The Washington Post assigns characters:

• Donald Trump: Robert Baratheon
• Hillary Clinton: Cersei Lannister
• Bernie Sanders: Ellaria Sand
• Ted Cruz: Tyrion Lannister
• Jeb Bush: Stannis Baratheon
• Marco Rubio: Renly Baratheon
• John Kasich: Rickon Stark
• Martin O’Malley: Ned Stark
• Carly Fiorina: Margaery Tyrell
• Ben Carson: Gregor Clegane
• Mike Huckabee: The High Sparrow
• Chris Christie: Jorah Mormont
• Rand Paul: Khal Drogo
• Rick Perry: Robb Stark
• Lindsey Graham: Davos Seaworth
• Scott Walker: Jon Arryn

Some of them surprise but their reasoning is pretty sound.

Chris Trotter writes:

Labour’s response to the “Panama Papers” has left me cold.

The Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, lacking hard evidence of criminal behaviour – of any kind – has opted to unfurl his party’s banner on the moral high ground.

He has accused the law firms involved in servicing foreign trusts of participating in a “grubby little industry”.

He’s probably right about that. Shielding rich people from their tax obligations hardly constitutes a noble calling.

My problem with this approach is that it all sounds a bit like a student union SGM, where the deployment of high-flown rhetoric is inversely proportional to the debaters’ command of useful facts.

And of course the leader and half the front bench are former student politicians!

The facts arising out of the Panama Papers are reasonably simple to summarise:

• New Zealand is not a tax haven in the generally accepted definition of that term.
• Changes to New Zealand legislation have put this country at risk of being perceived as a tax haven.
• The Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, took advantage of our legislative laxity to promote New Zealand as a politically stable and corruption-free hiding place for their clients’ assets.
• The National-led Government’s responses to IRD warnings that New Zealand was at risk of losing its corruption-free reputation were wholly inadequate.
• The entire problem can be solved easily: simply by toughening-up the disclosure provisions of the relevant legislation.

If Labour had been willing to assess these facts dispassionately, and with an eye to presenting itself as a credible alternative government, its handling of the Panama Papers would have been very different.

From the outset, it would have made it very clear that its number one priority was to protect New Zealand’s international reputation. That being the case, it would have been very careful to avoid calling their country a tax haven.

Their treatment of the Prime Minister would also have been different. Rather than attempting to associate him with the dubious behaviour of Mossack Fonseca, they would have acknowledged that the offending legislation had evolved gradually, under both Labour and National, and offered to make its remediation a bi-partisan effort.

Having sought out and obtained the best advice available from tax lawyers and accountants about how the legislation might best be rewritten to eliminate its usefulness to entities like Mossack Fonseca, Labour would then have approached the Government with an offer to rush through the necessary changes under urgency.

A much more intelligent approach than what they did. Their obsession with Key blinds them. Hopefully they will ignore Chris’ advice.

If all of the above has a faint ring of familiarity to it, that’s because my suggested responses are modelled on the way John Key handled the so-called “Anti-Smacking Bill” back in 2007. Rather than exploiting the mounting toll of damage the issue was inflicting on Helen Clark’s Labour Government, Key arranged for the bill to be passed overwhelmingly with National Party support.

The electorate was startled – but impressed – by Key’s magnanimous gesture towards his political opponent. Here was a man who was prepared to forgo petty partisan advantage for the wider public good. As he strode into the media conference alongside Helen Clark, the television audience saw not a political opportunist, but a future prime minister.

Clark’s right-wing opponents were furious with Key for rescuing her from the anti, anti-smacking backlash. Key just shrugged. He knew that at the perceptual level that truly mattered, he had just made huge gains. In his own, and his party’s, audition for the role of wielder of state power, National was now in front.

Andrew Little preaches a mean sermon, and his finger-wagging is second-to-none. But in that all-important audition for political power, his handling of the Panama Papers has done Labour no favours.

Another own goal.

