Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

Nine of every 10 gang members in New Zealand have received a benefit or other welfare, costing the country $525 million between 1993 and 2014, a new report reveals.

Sixty per cent of children born to gang parents were abused or neglected, the report, by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), also found.

In total, cycles of violence within gang families will cost New Zealand’s welfare system $714 million over their lifetimes.

The child abuse stat is very very sad, if not entirely surprising.

The challenge is not to demonise gangs, but to look at how one can can make gang life less attractive to its members or have gangs less involved in crime, more involved in work and less harmful to youth.

Police and Corrections Minister Judith Collins said gangs were a “huge driver” of child deaths and family violence, and tackling gangs would make a big difference to New Zealand’s poor record.

“If you…look at the number of people in jail, they are almost invariably victims of family violence themselves somewhere along the line, and that’s what breeds violence.

“If we’re going to really make a dent in those figures….and help people save their lives, we’re going to have to deal with those gangs.”

With the nationwide prison muster reaching record levels, and over 30 per cent of the prison population affiliated with a gang, Collins said the Government’s work could also help to reduce the prison population.

You can’t (and shouldn’t) outlaw gangs. As Collins says the cycle is often generational. If you can provide the right incentives for gang members to get legal jobs and away from crime, then their kids will have a better chance.

You can see KDS in full flight with comments on a You Tube video promoting a flag change. The highlights or lowlights are:

• These people are supporting the evil Jew who is withholding funding for the Melanoma wonder drug Pembrolizumab in order to pay for his precious flag. Shame shame shame on you!!!
• More “Dirty Politics”- You fascists never give up the ghost hahaha. #KOF. # Lose John ‘Wall St. ‘ Key!
• Don’t vote for the tea towel. This is a precursor to ratifying the TPPA. With the union jack on our flag, they can’t sell out our sovereignty to corporations because of a pre-existing agreement with the Crown.

Not sure what is worst – the racist anti-semite or the nutter who believes the design of our flag has some sort of legal force. It’s like moron meets stupid.

There are many good reasons to oppose changing the flag. Sadly there are many bad ones also.

The Herald reports:

A New York judge says the U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled Tuesday (NZ time). The decision follows a California magistrate judge’s order requiring Apple to create software to help the U.S. hack the iPhone of a shooter in the December 2 killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

As different judges have made different rulings it seems inevitable it will be appealed to a Court of Appeals and if they differ, then eventually the Supreme Court.

The Telegraph reports:

The unnamed man has been targeting shoppers and commuters in Wolverhampton, where he been making the equivalent of £2,500 a week.

I’m away for the next four days tramping the Kepler Track in Fiordland. Will be a few pre-timed posts appearing but any breaking news is unlikely to be covered until Monday. Enjoy. I will be.

Stuff reports:

Award-winning investigative journalists Paula Penfold, Eugene Bingham and Toby Longbottom have joined Fairfax Media.

They add to the existing line-up of Fairfax investigative and special projects journalists around the country and their appointments reflect a focus on increased investment in high quality journalism, Fairfax executive editor Sinead Boucher said.

“Paula, Toby and Eugene are an exceptionally talented team who have created some of the most compelling journalism in New Zealand.

“Their flair for hard-hitting investigative journalism and innovative storytelling will be a real asset to our audiences and I am thrilled they have chosen to join forces with us.”

They are the team behind the three-year investigation into the Teina Pora miscarriage of justice case that exposed faults in key evidence in the case and was credited with helping him get released from prison and having his convictions quashed.

This is very good news – not just for the journalists concerned, but for Fairfax. As the commercial media model gets harder, the focus for many is on sensationalism and clickbait. Having some high quality investigative journalists who may spends weeks or months on a worthy story, rather than have to only focus on getting three stories done by 5 pm, is a good thing.

Trump has won seven, and maybe eight of the 11 states on Super Tuesday. It is hard to see him not ending up with the most delegates at the convention. However he may not get a majority.

The best chance of stopping him is to make it a two horse race. But as Rubio and Cruz both won states, they will both be in until at least Florida. If Rubio loses Florida, he may quit. But even if it becomes a two horse race, some of the votes of candidates dropping out may go to Trump. There is a path to victory for Rubio, and possibly Cruz, but it is a difficult one.

