In April 2015, there was a net inflow of 100 people from Australia to NZ – the first net inflow since 1991.
Here’s what April has looked like for the last decade between Australia and NZ:
The annual stats are shown below:
Please, please take 20 minutes out of your day and watch this. Ask your family and friends to watch this. Ask as many people as possible to watch this.
Once you have watched it, feel free to share your reactions below.
UPDATE: In case you need cheering up after that, here’s the PM’s reply:
Mediaworks announced at 2 pm today that John Campbell is leaving TV3.
The timing is appallingly cynical – to release it at the same time as The Budget.
Media rightfully have a go at press secretaries who try to release bad news at the time of a major event, to hide it. Well how can you expect them not to, when media companies do exactly the same!
Mediaworks have said they offered John Campbell a three year contract last November, which he declined.
They decided to change Campbell Live from five to four nights a week, and Campbell said he doesn’t want to continue with a reduced programme. That is his right.
I think John Campbell is a very talented broadcaster, even though I disagree with his obvious politics. His heart is in the right place, and he campaigned on issues he believes in. The fact his show got such a bounce in the ratings after the possible closure become public is a tribute to him.
I’m glad they are not replacing Campbell Live with some reality TV show, but will still have a current affairs programme on for four nights a week. It won’t be Campbell Live, but what matters is the journalism, not who does it. We’ll have to see if the replacement show will do serious current affairs, or do fluff pieces.
I hope we will see John Campbell come back on television somewhere – maybe even on TVNZ. Again I don’t have to agree with his politics, to appreciate the work both John and his wider team have done to produce a show that makes a difference.
Stuff reports:
Run out of alcohol, and don’t fancy driving to get more? A new Wellington delivery service promises to bring it to your door within 45 minutes.
Quenched, founded by friends David Loveridge, Tom Brown and Anika Rani, officially launched last week – but already it has come under fire for providing an easy way for drunk people to “refuel”.
It’s a lot better option than people driving to the bottle store!
New Zealand Medical Association chairman Stephen Child said he deplored any move that made it easier to access alcohol in a way that could lead to abuse.
All alcohol can lead to abuse, so I presume Dr Child wants all vineyards closed down?
However, Loveridge said Quenched aimed to provide a convenient and fast service, not to encourage irresponsible drinking.
“Everything is legal, and we definitely don’t want to encourage bad drinking.”
The delivery team checked buyers’ identities on arrival, and would only hand over the order to the person who made it, he said.
If the clients were underage or intoxicated, the order would not be delivered. Instead, the customers would received a full refund, but be charged a $20 callout fee.
Sounds responsible.
“It’s been quite good. We’ve been run off our feet, which is fantastic.”
The idea to start up an alcohol delivery business started with a run and ended with a beer.
“My mate Tom and I went for a long run and we were pretty knackered when we got home, so we got a couple of stubbies but before we had showers we wanted another one, but we didn’t have any left.
“And we couldn’t walk because we were sore from the run. We needed a solution to that problem, and that is what we did.”
I think it could prove very popular. Yes there will be some who will drink to excess (and do so regardless of this service) but for many it will just be an extra convenience, and reduce the temptation for someone to drink drive.
This is the most surprising Budget yet from this Government. While I expected the Government to spend a small amount of money on helping low income families, never did I think they would be announcing the first real increase in benefit rates in 43 years as part of an almost $800 million child poverty package.
It will be almost impossible for Labour and Greens to credibly attack this Budget, because it looks a lot like the sort of Budget they would deliver. I’m impressed with the politics of it, but not impressed with the economics.
The main initiative is the child poverty package. The details are:
On the overall economic front the main numbers are:
The Government is taking a big risk here. They may be forgiven for not making surplus this year, but with a mere $176 surplus projected for 2015/16, there is a real risk they may not even make it next year. This is not good enough.
On the revenue front some good and bad news:
Quite cunning to mainly fund the child poverty package from the KiwiSaver kick start credit being abolished. It won’t affect the couple of million people already in KiwiSaver, and if you’re a low income family would you rather have $1,000 in 30 years’ time or $25 a week now.
On the expenditure side, the usual mix of announcements:
It is very cunning budget politically. It is delivering the very thing the left have been demanding – an increase in benefit rates. It will be a fascinating test of which child poverty lobby groups are actually principled, and which are just anti-National shrills. Because the child poverty groups should all be praising the Budget for doing what no Labour Government has done in 43 years – give more money to those on benefits.
