Nick Leggett blogs at Pundit:

It seems the underlying premise of recent comments by some “outsider” activists and politicians like myself are correct: Labour isn’t
 aiming for 40% plus of the vote because they neither want – nor know how – to go about winning it. Those in charge of the party know the only way to keep the agenda and the caucus small is by keeping the vote low and encouraging the Greens and Mana-Internet to grow their support in the next Parliament. “Hopefully,” they say, “we can stitch together a rag-tag coalition of the weird and the wonderful.”



As a life-long (moderate and pro-enterprise) Labour supporter, I would rather the party win significantly more people like me and get the vote to say 38%, than appear as they do, which seems to be a preference for Hone, Laila and the Greens to be elected to the next Parliament instead of good candidates further down the Labour list.



David Cunliffe said he wanted to poll higher than National. Then it was he wanted to make 40%. Then it was make the high 30s. Then it was the mid to low 30s was the target for victory. Now it seems Labour regards anything higher than the 28% they got last time as an improvement, and as Nick says, hope Hone, Laila, Kim, Winston, Russell and Metiria an get then over the line.

A talented Wellingtonian, with proven electoral appeal told me that last year he offered himself up as a prospective Labour candidate for Ohariu. He was advised however by the senior party person he asked not to bother because he wasn’t a woman. If I revealed who he is, I’m sure most people would agree that had he been selected, Peter Dunne would now be looking down the barrel of voter-enforced retirement.

The unofficial man ban at work!

Deciding also against a well-credentialed and popular local candidate in Kapiti District Councillor, Penny Gaylor, Labour sent an unmistakable message that winning Otaki off National is not a priority. 

(Ed – Rob McCann won that nomination). These are two examples that show how far Labour has positioned itself away from communities. The party appear not to care about re-establishing bases in and amongst communities in provincial and suburban New Zealand by selecting candidates who god forbid might actually win some votes.

Labour’s highest ranked new list candidate, their Ohariu and Otaki candidates all are (or were) public servants. Now nothing wrong with being a public servant – we have many good ones. But if you want to win seats and votes, you need broad appeal.

Meanwhile there are list MPs approaching their third and fourth election this year in seats that should be winnable but somehow they have never managed to win. Some of these MPs have again been rewarded with high list placings, so where is the incentive for them to win those electorates? The bigger question is, why doesn’t the party appear to care?

Labour faces the possibility of not getting a single new List MP into Parliament.

It seems Labour has given up on gaining votes from aspirational workers who want to own their own home, those who strive to run a small business and the people pottered throughout every class, culture and community in New Zealand who care deeply about reforming the systems and policies that continually fail our children.

Labour has to start behaving like a force that stands for a cause again, rather than a defender of the status quo that screams madly every time the government says it wants to reform something. It must move again to become a party for the public, not just the public service. 

Better still, it would be great to see some reform ideas from my party.

Absolutely. That’s a great line – a party for the public, not just the public service.

The Herald reports:

Associate Transport Minister Michael Woodhouse says he will not rule out making tourists sit a driving test before letting them get behind the wheel on New Zealand roads.

But for now, road safety authorities will focus on improving driving in the Queenstown region, where the rate of crashes involving foreign drivers is disproportionately high.

Speaking at the National Party annual conference in Wellington yesterday, Mr Woodhouse said stricter measures for overseas visitors such as making them sit a test before hiring a rental car were being considered.

The minister was responding to a 31,000-signature petition presented to him last week by 10-year-old Sean Roberts, from Geraldine.

Sean proposed driving tests for foreigners after his father was killed by a visiting student motorist when he was riding a motorbike on the Lindis Pass, near Wanaka, in 2012.

Driving tests for tourists will never happen. I know of no country on earth that does this. It would kill a lot of tourism dead. Who would come to a country where there is a risk you might be not allowed to drive?

What I would support is testing New Zealanders more than once in forty years. Just because you passed a test at 16 does not mean at 30 you still remember it all.

I think we should have to resit our practical tests say every ten years.

Matt Heath writes in the NZ Herald:

A terrible injustice has befallen commercial radio. A change in the law has stopped us giving away alcohol on air.

