The Herald reports:

The Government’s message to melanoma petitioners at Parliament today is to wait for the Budget when Pharmac will almost certainly get an increase in its funding.

It was still Pharmac’s job to decide where the best “bang for your buck” existed, Prime Minister John Key said.

Melanoma patients at present are having to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for life-saving drugs.

They and their families and supporters are preparing to hand over an 11,0000-signature petition today calling on the Government boost Pharmac’s funding so it can fund melanoma drugs.

So Pharmac will get more money but up to them to decide what drugs they spend it on.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the Pharmac model needed to be changed so that when life-saving drugs became available and there was a clear need, there should be some direction given to it.

“What we are keen to look at is tweaking the Pharmac model.”

He wanted to allow some funds to be available on a short-term basis for medicines for which full clinical evaluation might not yet be available.

He said that when a drug was available that had been proven effective in other countries “the politicians, being accountable for the use of taxpayers money should say, we want this available.”

So Andrew Little should decide, with all his specialist training, on what drugs are most effective – rather than the clinical experts at Pharmac.

UPDATE: Stuff has some interesting info:

Drug company lobbyists were hosted at a special dinner by Labour leader Andrew Little, months before Labour announced its stance to override Pharmac and fund melanoma drug Keytruda. 

Labour confirmed the dinner took place, understood to have been in Labour’s parliamentary offices, in September. 

Organised by Pharma lobbying group Medicines NZ, the dinner also included representatives from Keytruda makers Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Healthcare Logistics and Sanofi. 

I don’t think there was anything wrong with this, but if this was National, then Labour would be claiming they are in the pockets of Big Pharma.

However the stance is a u-turn on its position during the widely-publicised Herceptin debate in 2008.

It’s understood significant ructions are forming within Labour, over the issue. It’s believed some MPs and wider party members are not pleased with the moves to interfere with Pharmac’s purchasing model. 

Good.

National got it wrong to interfere on Herceptin. They admit that now. It would be good for Labour to pull back, so we have clincial experts deciding on drug funding, not MPs.

The Guardian reports:

Hardliners in Iran have been dealt a humiliating blow after reformist-backed candidates in Friday’s hard-fought elections appeared on course for a sweeping victory in Tehran, with a combination of moderates and independents sympathetic to President Hassan Rouhani leading in provinces.

A coalition of candidates supported by the reformists, dubbed “the list of hope”, is likely to take all of the capital’s 30 parliamentary seats, according to the latest tally released by the interior ministry, in surprising results seen as a strong vote of confidence in Rouhani’s moderate agenda. Mohammad Reza Aref, a committed reformist who has a degree from Stanford University in the US, is at the top of the list.

If someone with a US degree can be elected, that is a very good sign.

Preliminary results for the Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for appointing the next supreme leader, showed Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a key Rouhani ally, leading the race. Elections to the assembly are usually a lacklustre event but have attracted huge attention this time because of the age of the current leader, 76-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

If moderates can dominate the Assembly of Experts, then the next Supreme Leader may be more moderate also – which would be a good thing.

Andy Tookey has passed on an OIA response from Organ Donation NZ. It is an interesting over-view of ICU deaths and organ donations in NZ.

The data reveals:

• 1,123 deaths in ICUs
• 367 deaths where organ donation was possible (on a ventilator with sever brain damage)
• 135 deaths where organ donation was formally discussed
• 53 families agreed to donate

So there are two ways to increase the donation rate (well apart from increasing the number of deaths in ICU). They are:

1. Increase the proportion of deaths where organ donation is formally discussed
2. Increase the proportion of cases where it is agreed to after discussion

Only 37% of ICU deaths (135/367) had a formal discussion. I’m curious as to why that isn’t 90% or more.

Of those where there was a discussion, 61% of families said no. That is a high refusal rate (UK is aiming for 16% refusal rate) and to my mind reinforces why the decision should be the deceased’s, not the families.

The Herald reports:

The Super City has spent $1.24 billion on IT since it was formed in 2010 – enough money to pay for the council’s half share of the $2.5 billion city rail link.

Among the benefits, Aucklanders can now register dogs online and access nearly 100,000 e-books, but most online experiences with council are still a grind.

Libraries have also provided an e-magazine service called Zinio since 2013, peaking at 65,060 downloads last August. Popular titles include Woman’s Day, Cuisine andThe Economist.

