Stuff reports:

“I’ve raised it with Xi Jinping. It was a while ago. The issue about Wellington wanting to take them is not new and they have raised that with us before…it is a long slow process.

“Personally, I think New Zealand will get there …but there are costs. Eventually I think a couple of pandas will turn up.”

Cities that exhibit the creatures “have done very well,” Key said. He’d talk to Xi Jinping about a kiwi-panda swap: “If that was a possibility, sure, yeah.”

Earlier on Tuesday Key confirmed the Government would help foot the significant bill – but said the cash injection “wouldn’t be massive”. 

It shouldn’t be anything.

I do not believe having pandas in a zoo in New Zealand will entice a single tourist to NZ. People do not decide what country to travel to, on the basis of whether they have a panda there.

Pandas in Wellington will boost internal tourism. People already in NZ will be more likely to visit Wellington and go to the zoo. Hence there is a case for a contribution from ratepayers, so long as the projected economic gain is greater.

But there is no real case for a contribution from taxpayers.

The idea of swapping some kiwis for pandas has merit though. But what would the exchange rate be?

Rob Hosking writes:

The government today released an outline of what Local Government Minister Paula Bennett bluntly calls “loopy” rules and what they are doing to business.

The range of examples in the Rules Reduction Task Force report, released today, range from the pointless to the power-tripping.

A bus depot with no walls was still required to put up four exit signs, just in case people couldn’t find their way out in an emergency.

A shop converted into a residential unit was required to reduce noise levels to 35 decibels – but when it was tested, the only place this was achieved was in the wardrobe.

Adding a pharmacy on to the front of an earthquake-damaged building in Christchurch, which added only 3.5% to the structure, triggered a requirement to upgrade the fire safety standard of the entire building – at the cost of $50,000.

Hairdressing firms still have to be inspected annually because they were once sources of infection but this is no longer the case.

An example I know of is a wholesale supplier who built a warehouse and office in a major provincial city. They were told that because of the size of the overall area, they had to have a carpark with room for 20 people to park. Now this is not a retailer. They generally never have more than two people parked there at any time.

But it gets better. 10% of their parks must be for disabled drivers. So they have to have two car parks reserved for disabled drivers. Now not many people in wheelchairs turn up to pick up a large piece of machinery.But even if they did, all 20 parks are basically always empty. But two still have to marked as reserved.

The taskforce received submissions on more than 2000 topics, the co-chairs – National MP Jacqui Dean and Auckland Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett – say.

“About two-thirds are in the context of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Building Act 2004. Three quarters of the issues raised are about the responsibilities and actions of councils,” the report says.

All this focuses on matters a National-led government should be focusing on: the silly and often counterproductive rules that generate trouble but little or no benefit.

This is the issue, in my example. The car parks requirement benefits no one at all. It is just an inflexible rule that imposes a cost of a business for no corresponding benefit.

The Herald reports on a possible change from the report:

The door is ajar for letting builders sign off on the quality of their own work.

The proposal is among recommendations released today by the Government’s rules reduction taskforce, which was set up to look at the rules and regulations causing frustration for taxpayers.

The taskforce said self-certification should be encouraged for builders who meet set levels of qualification.

Local Government Minister Paula Bennett has indicated it was an area where current regulations might be excessive.

She has asked Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith to look at the proposal.

Dr Smith said he was open to the suggestion and had asked officials to look at the matter.

He said there was some work where self-certification would be appropriate, in exactly the same way as electricians sign off on their own work.

Definitely worth considering.

The order paper is here (yesterday’s).