The Guardian reports:

Isabelle Attard, a French MP from Normandy, stood outside the French parliament flanked by dozens of protesting female politicians and feminist campaigners. Armed with placards and loudspeakers, they demanded an end to a dangerous French taboo: the everyday groping, harassment, sexist comments and sexual assault that women are still subjected to in parliament by male politicians.

“We can no longer stay silent,” Attard said. “Women must feel able to speak out.” Riot police stood by on the sidelines. …

Attard, 46, an independent MP in Calvados, is one of eight women who came forward this week with allegations against the Green MP and deputy speaker of parliament, Denis Baupin, ranging from harassment to sexual assault.

Between 2012 and 2013, Baupin allegedly sent Attard and other MPs barrages of lewd daily text messages in parliament, ranging from “I like it when you cross your legs like that” to proposing during meetings that she become his lover or texting her that he liked it when she resisted.

Sandrine Rousseau, 44, an economist and spokesperson for the Green party, Europe Écologie Les Verts (EELV), told an investigation by Mediapart and France Inter radio that during a party meeting, Baupin had cornered her in a corridor, pinned her against the wall, held her breasts and tried to kiss her by force.

Elen Debost, another politician in the party, allegedly received about 100 messages of serious sexual harassment from Baupin such as: “I am on the train and I’d like to sodomise you wearing thigh-high boots.” Baupin resigned this week as deputy speaker of parliament and a judicial preliminary inquiry was opened. His lawyer vehemently denied what he called “mendacious, defamatory and baseless” charges.

Doesn’t sound too baseless when they have the text messages. Amazing that this level of harassment happens at all in their Parliament, let alone by a Deputy Speaker.

David Fisher writes:

Tony Robertson is a stone-cold killer and rapist who has never taken responsibility.

After he murdered Blessie Gotingco, he worked hard to avoid responsibility for doing so but the evidence was such that it must have been easy to banish “any reasonable doubt”.

When the calls for the inquiry came, the question turned. It effectively asked: “Did somebody else enable Robertson to murder and rape through inaction or incompetence?”

A Government-ordered inquiry by long-time public servant Mel Smith found “Robertson, and only Robertson, can be held responsible for what happened to Mrs Gotingco”.

Robertson did what he did and no one else need shoulder the blame. Corrections and police staff did their jobs when it came to Robertson.

In this awful case, it all comes down to a young man whose character is fundamentally deficient due to a deviant and murderous streak which sets him apart from almost everyone else.

The sad reality is that once someone has served their full sentence, you can’t stop them committing further crimes once released if they are determined.

This is one of the reasons I support three strikes – so the worst of the worst are not released once it is clear they will continue offending.

Robertson was considered for parole on four occasions. The board was confronted with an angry and violent young sex offender who refused to admit guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence. It kept him inside as long as it could. Robertson knew when he was getting out, and it wasn’t early. He told the board: “I will do my time and go out on my statutory release date in December 2013.”

And that was the target date — the point at which there was no legal way to keep Robertson in jail and away from the rest of us.

And he came out and killed almost straight away. So very very sad for the family and friends of the victim. Hopefully this time he will never be released.

i

Stuff reports:

The Labour Party diverted a press conference that was to be held outside a supposedly overcrowded South Auckland house after its occupants denied they had housing problems.

Oh dear. They can’t even organise a photo op competently, so how on earth could they run a country?

Other media had reported there were 17 people living in the Bairds Road, Otara home including in a tent on the front lawn.

But as media waited on the street for Labour leader Andrew Little on Tuesday a man came out to say he was the owner of the house and the claims had been greatly exaggerated.

The tent had been erected because the family were renovating, said the man, who declined to give his name.

“They say there’s 17 people living here, it’s not true,” he said.

So the media all reported this claim uncritically, and you wonder why trust in media is falling. We only find out the truth because Labour was moronic enough to arrange a press conference outside the house, without anyone actually talking to those who lived there in advance.

