A guest post by Willie Jackson:

What to do about Radio New Zealand?

Last year RNZ cut its last Maori dedicated news in prime time Manu Korihi from its airwaves and not a word of criticism was directed their way in the Pakeha media world.  Politicians irresponsibly also said nothing and a station that gets 35 million in taxpayers funding now not only doesn’t  have one Maori presenter in prime time but it doesn’t have any Maori news.

It’s a story I have tried to get on mainstream media particularly in the main National newspapers but none were interested in doing anything, not the Herald, Dominion or any of the Sunday weekend papers.  Of course I knew the reluctance or resistance to support my request was probably based on the fact that all those outlets have virtually No Maori working for them.

So obviously they were not going to back my call for an examination of RNZ’s Maori policy when their situation is equally questionable.  Still my campaign which is in fact a campaign that we initiated on Radio Waatea which I head and is supported by our iwi radio network has been going well. People are asking the question “HOW DOES RNZ GET AWAY WITH IT?”

My view is that they get away with it because no one bothers to challenge them, mainstream media don’t care and politicians do nothing apart from greenlight the racist strategies that they come up with.  RNZ is one of the best examples of institutionalised racism in this country.  There is no other way to describe how this organisation is operating, they have had generations of tax payers’ dollars and they are meant to be the voice for all New Zealanders yet the Maori voice is silent and to many of our peoples stories are untold.

Recently my team at Waatea carried out an audit of RNZ’s Maori stories over a 12 week period.  The results were alarming but even more alarming was the way RNZ tried to defend themselves.  Our evaluators determined that in the 12 week period only 0.1 percent of stories were Maori focussed. RNZ rubbished our audit and said we missed some stories which was true but when they calculated what we had missed it worked out to a mere one percent.  That’s how stupid and sensitive the defenders of RNZ are they try to defend the indefensible. 

Paul Thompson the RNZ CEO then decided to release their new Maori policy after reluctantly acknowledging that I might have had a point over their lack of Maori content.  Instead of coming up with a plan that would see more Maori stories on RNZ, his main priority for the next few years will be to train his Pakeha journalists to speak Maori.  It is the most stupid and insulting Maori strategy that I have ever seen.  The strategy is born out of ignorance and the belief that anything is probably better than what they have now which is nothing.

RNZ seem to think simply hiring the odd Maori journalist and getting their Pakeha journalists to pronounce Te Reo properly is all they have to do to live up to their public broadcasting obligations under the treaty but they need to come up with a Proper Maori strategy that will see Maori news and programmes go from 2 percent to at least 15 percent and they need to throw away the silly strategy that CEO Thompson has come out with.  They must go back to having Maori specific news, after all they have Pacific Island news, media news, political news and farming news.  In fact it seems sometimes that even native birds might have a better chance of getting a news show before Maori, given how many bird sounds we hear daily.  

Once upon a time they even had Maori language segments on National Radio, but that was cut five years ago, they probably thought their Pakeha announcers who try their best but sadly can’t speak Maori to save themselves were more than capable in the reo to honour their Maori language obligations.  So getting te reo Maori back on air should be mandatory.  And wouldn’t it be great to hear a Maori presenter on one of their frontline shows.  It seems incredible that in the whole 91 year history that we have not had one person deemed good enough to present a daily National Radio show.

Think about all the top Maori radio and TV presenters you’ve heard and seen over the years.  Here’s just a few of them – Henare Te Ua, Derek Fox, Selwyn Muru, Julian Wilcox, Wena Harawira, Scotty and Stacey Morrison, Shane Taurima , Miriama Kamo,  Mihi Forbes  who is now a reporter with RNZ and of course let’s not forget RNZ head of news Carol Hirschfeld has also been a TV presenter and producer.

Yet not one of those people have ever been given an opportunity to front a regular national daily show.  RNZ has a colonialist BBC mind-set which discriminates against Maori presenters. Surely as we debate the merits of removing our colonial relics from the flag it’s time to do the same with RNZ.  All people should be outraged by this shutout of Maori on our National network. I implore politicians to act, Maori are 15 percent of this country’s population and we currently get 2 percent of the action on our National station that purports to be the national voice that is not how the treaty partner should be treated.