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What responsibility, if any, does he take for a lack of access to health services for New Zealanders?
2. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Finance: How many more jobs have been created in New Zealand since the economy started recovering from the global financial crisis?
3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Defence: Does he regard all expenditure within Defence as being of high value?
4. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her answer to written question 10747 (2015) that “Neither the Ministry nor myself are aware of Serco staff ever visiting any Child, Youth and Family site”?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Revenue: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that “This bright line test is a bad idea and shouldn’t be enacted as in our view it will be ineffective in meeting the stated policy objective”?
6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received regarding the state of Child, Youth and Family?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Local Government: How much has been spent on the Rules Reduction Taskforce in total?
8. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that a record 542,000 patients received a first specialist assessment in the last 12 months, and that a record 167,000 patients received an elective surgery operation?
9. DARROCH BALL to the Minister for Social Development: Did Serco visit the South Auckland Youth Justice facility, Korowai Manaaki, due to any issues identified at that residence?
10. MOJO MATHERS to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does she think it’s acceptable that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who live with hearing loss are unable to access the TV commentary for any Rugby World Cup games because we do not have mandatory captioning requirements in this country?
11. SUE MORONEY to the Minister for ACC: Does she stand by her decision to change to the risk rating model for ACC motor vehicle levies that has resulted in 115,000 vehicles being reclassified in the first 3 days?
12. TODD MULLER to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made about boosting community pest control?

National: Four questions on the economy, CYF, surgical assessments and pest control

Labour: Four questions on health services, tax on housing, Rules Reduction Taskforce and ACC

Greens: Two questions on Serco and TV captioning

NZ First: Two questions on sefence spending and Serco

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Environmental Reporting Bill – third reading

• Introduced February 2014
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 78 to 41 with Labour and NZ First opposed
• Select Committee report: March 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, minority views by Labour and Greens
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 61 to 60 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party opposed
• Committee of the whole House: June 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed

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

Standards and Accreditation Bill – third reading

The bill amends and consolidates the law relating to standards and conformity assessment bodies “to ensure the New Zealand Standards and conformance system is viable, well-functioning, and meets the needs of business, regulators, and consumers into the foreseeable future.”

• Introduced: July 2014
• 1st reading: November 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: March 2015, supported with amendments with a minority report from Labour
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 61-60 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party against
• Committee of the whole House: July 2015, passed 61-60 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party against

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

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill – third reading

The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2011 to facilitate the efficient and effective investment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund by allowing the Guardians to control entities formed for the purpose of holding, facilitating, or managing the investments of the Fund.

• Introduced: November 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: July 2014, supported with amendments without dissent
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 101-13 with Greens against
• Committee of the whole House: June 2015, passed unanimously

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

Note the bill has been divided into two bills – the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the Taxation (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income) Bill.

Stuff reports:

The European Union approved a plan on Tuesday (Wednesday NZ Time) to share out 120,000 refugees across its 28 states, overriding vehement opposition from four ex-communist eastern nations.

Diplomats said interior ministers meeting in Brussels had voted to launch the scheme, backed by Germany and other big powers, in order to tackle the continent’s worst refugee crisis since World War Two.

The Czech minister tweeted that he had voted against, along with colleagues from Slovakia, Romania and Hungary, with Finland abstaining.

So being a member of the EU now means other countries decide your refugee quota for you.  What will they do if countries refuse?

At present most in the UK want to remain in the EU, but how the EU deals with this issue may change that.

Prague had earlier warned that any attempt to impose such a scheme would be unworkable and could end in “big ridicule” for governments and EU authorities.

“We will soon realise that the emperor has no clothes. Common sense lost today,” Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec tweeted after the vote.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said pushing through the quota system had “nonsensically” caused a deep rift over a highly sensitive issue and that, “as long as I am prime minister”, Slovakia would not implement a quota.

And worse:

“If we fail to find the right solution in the long term, the migrant crisis could truly threaten the existence of the European Union. But I am not a pessimist, I believe that we will find joint measures,” Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar told Reuters in an interview.

The reason for the opposition:

Eastern states with no tradition of integrating large numbers of Muslims are anxious about the impact on their societies and keen to avoid any signal that might encourage even more desperate people to set sail across the Mediterranean for Europe.

This is the same issue Australia has had. If you don’t take a hard line, then you encourage hundreds of thousands more to set sail.

Countries should take refugees – but from the refugee camps through the UNHCR system. Encouraging people to set sail to Europe will only end badly.

Very cool to read about Wellington teacher Richard Smith:

A Wellington school teacher is “gobsmacked” after being honoured as New Zealand’s most inspiring educator.

Wadestown School teacher Richard Smith has beaten out thousands of other teachers to claim the accolade.

And what does he do?

