The Taxpayers Union broke the good yet sad news:

Congratulations New Zealand, as at 10.04am today you are working for yourself. However, the fact the Government accounts for all the money earned until today means it is unlikely New Zealanders will be celebrating. The government has effectively sucked up all of our earnings for the first 154 days of the year.

OECD figures put the current burden of government in New Zealand as 42.2% of GDP. This is larger than the 30% recently quoted by Finance Minister Bill English because it also takes into account crown entities, such as SOEs as well as local government. …

We need to aspire to countries like South Korea, Switzerland and Australia. Tax Freedom day this year fell on 21 April in South Korea, 2 May in Switzerland and 11 May in Australia.

March would be my ideal month for tax freedom day, but I’ll settle for April.

Hekia Parata announced:

Education Minister Hekia Parata has welcomed advice from sector leaders on the Government’s $359 million initiative to raise student achievement, saying it maintains momentum and strengthens the path forward.

Ms Parata has released a Working Group report that provides support and advice on the Investing in Educational Success initiative announced by the Prime Minister in January.

“Raising student achievement is one of our Government’s top priorities. This investment strongly supports that by building quality and consistency of teaching and leadership across the system,” Ms Parata says.

“Like us, parents will be very pleased we’re making such good progress on something that will make a real difference in our schools and classrooms.

“Unions and groups representing teachers, principals, boards of trustees, and others in the sector have worked closely with the Ministry of Education to produce a report that demonstrates very practical thinking.

“I want to acknowledge the expertise and experience Working Group members brought to the table to advance this work. I know they’re as committed as we are to raising achievement so five out of five kids succeed.”

This has been a good example of how Government can work with stakeholders. The Government announced the policy and funding, but said they’ll work with unions and others on exact details. And they have accepted some of the changes proposed by teachers and unions such as making sure teachers have both relief and inquiry time built into their week, so they can participate in the sharing of skills.

The full report is here. The key details are:

• Communities of schools would form to encourage collaboration. Participation is voluntary.
• There would be:
  • Community of Schools Leadership Role (for Executive Principal)
  • Community of Schools Teacher (across community) Role (for Expert Teacher)
  • Community of Schools Teacher (within school) Role (for Lead Teacher)
  • Principal Recruitment Allowance (for Change Principal Allowance).
• Selection to the roles would be subject to meeting agreed professional standards or criteria, which are to be developed by an expert writing group
• Release time would be provided to schools for across-community roles to fulfil their functions
• A payment should be established to support boards of trustees of the most high need schools to broaden their recruitment pool and assist them to recruit a high quality principal. 
• The provision of Inquiry Time would allow other teachers across a Community of Schools to access the expertise that the new roles would make available. 
• A Teacher-led Innovation Fund (TLIF) would be established with a budget of $10 million over the coming four years. 

The NZEI has been participating, but has a general policy of disagreeing with anything National proposes, regardless of its merits. The PPTA, according to my sources, has been much more constructive, and are responsible for many of the changes proposed in the working group report. It’s a good example of the difference between constructive engagement and mindless opposition. At the end of the day the NZEI will have to decide whether they wish to campaign against thousands of their own members being able to get paid $10,000 to $50,000 a year more!

To be fair to NZEI they have been participating in the working group. They are just unable to publicly ever state that something National does could possibly be beneficial because they’re still sulking over national standards.

The PPTA response is worth quoting, and is here:

The government’s $359 million Investing in Educational Success (IES) program has been a positive example of sector collaboration, says PPTA president Angela Roberts.

Roberts welcomes today’s release of the working group report on the initiative which will see schools across the country collaborating rather than competing.

From PPTA’s point of view the consultation over IES was comprehensive, robust and genuine, Roberts said.

“We stepped up to the challenge and engaged as fully as it is possible to do.”

The sector had worked hard together to find pragmatic answers and there had been significant movement from the originally unacceptable cabinet paper, Roberts said.

“You know it’s collaboration when it’s hard work – and this was really hard work.”

“We feel cabinet has heard us,” she said.

