Transtasman notes in their latest newsletter:

NZ First leader Winston Peters is known for his expensive suits but he triggered a Savile row of a different nature when he turned on ex-NZ First MP Brendan Horan this week. To say there is bad blood between the two is an insult to leukemia. The loathing runs deeper than the Marianas Trench, as wide as the mouth of the Amazon.

But to do as Peters did, and to describe Horan as “the Jimmy Savile of NZ politics” – and to do so not once but twice in what was clearly a calculated insult – takes it to a whole new level. Savile, the deceased British “celebrity” who sexually preyed on young, often handicapped, girls, is the nuclear option of insults. It all looked a bit desperate. You cannot make such a comment without backing it up with some evidence.

I really hope the media don’t let this drop and they ask Peters when is next turns up to Parliament what he meant by his comments. Was he alleging Horan is a paedophile, and if so what is his proof. If he wasn’t implying that about Horan, then why did he twice refer to him as a Jimmy Saville.

Yet Peters not only failed to front in Parliament the following day, when Horan signalled he would reveal his own deep scandal about NZ First.

It left the rest of the NZ First MPs – who tend to resemble a bunch of ageing Social Creditors with anger management issues at the best of times – making a shambles of trying to use Parliament’s standing orders to block their former colleague.

That bit in bold is gold.

In the end Horan’s revelations Peters was using the leader’s budget for electioneering and campaigning expenses, namely software and staff, proved something of a damp squib. It is still far from clear NZ First is doing anything wrong with its parliamentary funding, although no doubt the party does – like all the others – push it right up to the edge of the rules.

I have to say I don’t see any proof of wrongdoing either, at this stage.

Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom’s estranged wife has told a court that John Banks asked for a political donation to be split into two cheques so it could be kept anonymous.

But her testimony differs from Kim Dotcom’s yesterday, when he said she had left a dinner before the donation was discussed. …

Mona Dotcom’s evidence of being present during the donations discussions conflicted with Kim Dotcom’s version yesterday.

Kim Dotcom had said his wife had left the lunch before the donation was discussed, but Mona Dotcom was adamant today that she was present.

She also said the staff member who made out the cheques was not there when others had testified he was.

It is not unusual for witness to differ on small facts. It seems unusual to differ on something as basic as whether or not Mrs Dotcom was present.

Regardless of the Dotcom testimony, I have said in the past that no candidate should sign a donation and expense disclosure form without carefully reading every line of it, and personally satisfying themselves it is correct. Regardless of the verdict, I don’t think what John Banks did was good practice.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

The Green Party is demanding transparency of political donations – but will hold a closed door auction to raise funds later this month. …

However, the Greens are coy about their own fundraising methods. An agenda for next weekend’s annual day meeting shows the media are barred from a pre-lunch ”party fundraising session” on the last day of the three-day conference.

A spokeswoman explained the half-hour meeting is an auction for party members. It was a ”fun” session closed so guests could ”let their hair down.”

Co-leader Metiria Turei has crocheted a blanket which will be offered for sale. ”It’s not $10,000 a pop,” the spokeswoman said, referring to National’s fundraising events.

So the Greens are saying it is okay to sell yourselves, so long as you sell yourselves cheaply?

I of course think there is nothing wrong with MPs attending fundraising events. But the Greens are the ones who keep claiming it is wrong.

Xero has just been ranked #1 by Forbes in its list of top 100 most innovative growth companies.

Well done Rod and his team.

I remain a very happy customer and shareholder.

I would like a native payroll package at some point though please!

Stuff reports:

Campbell last night aired the results of a “two-year investigation” into the recruitment of Fletcher.

It was claimed there was a meeting on December 14, 2011, between Key and the police boss who ordered the spying on Dotcom that was never disclosed.

“John Campbell is completely wrong,” Key said.

“There weren’t two meetings; there was one meeting.

“The meeting was actually Simon Murdoch with Ian Fletcher over in my office. He happened to be in New Zealand.

“It was an introduction. I can’t tell you exactly everything we talked about a) because I would never say that.

“But I can tell you what we didn’t talk about. We didn’t talk about Kim Dotcom. It’s impossible to talk about someone you don’t know.”

The illegal bugging of Dotcom’s mansion is believed to have taken place under Murdoch, who was GCSB director between July 1, 2011, and December 19, 2011.

Key has maintained he was never told of the surveillance.

He said Campbell’s story had moved into conspiracy theorist territory.

“I reckon tomorrow night – and I know tonight he’s doing keas being run over in car parks – but tomorrow night I reckon he should do Obama not being born in America, and Friday we could move on to 9/11 and why the Americans were behind that, and next week we could move into the Kennedys,” he said.

“I mean, honestly, I have some respect for John, but when you do two years and come up with absolutely nada, then you do what he did – set a whole lot of assumptions to music.”

They should use the same music for the episode on how the US was really behind 9/11

Key dismissed claims by Dotcom that Key met the police chief responsible for the raid on the Dotcom mansion.