On the Democratic side it is almost all over. Sanders won four out of eleven and will stay in probably until Clinton gets a majority, but there is no credible path for him to beat her, unless she is charged by the FBI.

The current count on the Democratic side is Clinton 984 and Sanders 347. You need 2,383 for a majority. Clinton is 41% of the way there. Sanders would need to win 60% of the remaining delegates.

On the Republican side it is Trump 302, Cruz 142, Rubio 78, Kasich 24 and Carson 8. You need 1,237 to win so Trump is 24% of the way there.

Trump needs to get 49% of the remaining delegates to win. Cruz needs 57%, Rubio 60% and Kasich 63%.

The next dates for the Republicans are:

• 5th – Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Maine
• 6th – Puerto Rico
• 8th – Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan and Mississippi
• 12th – DC and Guam
• 15th – Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Mariana Islands, North Carolina and Ohio

The 15th is the next really significant date. It is where Rubio may live or die, and possibly the last chance to stop Trump.

Al Jazeera report:

A nanny beheaded a young girl in her care and brandished her severed head at a metro station in Moscow before being arrested at the scene.

The veiled woman, dressed in all black, shouted on Monday that she was “a terrorist”, but police said they suspect she is mentally unsound.

“According to preliminary information, the child’s nanny – a native of one of the Central Asian countries, born in 1977 – waited until the parents left the apartment with their elder child and – guided by unknown motives – killed the little one, set the apartment on fire and left the scene,” the police investigative committee said in a statement. …

Polina Nikolskaya, a reporter at the RBC daily newspaper, saw the women on the street. 

“She was standing near the metro entrance and caught my attention because she was screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’,” she told the Reuters news agency. 

This is why Donald Trump may win the Republican nomination. His policy to ban Muslim immigration is wrong and repulsive on multiple levels, but people are scared when they read stories like this. Now it seems she is mentally unwell, and may not even be that religious. But the sad reality is that for many people, the most scary two words they can hear is someone yelling out loudly “Allahu Akbar”.

News.com.au reports:

On Monday, NBNCo, the Government organisation tasked with creating one of Australia’s most ambitious — and at $46 billion, one of its most expensive — pieces of infrastructure, was forced to deny claims the project was heavily behind schedule.

According to Fairfax Media an “internal progress report” said the project was two-thirds short on its benchmark construction timetable, and had only approved connections to 663,000 premises, rather than the 1.4 million planned.

In a statement, the NBNCo said it had met or exceeded every key target for six quarters in a row. This included having 2.6 million homes “ready for service” by year’s end, one million homes using the network and more than $300 million in revenue.

The company said it would not be drawn on “alleged internal documents” but admitted, “this is an incredibly complex project unlike any infrastructure build anywhere in the world.”

The squabbling over how many homes have been connected and how much the project has cost is all a long way from the Coalition’s glittery launch of its NBN policy in 2013.

United on a Sydney stage, then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Mr Turnbull promised that the Coalition’s version of the NBN would, by this year, deliver minimum download speeds of 25 megabits per second, possibly as much as 100mbps, for just $30 billion. Hardly the kind of coin you find down the back of the sofa, but significantly less than the $44 billion Labor was predicting their system would cost.

“There will be billions of dollars that Labor has wasted that we cannot recover but we will save many billions of dollars, at least $60 billion, by taking the approach we have described,” said Mr Turnbull at the time.

Labor’s fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) proposal would take that fibre all the way to the home while the Coalition’s cost saving was to be made by cutting back on important chunks of infrastructure. Called fibre-to-the-node (FTTN), Turnbull’s NBN would see the fibre cables — a veritable motorway of data — halting on the street corner. The last leg would take all those tunes, films, images and Skype calls down the picturesque side road of the more limited copper network.

The latest audited circulation figures are out, and lots of change.

If we look just at the change in the past year, then those suffering double digit declines are the Dom Post and the two Fairfax Sunday papers. The Dom Post should be very concerned to lose one in seven subscriptions in a year. I do wonder if their new editorial stance is responsible for some of that.

NBR is the only paper to grow, but off a very small base. However better than shrinking. They also have a successful paywall model.