If it’s not a breach of Radio New Zealand’s charter then it should be and if we get a zero response which is highly likely then Maori seriously need to consider a Waitangi Tribunal claim against RNZ and the government similar to the Te Reo Maori claim of 1986. I have spoken to Maori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell about this issue and he has asked the right questions.  However Te Ururoa needs help and asking questions isn’t going to do it, this lot need to be given clear directions in terms of their Maori strategy or they will continue with the current nonsense.

The Minister of Broadcasting Amy Adams has to act, she must recognise the discrepancies here, talk with the RNZ board and demand that RNZ change their Maori strategy to one that will see Maori properly reflected in their programming, the aim has to be 15 percent.  Anything less will mean that Maori stories and Maori announcers will remain tokenistic and an afterthought.  Go to the RNZ National radio website right now if you don’t believe me and count how many Maori presenters they have.  It is a disgrace but what will be even more shameful will be if our politicians and the RNZ Board do nothing, let’s see what happens.

In April I published my inaugural data looking at the opinion of editorials and columnists at the two major media sites of Stuff and NZ Herald and in October, the 2nd set of data.

Another six months has passed since then, and I can now publish an update. This will allow us to see both what the sentiment has been, but also has it changed from the six months previously.

Again some notes on the data:

• It covers six months – from 1 October 2015 to 31 March 2016.
• It only covers “opinion” columns and editorials. It does not cover news stories. It is designed to shed light on what the newspaper or journalist/columnist thinks – rather than what the story is. Of course it is influenced by the stories of the moment.
• Data is collated from the NZ Herald and Stuff websites every morning, checking the main pages, news pages, politics pages and opinion pages. It is possible some columns and editorials have been missed if they were not on the websites until later in a day. However if seen on subsequent days they are added to the table.
• Where a journalist or columnist has done fewer than three columns that reference the Government or political parties, they are not personally included in the six month summary below, but they may be included in summaries over longer time periods.
• An editorial or column is assessed against whether someone reading it will feel more positive or more negative about the Government/National, Labour, Greens or NZ First.
• If an editorial or column is not on a political issue, or just talks about an issue in a way that is neither supportive nor critical of a party, then they are not included. This is just an analysis of columns and editorials that are positive or negative for a political party or the Government. This is deliberate, it is about seeing the balance between positive and negative for those that do take a stance.
• This is not an analysis of media bias. This is an analysis of opinion. It is quite legitimate for columnists and editorials to have views that are not split 50/50 between the parties. And it is fair to say one would generally expect an incumbent Government to be criticised more often than it is supported.

National

Turning first to the editorials of the three metro newspapers (only they were included), the Dominion Post remains the most relentlessly critical of National. Of 19 editorials referencing the Government or National, 16 are critical and only 3 supportive, so 84% negative.

Thee Herald is 67% negative and 33% positive.  This is more critical than the previous six months when it was 62% negative.

Turning to the columnists, the one who has written the most critical of National remains Brian Rudman with 7 negative and no positives. Next in line is Bryan Gould, then Stacey Kirk, Dave Armstrong, Paul Little, and Toby Manhire.

Of those with a mixture of positive and negative, Tracy Watkins is 88% negative, Duncan Garner 75%, Vernon Small 67%, Barry Soper 50% and Audrey Young 29 (last six months was 83%)

Combining columns and editorials, the Herald website is 79% negative and 21% positive in its opinion, while Stuff is 87% negative and 13% positive.

Compared to the previous six months, the coverage has been slightly more negative, with the Herald going from 77% to 79% and Stuff from 83% to 87%.

I remain amused some left wing blogs insist that the media (and especially the Herald) is pro-National and too soft on it. In terms of editorials and opinion columns, it simply isn’t true.

Labour

Turning to coverage of Labour they have received better coverage in the last six months, with 33% of columns and editorials positive compared to 23% the previous six months.

The most negative columnists are Larry Williams and Tracy Watkins, while the most balanced have been Audrey Young and Vernon Small.

Greens

Turning to the Greens, they had had almost only positive columns – six positive and one negative. So 86% positive.

NZ First

NZ First have had only three columns on them, one positive and two negative.

In their report on the sugar tax, the Taxpayers’ Union stated that only 1.6% of average calories came from sugary soft drinks.

Now I’m on their board, but I don’t normally get into the details of research publications. I referred to the 1.6% figure, but I started to think that it must be wrong.

