Kiwiblog

Phil Goff was interviewed on Larry Williams yesterday on whether his CGT would effectively also be an estate tax.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Another thing can you clarify.  If somebody inherits a property and they sell a property, you pay capital gains tax on that based on the original cost of the property?

PHIL GOFF: Yeah if they sell it.  They don’t pay tax on the inheritance.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         So we’ve got an effective estate tax there?

PHIL GOFF: No, no we haven’t.  You – if I inherit my father’s house and I keep my father’s house rented out, I don’t pay capital gains tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         But if you sell it you do which is…

PHIL GOFF: If I sell it because it’s an investment property, yes I’ll pay tax on it like I will on any other investment property.  You can’t have it any other way without creating a massive loophole…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Which is really…

PHIL GOFF: No there is no inheritance tax.  You pay no tax…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         That’s right.

PHIL GOFF: … on a property that you inherit…

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Until you sell it.

PHIL GOFF: … unless you sell it.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Yeah, until you sell it which makes it in effect an estate tax…

PHIL GOFF: The same way of any other investment property Larry, why would you differentiate?

LARRY WILLIAMS:         No I’m just asking you the question because I spoke to Jo Dylan from Ernst & Young and she said it’s an effective estate tax.

PHIL GOFF: No well she’s wrong.

LARRY WILLIAMS:         Is she?  She’s an expert in taxes, well.

This is an interesting situation. The family home is not subject to CGT, but it is effectively when you die as far as I can tell.

Let’s say you own your own home and your parents own their home. And let’s say when they die their home is worth $300,000 more than what they paid for it say 15 years ago or at V Day.

Now it is highly likely you will not keep your parents home as an investment property. Partly for emotional reasons, it would be bloody difficult renting out to strangers the home your parents lived in, and you associate with them. But also if there is more than one child, the home generally has to be sold to allow the estate to be divided up.

So in the example above, you would end up with a $45,000 tax bill on your parent’s family home.

Unless I have something wrong, then the family home exemption is only while you live, and it will get taxed as part of your estate unless your children decide to turn the family home into an investment property (which I suspect happens very rarely).

Simon Collins at the NZ Herald reports:

A leading think tank has slammed New Zealand’s education system for producing disadvantaged youth who are worse off than in any other developed country.

On average our students do well. But our “tail” is known to perform worse than almost all other OECD countries.

The business-backed New Zealand Institute, which has focused until now on economic policy, says the education system has lost sight of the need to keep young people engaged in school and transition successfully into work.

It recommends radical reforms including widespread use of computer-based e-learning, putting students on to pathways to work from the first year of intermediate school (Year 7), giving employers more input into what schools teach and giving all students career advice through school years and support after leaving school.

I hope the Government take the report and recommendations seriously.

The institute believes e-learning can reduce boredom by giving students personal links with teachers and global audiences for their work. At Auckland’s decile 1 Pt England School, with 93 per cent Maori and Pacific students, Mubasshira Mehter’s blog has been viewed by 17,452 people in 125 countries.

“People can see our work and what we’ve been doing around our school,” said Mubasshira, who is 12.

Five local primary schools have joined Tamaki Intermediate and Tamaki College in the Manaiakalani (“Hook from Heaven”) Trust, which carries the credit risk for parents to buy $400 notebook computers for their children at $15 a month for three years, including an internet connection and technical support.

Pt England principal Russell Burt said the schools used new media as “the hook of engaging students”.

And that is very much the future. Every three year old should have an iPad as a learning and development tool.

The NZI report is here.

A reader writes from Dunedin about how he received an unsolicited e-mail from Labour’s Dunedin North candidate, David Clark. He asked Labour how he got to be on their mailing list and their response was:

The list I have has come to me from a wide variety of sources from people who have agreed to further contact. I’m afraid only you can answer that question.

The reader responds to Mr Clark:

I just can’t imagine where I would have – if I were intentionally signing up to a newsletter (which I’m particularly unlikely to do, and even more so for a Labour candidate) I would have used my “proper” email address. Your assistance to try and figure this out would be greatly appreciated.

Now, you announced your candidacy just under a year ago. Obviously if you’re following the anti-spam legislation (which I understand you’re arguably exempt from as this isn’t strictly for commercial gain, but surely you’d stick to anyway under the premise of not wanting to be a spammer) then I would have had to specifically opt in for this mailing list sometime since then.

