Herald business editor Liam Dann writes:

Helen Clark, who as Prime Minister kicked off the trade talks that evolved into the TPP, doesn’t seem to think so.

Last month she told New Zealand media in New York: “What always haunts a Prime Minister is: ‘Will there be a series of trade blocs develop that you are not part of?’ Because that is unthinkable for New Zealand as an export-oriented, small trading nation.

“So of course New Zealand has to be in on the action with the TPP and go for the very best deal it can.”

Clark’s words must seem brutally pragmatic to many of those still clinging to the notion that New Zealand should walk away from the TPP.

But her point seems to be that the bar for not signing up to this trade deal would have to be extremely high.

She was talking before the agreement was signed but one doubts the final text will have changed her stance.

It is hard to see any deal breaker in the detail so far which would justify New Zealand isolating itself from a trading block that represents 40 per cent of global GDP.

We’d be the laughing stock of the world to walk away from a deal we spent seven years negotiating.

This is problematic for Labour if it remains opposed to this deal based on specific points of detail.

And this has raised the prospect that Labour may oppose it on ideological grounds.

That might seem a populist approach when it comes to Facebook clicks, but would put the party into serious conflict with the current realities of the New Zealand economy.

As a tiny country, New Zealand is considerably less well placed to go down an isolationist path than, say, the UK under a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Government.

It would be an almost revolutionary position for a major political party to take here.

Vietnam – hardly an easy target for US imperialism – is set to sign the deal.

It would seem strange, I think, to see the New Zealand Labour Party taking a harder ideological stance than the Communist Party in Hanoi.

Sadly, it is quite possible.

Stuff reports:

Laws relating to the 1931 Napier earthquake, the Y2K virus, and a fishing boat savings scheme are set for the chop in a planned clear-out of redundant legislation.

The Government proposal would see more than 10 per cent of New Zealand’s laws taken off the books to clear out unused legislation and make the law more accessible to Kiwis.

The Statutes Repeal Bill would remove part or all of 128 pieces of legislation – some more than 130 years old – which are no longer necessary or in use.

Regulatory Reform Minister Steven Joyce said the draft bill would reduce the total number of public acts in force by more than 10 per cent, making it easier for people to navigate existing legislation and for Government departments to administer laws.

ACT leader David Seymour, the parliamentary undersecretary for regulatory reform, said the Government wanted to ensure that the law was accessible to “ordinary folks” rather than an elite group who knew how to go through legislation.

“While I don’t think that is going to radically change people’s accessibility to the law, it’s the kind of maintenance that a responsible government should be doing so that the statutes are not an unwieldy, over-intimidating set of volumes.”

Long overdue and a good idea.

I quite like the idea of many laws having a sunset clause so they expire unless Parliament renews them, which would mean looking at whether they really are still necessary.

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

– George Bernard Shaw

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.

Gareth Hughes has a bill up for first reading soon called the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill.

I hope the Government/National votes for the bill at first reading, for three reasons.

1. It is a (fairly rare) constructive opposition bill that has identified an issue, and is not proposing a solution that is just designed to get National to vote against it
2. While the bill’s solution may not be the best answer to the problem, even having select committee hearings into the bill may lead to better outcomes with pressure on energy companies
3. National would gain kudos for supporting a bill which could encourage more people to sell surplus solar back into the grid.

This Stuff article highlights the current problem:

“The bill is trying to fix a serious problem, which is that thousands of Kiwis are going solar and finding the electricity companies have all the power.

“My bill would empower the Electricity Authority to act as an independent umpire to make sure that solar consumers get a fair go,” Hughes said.

At present companies set the price when they buy back electricity from customers who generate more power than they use.

Hughes said Meridian Energy used to pay 26 cents per kilowatt hour to consumers who had generated extra electricity, but were now paying between 8 and 10c.

DC Power business manager Sarah Laurence said the pricing was discouraging consumers from going solar.