The Atlantic reports:

In the last two years Venezuela has experienced the kind of implosion that hardly ever occurs in a middle-income country like it outside of war. Mortality rates are skyrocketing; one public service after another is collapsing; triple-digit inflation has left more than 70 percent of the population in poverty; an unmanageable crime wave keeps people locked indoors at night; shoppers have to stand in linefor hours to buy food; babies die in large numbers for lack of simple, inexpensive medicines and equipment in hospitals, as do the elderly and those suffering from chronic illnesses.

That socialist revolution is working well then.

You wonder how many people have to die before people get it.

A case in point is the price controls, which have expanded to apply to more and more goods: food and vital medicines, yes, but also car batteries, essential medical services, deodorant, diapers, and, of course, toilet paper. The ostensible goal was to check inflation and keep goods affordable for the poor, but anyone with a basic grasp of economics could have foreseen the consequences: When prices are set below production costs, sellers can’t afford to keep the shelves stocked. Official prices are low, but it’s a mirage: The products have disappeared.

Yet in NZ some politicians push for rent controls, not realising that it would inevitably lead to an even greater shortage of places to live.

When a state is in the process of collapse, dimensions of decay feed back on each other in an intractable cycle. Populist giveaways, for example, have fed the country’s ruinous flirtation with hyperinflation; the International Monetary Fund now projects that prices will rise by 720 percent this year and 2,200 percent in 2017. The government virtually gives away gasoline for free, even after having raised the price earlier this year. As a result of this and similar policies, the state is chronically short of funds, forced to print ever more money to finance its spending.

Quantitative Easing on steroids!

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government can no longer afford to provide even rudimentary law and order, making Caracas, the capital, by some calculationsone of the most murderous cities in the world. Drug traffickers run large sections of the countryside. Prison gang leaders keep military-style weapons on hand, and while grenade attacks still make the news, they are nothing new. Recently, the police captured an AT4 antitank rocket launcher—basically, a bazooka—from a suspect.

The breakdown of law and order is so severe that even children are being robbed. At Nuestra Señora del Carmen school in El Cortijo, a struggling neighborhood of Caracas, supplies for the school-lunch program have been stolen twice this year already: Thugs have broken into the school’s pantry late at night after fresh food is delivered. The second burglary meant the school couldn’t feed the kids for at least a week.

So sad for those living there.

And it is about to get worse as the Herald reports:

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday extended the economic state of emergency in the South American country by 60 days. Yesterday he warned that authorities will seize any factories which stop production, and throw their owners in jail.

Oh yeah that will help.

Maduro said a complaint by factory managers that they were lacking the hard currency for raw materials was “whingeing” and their threat to close was a declaration of “economic war”. Any factories which stopped working would be “occupied by the people”, Maduro said in a televised speech. “We will do it. We will take over all the plants paralysed by the bourgeoisie,” he said. “Any who does not wish to work, let him leave.”

So he wants mobs to invade the factories. I think Mugabe has tried that approach!

Politico reports:

Why would anybody want that job under Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? If either of them becomes president, we will probably see the most marginalized vice president in a generation.

VPs used to have almost no power. But Gore, Cheney and Biden have all been very influential in their respective administrations.

Trump’s contempt for rivals, critics and even allies makes LBJ’s bullying look like something out of Mr. Rogers. The video of him curtly ordering endorser Chris Christie to “get on the plane and go home” ought to be fair warning that a vice president under Trump should not expect anything better. Moreover, the idea of loyally supporting a Trump agenda poses a special challenge: That agenda is likely to be amended or abandoned on a moment’s notice. A prospective running mate, asked to declare himself or herself on Trump’s abortion, tax, health care or foreign policy positions, might be tempted to answer: “Which ones?” As for as being “the last voice” offering guidance, Trump has already told us what voice that will be.

“I’m speaking to myself,” he told Mika Brzezinski of “Morning Joe” in March, “because I have a very good brain.” His vice president, Trump suggested last week, would be a messenger boy, serving as his “legislative liaison.”

Messenger boy is about right!