Surely no sensible group or person would advocate a tax on soft drinks, if they represent just 1.6% of calories? Could anyone (apart from those who just hate soft drink companies) really think a tax on products that produce just 1.6% of calories would achieve anything, while ignoring the other 98.4% of calories? So I started to doubt the 1.6% figure.

Hence I asked the NZTU staff if they could provide the data to back up the 1.6% claim. And they did. It is from the 2008/09 NZ National Nutrition Study of 4,721 NZers.

The NNS found that 9.9% of total energy intake (calories) comes from sucrose (added sugar). Of total sucrose intake 16% comes from non-alcoholic beverages.

Multiply 9.9% by 16% and you get 1.6%. So the figure comes from the official Ministry of Health nutrition survey.

So the proponents of a sugar tax want to tax something that represents 1.6% of the average calories consumed by NZers. They think this will make a material difference to obesity.

Let’s say that a sugar tax does lead to a 10% reduction in sales of soda drinks. This would see average calories reduced by 0.16%.

So what would be the average reduction in calories? 3.2 a day (off a 2,000 standard).

Now it takes around 9,000 fewer calories to lose 1 kg of weight. So how long would it take for an average weight loss of 1 kg with a sugar tax that reduced soft drink consumption by 10% (and generously assuming no substitution).

2,813 days.

That is around 7 and a half years.

So if you introduce a sugar tax on soft drinks, and it reduces sales by 10% (a generous assumption) and there is no substitution (an even more generous assumption), then in 7 and a half years we might all weigh one kg less.

The definition of obese is a BMI of over 30 and to not be overweight you need a BMI of 25 or less.

if you are average height male (177 cm) and have a BMI of 30.3 you’d weigh 95 kgs. To get a BMI of 25 you need to drop to 78 kgs – a drop of 17 kgs.

So a sugar tax that drop soda drink consumption by 10% and didn’t result in any substitution (highly unlikely) would take around 128 years to get an obese person to a healthy weight.

And for this, they want a new tax that would cost NZers billions and billions of dollars.

A reader e-mails:

The grapevine suggests Justin Lester, panicked by Nick Leggett’s rumoured entry into the race, is lining up to reveal Celia Wade-Brown’s endorsement, possibly at his formal launch as Labour’s Wellington Mayoral candidate due in the coming days.  To date, Wade-Brown has indicated she intends to seek re-election, although it has long been rumoured she will bolt from the race to give her loyal deputy mayor a shot at the job.  

Is the formal passing of the baton between Labour and the Greens in Wellington the kind of job-sharing Grant Robertson envisages as the “future of work”?  Problem is, polls show Celia is deeply unpopular –– many consider the notorious Island Bay cycleway the death-knell of her political career –– and Lester is barely known by Wellington voters, and not especially admired among those who know him.  If it turns out that the first thing voters hear about Justin Lester is that he’s Celia’s “chosen one”, it’s hard to see how it helps.  He’s already being dismissed in the business community as “Justin Lester-Brown”, and a public pat on the back won’t do anything to downplay his association with an increasingly toxic incumbent.   And let’s not forget, Labour came a dismal third throughout Wellington at the last election, and the decision to field a Labour-endorsed candidate is exactly what Oscar Wilde had in mind when he talked of the “triumph of hope over experience”.

Lester launches his campaign on the 3rd of April. Maybe that will be when Celia endorses him, if she does?

Newshub reports:

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has posted a barrage of unusual tweets from the Hunt for the Wilderpeople premiere.

Repeatedly using the hashtags “#wilderselfie” and “#shite”, the tweets began with a series accompanied with black images. In one of them she describes “hooning on low alcohol cider”.

Photos did follow of her in a vehicle with a friend holding what looked like a beer or cider, then blurry images of her attempting to get out of a vehicle.

I’m all for MPs being able to relax and party and have a good time.

But why on earth would you think you should live tweet yourself doing so?