We can discount November and December last year as I was out of the country for this time, taking us down to a 10 month window.

I definitely wouldn’t have signed up to this through your web page (I would’ve followed you on Twitter first – which I’ve just done now), so we can discount that avenue too. I haven’t signed any petitions or anything in that time period, so if that’s a possible avenue we can ignore that too. I haven’t been to any Labour events, and have never met you so that must remove some more possibilities.

So we’re down to a 10 month window during which time I’ve never met you or been to any events you’ve been at in an official capacity, never been to your web site, and never put my name on anything Labour, yet in this time I’ve specifically opted in to your mailing list using an email address I wouldn’t actually use for this kind of thing.

Now that I’ve clarified my position, do you have any ideas of where it may have come from?

The reader just can not work out hos that e-mail address could have opted in to their list. Then another response:

Given the the list of possibilities you’ve ruled out, my best guess is that you may have been on a local Labour supporters list (in error?) that has been around for a while.

Which is unusual as he has not received e-mails before.

I have some idea of the challenges in this area as I used to handle the e-mails for National. I was always concerned about how we answer the question “How did you get my e-mail address” as the methods of collection did vary from area to area. What we settled on was to add a field to the database where we could denote the source of the e-mail address, and the date they signed up. So it might say “website” or “xx MP newsletter” etc.

Just offering to unsubscribe someone isn’t enough. If you are not sure if you have consent from someone, then send them a one off e-mail asking them if they want to be added to your database, rather than assume.

With the NZEI petition e-mail addresses, and the Sevens petition in Wellington, and other incidents Labour have shown a very lax attitude around ensuring consent for those they e-mail. There is no legal remedy for this, but there is a political one.

Trevor Mallard blogs:

Turns out it was my cockup that resulted in an email intended for supporters getting out into the blogs and then the MSM.

I added a few friends and acquaintances who are interested in politics to a list to get the package stopping asset sales and doing a tax switch to my normal supporters list. They got that on Thursday as the embargo came off.

Unfortunately for me I used that list again instead of my normal supporters list on Friday evening when I described the positive response to the package.

On it inter alia was David Farrar.

My bad. I’m sorry.

It is true I received Trevor’s e-mail. But I did not pass it onto Whale. I glanced at the first sentence and deleted it unread as was too busy to read Trevor’s propaganda in detail. I did not see all the juicy stuff about Trevor saying the public don’t care about the details, and suggesting lines for supporters and MPs to use on Twitter (which many of his faithful colleagues then used).

If I had seen that, I would have blogged it myself – not given it to Whale!

Whale got the e-mail from someone else, not me. And good on him for taking the time to read it!

If in future Trevor sends me secret supporter e-mails, I’d appreciate it if he puts the juicy stuff up the top, so I actually see it!

Am amazing video showing Catherine Destivelle climbing cliff faces with no ropes or safety gear. Incredible strength and agility.

In a final ballot run-off, Paul Goldsmith pipped Aaron Bhatnagar. Congrats to Paul, and commiserations to Aaron and the other candidates.

On Wednesday Night I went to see An Oak Tree at Circa. It runs until Sat 30 July.

The concept of the show is fascinating. There are two characters only. One, a hypnotist is played by Tim Spite. He was also the driver of a car which killed the daughter of the other actor.

The other character is played by a different person each night. For the next week, the guest actors are:

• Tue 19 July – Miranda Harcourt
• Wed 20 July – Paul McLaughlin
• Thu 21 July – Martyn Wood
• Fri 22 July – Jason Whyte
• Sat 23 July – Heather O’Carroll
• Sun 24 July – Phil Grieve

Now here is why they use a different actor each night. The actor does not know the script in advance. All they know is the broad concept.

This is not a improvised show. The guest actor does not have to make their script up. They just get it delivered a few words at a time. Sometimes Spite, as the hyponotist, will tell them what to say. Sometimes they’ll be handed a piece of paper with the next few lines on it.

On Wednesday the guest actor was Jessica Robinson. It was great observing her, as she had to act out scenes with just seconds to think. While she gets given the words, you have to come up with the facial expressions and body language to match. It must be one of the more challenging things you can do as an actor, and Robinson did it very well. Spite, as always, was masterful.

The show only runs for 70 minutes, and the time seems to run by, which is always the sign of a good show. You spend half the time just enjoying the challenge of the guest actor repeating their lines, and half the time soaking up the emotions as the two characters confront each other.