The challenge is different for a prospective Clinton running mate—and one that no past veep has ever faced. Yes, past vice presidents have found themselves in a battle for the ear of POTUS with key White House aides and Cabinet members. But they’ve never had the challenge of competing with a presidential spouse who also happens to be a former two-term president. Indeed, in many ways, Bill Clinton would be a near-perfect choice to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate. His political skills are unmatched; he knows the dangers that confront any White House as no one else possibly can; he’s even got a track record of working with an opposition Congress—something that neither of his successors can match.

Yeah being VP to Hillary would not be fun either – Bill will be her principal advisor and you’d be third tier at best.

Politico reports:

A new poll of Georgia voters finds Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton nearly tied in a general election matchup.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Trump with a 4-point lead over Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent, which is within the poll’s 4.26 percentage point margin of error.

The sentiments expressed by independents further contribute to the statistical tie between the two presumptive nominees.

It isn’t a statistical tie. I do wish media wouldn’t use that term. It is good media point out a lead may be within a margin of error, but not good when they suggest that it is effectively a tie.

For a poll of 822 voters, the chance that Trump is actually leading is 89.2% and the chance Clinton is leading is 10.8%. This is less than the normal 95% confidence interval so Trump is not necessarily leading – but 89% probability is not a tie.

50% is a tie and 95% is statistically significant. I’m not sure what the term is for probabilities between 50% and 95% but it is not a tie – ie a 50.1% chance you are leading is not the same as a 94.95 chance you are leading.

News.com.au reports:

They’ve had many good years, but an illness has ruined their quality of life. They’re in pain, and they want to end things on their own terms. For many people, this is an easy concept to accept.

But a recent case in the Netherlands is getting a lot of media attention, and it’s troubling ethicists.

A sexual abuse victim in her 20s was allowed to go ahead with assisted suicide as she was suffering from “incurable” post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD), according to the Dutch Euthanasia Commission.

The law in the Netherlands states that doctors may perform euthanasia on anyone with “unbearable suffering”.

The girl had been abused between the age of five and 15. As a result of her abuse, she suffered severe anorexia, chronic depression, and hallucinations.

Doctors said her conditions were “incurable” despite some small improvements in her mental state after intensive therapy. Two years ago, they agreed to her wish to end her life.

The doctors judged her to be “totally competent” and that there was “no major depression or other mood disorder which affected her thinking”.

News of her death has triggered debate around the world about the ethics of assisted dying.

I’m in favour of assisted suicide/euthanasia in cases where people are dying, or have a condition (Huntington’s that will make their life intolerable). But declaring PTSD to be incurable seems a step too far to me.

Stuff reports:

A living wage stoush between Wellington City Council and Chamber of Commerce has concluded, with both sides claiming victory.

The chamber was trumpeting success on its part after announcing future external contractors for the council would not have to be paid a living wage. 

The council had agreed to consult with the chamber on any extensions and, if necessary, it would seek legal judgment to clarify any disagreements.

However, the council says it has not backed down, and its original decision still stands, with a living wage to be paid to the council’s core cleaning staff from July 1, along with security staff.

Basically the two contracts done to date stand, but any future contracts may not include the provision.

As I have said before, it is madness to base your wages policy on whatever calculation is done by an Anglican priest living in Lower Hutt. That is not good governance. And forcing your contractors to do the same is even worse.

And the hypocrisy remains high as at least two Councillors who voted to force ratepayers to fund a living wage for Council staff and contractors, do not themselves pay a living wage to all staff working for them.

The Herald reports:

The Government is set to confirm plans next month to force councils to unlock more land for housing.

Housing Minister Nick Smith told TVNZ’s Q+A this morning that he would be “upping the ante” on increasing housing supply, in particular in Auckland.

“Next month I will be producing a national policy directive under the [Resource Management Act] that will put far tougher requirements on growing councils to ensure they are freeing up long-term the land that is required so that we don’t get into the sort of juggernaut that has been at the core of the unaffordable housing problems in Auckland.”

The Government was “pulling every lever it had” to increase supply, he said, and progress had been made on plans to build houses on surplus Crown land in Auckland.

Several contracts with developers would be announced in the next few weeks, and he expected the first house to be built on this land before the end of the year.