The dedicated teacher said he spent time with individual children who needed extra support and made opportunities for one-on-one conversations with them.

Pupils needed to have a voice and to take a risk with their learning, he said.

A humble Smith said his colleagues also deserved recognition, and the support parents gave the school also helped makes a huge difference.

Mum Maria Edwards put Smith’s name forward for the Warehouse Stationery initiative. 

“Richard has the attitude that any child can do anything if they are given encouragement and the opportunities to succeed,” she said.

“He is patient, takes the time to be fair, and is very organised while always maintaining a great sense of humour. His policy is one of inclusiveness, no matter what.”

He was extremely kind and caring, but also discreet when giving his sandwiches to any child who had no lunch, she said.

“He has a great love of Maori culture and taught himself to speak fluent Maori. For my daughter, and her classmates, Richard will be the unforgettable teacher, the one who never gave up on any of them. He inspires and makes a difference in every child’s life.”

Most of us can recall one or two teachers like that.

Smith’s pupils were full of praise for their top teacher.

Mia Williams, 11, said he went out of his way to give all the students the support they needed.

“Mr Smith is one of the coolest teachers I have ever had.”

Julie Deem, 12, said her teacher was inspiring and when she asked him questions he really went out of his way to make things clear.

“He even comes in early some mornings to help people who aren’t so good at maths.” 

Wadestown principal Sally Barrett said she was the proudest principal in New Zealand.

“Richard is a talented teacher who installs in children a love of life-long learning,” she said.

“That’s a special gift a teacher can give to their students and means they will remember him for years to come.”

Can we clone him?

Rebecca Cohen writes in the Washington Post:

In coming days, the Senate is expected to consider a federal ban on abortions at 20 weeks. Before lawmakers cast their votes, I would like them to hear my story.

If such a ban had been in place a year ago, I would have been condemned to carry and give birth to a baby who had no chance at life.

I have been happily married for more than a decade, and I have two beautiful children. When my husband and I found out last year that I was pregnant again, we were overjoyed.

At 20 weeks, my husband and I went for our favorite prenatal visit: the detailed ultrasound anatomy scan that shows your baby’s heart, kidneys, bladder, stomach, spine and brain and whether you’re having a girl or a boy. I could barely contain myself as I sat on the exam table, eager to meet our baby more intimately. My husband and I chit-chatted with the ultrasound technician, gabbing and laughing when we recognized familiar features on the ultrasound images.

But after five minutes, only my husband and I were talking. The technician had grown quiet. She just kept printing picture after picture and pressing the wand deeper into the gel on my stomach.

My husband and I reached for each other’s hands. We asked the technician if everything was all right, and she said we should wait for a doctor to talk to us. When the OB/GYN entered, I remember asking point-blank, “Is there a chance our child will be okay?” He responded kindly, softly and unequivocally: “No.”

Over the next week came referrals to high-risk pregnancy specialists and more, longer, in-depth ultrasounds. In our baby’s brain cavity, where gray matter should have been visible, there was only black. The diagnosis was the same from every doctor: Something — we would learn it was not genetic or chromosomal — had caused two leaks in our baby’s brain, one on each side, destroying it almost entirely.

We would have done anything to save the baby. We asked if there was any possibility for repair, if the brain tissue could regrow. There wasn’t. My baby would either die in the womb or shortly after birth.

Our child would never gain consciousness.

Our little one was gone.

I have never known horror quite like that. Adding to the pain, the brain stem was not affected, so the baby’s body was still moving involuntarily. But I knew there was no person in there anymore. I couldn’t sleep and could barely eat, and every time the baby jerked, I suffered and mourned.

I didn’t know what to tell my kids. They kept kissing my belly, feeling for kicks and singing to the baby. I didn’t know what words to choose, but it hardly mattered, because I couldn’t finish a sentence without sobbing.

I had a choice. I could try to live with the husk of a child inside of me for more than 100 days, swallowing tears at every cheery inquiry as I grew bigger. Or I could have an abortion. And the choice wasn’t just about me. I have young children who would have had to see their mother endure this torture and give birth to someone they would never meet. So we made the painful, but I believe merciful, decision to terminate.