But it is not a Budget I support. Where are the tax cuts for hard working Kiwis? Instead of a surplus and likely tax cuts, we get a further deficit and lots of extra spending. The Government had up until now done a good job of fiscal restraint, but not so on this occasion.
This is a Budget that should be praised on The Standard and The Daily Blog. John Key and Bill English have delivered more to families on benefits than Norman Kirk, Bob Tizard, David Lange, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen ever have.
3 News reports:
ACT would like:
A referendum to decide the future structure of NZ Superannuation
Indexation of tax brackets to inflation so “stealth tax” increases don’t unfairly cut into household incomes
An eight-year programme of annual one percentage point reductions in the corporate tax rate
Fundamental RMA reform to remove its anti-development bias, freeing up land for affordable housing and boosting investment
Expanding the partnership school (charter school) model by allowing state schools, if their boards choose, to convert to the partnership funding model.
They all look good to me. And unlike some ACT wish lists in the past which were unobtainable without a major shft in government policy, this is all reasonable stuff that can be done.
The Budget will be delivered by the Minister of Finance at 2.00 pm.
After his speech, there will be a 15 hour debate where party leaders (six or more MP parties) get 20 minutes each and all other MPs 10 minutes.
The Government has indicated it will go into urgency at some stage, to debate Budget related legislation.
There is no question time.
The Guardian reports:
The long, smiling handshake between Gerry Adams and Prince Charles, balancing an informal cup of tea in one hand, was a historic moment not only because it was the first such encounter in the Republic since partition. It happened only because each of them was prepared to look beyond old wounds that as Mr Adams, the Sinn Féin president, acknowledged, have not been entirely healed by peace. For both, it was an encounter of personal significance that also challenged the prejudices of their supporters. It was an unusual moment of collective conciliation between a symbol of republicanism and a symbol of British monarchy – and a moment of almost intimate forgiveness.
It is more than 35 years since Lord Mountbatten, his grandson Nicholas Knatchbull, 14, and a 15-year-old local boy, Paul Maxwell, were blown up by the Provisional IRA at a time when Mr Adams was what is coyly described as a “leading figure” in the republican movement. At the time, he justified the murders by claiming that Mountbatten was too old a soldier not to be aware of the “danger involved in coming to this country”.
Adams’ defence of the Mountbatten murders was vile. Mountbatten was like a grandfather to Prince Charles, and shaking the hands of the apologist for his murder would be no easy thing to do.But it is what the job requires, for the good of the United Kingdom.
For Prince Charles, with apparent warmth, to shake hands with the man who was at the least an apologist for the murder of Mountbatten, who had been the prince’s lifelong mentor and friend, suggests a very personal and indeed admirable act of forgiveness.
An admirable act of duty also.
Stuff reports:
The statistics in the latest Household Labour Force Survey show that while unemployment had dropped to 5.8 per cent, underemployment had risen by 21,200 in two years.
Statistics New Zealand began measuring underemployment in 2013, defining it as the “grey area” where people have a job but have similarities to unemployed people because they face a “partial lack of work”.
It is when a part-time worker is willing and available to work more hours than they usually do. The statistics are limited to part-time workers.
“We know have 103,000 underemployed, but Government treats them as employed for their figures,” said Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.
“The Government is massaging their employment figures in order for them to look like they’re doing way better, when in fact these are people looking for more work and many of them are unpaid.”
That is a stupid and false thing to say.
Stats NZ does the classifications. Is Turei accusing the public servants who work at Stats of fraud by massaging the figures?
Or is she claiming that someone working 25 hours a week, but seeking 35 hours, should be classified as unemployed?
The definition of unemployed used by Stats NZ for the HLFS is the same definition used by every country in the OECD. It is someone not in work, who is seeking and available for work.
It is not the only important piece of data in the HLFS. The working age participation rate is important. The FT employment rate is important. The number of hours worked data is important. The underemployment rate is important. But that’s a very different thing to what Turei has done – claiming Stats NZ is committing fraud by massaging the data.
MBIE sent this brochure out yesterday inviting stakeholders to a programme launch to develop housing on Crown land in Auckland. This may be giving away a Budget announcement. It even details how they have identified 430 hectares of Crown land in residential zoned areas in Auckland.