Around $52 million in funding for the scheme had been exhausted, and further funding was expected to be confirmed in this month’s Budget.

Dr Smith also told Q+A that Auckland’s Unitary Plan was “hugely important” for ramping up housing supply in the city.

“If we’re going to solve the problem in Auckland, it can’t be the sort of binary choice – is it up or is it out? It’s actually both.”

Good to hear Nick say this. Just doing one of them won’t work.

Stuff reports:

Victims of family violence who kill their abusers should be able to claim self-defence more easily, the Law Commission says.

The commission’s report on family violence laws, requested by the Government, has recommended lowering the threshold for self-defence to help women who “have endured years of trauma and abuse”.

In its report, the Law Commission said New Zealand had the highest reported rate of family violence in the developed world.

The commission has recommended changing the law to state that self-defence can apply when a person is responding to family violence – even when the threat is not “imminent”, as currently must be the case.

Lead commissioner Dr Wayne Mapp said there were some “deeply-held myths” about family violence, such as that those being abused could simply walk away.

“The reality is family violence in many cases is part of an ongoing, sustained, vicious pattern of violence that traps the person.

“That entrapment means she cannot leave, and that then means she ultimately, for fear of her life, or that of her children, sees no other way out but to defend herself with lethal force.”

Mapp said New Zealand’s self-defence laws were “out of step” with countries like the UK and Australia, and there was “ample evidence” that women convicted here of manslaughter or murder should have been acquitted for acting in self defence due to family violence.

He did not believe changing the law would lead to people using family violence as an excuse for premeditated murder, saying it would be up to juries to decide whether a self-defence claim was believable.

The law change could allow a woman to kill her sleeping partner and claim self-defence, if she made a “believable” case of family violence.

“Such a claim would only be successful if it existed in the context of a sustained long period of family violence, and if you didn’t do that then, the next thing going to happen to you is that you were going to be killed instead.”

I think the Government has to be very careful here.

First of all I agree that it is not as simple as saying that women should simply leave men who abuse them. That is absolutely the right thing to do, but doing so can be incredibly difficult, and in fact dangerous.

However we need to be careful that we do not create an incentive that it is an easier choice to kill your partner rather than leave them.

I’d be more comfortable with someone being able to get a reduced sentence or lesser conviction, rather than a total exoneration.

The other aspect that concerns me is that while there are sadly many many people who do get abused by their partners, you may create an incentive for someone who kills their partner, to falsely claim they were abusing them, and hence it was self defence. And as the partner is dead, you don’t get their side of the story.

So while I can agree the status quo is not great, I think significant caution is needed before extending the definition of self defence beyond imminent danger.

By John Stringer https://conzervative.wordpress.com

Continue reading »

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has signalled National will campaign in 2017 on a $3 billion package of tax cuts.

Last week Finance Minister Bill English ruled out offering tax cuts in this year’s Budget and said it was not currently in the plan for the 2017 Budget either, although that could alter.

Speaking to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB this morning, Mr Key said tax cuts had been ruled out in the short term because it was a choice of spending $1 billion on tax cuts “to deliver very small amounts” or spending that money on healthcare and other areas.

Or you could cut spending in other areas and deliver more significant tax cuts.

However, he signalled National was working on a more substantial package of cuts for 2017. “We are not ruling that out for 2017 or campaigning on it for a fourth term in 2017, but having a bigger one, to be blunt, than $1 billion.” Asked how much was needed to deliver meaningful tax cuts, he said: “$3 billion, I reckon.”

While there was not enough in the Government books for that at present, he expected that to change as the surplus built up.

I’m sorry but unless the tax cuts are in next year’s Budget, why should we believe we’ll get them? We’ve been teased with the possibility of tax cuts for the last term, and if they’re not going to deliver them in next year’s Budget, then why should people believe they’ll get them in a fourth term?

He said it was possible to put that to the voters without it being dismissed as pork barrel, saying at some point tax thresholds had to change to take account of increasing wages.

