The Washington Examiner reports:

In 2012, California voters were peppered with grandiose promises, such that they could not resist approving Proposition 39. The measure, created and backed by wealthy environmentalist Tom Steyer, sought to raise taxes on corporations and use the money to fund green energy projects in schools.

He promised it would create 11,000 new jobs each year. What could go wrong?

The NZ Greens also promote Green jobs. By that they means jobs which they think are needed, rather than jobs there is a market demand for.

Naturally, it did not work at all. On Monday, the Associated Press reported that the program has “created” just 1,700 jobs in three years — just under 600 jobs per year or roughly five percent of what was promised, at the cost of $175,000 per job.

And even if you think it is worth paying $175,000 to create a job …

Even that paltry figure fails to account for opportunity costs — i.e. jobs lost statewide because of the forced diversion of economic resources away from productive industries and toward green energy. The number of net jobs created is likely zero or less than zero, which is to say that probably a few hundred or a few thousand jobs have been destroyed so far at a cost of $300 million.

Ouch.

For the fourth month in a row, we have had net migration from Australia. On the 12 month rolling data shown above, you can see how close we are to being the very rare case of having net migration from a larger country to a smaller country.

Some stats:

• Number of NZers returning (from anywhere) at all time high of 30,000 a year
• Number of NZers leaving (to anywhere) at all time low 35,000 a year
• Departures to Australia at 12 year low of 25,000 a year
• Arrivals from Australia at all time high of 25,000 a year
• Nine years ago NZers had net outwards migration of 24,000 a year, now down to 5,000
• Nine years ago net migration to Australia was 21,000 a year, now down to 720

Stuff reports:

At the time of his death, the 37-year-old was living at a supported living home with three others. The accommodation was provided by IDEAS Service, one of our biggest accommodation and support providers for the intellectually disabled.

On April 7, he managed to steal keys, allowing him access to IDEA Services’ food stores, where he gorged himself on at least three loaves of bread, eight buns and 24 muesli bars.

He had Prader Willi Syndrome, symptoms including learning difficulties, and obsessive eating. So it is very sad his care was not better.

I’m amazed that anyone could actually eat that much food. That’s at least 4,500 from the bread, 1,000 from the buns and 5,000 calories from the muesli bars. So he managed to eat five times the recommended daily limit in one session.

An average dinner is around 600 calories, so 10,500 calories is around 17 dinners!

Stuff reports:

Drivers’ appetite for a 110kmh speed limit is ramping up.

An AA report on attitudes to speed found the number of members who want to increase the open road speed limit to 110kmh has reached a strong majority.

Support for increasing the speed limit on top-rated motorways has risen steadily since 2013, from 44 per cent of members to 71 per cent.

The report was compiled from a number of AA member surveys and polls over the past four years.

A 110kmh limit has been considered for more than a year for motorways built as part of the Government’s Roads of National Significance programme.

The roads that could qualify would be flat, straight, have at least two lanes in each direction, a median barrier and good shoulder space.

They seem like sensible criteria.

The proposed 110kmh speed limit was about as fast as many people could imagine themselves driving, the report found.

AA asked members how fast they would go if there were no speed limits. Men would go as fast as 115kmh, while woman peaked at 105kmh. 

Depends. On a good road with a good car, I find 120 km/hr is a pretty good speed

Stuff reports:

Coca-Cola staff in Invercargill are understood to be on alert after angry phone calls were made to the company by a man whose partner’s death was linked to excessive coke consumption in 2010.

Christopher Hodgkinson, the partner of 30-year-old Natasha Harris who drank up to 8 litres of coke a day for several years before she died in 2010, said he made several calls to the company one day last week.

I’m waiting for someone to eat eight kilograms of celery a day, and then when they die, have their death blamed on celery.

Hodgkinson blames Coca-Cola for his partner’s death, and said he had asked the company to help him get his eight children back in the phone calls.

He had been living with Harris and their children prior to her death but lost custody in the months afterwards, he said.

If he has lost custody, despite being the only parent, then that suggests very deep issues. And they have nothing to do with Coke.

He had been given the “royal run around ” by Coca-Cola on the phone and had been angry, but had not threatened anyone in the calls, he said.

Even making the calls is bizarre. And angry parents who have lost custody of kids often do very violent things, sadly. I think it is no surprise Coke staff are being vigilant.