Yes I’ve done it occasionally (in the past), but I’m not a party leader advocating I should be Deputy PM.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What changes is the Government making to increase support for families in need from 1 April?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “We have anti-nuclear legislation and New Zealanders wear it as a badge of honour”?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “Only National can deliver more services while reducing district health boards’ deficits”?
4. CLAYTON MITCHELL to the Associate Minister of Transport:Does he have confidence in Maritime New Zealand’s management of the safety issues at Taharoa ironsands export operation?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development:What changes are being made on 1 April that will help support sole parents into work?
6. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development:Who has provided payroll services to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment since it was formed in 2012?
7. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Can he confirm the Government is helping young families get ahead by expanding the eligibility for paid parental leave from tomorrow, as well as increasing its length?
8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Is he satisfied that the resources allocated to Housing New Zealand are being used in the best possible way?
9. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister for Building and Housing: What progress has the Government made in growing the rate of new house construction, particularly in Auckland?
10. POTO WILLIAMS to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Is she reviewing family violence and sexual violence services as part of the Ministry’s line-by-line review of contracts?
11. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting sustainability in our fishing industry?
12. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister of Immigration: Will he double the refugee quota?

National: Five questions on benefits increases, work testing, paid parental leave, Auckland housing and fishing

Labour: Four questions on health spending, MBIE payroll, Housing NZ and family violence

Greens: Two questions on anti-nuclear legislation and refugees

NZ First: One question on Maritime NZ

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill – third reading

This bill is provides a new legal framework to support the regeneration of greater Christchurch over the next 5 years.

• Introduced: October 2015
• 1st reading: October 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: February 2016, support with amendments by majority, Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: March 2016, passed unanimously

The third reading is a debate of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each so a maximum debate of two hours

Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax, GST on Online Services, and Student Loans) Bill – second reading

This bill allows sharing of information between the Inland Revenue Department and the Australian Taxation Office in relation to New Zealand student loan borrowers residing in Australia; proposes a new residential land withholding tax to act as a collection mechanism for the bright-line test; and provides for the collection of GST on cross-border services and intangibles, including internet downloads and online services.

• Introduced: November 2015
• 1st reading: December 2015, passed 109 to 12, NZ First opposed
• SC report: March 2016, supported unanimously with amendments

The second reading is a debate of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each so a maximum debate of two hours

Douglas Murray writes at The Telegraph:

Breitbart reports:

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos has been banned by his own alma mater, the University of Manchester, from participating in a debate on campus about free speech.

Manchester’s student union also banned Yiannopoulos’s debate opponent, Julie Bindel, from discussing whether modern feminism has a problem with censorship. Yiannopoulos briefly attended Manchester as a Philosophy undergraduate before dropping out to take up a place at Cambridge.

According to their announcement, the student union believes that Yiannopoulos and Bindel could compromise the “safety” of students by “inciting hatred.”

As reported by award-winning journalist Victoria Brownworth, the same student union could not come to a decision about whether or not to sanction the terrorist group ISIS, but has decided that a lesbian feminist and a gay conservative columnist represent a threat to student safety. The Manchester Student union also invited a Muslim preacher who called for gay people to be killed.

This is why people are supporting Donald Trump. The backlash against the thought and speech police.

Stuff reports:

Police officers were convicted of 52 offences over the past three years after they committed crimes ranging from speeding to drug-dealing and corruption.

Figures released by police under the Official Information Act reveal 11 sworn officers were convicted on 13 charges last year. There were 19 convictions recorded in 2014 and 20 in 2013.

The ideal number is of course zero, but is 13 convictions a year a high level or a low level? Are the Police as law breaking as the rest of the community? You would hope not. So what is the answer?

Well in the overall population there were 68,446 people convicted last year out of an adult population of around 3.5 million.

So the offending rate is around 19.6 per 1,000 people.

11 Police officers were convicted out of 9,048 sworn officers.

That is a Police offending rate of 1.4 per 1,000 officers.

So a Police officer is just 1/13th as likely to break the law.

A sugar tax petition states:

New Zealand has a problem. We are the third fattest nation in the world.

This is not true.

The WHO database for Obesity is here.

We are 29th, not 3rd.

Outrageous that a petition has such a misleading “fact”.

The Spectator reports:

After terrorist outrages like the one in Brussels, our leaders always say the same thing: ‘We must defend European values against these evil killers.’ It seems the Metropolitan Police didn’t get the memo. For they have just arrested someone — actually arrested someone — for tweeting something unpleasant about the Brussels attack, in the process trampling their coppers’ boots all over what is surely, or at least ought to be, the most important European value of all: freedom of speech.