Campaigners have convinced the Government that a sniff of free booze will instantly turn Kiwis into alcoholics and criminals. I’m not so sure.

Like most Kiwis I enjoy a drink. In fact, I love a drink. I’m having a beer as I write this. But I am not an alcoholic and I don’t have a drinking problem. My drinking is more like a hobby. Sadly, like all pastimes, work and family commitments keep me away from it. …

Anti-alcohol campaigners turn a blind eye to the good booze does in the community. You only have to go to a restaurant to hear the happiness it brings. People laughing and enjoying each other’s company. You can’t put these good people in the same boat as a bastard who beats his family.

Indeed they do often overlook the immense enjoyment most adults get from alcohol.

Campaigners use the terribly behaved to beat up on the slightly naughty. They use the sick to hassle the healthy; their bad experiences to limit the good experiences of others. If the alcohol debate was a weather report then light breezes would be the same as hurricanes, spring showers would become weather bombs and Jim Hickey would lose his job.

The reality is there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting sauced. No crime in catching a taxi home because you’ve had too many. Nearly every newsreader, reporter, politician and police officer has.

There is no shame in drinking, dancing, singing and enjoying the company of other humans.

Sure you could do all those things without alcohol. But thankfully we live in a country where we don’t have to.

Well not yet, but the wowsers are doing their best.

The only thing I would change is to have an app on your smartphone that won’t allow you to text or call people if your breath alcohol is over a certain level. That would have saved me a lot of grief in the last month!

But what of the social cost? Domestic violence, drunk drivers, burglary, assault, couch burning and firetrucking. I’m not doing any of those things. I bet you aren’t either.

I might slur “you’re my best mate” and turn the music up till it distorts. But I never stab people or rob their houses. Bad behaviour is a dickhead problem not a booze problem.

Let’s celebrate the good alcohol does in the community. The new guy who becomes fast friends over work drinks. The shy couple who gain the courage to talk to each other for the first time. The diplomats who seal a deal for the country at the bar after a conference. The victorious sports team singing the national anthem after everyone has gone home.

Celebrating booze – I love it.

Michael Fox at Stuff reports:

The Waitangi Tribunal has set new targets for resolving Treaty claims, aiming to have all land-based and historic claims resolved by 2020.

Excellent. The Waitangi Tribunal plays a useful role in investigating and reporting on historic claims, helping Iwi and the Crown reach settlements.

“These inquiries have played an important role in assisting iwi and the Crown to resolve historic claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as broadening all New Zealanders’ understanding of the role of the Treaty in our nation’s past, present and future,” he said.

The tribunal’s focus would shift from the completion of those inquiries to hearing kaupapa (issue-based) and contemporary claims.

Kaupapa claims involved issues of national significance such as the inquiries into the recognition of the Maori language, New Zealand’s law and policy affecting Maori culture and identity and national freshwater and geothermal issues.

Contemporary claims, such as that relating to the decision to leave the sunken Rena where it lay, related to the application of the Treaty to modern-day issues that have occurred since 21 September 1992, Judge Isaac said.

I’m less convinced that we should keep the Tribunal to hear contemporary claims. I’d rather we give Iwi the right to go to the High Court and get a declaratory judgement that a certain action was in breach of the Treaty. I think the Tribunal has played a useful role with the historical claims, but contemporary claims are, in my opinion, better suited to a court of law.

This graph shows the price/probability at iPredict of there being a Labour Prime Minister after the 2014 election.

As one can see Labour’s chances were above or around 50% during 2012. In 2013 they dropped slightly but remained between 40% and 50%. Then Labour changed leaders and their chances increased to 60%. But look at what has happened in the last nine months. It has been a huge collapse, and this month they dropped below 20% probability for the first time.

Stuff reports:

With nine terms in Parliament under Trevor Mallard’s belt, critics might say he is a political dinosaur. But no-one could say his latest idea is old-school thinking.

With “the science of de-extinction advancing quickly”, as he put it, the Hutt South MP has laid down a challenge for Lower Hutt and for scientists: Let’s work towards the possibility of moa one day striding again through the bush of Rimutaka Forest Park.

While admitting it sounded “a bit Jurassic Park”, Mallard said scientists had been making progress on techniques for using recovered DNA from extinct animals to reconstruct new life.