Maybe he could stop phoning them up, rather than go to the media.

The incident comes four years after Hodgkinson rebutted Coca-Cola claims he had made death threats against its Invercargill staff. 

This makes me wonder why he lost custody of his kids.

He had been involved in an incident which resulted in him doing jail time for a home invasion offence before being released in October, he said. 

Oh that is why. So not really anything to do with Coke.

Assistance from Coca-Cola would allow him to get into a big house which he believed would help him get his kids back.

Oh actually he is demanding they give him some money. His behaviour sounds like it is verging on the illegal – if you threaten and demand money, that is a crime.

The latest Roy Morgan came out yesterday. I’ve blogged it at Curia.

As usual with Roy Morgan, it bounces around a lot, but shows National up 7.5% to 50.5%, Labour down 5% to 27% and Greens down 2% to 11%.

Stuff reports:

Landcorp owns 137 farms totalling 158,394 hectares, and manages another 226,692 ha of farms. Its livestock holdings are made up of 77,500 dairy cattle, 580,000 sheep, 82,000 beef cattle and 105,000 deer.

It employs 692 staff.

They should all be sold to farmers, unless they are needed for specific purposes such as conservation or treaty claims.

We do not need the Government owning and running 137 farms.

The company had shareholders’ funds of about $1.5. billion against total liabilities of $360 million, according to its half year report to the end of December.

But it made a profit of just $1m in the last six months of 2014, down from $13.4m in the same period in 2013.

If you sold Landcorp for $1.5 billion, then the reduced interest on debt would be around $75 million a year.

English said other SOEs faced challenging issues.

“Post’s business is shrinking, TVNZ has to deal with competition from Netflix and everybody else, the Public Trust, Kordia has a set of broadcast-related assets when technology has moved on.”

Yep. Once TVNZ could have been sold for over a billion dollars. Today you would not get $100 million. The state is not a good owner of commercial companies. Let the state focus on its core responsibilities, and let the private sector own the farms and other businesses.

The Guardian reports:

Vaping is safer than smoking and could lead to demise of the traditional cigarette,Public Health England (PHE) has said in the first official recognition that e-cigarettes are less damaging to health than smoking tobacco.

The health body concluded that, on “the best estimate so far”, e-cigarettes are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes and could one day be dispensed as a licensed medicine in an alternative to anti-smoking products such as patches.

While stressing that e-cigarettes are not free from risk, PHE now believes that e-cigarettes “have the potential to make a significant contribution to the endgame for tobacco”.

Yet in New Zealand the Ministry of Health has the sale of e-cigarettes effectively banned. You can buy tobacco in any dairy but can-t buy e-cigarettes. Madness.

The review found that almost all of the 2.6 million adults in the UK now thought to be using e-cigarettes are current or former conventional smokers, most using them to help them quit tobacco or to prevent them going back to smoking.

There was no suggestion that the products were a gateway into tobacco smoking, with less than 1% of adults or young people who had never smoked becoming regular cigarette users.

If the Govt is serious about a smoke free NZ by 2025, then they should be making it easier for e-cigarettes to be sold in NZ.

The Telegraph reports:

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. MARAMA FOX to the Minister of Education: Does the Minister agree that Māori boarding schools such as Turakina have produced a considerable number of Māori leaders and, if so, what is she doing to ensure the long-term sustainability of Māori boarding schools?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: If Government health expenditure has not kept up with all inflationary pressures, as he admitted three weeks ago, what impact has this shortfall had on patients?
3. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?
4. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Finance: Does the Thirty Year New Zealand Infrastructure Plan identify reduction of greenhouse gas pollution and adaption to climate change as key challenges for infrastructure planning over the next 30 years; if not, why not?
5. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What actions is the Government taking to strengthen biosecurity measures at the border?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What State Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities were identified as having “specific opportunities” for “capital recycling” in the Treasury Report: Capital Investment, Recycling and the Fiscal Strategy dated 3 November 2014, and did he reject any of the specific opportunities identified by officials?
7. TODD BARCLAY to the Minister of Tourism: What recent reports has he received about regional tourism growth?
8. SUE MORONEY to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why are dairy, sheep and beef farms not defined as high-risk workplaces requiring worker health and safety representation, when more than one-third of New Zealand’s workplace deaths in the past 5 years have happened in the agricultural sector?
9. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 3.5 million New Zealanders received a funded medicine in 2014/15, and that this is an increase of more than 100,000 compared with the previous year?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister for Land Information: What is the actual dollar value of added investment that has come into New Zealand for development purposes that was promised by the 608 successful overseas purchasers of New Zealand sensitive land who promised the introduction into New Zealand of added investment for development purposes as part of their successful consent application?
11. RON MARK to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by all his statements?
12. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister for Communications: Can she provide an update on the broadband deployment in the regions?

