Stats NZ reports:

GDP increased 0.9 percent in the December 2015 quarter, boosted by the service industries, Statistics New Zealand said today.

“The service industries grew 0.8 percent overall,” national accounts senior manager Gary Dunnet said. “Business services in particular, posted a strong increase, as well as retail trade and accommodation.”

The strong performance of the service industries this quarter was offset by falls in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors. …

“While we’ve seen 0.9 percent growth in both the December and September quarters, growth for the year ended December 2015 edged down to 2.5 percent,” Mr Dunnet said. “This reflects the slower first half of 2015.”

A pretty good quarterly result. However the next quarter is likely to be considerably lower.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Was he advised, prior to 8 December 2015, that the so called “jihadi brides” he referred to during the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting were all resident in Australia and did not leave from New Zealand?
2. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his reported statement from February this year that he is not overly concerned about the broader impact of the slump in dairy prices?
4. STUART SMITH to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the Intensive Wraparound Service?
5. CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister for Social Development:How many applications for benefits, superannuation, and special needs grants have not been processed because of the issues with the implementation of the client management IT system?
6. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Health: By what percentage has Vote Health increased since 2008?
7. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in his Associate Minister for Primary Industries?
8. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received about growth in the number of visitors coming to New Zealand?
9. RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements where the interests of young New Zealanders are concerned?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: If someone suspects criminal activity and they actually want the Police to turn up in under 10 minutes, do they have to inform the Police that they have a gun?
11. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: Will he introduce a tax on sugary drinks, in light of the growing number of countries who have done so, most recently the UK, and the evidence that it is effective?
12. JENNY SALESA to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Is he concerned about skills shortages in professions that require knowledge in STEM subjects; if not, why not?

National: Four questions on the economy, education, health spending and tourism

Labour: Five questions on dairy, welfare, confidence in Associate Primary Minister, guns and skills

Greens: Two questions on jihadi brides and sugar tax

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill – second 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

The second reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill – first reading

This Bill amends the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 to address issues identified with the principal Act..

• Introduced: November 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

The Herald reports:

Police in South Auckland have labelled the actions of a group of young thieves who robbed a Papakura dairy “deplorable and disgusting”.

Counties Manukau district prevention manager, Inspector Dave Glossop, said police were still investigating the incident, which saw up to 10 teenagers storm the Redhill Superette and took $2500 worth of items from the store early yesterday evening.

Two shop keepers behind the counter are shown in CCTV footage arming themselves with a hockey stick and cricket bat. The youths, however, continue loading items including cigarettes into their arms before taking off.

Mr Glossop said: “We’re experiencing a lot of youth offending at the moment, particularly where offenders are a lot younger than we’re used to.

The robbery is so brazen, with the youths being easy to identify, that they seem to think they are immune from  consequences. I suspect most have been in trouble before. This time they need to face serious consequences.

Co-owner of Redhill Superette in Papakura Indy Purewal said about 10 teenagers, who he believed were all locals, came to the store about 5pm yesterday wanting to buy cigarettes.

The store workers refused to serve them as they didn’t have identification, he said.

About half the group started yelling at the two workers and taking items, while others remained outside, Mr Purewal said.

One of the youths took a worker’s iPhone6s, while another grabbed a large handful cigarettes, he said.

Other items were also taken and another youth tried to break into the shop till, he said.

Such a sense of entitlement. They went them to buy cigarettes, but when refused, decided that gave them the right to steal what they wanted.

The headline:

US spy boss in NZ on secret visit

Not that secret. There is a difference between a secret visit, and a visit that doesn’t get announced via press release but is otherwise open.

The US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, is in New Zealand for farewell talks with the Government and spy chiefs.

It had been a secret visit until Mr Key was asked at his post cabinet press conference if he knew why a Globemaster C-17 was parked at Wellington airport.

Mr Key said “Yes, because Jim Clapper’s in town.”

If it was secret, they wouldn’t have the plane parked openly at the airport.

Mr Key said Mr Clapper, who has been America’s intelligence chief since 2010, was on his way to a Five Eyes meeting in Australia.

“He is retiring before President [Barack] Obama effectively steps down in 2017 so I don’t know if he’ll be back in New Zealand again.”

Mr Key said he had met him on a couple of occasions and he had “great insights into intelligence and what is happening around the world.”

We do get very excited whenever someone from the US military or intelligence community visits.

Stuff reports:

Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, said immigration was “positive for any country” but in times when “our economy is creaking, we need to be able to turn the tap down a bit”.

If that was all he said, I would agree. I think adjusting immigration settings can be quite sensible if there is a strain on infrastructure.

Little’s comments come after a visit last week to Lower Hutt, where he said immigration was having some downwards impact on the country’s wages.

He said the hospitality industry was a good example of where migrant workers could be affecting wages.

A lot of Chinese and Indian migrants with “particular cooking skills” could actually be sourced locally and the country didn’t need to rely on immigration to fill that skill-set, he said.