If you assume 13 houses per hectare (average in Australia) that’s enough land for around 5,600 new houses.
The Herald reports:
Trade Minister Tim Groser says he is not bothered that his name has apparently become a byword for undiplomatic behaviour.
The Labour Party today accused him in Parliament of insulting Canadian diplomats by comparing the country’s dairy industry to the Soviet Union.
Are the Soviets upset?
The description, while harsh, is not inaccurate. The Government limits the amount of domestic dairy production and has huge tariffs on imports. Farms have quotas and a single dairy cow quota is worth around $30,000. Tariffs are around 300% and they also have import quotas so that only say 1% of yoghurt can be imported.
I’d say it is an apt comparison.
Trade spokesman David Parker cited a scathing article by an American policy analyst, which said Mr Groser’s behaviour had led to a new slang term in Washington: “Grossing”.
The article said the Canadian Embassy in Washington was “privately bristling” at the minister’s “counter-productive, undiplomatic sledging”.
Oh no, the Canadian Embassy in Washington is upset. This could form an episode of Southpark!
He said that Canada’s dairy interests had been “diametrically opposed” to New Zealand’s interests for 30 years, and it took “just a little bit of spine to stand up to it”.
Mr Parker said Mr Groser’s comments were “abrasive and arrogant”.
“How does he think slagging off the Canadians using derogatory terms is going to result in a good outcome for those negotiations?” Mr Parker asked.
Mr Groser stood firm: “It’s called a negotiation. And to use one of Tana Umaga’s memorable phrases, ‘We ain’t here to play tiddlywinks’.”
So Labour is attacking the Minister for criticizing the Canadian Government’s dairy policy. Nice to know they’re focusing on the big issues.
The Herald editorial:
It has long been an anomaly that benefits for the young are raised annually by the rate of inflation while superannuitants have their pensions pegged to increases in wages, or inflation if it is greater.
Wages in recent years have increased at a rate above low inflation, causing benefits to lag the general rise in living standards enjoyed by wage earners and the retired. The cost of indexing working age benefits to wages might be considerable but it seems only fair that it should be done. If fiscally possible, it should be accompanied by a catch-up adjustment to benefit rates over the next few years.
This may be the stupidest and most financially illiterate editorial of the year.
First let us calculate what this would cost. NZ Super has increased by 78% since it was given a floor relative to wages. Inflation during that time has been 44%, which is how much other benefits have increased. This means that in today’s dollars you would need to increase all benefits by 24% to bring them in line with NZ Super increases.
The current cost of non NZ Super benefits is $7.3 billion, so the cost of the Herald’s editorial policy would be $1.74 billion.
The cost of this policy would be around $1,800 per working family.
So the Herald wants the Government to take an extra $1,800 off every family in work, and give it to people not working, on welfare. They think this is the best use of $1.74 billion. I’m staggered by their detachment from reality.
The graph shows the increase in full-time equivalent doctors and nurses in our public health (DHBs) system. Considering the impact of the GFC, and the need to get back into surplus, that is a significant achievement.
Yahoo news reports:
North Korean Defence Minister Hyon Yong-Chol has been executed by anti-aircraft fire for disloyalty and showing disrespect to leader Kim Jong-Un, South Korea’s intelligence agency said Wednesday.
Hundreds of officials watched Hyon’s execution on April 30, Han Ki-Beom, the deputy director of the National Intelligence Agency (NIS), told a parliamentary committee, the Yonhap news agency reported.
Hyon, who was appointed to the post of Minister of the People’s Armed Forces less than a year ago, was apparently caught dozing off during formal military events and also talked back to Kim Jong-Un on several occasions, Yonhap said.
Well he won’t do that again!
Anti-aircraft weapons fire at up to 1,440 metres per second. At least it wouldn’t have taken long.
More seriously I do hope in my lifetime we see the collapse of this awful regime with its arbitrary executions and megalomaniac Stalinist cult of personality. 25 million North Koreans deserve better than this. Even putting aside all the freedoms they don’t have, their GDP per capita is 5% of South Korea. They are in poverty and virtual serfdom.
The Daily Mail reports:
A ginger-haired extremist accused of plotting a copycat Andres Breivik terror attack allegedly wanted to assassinate Prince Charles so Prince Harry would become king, a court has heard.