If one looks at the change since 2008, then the Herald on Sunday looks very good – actually growing 3.2%. The Sunday News has lost over two thirds of its circulation, the Dom Post and Press around one third and the Herald a quarter.

NewstalkZB reports:

The Labour Party’s made a last minute change, agreeing to support the Government’s legislation to end zero hour contracts.

The Maori Party and United Future remain unhappy with how the Employment Standards Bill has come back from Select Committee, particularly with what’s known as the availability clause, which leaves employees waiting around for work.

However, they would no longer be needed to get the bill through a vote.

Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woodhouse earlier said opposition parties misunderstood the legislation, and would be holding meetings to reassure them that the bill “is in very good shape”.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the back room meetings with the Government have produced change on the parts they were worried about.

“The rules around availability and short-notice termination of offers of short-term work, those are the areas we were concerned about.

“The original legislation looked like it was entrenching the worst aspects of zero-hours contracts.”

It wasn’t. The legislation was clearly getting rid of them, but if some clarifications have got Labour on board, that’s a good thing. Both parties agree with the principle that if an employee has no guaranteed hours, then they shouldn’t be able to be forced to work. In other words it should either be a genuinely casual contract (no obligations on ether side) or have a minimum hours guarantee in return for obligation of availability.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Has the Minister received advice on how many children’s lives would be saved and how many child hospital admissions would be prevented by a rental housing warrant of fitness; if yes, what are those figures?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, given the Student Loan Scheme Annual Report 2015 forecasts student loan debt will hit $15.458 billion this year?
3. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing the New Zealand economy is strengthening and exports are diversifying despite uncertainty in the global economic outlook?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Revenue: When was he first advised that employers owed $29.3 million in contributions to KiwiSaver accounts, and what action has he taken in response to this?
5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What is the Government doing to increase log processing in New Zealand to maximise wealth for the regions that produce them?
6. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress is being made to train more of the skilled graduates needed by New Zealand’s growing ICT industry?
7. JACINDA ARDERN to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with all of the outcomes of her predecessor’s family law reforms?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has she made about increasing emergency housing places in Auckland?
9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with his Government’s reported comments that it is unrealistic for New Zealand’s rivers to be swimmable all the time, and does he think that represents an acceptable and aspirational vision for New Zealand’s waterways?
10. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What has been the return on equity for Landcorp over the past three years?
11. MEKA WHAITIRI to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he believe the recent consultation hui on Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform has given him a mandate for land reform; if so, why?
12. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership support new and emerging primary industries?

National: Four questions on the economy, ICt industry, Aucklanfd housing and TPP

Labour: Four questions on student debt, KiwiSaver, family law reforms, and Te Ture Whenua Māori Reform

Greens: Two questions on rental properties and water

NZ First: One question on log precessing

ACT: One question on Landcorp

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

12 speeches of five minutes each for a maximum of one hour.

Private Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm

• Introduced: July 2015
• 1st reading: August 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2015, supported unanimously

Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill describes the relationship between Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board, the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika, and tangata whenua of Wairarapa and establishes a more robust nomination process of board members; provides a fairer distribution of funds for tangata whenua of Wairarapa; and facilitates the long-term development of lands. It is in the name of Wairarapa MP Alistair Scott.

• Introduced: December 2015

Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill

This bill will repeal the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002, which is now spent. It is in the name of Nicky Wagner.

• Introduced: December 2015

Members’ Bill 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Stuff reports:

A third resignation has rocked National Party ranks in MP Todd Barclay’s Clutha-Southland electorate.

The party’s electorate chairman Stuart Davie resigned on Sunday evening.

He said on Monday it was “untenable” for him to carry on at this time.

Davie declined to comment further, but his departure raises further questions about 25-year-old Barclay’s relationship with his staff and party members in his electorate.

Davie’s resignation follows on the heels of Barclay’s Gore-based senior electorate agent Glenys Dickson resigning this month, with a party figure saying it was due to an “employment problem” between Dickson and Barclay.

Dickson was a respected figure in the electorate and her departure is understood to have caused disquiet among many people in National Party ranks.

I don’t know anything beyond what has been reported, but fair to say not a good look. They may all be unconnected, but regardless would be very unhelpful to have any further departures.