The company installed solar panels for Barbara and Atsushi Taniyama at their Palmerston North restaurant Yatai. Laurence said expansion could have been on the cards if the buy-back price was certain.

“The dropping price has prevented them from putting in a bigger system,” Laurence said.

So the problem with the status quo is that prices for buying back excess solar have dropped by around two thirds, and there is no price certainty.

A further Stuff article explains:

Almost every region had different rules, regulations and need for resource consents in order to install solar panels, Hughes said.

And alongside that, power companies held the literal and metaphorical power when it came to setting buy-back rates. Hughes said rates had fluctuated from 17 cents to as low as 4 cents, without more than a month’s notice, leaving those signed onto solar energy in a constant state of uncertainty, he said. 

“I’m not asking for it to subsidised, I’m proposing the Electricity Authority to act as an independent umpire and set a fair and reasonable buy-back rate.” 

Now I’m not convinced that having the Electricity Authority set the rate will be the best solution, as I’d like to see power companies compete to offer the best rates for buying back surplus solar.

But I think it is a reasonable option that should be considered by a select committee. A select committee could hear from solar users and hear from energy companies, and consider the size of the problem, and what the best solution is.

As I said above, just the scrutiny of the select committee may be enough to get some companies to offer better terms – that might not even be higher rates, but guaranteed price stability over a period of time.

I also think it is good to be constructive with an opposition bill, when it is not proposing something hugely expensive, or is just trying to make the Government vote against something for scaremongering purposes (such as Clayton Cosgrove’s ludicrous bill to stop the Government selling Kiwibank).

So I hope the National caucus decides to back the bill at first reading. There will be many grateful solar users if they do decide this is an issue worth select committee scrutiny.

I’m doing an unscientific web survey to gauge people’s preferences when it comes to the six possible flag options New Zealand has.

The survey is at SurveyMonkey – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/nzflagsurvey

You need to rank all six options.

Once concluded I will publish the results and also the preference flows from each option, so we can see people’s second and other choices.

Vote early but only vote once.

Forest and Bird are running their annual Bird of the Year competition.

There’s 52 birds you can choose from.

I’m backing the bar tailed godwit.

Apart from being a great long distance flyer, it is being backed by the Pukorokoro Miranda Shorebird Centre. If you’re in or near Auckland you should visit them:

Located only an hour from Auckland the Miranda Shorebird Centre is an excellent stop to escape the city and have a look at some of New Zealand’s amazing birdlife. With nearly half of the population of the endemic Wrybill found at Miranda during part of the year, and with numbers of shorebirds often exceeding 10,000 the Miranda coastline is almost a mandatory stop for any birdwatcher passing by. Visit the Shorebird Centre and find out what birds are around, stay with us for a weekend escape from the bustle of the city or join us for one of our regular events.

So vote for the Godwit and visit the Miranda centre when you have the time.

In more bad news for Republicans:

The outsiders are still dominating the Republican presidential race, according to a new CBS News poll.

Donald Trump still leads in the new national poll with 27%, followed by Ben Carson at 21%, CBS News reports.

No other GOP candidate finished in double digits. Ted Cruz is third in the CBS poll at 9%, followed by Marco Rubio (8%), Jeb Bush (6%), and Carly Fiorina (6%). No other Republican candidate finished with more than 5%.

No surprise that Trump and Carson lead but Cruz coming third is a surprise.

I think a Rubio/Fiorina ticket could beat Clinton. Trump and Carson would implode during the campaign and Cruz is hated by most of his colleagues.

Meanwhile USA Today reports:

The head of the House Freedom Caucus that helped upend last week’s planned choice of a new speaker predicted Sunday members of the rebellious group would “look favorably” on Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan for the top job.

Ryan also won praise from more centrist representatives and even from a congressman who has announced his own campaign for speaker. But the 45-year-old chairman of theWays and Means Committee, who spent the weekend with his family in Janesville, Wis., remained mum on whether he was willing to accept a role he had previously rejected.