National: Five questions on the economy, biosecurity, tourism, medicines funding, abd broadband.

Labour: Four questions on health spending, capital recycling, workplace safety and foreign investment.

Greens: One questions on climate change.

NZ First: One questions on CERA Minister standing by his statements and confidence in Serco

Maori Party: One question on Maori boarding schools

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Health and Safety Reform Bill – committee stage continued

The Bill replaces the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950 to reform New Zealand’s workplace health and safety system, following the work of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine tragedy.

• Introduced March 2014
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: July 2015, passed with amendments by majority with Labour, Green and NZ First minority reports
• 2nd reading: July 2015, passed 63 to 56 with Labour, Greens and NZ First against

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a seven hour debate as the bill has six parts and preliminary provisions to debate. Two parts have been debates, so there are probably four to five hours remaining.

There are seven SOPs – two from the Minister Michael Woodhouse, three from Labour, one from the Greens and one from the Maori Party.

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – first reading

The bill amends several statutes relating to taxation in order to facilitate easier communication with Inland Revenue, simplify tax rules and provide for the sharing of information.

• Introduced: June 2015

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

Bill English has announced:

The Thirty Year New Zealand Infrastructure Plan 2015 sets out New Zealand’s response to the infrastructure challenges we will face over the next three decades, Finance Minister Bill English says.

“Infrastructure supports people’s daily lives, even if they don’t think about it all that often – unless something goes wrong,” Mr English says.

The plan is here.

Some key details:

• Current government infrastructure assets of $116 billion
• A further $50 billion planned for next ten years
• Local government infrastructure assets of $120 billion
• In 30 years we will have 1.2 million more people living here, including 716,000 in Auckland
• The schooling estate is on average 42 years old
• Parts of the water network are 100 years old
• Half the social housing stock is over 42 years old
• Cost of renewing water network assets over next 15 years could be $30 to $50 billion

Our current infrastructure consists of:

• 10,886 kms of state highways
• 3,703 kms of local roads
• 721,700 hectares of irrigated land
• 42,312 GWh of electricity
• 12,000 km of national transmission grid
• 35,500 barrels of oil per day
• 724,253 end users able to connect to fibre
• 239,159 rural households able to access wireless broadband
• 4,000 kms of rail
• $45 billion of water assets
• 19 prisons
• 2,532 schools
• 38 hospitals
• 16 sea ports
• 308 libraries
• 52 landfills
• 371 police stations
• 471 museums

Quite interesting when you look at them all together.

Jonathan Coleman announced:

“In the last financial year 322,196 patients across the country received a First Surgical Assessment, compared to 261,226 in 2008/2009. That’s an increase of 24 percent.”

In 2006 there were just over 15,150 patients nationwide waiting over six months for their First Specialist Assessment. Today there are just 21.

From 15,000 to basically zero. That is the sort of progress that is important to people.

And not just more and quicker assessments. There’re much more actual surgical operations being done also.

Peter Hartcher, the SMH Poitical Editor, writes:

There was no due process on gay marriage. Abbott did not consult his Cabinet, rode roughshod over the Liberal party room’s sensibilities, rushed to a Coalition room discussion, and led the party to confused non-decisions on future process. 

None of this mattered to Abbott. Why? Because all he wanted was to kill any prospect that same-sex marriage would come to a free vote on the floor of the Parliament. 

That done, to hell with the rest of it. That’s why, two days later, his Cabinet ministers were out in public arguing with each other on referendum versus plebiscites, George Brandis lecturing Scott Morrison, conducting government by Sky News. 

Did it seem odd that a Prime Minister would corral his party to block same-sex marriage, putting the Government on the opposite side of two-thirds of the electorate? 

It is odd for a Prime Minister who wants to win an election to wilfully alienate most of the country. 