In stark contrast to the NZEI position. If I was a primary teacher I’d be asking my union why they are constantly badmouthing a plan to allow the best teachers and principals to earn up to $50,000 a year more.

Stuff reports:

Thailand’s military rulers say they are monitoring a new form of silent resistance to the coup — a three-fingered salute borrowed from The Hunger Games — and will arrest those in large groups who ignore warnings to lower their arms. 

The raised arm salute has become an unofficial symbol of opposition to Thailand’s May 22 coup, and a creative response to several bans the ruling junta has placed on freedom of expression. 

On Sunday, authorities deployed nearly 6,000 soldiers and police in Bangkok to prevent planned protests against the coup. Amid the heavy security, small flash mobs popped up in a central shopping district where the salute was unveiled for the first time.  

Asked what the symbol meant, protesters have given varying explanations. Some say it stands for the French Revolution’s trinity of values: liberty, equality, fraternity. Others say it means freedom, election and democracy. A photo montage circulating online paired a picture from the science fiction blockbuster The Hunger Games with a graphic of three fingers labelled, 1. No Coup, 2. Liberty, 3. Democracy. 

In the book and movie series, the salute is a symbol of rebellion against totalitarian rule and stands for: Thank you, Admiration and Goodbye to someone you love.  

‘‘We know it comes from the movie, and let’s say it represents resistance against the authorities,’’ Weerachon said, noting that if authorities encounter the salute they will first ask protesters to stop.  

‘‘If a single individual raises three fingers in the air, we are not going to arrest him or her,’’ he told The Associated Press. ‘‘But if it is a political gathering of five people or more, then we will have to take some action.’’ 

‘‘If it persists, then we will have to make an arrest,’’ he said. 

Social activist Sombat Boonngam-anong, who has helped organise anti-coup protests, posted an explanation of the salute on his Facebook page along with a call to step up the silent acts of defiance. 

‘‘Raising three fingers has become a symbol in calling for fundamental political rights,’’ wrote Sombat, a member of the ‘‘Red Shirt’’ protest movement that had backed the now-ousted government and warned it would take action if there was a coup. He called on people to raise ‘‘3 fingers, 3 times a day’’ — at 9 a.m., 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. — in safe public places where no police or military is present.  

The more who do it, the less the military can do about it. A clever way to protest and undermine the military regime.

The Age reports:

Demented? Unhinged?

Call it definition of character.

Malcolm Turnbull, a barrister by trade and chairman of the board by inclination, chooses his words and his adversaries for maximum effect.

And so, when he lined up neo-conservative commentator Andrew Bolt for a free character assessment, he was addressing not simply the bothersome Bolt, but the jury and the shareholders of his current organisation, which happens to be the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party, of course, isn’t exactly Turnbull’s party at present. It’s Tony Abbott’s party, the same Tony Abbott who stripped the chairman’s title from Turnbull a few years ago by one vote and then, glory be, took the whole show to government.

So what has happened?

Andrew Bolt had the temerity at the weekend to get Abbott on his TV show and ask him if he thought Turnbull had designs on the prime ministership.

Well, duh.

Bolt suggested Turnbull was trying to do some undermining by having dinner with Clive Palmer, a man Abbott can’t stand but whose little party and fellow travellers will control the Senate balance of power next month.

It’s not immediately obvious how such a dinner might lever Turnbull to the prime ministership, nor how this might have been a secret meeting, given it was at a popular restaurant. Clive likes to eat, and the restaurant was a few hundred centimetres from Turnbull’s luxury Canberra pad, which might have been a better rendezvous for a secret meeting.

Bolt isn’t a man who gives up easily. Next he was blogging about how Turnbull had spoken at the launch of a Parliamentary Friends of the ABC, and how awful this was, given that the ABC was no friend of the Abbott government.

Well, duh. Again. Turnbull is Communications Minister. The ABC is the national broadcaster.

I think the author is being somewhat silly. The Freinds of the ABC is a lobby group that attacks the Coalition for its funding cuts of the ABC. Turnbull speaking to them is a very big thing.

It is clear Turnbull is positioning to take over – which is very different to launching a coup. A coup would fail as he has little caucus support. But I am far from convinced Abbott will make it to the election, unless his political management improves.