Other improvements to the council’s IT system, such as booking a hall or swimming lesson online, are not far off, say council chief financial officer Sue Tindal and chief operating officer Dean Kimpton.

Let’s see if I have this right. They’ve spent $1.24 billion. That is $1,024 million on IT and you still can’t do online bookings in 2016.

Michael Woodhouse announced:

The minimum wage will increase by 50 cents to $15.25 an hour on 1 April 2016, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse announced today.

The starting-out and training hourly minimum wages rates will increase from $11.80 to $12.20 per hour, remaining at 80 per cent of the adult minimum wage.

“The Government has once again taken care to ensure the right balance has been struck between protecting our lowest paid workers, and ensuring jobs are not lost,” says Mr Woodhouse.

“An increase to $15.25 per hour will directly benefit approximately 152,700 workers and will increase wages throughout the economy by $75 million per year.

“With annual inflation currently at 0.1 per cent, an increase to the minimum wage by 3.4 per cent gives our lowest paid workers more money in their pocket, without imposing undue pressure on businesses or hindering job growth.

“The Government has increased the minimum wage every year since coming to office, from $12 to $15.25. This is an overall increase of 27% compared to inflation of around 11%.

What matters to people on the minimum wage is indeed not the nominal increase, but what it does to their after tax income. If you have low inflation, lower taxes and ACC levies and an increase in the minimum wage the combined impact can be significant.

Here’s what the difference is between April 2008 and April 2016.

April 2008:

• Minimum wage $12.00/hr
• Gross income on MW $25,029
• Tax $4,881 (19.5% effective rate)
• ACC $350 ($1.41%)
• Net Income $19,798
• Real Net Income (2016$) $22,718

April 2016:

• Minimum wage $15.25/hr
• Gross income on MW $31,807
• Tax $4,486 (14.4% effective rate)
• ACC $385 (1.21%)
• Net Income $26,836
• Real Net Income (2016$) $26,836

So someone working FT on the minimum wage is now 10.9% better off than in 2008. Worth remembering that when the unions and others all state how evil National is to low paid workers.

The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that if it goes too high, it will reduce the number of jobs available. This is beyond dispute – if you don’t believe me, then try a minimum wage of $100/hr and see what happens.

So the question is at what level does an increase in the minimum wage really start to impact employment. The research I’ve seen points to when the minimum wage becomes a high proportion of the median wage, you then start to really price jobs out of the labour market.

Now here’s the ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage since 2008:

• 2008 67%
• 2009 67%
• 2010 66%
• 2011 65%
• 2012 66%
• 2013 66%
• 2014 66%
• 2015 67%
• 2016 67%

So the ratio has not changed greatly.

What I’d like to see is the minimum wage not become a lottery every year but instead be set by statute as a percentage of the median wage, say the status quo of 67% (which is I think the highest in the OECD). This would then put the focus on increasing wages over the whole economy (which needs productivity gains to occur sustainably) rather than the politics of envy.

Stuff reports:

There has been only one confirmed road death in which the driver at fault had drunk enough alcohol to put them between the new and old drink-driving limits.

Labour transport spokeswoman Sue Moroney said the single death showed that lower-end drink-driving was not a high-risk area, and that a rise in the national road toll showed the Government’s road safety measures were not working.

As it happens I agree that drivers with between 50 and 80 blood alcohol are not a high risk. I’ve blogged many times that very few accidents occur with drivers at this level.

But the hypocrisy from Labour is laughable. They were the party demanding the limit drop from 80 to 50 and attacking the Government for not doing it more quickly. They even had a members bill in 2013 to do this.  As far as I can tell they have been demanding this since at least 2010. Here’s what Labour said in 2010:

“Professor Nutt believes we could reduce our road toll by two-thirds if we reduced the limit because it would alter patterns of driving.

So Labour have been the cheerleaders for reducing the limit, and now they’re saying that it isn’t a high-risk area.