Are they going check surnames of all the chefs now?

Does Little have any evidence to this claim that there are lots of NZers with these skills who are out of work?

Also most ironically the FTA signed wth China (negotiated by Labour) explicitly mandates up to 200 Chinese chefs a year can come and work here. So Little is now campaigning against Labour’s own FTA!

On Wednesday Little stood by those comments and said if he was in Government he would put a cap on immigration right now.

That’s a nonsense statement. He can’t. Here’s why.

1. You can’t cap Australians migrating to NZ
2. You can’t cap NZers returning home to NZ

You can adjust the number of points you need to qualify for a residential visa and there may be a case for that. But that will not cap immigration. Most of the net migration flows (Australians and NZers deciding where to live) are not subject to Government decision.

Key said he couldn’t work out where Little was coming from.

“One minute they’re saying they don’t want people with Chinese-sounding names buying houses, now they’re saying they don’t want people with Chinese-sounding names making chicken chop suey.”

“Look, there are some Chinese migrants who come to New Zealand but they’re hard working and they do a good job,” he said.

It is obvious Little is dog whistling at Asian immigrants with his comments.

I dare him to go to have announced at Pasifika last weekend that he thinks we have too many immigrants and he wants to curtail Pacific Island immigration!

Maybe the reason he is targeting Asian immigration, not Pasifika immigration, is because Labour doesn’t get so much of the Asian vote?

The biggest question on the minds of almost everyone following the US Presidential election race is: can Donald Trump be stopped? I will cover that question last as it is the most consequential but there are a number of other questions that Kiwi followers of the race might have. Let’s cover off the Democrats side first as things are more clear cut there.

Can Sanders beat Clinton?
No. Even if he was coming close to Clinton in the recent Democrat primaries (thus garnering only slightly less delegates proportionally as all Democrat primaries/caucuses award delegates proportionally), the presence of the so-called super delegates (who are pretty much all pledged to support Hillary-the current super delegate split is 467 to 26) would ensure he’d lose the nomination. However, last night on Super Tuesday 3, despite Clinton’s shock lost last week in Michigan, Clinton bested Sanders by substantial margins and in a series of delegate rich states such as Florida and Illinois. The delegate count stands at 1,599 vs 844 or almost 2:1.

Will Sanders drop out soon?
Unlikely. He has plenty of money; actually more than any other candidate running for either party and he has captured the activist base of the Democrat party and enjoys an almost iconic status among the young and idealist more left leaning voters. Sanders will continue to pick off the odd state with favourable demographics (such as his narrow win in Missouri last night) but it will be impossible for him to overhaul Clinton’s lead. Sanders will be secretly hoping that Clinton will be forced to drop out of the race if indicted for breaches of intelligence secrecy laws with her use of an external private email server to transmit top secret material during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Will Clinton be indicted?
A $64,000 question. In terms of the sheer volume of secret material that was transmitted via her unsecured home brew email server (over 2,000 emails marked secret and 22 marked with the very highest designation: Top Secret/Special Access Programs), the answer should be yes. The 22 SAP emails had material so sensitive to national security that they could not be released by the State Department (under the court ordered release) even in redacted form. General Petraeus was indicted for passing a smaller amount of less secret material to his girlfriend who was writing his memoirs. If Clinton was an employee at an intelligence agency, she’d be in jail already but Clinton is no ordinary person. The FBI seems to be playing a straight bat with their investigation but the granting of immunity from prosecution to the man tasked by Clinton to set the whole separate email system up is an ominous sign for her. The FBI Director James Comey is known to be independent and unswayed by political machinations but the decisions to prosecute will not be his – that will be made by the Department of Justice and by three layers of Obama political appointees including the Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Will Obama throw Clinton under the bus? Given the detrimental effect of an indictment then leading to a Republican win, not likely. But any decision not to indict runs the risk of mass leaking of the facts by the FBI investigators of Clinton’s reckless disregard for national security that even the Democrat leaning media would find hard to ignore.

If she’s indicted, what might happen?
Democrat insiders are reportedly very nervous about Clinton and not just because of the vulnerability over the email server issue. Plan B however is to not let Sanders prevail at the Convention as he is deemed to be too left wing to be electable even against a flawed candidate like Trump. Most likely they will parachute Vice President Joe Biden into the Convention as a ‘salvation’ candidate whom the delegates will rally around to win in the November General Election. There is no other option as the Democrats’ front bench is so devoid of talent.

Switching now to the Republican side which is where all the drama is!

Can Trump still win a majority of delegates?
Yes, but he would have to win the remaining primary races by a margin of 53% or more which is doable but above the average of the mid 40’s he has been achieving in recent primaries. Trump is still going to face Cruz and Kasich whose combined vote will likely deny Trump the majority he seeks. If all remaining contests were winner-take-all this wouldn’t matter but they aren’t and there are still states where Cruz will likely win (e.g. Utah). Most intelligent analysts of the race are picking the race will go to what is called an open or contested Convention.