“The average income is going up and we think in a few years time the average income will be $68,000. Well, the top rate cuts in at $70,000. If you don’t adjust thresholds over time you get to a point where the average income earner is paying the top threshold.

That can’t be right.”

No, it isn’t. So do something about it now.

“There’s no reason to raise taxes. Taxes should be lower… The problem we have is that government spends too much, not that taxes are too low.”

– Grover Norquist

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

NPR reports:

Turn on the TV and you can barely escape the acronym TPP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a free trade deal between the U.S. and 11 other countries that’s currently being negotiated. Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are deriding the TPP, saying it’s a bum deal that will hurt the U.S. economy and especially low-wage workers.

But if you venture into the Midwest and ask a farmer about the TPP, you’re likely to get a different answer.

“This pending TPP trade negotiation, to me, is hugely important for agricultural commodities, but specifically for beef,” says Mike John, a cattle rancher in Huntsville, Mo. He’s one of many Midwest farmers and ranchers who are bucking the political trend to dog the TPP.

A coalition of more than 200 agriculture groups recently drafted an open letter urging congressional leaders to approve the TPP, saying the trade deal will help U.S. farmers stay competitive in an increasingly crowded world market.

And what if the US does not ratify?

Binfield says if the U.S. doesn’t pass the TPP, countries like Australia and New Zealand could make their own deals with each other, excluding the U.S. That could mean less trade access overall for U.S. producers.

But there’s another issue casting a long shadow over TPP negotiations: China. China is not a part of the trade deal. But pro-TPP interests say agreements like this one prevent China from setting global trade rules in its own interest.

Binfield says in the overall strategy, the U.S. wants to make sure China – which is a massive economic power – doesn’t have the chance to dictate the trade rules for Asia. The U.S. wants to set the trade standards.

I’ve been told that what might happen could be fascinating.

If the US does not ratify, then Japan and Canada will only stay in if there is a major economy as part of it.

Who could that be? China!

That would be a brilliant political move. China steps in and says we’ll sign TPP, and then you get a trade agreement with all 11 countries, China and no US.

With a degree of trepidation I went to see Circa’s performance of King Lear on Saturday night. The trepidation being that since being forced to study Shakespeare at school, I had resisted his work. Also a production that lasts over two and a half hours is normally too long for me.

But I’m glad I did, as it was a stunningly good show. I’d even say it was theatre at its finest. A very fitting way to mar the 400th anniversary of the death of Shakespeare.

The synopsis of the play is:

The story opens in ancient Britain, where the elderly King Lear is deciding to give up his power and divide his realm amongst his three daughters, Cordelia, Regan, and Goneril. Lear’s plan is to give the largest piece of his kingdom to the child who professes to love him the most, certain that his favorite daughter, Cordelia, will win the challenge. Goneril and Regan, corrupt and deceitful, lie to their father with sappy and excessive declarations of affection. Cordelia, however, refuses to engage in Lear’s game, and replies simply that she loves him as a daughter should. Her lackluster retort, despite its sincerity, enrages Lear, and he disowns Cordelia completely.

Ray Henwood as King Lear is masterful – he captures so well a proud wrathful King, and then also his descent into madness. It is hard to imagine anyone else doing the role so well, except perhaps Ian McKellen. Henwood’s eyes are quite captivating as he plays the sad and mad King.

The play is definitely not a comedy, but there are comic moments provided by Gavin Rutherford who is excellent as King Lear’s Fool. His burbling is often cutting and cruel, yet funny.

Other actors who stood out were Nick Dunbar as Oswald, the steward to Goneril (the oldest sister). Dunbar just seems a natural at playing the evil sneering characters.

Ken Blackburn was also an excellent Duke of Gloucester, who tragically allowed one son to turn him against the other.

Also of note was the conflict between the two brothers Edgar and Edmund, portrayed by Andrew Paterson and Guy Langford. Paterson did especially well with Edgar when he pretended to be a madman, to hide from those seeking to kill him.

The play was directed by Michael Hurst, who is an acclaimed Shakespearean director and produced by Carolyn Henwood (who in her spare time is a District Court Judge and chair of the Parole Board!).