Loner Mark Colborne, who felt ‘marginalised’ because of hair colour, allegedly planned to ‘take out’ the Prince of Wales with a sniper to allow his youngest son to become heir to the throne.
The court heard how the 37-year-old allegedly dreamt up the terror plot at his home in Southampton, in an apparent bid to transform himself from a ginger-haired victim into a notorious military terrorist.
He didn’t think this through very well. To get a ginga onto the throne, he’d have to take out Charles, William, George and now Charlotte.
Penning his ambitions, he allegedly wrote how he would become a ‘fully-transformed military terrorist’ who would be known for ‘striking at the hearts of the dark-haired, dark-eyed Caucasian race’.
I have bad news for him. He is also a Caucasian.
The Old Bailey heard how, in another entry, Colborne allegedly promised to target the prince ‘for the Aryan people’, adding: ‘If I had the right weapon, military grade sniper rifle, I would take out Prince Charles and a few others for the sake of the Aryan people.
I thought the Ayran supremacists were about killing off non-Caucasians!
In another entry read to the court, he allegedly wrote: ‘I want my legacy to say that I fought a one man war against the capitalist regime.
Also against capitalism!
But Colborne’s plans were foiled when his half-brother Kevin found receipts for chemicals bought on Amazon on the landing floor while decorating in June last year and told his mother, Patricia.
When police were called they found books about poisons and explosives titled ‘Silent Death’, ‘Assorted Nasties’, and ‘The Poor Man’s James Bond’, the court heard.
Detectives also found spray bottles which could be used to squirt cyanide at his victims and a chemical that helped poisons penetrate through the skin, it is claimed.
An idiot, but one who could have done a lot of harm.
The Herald, as part of a series on religion in NZ, has these 11 facts:
So in a fight the wiccans outnumber the satanists almost 2:1.
Interesting that Wellington is leading the way for cities becoming non-religious while Auckland is becoming more religious.
You can check out on the map provided, the religious profile of your local area.
In my local area unit of Thorndon (deprivation decile 5) we are 49% no religion, 41% Christian, 2.8% Buddhist, 2,5% Hindu, 0.8% Jewish and 0.5% Muslim.
Stuff reports:
Wellington’s town belt looks set to increase in size by 100 hectares and be given greater legal protection.
The town belt is 400 hectares in size, and stretches from Mt Victoria to Te Ahumairangi Hill.
Wellington City Council drafted the Wellington Town Belt Bill in 2013 and the process of Parliament enacting it into law has begun.
If it becomes law, 100ha of land will be added to the town belt from Northland, Highbury, Aro Valley, Mt Cook and Roseneath.
Wellington would not be the great city to live in it is, without the Town Belt. Very supportive of seeing other areas of council parks formally made part of the town belt, to protect it.
A guest post by Rory McCourt, NZUSA President and Sandra Grey NZTEU President
Students and Staff: the heart of independent universities
In February, the Government passed the Education Amendment Bill (No. 2), which increased the power of ministerial appointees to New Zealand’s eight university councils and removed the requirement for them to have student and staff representatives.
The major objection we had, and continue to have, to Minister Joyce’s changes is that they increase the proportion of ministerial appointees, to one third of each council. There is a greater risk that a future minister of any political persuasion could use those ministerial appointees to gain control of councils and more brazenly implement the government’s agenda.
You might support government, which represent taxpayers, having more control over universities.
But what if I told you the next government could be, heaven forbid, a Labour-Green government. Imagine the kinds of policies that government could push through universities to advance its own political agenda.
Accountability to government is important. The tertiary education sector spends about $2b a year goes on compliance costs. But accountability is not the same thing as control.
University councils have always had a mix of left and right, business and union, student and management. That created debate, and built better institutions. Sometimes, to that minister’s frustration, these councils didn’t dance to his or her tune! Universities have stood up for academic freedom. Universities have been incubators for economic and political movements right across the spectrum.
Those movements and ideas have flourished without political interference. When politicians do decide what to teach and research, it can get messy. One needs only see the way the Australian Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, is trying to foist the climate denial ‘consensus centre’ on their universities. If Keith Holyoake had this new system, would he have tolerated Vietnam protests? If the First Labour Government could have controlled our universities would monetarist thought have had the space to survive?