What is an open (or contested) Convention?
The US political parties formally nominate their Presidential flag bearer at their quadrennial conventions held in the mid/late summer of the Presidential election year. Most conventions are a carefully staged managed coronation as the party’s preferred nominee has emerged from the primary election season with a majority of delegates. In the case of the Republican Party, it has 2,472 delegates from each of the states with delegates proportionate to each state’s population. The GOP nominee has to win a majority of the delegates or 1,273 [edit 1,237]. Delegates arrive at the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland, Ohio on July 18^th nominally bound to their candidate (and some are more bound than others as each states’ electoral laws and thus internal party primary/caucus/nominating procedures differ). If no candidate comes with a majority of the delegates, then no candidate can win the first round of voting. Depending on governing state election laws and internal state GOP procedures, most of the delegates become unbound in the second round leaving them free to support a different candidate than the one they came to represent. The outcome will depend on a myriad of factors but most heavily on the respective strengths of the 2^nd and 3^rd ranked candidates and the on the horse trading and enticements that can be made. Abraham Lincoln for instance arrived at the 1860 Republican Convention in 4^th place and after 4 rounds of voting, emerged as the victor due to the shifting allegiances to his three higher polling rivals as each failed to win an outright majority with each voting round.

Could Ted Cruz ever manage to win a majority of delegates before the Convention?
Cruz currently holds 397 delegates to Trump’s 646 (the remaining delegates are distributed: Rubio 169 Kasich 142  Carson 8 Bush 4 Fiorina, Paul and Huckabee 1 each). For Cruz to win outright, he’d need to win the remaining races by a margin of around 70%. Based on current trends, that’s a near impossibility. Cruz’s only pathway to the nomination is to deny Trump his majority and secure nomination on a second or subsequent ballot at the Convention.

But won’t it be easier for Cruz if Rubio and Kasich both drop out leaving it as a one on one race?
First off whilst Rubio has suspended his campaign yesterday after his heavy loss to Trump in his home state of Florida, Kasich’s clear win in Ohio (his home state where he has had some success as Governor) will buoy him to continue. Some of the establishment donors that initially funded Bush, then switched to Rubio for a time, will donate to Kasich enabling him to keep running. He will fancy his chances in Wisconsin (a winner take all primary where Kasich enjoys the support of Governor Walker who remains popular amongst WI GOP voters). Kasich cannot win (indeed his pathway to a majority is he’d have to win 90% of votes in the remaining primaries) but he will stay in to bolster his bargaining power at the Convention.

Primary voters don’t move in simple binary ways so to assume that everyone not voting for Trump is vehemently anti Trump is a mistake. Let’s assume Kasich did drop out, it is wrong for Cruz’s campaign to assume that all of the Rubio and Kasich voters would come to him. A majority would but not all of them. Cruz is banking on that happening and that Trump is stuck at 45%. The other thing is that not all the remaining primaries are winner take all and so even if Cruz was to consolidate the anti-Trump vote behind him, Trump would still win enough delegates to deny Cruz a majority. California is the biggest prize awarding a whopping 341 delegates (172 from the primary then 169 alternates) but it awards delegates incrementally to the candidate who wins a plurality in each of the 51 Congressional districts making it very costly and complicated for one candidate to prevail. Its primary isn’t until June 2^nd making it the first time in living memory that a California primary has any influence on a nomination race. For those who want to stop Trump reaching 1,271 [edit 1,237] then the longer it is a three-man race, the greater the likelihood of a contested Convention. Thus the Cruz v Trump head to head race that Cruz so desires, will not be happening until Kasich runs out of money and starts to poll so low that he can’t cross minimum vote thresholds in proportional states to be awarded delegates.

CAN TRUMP BE STOPPED?
If he wins 1,271 [edit 1,237]delegates before the Convention, no – he will be the nominee. But if he doesn’t, then look to the party establishment to use a variety of tactics to deny him the nomination. The playbook to do this is detailed by Sasha Issenberg of Bloomberg. Reader Digest version: the selection of GOP delegates to the Convention is a shadow hidden primary campaign of back room deals, arm twisting, granting of favours and controlled by state and local level Republicans who are much more likely to support a mainstream candidate. Whilst a few states force their delegates to stay bound to their candidate throughout, almost all states allow their delegates to be unbound after the first ballot. The race is on to fill these delegate slots across the country with anti-Trump people who can be counted on to desert Trump after the first ballot. Arcane rules will be used to challenge any questionable primary or caucus results (e.g. the known chaos at the Nevada caucus and the public role of Trump supporters in dominating enrollment procedures at key caucus sites). Some states control the delegate appointment process in the hands of very few. For example, in South Carolina you can only be a delegate if you attended the 2015 State GOP Convention and that was held before Trump even announced his candidacy. The delegate appointments are controlled by Governor Nicki Hayley known to be anti-Trump and will be supported by both SC Senators Graham and Scott who both supported candidates other than Trump. Because Trump won every SC congressional district, he was awarded all of its 50 delegates but he could find come July that none of the 50 will support him in the second round.