I enjoyed it greatly, and almost want to go back for a second night, to see how a different guest actor would go. I’d especially love to see Miranda Harcourt play the part.

NZPA report:

An Otago student is to spend two nights locked in a cage in freezing Dunedin to protest a proposed law that would make student union membership voluntary.

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by ACT’s Heather Roy, is currently awaiting its final reading before Parliament,

Supporters say student unions are the only ones left that have compulsory membership, and end up being controlled by political activists who run partisan campaigns that do not represent members.

Opponents argue the bill will destroy valuable associations that provide services at universities and polytechs because most students are hard up and would not voluntarily pay fees.

Otago University Students’ Association student president Logan Edgar is today preparing to lock himself in a cage, on the university’s Union Lawn from 7pm, to protest the bill.

Sadly all Otago students are forced to pay Mr Edgar’s salary. Yep, they get no choice about it Hopefully in the not too distant future they will have the choice of saying you embarrass us with your idiot stunts, and we are not going to pay you to be a idiot any more.

Remember that Labour have made their top parliamentary priority stopping students from being able to stop funding dickheads. They want it to remain compulsory.

A new website which I will check out often – the Justice Hot Tub.

Contributors are Gil Elliott, Garth McVicar, Stephen Franks and Greg King. Greg is one of NZ’s top criminal defence lawyers, so his presence means there should be a healthy diversity of opinion in debating issues around our criminal justice system.

In a desperate attempt to justify whacking the “rich” with higher taxes, Rob Salmond comes up with a new form of maths – when a figure is negative you count it as zero, rather than include it in the calculation.

According to Rob if you had assets and liabilities of (for example):

1. Term Deposit – $200,000
2. Shares – $100,000
3. Loan – $50,000

Then your term deposit is only 67% of your net assets ($200,000/$300,000) rather than 75% 80% ($200,000/$250,000).

Hilarious. And desperate.

Over at Stuff, I look at the numbers in the latest Colmar Brunton poll, and look at which Labour MPs would be toast, and which are hanging on.

I also look at the projected seats – National/ACT/United are on 71 seats, and 75 seats with the Maori Party. That is a pretty hefty margin.

Labour have said that over 15 years their tax package will reduce debt by $8b. Steven Joyce says it will increase debt by $15b. Let’s have a look at where their numbers differ.

First it is worth recalling that what is undisputed is that Labour’s package will result in more debt for at least the next seven years. It is only if Labour win this election, the 2014 election and 2017 election that in their third term would their tax switch start to reduce debt – by their own calculations.

By Steven Joyce’s calculations, it will never reduce debt. At a time when debt is growing massively, Labour is actually proposing to borrow for tax cuts – they very thing they have accused National of in the past.

Now I’m going to go through the differences line by line. Keith Ng has also blogged on some of the differences. Keith, like me, is a former parliamentary staffer for Labour (National for me of course) so we both tend to have a more favourable disposition towards numbers from our own side. But that doesn’t mean one can’t also look at the quality of the argument.

CGT – The $1.6b difference is not hugely significant, both Keith and I agree. This is for revenue over 13 years, so the difference is around $100m a year. Joyce uses a Treasury CGT model developed in 2011, and Cunliffe uses BERL. Joyce makes the point though (which has not been covered much) that getting a CGT in place by April 2013 would be nigh impossible considering the huge number of issues being left to the expert panel. You need time to appoint panel, have the panel do its work, then draft a bill up, and then go through select committee process.

New top tax rate – Joyce has this coming in at $934m less over 13 years. Not a big difference per annum. I would tend towards the lower figure because I think it is inevitable that a top personal tax rate of 39% and a company tax rate of 28% will see massive (legal) avoidance. We already know half the top 100 earners don’t pay the top rate. This policy will probably see it drop even lower.

Loss ring-fencing. The TWG said loss ring-fencing will lead to behavioural changes, so Labour’s policy will only bring in half of what Labour says. Keith Ng basically agrees, so little dispute there.

Anti-avoidance. Labour have just invented a figure of $300m a year from greater anti-avoidance work. Now this is pie in the sky. If Labour announced actual law changes to reduce avoidance, then maybe you can estimate revenue changes. But this is the equivalent of “I hope it happens”. Keith Ng is right that it is probably not realistic to say Labour will not be able to get any extra revenue at all, but when you consider most experts are saying their tax package will make the tax system more complicated, I think avoidance will increase not decrease. In the absence of any specifics around anti-avoidance measures, I think you go with zero.