Even after we made that decision, it was difficult to find an available provider, even in an area with as many medical providers as the District. The hospitals had weeks-long waits. In the end, we were able to schedule an appointment at a surgical clinic for the following week.

My pregnancy was 21 weeks on the day of my abortion.

I mourn the loss of my baby every day. But I have no doubt that I made the right decision for myself and my family, and I am grateful that it was my choice to make. …

Congress should not take this decision away from any woman — any family — who is in need. Banning abortions after 20 weeks would be arbitrary, and its consequences would place an unimaginable burden on women like me.

When an abortion was the best of only horrible options, I was beyond grateful that one was available in a safe, compassionate medical establishment. And that my family could begin to heal.

An incredibly sad story with no good options, only a range of horrible options. I find it hard to imagine someone can argue that the law should prevent this woman from making the choice she did.

The Herald reports:

The Super City mayoral contest has sparked to life with Labour MP Phil Goff all but declaring he is standing and the first centre-right candidate coming forward.

Last night, Mr Goff told the Herald “it is likely I will put my name forward”, telling voters to expect an announcement before Christmas.

If Goff stands, will he remain an MP and campaign while being paid as an MP? Lianne Dalziel resigned as an MP prior to the results of the Mayoral election. Will Goff do the same?

This comes as Orakei Local Board member Mark Thomas puts his hat in the ring.

Mr Thomas is standing as an independent with encouragement from several councillors but no political backing at this stage for the October 2016 contest.

The mayoralty is important, but even more important is getting a majority on Council who will stop doing over ratepayers with 10% rates increases.

Politik reports:

The NZME media group which includes Newstalk ZB and the NZ Herald is thought to be looking for over 100 redundancies as it restructures.

It has so far publicly refused to confirm any numbers but details of the plan leaked to POLITIK indicate that the company may be looking to terminate at least 150 staff.

That would put a huge hole in New Zealand’s largest media company and has the potential to impact on its highly regarded journalism.

The numbers being talked about would make this the biggest media mass redundancy New Zealand has seen.

Tough times for those affected.

POLITIK understands staff will not have specific desks but instead will be required to “hot desk”.

One journalist who asked where they could keep files was told in future hard copy files would be located in the company library in Ellerslie and could be delivered to Victoria Street.

Hmmn journalists with no desks or files.

Stuff reports:

More than half of New Zealand businesses will have their yearly ACC contributions cut after an old charge has been thrown out.

Residual levies, which have been collected since 1999, will be removed from ACC’s Work, Earners’ and Motor Vehicle Accounts next year, ACC minister Nikki Kaye announced Tuesday morning.

That means 53 per cent of Kiwi businesses will see decreases in their contributions to the Crown entity beginning in April next year, while 47 per cent will be paying more.

When ACC was set up in 1974,  it operated on ‘pay-as-you-go’ funding model, where every year a levy was collected to meet costs of claims for just that particular year.

But when the funding model changed in 1999, the levy changed to collect enough money to meet the anticipated long-term costs of claims.

Suddenly, for the 25 year period between 1974 and 1999, ACC hadn’t collected enough money to pay for future costs.

The residual levy was introduced to play catch up for the downstream costs of old claims, ensuring there were enough funds set aside to pay for ongoing claims predating 1999.

Now, the Government has has announced enough money has been collected to fund the ongoing costs of all claims on ACCs books, including for claimants who will rely on ACC for lifetime support.

The levies companies pay are experience rated, reflecting the likelihood of injury in their particular industries.

The safer the industry a company is in – and the less likely it is that its employees will make have to make claims – the less the company has to pay.

The residual component was fixed, based on old injury rates, some of which date back 10 years or more and have become outdated.

Now, all businesses will have their levies calculated on the most recent data around injuries, rather than historical data, which will see 53 per cent pay less to ACC, while 43 per cent would see hikes.

Having the levies reflect current accident rates, rather than historical rates, is a good thing.

Also good to see the accounts are now fully funded.

However, Kaye also announced Tuesday that there were further levy cuts in store which could lead to three out of four Kiwi businesses decreasing their contributions starting in the 2016/17 year.

“The ACC Board has advised me they intend to propose significant average levy reductions next year, which could mean only 25 per cent of businesses get a work levy increase,” Kaye said.

