Andrew Geddis at Pundit blogs:

You might need a moment to let the implications of this sink in. By passing this law, Parliament is telling the judicial branch that it is not allowed to look at a Government policy (not, note, an Act of Parliament) in order to decide whether it is in breach of another piece of legislation enacted by Parliament (the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). In other words, the judiciary’s primary function – to declare the meaning of law and its application in particular cases – has been nullified. Furthermore, the judiciary’s role as protector of individual citizens in terms of ensuring that they are being treated in accordance with the laws of the land has been removed. While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution.

Now, I sort of get why Tony Ryall (the Minister in charge of this bill) wanted to do this. Trying to come up with a policy on who does and doesn’t get money here is probably pretty complicated. And health dollars are a finite resource – everything that is paid over to family caregivers means less services somewhere else. So having the threat of the judiciary coming into this mix and upsetting whatever compromises he comes up with over the next few months when he finalises the family care policies would be a real pain in the backside. You can even argue, as does Attorney General Chris Finlayson in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment (which I’ll get to in a moment) that the courts were wrong to intervene in the first place.

After the court decisions, the Government decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court  and pay family members who care for disabled members of their own family. The Budget provided funding to do this.

I am one of those who have some disquiet that we have introduced a precedent of paying people to care for their own family members, but the courts ruled that if you can pay someone else to be the carer, then the parents should get paid also.

So as Geddis said, working out who qualifies in caring for a family member is complex. How do you define what level of diability etc. But is the Govt’s response appropriate? The Attorney-General said:

Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.

Geddis concludes:

And yet this declaration itself was not enough to stop the National Government using its numbers in the House to rush this Bill through all stages of lawmaking and onto the statute books in a single day.

So there you have it – another day in the life of the Government of the nation and the laws made by the Parliament it commands.

I think we could have a good debate about whether this policy should or should not be reviewable by the courts. But the point is we are not getting to have that debate. By passing the bill through all three stages under urgency, it means the debate never got held.

The bill should have gone to select committee, so submissions could be held on whether the law change was reasonable, in exchange for the funding now granted by the Government and Parliament.

National’s use of urgency has been very restrained for the last two years. In fact they have not gone into urgency at all since August 2011, until this month. That is a probably a record. Of course the provision for extending sitting hours helps.

The urgency for the GCSB bill was fine with me, as the urgency applied to the first reading only. It has been referred to a select committee.

Some of the bills passed through all three stages after the Budget were appropriate to do so, such as the petrol tax hike which was announced a long time ago, and excise tax increases never go to select committee (I think). The fix to the Crown Minerals Bill was also arguably okay, as it was just fixing a drafting error.

But I can’t see any reason for this bill not to have gone to select committee. Urgency should not have been used to pass it through all its stages. The clauses to remove the ability of the courts to review the policy should be submitted on and debated – even if it delayed the implementation of the payments to parents as caregivers.

News.com.au reports:

And stronger men are more likely to protect their resources while weaker males favour more socialist views such as wealth distribution, researchers claim.

Maybe a weak body and a weak mind go hand in hand 🙂

Measuring bicep size and socio-economic status, researchers collected data from hundreds of men from the US, Denmark and Argentina which all have different welfare systems.

They found that irrespective of where the men came from, those with strong upper body strength were less likely to support a welfare system.

Interestingly, the researchers found no link with upper body strength and political persuasion among women.

Someone should apply for a grant to replicate this research in New Zealand and see it if applies here also.

Marnie Hallahan at Stuff reports:

Rethink the plan or rethink the council. This was the unanimous message from 500 Aucklanders gathered tonight at Takapuna Grammar School to discuss Auckland Council’s intensification plans.

The number of people attending these meetings is growing.

Founders, Richard Burton, a resource management consultant, and Guy Haddleton, argued that contrary to what the council was claiming, 56 per cent of the residential area in Auckland would be zoned to allow apartments.

That’s intensification alright.

Following a city-wide resident revolt over the last fortnight, Mayor Len Brown has already announced that four areas of the plan would be revised.