Ryan is the only one who could unite the House Republicans but he really doesn’t want the job. Will he do it for the good of the party though?

Claire Trevett writes:

Key now has some thinking to do about the two-year limit he has put on the deployment. Such is the attrition rate in the Iraq Army – both from deaths and desertions – the need for basic training is unlikely to reduce. He met with the troops not just in front of the cameras but in private around the dinner table as well. Many made it clear they had jumped at the assignment, bored in the lull after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. They also made it clear they believed it was a worthwhile mission.

When the powhiri was held for Key, many of the 300 Australian troops came along as well. The emblem for the Anzac’s joint ‘Taskforce Taji’ mission is an intertwined boomerang and silver fern. It is on their sleeve patches and flags. Nor is it simply lip service to a joint effort – the Australians and New Zealanders work in the same teams. In his address to the troops in Taji, Key made much of that Anzac spirit and the difference he believed they were making. As US President Barack Obama has done, Key has also often spoken about the battle against Islamic State being a world-wide battle – not just Iraq’s.

It was hard for some to see the justification in Key’s decision to deploy the troops in the first place. It is harder still to see how Key will justify a decision to cut and run after that type of rhetoric, especially if Australia stays on.

Trevett is not alone in this view. I’ve read or heard it from most media who went to Iraq.

Before they went, they were sceptical about whether we should be there.

Now they are saying that we should not leave in two years, but stay for the long haul.

A Telegraph investigation finds:

It can be disclosed that for seven years running, while the IRA “armed struggle” was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA “prisoners of war” and the active “soldiers of the IRA.”

An interesting interview of David Seymour by Toby Manhire. A couple of extracts:

Is there a limit to privatisation? Where is the point beyond which you wouldn’t go?

The state should absolutely run a court system, should absolutely have police, should absolutely have a military, that’s just the basic thing so you can have property and be safe in yourself. That’s first. But then there’s a few more things. Some people make the argument that Victorian times were better, but I think it’s fair to have, basically, a social insurance scheme that says, look, you have unforeseeable risks, some people are just born with parents that either don’t want to or can’t afford to send them to school, and I think that the state should actually fund that, I don’t think they should be running all the schools, but they should fund it. And I think we should have some sort of insurance against bad things happening to you. I don’t have a major objection to the state running an employment insurance scheme, which is basically what it does.

But once you get past those things – security and a social safety net – then you suddenly find yourself with politicians who think they’re businesspeople, and it’s just too tempting to play around with other people’s money. There’s a regulatory role for the state, and that is things like fisheries, for instance. If everybody just took everything they wanted, there’d be no fish next season.

A good answer. The state is best as a regulator, not as a player. And where there is a need to fund something, that doesn;t mean they have to provide it.

Do you think that the level of child poverty in New Zealand is acceptable?

No.

What’s the solution?

There’s a couple of things. One is that a lot of the poverty you hear about is to do with the standard of housing that kids can access. We have an enormous shortage of housing. Here in Auckland we built 50,000 houses in the 90s, 40,000 in the last decade, and yet the city’s got 50% more people than it did in 1991, and the prices have gone up while the supply of houses has not come through. So in that environment you’re going to end up with kids in substandard conditions, living in cars and garages and stuff.

Another driver is that, frankly, you’ve got two groups of people. You’ve got people who desperately want to have kids, who wait and sacrifice until they’re well into their 30s and fret about that. On the other hand you’ve got people that have kids sometimes in their teens, and there’s no way you can provide – I couldn’t have looked after a kid when I was in my teens, I’m not sure I could now [he’s 32]. So that’s an issue.

I think we actually have to say what can we do to discourage people from having kids that they haven’t made a best effort to look after. There’s a whole spectrum of people in that line – probably a bit unfair to say there’s two groups; there’s two ends of it.