Agriculture ETS. this is basically an argument about what the price of a carbon credit will be. Cunliffe uses $50 and Joyce $25. Ng backs Cunliffe on the basis that the PCE has said they estimate the price will be $50 by 2030 if there is little international action on climate change and $100 if there is a moderate commitment. Australia’s ETS is priced at NZ$30.

However against that the current international price is 11 euros, which is NZ19 only. And bear in mind this is for the whole period 2013 – 2025. Let’s say the PCE is right and in 2030 the price is $50. Then if you assume linear price increases, maybe an average price is $35 for the period of the forecasts. So around halfway between what Joyce and Cunliffe say. Personally trying to predict ETS revenues more than a few years out is very challenging as it all depends on if a post-Kyoto agreement can be reached.

The first $5,000 tax free zone has a $2.2b difference over 13 years. Keith says:

Everyone earning over $5000/year would get the benefit of the whole tax free threshold. That’s pretty much everyone in the workforce. So if everyone already gets something, how would more people get it?

The cost of a tax-threshold only grows when new people enter the workforce.

So unless Joyce thinks he can create 3 million jobs (and find 3 million workers to fill them) in the next decade, this is a patently stupid and ridiculous result. Common sense would tell you that it is impossible.

This one goes firmly in Labour’s favour.

But Keith misses a key point. It is one I have blogged on many times, but gets so little media attention. Labour’s tax free zone is not just for people in the workforce. They have pledged it will also apply to everyone on benefits, even though benefits are calculated on an after tax basis.

Labour are actually promising to increase all benefits by $10 a week – the first ever increase (beyond inflation) for over 20 years. Tax cuts have never applied to benefits in the past (as they are calculated on an after tax basis). Cullen’s 2008 tax cuts did not. But Labour is saying they will pay people on the dole more money for not working.

Also as superannuation is calculated with a floor linked to the after tax average wage, their tax free threshold will increase the cost of superannuation.

So Keith is wrong when he says the tax-free threshold will only increase in cost when new people enter the workforce. It will increase in cost whenever we get new workers, new beneficiaries or new pensioners.

Now having said all that, National’s numbers do still look a bit high with the cost increasing approx $80 million a year, which suggest an extra 160,000 people per year working (as tax free zone is $500 of foregone revenue), on benefits or retired. So while Keith gets some stuff wrong, National’s numbers may be too high.

On GST there is no dispute, and for R&D tax credits Keith says National’s figures look more robust.

Then finally we have the biggie – finance costs, or the extra interest on the extra borrowing. There can be no debate that one should calculate finance costs, unless Labour has convinced the People’s Republic of China to loan us money at 0% interest. This is an extra $7.5 b of costs. Even if you take Labour’s numbers for some of the items, you will still have billions in finance costs.

Using Cunliffe’s numbers Labour is borrowing for at least seven years. If you go to Keith Ng’s numbers then I’d say (Keith didn’t do formally calculate this) that the borrowing is for at least a decade, and if you think Joyce’s numbers are more realistic (and for the most part I think they are) then Labour’s package is never fiscally positive.

But the up to $15b of extra debt is just the beginning. You see Labour done a big lie, and said it is a choice of asset sales or their tax package. But they have not calculated for any increased borrowing through no sales. If you add on the extra $7b they will need to borrow, then the borrowing figure climbs to up to $22b. Of course there will be over the long term less income from dividends.

But even putting aside the asset sales issue, the big big issue is spending. You see Labour’s debt track is already up to $15b higher – before they even fund a single spending promise. it is impossible to think that Labour is going to campaign on spending no more than National. Labour were increasing spending at $2b a year and National reduced this growth to $1.1b, then $0.8b and finally zero. Each time, to protests from Labour. Let’s say Labour promises an extra $1b a year of spending (they have implicitly already promised many billions through their opposition to spending reductions).

The cumulative debt from an extra $1b/year of spending is:

• Year 1 – $1b
• Year 2 – $3b
• Year 3 – $6b
• Year 4 – $10b
• Year 5 – $15b
• Year 6 – $21b

Basically Labour are going to increase debt with their tax package, increase debt with their spending, and increase debt through not doing partial floats of SOEs.