But those present at the meeting were unanimous in calling for the entire plan to be revisited and looked at ‘‘from the ground up”.

Any revisions would be the minimum they can get away with. Starting again with a new Council would be the best way to make sure the plan reflects what Aucklanders want.

The lone voice in support of the plan, councillor Ann Hartley, was shut down by angry residents who booed her claims that the council was willing and ready to listen to public feedback.

Not sure her chances of re-election are looking too good.

The Herald reports:

After nine weeks of telling Aucklanders the maximum height of “small-scale apartments” in neighbourhoods was two storeys, the council admitted to the Herald on Friday the height limit was three storeys.

And they wonder why people no longer trust them?

A presentation from Mr Burton said three-storey apartments would appear in 49 per cent of residential Auckland and four, five and six-storey apartments in a further 7 per cent.

“We accept there has to be intensification in Auckland.

“The real issue is how and where,” he said.

The meeting unanimously passed a resolution to rethink the Unitary Plan in order to balance intensification with infrastructure capability and urban character.

I wonder of the Council is still insisting the Government fast-track the plan into law?

The Character Coalition – an umbrella group of 58 heritage and community groups – announced at the meeting it was joining forces with Auckland 2040.

Spokeswoman Sally Hughes said it shared the same concerns about the future of the city’s neighbourhoods.

That’s a lot of groups!

April saw four political polls published in New Zealand – a Colmar Brunton, a Reid Research and two Roy Morgan polls.

The average of the public polls has National 12% ahead of Labour – 1% more than in March. The seat projection is centre-right 59 seats, centre-left 59.

Australia has Labor 10% behind the Coalition with four months to go until the election.

In the United States Obama’s ratings have changed little while Hillary Clinton enjoys high favourability ratings.

In the UK the UK Independence Party is now polling well ahead of the Liberal Democrats.

In Canada the Liberals have shot to the lead for the first time in many years, under the new leadership of Justin Trudeau.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to top both by considerable margins.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the GCSB, Kim Dotcom, asset sales, constitutional issues, public holidays, support for farmers plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

I ran a quiz night at the CNI National Party conference in Rotorua last night. The local MPs wrote the questions, and there were a few interesting trivia ones in them which I thought I would share. The answers are written in white and are after the break, so you can highlight them to see the answers.

1. The woman in Jack Marshall’s 1956 remodel of the NZ coat of arms is based on which movie star? 
2. Which politician is quoted as saying “I was in politics for a purpose – my very life was politics. I suppose this was because I was more manly than most women; that’s why I never married”
3. What Parliamentary event failed to occur in October 1946?
4. What event took place at the beginning of each Parliament between 1896 and the early 1960s?
5. What was the first Bill passed by the first Parliament in Wellington in 1856?
6. Who was the first Deputy Prime Minister of NZ?
7. There have been 17 Deputy Prime Ministers. How many also became Prime Minister, and who?
8. Who was the first MP from the CNI Region to become Prime Minister or Premier of NZ?
9. How many power stations rely on the Waikato River?
10. How many escalators are there in the Coromandel electorate?
11. Who served longest as Prime Minister of New Zealand? Jack Marshall, Norman Kirk, Bill Rowling, Geoffrey Palmer or Jenny Shipley?
    
12. How many electorate contests has Sue Moroney MP lost to National candidates in New Zealand’s General Elections?

See how many you know, before looking at the answers

Continue reading »

Michael Laws writes in the SST:

Because most New Zealanders are not convinced that New Zealand has a child poverty problem. We have a piss-poor-parenting problem, yes. We don’t have an inadequacy of resources.

Which is where the Children’s Commissioner and the liberal lobbyists have it all wrong. They quote statistics about kids going to school hungry, about inadequate rentals, about hospitalisations and woeful child dental care, as if no argument is required.

Look at those poor kids, they declare. There’s the proof of child poverty.

No, it isn’t. It’s proof that thousands of Kiwi parents are making bad choices about their priorities. And that the welfare and community organisations that are supposed to be supporting them . . . aren’t.