Danyl Mc blogs:

Imagine you’re part of Labour’s infamous Anyone But Cunliffe faction, and Labour manages to form a coalition with the aforementioned parties after the September election. That’s going to be a government that is (a) unpopular – the Venn diagram of voters that have positive or neutral attitudes towards all five of those parties is damn close to an empty set; it will also (b) probably be highly unstable, and (c) be a government with intense competition for Cabinet seats, so ABC faction members are likely to miss out on them. So you’re facing the prospect of three years as a backbencher followed by a crushing election defeat followed by six to nine years of a subsequent National government. If you’re Phil Goff or Trevor Mallard that’s the rest of your career.

On the other hand, if Labour loses the election because, hypothetically, Labour wins Te Tai Tokerau and all of the Internet/Mana party votes get wasted, the most probable outcomes are (a) Cunliffe resigns and your faction retakes control of the Labour Party, (b) National forms a coalition with New Zealand First which will also be a weak and unstable government, and you get to run the country in three years time.

The ABCs are right though. A Labour-Green-Winston-Mana-Dotcom Government will be unstable and unpopular. Two of the five parties will owe their places in Parliament to Dotcom, and if the court finds he is eligible for extradition – well they’ll be hopelessly compromised. They’ll last one term (if that) and then have a long spell in opposition.

Danyl is also right that it is unlikely that a National/NZ First Government would be stable or strong, let alone get a fourth term. Of course on most polls National can govern without NZ First – but there is still 108 days to go.

Was in Mount Maunganui last night for National’s selection of a candidate to replace Tony Ryall in the Bay of Plenty. Tony’s majority in 2011 was a staggering 17,760 votes.

There were 101 voting delegates there. Every single one of them selected by a grassroots branch. Not a single vote held by anyone from head office, let alone a van load of unionists who get bused in to vote. The 101 party members were almost all very long-standing party activists who have spent years or decades door knocking, putting up hoardings, raising funds etc. It’s a great system where they get to decide who will be their local candidate, and is one of the reasons why National has the largest party membership in New Zealand.

The selection was won by Todd Muller (whom I previously blogged on here). Congratulations to Todd who will be an excellent MP and representative for the Bay of Plenty.

Amusingly this means the next National caucus will have three Todds – McClay, Muller, and Barclay. I’m suggesting they be called Senior Todd, Intermediate Todd and Baby Todd 🙂

Congrats also to Alfred Ngaro, selected for Te Atatu yesterday also. Boundary changes have made that seat more interesting that in the past.

This concludes the selections for the seats National currently holds. Still Port Hills and a couple of others to go with the Labour held seats. Port Hills could also be interesting.

In Firstline this morning David Cunliffe said that Labour will amend the Electoral Act within 100 days of office, to remove the one seat electorate threshold in MMP.

This is absolutely appalling. A Government that will ram through major electoral law changes under urgency, probably with no select committee hearings, and without consensus, is dangerous. Labour have form for this.

It doesn’t matter that I agree that the one seat threshold should go (and submitted that way). That is not the point.

The Electoral Act is not the ultimate winner take all prize for the Government of the day.

National has bent over backwards to only make major electoral law changes which have broad parliamentary support. They even agreed to keep third party spending limits, to keep Labour and Greens happy.

The last thing we want is a Government promising to unilaterally change the Electoral Act under urgency within 100 days of an election. Any changes should go through a full select committee process at a minimum. The precedent this would set is horrific. It means any future Government can ram through changes to the Electoral Act under urgency after an election to try and help them stay in power.

Also note the timing. Labour will be quite happy to have the Mana Dotcom Alliance use the one seat threshold to help make them the Government. It’s only after the election they’ll turn their noses up at it.

UPDATE: Further reports do not make it clear whether Labour is pledging to pass the law within 100 days, or introduce it within 100 days.