The arrested man is one Matthew Doyle. He went viral after tweeting about a run-in he had on the day of the Brussels attacks: ‘I confronted a Muslim woman yesterday in Croydon. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said “Nothing to do with me”. A mealy mouthed reply.’

Now, if this encounter really did happen — and many have their doubts — it was a rude and ugly thing for him to have done. But to bearrested for tweeting about the incident, on suspicion of ‘inciting racial hatred’? To be locked up for hours, as Doyle has been, for saying something silly to a woman in the street and then tweeting about it? That is outrageous. The awfulness of his tweet pales into insignificance in comparison with the awfulness of his having been arrested for it. If you’re still shocked by his tweet rather than by the fact that 21st-century Britain arrests people for what they say, then your moral priorities need urgent rearranging.

Mr Doyle is a pillock for going up to a Muslim woman and demanding she explains Croydon. It’s like going up to a random Catholic and demanding they explain what a paedophile priest has done.

He’s a bigger pillock for tweeting about it. His stupidity is near legendary.

But the response to his stupidity should be to mock him, to point out how stupid he is, to even reason with him.

The response should not be to arrest him. That is appalling.

He has now been released as the Police broke the law in arresting him. The section he was arrested under, needs the permission of the Crown Prosecution Service. But regardless it was shameful judgment on their part that they arrested someone for being a pillock on Twitter. Sure if he had made actual threats against people, that would be different. But what he said was nowhere near that.

Infowars reports:

President Obama has stoked controversy after he suggested to an audience of Argentinian youth that there was no great difference between communism and capitalism and that they should just “choose from what works”.

Obama responded to a question about nonprofit community organizations and the necessity of attracting funding from both the public and private sectors.

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate,” Obama said.

“Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,” he added.

Wow.

What works?

You’d hope the President of the US would be slightly more positive on capitalism.

Since China and India embraced capitalism around 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty.

While under communism tens of millions died in famines and the like.

South Korea and West Germany chose capitalism. East Germany and North Korea “chose” communism. The results speak for themselves.

A guest post by Michael Woodhouse, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety:

News flash on health and safety – kids can still climb trees!

Recent reports that children at a Wairarapa primary school will no longer be able to climb trees because of fears the school could be fined is an example of ridiculous overreaction to the new the Health and Safety at Work Act, due to come into force on Monday 4 April. Readers can be sure that the overreaction is a result of misinformation, which has led to school principals talking of irrational responses like above. The legislation simply does not prevent any such activities. But there appears to be a few Chicken Lickens in the form of health and safety advisers who are drumming up fear as a business tactic. This is unfortunate, unhelpful and just plain untrue.

It is of course true that schools have a responsibility to take practical steps to keep their staff, students and other visitors to the school safe. This is nothing new. The current Health and Safety in Employment Act requires it. The concerns about the potential for fines of up to $600,000 overlooks that fact that they can currently be fined $500,000. The new fine is lower in real terms than it was under the previous 23 year old legislation. It is also for the most reckless breaches of the Act.  A child falling out of a tree doesn’t come close!

So kids can continue to climb trees, play games in the school yard, go on adventure activities, trips to the beach, school camps and any number of other things schools do. What the staff are required to do is take a sensible approach to identifying hazards and risks and ensuring they are managed. Cotton wool and bans on tree climbing aren’t necessary or appropriate.

What will the Act mean for employers and business? Well, for those who already have sound and sensible health and safety practices, not a lot.  This isn’t a one-size fits all approach to the legislation. The Act is designed to target risk proportionately.  Businesses should be aware of their risks and take reasonably practicable steps to minimise or eliminate them. For higher risk activities like mining, quarrying, risky manufacturing and so on there will be a greater focus on risks. There are also changes to responsibilities for others in the workplace.  Many workplaces have a variety of entities working side by side (in the Act they are known as Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking, or PCBUs), and they need to work together to ensure not only their staff but staff of other PCBUs are kept safe from harm.  PCBUs just need to coordinate, consult, cooperate and coordinate to ensure everyone is safe.  A good example of PCBUs working together would be a construction site which may have a plethora of PCBUs working together, from the main contractor to sub-traders, project managers, architects, quantity surveyors and traffic controllers.  All are separate businesses but all are exposed to similar risks.  Effective communication is key.