Stage 2 of secret campaign to deny Trump the nomination would occur at the Convention. Senior party officials will control the all-important Rules Committee and we know that this has been used to control convention floor activities before. Fearing a Ron Paul revolution in 2012, Romney ensured that the Rules Committee imposed Rule 40 requiring that a candidate can only receive votes at the convention if they had won a majority in 8 states effectively shutting down Paul’s potentially rowdy and disruptive delegates. Control of convention floor procedures down to who is the Sargent at Arms and can legally eject querulous delegates, will be how the establishment will handle the likely uproar from delegates who are loyal to Trump if he cannot win in subsequent voting rounds.

If Trump does not get to 1,271 [edit 1,237] and the Convention is contested, we’re going to see rambunctious political theatre not seen since the infamous Democrat Convention in 1968. Buckle up people – we’re going to be in for a rough ride. There are lots of other questions such as: if Trump is denied the nomination won’t he and his supporters get ugly and won’t he run as a third party candidate? If it is Hillary v Trump, is the conventional wisdom that Hillary will easily beat him true? Could the GOP establishment parachute in someone like Mitt Romney into the Convention (IMO a silly idea despite my support for Romney in 08 and 12) and could Trump continue to defy all political conventions (as he has to date) and still win the nomination and the Presidency? These questions will need to wait – there is still some water to go under the exciting and chaotic bridge that is the 2016 GOP Primary!

[Disclaimer: I supported Rubio from the earliest beginnings of the campaign but will vote for Cruz in the upcoming Arizona primary next week and then for whoever is the Republican nominee in the November election even if it is Trump or some mainstream candidate like Jeb Bush foisted on the party at the convention. Either is preferable to Clinton.]

The Herald reports:

Drink-drive convictions have fallen by a third in five years but the percentage of repeat offenders has remained almost the same.

The Government is reviewing the penalties for drink-drive offences and campaigners say penalties need to be tougher on drunk drivers, including making ignition interlocks mandatory for recidivist drunk drivers.

In the past financial year, 18,000 people were convicted of being intoxicated behind the wheel, a drop of 35 per cent since the 2010/2011 financial year.

That’s a very significant drop. I assume the number of road checks remained constant.

The data, given to the Herald by the Automobile Association, also highlighted the continuing struggle to stop recidivist drink drivers. Nationwide, there was a fall of just 5 per cent over five years in the number of convictions for the third or more offence. In the past financial year, 4711 people were caught who had already been prosecuted three or more times.

If you’ve been caught three or more times, you have probably driven drunk at least 50 times. They have a serious problem and disregard for the law. The penalties for repeat offences need to be greater.

But more needed to be done to stop people who didn’t learn from the first or second time they offended, Mr Greally said, and he believes one of the answers is using interlocks more frequently. He called the devices, which prevent a drunk driver starting the vehicle, “game-changers”.

In the past two years, only 570 drink-drivers were sentenced to have alcohol interlock devices installed.

Maybe that should be automatic for the third offence?

The Herald reports:

A new poll shows majority support in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain for reciprocal rights to live and work freely in each other’s nations.

The poll’s release yesterday came as new measures were about to take effect to tighten working rights in the UK for citizens of non-European Union countries.

The poll, commissioned by the Royal Commonwealth Society, shows 70 per cent of Australians, 82 per cent of New Zealanders, 75 per cent of Canadians and 58 per cent of Britons support free mobility between their nations.

The British Government is moving in the opposite direction, however, under public pressure to stem migrant numbers following an influx in recent years, particularly from eastern Europe.

Interesting that while most in the UK don’t want their borders open to the EU, they would open them to NZ, Australia and Canada.

I for one would be happy to have open access to Canada and the UK (we already have it with Australia) in exchange for them having open access to NZ.

Curia was one of the companies that polled for the RCS.

UPDATE: A more detailed story at Stuff.

The Herald reports:

Auckland mayoral candidate John Palino is calling for the removal of the urban-rural boundary to improve housing affordability.

The boundary, known as the metropolitan urban limit, was restricting land supply in Auckland and driving up house prices for ideological reasons, Mr Palino said today.

“It is time council stopped flogging the dead horse that is the compact city and started releasing large amounts of land for residential development,” he said.

That one policy would do more for lowering house prices in Auckland than the next three policies combined. Land one one side of the boundary is eight to 12 times more expensive than that one the other side.

The massive house inflation in Auckland is a result of local policy decisions. Change those decisions to increase land supply and you’ll get a massive result.

Trump has easily won Florida. At 57% of the vote he has 45% to 28% for Rubio and 17% for Cruz.

This will see Rubio pull out leaving Trump, Kasich and Cruz.