“Around 75 per cent of businesses would see their work levy reduced, with the reduction being very significant for some. This is because they will effectively get a reduction through both the residual levy being removed, as well as potential reductions to the work levy.”

That’s good. The key to keeping levies down is both a reduction in accidents, but also not increasing the scheme’s coverage constantly.

The Herald reports:

The suggestion that Winston Peters could be prime minister in a job-share agreement if NZ First holds the balance of power is a joke, John Key says.

“[That has the same] chance as me holidaying on the lunar space station, I would have thought – just no chance,” Mr Key said.

National would never ever agree to Peters as a co-PM or sole PM for a short while.

Labour leader Andrew Little has also said any place for Mr Peters in a future Labour-led Government would depend on his support levels, but would not include the position of Prime Minister.

Ms Martin said she disagreed with Mr Little making that call now.

“He doesn’t know who he has got to deal with [after the 2017 election]. It is a silly thing to do, in my view, it is silly to rule things in and out before the vote has taken place. You don’t know what your position is.”

Key would clearly rather leave Parliament than have Peters as Prime Minister. But what will Little do if his only chance of being PM is to allow Peters say a year in the top spot?

The Herald reports:

A Kiwi company has developed an app that allows drivers to listen to emails at the wheel. Beweb created the free Speaking Email app after director Mike Nelson got frustrated at being unable to safely read emails on his commute from Auckland’s North Shore to the city.

And though he admits drivers shouldn’t have any distractions, he said banning cellphones while driving wasn’t working. Rather than expecting drivers to ignore their phones, apps should be designed with a “safe-driving” mode.

Sounds like a great app. especially if it could do more than just read out e-mails but also do direct messages, maybe even tweets.

National manager of road policing, Superintendent Steve Greally, said anything that took a person’s attention away from the road was a safety risk.

“If someone is concentrating on an email, they are not likely to be giving their full attention to driving.”

True. So we should ban playing music in the car, listening to talkback radio or having passengers as they may talk to you.

The Greens have announced:

The Green Party will today ask Parliament to allow it to introduce a Bill offering New Zealanders the choice of the popular Red Peak flag as a fifth option in the upcoming flag referendum.

Green Party MP Gareth Hughes will seek the leave of Parliament to introduce the New Zealand Flag Referendum Amendment Bill 2015 and put it at the top of the order paper. This requires the support of every MP in Parliament if it is to be successful.

It won’t be given leave, but the important part is down further:

“We won’t be supporting any changes other parties may put up to this Bill. We want to keep it simple and allow the opportunity for Red Peak to be included without re-litigating the whole referendum process.

The Greens are saying they will not back Labour’s demand to sabotage the process by having a yes/no vote before we even know the final alternative design.

“If the Bill is blocked today, we would call on the Government to adopt it as its own, to put politics aside and provide the choice that New Zealanders clearly want,” Mr Hughes said.

The bill would then have the support of National, Greens, Maori Party, ACT and (presumably) United Future. Is that enough to meet what the PM has said he wants – cross-party support?

If it then becomes a Government bill, Labour then has to decide whether to try and vote the red peak bill down, even after their amendments fail. They’d piss off a lot of red peak supporters if they do.

If the bill passes then the first referendum will have five flags, and people will get to rank them for 1 to 5.

UPDATE: The Herald reports:

The Red Peak flag will be added as a fifth option in the flag referendum, Prime Minister John Key has confirmed.

The Government has agreed to pick-up legislation that was put forward by the Green Party this afternoon, which means the Red Peak design will join the four flag alternatives already selected.

“The whole way through I have said my preference is to stick wwith the process that the officials gave us – accept the four [designs already selected].

“I said I was prepared to go outside of that but I just didn’t want people playing games. The Greens have been very, very straight – they have said, here is a straight bill.

“In the end, I’m not wanting to be the one that stands in the way of people having some choice.”