But winning the election is a second-order issue for Abbott. His first priority is surviving long enough to even make it to election day.

The whole point of Abbott’s gay marriage gambit was to appease the conservative side of his caucus. 

He sees this as vital to his survival as leader. 

Remember that the February spill motion was moved by two of the party’s right-wing conservatives. 

The outcome on gay marriage this week may drive much of the public to despair, but it satisfies Abbott’s right and protects his flank. That’s the hard calculus that drove the process.

This means that the next spill effort against Abbott won’t come from the right. If it comes, it’ll have to be from the left of the Liberal caucus. 

The last thing the Liberal Party should do is drag this out until after the next election. Either allow a conscience vote in Parliament, or call a referendum before the next election.

When Abbott introduced John Key at a business lunch during that trans-Tasman bonding a year and a half ago, he quipped that he realised some of the Australians in the room would prefer John Key to be prime minister of Australia instead of himself. 

He got polite laughs but it was true.

People are voting with their feet. 

For the first time in 30 years, the relentless flow of Kiwis to settle in Australia has stopped. And started to flow the other way. 

“Good government” doesn’t have to be a joke.

I’ve not been in favour of joining NZ and Australia together, but John Key as Prime Minister of Australasia has a nice ring to it 🙂

The Herald reports:

More than 50 industries have been identified by the Government as high-risk, meaning they will be not exempt from some requirements under the Health and Safety Reform law, even if they have fewer than 20 employees.

Industries include forestry and logging, road freight transport, coal mining, hunting and trapping, fishing, electricity transmission, horse and dog racing as well as any industry deemed to have potential for catastrophic risk in the event of accident such as oil and gas extraction and petroleum refining.

The definition used for high risk is objective, not subjective:

• Any industry with a fatality rate greater than 25 per 100,000 workers
• Any industry with a serious injury rate of more than 25 per 1000 workers.

Plus an business that carries the risk of a catastrophic event causing multiple fatalities.

But the CTU and Labour are demanding farms be included, even though they have an injury rate below this threshold:

But most types of farming will be able to claim an exemption, a move slammed by Labour leader Andrew Little.

“What we need is a good law and good enforcement and that is now denied a sector that has killed too many of their own.

“We cant have farmers happy for expensive [rescue] helicopters and ambulances to drive out to their isolated areas to cover them for their errors – some time fatal – and the taxpayer picking up their cost.”

The farming excluded from high-risk include dairy, beef, poultry and deer but the livestock farming included as high-risk is bee-keeping, pig-farming, horse breeding, dog breeding, goat farming and share-milking as well some types of crop growing.

Now bear in mind the only difference between small businesses that are in the high risk category and those that are not, is the requirement to allow a worker elected health and safety rep.  That is it. All other requirements are the same.

Labour and the CTU see these reps as a way to unionise workforces, and of course increase funding for both their organisations. This is why they have focused on this relatively minor issue, ignoring all the other changes.

So they are saying that a family owned corner dairy with a couple of part-time staff, must have an elected health and safety representative, if even one person asks for it.

The Washington Post has an article detailing the different positions of Donald Trump on various issues. Now these are not different positions over a couple of decades, or even a couple of years. These are different positions over just a couple of months.

They find:

• 7 different positions on how to defeat the Islamic State
• 6 different positions on illegal immigration
• 6 different positions on tax reform
• 2 different positions on the Iran deal
• 4 different positions on Obamacare

So that’s just in the last couple of months.

Further back, and you will find he changed sides on almost all the big issues in the US.

He was a registered Democrat back in 2001.

In 1999 he was fully pro-choice for abortion. He swapped to pro-life in 2011.

In 1999 he promoted a one off extra tax of 14% of wealth to pay off the national debt.

Went from anti-drugs to advocating in 2011 they should be legalised.

In 2008 was pro free trade and in 2015 advocated for an import tax of 35%.

Was for an assault weapon ban in 2000 but now against gun control

Called for universal healthcare in 2000, now against Obamacare

Those who support Trump because they think he is conservative might get a nasty shock if he ever achieved elective office.

Stuff reports:

Long-serving National MP George Gair has died aged 88.

Gair was the MP for Auckland’s North Shore from 1966 to 1990, holding senior Cabinet posts, including Health, Transport, Energy, Housing and Rail.