Fifty to 100 years from now, Wainuiomata could again be home to the moa, which would make an enormous difference to the environment, community and economy, he said.

And people say Labour doesn’t have an economic development plan. They do. it’s bringing back the moa. And to be fair it is more credible than most of their other policies.

In Wellington on Thu 10 July is a political pub debate between Otago graduates National’s Paul Foster-Bell, Labour’s Grant Robertson, and the Greens’ Holly Walker.

If you want to attend it is on 10 July at St John’s Bar. 5.30pm for a 6.30pm start. If you can make it, RSVP to [email protected].

Stuff reports:

Student gets stuck in giant stone vagina

An easy headline for the sub-editor.

What was meant to be a funny dare turned into an utter embarrassment for an American exchange student, who found himself trapped in a giant stone vagina in Germany.

Damn Americans!

The unnamed man is believed to have been dared to climb inside the sculpture, which sits outside the university’s institute for microbiology and virology.

I did wonder why there was a stone sculpture of a vagina!

A total of 22 firefighters, five fire engines and a number of paramedics were sent to the scene, and quickly freed the man “by hand without use of equipment”, the newspaper reported.

22 firefighters for one stuck person? You could just imagine the scene at the station when they get a call that someone is stuck in the giant stone vagina – no one would want to not see that one, so they sent out five trucks!

Nick Smith has announced:

Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith today announced a reduction to Kapiti Island permit fees to come into effect from tomorrow.

“Kapiti Island is an iconic landmark which deserves to be enjoyed by as many New Zealanders as possible. DOC will drop the permit fee for adults from $28.75 to $10.00 and waive the fee for all children aged 17 and under from tomorrow,” Dr Smith says.

The change, announced by the Minister this evening in Paraparaumu, follows an independent review of Kapiti Island visitor management which was undertaken at the end of the 2013/14 summer season. DOC commissioned the review to address the steady decline in the number of visitors to Kapiti Island in recent years.

“It was particularly concerning to see that only 402 people visited the island in January this year, compared with 1569 in January last year. The Kapiti Island tour operators have raised concerns about ongoing declines in visitor numbers following changes in how visits are run and increases in DOC’s permit fees. These fee changes will cost DOC $59,850 per year.

“The Kapiti Island tour operators and Ōtaki MP Nathan Guy have raised concerns that the fee structure was causing a decline in the number of visitors. DOC does not believe this is the only factor contributing to the declining numbers in that the trend precedes the fee changes, and that the operators and DOC also need to up the marketing effort for the island experience.

“There is a real lesson for DOC as there has been for Zealandia in Wellington that there is significant price sensitivity to these sorts of sanctuary experiences. The reason I have backed the fee reduction is that I want as many people as possible to enjoy and experience the unique birdlife that defines New Zealand but which is so rare on the mainland.

It was costing $300 for a family of four to visit the island. They had priced themselves out of the market.

“The decision to waive the fee for children aged 17 and under is because I particularly want DOC to connect with young people. We need to educate our young people of the vulnerability of our native birds and the work DOC does to ensure their future survival.

A great way to get kids over there to appreciate it.

Nikki Kaye announced:

Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye today announced that the government will be adopting a new Health Star Rating food labelling system.

“Cabinet agreed earlier this week to New Zealand adopting this voluntary system that has been developed as part of the Australian and New Zealand Ministers’ Food Forum,” Ms Kaye says.

I’m supportive of this, for three reasons.

1. It is voluntary, not mandatory
2. Providing information to people so they can make better informed decisions is far better way to deal with obesity than trying to ban things
3. The star rating system is more nuanced than other systems such as traffic lights which are too simplistic.

Research has shown the system will have a positive effect on consumers’ ability to identify healthier food products, Ms Kaye says. Uptake will be determined by companies choosing to adopt it and consumer demand. 

The new system uses a star rating scale of ½ to 5 stars and, except for some exclusions such as alcohol, is able to be used on all packaged food products for retail sale. Foods with more stars reflect better nutritional value. The number of stars is determined by an algorithm that considers the overall nutritional value of the food.