Indeed, it’s a dual failure. The parents aren’t up to their role and the agencies are ineffective with their assistance. And that includes churches and other social agencies that prefer to lobby for more money, rather than use their funding appropriately.

While it is not as black and white as Michael paints it, he is largely right.

However hard any family life might be – however tough the financial circumstances – there is no parental excuse that allows a child to go to school hungry. Look into any one of those homes and you will find two conspicuous absences.

First, an inability to put the kids first. A belief that alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, partying, the church tithe are all – somehow – more important than the kids.

The inability of a generation of social workers and social agencies to make any impact upon those priorities is their greatest failure. There is enough government assistance, there is enough private philanthropy, there is enough knowledge.

But what’s the argument of so-called “child poverty advocates”? Give the parents more money. Which they’ll misuse, in exactly the same way that they’re doing now. Their internal priorities still won’t change.

We in fact have a very generous welfare system. The combination of direct benefits, working for families payments, accommodation subsidies, and early childhood education subsidies is considerable.

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

Then we had the constitutional point. That no one, including the Prime Minister, could fire Gilmore forthwith was presented as a failing of our Parliamentary system. He was a list MP. He had done wrong. He should be fired.

I am not so sure those calling for the summary power to dismiss list MPs would appreciate the consequences.

I had two list MPs in my caucus forever trying to dispatch me. If I had been able to fire them, I would have. And I would still be there. But that’s hardly a satisfactory outcome for anyone.

I agree with Rodney that a party should not be able to sack a List MP. It would turn them even more into creatures of the party.

It would be a power too open to abuse by party leaders to get rid of MPs that challenge their authority.

The HoS reports:

A woman who, while a teenager, was preyed upon by her physics teacher for sex during extra-curricular sailing classes is pleading with authorities to make details of the case public.

She says publishing the man’s name may encourage any other victims to come forward.

The Teachers’ Council Disciplinary Tribunal struck the teacher off and said it was in no doubt that the 18-month full sexual relationship took place in the late 1980s when the woman was aged 16.

However, the tribunal’s decision late last year was published without the teacher’s name. Chairman Kenneth Johnston rejected the woman’s application to publish it because, he said, “particular reasons” were needed to justify publication.

It is the case that has become the face of a Herald on Sunday push for more transparency of teacher disciplinary hearings.

The paper has formally applied for the case’s details to be made public and asked the council to rewrite its rules so it does not start from a point of automatic suppression.

Absolutely. Suppression should be the exception, not the rule.

For the first time, we can reveal that the victim in the test case – who the Herald on Sunday has chosen not to name – fully supports our application.

She contacted the paper in the wake of the publicity, and gave us a copy of a letter she has written to the Teachers’ Council.

It says: “Indeed, it was a newspaper article about a different teacher at another school which first prompted me to action, realising that I could have the potential to prevent further crimes being committed by the individual who targeted me, and it has always been my wish that this teacher be publicly named, to prevent his re-offending in the future.”

Publishing his name could prompt any other victims to come forward, the woman believes.

It is about preventing further victims.

From an e-mail:

Rural land throughout NZ is in the order of $10,000 through $40,000 per hectare …. Councils have artificially pumped the stuff up on the fringes … e.g Rolleston $500,000 a hectare …. Christchurch a million and Auckland around the $2 million per hectare mark.

Now think about those figures, and think about the credibility of a party that says the price of land is not a factor in house prices.

Then to compound the problems, they have over recent years “dreamt up” spurious Development Levies (for purely revenue gathering reasons … that happen to be just a miniscule part of total LG revenues but do so much damage).

The sophisticated Texas MUDs model for financing infrastructure is staring us in the face … for what should be blindingly obvious economic efficiency and intergenerational equity reasons. Put simply…strip out all infrastructure costs other than roading and finance the stuff long term out on the muni bond market. That’s how they get in place new fringe starter sections for around the $US30 – $US40,000.

And again, think about the credibility of parties that don’t plan to do anything on the consenting side.