He was also deputy leader of the National Party.

George Gair was a lovely man, and one of National’s best MPs of his generation. His politeness was legendary, and a real contrast to Muldoon.

Critic reports:

NZ First MP Tracey Martin has claimed Curwen Rolinson is in breach of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, passed in July. In a blog post, Rolinson, former leader of the NZ First youth wing, accused Martin of undermining party MP Andrew Williams.

Speaking at the University of Otago last week, Martin suggested that Rolinson was in breach of the law as a result of a blog post written on 6 July, four days after the Act was officially made into law. 

“I’ve been working on the Harmful Digital Communications bill and what Curwen [Rolinson] did, what Whaleoil [blogger Cameron Slater] does, that’s harmful digital communications,” said Martin.

The Act states that a person is in breach of the law if they intentionally cause harm to someone on the internet. “A person commits an offence if the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim,” the law reads. 

If it causes serious emotional harm. I don’t think criticising an MP falls into that sphere. It would be a very bad thing if MPs truied to silence critics using the HDCA. I doubt they would possibly succeed, but would be a bad look to even threaten or try.

The Herald reports:

The prime suspect at the centre of today’s major man hunt in the central North Island has a history of similar offending.

Dolphy Tetawhero Kohu, 24, is on the run with four other men and women after ramming a police car, shooting at the two pursuing officers at close range then fleeing in the police vehicle about 2.30am.

The rampage echoes Kohu’s criminal past that includes at least two firearms incidents and evading authorities.

Previous reports suggest Kohu has only recently been released from prison after being sentenced to 30 months in jail for shooting at a family in Whanganui.

So what is his record:

• September 2008 – Robbed a Whanganui dairy with a sawn-off shotgun while on bail for other offences
• March 2009 – Sentenced to 3 years 9 months prison for the aggravated robbery
• June 2011 – Sought by police for breaching prison release conditions “over violence matters”
• March 2012 – While on parole fired a shotgun at a family in Whanganui and spent six weeks on the run from police
• May 2012 – Arrested in Wellington
• March 2013 – Sentenced to 2.5 years prison for the shooting

Aggravated robbery is now a strike offence. So his 2009 conviction would have been his first strike.

His 2013 conviction would have been his second strike. He would not be eligible for parole so would only get out in September 2015.

Personally I think he should have got longer than 2.5 years for his 2nd shooting offence but judges get discretion.

However under three strikes, that discretion disappears at the third strike. If three strikes had been in place earlier, then if found guilty of shooting at police officers, he would now get 14 years with no parole.

He sounds like the sort of offender who three strikes is intended for. He has resorted to firearms within days of being released.

But Labour and Greens want to repeal three strikes, so offenders like Kohu get shorter sentences and parole eligibility even after their third shooting offence.

There is some upside. His first offence was before three strikes but his 2013 conviction would have got a first strike, so if convicted for this latest shooting, he will at least not be eligible for parole.

Brian Edwards writes:

I find myself in the improbable position of coming to the defence of broadcaster Mike Hosking. …

Meanwhile the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, has accused Hosking of “making no attempt at objectivity”.  One might have expected a more robust critique. I’m told the words “right wing little prick” have been simply flying down the corridors of the Opposition Wing to describe Mr Hosking.

Charming.

I think this critique rather misses the point. While I’d be surprised to discover that Hosking is a closet member of the Parnell, Remuera or Epsom branches of the Labour Party  – total membership five! – I’d also risk my bottom dollar that he isn’t a member of any political party. This is, or should be the default position for any broadcaster working in the field of news or current affairs.

What Hosking betrays on Seven Sharp, on commercial radio and in his writing is not political bias but social conservatism. The two may overlap from time to time, but are inherently different. It’s entirely possible and even commonplace to be left wing and socially conservative.

Another way of putting it might be to say that Hosking is somewhat “old fashioned” or “old world” in his approach to many issues. This is reflected in his relationship to Toni Street whom, his manner suggests, he respects as a woman (meaning because she is a woman), but less, it seems to me, as a broadcaster of equal ability and status. He “talks down” to her in a somewhat paternal manner.

So I entirely disagree that Hosking is “a National Party stooge” or that he makes “no attempt at objectivity”. I’m sure he does his very best. But two things make objectivity a challenge for him. The first I’ve referred to before – Hosking is perhaps the most personally opinionated broadcaster I’ve come across in half a century in the business. The second is the social conservatism I’ve described above. Hosking’s values are “old school”.