Danya Levy at the Dom Post reports:

Prime Minister John Key says the Government was powerless to stop disgraced former minister Richard Worth being re-appointed as Monaco’s honorary consul to New Zealand.

Worth was reappointed to the position last October.

In 2009, he resigned from Parliament after sexual allegations against him by two women. He was never charged over the alleged incidents.

Key said Worth held the position before becoming a minister in his Government but resigned because of conventions protecting potential conflicts of interests.

The government of Monaco had approached New Zealand to have him reappointed when he was no longer a minister.

”The important point here is that it is nothing to do with me, it’s who do the people of Monaco want to represent them here in New Zealand and the answer is Richard Worth,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully had sought a legal opinion over whether the Government could prevent his re-appointment, Key said. However, the Government was advised it had no grounds to stop it.

Richard Worth was the Consul for Monaco for many years before he became a Minister. It is no surprise they asked him to resume the role after he left Parliament.

What I find interesting is the massive difference in reporting around Darren Hughes and Richard Worth. Both men were accused of sexual crimes, and in both cases no charges were laid. In the case of Darren Hughes, the media report that he could stand again for Parliament in a few years

Yet when it comes to Richard Worth, the reporting suggests there is something wrong that he has got on with his life after Parliament and assumed one of his former roles – a role far far less publicly significant than standing for Parliament again.

Family First have done this video to bolster their argument that some parents have been prosecuted for trivial acts of parental discipline.

While I have to say I’m largely over the debate (and I think most Kiwis are also), my view is the same as in 2007 – that the law should be changed in line with the Borrows amendment which would actually define reasonable force, and apply it to all situations where parents may need to use some force.

Chooka Parker from Australia’s Got Talent. Not bad.

Tonight’s One News poll:

• National – 53% (+1)
• Labour – 27% (-7)
• Greens – 10% (+4)
• Maori – 3% (+1.4)
• ACT – 3.1% (+0.6)
• NZ First – 2.4% (+0.8)
• United Future – 0.3%
• Mana – 0.5% (-0.4)

The poll was taken after the media reported that Labour would announce a capital gains tax, but before they released the details on Thursday.

Andre Hueber at the HoS reports:

One of the country’s most notorious criminals has been awarded $3500 compensation – for breach of privacy and hurt feelings.

The man, who is currently serving a prison sentence, has been convicted of crimes including attacking a police officer, unlawful possession of firearms, aggravated robbery, theft, burglary and trying to escape from custody.

But he took umbrage when he learned that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had wrongly listed him as having a conviction under the heading of “domestic violence”. …

He said the stress and injury to his feelings, aggravated by the MSD’s unlawful actions, meant “nothing less than monetary compensation and an apology is acceptable to me”. …

The tribunal decided his privacy had been breached, he had suffered emotional harm, and he was entitled to a payout. Without him asking, the tribunal also ordered that he not be identified, in order to protect his family. …

MSD chief executive Peter Hughes issued a terse statement to the Herald on Sunday.

“His violent criminal history speaks for itself and he has spent much of his life in prison,” Hughes said. “

“He said our refusal to put a note on his file when he originally asked us caused him considerable distress, loss of dignity, humiliation and that his feelings were hurt. He then wanted money from us. I declined to pay him anything.”

But, said Hughes, the tribunal had ordered $3500 compensation and – although he disagreed with the decision – he would comply.

I think what offends me most is not the $3,500 but the name suppression, so that New Zealanders can not find out for themselves what his full criminal history is.

Cost of Labour’s Promises

Steven Joyce has put Labour’s numbers through the Treasury calculator (found at http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/fiscalstrategy/model) and found that it is far worse than even Labour were revealing.

Labour’s own numbers revealed that their tax plans would lead to greater deficits and debt for the next six to seven years. They desperately did not want people to know this, so left this document off their website.

But their own numbers were inflated, such as as imaginary $300m a year from reduced tax avoidance (despite them wanting to have an 11c gap between the top tax rate and the company rate). They also failed to take account of interest costs, and over-estimated revenue from some of their measures. The numbers on the CGT itself were largely accurate, but on the rest of their package were crap.

So what does it mean? It means Labour’s package will result in less tax revenue until 2024! And then when you take account of the interest on the extra borrowing, it will result in an extra $15b of borrowing between now and 2025.

But it does not end there. This assumes that Labour will keep to National’s spending track. That they will not pledge one cent extra in spending than National. That there won’t be one cent extra for early childhood education etc.