As Trump looks more and more likely to win the Republican nomination, the question is will Republicans vote for him as a lesser evil to Clinton?

538 has an interesting looks at which elections saw the most defections from a party’s presidential candidate.

The top 10 in order are:

1. 33% of Democrats defected in 1980 to Reagan
2. 33% of Democrats defected in 1972 to Nixon
3. 27% of Republicans defected in 1992 to Clinton and Perot
4. 26% of Democrats defected in 1984 to Reagan
5. 26% of Democrats defected in 1968 Nixon and Wallace
6. 23% of Democrats defected in 1952 to Eisenhower
7. 23% of Democrats defected in 1992 to Perot/Bush
8. 20% of Republicans defected in 1964 to LBJ
9. 19% of Republicans defected in 1996 to Clinton
10. 17% of Democrats defected in 1998 to Bush

The last four elections have had low levels of defections – under 15%. Will 2016 break the trend?

The Herald reports:

The Government’s message to melanoma petitioners at Parliament today is to wait for the Budget when Pharmac will almost certainly get an increase in its funding.

It was still Pharmac’s job to decide where the best “bang for your buck” existed, Prime Minister John Key said.

Melanoma patients at present are having to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for life-saving drugs.

They and their families and supporters are preparing to hand over an 11,0000-signature petition today calling on the Government boost Pharmac’s funding so it can fund melanoma drugs.

So Pharmac will get more money but up to them to decide what drugs they spend it on.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the Pharmac model needed to be changed so that when life-saving drugs became available and there was a clear need, there should be some direction given to it.

“What we are keen to look at is tweaking the Pharmac model.”

He wanted to allow some funds to be available on a short-term basis for medicines for which full clinical evaluation might not yet be available.

He said that when a drug was available that had been proven effective in other countries “the politicians, being accountable for the use of taxpayers money should say, we want this available.”

So Andrew Little should decide, with all his specialist training, on what drugs are most effective – rather than the clinical experts at Pharmac.

UPDATE: Stuff has some interesting info:

Drug company lobbyists were hosted at a special dinner by Labour leader Andrew Little, months before Labour announced its stance to override Pharmac and fund melanoma drug Keytruda. 

Labour confirmed the dinner took place, understood to have been in Labour’s parliamentary offices, in September. 

Organised by Pharma lobbying group Medicines NZ, the dinner also included representatives from Keytruda makers Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Healthcare Logistics and Sanofi. 

I don’t think there was anything wrong with this, but if this was National, then Labour would be claiming they are in the pockets of Big Pharma.

However the stance is a u-turn on its position during the widely-publicised Herceptin debate in 2008.

It’s understood significant ructions are forming within Labour, over the issue. It’s believed some MPs and wider party members are not pleased with the moves to interfere with Pharmac’s purchasing model. 

Good.

National got it wrong to interfere on Herceptin. They admit that now. It would be good for Labour to pull back, so we have clincial experts deciding on drug funding, not MPs.

The Guardian reports:

Hardliners in Iran have been dealt a humiliating blow after reformist-backed candidates in Friday’s hard-fought elections appeared on course for a sweeping victory in Tehran, with a combination of moderates and independents sympathetic to President Hassan Rouhani leading in provinces.

A coalition of candidates supported by the reformists, dubbed “the list of hope”, is likely to take all of the capital’s 30 parliamentary seats, according to the latest tally released by the interior ministry, in surprising results seen as a strong vote of confidence in Rouhani’s moderate agenda. Mohammad Reza Aref, a committed reformist who has a degree from Stanford University in the US, is at the top of the list.

If someone with a US degree can be elected, that is a very good sign.

Preliminary results for the Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for appointing the next supreme leader, showed Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a key Rouhani ally, leading the race. Elections to the assembly are usually a lacklustre event but have attracted huge attention this time because of the age of the current leader, 76-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

If moderates can dominate the Assembly of Experts, then the next Supreme Leader may be more moderate also – which would be a good thing.

Andy Tookey has passed on an OIA response from Organ Donation NZ. It is an interesting over-view of ICU deaths and organ donations in NZ.