Regardless no party should be declaring they will change such a major aspect of electoral law (it would have probably changed the result of the 2008 election and given Labour a 4th term) unilaterally. It is quite appropriate for parties to state their positions and ask people not vote vote for parties that have a different position. The way to remove the one seat threshold is to place pressure on all the parties (or at least the major ones) to support a change, or risk being punished by the voters. But in the absence of an agreement, a Government should not use a bare majority to tilt the Electoral Act in its favour (and make Parliament less proportional). You do what National did with the Electoral Finance Act – work with other parties on the replacement law, and compromise when necessary.

If Labour can change the Electoral Act unilaterally after the election to try and wipe out smaller parties, then how could you argue against National changing the Electoral Act to move the threshold to say 10% to wipe out the Greens?

You really really do not want to go down the path of a Government making major changes (and this is really major) to the Electoral Act without broad parliamentary support.

Stats NZ reports:

In the March 2014 quarter, the merchandise terms of trade rose 1.8 percent, Statistics New Zealand said today. The latest increase was due to export prices rising and import prices falling.

Terms of trade is a measure of the purchasing power of New Zealand’s exports abroad. An increase means New Zealand can buy more imports for the same amount of exports.

“Five consecutive quarterly rises have lifted the terms of trade to its highest level since the September 1973 quarter,” prices manager Chris Pike said. The terms of trade is now 1.7 percent below its all-time high in the June 1973 quarter.

How can this be? The opposition claim we must undermine the independence of the Reserve Bank and get them to bring the exchange rate down.

Obviously the country is in crisis, and needs a Labour/Green/Winston/Hone/Laila/Dotcom Government!

Stuff reports:

Meanwhile, Norman revealed that new Internet Party leader Laila Harre had wanted to be a Green Party MP before she quit her adviser role in Decembern. 

A spokesman confirmed she was also on the campaign committee until a fortnight ago.

If this was Game of Thrones, Harre would be a sellsword or a mercenary. How can you be on the national campaign committee for one party a fortnight ago, while negotiating to be leader of a competing party?

Also enjoyed this quote from Matthew Hooton on Q+A about how the Mana-Dotcom alliance will appeal to young non-voters:

This talk of the the youth vote is just awful when aging baby boomers think they’re going to connect with Gen Y through their kids … Harre is 48, Hone Harawaira is 59, John Minto is 61, Pam Corkey who is designing the comms strategy to appeal to youth is 58, Annette Sykes is 53 and Willie Jackson is 53.

It’s like a sex pistols reunion tour. It’s a bit of fun, but it risks being embarrassing for everyone.

It is looking like the Alliance reborn.

The Herald reports:

A New Zealander who has come home after heading the Salvation Army in Pakistan says prohibition never works, but more restrictions can reduce the harm from drugs and alcohol.

Commissioner Alistair Herring, 63, who returned from Pakistan in April to head the Salvation Army’s NZ addiction services, said Islam’s ban on alcohol did not stop Pakistanis suffering serious addiction problems.

“Muslims are not allowed to hold alcohol licences in Pakistan on the premise that Islam is against addictive substances,” he said. “What tends to happen in reality is that Muslims who want to drink will go to the Christian or non-Muslim community for their alcohol. I have talked to Muslim folk in Pakistan and they acknowledge that it is a problem. There is also a huge drug problem, of course.”

He said Salvationists vowed not to drink or smoke voluntarily “because of who we are and the services we provide”. But compulsion was “quite a different thing”.

“Prohibition is never going to work, has never worked,” he said.

Nice to hear the truth spoken. Of course the zealots are now trying to ban sugar. Their aim is for a sugar free pacific by 2025.

The headline:

Public transport edging out the car

Which makes you think more people now use public transport than vehicles.

during the seven years between census counts, the number of Aucklanders driving to work has fallen 2 per cent to 84 per cent and public transport has increased 2 per cent to 10 per cent.

Not quite edging out. I estimate that at a 2% swing every seven years, public transport will edge out the car in 133 years!

Sensible transport plans for Auckland must include both improvements to roads and to public transports.

The Herald reports:

Current and former MPs and “ordinary people” banded together to pay the $632 fine Hone Harawira received last year for defying police at a 2012 Auckland housing protest.