Again they stand for nothing, but mindless criticism.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Finance: How does the outlook for the New Zealand economy compare with other developed countries?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Will the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill guarantee that no New Zealand renter will live in a cold, damp, mouldy house that makes them sick; if not, why not?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Health, given the Minister’s statement regarding funding of Keytruda that Pharmac “haven’t got the money at the moment…that’s the issue”?
4. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made on the whole of government Gang Action Plan?
5. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: When he said last year that the Marine Reserves Act “is now outdated. It does not provide for protection in the huge Exclusive Economic Zone”, was he saying that a new Act should provide for new marine reserves in our EEZ; if so, why has his position changed?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has the Government made on the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What was the dollar figure of net core Crown debt when he took office as Minister, and what is that dollar figure today?
9. STUART SMITH to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making on improving management of fresh water, and particularly in addressing the problem of stock polluting rivers, lakes, and wetlands?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?
11. MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership support growth in our horticulture industry?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by the statement reportedly made on his behalf two weeks ago that the Saudi sheep deal is Murray McCully’s and all questions should be directed at him?

National: Five questions on the economy, gangs, Waikato Expressway, water and TPP

Labour: Four questions on Pharmac, Health Minister standing by statements, Crown debt and Saudi farm

Greens: Two questions on rental properties and the EEZ

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

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

Prime Minister’s Statement

There are four hours and 36 minutes remaining of the 13 hour debate. So 28 speeches to go.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – second reading continued

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

The second reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are three speeches remaining.

Radiation Safety Bill – third reading

The bill replaces the Radiation Protection Act 1965 to “provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological, scientific, and organisational changes that have occurred over the last 5 decades” and also enables “ratification of key relevant international instruments.”

• Introduced: December 2014
• 1st reading: March 2015, passed unanimously
• Select Committee report: August 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: November 2015, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: February 2016, passed unanimously

The third reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

The ABC reports:

The United Nations has called on the West Australian Government to withdraw controversial new legislation that imposes harsh penalties on protesters.

The proposed laws were first introduced into Parliament in March 2015, and the Government insists it will only target radical protesters using devices like chains or thumb locks to block or stop lawful activities.

But the UN said it would “result in criminalising lawful protests and silencing environmentalists and human rights defenders”.

“If the bill passes, it would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association,” the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.

“The bill would criminalise a wide range of legitimate conduct by creating criminal offences for the acts of physically preventing a lawful activity and possessing an object for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity.

 “For example, peaceful civil disobedience and any non-violent direct action could be characterised as ‘physically preventing a lawful activity’.”

Under the proposed legislation, an offence would carry serious penalties of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $12,000.

If the offence was committed in circumstances of aggravation, the penalty could be as high as imprisonment for two years and a fine of $24,000.

I guess there are three sorts of protests:

1. Protests that do not stop or hinder others
2. Protests that do stop or hinder others from their legal business
3. Protests that are violent

Category 1 should always be legal and protected.

Category 3 should face criminal sanctions.

The in between category is more challenging. I like the idea of a specific offence for them, as you do want penalties for hindering others from their legal rights and duties. However I think imprisonment as a penalty goes too far.

Liam Hehir writes:

I was walking back to the office from lunch and the weirdest thing happened to me. Lost in my thoughts about what an idiot I was for wearing a suit jacket when out and about in February, I looked up to find I had fallen in step with a group of black-jacketed men. 

One of them gave me some brochures setting out who they were and what their ideas were. 

They called themselves the “Right Wing Resistance”. As spelt out in their literature, however, a lot of their views didn’t seem all that right wing.

For example, their pamphlets hit on things like the peril of too much Chinese investment, the pervasive threat of Zionism, Israel’s “holocaust” in Gaza, the perfidious influence of Cameron Slater and National Party pollster and commentator David Farrar in New Zealand politics, the sovereignty-destroying TPPA and, of course, the fact that John Key is a rootless money man whose allegiance is to international finance and not the people of New Zealand.

A few years when Labour were in Government ago the neo-nazis published a list of the 10 worst people in NZ and I was thrilled not only to make it, but be ranked higher than Helen Clark! They even did a nice photo of me with “Juden” photoshopped on my head in red blood.

It has to be said that the overall themes and prose style of their literature shared much more with the anonymous commenters on the Left-wing blog, The Standard than the centre-Right, Kiwiblog. Of course, the more usual economic xenophobia was leavened throughout with heavy dollops of racism, which stands in stark contrast to your garden variety left-liberal – who usually considers racism to be the most grievous sin in the book.

Nevertheless, these guys have clearly not neglected the “socialism” part of national socialism. 

As you would expect, the group was hostile to Muslim immigrants – but they really hate the Jews. However bad Muslims are, the group says that they “do not control the world banks, media, the sick junk that comes from Hollywood, TV or even their own oil”. The international Jewry, on the other hand, is claimed to have been pulling the strings of the New Zealand government since 1874. 