Kasich may win Ohio and get 66 delegates there. Let’s assume he does. Where does that leave things.

1. Trump 568
2. Cruz 370
3. Rubio 163
4. Kasich 129
5. Carson 8

So if they need 1,237 to win, and there are 1,237 delegates to go, what percentage do they need to win.

1. Trump 54%
2. Cruz 70%
3. Rubio 87%
4. Kasich 90%

There is no way Rubio or Kasich can win that many and get a majority.

It is near impossible for Cruz to get 70% of the remaining delegates, unless Trump imploded.

So the reality is either Trump will be the nominee, or it will be a contested convention.

I’m both appalled and excited!

UPDATE: Rubio suspends his campaign

The order paper is here (yesterday’s until 1 pm).

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: What were the estimates given to him in his conversations with banks about the number of dairy farmers that are likely to go into receivership and leave the land?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. NUK KORAKO to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to help keep interest rates lower for longer?
4. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister for Small Business: Does he believe that the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday that New Zealand “is a highly diversified economy” and “business confidence is strong” applies to small businesses?
5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers in relation to Oral Question No. 2 in the House yesterday?
6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “The single-biggest gainers out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are dairy farmers”?
7. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Economic Development:What is the Government doing to encourage economic growth?
8. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Why did she say yesterday that “we will not be interested in how we stigmatise children” as part of the school funding review when she said less than a minute earlier that the current decile system was unhelpful because it stigmatised low-decile schools?
9. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister for Social Development: How is low inflation supporting a real increase in superannuation?
10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: Is the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme working for New Zealand and for the temporary migrants who work under the scheme?
11. MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from Government policies that are contributing to lower interest rates?
12. RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister of Trade: What trade benefits has the Government negotiated for New Zealand’s forestry industry?

National: Four questions on interest rates, the economy, superannuation and small businesses

Labour: Four questions on dairy, small businesses, school funding and migrants

Greens: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and TPP

NZ First: Two questions on PM standing by an answer and forestry

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

12 speeches of five minutes each for a maximum of one hour.

Private Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm

• Introduced: July 2015
• 1st reading: August 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2015, supported unanimously
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed unanimously

Members’ Bill 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Peter Lyons starts off saying:

I hate the concept of charter schools. Charter schools are meant to release the power of free enterprise and market competition to ensure better outcomes for disadvantaged students.

An entrepreneur can set up a school and employ untrained staff. The Government provides funding.

These schools are meant to be more accountable than state schools. They will be closed if they fail to perform, but this has yet to happen, despite significant problems in at least one Northland charter school.

It is also very unclear how their performance will be measured. It is largely an exercise in ideology driven by political compromise.

I hate the concept of charter schools because they undermine the status of teaching as a profession.

But he goes on:

I hate the concept of charter schools, but then I met Alwyn Poole.

Alwyn contacted me because I had written several articles critical of the charter schools experiment. We caught up recently in a local cafe.

I was expecting a sharp-faced, smooth talking entrepreneur. But Alwyn was dressed casually and was very matter of fact.

He had spent many years teaching in mainstream schools and he was well aware that they lack flexibility, particularly in meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged students.

Alwyn set up Mount Hobson middle school in 2000. It is a private school catering to year seven to 10 students. He felt strongly that this group was poorly served by the current system and that a school targeting this age group could better serve their needs.

Central to his philosophy is smaller class sizes with a maximum of 15 students. He believes learning should be integrated with an element of inquiry learning, where each subject area is linked to an overall theme, such as volcanoes, or architecture, or the Olympic Games. The students’ lessons in English, maths, science and other subjects are then related back to this theme. It aims to make learning in each subject more relevant and integrated.

He says learning is best concentrated in the morning. Afternoons are dedicated to sport, project work, cultural events, guest speakers and community work.

Alwyn believes his approach has worked well at his Mount Hobson school, but he was frustrated that it was only available to parents who could afford the fees. So when the Government offered the chance to extend his educational philosophy to charter schools he grabbed it. His first charter school was in South Auckland and he recently opened another in West Auckland.

I’m a cynical man. I am deeply suspicious that the Government is providing extra funds to these schools to ensure their success. I quizzed Alwyn on the finances of his charter schools. He provided the figures for his South Auckland school – if his figures are correct, he is unlikely to make a fortune.

Alwyn is passionate about improving outcomes for kids, and finds the state system is not flexible enough for him.

He assured me he employs only registered teachers and was paying above the state rate. I said I was dubious that he could do this as well as provide uniforms and computers for his students. He explained that leasing the premises and tight budgeting ensured a stringent control of expenses.

I still dislike the concept of charter schools. Entrepreneurs with the skill and passion to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students are a rarity and I have an uneasy feeling Alwyn may end up a casualty of political change. We should be closely monitoring his progress. He said he would welcome such scrutiny.

If his model works, then it should be replicated. We need to acknowledge that mainstream schooling does not serve the needs of the tail-end particularly well. They need an educational environment that provides a sense of belonging and a curriculum relevant to their needs.