But while one of his Mana Party contenders claims Winston Peters was among the donors, Mr Harawira will not name them, even though it appears he is required to do so under parliamentary rules. …

But last week at a public meeting of Housing NZ tenants in Grey Lynn, the sole nominee for Mana Party candidate for Tamaki Makaurau, Kereama Pene, said: “Our Mana leader was dragged out of his car in GI.

He got done for it. Do you know who paid his $500 fine?”

Someone called out “Kim Dotcom!”.

But Mr Pene said: “No, it was worse than that, much worse than that, it was Winston Peters.”

I have to say that it seems unlikely.

However, the fine, including costs, is large enough to require disclosure under the rules for Parliament’s Register of Pecuniary Interests because it was paid by someone other than Mr Harawira.

The rules also require the identity of those paying off MPs’ debts to be declared.

Mr Harawira last night refused to comment on what he said was a “petty” matter.

Following the petty rules is only for white MOFOs!

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

A former top international banker, who stared down the Beehive with lending restrictions and official cash rates rises months from the election, is this year’s public sector chief executive of the year.

Graeme Wheeler, who became Reserve Bank governor in late 2012, was today named as the top public sector boss in political newsletter Trans Tasman’s fifth Annual Briefing Report.

Since replacing Alan Bollard, Wheeler has introduced controversial loan to value ratio limits on mortgages in an attempt to cool the housing market and raised the OCR  twice this year.

Both moves were politically unpopular, but Trans Tasman said the ‘‘fresh ideas’’ made him chief executive of the year and the Reserve Bank’s best governor since Don Brash – a dig at Bollard, whose decade in charge was bookended by Brash and Wheeler.

‘‘He’s made some gutsy calls and stood up to the political pressure not to interfere in the iconic quarter acre dream,’’ the report said of Wheeler.

‘‘A courageous governor – and we will find out over the next year or so whether he made the right calls.’’

The awards were chosen by a 16-strong independent board of advisers.

Inland Revenue was named department of the year because of a ‘‘clear improvement in customer engagement’’ over the past 12 months.

‘‘One of the only departments leading the charge online for better customer and business interactions,’’ Trans Tasman said.

‘‘It is no longer just a compliance agency. It is also being seen by the public as a crusader which goes after people who try to avoid their tax obligations.’’

As with previous years, I’m one of the 16 advisors. The release from Trans-Tasman is here.

As an employer, I have to say dealing with the IRD is so much easier than years ago. No more waiting on hold – just send secure mail. Can check my account balances instantly, and lots of useful calculators.

The Reserve Bank Governor should be fiercely independent. It is a tribute to Wheeler that he listened politely to the Government wanting to exempt first home buyers from the LVRs, but then decided it wouldn’t work with that exemption and proceeded. It is unfortunate that Labour has vowed to over-turn that independent decision should they win Government.

The Press reports:

The rebuild of Christchurch’s CBD is finally starting to happen, city leaders and investors say.

After a rocky few months where parts of the recovery blueprint looked like they were failing, a series of positive announcements are being labelled by some as the turning point of the rebuild.

Vodafone is expected be confirmed today as the anchor tenant of the innovation precinct, and at least two other private sector developments are in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, rumours that British high street chain Topshop could be coming to Christchurch are not being denied.

Earlier this month, Christchurch’s Carter Group announced it would rebuild the Crossing car parking building, providing much-needed certainty for would-be developers in the retail precinct.

The promised multimillion-dollar overhaul of the central city transport network was finally approved by the Christchurch City Council last week, and consultation with affected property owners and businesses would soon start.

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee said “key commercial arrangements” had been cemented recently and he expected more positive news to land in the coming months.

The first few tenancies tend to be the hardest, as you don’t want to potentially be alone. Once some large tenants have confirmed, it makes it easier for others to do so.

But Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend believed “things are starting to crystallise” in the central city.

Townsend also expected more positive announcements from both the private and public sector soon.

“I think we will find more information coming out of the Christchurch Central Development Unit that will promote investor confidence, and we will be hearing about some private sector developments in the central city too.”

Carter Group chief executive Mary Devine said the city was “at a turning point”, especially after its car-parking agreement with the council.

Carter Group bought the Crossing car park land off the council, and will manage the demolition of the existing building before building a 534-space car parking facility.