The stage design was simple yet effective. Such a large cast (12 principal actors) saw more of the stage used than normal in Circa One.

An interesting production choice was to have it set in Britain in the 1930s, rather than the ancient past. The costumes were suits, dresses and military uniforms of the era, and it worked. It made the play seem a more modern story, rather than something that could never happen today.

King Lear is a powerful story. It is a tragedy driven by vices of jealousy, lust, power and envy. There is no happy ending, but that doesn’t make it any less satisfying. Of interest, an alternate version of the play was very popular for around 150 years, until 1838. That version had a happy ever after ending for some. But the original Shakespeare version has reigned supreme since then and is regarded as his greatest work for its focus on the nature of kinship and suffering.

The best play I have seen so far in 2016.

Rating: ****1/2

The situation in NZ was:

National’s party vote is lower than a year ago but slightly higher than three years ago.

Labour’s party vote is lower than one and three years ago.

The Green’s party vote is around the same as a year ago.

NZ First party vote is up from a year ago and up from three years ago.

You can subscribe to the full newsletter at http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 for fuller details of polls in NZ, the US, the UK, Australia and Canada.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Council is heading towards a financial crisis over its debt position, says mayoral candidate and businesswoman Victoria Crone.

She says a decision by councillors today to use a “rainy day” fund to reduce the risk of a credit-rating downgrade and higher rates is a big concern.

“This is a massive decision,” she said of a plan to draw down $200 million over two years to manage the council’s debt ratios.

At today’s finance and performance committee, councillors are expected to increase rates by 2.4 per cent this year and take steps to manage its $7.5 billion debt.

Credit rating agencies have warned the council of a rating downgrade if its debt-to-revenue ratio approaches 270 per cent.

Mayor Len Brown’s latest budget forecasts a debt-to-revenue ratio of 265 per cent.

A one-notch downgrade, he said, would lead to an $11 million rise in interest costs.

Interest costs are funded by rates. A $14 million increase in running costs equates to about a 1 per cent rates rise.

To create headroom, council officers have suggested drawing down $100 million over each of the next two years from a diversified investment portfolio, currently valued at $335 million, to manage the debt ratios.

So basically the Council is borrowing so much that they are on the verge of a credit downgrade which would increase interest rates and result in ratepayers paying an extra 1% (on top of the 9.9% average increase).

To avoid that, they don’t decide to borrow less, but instead to start liquidating assets.

This won’t end well for ratepayers.

Stuff reports:

ACT leader David Seymour has done a u-turn and will now support a bill he’s called “silly” and a Labour Party “stunt”.

The Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill – designed to make under-secretaries subject to the OIA – was introduced by Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe last year.

It passed its first reading in October after United Future leader Peter Dunne and the Maori Party broke ranks with National and ACT to get the bill over the line.

Seymour, who is under-secretary for education and responsible for charter schools labelled it a “stunt bill” and questioned why Labour didn’t change the bill back in 2005 when former Labour MP Dover Samuels was an under-secretary.

Labour has long opposed charter schools, an ACT flagship policy, and Seymour claimed the bill was redundant because under-secretaries already answered to their ministers.

“All it does is attempt to attack me and while I’m a little bit flattered, I cannot support the bill,” Seymour said in October.

However the realisation that the Government didn’t have the numbers to block the bill has forced Seymour to change his mind.

He is now going to vote in favour of the bill because he doesn’t see any point “wasting energy” on lobbying MPs to oppose such a “silly bill”.

It’s expected National will throw its support behind the bill as well.

The select committee recommended unanimously that the bill passed, and that is the right thing to do.

Yes the intent behind the bill is petty politics by Labour, but regardless of the intent, the bill is worth supporting as an Under-Secretary is part of the Executive and should have the OIA apply to their official duties.

The Herald reports:

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been named in the Panama Papers as the fallout from the global scandal continues.

It has emerged that Turnbull was a former director of a company created and administrated by embattled law firm Mossack Fonseca in the 1990s.