To build innovative, challenging universities, our universities need institutional autonomy. Because, while the minister might be ‘Mr Fix It’ today, tomorrow it could be someone with a very different agenda and many of you will wish we didn’t give the keys to our universities to the politicians.
The law has passed and we can’t change that now. But we can make the best of a bad situation.
We can counterbalance the risk of a future minister misusing the power of his or her appointees by setting aside a third of seats on the new university councils for democratically elected staff and students.
Staff and students are diverse and they hold all possible political views, but they are people who value knowledge and the importance of academic freedom. And being elected to council rather than appointed gives them the independence to speak their mind. We, the public, pay billions to run our universities. We should keep them transparent with elected councillors whose interest is in quality of education.
TEU and NZUSA are calling for a third of seats to be reserved so that there is some balance to the ministerial power-grab. We hope you will join us and protect the best of our universities.
http://www.actionstation.org.nz/councils
Rory McCourt
National President
NZUSA The New Zealand Union of Students’ AssociationsSandra Grey
National President
New Zealand Tertiary Education Union
A rare public speech by the SIS Director, Rebecca Kitteridge to a privacy and identity conference. Some extracts:
What I hope to show is that in a liberal democracy like New Zealand, we need both individual privacy and national security. They complement one another, and a balance must be struck between them. In order to keep our country secure and protect our citizens, we have to be able to intercept private communications in some exceptional and legally authorised circumstances. But the needs of security agencies are not absolute. Any intrusion into privacy on the grounds of national security must occur only where it is necessary and proportionate, and must be subject to oversight.
Few would disagree with that.
And this is why I was attracted to the role of Director of Security. I am not in this job because I have a fascination for spying or because I relish the thought of intruding into people’s private affairs. Leading the Security Intelligence Service appealed to me because I feel strongly about the New Zealand way of life. I want to protect that way of life so we can continue to enjoy the things that are so wonderful about New Zealand, including the 3 integrity of our institutions, the privacy of our citizens, and our democratic rights and freedoms. And that motivation and commitment is shared by every person I have met in the NZSIS.
Kitteridge gets annoyed when she is called a spy boss, rather than the SIS boss because their motivation is security. They’re not MI6.
It is rather startling to think that when I was interviewed for the Director of Security role eighteen months ago, ISIL did not feature in my interview presentation. It is a big preoccupation for me now. ISIL recruits to its extremist cause through the use of slick propaganda, distributed via social media around the world. Its recruits may be young, vulnerable, or disaffected. They are excited by the extreme nature of what they see, and are drawn to something that they think has meaning.
The internet overcomes geographic distance and enables communication between these susceptible people and those encouraging them, radicalising them and directing them. The internet, and especially social media, means it is very easy for these individuals to connect up with others who share and strengthen their world view.
The threat to our security posed by foreign terrorist fighters is real, and it continues to develop rapidly. I know that my sister agencies overseas are dismayed at the prospect of radicalised and battle-hardened foreign fighters returning to their countries of origin – in some cases in their hundreds. Regardless of how the current situation in the Middle East is resolved, the issue of returning foreign fighters is going to challenge security services around the world for many years to come.
ISIL has changed things significantly.
Domestic extremists are also a real concern. ISIL explicitly urges individuals to conduct attacks using any weapon they have – a knife, a car – without talking to anybody about their plans. Attacks of this kind are extremely difficult to stop.
ISIL is very different to Al Qaeda who insisted on tight control and approval of any attacks. ISIL encourages anyone and everyone to attack.
We have seen the consequences of ISIL’s communications strategy and tactics being experienced in Paris, Belgium, Ottawa, Melbourne and Sydney, where lives have been taken or threatened. I don’t want to overstate the situation in New Zealand. As I have said before, there is a very small number of people in New Zealand, inspired by ISIL, who are talking about, advocating or planning to commit violent acts here or elsewhere. And it is the job of the Security Intelligence Service to understand what is going on so that those violent acts can be prevented.
Sadly we are not immune.
Making a decision to intercept a New Zealand citizen’s personal communications is only permissible under a Domestic Security Warrant, which often involves months of work and is not something we apply for lightly. To obtain a Warrant, the intelligence officers have to build and present a meticulously documented application, generally with attachments that are several inches thick, showing that the Warrant meets the criteria set out in our legislation, and is necessary and proportionate.