Devine said Carter Group was now “running flat out” with final design and planning of its $100 million Crossing development.

Nice to see progress.

Given to me by a former Maori Party staffer. Not bad.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Senior Labour Party MPs have used social media to attack the alliance struck between Mana and the Internet Party.

Former leaders Phil Goff and David Shearer, and Rimutaka MP Chris Hipkins, are among those who have objected to the deal. It could see MPs from Kim Dotcom’s fledging political vehicle enter Parliament on the ‘‘coat-tails’’ of a victory for Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau.

The strong opposition from within Labour could make post-election coalition talks tricky.

Goff says he feel strongly about Dotcom’s ‘‘pure political opportunism’’, citing his previous donations to ACT MP John Banks, now the subject of a court case. ‘‘He wants to be able to influence and control politicians.’’

Goff has it in one.

Goff says he made his feelings clear to the Labour caucus. ‘‘It will be the decision of the party leadership…but I see problems in creating a coalition where the philosophies and principle of people that you are trying to enter into a coalition with is unclear because they seem to be coming from diametrically opposed positions.’’

Those  views were also reflected in a passionate Facebook post at the weekend. Shearer also used the social media site to write that although he wished the Internet-Mana ‘‘marriage’’ well, he knew ‘‘it’s going to end badly.’’

And on Twitter last week, Hipkins posted: ‘‘The good old days, when political parties formed from movements. Now all it takes is a couple of million and some unprincipled sellouts.’’

All three MPs were linked to the Anyone But Cunliffe [ABC] faction – who were opposed to David Cunliffe assuming leadership of the party. However, a Labour source played down talk of more division, saying all three were close to Te Tai Tokerau candidate Kelvin Davis.

They want to stop Davis being told to lose the seat. That doesn’t mean Davis will be withdrawn – it will be more subtle than that. Their fear is he will be told to tone down his rhetoric, and to not push too hard.

The reality is he can win the seat if he pushes hard enough for it. Harawira’s effective taking of $3 million from Dotcom will go down badly with many Te Tai Tokerau constituents. David only needs to win 500 over to take the seat off Harawira.

Labour is claiming that it will cut migrant numbers by somewhere between 20,000 and 35,000 to get net migration from 40,000 to somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000.

Most of the change in net migration is about fewer people leaving NZ, and Kiwis returning home. So to get net migration down to level Labour talks about would require massive cuts in some categories. Labour should front up and detail where they will cut, and how much.

Let’s look at the various categories of residency visas granted.

Business/Skilled

Last year was 20,007. This is already 27% lower than under Labour in 2007/08. They’d have to ban all skilled migrants to get to the levels they talk about

Humanitarian/International

Last year was 3,262. Is Labour going to cut our refugee quota, or just the skilled migrants quota?

The Samoa quota had 938 people enter on it last year. Will Labour reduce that? If they can’t name where they will reduce and how much, then how do we know?

Parent/Sibling/Adult Child stream

Last year was 4,401. This is already 15% lower than under Labour in 2007/08.

Family Sponsored

Last year was 11,291. This is 19% higher than in 2007/08. You could make some changes here but if you took it back to 2007/08 levels that is only a reduction of 1,832 – less than 10% of what Labour needs.

Almost all of these categories are people bring partners in. So will Labour ban migrants from having partners come to NZ? How would they reduce the level in this category?

Total

The total number of migrants in 2012/13 was 38,961. Labour is saying they will effectively cut that in half. But in their last year in office it was 46,077 – 15% higher than it currently is.

The reality is that we do not have more migrants being allowed into New Zealand. In fact it has reduced.

What we do have more of are three types of temporary entrants. They are:

1. Temporary work visas. The Christchurch rebuild is the major factor here. Is Labour going to reduce these, and slow up the rebuild?
2. Student visas. These generate billions of dollars in tuition fees and also domestic spending. You’d have to be nuts to cap these, as they subsidise the cost of tertiary education for Kiwis.
3. Working holidays. We have agreements with many countries to allow young citizens from their countries to work here for a year or so on working holidays. We would have to break our agreements to reduce these, and that would mean young Kiwis would lose the right to do working holidays in those countries as they are generally reciprocal.