However a spokesman for Turnbull told Fairfax the Prime Minister was not aware the company had been administered by Mossack Fonseca as the registered agent in Road Town, Tortola.

Turnbull was a former director of a British Virgin Islands company administered by Mossack Fonesca.

He joined the board of Star Mining NL with former New South Wales Premier Neville Wran in 1993, but both resigned two years later.

So 25 years ago he served as a director of a company that has been initially established by a law firm. And because of the guilt by association method of those releasing all these stolen documents, he has to defend himself.

Stuff reports:

A billion people are projected to die this century from smoking and there could be a solution but it’s not a perfect one.

While a new documentary looks into the life-saving potential of e-cigarettes, the New Zealand Government has announced its plans to fund further research on vaping technology and its role in helping Kiwis quit smoking.

E-cigarettes or vaporisers are electrical devices that mimic real cigarettes by producing vapour by heating an “e-liquid” solution, which the user inhales, or “vapes”. E-liquid is available with or without nicotine and usually contains propylene glycol and flavouring agents.

A Billion Lives – a film about the potential e-cigarettes have to save lives and reduce harm by switching smokers to vaping nicotine had its world premiere in Wellington on Wednesday

While the doco doesn’t tout e-cigarettes as a magic wand or a perfect solution, director Aaron Biebert says its a step in the right direction.

Both Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians have said that they could play a major part in reducing smoking rates.

The same day the documentary premiered the Government’s Health Research Council (HRC) announced its plan to spend almost $150,000 on funding research on e-cigarettes.

At the moment e-cigarettes containing nicotine cannot legally be sold in New Zealand, but you can import up to three months’ supply for personal use. 

And this is crazy. e-cigarettes are more restricted than actual cigarettes!

There are basically three policy settings you can have:

1. E-cigarettes are more restricted than cigarettes
2. E-cigarettes have the same restrictions cigarettes
3. E-cigarettes have less restrictions than cigarettes

Now one can have a debate about whether it should be (2) or (3). But we’re got (1). It’s madness. It is the equivalent of the Government banning low alcohol beer yet allowing any dairy to sell bottles of vodka.

The Ministry of Health says there is not enough evidence for it to recommend e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. It currently encourages people to stick to patches, lozenges and gum.

They don’t need to recommend anything. They just need to allow their sale, so people can choose what method of quitting works best for them. And I know lots and lots of people who have quit smoking through e-cigarettes and vaping.

So will this new publicly funded trial, led by University of Otago marketing professor Janet Hoek, provide the evidence needed for the ministry to make up its mind on vaping?

Hoek says while there is general agreement that e-cigarettes are safer than combustible tobacco, smokers will only achieve substantial risk reductions if they switch completely from smoking to using e-cigarettes.

Hoek says the current understanding of the transition between smoking and e-cigarette use is poor due to a lack of data. 

The 12-month trial will use a novel “smart” e-cigarette to collect information including puff duration, nicotine intake, and the frequency and intensity of use.

HRC Chief Executive Professor Kath McPherson says e-cigarettes are “a topic of hot debate” both in New Zealand and around the world.

“Research such as this will help us build up the evidence that we need to determine if e-cigarettes actually do help people quit smoking.

It is good to see funding for a trial. There has been lots of overseas studies, and the Royal College of Physicians has said they have no doubt they help people quit smoking, are far less harmful, and not a gateway to smoking – in fact the opposite a gateway from smoking. But I agree NZ specific research is good.

Marewa Glover, an Associate Professor at Massey University’s School of Public Health, has just completed an on-line survey of e-cigarette users, or vapers.

While data was still being analysed, she said it was clear from responses that most vapers were using e-cigarettes as a way of reducing how much they smoke, or to quit altogether.

This is no surprise. Basically smokers get addicted to the nicotine, yet it is the tar that kills them. So a product that gives then the nicotine, without the combustion of the tar is going to work for people who are addicted to nicotine. Some people can quit nicotine alltogether, but many can’t. So a far far less harmful nicotine product is a sensible thing to have available.