I’m looking forward to people campaigning for their preferred design.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to better position the economy to manage future uncertainty?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has achieved “a lift in the average wage of more than $10,000 dollars a year”?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Why did he say that pandas are “a subject dear to my heart” and taxpayer money would be made available to get pandas for Wellington Zoo?
4. NUK KORAKO to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What is the estimated value of public sector construction completed and underway in Christchurch?
5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to capital contributions to the NZ Super Fund that “saving by borrowing is like building up your savings with your credit card, it just doesn’t make sense”; if so, what has been the average return per annum since the NZ Super Fund was created?
7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?
8. JACINDA ARDERN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response yesterday, when asked whether his Chief of Staff was trying to stop him talking about the flag during speeches, that “Far from that being correct, I think record numbers of people are turning up”?
9. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made to improve teachers’ learning and development so that it lifts student achievement?
10. POTO WILLIAMS to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: Does she believe that community housing providers with programmes that include home ownership should be able to be defined as charities based on the definition of charitable purpose within the Charities Act 2005?
11. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on delivering the Urban Cycleways Programme in Canterbury?
12. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements?

National: Four questions on the economy, Christchurch construction, student achievement, and urban cycleways

Labour: Four questions on pandas, NZ Super Fund, NZ Flag and community housing

Greens: Two questions on average wage and PM standing by his policies

NZ First: Two questions on Defence and Corrections Minister standing by their statements

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

The general debate consists of 12 speeches of up to five minutes each for a maximum debate of one hour.

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

Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill – third reading

• Introduced May 2015
• 1st reading: June 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: September 2015, supported with amendments by the majority with NZ First dissenting
• 2nd reading: September 2015, passed 108 to 12 with NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: September 2015

Stuff reports:

The Invercargill City Council is sending five people to Japan to visit sister city Kumagaya on Friday – just days after the council copped heavy criticism for sending three staff members to Chinese sister city Suqian to buy Christmas lights.

That contingent arrived home minus any lights and the council copped a barrage of criticism, however it is proceeding with a visit to its other sister city, Kumagaya in Japan.

Council chief executive Richard King said the Kumagaya trip will cost about $20,000 and last about a week, including travelling time.

When asked if the trip was appropriate given the controversy over Suqian, King said the Suqian trip had been a oneoff.

Invercargill had been in a sister city relationship with Kumagaya for more than 22 years and normally sent a delegation there every two years to maintain the political relationship, King said. 

The money for the trip comes out of the council’s sister city budget.

“You are either in a sister-city relationship or you aren’t and we have been for the past 22-plus years.”

First of all most sister city relationships provide no benefits except to those who travel on junkets to celebrate them.

Secondly even accepting you have one, why five people for a week? All you need is the Mayor and the CEO for say three days.

The Herald reports:

Kim Dotcom’s extradition hearing will go ahead this week despite his protestations it should be delayed.

A hearing was held yesterday at Auckland District Court to determine the structure of proceedings over the next four weeks.

“The views of the parties are diametrically opposed,” Judge Nevin Dawson said in a judgment released yesterday afternoon.

The United States Government – represented by Crown Law – argued the extradition eligibility hearing should be heard first before multiple applications by the defendants for a stay of proceedings. …

Judge Dawson said the court had to balance the principles of the delivery of justice in a timely manner with the right of the parties to a fair hearing.

“This case has now been before this court for over three and a half years … It is now the 10th time this case has been set down for hearing,” Judge Dawson said.

The judge said the “interlocutory applications” by the defendants could be heard during the extradition hearing, rather than beforehand.

“The court would be better placed to rule on these applications having had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the eligibility hearing,” Judge Dawson said.

The US Government’s bid to extradite Dotcom will begin tomorrow.

This means that for the first time we will actually hear evidence in court from both sides on the substantive charges, rather than on related legal issues.  It will be interesting.

The Herald reports:

A last-ditch appeal against the deportation of a man who claimed to be the world’s first climate change refugee has failed.

Associate Immigration Minister Craig Foss has received a briefing on the case of Ioane Teitiota and his family, and has tonight declined to intervene.

That means he will be deported shortly to Kiribati, with his wife and young New Zealand-born children likely to join him.

Mr Teitiota had claimed to be the world’s first climate change refugee, but that was dismissed by the courts, and Labour instead asked Mr Foss to allow him to stay on humanitarian grounds.