The way they are calculated is:

The nutrient profiling system used in the Health Star Rating system is consistent with Dietary Guidelines. The system takes into account four aspects of a food associated with increasing the risk factors for chronic diseases (energy, saturated fat, sodium and total sugars) along with certain ‘positive’ aspects of a food such as fruit and vegetable content, and in some instances dietary fibre and protein content. Taking these components into account, points are allocated based on the nutritional composition of 100g or 100 ml, following the units used in the nutrition information panel (NIP) of a food.

Look forward to seeing these appear. I’ve found knowing what is in the food you buy makes a big difference.

Tweeted by Russel Norman who saw it at TV3’s Wellington studio.

Three things strike me about this.

1. Sean Plunket’s hair!
2. John Campbell has not aged in 20 years. He is obviously genetically modified
3. Memories of my life-long crush on Anita McNaught

The Toronto Star reports the latest Mayoral poll has incumbent Rob Ford on 27%, despite being a crack addict.

Out of interest 27%, is also the level the Labour Party is at in NZ.

And Rob Ford is only 7% behind his leading rival, while Labour is 23% or so behind.

I’ve compiled this table showing the current probabilities on iPredict of each seat. This is reflecting the view of the market traders who are willing to put their own money behind what they think the result will be. A seat in bold indicates a prediction it will change hands.

So what are the seats, that iPredict traders think are most marginal.

1. Port Hills is rated 50/50 between Nuk Korako and Ruth Dyson
2. Jono Naylor is judged just ahead of Iain Lees-Galloway in Palmerston North,
3. Clayton Cosgrive marginally ahead in Waimakariri
4. Phil Twyford looks to have a fight on his hands in Te Atatu to hold off Alfred Ngaro
5. Flavell in Waiariki is fighting for his seat, and the Maori Party’s existence
6. Punters are only 60% certain that National will not throw East Coast Bays
7. Stuart Nash is seen as two thirds likely to pick up Napier for Labour
8. Damien O’Connor only two thirds likely to hold on in East Coast-Tasman
9. Labour also two thirds likely to pick up Tamaki Makaurau
10. Hamish McDouall seen as having around a one in four chance of winning Whangaui on his third attempt

So how about the other end. What are the safest seats for the major parties. National has nine seats rated over 95% safe and Labour five.

A bizarre rant by Damien O’Connor. The Herald reports:

National Party campaign chairman Steven Joyce said over the weekend the party was targeting some Labour-held seats it believed were vulnerable, including West Coast-Tasman.

The party followed that with the announcement from the National Party conference yesterday that the Government planned to spend $10-15 million replacing the Taramakau Bridge, and $20-25 million improving Mingha Bluff, the last winding section of road on the Arthur’s Pass highway.

A press release announcing both road projects was issued yesterday — jointly in the name of the retiring party list MP Mr Auchinvole, and National’s candidate Maureen Pugh.

Mr O’Connor said it was “pork-barrel politics”, and to be expected.

“I expected the campaign to be quite dirty and nasty,” Mr O’Connor said today.

“Indications are, that’s where it is unfortunately.”

One can certainly criticise the roading projects as pork-barrel politics. I have no dispute with people characterising it as that.

But how on earth is that the sign of the campaign being “dirty” or “nasty”. O’Connor’s speech in Parliament against Gerry Brownlee was personal and nasty. But funding a bridge is not dirty or nasty. O’Connor is trying to make himself a victim.

My interpretation of O’Connor’s statements is that he intends to run a dirty nasty campaign, and is trying to convince people National is doing the same.

But I genuinely can not comprehend how anyone can rationally call a bridge funding decision dirty and nasty. It’s just hysteria.

The Herald reports:

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union has donated $60,000 to the Labour Party and $15,000 to the Green Party, the union announced this morning.

This is no surprise. They get to vote on the Labour Party Leader, so of course they’ll donate to Labour. Interesting they donate also to the Greens.

Of course this is the small part of their actual effective donation. The most valuable donation they make is staff time. Pretty much all their staff can take as much paid time as they want to campaign for Labour (or Greens or Mana). This adds up to a huge contribution.

Let’s say 70 staff spend half their working week for three months campaigning for Labour. Assume they are paying above the living wage and get $30 an hour. 260 hours is $7,800 per staffer and that is around $550,000 of donated wages. However it doesn’t have to be declared as a donation as it is up to each staffer if they campaign for Labour or not. They just have an employer who will give them as much paid time off as they want to do so.