Only since 1874?

A good article at The New Statesman looking at the difference in views between those who vote (UK) Labour and those who are members. This shows the perils if allowing the members to choose the leaders and policies.

• Immigration top 3 concern – 48% Labour voters, 17% Labour members
• Housing top 3 concern – 29% voters, 69% members
• Believe Corbyn can win – 27% voters, 47% members
• Renew Trident –  40% voters against, 68% members against
• Labour not left wing enough – 34% voters, 56% members

So half of Labour voters are concerned about immigration but only 17% of their members, and hence if they just focus on listening to their members they will be out of touch with their own voters.

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.”

– Claude Frederic Bastiat

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

The Spectator reports:

I’ve been reading the minutes of the meetings held by the committee that reviewed the alcohol guidelines recently. You may recall that this was the first full review since 1995 and led to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sally Davies, lowering the recommendations for men from 21 to 14 units a week. The female guidelines were left at 14 units. She also claimed that the health benefits derived from moderate drinking were an ‘old wives’ tale’ and claimed that there was ‘no safe level of alcohol’.

The most striking difference between the 1995 review and the 2016 review is the make-up of the panels. Whereas the 1995 committee was dominated by civil servants who had no obvious prejudices for or against alcohol, the meetings held from March 2013 to discuss alcohol guidance were dominated by activist academics and temperance campaigners.

The Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS), a small but hardline anti-alcohol organisation, was heavily represented on the committee. The IAS was formed in the 1980s as a direct successor to the UK Temperance Alliance which, in turn, had been formed out of the ashes of the UK Alliance for the Suppression of the Traffic of All Intoxicating Liquors, a prohibitionist pressure group. The IAS receives 99 per cent of its income from the Alliance House Foundation whose official charitable objective is ‘to spread the principles of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks’. Its director, Katherine Brown, was on the CMO’s panel, as was its ‘expert adviser’ Gerard Hastings, although he failed to disclose his IAS role in his declaration of interests.

This is a problem in NZ also. The fervent activists on an issue dominate the government committees, and then come up with advice reflecting their strongly held opinions.

From the Hutt News:

Those living in rental properties needed more rights and greater security, Twyford said.

“Renters don’t have the right to have a pet, they don’t have the right to make basic alterations and they can be kicked out on the whim of the landlord within 90 days, no justification needed.

“That’s more than half our population living in those conditions. Is that any way to live? To raise a family?” He said tenants deserved greater rights and Labour would “have to change that”.

So Labour’s housing spokesperson is saying landlords should not be allowed to specify no pets for a property they own. Also he is saying that tenants should have the right to make alterations to the house they are renting, without permission from the actual home owner.

The greatest irony is the article is about providing more homes. This would in fact reduce greatly the number of homes available for rent. There are very valid reasons why some properties are not suitable for pets.

And allowing tenants to make alterations without any approval from the actual home owner – well why would you risk renting a property out?

David Seymour has pointed out:

ACT Leader David Seymour is astonished to learn that the Greens have the highest expenditure on flights.

 

The figures come from the fourth quarter parliamentary expense reports.  It excludes ministers who have a much heavier workload, for example the Ministers of Health and Education must visit hospitals and schools, and are reported separately.

 

In October, November, and December the average Green MP spent $8,562 on air travel.  By comparison the average Labour MP spent $7,790, the average National MP $5,933 and the average New Zealand First MP $6713.

 

Sole Maori Party list MP Marama Fox spent $13,571, less than the Greens’ James Shaw ($14,425) and Metiria Turei ($13,852).

 

“Green MPs’ expenditure on air travel is extraordinary for several reasons,” said Mr Seymour.

 

“These are the MPs who regularly tell us that climate change is the crisis of our time and we must reduce our emissions.

 

“It is also extraordinary that they do not even have to serve electorates, as the Greens are all list MPs and have not won an electorate since 1999.  As an Auckland electorate MP I have to see constituents on Monday and be in Parliament on Tuesday, and back in the electorate Friday, practically every week. 

 

“As list MPs the Greens have far more potential to minimise their carbon footprint by flying less, but not only have they not done so, they are the most frequent flyers.

 

“Co-leader James Shaw loves to tell the story about how, as a consultant, he helped companies reduce their use of air travel.  The Green Party must be his toughest client.”

John Palino has announced:

I am announcing that I will be standing for Auckland Mayor this year!