The data reveals:

• 1,123 deaths in ICUs
• 367 deaths where organ donation was possible (on a ventilator with sever brain damage)
• 135 deaths where organ donation was formally discussed
• 53 families agreed to donate

So there are two ways to increase the donation rate (well apart from increasing the number of deaths in ICU). They are:

1. Increase the proportion of deaths where organ donation is formally discussed
2. Increase the proportion of cases where it is agreed to after discussion

Only 37% of ICU deaths (135/367) had a formal discussion. I’m curious as to why that isn’t 90% or more.

Of those where there was a discussion, 61% of families said no. That is a high refusal rate (UK is aiming for 16% refusal rate) and to my mind reinforces why the decision should be the deceased’s, not the families.

The Herald reports:

The Super City has spent $1.24 billion on IT since it was formed in 2010 – enough money to pay for the council’s half share of the $2.5 billion city rail link.

Among the benefits, Aucklanders can now register dogs online and access nearly 100,000 e-books, but most online experiences with council are still a grind.

Libraries have also provided an e-magazine service called Zinio since 2013, peaking at 65,060 downloads last August. Popular titles include Woman’s Day, Cuisine andThe Economist.

Other improvements to the council’s IT system, such as booking a hall or swimming lesson online, are not far off, say council chief financial officer Sue Tindal and chief operating officer Dean Kimpton.

Let’s see if I have this right. They’ve spent $1.24 billion. That is $1,024 million on IT and you still can’t do online bookings in 2016.

Michael Woodhouse announced:

The minimum wage will increase by 50 cents to $15.25 an hour on 1 April 2016, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse announced today.

The starting-out and training hourly minimum wages rates will increase from $11.80 to $12.20 per hour, remaining at 80 per cent of the adult minimum wage.

“The Government has once again taken care to ensure the right balance has been struck between protecting our lowest paid workers, and ensuring jobs are not lost,” says Mr Woodhouse.

“An increase to $15.25 per hour will directly benefit approximately 152,700 workers and will increase wages throughout the economy by $75 million per year.

“With annual inflation currently at 0.1 per cent, an increase to the minimum wage by 3.4 per cent gives our lowest paid workers more money in their pocket, without imposing undue pressure on businesses or hindering job growth.

“The Government has increased the minimum wage every year since coming to office, from $12 to $15.25. This is an overall increase of 27% compared to inflation of around 11%.

What matters to people on the minimum wage is indeed not the nominal increase, but what it does to their after tax income. If you have low inflation, lower taxes and ACC levies and an increase in the minimum wage the combined impact can be significant.

Here’s what the difference is between April 2008 and April 2016.

April 2008:

• Minimum wage $12.00/hr
• Gross income on MW $25,029
• Tax $4,881 (19.5% effective rate)
• ACC $350 ($1.41%)
• Net Income $19,798
• Real Net Income (2016$) $22,718

April 2016:

• Minimum wage $15.25/hr
• Gross income on MW $31,807
• Tax $4,486 (14.4% effective rate)
• ACC $385 (1.21%)
• Net Income $26,836
• Real Net Income (2016$) $26,836

So someone working FT on the minimum wage is now 10.9% better off than in 2008. Worth remembering that when the unions and others all state how evil National is to low paid workers.

The problem with increasing the minimum wage is that if it goes too high, it will reduce the number of jobs available. This is beyond dispute – if you don’t believe me, then try a minimum wage of $100/hr and see what happens.

So the question is at what level does an increase in the minimum wage really start to impact employment. The research I’ve seen points to when the minimum wage becomes a high proportion of the median wage, you then start to really price jobs out of the labour market.

Now here’s the ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage since 2008:

• 2008 67%
• 2009 67%
• 2010 66%
• 2011 65%
• 2012 66%
• 2013 66%
• 2014 66%
• 2015 67%
• 2016 67%

So the ratio has not changed greatly.

What I’d like to see is the minimum wage not become a lottery every year but instead be set by statute as a percentage of the median wage, say the status quo of 67% (which is I think the highest in the OECD). This would then put the focus on increasing wages over the whole economy (which needs productivity gains to occur sustainably) rather than the politics of envy.

Stuff reports:

There has been only one confirmed road death in which the driver at fault had drunk enough alcohol to put them between the new and old drink-driving limits.