Earlier today, Prime Minister John Key said there was no question that Mr Teitiota was an over-stayer, and not a refugee.

This is correct. Mr Teitiota is trying it on. Overstayers do this a lot. They have little to lose. I recall Danny Butler who claimed he would be killed if returned to Ireland.

On the issue of climate change, Mr Key dismissed the notion that New Zealand should consider looking at accepting people on the basis that their homeland was threatened by rising sea levels.

“I am certainly not ruling out that a future Prime Minister and a future Government wouldn’t take that compassionate view, and I suspect actually that they would. But it would be on genuine grounds that they actually can’t live in their country.”

Sea levels are rising. But at present by 3 mm a year. In the long term this will post massive problems for Kiribati, if it continues. But we’re talking maybe 50 to 100 years down the track, not during his lifetime.

Reverend Naisali said that sending the family to Kiribati was akin to putting someone on dialysis on a plane, despite knowing there was no medical help where they were going.

“There is no employment opportunities in Kiribati, there is population density in Kiribati, there are no education opportunities for the children.”

That may be so, but he is from Kiribati. If he did not overstay, he could apply for residency if he has skills NZ needs. But simply coming from a poorer country is not grounds for residency in NZ.

Green Party co-leader James Shaw said the case was the “canary in the mine”, and there would soon be “a flood of people from the Pacific Islands” because of climate change.

Will James define soon? Climate change is seeing temperatures increase and sea levels rise. And we do need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate this. But I dispute that there will soon be a flood of people. The IPCC most recent report is that if emissions continue to increase then by 2100, sea levels would have increased by 62 cms.  That will definitely impact many people, but 2100 is not “soon”.

That is not an argument to do nothing. Quite the opposite. But it is an argument that we do not need to claim there will be a flood of climate change refugees anytime soon.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little is only just in front of NZ First leader Winston Peters in the preferred Prime Minister stakes but says he will not entertain the suggestion of sharing the top job if Mr Peters holds the balance of power.

In the latest 3 News Reid Research poll, NZ First would have the balance of power and on The Nation this weekend, Mr Peters would not rule out seeking a power-sharing role as Prime Minister if NZ First was strong enough.

He refused to answer a direct question, saying “it’s immaterial unless we get the kind of sign-up and support that we are seeking in 2017”. However, he pointed out there was precedent of the leader of the second biggest party in a coalition becoming Prime Minister – George Forbes in 1932.

Yesterday Mr Little said any place for Mr Peters in a future Labour-led government would depend on his support levels but the Prime Minister’s role was not up for grabs. “I don’t think New Zealand is ready to accept a state of musical chairs in the role of Prime Minister.”

But if it is a choice between that and a fourth term in opposition, would Labour buckle?

Stuff reports:

Plans to bring giant pandas to Wellington are a “fantasy” and the bill should put a halt on the idea, a Wellington City councillor says.

Wellington City Council will investigate a business case to bring the endangered animals from China to Wellington Zoo, it was announced on Friday. An initial “guesstimate” put the cost at $10 million, but the upcoming work would determine the exact costs and infrastructure requirements, as well as projected visitor numbers.

But Wellington City Councillor Paul Eagle said it was “fantasy stuff” to believe the council had the funds necessary to make the idea a reality. He doubted the $10m figure, saying number-crunching on a 2011 panda plan put the capital cost at $28m.

“But the 2015, 2016, 2017 figures would be $50m to $100m … If these [pandas] are so huge, would we have to close down Newtown Park, demolish that and build a car park? What’s going to happen to all the city streets, have we factored in road widening, pulling out all the car parks?”

Eagle said, even with external financial support, the plan could cost ratepayers significantly. “We’re prepared to build palaces for pandas over the core services.”

While he thought it would be exciting to have such animals in the zoo, there was little point in even completing a business case. “I’d say we’re just wasting time.”

I agree. I like pandas but I also like affordable rates. Focus on core issues.

Stuff reports:

At first blush, a frugal and soft-spoken British socialist who bicycles to work has little in common with an ostentatious American billionaire with gold-plated seatbelt buckles on his private jet. And the differences between Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn don’t end at wealth and lifestyle.