I am putting my name forward because I believe that Auckland has not realised its potential. Auckland has the potential to be a great city, but the Super City has not delivered for ratepayers.

Our rates have gone up massively.

Our council debt has gone up massively.

Our services are not as good as they were under our old council.

Today I am announcing my commitment to Auckland. As Mayor I will reduce your rates by 10% across my first term.

I have engaged Larry Mitchell, one of New Zealand’s foremost Local Government financial experts to prepare an alternative budget.

This budget, which I will be releasing later in the campaign, will deliver on the promises of cost savings and efficiencies we were promised when the Super City formed.

Every ratepayer knows their services have reduced and their rates have increased.

We have not received the benefits of the Super City. Auckland Council has wasted money on non core spending, treating ratepayers like an unlimited ATM that they can take as much money as they like from.

That is why I believe we can cut rates by 10% over the next three years. This is the first step to returning Aucklanders’ rates to realistic levels.

Over the next few weeks I will be launching sensible policies and pragmatic policies that will protect Auckland ratepayers from a council that has taken far too much of their hard-earned money.

Great to see a candidate make a firm pledge on reducing rates, especially after the Terrible Ten voted for a 9.9% rates increase this year.

This puts the acid on other candidates to make specific commitments to voters. Phil Goff seems to only be talking about increasing rates further. What will Victoria Crone, Stephen Berry and Mark Thomas put forward as policies or pledges on rates?

In theory the Mayor has only one vote on Council but they get to propose the budget for the Council, and this pledge means Palino as Mayor would put forward a budget that reduces rates over three years by 10%.

I look forward to seeing detailed policies from him as to how he will achieve this, and from other candidates.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

The year’s first polls are disastrous for beleaguered Labour leader Andrew Little.

According to Roy Morgan, the Labour/Green bloc is stagnant on 41.5%.  Arguably worse is TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton poll which has the axis down 3% to 40%.  This is not quite the Brashian 17% boost Mr Little hoped when he rose outside Auckland University last month to announce Labour’s ‘free’ tertiary education policy.

The policy was classic Revenge of the Nerds. Mr Little and his finance spokesman Grant Robertson began their careers as presidents of the New Zealand University Students’ Association in the 1980s and 1990s. Their belief has never been shaken that the taxpayer should pay all the expenses for school leavers to do arts degrees in political studies, philosophy and public policy as they did.

Almost every major spokesperson for Labour in this area is a former student union president.

This is only the start of Labour’s problems with the failed policy.  Right now, the party is making much of its so-called Future of Work Commission in which Mr Little and Mr Robertson are trying to decide what sort of jobs we’ll all have in 2035.

The initiative is similar to one by Social Credit in the 1970s when it worried about the impact of the computer and is utterly lampoonable. The idea that anyone – least of all a bunch of Labour luminaries – has any real insight into what economic and technological changes the market will deliver over two decades is self-evidently absurd.  For evidence, just re-read similar claptrap written about the 2010s ahead of the turn of the millennium.

In 1995 there was no commercial Internet industry. Any predictions in 1995 about future jobs would have been pretty out.

Finally, just remember the ‘problem’ the new policy is meant to solve. In data out this week, we learn the median student loan balance is $14,421. Half of students and former students owe less than this. It doesn’t really seem like an issue worth closing all your other fiscal options to address.

And the average extra income from a degree is $1.5 million so a damn good investment.

David Seymour announced:

ACT Leader David Seymour today proposed selling Landcorp and putting the proceeds into a Sanctuary Trust for applicants who wish to operate inland sanctuaries for native wildlife.

“Landcorp is a business the Government should never have owned and which is responsible for considerable dairy conversion and deforestation.

“The new Trust’s grants would be conditional upon the applicant reaching targets for predator exclusion, biodiversity, and community participation.

“The model is not so very different from what ACT has done with Partnership Schools.  Invite social entrepreneurship, measure performance according to agreed targets, and get out of the way.

“Over 100 years, Sanctuary Trust would radically transform the abundance of New Zealand’s most endangered species.”

This is a great idea. We shouldn’t have a state owned company anyway running farms and the like. But I like the idea of selling Landcorp (which as Seymour notes is often converting land into dairy use) and using the proceeds to fund conservation sanctuaries.

Landcorp has 140 farms and is valued at $1.4 billion. I suspect it might go for even more than that. That would be a huge boost to conservation efforts.