The Warrant application is reviewed by a senior manager and is scrutinised by the legal team. Then, as Director, I review it thoroughly. The Commissioner of Security Warrants then reviews it thoroughly. And then we take it to the Minister in Charge of the NZSIS. He asks questions and may require conditions to be added before it is signed off. Every Warrant must specify a period not exceeding 12 months for which the Warrant is valid. It can be renewed, but we must make the case again.
Not exactly mass surveillance is it.
We do not live in a surveillance state where everything you do online is recorded – at least not by the government! So – please enjoy the freedom that the internet gives you. You are free to click on whatever you want on your device, and you won’t pop up on our system. Typically, we get our leads through our interaction with the public and through information provided to us by other agencies.
Where information suggests that a person may be a threat to New Zealand’s domestic security, we will try to find out more about that person, and either determine that the person is not of interest, or build an intelligence case that may lead to a Warrant application. Our focus is on the small number of individuals who are actively interested in violent extremism, or causing some other harm to New Zealand’s security as defined in our legislation.
Around 50 a year.
I often think that if the public could see the people of the NZSIS doing their work, they would be delighted to see what hard-working, terrific people our intelligence officers are. I would love the Service to have a television show like Border Patrol.
Heh, Spy-Factor? Spy-Idol? Big Brother? 🙂
But where it is possible to talk about our work, as I am today, I think we should. With others in the New Zealand Intelligence Community, I am working on being more open and transparent.
Good. The intelligence agencies have some stuff they need to keep secret, but not everything. I recall when I worked in the Pms Office, and someone from the SIS would bring a draft press release over – on a password encrypted disk in a locked briefcase!
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security reviews every warrant after it is issued. In addition, the Inspector-General and her staff are free to come into our workplace, access our databases and document management systems, and look at anything and everything that we do. The Office of the Inspector-General has been greatly strengthened over the last couple of years. The Office has gone from one part-time retired Judge and a part-time secretary, to a full-time Inspector-General with a number of permanent full-time staff. That means that sunlight is beaming in across the intelligence agencies right now.
This has been I think the most important change. Also of significance is the SIS Director, GCSB Director and the Inspector-General are now all lawyers – gone are the days of the military old boys club.
The Herald reports:
The Prime Minister has been accused of lying about housing price increases under Labour – but figures support his often-repeated claim.
John Key was called a liar after an exchange with Labour leader Andrew Little in Question Time Tuesday.
Mr Little asked what effect the Government’s new rules on taxing capital gain on residential properties would have on the Auckland housing market.
In response, Mr Key repeated a claim he has made in recent weeks – that house prices doubled under the previous Labour Government.
That prompted Labour’s housing spokesman Phil Twyford to tweet that the Prime Minister was repeating the lie that house prices went up more under Labour than under his own Government.
So what is the truth?
Mr Twyford referred to statistics from the Real Estate Institute of NZ (REINZ) that showed its Auckland housing price index rose by 77 per cent during the Helen Clark Labour Government, and 87 per cent under the current National Government.
But another data set also released by REINZ – median national sale prices – does support the Prime Minister’s statement.
Under Labour, the national median price rose from $172,000 in November 1999 to $337,500 in November 2008, a 96 per cent increase.
The national median price has since gone up another 35 per cent under National to $455,000.
So median price for NZ doubled under Labour, compared to 35% under National.
Twyford tries to wriggle out of his claim by saying:
Mr Twyford told the Herald that he stood by his criticism.
The Prime Minister was being deliberately misleading by referring to nationwide prices in responding to questions about Auckland prices, without saying he was using nationwide figures, Mr Twyford said.
Twyford is wrong – again. Let’s look at Hansard:
Interestingly enough, if you look at the information by the Real Estate Institute, figures across New Zealand actually show that although Auckland house prices are up, the rest of the country is very mixed; some are actually down. And, interestingly enough, if you look at the equivalent period of time under the last Labour Government, house prices doubled. Under National they have gone up nationally by 35 percent.
Twyford should apologise. And to remove doubt, Key in a previous question used a different figure in reference to Auckland prices:
I know that Labour members do not like it, but house prices doubled under their watch. Actually, Auckland house prices went up by 79 percent under the previous Labour Government.
So John Key clearly linked to doubling of house prices to being nation-wide and used the 79% figure correctly for Auckland house prices under Labour.