Peter Lyons is saying the model should be given a chance to see if it works, and if so it should be replicated.

If only Labour will change their policy to close down all charter schools.

Stuff reports:

The Labour Party is considering a universal basic income as part of its Future of Work project.

Leader Andrew Little confirmed his party was exploring the concept during a visit to Trevor Mallard’s Hutt South electorate last week.

Little said significant changes to the way New Zealanders worked were unavoidable.

“The possibility of higher structural unemployment is actually what’s driving us,” he said.

Pure universal basic income (UBI) systems, in theory, would give adults a regular income from the government regardless of their income or assets.

They would replace other forms of welfare, such as pensions, benefits and student allowances.

Although only trialled on small scale overseas, the idea is that a UBI would be set at a level which people could subsist on, but not at a high enough level to serve as a significant disincentive to work.

No country had a UBI because the numbers simply don’t add up. It has significant theoretical appeal, but if you ever try to implement one, it is only possible by a huge huge increase in tax.

So what you end up with is all New Zealanders being taxed way more, and then all New Zealanders getting some of that money back. It’s economically inefficient, discourages work and would result in NZ being a highly taxed country.

So Labour toying with it, is a sign that once again they are rushing to the far left, and would need a map to even know where the centre is.

NBR reports:

Republican front-runner Donald Trump used an overnight rally to sharpen his attacks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). US ratification is needed for the trade deal to come into effect, with a vote expected in December at the earliest.

“It’s a horrible trade agreement,” Trump told a rally in Ohio, which will hold its primary on Wednesday NZ Time.

“You have 12 countries – all of whom want to rip our heart out.

So the hard left in NZ is now allied with Donald Trump. But for very different reasons. The hard left insist that NZ got a bad deal and that we are conceding too much to US corporates.

But Trump (and some others in the Republican Party) say it is a bad deal because the US didn’t get enough in it.

Trump romped home in Michigan by going in the exact opposite direction to the TPP, promising to slap huge tariffs on cars assembled by US automakers at plants in Mexico. The Republican establishment fretted it was essentially a Democrat policy, but it proved hugely popular.

Trump, like Labour, is against free trade.  Because industries that were formerly protected go through painful adjustments when faced with competition, free trade always has a proportion of the population who are against it – especially when combined with nationalism.

During the candidates’ debate on Friday NZ time, Cruz said, “I opposed TPP, and have always opposed TPP. We’re getting killed in international trade right now.”

Earlier, the arch social conservative said the trade deal would undermine US sovereignty.

Labour and Ted Cruz also agreeing! Both using phony arguments.

Conclusive proof of how barking mad Labour’s policy is to legislate interest rates.

1. Even the Greens say it is a daft idea
2. Winston claims they stole the policy off him

The only way it can get worse for them would be for Graham Capill to endorse it on the basis that Exodus 22:25 commands people not to charge interest.

Stuff reports:

MPs are calling for TVNZ to pull “racist” questions from its KiwiMeter survey.

Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin Davis said parts of the survey – designed to find out how “Kiwi” we are – aimed at inciting racial intolerance.

The KiwiMeter survey asks New Zealanders questions about nationhood and, in the values section, touches on Māori culture.

One of the questions asks whether Māori should not have special treatment. 

Labour’s Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin Davis said the question was “out and out racism” and it needed to be removed from the survey.

“It just evokes images of Don Brash 2004:  implying that Maori have special treatment, I’d like to know what special treatment they’re talking about.

He’s an MP for an electorate where eligibility is dependent on your blood ancestry and he doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

What is especially worrying about this, is they are trying to censor and control research. They’re saying that because they have a view that there is no special treatment, you shouldn’t even be allowed to ask if people have that view. It is profoundly dangerous.

Now one can critique the wording of the question. I’d personally would have asked a question along the lines of “Do you think programmes that target Maori are justified” but nevertheless the way the question is phrased is designed to see if people agree with a sentiment.

No question should be off limits. If you want to ask “Do you think people of Race X are inferior” you are allowed to. For how else can you find out how many people have that view (which is repugnant).

TVNZ head of news and current affairs John Gillespie said he would not apologise for the question.

“We think that in the survey it is important to be robust and to have questions in it that reflect all parts of society so we won’t be taking out questions where we thought long and hard about why they’re in there.”

Clifton van der Linden, the chief executive of Canadian company Vox Pop Labs which was in charge of the survey, said Davis’ claims were “categorically false”.

The survey reflected views that already existed, he said.

“Asking the question doesn’t imply Māori received special treatment….

“We can learn more about the mechanisms through which racism and prejudices operate and find ways to combat these prejudices.

“If you don’t ask the question, how do you hope to find the answer?”

Good on TVNZ for not backing down. This political correctness must be resisted.

Julie Hardaker has said:

I am letting everyone know I won’t be standing for re-election as Mayor in October.