Another myth being perpetuated is that somehow sports clubs and voluntary organisations will be wrapped in more red tape resulting in people withdrawing from volunteering or holding sports events. Again this is nonsense. The Act has adopted exactly the same legal framework that existed under the previous law for voluntary associations. The Government was clear that the current framework was managing risk adequately and transferred it into the new regime.

It is important that everyone – workers, managers, the self-employed and directors alike – need to understand what the Act means for them and take steps to comply with it, but for low risk organisations such as schools there is little change. I am also working with WorkSafe New Zealand to ensure that they take an educative approach in the early stages of the new Act. We are just at the start of the process and engaging with business rather than being heavy handed will be the key to its success. This is particularly important as governments can change all the rules and regulations they like but unless we can change people’s behaviours and attitudes to health and safety we won’t make the step change required to ensure reduced serious harm and death at work.

Stuff reports:

An Irish mum trapped in New Zealand with her children during a bitter custody dispute says her human rights have been violated by the country’s court system.

The woman, who can’t be named under Family Court rules, has been battling for custody since 2012, and will lodge a complaint with the United Nation’s Human Rights Complaint procedure.

“The international human rights of the children and I to a fair trial have been violated by the New Zealand Family Court during the investigatory stage,” she said. 

“I do not believe the children or I can have a fair trial in the family court in New Zealand.”

I know no details of this case, but reading between the lines it looks like the Irish mother had children with a NZ father. She has presumably been told no you can’t just leave New Zealand with the children, taking them away from their father. In other words he has rights, and the kids have a right to have both parents in their lives.

Having a kid with someone is a big issue. It does indeed mean that you can’t just choose to move countries with the kids as a unilateral decision.

She said a psychological report provided to the court contained false information, which has now put her children at risk of being put in court-ordered custody with Child Youth and Family.

“I am currently preparing a complaint ot the United Nations Human Rights Committee in regard to the violations of the children’s and mine rights to a fair trial,” she said.

Again I know nothing of this case, but my suspicion is that when you try and try a case through the media, your actual legal case is quite weak.

The woman, who has not been able to return to Ireland for 10 years, said as a result of the court allowing constant litigation in her case, she has been forced to leave her job to prepare for the appearances.  

Does she think the court should not allow litigation and the father should have no rights to access or shared custody?

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement with regard to multinational corporations that “I suspect they are legally paying their correct amount of tax; the question is are they ethically paying the right amount of tax. It feels hard to believe that they are”?
2. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “building a strong economy that … creates more jobs will remain front and centre of the Government’s agenda”?
3. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister of Finance: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana tauākī e mea ana, “New Zealand Post is Government-owned and we’re going to be keeping it,” ā, mehemea ka pērā a ia, ka pēhea tētahi paku whakawehenga nei?
   • Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealand Post is Government-owned and we’re going to be keeping it”; if so, will he also rule out partial privatisation?
4. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on the benefits to students of tertiary education?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Is ASB economist, Kim Mundy, correct when she said last week, “While headline growth appears reasonable and encouraging, underlying per capita income growth remains flat and highlights New Zealand’s economic vulnerabilities going forward”?
6. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What reports has he received on reactions to the upcoming health and safety legislation changes?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: How many houses have been completed as a result of the $52.2 million Crown land policy he announced in Budget 2015?
8. RON MARK to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, “We welcome migrants who can make a contribution to New Zealand”?
9. KEVIN HAGUE to the Associate Minister of Health: What steps will he be taking to ensure New Zealand drug laws are still fit for purpose given the recent findings by Johns Hopkins University and British medical journal The Lancet that the punitive approach to drug offending has done more harm than good?
10. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Transport: Is the Government’s investment in transport infrastructure supporting the economy and creating jobs; if so, how?
11. TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?
12. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe the Police have sufficient funding to meet their operational objectives?

National: Four questions on the economy, tertiary education, OSH and transport infastructure

Labour: Four questions on multinationals’ tax, incomes, housing and Police funding

Greens: Two questions on NZ Post and drug laws

NZ First: Two questions on immigration and Education Minister standing hy her statements

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

A debate of 12 speeches of up to five minutes for a maximum of one hour.

Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

New Zealand Business Number Bill – committee stage

This bill enables certain entities to obtain, or be allocated, a New Zealand Business Number and to be registered on a New Zealand Business Number Register

• Introduced March 2015
• 1st reading: May 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: September 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, Labour dissenting
• 2nd reading: December 2015, passed 108 to 12 with NZ First opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a three hour debate as the bill has two parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – committee stage

The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.

• Introduced: December 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 106 to 14 with Greens opposed
• Select Committee report: September 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 120 to 1 with ACT opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a three hour debate as the bill has two parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There is one SOP from the Minister Nick Smith.

Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill – third reading continued

The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to implement a new Radio New Zealand Charter

• Introduced: June 2009
• 1st reading: June 2009, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2009, supported without amendments with a minority report from Labour
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: February 2016, passed unanimously

The third reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours. There are seven speeches remaining.

The Telegraph reports:

Stuff reports:

In a post on Twitter from Monday, after preliminary results were announced last week, Moroney shared a photo of a house still flying the Lockwood design, adding: “Just ‘ is [sic] you own a flash beach house doesn’t mean you get to decide our flag.”

A family member of the beach house’s owners, who did not want to be named, said Moroney’s comments had upset them.

“We are shocked by her comments vilifying us for owning a beach house and….suggesting that because we are apparently ‘rich’, this does not give us the right to have an opinion on our national flag.

“Her judgements came across badly and we did not appreciate having photos of our property published online simply, because we had a different opinion on the flag choice.”

It reminds me of when a Labour MP attacked the Mad Butcher because he dared to express a political opinion she disagreed with. She called for his shops to be boycotted!

According to Parliament’s register of pecuniary interests, Moroney jointly owns a holiday home in the Coromandel. However, she denied her remarks were hypocritical – although she would not explain why she made the “flash beach house” remark.

“The issue wasn’t about that…I’m a bach owner myself, so I’m clearly not opposed to bach ownership, so I’ll leave it at that.”

If the issue wasn’t about that, why did she refer to them as owning a flash beach house, and tweeting a photo of it?

Tracy Watkins writes:

What was Sue Moroney thinking? The Labour MP’s ill judged tweet deriding a “flash bach owner” for flying the failed Kyle Lockwood designed flag reeks of intolerance and sought to make the flag referendum something it wasn’t – a class war, rich versus poor, the privileged versus the have-nots.  

That may have reflected the views of Moroney’s small circle of Twitter followers but the public backlash suggests she was sorely out of touch with the one million-odd New Zealanders who voted for a change of flag.

Very out of touch.

Moroney’s tweet no doubt reflected back the views of those in her Twitter clique. And that’s the problem with Twitter especially. 

It has became an online echo chamber, in which its users follow others who share their own views and political opinions. And that in turn leads to a mob mentality when the group turns on the views or opinions of those who don’t agree with them.

For the average user, suffering under the illusion that Twitter reflects public opinion may not be a problem. But for an MP or anyone in the public eye, there are two good reasons to be wary.

Tweets that play to the political sympathies or prejudices or your Twitter circle can quickly backfire if they go viral.

And Twitter offers a highly distorted view of the world because it remains the domain of a small if active circle of users who in the main are only talking to each other. 

The danger is mistaking the noise on Twitter for wider public opinion.

Labour MPs seem to do this constantly. They need to get out more.

When you’re the Leader of the Opposition, and media ask you about vile online death threats against a Minister, your only response should be that they are totally unacceptable. Full stop.

To be fair Little did say they are unacceptable, but then he want on to excuse or blame them on the basis of the economy and most bizarrely Matthew Hooton.

The Herald reports:

Asked what was behind the threats to MPs, Mr Little said this afternoon that some New Zealanders were in a worse position compared to a year ago and were feeling less confident about the future.

Umm, compared to a year ago unemployment is down, economic growth is robust, inflation is down and interest rates are down. And oh yeah wages are up

Here’s the key stats:

• Unemployment 5.3%, down 0.5%
• Wages up 2.1% from a year ago
• Inflation just 0.1% from a year ago (down 0.7%)
• GDP up 2.5%
• Mortgage rates 5.77%, down 0.94%

So even if you accept the stupidity of claiming that death threats are because the economy is worse than a year ago, the facts are that almost every economic indicator is better than a year ago.