So everytime Labour says we have too many migrants coming to New Zealand, make sure you ask where will they cut, and how much. That is a question they won’t or can’t answer.

UPDATE: Trevor Mallard is saying they may make changes in the investor category. Well that is fewer than 100 migrants a year. So once again, how will they get net migration down to 20,000? If you say that is where it should be, you need to explain how. Otherwise it is just pandering to fear.

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!

CARBON TAX vs. ETS:  The Green Party has proposed replacing our ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) with a carbon tax to better combat climate change. Instead of the ETS-all sectors would pay $25 (agriculture pays $12.50) per tonne on carbon emissions. While the new tax will see all of us paying more for petrol, food and electricity an accompanying tax cut would leave us, according to the Greens, $319 better off every year. Unless, of course, you’re a dairy farmer. Currently, farmers don’t have to pay for carbon credits despite being responsible for nearly half of our yearly emissions. National’s Climate Change Minister Tim Groser questions the Greens inclusion of our farmers, one of our largest export markets, into the scheme. Is it time to re-evaluate our ETS? Does the Green party have the answer? And will any of these programmes actually save the environment?

MMP: IS IT A RORT?: The Internet Mana Party alliance is the latest political deal, similar to the Government’s deal with United Future & ACT, that has some calling the MMP system a rort. Are they right? Are these smaller parties gaming the system in order to squeeze into Parliament when the ballot box would never, otherwise, get them there. Do we like MMP? Is it the best way to make sure all voices in Parliament are heard? Or is it too easy to game the system? Are deals like these dirty deals? Or just the way it is? Do they turn the average punter off voting? Do we need to get rid of the “coat-tail” rule? Or change the threshold?

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, 4th of June 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: Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter, Labour MP Andrew Little, and National MP Paul Foster-Bell.

The Herald reports:

An Egyptian court that sentenced to death 37 Islamists and handed life terms to 492 others defended its verdict, saying the men were “demons” who followed Jewish scripture. …

In a statement Sunday to justify its decision, the court said: “The accused came out of the depths of hell…

to plunder Egypt’s wealth, tyrannise its people and they killed the deputy commissioner.”

It described the men as “enemies of the nation” who used mosques to promote the teachings of “their holy book, the Talmud,” the central scripture of Judaism.

So the Egyptian military (or their judges) defend executing Islamists on the grounds that they were actually following Jewish scripture. So the message they send out is the Jews are evil and behind everything bad, and it is okay to execute anyone influenced by them. That’s as bad as the Islamists.

Also in Europe:

A suspected French jihadist who spent time in Syria is in custody over the shooting deaths of three people at a Belgian Jewish museum, prosecutors said, crystalising fears that European radicals will parlay their experiences in Syria into terrorism back home.

When Mehdi Nemmouche was arrested in southern France on Friday, he was in possession of firearms, a large quantity of ammunition and a video claiming responsibility for the May 24 attack, a Belgian prosecutor said.

In a one-minute rampage that deeply shook Europe’s Jewish community, a gunman opened fire at the Brussels museum. In addition to the fatalities, another person was gravely wounded.

Killed three people because they were at a Jewish museum.

Is there any other race (or religion) in the world that attracts such hatred, and in such a lethal way? And it isn’t new. Has been happening for hundreds of years.

No not that one!

Stuff reports:

Labour has finally chosen its election candidate for the crucial Tamaki Makaurau seat: former sports commentator Peeni Henare.

They were determined to have a broadcaster!

Henare, the great grandson of former Northern Maori MP Tau Henare was selected this afternoon to contest the Auckland Maori electorate.

President Moira Coatsworth said he was an ”impressive” candidate who was fluent in te reo and has a background in public and community services. 

Henare, now Ministry for Social Development business advisor, said: “It is time to bring the seven Maori seats back home to Labour.  Lets start with taking back Tāmaki Makaurau.”

He’s worked for the ministry since 2001 and is also a trustee of Ngati Hine Forestry Trust. From 2008 to 2011, Henare was a commentator for Maori Television. 