Personally I think when unions bulk supply staff to campaign for a political party, it should count as both an expense and a donation. There is a difference between someone individually volunteering to campaign for a party in their spare time, and someone being effectively paid by a union to go off and campaign for a party.

The Herald reports:

First-term Green MP Holly Walker has decided to withdraw from the party’s list, effectively stepping down as a MP at the September election.

“Unfortunately, a recent unexpected change in my family life has made it very difficult for me to continue as a Green MP”, Ms Walker said.

“Under these circumstances, I have chosen to put my family first and withdraw myself from the Green Party list.”

That is a real surprise, but family does come first, and Holly has my best wishes in looking after her family.

I always found Holly someone very willing to engage respectfully, and a very pleasant person to deal with.

Holly was No 12 on the Green Party list. Everyone below her moves up one. This increases the chance of James Shaw becoming an MP. It also increased the chance of Steffan Browning holding on.

Backbenches announces:

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

ON THE ROADS, AGAIN!: National pledges to spend $212M in a roading and construction package if they are back in Government after the September 20 election. The projects will be focused in the regions such as Otago, Gisborne and Northland. The $212M spend-up is on top of the $360M already pledged for regional roads. Is investing in roads just an election bribe or necessary to improve road safety and connect the regions with the larger cities? Is this just about roads? Will it be enough to bolster regional development? And what about alternative forms of transport?

OUTBREAK: A measles outbreak in Hamilton (80+cases) and Auckland (100+cases) while a few more have appeared in other North Island cities. The highly infectious disease has forced schools to postpone all sporting, cultural and academic events for the remainder of the term and there are concerns it could appear in the South Island. The outbreak may be been made worse by parents neglecting to immunise their children. So, do we need to make immunisations mandatory? Or should immunisations be required to attend school? Should parents on welfare have immunisation tied to their benefit?

WHAT GETS THE VOTERS OUT?:  What gets voters to the ballot box? Is it parties? Specific politicians? Policies? If voters feel the election is a fait accompli-will they not bother? How do we get out the vote?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 2nd of July at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

 Our Panel: Labour MP David Clark, National MP Joanne Hayes, and Mana Party Leader Hone Harawira.

The ODT reports:

Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says he has ”no regrets” about stepping in to buy leg irons destined for auction, despite new evidence they were used to hold camels, not Maori prisoners as had been believed.

However, the conclusion by Toitu Otago Settlers Museum staff has prompted Mr Cull to call on the seller – Dunedin man Steve McCormack – to ”examine his moral position”.

The council spent $3900 on the shackles in March, preventing them being sold on the open market, and Mr McCormack should now consider refunding ratepayers’ money, Mr Cull said.

On the contrary, Mr Cull should refund the ratepayers. He is the one who purchased a pair of camel shackles. And he isn’t even sorry for it.

The comments came after plans to sell the leg irons at Hayward’s Auction House were revealed in March, prompting concerns an important piece of history could be lost.

Maybe one should leave bidding for historic items to trained historians and curators, not Mayors.

Normally when a Government is seeking a third term, they’re not looking to pick up any seats, just defend them. For example Labour in 2005 lost 10 electorates to National.

But Stuff reports it may be different this time:

National is gunning for vulnerable Labour MPs in four seats in a move that could further rattle its opponent.

Hundreds of National Party faithful are gathered in Wellington this weekend for the party’s annual conference, where Prime Minister John Key will attempt to talk them down from a buoyant mood by warning that complacency could see National turfed from power.

With a string of polls showing National around 50 per cent, Key will warn them that voter turnout could be the decider and not to assume the election is a done deal.

‘‘I will reiterate the message that while National is doing very well in the polls in reality this is going to be a very tight election,’’ Key said yesterday.

‘‘This is a race to 61 seats and despite the fact Labour is polling very poorly it could still hold hands with the Greens and NZ First, potentially Internet-Mana, and form a government. So there is no room for complacency within National.’’ 