This graph from the NZ Initiative is an insightful one. It shows the massive increase in real spending per capita up until 2009 and the fiscal restraint that has occurred since then.

Imagine if the growth from 2002 to 2009 had continued? Wed be approaching Greece.

The Dom Post reports:

A Large chunk of Porirua’s MegaCentre has been sold for over $30 million to Nelson-based property investor Gaire Thompson.

It is the second recent local major retail property deal where big Australian corporates have sold to local buyers.

The Xenophobes get all worked up when foreign companies buy almost anything in New Zealand. I love hearing Russel Norman rail against foreign investment in his Australian accent.

But foreign investors can’t take land and buildings with them. And as we see here, they do not just buy NZ assets – in time they often sell them also. If you ban them from buying, it means you actually reduce options for NZ buyers and sellers.

Stuff reports:

The only way the Government could create affordable homes was to build them and Labour had a plan to do just that, Shearer said.

This is like reading the old socialist manifestos about nationalising the means of production.

I’m not sure who is writing the words that David Shearer utters, but consider the mind set that the only way you can make something affordable is to have the Government do it.

Then consider where such a mind set ends up.

If only the Government can create affordable houses, why allow the private sector to build any houses at all? Who wants unaffordable houses?

I mean government monopolies have a great track record of affordability, don’t they?

Putting aside the lurch to the left, the economics is woeful also. Look at the four major factors in building a house.

1. Land
2. Consenting
3. Construction
4. Profit/Return on Capital

Labour is saying that only one of those four things matter. They are ignoring the factors that almost every expert group has said contribute to increasing house prices, and focusing on the one where they can demonise the private sector.

They also miss the point that it is not only about building new houses that are cheaper, but how to reduce houses prices overall. 95% of house buyers will be buying an existing house and section.

Freeing up land supply reduces the cost of land throughout an entire city. It will reduce inflationary pressures on pretty much all houses, except perhaps the most exclusive areas.

Building an extra 10,000 houses without freeing up more land, may (if you even accept their figures) means the lucky few who win the right to get one of those houses will benefit – but it will do nothing for the other 95% of home buyers.

Tracy Neal at the Nelson Mail reports:

St Arnaud farmer Richard Osmaston is pushing his crusade for a moneyless economy by standing for mayor of Nelson.

He should stand as a Green Party candidate. The Greens want to print money, which of course devalues it. So given enough time you would have a moneyless economy.

He said he believed in the need for a revolution from a monetary-based economy to a resource-based one, where everything was free and all work was voluntary, because humanity was looking at social breakdown like never before.

Again Greens are against all work testing for welfare, so I think this is a real opportunity for them,

I especially like how my generation is about living in search of guiltless pleasures.

Source

This week France just achieved the rare distinction of undergoing a triple dip recession.

A year ago France elected a socialist President. Since then the French economy has shrunk for three out of four quarters, with the overall economy 0.5% smaller than a year ago. That compares to around 3% annual growth in New Zealand.

The Civilian did its own take on the Budget. Some highlights:

• $1.7 billion to buy back Mighty River Power after Tony Ryall began missing it.

• $1 billion to build roads that go around Hamilton instead of through it.

• $64 for Bill English to get his printer fixed.

• $500 in legal fees for Colin Craig.

• $800 million to Gore, just to see what happens.

• $30,000 for production of Air New Zealand safety video starring Maurice Williamson.

• $170,000 for undercover double agent speech writer for David Shearer.

• $20,000 to figure out why a McDonald’s deluxe cheeseburger costs less than a regular one.

• $250 million to make the transformers in the national grid look more like the ones in the movie Transformers.

I especially like the $800 million for Gore, as an experiment.

Stuff reports:

However, critics seized on the state housing shakeup. Labour Party leader David Shearer said tenants would be “really worried”, as the Government was trying to push social housing on to private providers to save money.

What a stupid thing to say. The extension of income related rents to other social housing providers will not save the Government money – it will in fact cost them tens of millions of dollars as more low income families get subsidised rents.

The Opposition’s job is to oppose, but they should at least understand what they are talking about.