I’ve had a great six years with a lot of hard work and this has been a hard decision to make. It is tempting to stay on because it is such an exciting time for our fast growing city but I have achieved what I set out to do back in 2010. I’ll be returning to my legal career following the elections in October.

When I was first elected I walked into a financial mess. There were some tough decisions to make in those first years. It wasn’t just the V8s. The city was spending more than it was receiving in income and debt was heading towards $830mil. It is really satisfying to see how well the city’s books look today, better than expected. And we’ve still been able to make a significant investment in infrastructure and community assets like playgrounds.

Stuff reports:

A teachers union has been accused of “protecting” teacher Robert Burrett before he went on to molest and rape 12 Christchurch schoolgirls, missing a chance to remove him from the profession in the early 2000s.

Pukenui School in Te Kuiti tried to get rid of Burrett, its deputy principal, in 2001 because he was drunk, dishevelled and disorganised.

But according to board chair at the time Steve Parry, the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) made the process extremely difficult.

“They were quite evasive and defensive of the guy, and it frustrated us to a high level,” Parry said. “Of course a person has rights and has to be protected, but they were really trying to make things confusing and difficult, they weren’t really engaging in the problems we had.”

It is important to understand that the union’s number one concern is protecting its members – not protecting the school, protecting students, improving education. So their behaviour in this regard is not remarkable.  The lesson is you need to understand this is what drives all their advocacy – what is best for their members, as opposed to best for others.

Andrew Little seems to have adopted Rob Muldoon as his role model. Radio NZ reports:

Last week the Reserve Bank cut the Official Cash Rate from 2.5 percent to a new record low of 2.25 percent, but the major banks did not lower their mortgage interest rates by an equivalent amount.

Mr Little said he would not rule out legislating to make banks pass on the rate cuts.

This is economic stupidity to a degree not seen for several decades. Michael Cullen would be turning in his grave, if he was dead.

Having the Government decide what interest rates banks can set is madness.

Also you have to be economically retarded to think it is as simple as saying because the OCR dropped 0.25% on this day, retail rates must follow the next day.

For a start retail rates often move in advance of OCR movements, when they are well telegraphed. So you may get the retail rate drop before the OCR does.

Secondly the OCR is only one input into setting retail rates. There are many others, such as risk profiles etc.

What Andrew Little is effectively saying is Labour might legislate to set a permanent margin between the OCR and retail interest rates. This margin must be retained regardless of any other economic factors. It would be a good way to destabilise the financial markets.

For a while it looked liked Labour were getting credible. But this year they are just making policy up on the hoof, and promoting it regardless of sanity. Maybe they hope to emulate Donald Trump by saying crazy things and hope people don’t mind?

Bill English and Paula Bennett announced:

The Government has released the latest update of the Better Public Services (BPS) Results, outlining their progress against the ten challenging targets set by the Prime Minister in 2012.

The BPS targets include reducing long-term welfare dependence, supporting vulnerable children, boosting skills and employment, reducing crime, and improving public and business interaction with government.

Provisional 2015 NCEA Level 2 achievement results show the proportion of 18-year olds who achieve a NCEA Level 2 qualification has increased to 84.4 per cent, from 74.3 per cent in 2011.

“This means the target of 85 per cent by 2017 has almost been meet, two years ahead of schedule,” Mr English says.

The number of benefit recipients has decreased by 7,245 in a year, largely driven by decreases in Sole Parent Support and Job Seeker support numbers.

“This is good news on two levels because sole parents are getting into the workforce and becoming independent.

“In the last year we’ve reduced the long term cost of benefit dependence by $2.4 billion dollars through welfare reform and better support for beneficiaries to get back to work.”

The most recent results show that since the targets were introduced:

• the proportion of immunised 8-month olds has increased from 82 per cent to  93.7 per cent

• there has been a 45 per cent decrease in people being hospitalised for the first time with rheumatic fever, a disease of poverty

• the trend in the number of children and young people experiencing substantiated physical abuse has flattened, after previously being on an upward trajectory

• total crime, violent crime and youth crime have dropped 17 per cent, 10 per cent and 39 per cent respectively

• 52.9 per cent of government service transactions with citizens are now completed digitally, up from 29.9 per cent in 2012

The targets that matter most (in my opinion) are the ones around kids because they have such long-term benefits if you reduce child abuse, increase immunisation levels and increase achievement levels.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its programme to get better results from public services?
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and how does he do so?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is on the “cusp of something special”; if so, did he mean a thousand dairy farmers being forced off their land?
4. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is making major investments in health infrastructure in Christchurch?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he support the expectation of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that banks would pass on the full Official Cash Rate cut made last week?
7. RON MARK to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?
8. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has the Government made on the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?
9. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “we do need to review the way we fund schools and focus more on outcomes rather than blunt proxy”?
10. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Will he support the Green Party plan to make 30km an hour the default speed limit outside schools, given that kids have less than a 50:50 chance of surviving being hit by a car travelling at the current default speed limit of 50km an hour?
11. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Why did the number of burglaries that were resolved fall from 9,770 in 2008 to 6,136 in 2015, with the proportion of burglaries that went unsolved rising from 84 percent to over 90 percent?
12. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting our regions through irrigation and water storage projects?