There is a difference between having a world-view and being biased. Brian Edwards correctly makes that distinction.

John Campbell has a centre-left world view. Mike Hosking has a centre-right world view. Neither are biased. I think both are good broadcasters and want both on them on the air. I think New Zealand is well served by having diversity of thought in our media.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister of Finance: How does the Government’s fiscal strategy support the New Zealand economy?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Will he stand down Hon Murray McCully as Minister of Foreign Affairs while the Auditor-General investigates the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership; if not, why not?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that “I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”; if so, how many applications by overseas investors to buy land were declined under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 between January 2012 and June 2015?
4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on the growth of New Zealand’s technology software and services industry over the last seven years?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Did he approve the recommendations in the Treasury Report: Capital Investment, Recycling and the Fiscal Strategy, and if so, what priorities for capital recycling within the commercial portfolio did he indicate to officials?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. STEFFAN BROWNING to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will he reinstate the Organics Advisory Programme given the value of organic whole milk powder is more than five times that of conventionally-produced whole milk powder, and his vision for “premium, value-added products”?
8. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on growth in the wine industry?
9. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister responsible for HNZC: How much has Housing New Zealand spent in total on consultants and contractors for work related to selling state houses as part of the Government’s social housing reforms?
10. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in Serco?
11. SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made on proposals to improve the collection of GST on services, intangibles, and goods?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government is comfortable with the process that was followed in relation to the Agrihub”; if so, did his department follow all Government rules during the development and procurement of the $6 million Agrihub?

National: Four questions on the economy, technology sector, wine industry and online GST

Labour: Four questions on foreign investment, capital recycling, state house sales and the Saudi Arabia farm.

Greens: Two questions on the Saudia Arabia farm and organics

NZ First: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and confidence in Serco

There is also one question to a member:

1. JAMES SHAW to the Member in charge of the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill?

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

Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill – first reading continued

The Bill is an omnibus Bill amending 7 statutes to increase the range of functions that can be performed by health practitioners under those statutes by changing certain references to medical practitioners to references to health practitioners.

• Introduced June 2015

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There is part of one speech to go.

Health and Safety Reform Bill – committee stage

The Bill replaces the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950 to reform New Zealand’s workplace health and safety system, following the work of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine tragedy.

• Introduced March 2014
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed unanimously
• SC report: July 2015, passed with amendments by majority with Labour, Green and NZ First minority reports
• 2nd reading: July 2015, passed 63 to 56 with Labour, Greens and NZ First against

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

There are seven SOPs – two from the Minister Michael Woodhouse, three from Labour, one from the Greens and one from the Maori Party.

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – first reading

The bill amends several statutes relating to taxation in order to facilitate easier communication with Inland Revenue, simplify tax rules and provide for the sharing of information.

• Introduced: June 2015

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

The Herald reports views of parties on whether they’d want Sir Richard McCaw as an MP:

National: “He’s articulate, he’s an intelligent guy, there’s a range of things he could do.”
Labour: ” He … doesn’t mind the odd bloody nose which can be a help in politics.”
Greens: “Richie is welcome to join the Green Party, but can he bring Piri Weepu with him?”
Maori Party: “It would be great to have the calibre of leadership that someone such as Richie McCaw would bring.”
Act: “What does he think about the regulatory environment, what does he think about tax?”

I like that ACT actually mentioned policies!

We all want the All Blacks to win (again) the Rugby World Cup. They’re looking good, but victory is by no means assured.

Over the last few years the Labour Party has declared a number of issues to be a crisis – the manufacturing sector, power prices, domestic milk prices, Auckland house prices and the dairy industry, and demanded the Government take action.

Without fail, each time Labour has declared something to be in crisis and demanded Government intervention, that industry or issue has immediately and remarkably improved. Just this week global diary prices rebounded for the first time this year, just one week after Labour declared they were in crisis and demanded the Government act.

So this petition implores the Labour Party to declare New Zealand Rugby and the All Blacks to be in crisis. Based on history, this should propel the All Blacks to victory in the Rugby World Cup.

So support the All Blacks by petitioning Labour to declare NZ Rugby in crisis.