I think beyond that, the other question is how many of the kids in poverty have their own parents alienated from the education system, basically made to feel shit? I don’t think partnership schools are a silver bullet, I just think people should give them a chance. One of the things we’ve discovered: this girl said to me, “I never knew I was smart till I came here.” And the teachers told me they were trying to line her up to get a full-ride scholarship at Canterbury. That girl honestly thought school wasn’t for her, that she was a failure and all that academic stuff wouldn’t work for her.

Getting housing a bit more available, a bit more personal responsibility, a bit more education. Those are the main things you could do. And, arguably, benefits could be more generous if they were more targeted. But I don’t think anyone has the answer as to how do you give more money to people who already have kids, without some people in some places saying, well, that just makes economic sense – I live in rural Northland, if I have another kid I’m going to get another 80 bucks a week, that’s a lot of money to me.

d

Stacey Kirk writes at Stuff:

Any semblance of a Labour political strategy has been conspicuously absent this past week. 

One of the most important free-trade announcements in decades was made, and Labour leader Andrew Little was nowhere to be seen.  …

But never underestimate the power of the Auckland vote, because that is where Labour needs to turn it around. 

An all-Wellington leadership team in Little and King would do nothing for that cause. 

Ardern has significant support in Auckland, and has also earnt the respect of many members of the business crowd. That could prove the decider.  

The upcoming review and consequent reshuffle is a crucial part of Labour’s strategy in the leadup to the 2017 election. 

They can’t allow the Governmentto dictate discussion as they have done on the TPP this past week. 

It’s understood the Government and Treasury had a line-by-line plan prepared to rebut any of vocal detractor Jane Kelsey’s possible arguments.

Irrespective of which side of the discussion you fall, that is the level of organisation Labour needs to be striving for. 

However, Little was on a pre-planned holiday and King was difficult to access. 

A refusal to rule in or out whether the party would even stick with the deal, if it was in Government, instills no confidence that it is a party with a direction. 

Any leadership team would struggle to hold course without a rudder. 

Maybe this sums up their direction:

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a dream

A good victory to Ireland at 24 to 9, which means NZ will face France in our quarter-final.

The pools are not even, but still interesting to look at the net points scored by each team. The are:

1. New Zealand +125
2. South Africa +120
3. Argentina +109
4. Australia +106
5. Ireland +99
6. England +58
7. France +57
8. Wales +49
9. Scotland +43
10. Japan -12
11. Italy -14
12. Fiji -17
13. Samoa -55
14. Tonga -60
15. Romania -69
16. Georgia -70
17. Canada -73
18. USA -96
19. Namibia -104
20. Uruguay -196

Stuff reports:

No freedom is in sight for New Zealand’s longest serving inmate, who will have clocked 50 years in jail before he is next allowed to seek parole.

The Parole Board has issued a three-year postponement order to pensioner prisoner Alfred Vincent, 77, who has been locked up since being sentenced to preventive detention in 1968 for seven indecent assault charges against boys.

Vincent’s Auckland-based lawyer, Dr Tony Ellis, said the board had given Vincent a three-year postponement order, which was less than the five-year maximum allowed under newly-introduced parole laws.

“It rounds [his incarceration] up to 50 years before he can possibly get out.

“I think it’s inhumane to sentence anyone to 50 years in prison for indecent assault,” said Ellis, a human rights lawyer.

He is not in prison (any more) for indecent assault. He is in prison to prevent further sexual offending. That is what preventive detention is about.

Seven convictions for indecent assaults on five boys aged 12 to 14 had a maximum jail sentence of seven years, but Vincent got preventive detention in 1968 because of his previous child sex convictions.

Vincent, originally from Kaiapoi in Canterbury, has a glass eye, wears two hearing aids, and has serious heart condition.

It was “laughable” that he was still considered a risk, Ellis said.

In September, the board said in its decision to decline parole for Vincent that he still posed a high risk of sexual re-offending. 

“Despite his advanced years, he is said to exhibit a strong and persistent pattern of highly sexualised interest and behaviour.  If anything, he has become more disinhibited. But he is not amenable to treatment,” its written decision said.