Those who want Budget data can check out:

1. Keith Ng has lots of data visualisations
2. Stuff has interactive data also
3. Stuff also has a tax-o-meter which shows how much tax you pay every day and what it goes on
4. Maxim has a tax tracker app which also looks at your tax on an annual basis

Stuff reports:

A Hutt Valley man who was filmed walking around a supermarket while claiming he needed a wheelchair has lost a battle to get his ACC payments back.

Wiremu Brightwell had appealed against a 2010 ACC decision, stripping him of his disability allowance.

But in Wellington District Court Judge David Ongley found he “probably wilfully exaggerated his symptoms and presented a severe disability that was not caused by his covered personal injury”.

Up until 2010, Mr Brightwell had cover for an injury from 1993, when he was hit on the side of his head by an exploding tyre and rim.

ACC medical adviser Martin Robb examined him in 2010, and told ACC that, in his opinion, Mr Brightwell was “malingering”.

“He did not appear to be in pain, but on entering the surgery in his wheelchair appeared to be very moribund, unable to operate the controls of his wheelchair,” Dr Robb said.

“Despite his apparently moribund state, he was able to answer questions quickly and appropriately with a clear but quiet voice.”

Although Mr Brightwell claimed to be largely bedridden, he had “good musculature with no sign of muscle wasting”.

Even if Mr Brightwell does need to be in a wheel chair (which is doubtful), there are jobs you can do from a wheelchair. Many wheelchair bound people can and do work.

Eric Crampton blogs:

A few months ago, Social Service Providers Aotearoa asked me to review the literature on school breakfast programmes and provide an assessment of whether public funding of school breakfast programmes offered value for money. I spoke on the issue in Wellington and in Christchurch in February. As the government seems to be looking at the Mana Party’s proposals around food in schools, it seems worth posting things here as summary.

I was only looking at school breakfast programmes, and so I can’t here comment on school lunch programmes. I’m not sure why we’d expect results to vary greatly, but it’s worth having the caveat.

Anyway, on my best read of the literature, it’s hard to make a case for that we’d get any great benefit from the programmes. Rather, we often find that they don’t even increase the odds that kids eat breakfast at all. Many shift breakfast from at-home to at-school, but among those who hadn’t bothered with breakfast before the programme, not many wind up starting when schools provide it. You can then get kids reporting that they’re less hungry as consequence of the programmes, but it’s awfully hard to reject that the main thing going on is that kids are eating at 9 at school instead of at 7 at home and are consequently less hungry when asked at 11.

This is what tends to happen with any programme or subsidy that is not targeted.

If you (for example) make medical insurance tax deductible, it doesn’t tend to increase the number of people with medical insusrance. It just allows fairly well off people to pay less tax.

Very few kids don’t have breakfast because their parents can’t afford one. They cost very very little if done at home. By comparison, they cost a lot if done centrally.

A legislated requirement for the Government to provide breakfasts for all school children is a bad way to try and solve the problem of kinds turning up at school unfed.

Stuff reports:

The person suspected of leaking confidential Cabinet papers about restructuring at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has appealed against a decision that could have identified them.

It is not clear yet whether leading public servant Paula Rebstock, who heads the leak inquiry, intends to name the person she suspects. She acknowledges she does not have proof.

Drafts of her report into the leak, which happened in May last year, do not name the person known only as “A”, but States Services Commissioner Iain Rennie, who ordered the report, already knows who “A” is.

“A” took action in the High Court about the way the inquiry has progressed, and to protect his or her identity.

Justice Robert Dobson’s decision was made public yesterday. He said “A” did not have legal grounds for complaint if the report was going only to Mr Rennie.

But if it was to be made public, “A” should be given more information about the grounds for Ms Rebstock’s suspicions, should have a chance to respond and have it considered.

The decision isn’t online but the outcome seems clear. Person A must be very worried if he or she is appealing to the Court of Appeal.

I’m sure there is an innocent reason for why Person A scanned in and copied a confidential Cabinet paper. We all await to hear his or her explanation.