A very nice way of combining fiscal conservatism (asset sales) with environmentalism. This policy would do more for conservation than nay previous Government has done.

Newshub reports:

Peters trying to compete with Donald Trump.

A permanent resident in not an outsider and it is insulting to label them so.

Anyone on the electoral roll should be allowed to vote in the referendum.

There is a wider issue of whether overall voting rights should be restricted to citizens. I think there are some benefits to this (to encourage citizenship), but if you ever changed you’d grandfather in existing residents. No one should ever lose the right to vote, unless they go to prison etc.

Rob Hosking writes:

Actually that’s not entirely fair. When I say “tried” the no-nonsense, no crap approach is very much in keeping with Mr Little’s personality – far more so than silly talk about “dreams.”

Unfortunately the Labour leader did not stick to this approach.

It signals a deeper problem – one of many – within Labour. And this shows the party cannot stick to any one strategy for more than about 72 hours or so, maybe a few weeks at a time. When it doesn’t immediately reap results – that is, it doesn’t produce anything in the next batch of polls – the party seems to drop whatever it is doing and try something else.

At best, this shows a lack of clear long-term thinking. But it does seem to betoken something much more deeply problematic, and that is the party simply doesn’t know what it is there for any more.

They stand for unions I’d say.

It’s in favour of free trade until the government gets a free-trade deal. It’s in favour of a flag change until the government tries to reflect change.

And so on.

Opposition is good when you honestly think the Government is wrong, but in neither of these cases they do.

Lance Wiggs writes at NBR:

The New Zealand Venture Investment Fund was set up 14 years ago with the best intentions – to foster an early stage investment sector in New Zealand by being a fund of funds. It’s had $250 million for VC and PE funds but only $129.7 million of that had been invested to June 2015 and $100 million of it is an underwrite facility.

NZVIF later added the now $50 million Seed Co-Investment Fund (SCIF) which co-invests alongside accredited angel investors. As at June 2016 it had placed $38.2 million of that. …

The VC fund portfolio reported $120 million invested into funds and a net asset value of $93.2 million as at June 2014. In June 2015, that was $129.7 million invested into funds and a value of $99.8 million. That means they added $9.97 million in cash but lost $5.17 million asset value, for an average rate of return of (1.74%) – or negative 1.74% – per year.

In comparison Punakaiki Fund has raised $12 million and has a net asset value of more than $16 million, as we did this in less than two years. We use the same IPEV standards for valuation and our IRR for the original April 2014 investors was over 50% per year when we last officially released data in November 2015. It’s quite remarkable to think that Punakaiki Fund’s value today is already a sixth of the value of NZVIF’s VC fund as at June 2015, and we have not received any funds from the NZVIF fund of funds nor had over 12 years of investing returns for the fund.

I don’t see a Government Venture Investment Fund as a great idea. When you are not risking your own money, you make investment decisions differently.

I’m an investor in Wiggs’ Punakaiki Fund. I invested for two reasons. The first is the track record of Wiggs, and the second is his own money is risk also.

I think angel and venture investors are great and an important part of the financial eco-system. I’m just not convinced the Government needs to be one of them.

Wiggs has a couple of interesting suggestions going forward:

Pass the entire fund to an existing government-owned professional fund manager, and if the government wants to invest in more funds or deals then the fund manager can allocate the funds. The Superfund is the perfect vehicle for this (ACC is an alternative), but the asset class is very small for either shop. One option is to move say two people from NZVIF into Superfund and have them managed there; or

Run a tender to ask for proposals to run the fund and pass the fund to the private sector. Select the manager based on the response in costs and evidence that new ownership would drive higher returns for the fund.

I like the second option.

Stuff reports:

More sophisticated palates and the introduction of strict drink driving laws are believed to be factors in a reduction in the volume of alcohol in New Zealanders’ drinks.  

The volume of alcohol available for consumption on New Zealand streets has hit an 18 year low, according to Statistics NZ, though the amount of alcoholic beverages we consume has stayed the same.

Statistics New Zealand senior manager Jason Attewell said the the total volume of alcohol available in 2015 was the equivalent of two standard drinks a day per person. 

That was down 4.1 per cent on the previous year and the lowest volume of alcohol available per capita since 1997.

Yet the wowsers insist we are drinking more than ever before and we need to restrict hours more, increase taxes more etc etc.