If he was released, he’d probably be charged with another offence within a week.  It’s sad, but from what I understand he has no self control, and even within prison he has dome stuff highly inappropriate in public.

Five Thirty Eight has surveyed readers on the most rewatchable movies. There is a difference between great and rewatchable. Two of the movies I have rewatched countless times are Life of Brian and Blues Brothers.

Their top 25 are:

What would you add to this list?

Earlier this year I rewatched all six Star Wars movies in preparation for Episode VII. And currently rewatching the Indiana Jones films.

Rodney Hide writes:

Auckland University law Professor Jane Kelsey is wrong.

Specifically, she is wrong with her constant criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. For years she has pumped out press releases and opinion pieces and given endless interviews to scare us witless about the evils of the TPPA.

She has complained it “raises the price of medicines and handcuffs the right of governments to regulate in their national interests”, that it would “bust the Pharmac budget” and “make SOEs prime targets for privatisation”.

She has said Prime Minister John Key is enabling “Hollywood to sell us down the river”, that at stake “is a battle between life and death for New Zealanders and life and death for the tobacco industry” and that governments are signing up to an agreement that “surrenders their domestic economies and grants undue influence over their policy decisions to powerful, largely US, corporate interests”.

It is fine to say that the TPP might include some of the bad stuff above, because some countries did push for stuff we did not want. But it is bad faith to claim the TPP will do the bad stuff, before there is an agreement, and also bad faith to try and paint the Government as being in favour of the bad stuff, rather than actually being the ones trying to get the best deal for NZ.

Well, the deal has now been agreed. And miracle of miracles, the sun still shines. The agreement covers two-fifths of the global economy and eliminates or reduces about 18,000 tariffs, taxes and non-tariff barriers.

It’s a huge boost to world trade and prosperity. The only criticism is that it does not go far enough.

It is interesting how some critics have gone from all this bad stuff will happen, to it isn’t a good enough deal for dairy. I agree with Groser’s use of the old quote “perfect is the enemy of good”

So why is Kelsey so opposed? Well, she was taught her political views by left-thinking Marxist scholars at Cambridge. Her Marxism means it is not the specifics of the TPPA that concern her but the agreement itself.

To Marxists, free trade is evil because it makes the rich richer at the expense of workers who are kept poor on subsistence wages.

As I said last week, Kelsey has vigorously argued against every trade agreement NZ has made (as far as I can recall).

Another view on TPP is Audrey Young:

If the test is whether New Zealand will be better off signing the TPP or not signing it, there is only one answer.

And to avoid doubt:

Better off – not just for the $259 million in identifiable tariff reductions but for the so-called “dynamic gains of trade” that come with a greater presence in a market as the China FTA has shown.

Labour and New Zealand First will rail against Tim Groser’s failure to get a great deal on dairy, but the public are not fools.

They know the blame lies with the United States and its protectionist buddies in Canada and Japan.

Labour could perhaps apply its own test to the way it handles the TPP issue: will Labour be better off supporting the deal than not supporting it. Will it be any better off sounding as though it opposes it but supporting it in the end?

If it does not support TPP eventually it would be punished for the next two years by the Government over its willingness to allow New Zealand exporters to be disadvantaged in export markets of new partners, where 93 per cent of tariffs will eventually disappear.

It would erode its standing as a potential government of a trade-driven nation.

It would be bad for NZ if Labour votes against it, but it would be good for National. I put NZ’s interests first, and hope Labour does support it.

We now know the eight semi-finalists, but don’t yet know whether we play France or Ireland.

Another day of lower rated countries playing incredibly well, but not quite making it. Wales did great to hold the Wallabies to 15 points, and Samoa played a blinder to be only three points behind Scotland.

So the quarter-finals are:

1. South Africa vs Wales
2. NZ vs France or Ireland
3. France or Ireland vs Argentina
4. Australia vs Scotland

Meanwhile tickets for England’s last game are now on sale for two and a half pounds 🙂

I think (hope) the first semi-final will be NZ vs South Africa.