Labour transport spokeswoman Sue Moroney said the single death showed that lower-end drink-driving was not a high-risk area, and that a rise in the national road toll showed the Government’s road safety measures were not working.

As it happens I agree that drivers with between 50 and 80 blood alcohol are not a high risk. I’ve blogged many times that very few accidents occur with drivers at this level.

But the hypocrisy from Labour is laughable. They were the party demanding the limit drop from 80 to 50 and attacking the Government for not doing it more quickly. They even had a members bill in 2013 to do this.  As far as I can tell they have been demanding this since at least 2010. Here’s what Labour said in 2010:

“Professor Nutt believes we could reduce our road toll by two-thirds if we reduced the limit because it would alter patterns of driving.

So Labour have been the cheerleaders for reducing the limit, and now they’re saying that it isn’t a high-risk area.

Again they stand for nothing, but mindless criticism.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Finance: How does the outlook for the New Zealand economy compare with other developed countries?
2. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Will the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill guarantee that no New Zealand renter will live in a cold, damp, mouldy house that makes them sick; if not, why not?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Health, given the Minister’s statement regarding funding of Keytruda that Pharmac “haven’t got the money at the moment…that’s the issue”?
4. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made on the whole of government Gang Action Plan?
5. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for the Environment: When he said last year that the Marine Reserves Act “is now outdated. It does not provide for protection in the huge Exclusive Economic Zone”, was he saying that a new Act should provide for new marine reserves in our EEZ; if so, why has his position changed?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?
7. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has the Government made on the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?
8. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What was the dollar figure of net core Crown debt when he took office as Minister, and what is that dollar figure today?
9. STUART SMITH to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making on improving management of fresh water, and particularly in addressing the problem of stock polluting rivers, lakes, and wetlands?
10. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?
11. MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Primary Industries: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership support growth in our horticulture industry?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by the statement reportedly made on his behalf two weeks ago that the Saudi sheep deal is Murray McCully’s and all questions should be directed at him?

National: Five questions on the economy, gangs, Waikato Expressway, water and TPP

Labour: Four questions on Pharmac, Health Minister standing by statements, Crown debt and Saudi farm

Greens: Two questions on rental properties and the EEZ

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

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

Prime Minister’s Statement

There are four hours and 36 minutes remaining of the 13 hour debate. So 28 speeches to go.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – second reading continued

The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.

• Introduced: December 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 106 to 14 with Greens opposed
• Select Committee report: September 2015, supported unanimously with amendments

The second reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are three speeches remaining.

Radiation Safety Bill – third reading

The bill replaces the Radiation Protection Act 1965 to “provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological, scientific, and organisational changes that have occurred over the last 5 decades” and also enables “ratification of key relevant international instruments.”

• Introduced: December 2014
• 1st reading: March 2015, passed unanimously
• Select Committee report: August 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: November 2015, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: February 2016, passed unanimously

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

The ABC reports:

The United Nations has called on the West Australian Government to withdraw controversial new legislation that imposes harsh penalties on protesters.

The proposed laws were first introduced into Parliament in March 2015, and the Government insists it will only target radical protesters using devices like chains or thumb locks to block or stop lawful activities.

But the UN said it would “result in criminalising lawful protests and silencing environmentalists and human rights defenders”.

“If the bill passes, it would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association,” the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.

“The bill would criminalise a wide range of legitimate conduct by creating criminal offences for the acts of physically preventing a lawful activity and possessing an object for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity.

 “For example, peaceful civil disobedience and any non-violent direct action could be characterised as ‘physically preventing a lawful activity’.”

Under the proposed legislation, an offence would carry serious penalties of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $12,000.

If the offence was committed in circumstances of aggravation, the penalty could be as high as imprisonment for two years and a fine of $24,000.

I guess there are three sorts of protests:

1. Protests that do not stop or hinder others
2. Protests that do stop or hinder others from their legal business
3. Protests that are violent

Category 1 should always be legal and protected.

Category 3 should face criminal sanctions.

The in between category is more challenging. I like the idea of a specific offence for them, as you do want penalties for hindering others from their legal rights and duties. However I think imprisonment as a penalty goes too far.