drugs.

That’s good.

He said workplace drug tests should be up to employers and he didn’t see why the Government needed to be involved in the process. Mr Reid said beneficiaries were under enough pressure without the threat of having their benefits cuts for failing drug tests.

It is up to employers. They decide if they ask a job seeker for one. What the Government has said though is if you are on a benefit and turn jobs down because you won’t take a drug test – well the taxpayer won’t keep funding you.

Bay of Plenty-based Te Tuinga Whanau support service executive director Tommy Wilson said he believed the drug testing policy was working.

“I know first hand that it’s working because we have a lot of people within our organisation that come from past drug use and are doing better because they have that put on them,” he said. “I am encouraged that people are being more responsible, realising how important work is and what it can do for the mana of a family to have a parent working.”

It would be good to have some before and after data – ie how many job seekers on a benefit refused drug tests before there were sanctions for doing so, compared to the failure rate now?

Bernard Hickey reports:

Economist and former Reserve Bank Chairman Arthur Grimes, who has researched the effects of the Metropolitan Urban Limit on land prices, said he also supported its removal and a change to infrastructure financing, as well as the relaxation of density limits. Along with other researchers from Motu, Grimes found in 2008 that land prices inside the Auckland boundary were 10 times higher than outside the boundary. See my 2009 article on that here  and subsequent Productivity Commission research showing similar results here.

“I’m partial to removing whatever they want to call it this week — the Metropolitan Urban Limit or the Rural Urban Boundary,” Grimes told Interest.

“There are two urban growth boundaries in Auckland. One is a horizontal one and one is a vertical one, and it’s important to get rid of both of them,” he said.

Grimes said he opposed the recent practice of progressive extensions of the RUB, which simply gave land owners serial monopolies on land that pushed up land values.

“The way it’s been discussed in the draft Unitary Plan really shows a misunderstanding of basic economic principles and is almost designed to give people their own specialised monopoly for a while that forces up the price of land.”

Grimes points out very well the problem of just moving the boundary.

Grimes also supported moves to finance the infrastructure needed for development with targeted rates, pointing to other similar tools used overseas such as as (Tax Increment Finance) TIFs.

“These sorts of things are quite mainstream internationally and would seem to me to make a lot of sense to investigate. I can’t see major fishhooks in them and they’re definitely worth looking at,” he said.

Grimes also said Councils also had low debt ratios in New Zealand and linking rates payments to infrastructure bonds was an accepted and sensible practice.

I’ve previously blogged in support of Twyford’s infrastructure bonds proposal, so that the costs of infrastructure to new properties is funded through targeted rates over time, rather than up front.

Property Council CEO Connal Townsend said he agreed with Labour’s call to abolish the Rural Urban Boundary.

“The Rural Urban Boundary is a barrier to entry into Auckland’s land market which will continue to distort market behaviour. An artificial boundary that chokes land supply is counter intuitive,” Townsend said.

He said he also agreed a rethink of infrastructure financing was needed.

“We know that paying development contributions through targeted rates over a number of years is workable. And, we already have the Local Government Funding Agency which more and more councils are starting to make use of,” Townsend said.

The property people support it.

Business NZ also welcomed Labour’s proposal.

CEO Kirk Hope said providing more land for building was needed.

“With agreement on this issue between both main political parties, it is to be hoped that local government planning decisions will take heed of the need to focus on land and housing supply,” he said.

As does business.

USA Today reports:

The Islamic State has lost 45% of the territory it once held in Iraq and 20% of areas it controlled in Syria, according to new estimates by a U.S.-led coalition combating the extremist group.

That’s good news. A long way to go, but losing territory is important. ISIL is not Al Qaeda. Their appeal and legitimacy comes from holding territory.  There will always be Islamic terrorism (sadly) but ISIL as an entity can be defeated by loss of territory.

New Zealand has played a role in this, with our training of Iraqi troops. The opposition would have had us do nothing but take in more refugees. By supporting and training the Iraqi troops, we are helping with ending the suffering of those who were living in territory controlled by ISIL.

Far better to help stop creating refugees, and making their homes safe again, than doing nothing to stop ISIL.

Stuff reports:

A spat has broken out between two political rivals over the use of a prominent Hamilton billboard in the lead-up to October’s council elections.

City Councillor and mayoral hopeful Rob Pascoe has accused fellow Councillor Andrew King of stymieing free speech after he rejected a request by Pascoe to hire a billboard above King’s Frankton business.

King owns several billboards on the corner of Greenwood Street and Killarney Road, as well as at other sites in the city.

Pascoe made inquiries to hire a billboard above King’s business during the month of September as part of Pascoe’s mayoral campaign.

However, his bid was rejected on the grounds the billboard was “politically incompatible” with King’s own views.

Pascoe was told King’s other billboards were also off-limits.

He has since booked billboard space in Whitiora and along Anzac Parade in Hamilton East.

“I guess it’s disappointing as I have a limited budget and booking billboards at three different sites would have given me coverage over the city,” Pascoe said.

“I feel Andrew is negating free speech by not allowing me to use his billboards.

No he isn’t. That’s ridiculous. King owns those billboards. They are his personal property. You have no more right to put your own skins on them than you do to stick up a hoarding in his backyard or on his car.

The Herald reports:

Labour wants the Government to abolish Auckland’s city limits to get people out of cars, caravans, garages and tents.

Labour housing spokesman Phil Twyford said the urban growth boundary had to go because it has fuelled the housing crisis and people would not be forced into bad circumstances if the Government acted.

“The Government should rule out any possibility of an urban growth boundary in Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan if it is serious about fixing the housing crisis,” Twyford said.

“Over 25 years the urban growth boundary hasn’t prevented sprawl, but it has helped drive land and housing costs through the roof. It has contributed to a housing crisis that has allowed speculators to feast off the misery of Generation Rent, and forced thousands of families to live in garages and campgrounds,” Twyford said.

I’m stunned, but in a good way.

Twyford had been showing signs of getting it for a few months now, acknowledging that land supply restrictions were a huge issue. Every expert report into housing says the artificial restriction of land for housing is the biggest factor, and other measures will be ineffective if you don’t fix this.

I thought that Labour would have some imprecise policy such as supporting some movement in the boundary. I never thought they would come out and say abolish it.

This is excellent they have. Huge kudos to Phil Twyford for getting Labour to agree to this. They’ve done a lot of things wrong in recent times, but this is a sign they are doing some things right.

But Twyford said the urban growth boundary created an artificial scarcity of land, driving up section costs. Land inside the boundary is up to ten times more valuable than rural land.

“It is not enough for the council to progressively add more land zoned for development here and there. That just feeds the speculation that is an inevitable result of having the boundary.

Twyford is dead right – moving it is not enough.

National needs to get some balls, and come out with the same policy. Auckland Council should be left under no mistake – abolish the boundary, or Parliament will step in and do it.

There is a less dramatic way to abolish it. Labour’s candidate for Mayor Phil Goff could adopt this as policy. Also will Twyford get the Labour-aligned City Vision candidates to support abolishing the boundary?

This announcement by Twyford makes him my MP of the Week, MP of the Month and maybe even better than that. It is a seriously good policy that will make a huge difference to Aucklanders if implemented.

UPDATE: You can sign a petition here (from the Taxpayers Union) calling on the Government to adopt Labour’s policy on abolishing the Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit. The more people who sign the petition, the more pressure on National to do the right thing and sign up to Labour’s policy.