Trump is an overgrown wide boy with an eye for the chance. Sensing that the biggest prize in world politics is within grasping distance, he has thrown off his image as a pragmatic liberal to claim the mantle of populist conservative hero. And it is a real feat of the man’s ability as an entertainer and sheer brazenness that he has been able to do this despite a history of crony capitalism very much at odds with the Republican grassroots.

Corbyn, on the other hand, has become Britain’s Leader of the Opposition through a long career  of principled politics. It is true that the principles in question tend to be either backwards (in the case of economics), naïve (in matters of national security) or repellent (in relation to terrorist groups like the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah).  However, we are talking about a man who divorced his wife over his opposition to their son going to an academically selective grammar school. Whatever else Corbyn is, he is no hypocrite.

One is a phony, the other a puritan. Both, however, have something very important in common. Each owes their ascendancy to a constituency with growing dissatisfaction with electoral politics.

The same goes for Bernie Sanders. When people get disillusioned with the mainstream, they go for the extremes.

Another significant factor in the rise of Trump has to be the fact that this is his first election. Unlike some of his rivals, this means he is untainted by the disappointing compromises that inevitably come with governing. It is no coincidence that the other frontrunners for the Republican nomination are the brilliant neurosurgeon Ben Carson and glass-ceiling shattering CEO Carly Fiorina – neither of whom has ever held elected office.

When you have no record in government, you can’t have it judged against you.

In the same way that Trump’s unapologetic braggadocio appeals to those who consider their party spineless, Corbyn’s undiluted socialism has won over the middle class radicals who think Labour lost because it was somehow too centrist (actual working class voters have trended rightwards for some decades). Corbyn is popular with his supporters because he tells them (and himself) what they want to hear. As a veteran backbencher that has never held ministerial office, he is also unstained by the disappointments of government.

I think he has never ever held even a shadow junior role.

The prospect of the White House being garishly renovated in Trump’s vulgar style is enough to make one shudder. To be honest, however, I would probably take a hypocrite like Trump over a zealot like Corbyn most days of the week. Whatever his real views are, you get the feeling that Trump will cut a deal with anyone and will ditch his supporters the moment it suits him.

Corbyn, on the other hand, has actually said he could not be friends with someone who does not share his narrow worldview. That is an amazing statement. It is one that very few people – even those with strong political beliefs – would ever make.

That is the mark of the true zealot.

The Herald headline:

Aucklanders can expect to pay minimum of $400 a week

The first paragraph:

Auckland renters can expect to pay a minimum $400 a week – regardless of property type or size, according to Trade Me Property’s monthly report on median rents across New Zealand.

Stats Chat points out:

From a quick TradeMe search for Auckland rentals, with an upper limit of $350 a week: 525 listings.

And the Herald’s rather basic mistake:

What they mean is that the median is at least $400/week in every category of property type or size, not the minimum.

I can forgive a newspaper for not knowing the difference between mean and median. But conflating minimum and median is a horrific error, which makes the headline and lead paragraph totally wrong and misleading.

The Herald reports:

People buying a spa will no longer need to worry about fencing it off under a law change.

A lockable cover will be sufficient protection under legislation that has passed its first reading today with cross-party support.

The Government has also backed away from lowering the depth at which pools need to be fenced after public backlash against the idea that paddling pools would be covered.

The new legislation will replace the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, which significantly cut the number of children aged up to four who drowned in home swimming pools.

Such drownings decreased from 100 in the ten-year period before the measures were introduced, to 30 in the 10 years to 2012.

However, the Government said the regulations were inconsistent and “often cumbersome”, and changes were needed.

These will include:
• No longer requiring spas and hot tubs to be fenced off if they have a lockable cover and meet certain specifications.
• Require councils across the country to carry out five-yearly inspections of swimming pools.
• Make infringement notices the preferred way to deal with pool owners who fail to comply, with court prosecutions only in serious breaches.

Good to see common sense winning the day here.

The current law allows spa owners in Auckland to apply for an exemption from fencing if their spa has a lockable cover – but that costs $455.

What a rort.

The law change is expected to improve safety, but also reduce compliance costs by $17 million, Mr Foss said.

Great.