Originally from south Auckland, he now lives in Northland.

It will be an interesting seat to watch.

One wonders what Shane Taurima will now do? Not wanted by Labour, and unable to work again in news and current affairs (well for a fair while anyway).

Colin Espiner writes:

The media was expecting Dotcom’s Internet Party would announce a flake as its new leader. Or a complete moron. Either would have done just fine. We could have ridiculed them, and moved on to more important matters.

But Harre isn’t a flake. And she’s certainly no moron. She’s one of the most driven, persuasive and intelligent politicians I’ve met. I don’t know how Dotcom managed to put a ring on the darling of the Left but on the face of it, it’s a major coup.

The question, though, is for who?

Harre is an old-school socialist. She’s from a trades union background. She’s a former member of the Labour Party, of New Labour, and of the Alliance Party. She’s most recently worked for the Green Party. …

On the face of it, then, Harre is likely to appeal to older Lefties who admire her feminist principles and strong trade union credentials.

It’s hard to see her appeal to young, internet-savvy geeks though. Last time Harre was in Parliament the internet was barely out of short pants. And the people she’s trying to persuade to vote for her weren’t born and certainly wouldn’t know her from a 33K dial-up modem.

But does it matter? Probably not. As long as Harre gets votes, neither the Internet Party nor Mana will care where they come from. And she’s got $3 million of Dotcom’s money to spend – that’s more than any other party contesting the election, including Colin Craig’s Conservatives.

On the face of it, the Left has engineered a spectacular reverse takeover of Dotcom’s party. It’s like a reunion of every failed candidate from every disappeared political party of the past 20 years, funded by an avowed capitalist whose fundamental philosophy – the freedom of movement of capital and people – runs counter to everything his candidates stand for.

Exactly. Dotcom is just funding a party to change the Government. His personal political beliefs and Harre’s are vastly different. There nothing wrong with large political donors – but generally they donate to a party or leader whose policies they agree with.

But remember, Dotcom doesn’t really care. His political aims are pragmatic, not philosophical.

In my opinion, there are two reasons why Dotcom is manipulating the political process. First, he wants rid of Prime Minister John Key. Second, he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in a United States penitentiary. If the Internet-Mana party is elected with more than a couple of MPs, then Dotcom is likely to achieve the first objective.

There is no possibility the party could side with National. So a vote for Internet-Mana is a vote for a Labour-Green-Internet-Mana-and-possibly-New Zealand First-Government.

Remember that. It would be the most left wing Government in our history.

The Internet-Mana party may also either confuse or scare the bejesus out voters and strengthen National’s hand. Blue-collar, socially conservative, Labour-leaning voters – who’d only just got their heads around the idea of dealing with the Greens – may not countenance their vote ushering in a potential coalition led by far-Left feminist and Maori radicals.

I think there is already a backlash, which is why several Labour MPs have spoken out against the Internet-Mana alliance.

In her acceptance speech of the Internet Party leadership last week, Harre admitted her party was gaming the MMP system in a bid to get into Parliament. But she said it was “time for New Zealanders to take back MMP”.

It was a nice line, with a ring of socialist rhetoric to it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The Internet-Mana party may be successful or it may fall flat on its face.

But it is Dotcom who is attempting to take over MMP. And it is for no-one but himself.

On one of the weekend TV shows, Harre referred to the Internet Party having 30 to 40 staff. That is a huge amount. On top of that Harre and all the candidates will be on pro-rata $150,000 per year salaries. I suspect Dotcom will end up putting more than $4 million in. Whatever it takes to change the Government and increase his chances of not getting extradited.

And if Harre really think Dotcom won’t want any favours for his $4 million. Well think about this. Is he the type of person who would donate $50,000 to a candidate, and then ring him up when in jail wanting him to intervene with prison authorities to get him a pillow – and when no assistance is offered – vows to crush and destroy him.

If he’ll do that when someone who receives $50,000 from him won’t intervene with authorities to assist him – just imagine what his expectations are for a $4 million donation?

From Gareth Hughes on Facebook.

Captions below. As always, funny not nasty.