The second one should be Australia vs either France or Ireland.

And hopefully a NZ vs Australia final. I’d take NZ vs Ireland also, but please not NZ vs France again!

Politico reports:

The doubts haunted Kevin McCarthy.

Publicly, he projected an air of confidence, the appearance of the man who would be the next speaker of the House. But in private, his allies told him the pursuit for power was changing him and he wasn’t himself. Some said that even if he won, he couldn’t govern.

“We need somebody to get us 247,” McCarthy said in an extensive interview with POLITICO Thursday, referring to the total number of House Republicans. “And I was never going to be able to get 247.”

The majority leader’s longtime allies — the people he recruited and helped get elected to Congress — told him they were getting hammered back home, and that it would be difficult to back him on the House floor.

Other friends said McCarthy’s pursuit of the speaker’s gavel had become a staggering weight on his shoulders and was already starting to change him.

Conservatives — namely members of the House Freedom Caucus — were making demands he believed he simply couldn’t deliver on.

The job of Speaker of the House is the second most powerful in the United States, after the President. They basically solely decide what bills and issues get voted on in the House. In the absence of a President, they are the de facto leader of their party.

Yet the Republican civil war has made the job an awful one. Some Republican representatives have demands so unreasonable, that no Speaker can meet them, and hence no Speaker can govern – unless they rely on Democrats.

So we have not only seen Boehner resign as Speaker, but his No 2 drop out of the race to replace him.

The Republicans have the House and Senate, and Clinton is looking beatable if she is the Democratic nominee. If they had unity, they could win the presidency next year, but if they don’t they will lose, and possibly lose the Senate also. That would be bad as a further Democratic administration could see major changes in the Supreme Court, which would give the liberal wing a majority.

News.com.au reports:

In a passionate speech in the wake of a terror attack in Sydney in which a 15-year-old shot dead a police worker, the Prime Minister said violent extremism needed to be tackled head on.

He said those who could not practice harmony should leave the country.

“It is not compulsory to live in Australia. If you find Australian values, you know, unpalatable, then there’s a big wide world out there and people have got freedom of movement,” Mr Turnbull said.

“The success of our society is founded on mutual respect and we have to recognise that people who preach hatred, preach extremism, are undermining the success of this extraordinary country and this extraordinary project.”

Good speech.

If you have the West and western values, then don’t live here.

News.com.au reports:

China is moving quickly towards just such a system, in a Big Brother-style plan that will see everyone given a grade between 350 and 950.

If you buy nappies or recycle, you get extra points for showing you are responsible. If you play video games and spend too much on clothes, you lose points. …

Harnessing our data from banks, retailers and social media, it’s the kind of all-encompassing surveillance system that would terrify us in the West. But the Chinese government’s State Council said in a plan released in June 2014 that the system was key to “building a harmonious Socialist society … strengthening the sincerity consciousness of the members of society, forging a desirable credit environment, raising the overall competitiveness of the country [and] stimulating the development of society and the progress of civilisation.”

By 2020, people with scores above a certain level will receive rewards, such as credit to start a business, while those with lower ratings could face ominous-sounding punishments.

I could see some left groups wanting this here.

If you use plastic bags, bang you get some demerits.

Buy your kids a soft drink, and there’s another black mark, and another if they ever have a pie from a dairy.

Fail to put out recycling, and there’s another black mark.

Be seen at a bar after 2 am, and further demerits.

This is the ultimate nanny state tool!

Now that was a great game.

Before it began I said I wanted All Blacks to get four tries, and not concede any.

They scored seven.

And Tonga played really well – best performance I have seen from them. The first 50 minutes saw them very competitive and they came damn close to scoring.

This is just what we needed. A performance that showed our quarter final opponents how formidable we could be, and no injuries (well maybe one). A bit undisciplined at times, but overall a very good performance.

Now all eyes on France vs Ireland to see who we play in the quarter-final. I hope it is France as I’d rather face them earlier on.