In a sign that National is taking nothing for granted sources say it has also targeted four Labour MPs in seats it thinks it can win – Trevor Mallard in Hutt South, Ruth Dyson in Port Hills, Damien O’Connor in West Coast and Iain Lees-Galloway in Palmerston North.

The first two seats have big boundary changes, and the latter two have Mayors or former Mayors standing for National.

National’s strategy could disrupt Labour’s efforts to maximise the party vote, given that the survival of those MPs could hinge on them campaigning for the electorate vote instead to keep their political careers afloat.

Dyson and Mallard are not on the list, so if they lose they’re gone.

O’Connor is 22 and Lees-Galloway 24 on Labour’s list. If they lost their seats then they’d only make it back if Labour gets around 29% to 30% party vote.

Jamie Whyte said:

If a supermarket fails to provide its customers with the food they want, it will go broke. Other supermarkets that offer these dissatisfied customers a better deal will win their business. 

The same goes for the farms that produce the food. Fail to provide what your customers want as efficiently as your competitors do and you will eventually go bust.

This ongoing competitive market process explains why the quality of food has improved so much over the last 100 years while the cost has declined.

By contrast, if a state school fails to provide educations that satisfy the parents of their pupils, it will not shut down. Its income does not come from the parents it is failing to satisfy. It comes from taxpayers with no choice in the matter.

Indeed, if a school performs poorly, it is likely to attract extra government funding. In the private sector, resources flow into success; in the public sector they flow into failure.

There is a large degree of truth to this.

We do not get a variety of educational offerings tailored to the different needs and preferences of children and their parents. We get a standardized, one-size-fits-all educational model.

And, as always with one-size-fits all models, state education in New Zealand now fits only a few children.

Who are those children?

They are children with well-off, well-educated parents.

Parents who can afford to buy a house near to a school that will do a good job for their child.

Yep our current system gives wealthy families a choice, but not poor families.

ACT thinks education should be provided in a market of competing suppliers. That has always been our position.

It does not mean that we are opposed to the state funding of education. Not at all. We share the almost universally accepted idea that all children should get a decent chance in life, whatever the circumstances of their birth.

But that doesn’t mean that the state must provide educations, that it must run schools.

This is key. There is a different between the state funding something, and providing it.

Government should make sure that every child gets an education by providing all parents with a voucher, redeemable at any school of their choosing. 

Vouchers would be a radical reform of the education system. And to a degree the results are unknown. In theory the choice should end up with much better outcomes for poorer students. But are all our schools set up to be self-managing and competing? What if half of them collapsed?

That is not a reason to reject vouchers. It is a reason to trial them. Then make decisions based on the evidence of whether or not they improved educational outcomes.

How about we pick three cites and towns. Turn those cities and towns into fully competitive voucher funded educational centres. And after five years assess the performance of students in those three cities and towns compared to the rest of NZ (in terms of relative change). If they have not improved, then scrap the trial. If they have shown significant improvement, then extend it to some further cities and towns. Make the decision based of actual evidence, not ideology.

The Taj Mahal, Agra, India

Having spent several days in Agra and photographing this iconic building from several different perspectives, it was time to tackle the classic viewpoint. One challenge was that tripods are not allowed into the Taj Mahal grounds – so this picture was taken with my large medium format camera balanced delicately on my camera bag.

It took ages for the early morning mist to clear a little and as it did I started to photograph a moody interpretation of this amazing building which itself is an ageless dedication to love.

Click on the image for a larger view of this photograph.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

Stuff reports:

National is downplaying the promise of tax cuts, signalling that other policy pledges will take priority.

Prime Minister John Key yesterday said no decision has been made on whether the party would campaign on income tax cuts.

The Government returned the books to black in last month’s Budget, leading Key to dangle the prospect of some relief for middle New Zealand.

But as National wrapped up its annual conference in Wellington, he softened his stance.

“In reality we don’t have a lot of money to move on tax,” he said.

“I’m not saying we couldn’t put together a tax package but everyone needs to be realistic about how small that is.

I think it would be very regrettable if National does not offer some tax cuts. They should be the party of low tax.

Of course they would be modest, and not able to occur until 2015/16 at the earliest. But small tax cuts are better than no tax  cuts.

Tax cuts are the only guaranteed way to boost the after tax income of every working New Zealander.