Twyford will of course refuse to apologise.
The order paper is here.
Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm
National: Four patsies on Budget 2015, NZ Defence Force, forestry and the New Zealand Wars
Labour: Four questions on surplus x 2, child poverty and TPP
Greens: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and surplus
NZ First: Two questions on unemployment and Tauranga Central Corridor
General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm
The general debate has 12 speeches of up to five minutes each, so a maximum debate of one hour.
Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill – second reading
The bill amends the Radio New Zealand Act 1995 to implement a new Radio New Zealand Charter
The second reading has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.
The Herald reports:
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says the number of refugees who are allowed to settle here should be greatly increased.
The Northland MP, who is well known for his opposition to current immigration levels, believes New Zealand’s refugee quote should be increased by at least a third.
There is currently an annual limit of around 750 places for refugees on United Nations waiting lists.
“There’s no reason, in my view, that we couldn’t go to 1000 easily, and do it in a responsible way,” Mr Peters said, in answer to a question from a first year politics class at Victoria University of Wellington yesterday.
Winston of course was campaigning against in 2004. The RMS responded to his claims:
Winston Peters’ comments in the House yesterday about New Zealand’s refugee quota system were inaccurate and misleading, says RMS Resettlement director Peter Cotton.
“He chose to hide behind Parliamentary Privilege to attack a former Somali refugee seeking to bring members of her family to New Zealand. At the same time he blatantly misrepresented the Government’s response to refugees, suggesting that each refugee accepted in New Zealand’s small annual quota (750) was likely to be followed by an additional 14 family members.
So in 2004 he was attacking us for having 750 by claiming each one would bring in 14 more. In 2015 he pretends he is in favour of increasing it.
In 2001 he attacked the Government for allowing in the Tampa refugees.
“The fact remains that New Zealand was a soft touch when she took office and it is even more of a soft touch now. Another load of refugees does not make any sense when we have already been very charitable. The truth is that there were many UN signatory countries closer to the Tampa than New Zealand, why then is New Zealand being expected to once again grossly exceed its limit?
“The duplicity of government is astounding. The more facts that come out of this debacle the more concerning it gets. We now hear that many may be carrying third-world diseases, as if we didn’t know that, and have not been treated in Nauru first. The Government has a duty to protect the health and security of its inhabitants, a test which it is failing miserably.
Not big on consistency is he.
The Herald reports:
The Children’s Commissioner wants a rethink of universal services such as pensions and free children’s healthcare so more public spending can go to the neediest families.
The commissioner, Hastings children’s doctor Russell Wills, wants tomorrow’s Budget to start a national “conversation” about how to use limited public spending to best effect.
“We need all taxpayers’ funds to make the biggest difference they possibly can,” he said.
“That might mean further targeting of some of those benefits that are currently universal.
Absolutely. As a first principle, the government should target funding towards low income families, rather than tax everyone more, to then spend that money on their behalf.
We should not pay the pension to millionaires. We should not subsidise GP visits to people earning $500,000 a year.
Stuff reports:
New Zealand’s top medical body had called for a clampdown on our rampant boozing, including banning advertising, raising the drinking age, and increasing taxes.
In a “briefing” published on Tuesday, the New Zealand Medical Association says the Government needs to intervene more heavily in the liquor industry for the nation’s collective health.
“We consider it vital to ensure that policies to reduce alcohol-related harm are based on the best available evidence, not on ideology or on the basis of lobbying by vested commercial interests.”
I agree. Ideology does get in the way of evidence. Let’s look at the evidence:
There is of course still significant harm caused by alcohol abuse, just as there is also significant pleasure caused by non abusive consumption of alcohol. What is clear in numerous indicators is the trend is positive. That is not industry research, but data from Stats NZ, the Ministry of Health and ALAC.
But the health activists ignore it, because it is an inconvenient fact.
The association said the liberalisation of drinking laws in 1989, combined with increasingly sophisticated liquor marketing, had encouraged a culture of heavy drinking, which had “resulted in what some researchers term an ‘alcogenic’ environment”.
Actually the WHO has found there has been a reduction in drinking habits in the last 30 years.
Raising the legal alcohol purchasing age, for both on and off-licences, to 20
Parliament has voted four times on this issue in 12 years. Each time it has been for 18, not 20. You’re beating a dead horse.