National: Four questions on better public services, Christchurch health services, Waikato Expressway and irrigation

Labour: Four questions on dairy, interest rates, school funding and burglaries

Greens: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and speed limitis

NZ First: Two questions on PM and Finance Minister standing by their statements

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

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill – first reading

This bill establishes a new marine protected area in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone around the Kermadec Islands.

• Introduced: March 2016

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Land Transfer Bill – first reading

This bill modernizes, simplifies, and consolidates the land transfer legislation for enhanced clarity and accessibility.

• Introduced: February 2016

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill – first reading

This bill will replace the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966, and provides for the compulsory assessment and treatment of individuals who are considered to have a severe substance addiction and who do not have the capacity to participate in treatment.

• Introduced: December 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Extended Sitting 9.00 am to 1.00 pm (Wednesday)

Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This Bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 9 August 2014 in which the Crown and Te Atiawa agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Te Atiawa.

• Introduced: September 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This bill records the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Taranaki Iwi in the deed of settlement dated 5 September 2015 between the Crown and Taranaki Iwi; and gives effect to the deed, in which the Crown and Taranaki Iwi agree to a final settlement of all Taranaki Iwi’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.

• Introduced: December 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 14 November 2015 in which the Crown and Rangitāne o Manawatu agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Rangitāne o Manawatu.

• Introduced: December 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Matthew Hooton writes:

Among moderate Labour MPs and activists, and even the odd union boss, talk is now incessantly about the party’s leadership.

Alarm has been raised after Labour’s private polling showed it was down to just 30% in February, from 35% before Christmas.  Worse, those voters have not gone to the Greens but slipped back to National so that the gap between left and right is now wider than a month before Labour’s last election debacle.  Since Helen Clark’s fall, only under David Shearer’s more centrist leadership has the Labour-Green bloc regularly polled above National and its minor allies.

This is the average of public polls since 2012. Shearer took them from 28% to 35%.

These issues have in common that all three were so-called “captain’s calls.”  This has raised concern not just about today’s polls but also whether the current captain, Andrew Little, has sufficient feel for public opinion in West Auckland, Redwood, Shirley or provincial New Zealand to ever mount an effective challenge to John Key.  After all, Mr Little’s entire professional career has been Wellington-based, first as a paid student activist and then as a union and Labour Party official.  His forays to stand for election in 2011 and 2014 in his birthplace of New Plymouth, a strong Labour town under long-serving MP Harry Duynhoven, have both been disastrous.

Labour’s frontbench is dominated by Wellington based professional politicians.

Moderate Labour MPs believe the party is marching to another debacle next September.  In response, Little loyalists have begun talking about “the Kirk model,” noting that the revered Norman Kirk took three elections as leader of the opposition to become prime minister. Similar tolerance, they say, should be granted to Mr Little to allow him to claim the prize after Mr Key retires.

So their cunning plan is to win power in 2023, and govern for one term, before allowing National back in. I like it!

This is all largely academic because it is dawning on even Mr Little’s strongest internal critics that there is no way of dislodging him anyhow.  Mr Little only had first-round support of four of Labour’s MPs and a quarter of its members. He ultimately owes his leadership to Wellington union bosses exercising their influence over the final tally.  Labour MPs know that, if they seek to roll their beleaguered leader, the Wellington union bosses will just impose him back on them anyway, prompting an unrecoverable crisis for the party in its 100th anniversary year.  No one is yet that reckless.

An unsackable leader!

In his speech, Mr Parker focused on issues of capital allocation, making the case, without using the dreaded words, for a capital gains tax – an unmistakable challenge to Mr Little’s “captain’s call” that Labour should drop the issue.

Further contradicting another of Mr Little’s “captain’s calls” – that Labour must take a firmer line against the wild west of the business world – Mr Parker then argued cogently that capital raising in New Zealand is currently overregulated.  He made the case that the law goes much further than necessary to require proper disclosure of risk, that prospectus and audit costs are too high and directors’ liability excessive.  Such overregulation, Mr Parker says, is preventing medium-sized firms from attracting both capital and governance talent, hampering economic growth.

Very astute analysis from Parker.

At 3000 words, the speech was designed to be the kind of substantial effort one might expect from a Birch, Cullen or English in contrast to Mr Robertson’s vapid efforts.  Mr Parker was disappointed it didn’t get more attention.

Of course, who can foretell the future?  It may be, as Little loyalists insist, that Labour will move up in the March polls as students return to their campuses to discuss the tertiary education bribe.  But if the polls again move the other way, it is poor Mr Robertson who dissatisfied MPs plan to target for the chop.