So the $15b of extra debt is just on the revenue side. Wait until they release their spending plans and see that number increase exponentially.

The problem is not Labour’s CGT per se. The problem is that their promise to remove income tax on the first $5,000 of income is unaffordable. It has no fiscal credibility and can only be funded by increased borrowing.

Bernard Hickey writes in the HoS:

Prime Minister John Key says a capital gains tax is one of the “third rails” of politics in New Zealand – and anyone who touches it will, in political terms, be killed instantly.

This week Labour touched that rail and received only an invigorating tingle rather than the shock of their lives.

That may be a premature call.

The debate is welcome, but Labour could have done much better and should be trumpeting how such a tax would shift investment into more productive export industries and create higher-wage jobs to keep young New Zealanders here.

Instead, it has watered down that message by proposing a capital gains tax that is full of exemptions and then used the revenues to shuffle tax from the very rich to the poorest. …

The exemptions for the family home, for residences in family trusts, for Maori land, collectibles and gambling winnings will be welcomed with open arms by budding tax accountants and lawyers.

These will be high-paid jobs, but they’re not the sort we want.

The exemption for gambling is interesting. If you take a chance by investing in the (initially) unproven company Xero, and make a capital gain you’ll be taxed on it. But if you take a chance at a casino and win the same amount of money, you’re exempt from tax.

A land tax would have been much more efficient, simple and lucrative.

The idea put forward to the Tax Working Group in late 2009 by Motu economist Arthur Grimes for a 0.5 per cent land tax with a $50,000 a hectare tax-free threshold and the ability to defer payment until sale would have raised about $2 billion a year.

I support a land tax, so long as income tax rates are cut to compensate.

Whale has a copy of Trevor Mallard’s e-mail to the masses. The key extract:

How­ever, as we all know the NACT team will be com­ing for us over the week­end, there will be hic­cups includ­ing a TVNZ poll taken before the launch and with­out the pol­icy details. We want to keep the momen­tum going as much as is possible.

The key point for us is not to be dragged down into the detail on the CGT. The pub­lic don’t care and we get boring.

Very ironic. Trevor is saying ignore the poll because it was taken before the policy details were known, yet he is also instructing the faithful to avoid mentioning the detail as he says the public don’t care about it.

If they don’t care about the detail, then the TVNZ poll should be regarded as accurate as it was taken after they had announced there would be a CGT but prior to any details. Can’t have it both ways.

Trevor even supplies pre-fabricated tweets for Labourites to use:

• Labour’s plan to keep assets and pay off debt  #ownourfuture
• Labour’s bold plan for the econ­omy– most NZers will get a tax break  #ownourfuture
• NZ not for sale #ownourfuture
• Fam­ily home exempt – tax not ret­ro­spec­tive #ownourfuture
• Kiwis bet­ter off with Labour #ownourfuture
• Stop Asset Sales #ownourfuture
• Labour’s plan means we can keep our assets #ownourfuture
• If you are in a hole, don’t sell the lad­der #ownourfuture
• Labour: Keep our assets to grow our econ­omy not some­one else’s #ownourfuture
• Labour’s tax reform will pay the debt down, and lets Kiwis own our future.    #ownourfuture

Of course the tax reform will not pay the debt down until at least 2018. It will increase the deficit and debt for the next two terms of Parliament if implemented.

NRT blogs:

this month ResearchNZ asked about it in their regular monthly poll of social attitudes. The question was

“In your view, should same sex couples also be allowed to marry?”According to the results [offline, but will be up here later], 60% of respondents were in favour and 34% opposed

If that is correctly reported, then that is a great result.

Support was higher amongst women (66%) than men (51%), and significantly higher amongst young people, with 79% of those in the 18 – 34 age bracket in support (vs “only” 61% of 35 – 54 years olds, and 44% among older people).

With 80% support amongst under 35s, I’d say it is inevitable and just a matter of time.

Some people thought the world would end with civil unions. It didn’t. All that happened is same sex couples who wanted to pledge their love for each other were able to do so in a way which has legal recognition.

Civil unions are marriage in substance, but not in name. I don’t think it is a burning issue, but I do think that Parliament should listen to the people, and amend the Marriage Act to allow same sex marriages.

The Dominion Post shows what people saw on Labour’s new website.

They’re blaming You Tube and computers for it, but the solution is simple. You untick the box which says “show related videos”. You also test before you go public.