But his rationalising gets worse:

“It’s not a justification for aggressive behaviour or even aggressive comments. But if you combine a sense that people are feeling that life is tougher along with this change in the tone of a lot of communications — some of which are coming from well-paid PR operatives too I might add — then it’s not surprising that there are some people who are going to read completely the wrong signal and think that it’s OK to make completely unacceptable comments.”

Mr Little appeared to single out lobbyist Matthew Hooton.

Asked by a reporter whether he was referring to Mr Hooton, he said “Could be”. He said the lobbyist had “a particularly vicious … edge to his communications”.

Mr Little said he could not cite specific communications off the top of his head.

“They have an edge to them, that is, I think, unfitting of somebody who claims to be a disinterested observer with right-wing leanings.”

Mr Hooton is a former National Party press secretary and is now an outspoken right-wing political commentator.

This is just bizarre.

Nothing Hooton writes is vicious let alone in any way along the spectrum of death threats.

Hooton writes robustly and provocatively. But to compare anything he has written with the filthy abuse from the likes of Phillip Bear is insane.

Hooton robustly criticises MPs in all parties. He has all but called for Murray McCully to be arrested for the Saudi farm affair. He attacks Steven Joyce more often than the combined Opposition. He has criticised John Key on numerous occasions. So for Little to suggest Hooton is some sort of National attack dog is ridiculous.

The best response to his stupidity comes from Hooton:

Asked to respond to Mr Little’s comments, Mr Hooton said the Labour leader was “an idiot” and he had “no idea” what he was referring to.

“I can’t think of anything that could be characterised as vicious over the last 12 months or so,” he said.

“I should probably seek an apology … but I don’t think he’s a person worth seeking an apology from.”

Indeed.

Oh and I missed this victim blaming in this article:

Labour leader Andrew Little said the threats against ministers were “ugly” and “had no place” in New Zealand’s political debate.

It was “hard to gauge” whether treatment of MPs was getting worse, he said. But he had observed a “palpable sense of anger” from voters which was not present a year ago.

“I think there is a lot of frustration and anger. People see a Government that looks increasingly arrogant, it’s smug and out of touch… and they are feeling frustrated.”

If you think the Government is out of touch or arrogant, you vote them out of office. You don’t make death threats.

Using Little’s logic I could argue that the anger is because Labour are such an incompetent opposition, left wing activists are in despair that they may have five terms in opposition, so they are resorting to violent threats.

That’s as sensible an argument as the one Little has made.

The Telegraph reports:

Asad Shah, 40, a devout Muslim originally from the Pakistani city of Rabwah, had his head stamped on during a savage attack, according to one eyewitness.

Around four hours earlier the victim wrote online: “Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation.

The Herald reports:

Polling shows Trump sliding sharply among women in recent months, hurting the GOP’s already shaky position with that demographic. Trump’s favorability numbers have decreased 10 points among women nationwide since November, to 23 percent, while his unfavorable number among women has jumped from 64 percent to 75 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken earlier this month.

They’re appalling numbers.

Clinton is going to win massively with women, Latinos and African-Americans. Trump’s only demographic looks to be white men.

You can’t win when 75% of half the population don’t like you.

Stuff reports:

Inland Revenue expects to cut about 1500 jobs between 2018 and 2021, deputy commissioner of change Greg James says.

James revealed the job-reduction target releasing a previously-confidential business case into the department’s Business Transformation (BT) modernisation programme.

The job losses would mean the department’s workforce shrunk by 25 to 30 per cent, he said.

That will be hard for those affected, but if it is as a result of a tax system which is easier for taxpayers to navigate, then it is a good thing.

The BT project will see Inland Revenue replace its computer systems and collect tax more accurately through the year.

James signalled major changes were likely to be announced within weeks for provisional tax, which is widely disliked by small businesses.

Company tax is expected to move to more of a “pay-as-you-go” regime.

Great.

The BT programme should mean fewer, smaller end-of-year tax refunds and debts.

The business case forecast the benefits of the project to the Crown would value between $4.45b and $7.65b by 2024, coming from reduced tax avoidance, lower debt write-offs and cost savings.

Inland Revenue expects taxpayers to get an additional $1.2b to $2b benefit through reduced compliance costs. The average business could expect to save 30 hours a year managing their tax, James said.

if it is done well, this should be a great end result. But the trick is to do it well.