“Completely incorrect; never met the police in my life about that issue,” he said.

“That was the day the Government was being sworn in.”

Maybe Key was multi-tasking!

Normally Labour held seats only get one or two people sticking their hand up to be the National Party candidate. But unusually five candidates contested the nomination for Hutt South, and Chris Bishop got selected last night. Great to see so many people keen to take Trevor Mallard on. The new boundaries mean the seat is not as safe Labour as it used to be, and a strong campaign could do very well there.

I’ve known Chris for the best part of a decade. One of the funniest brightest people I know, and he is one of New Zealand’s top debaters. He does or has spent a huge amount of time organising and coaching school debating tournaments and teams.

I’m looking forward to Meet the Candidate meetings with Trevor, Chris and Holly Walker. I recommend people who like a good debate go along.

Chris won the selection despite a Dominion Post editorial urging National not to select him. That was because, like Todd Barclay, Chris spent a couple of years as a regulatory and public affairs manager for Philips Morris. How dare National select two former tobacco lobbyists!

Well the answer is they got selected despite their former jobs, not because of them. Unless you’re George Clooney, it’s not the most popular job around. Fair enough.

But I’d make two points. The first is that National’s policies and decisions on tobacco issues have been almost everything the anti-tobacco lobbyists have been asking for. Excise tax has been hiked 50% over five budgets. An official goal of getting smoking to under 5% of NZ in the next decade was agreed to and being resourced. And the Government has agreed to plain packaging of tobacco products (subject to the WTO not ruling it illegal). I actually think the Government has gone too far (I’d trial plain packaging to see if it actually is effective), so any suggestion they are soft on tobacco is silly.

The second point is that Governments make decisions that impact companies in many industries. And every company deserves to have its voice heard on those policies. Some seem to think that tobacco companies should not be allowed to advocate on policies that affect them. I disagree. And judging someone on the basis it was their job to advocate for a tobacco company, seems akin to judging someone because they are a defence lawyer who represents undesirable clients. Everyone deserves a voice.

Anyway congrats again to Chris for winning a hotly contested selection, and commiserations to the other four who missed out. Hutt South is going to be a very interesting seat to watch.

The Herald editorial yesterday:

Six weeks ago, the Prime Minister was in no mood to offer encouragement to those who thought tax cuts might be in the offing. The Budget would have no plans for such a move, he told the North Harbour Club, while seeking also to dampen expectations of anything significant in the future. It was exactly the right thing to say. Now, however, John Key is singing a different tune. He is talking about tax cuts as a choice, and they are sufficiently in his mind to to have warranted a mention in last week’s Budget.

It stated: “Operating allowances from Budget 2015 will be $1.5 billion a year, growing at 2 per cent for budgets thereafter. This is a moderate increase that will provide the Government with options around investment in public services and modest tax reductions.” In effect, the growing economy is providing the Government with a bit more freedom. But this does not mean that, for the next term of government at least, they should be at the top of the priority list. Of far greater importance is the need to get debt back to under 20 per cent of gross domestic product.

The Government can do both, and it should do both.

As the editorial notes, any tax cuts would come out of the $1.5 billion operating allowance. So the surplus projections already take into account any tax cuts. It is basically a choice of whether the $1.5 billion goes just on extra spending, or a mixture of extra spending and tax cuts.

People say they want higher after tax incomes. The Government can not directly set incomes. That is between employers and employees. But they can set tax rates. The one sure way to boost after tax incomes for hard working New Zealanders is to give them a tax cut.

There is little to indicate that most people feel they are owed tax cuts. New Zealanders are aware that, while the country has emerged from the global recession in relatively good shape, there are more important priorities.

I disagree. Extra spending benefits the small group of NZers that it goes on. Tax cuts can benefit all working New Zealanders.

The surplus projections take into account the $1.5 billion operating allowances. Now a balanced Government might say let’s spent half on extra spending and half on tax cuts. That would not impact the projected surplus at all.

After three years, that would be $2.25 billion of annual tax cuts and $2.25 billion of annual extra spending. Here’s what you could do with $2.25 billion of tax cuts based on Treasury estimates.

• Reduce the bottom tax rate (up to $14,000 income) from 10.5% to 4%
• Reduce the 2nd bottom tax rate ($14k to $48k) from 17.5% to 13%
• Reduce the third rate ($48k to $70k) from 30% to 26% and the second rates from 17.5% to 14%
• Increase the upper threshold for the bottom rate of 10.5% from $14,000 to $29,000
• Increase the upper threshold for the second rate of 17.5% from $48,000 to 67,000
• Have the bottom 10.5% rate apply to $22,000 (from $14,000), the second rate of 17.5% apply to $56,000 (from $48,000) and the third rate of $30% apply to $78,000 (from $70,000)

The Herald is effectively saying that 100% of the operating allowance should go on extra spending. That should be just as unacceptable as having 100% of the operating allowance going on tax cuts.  What I want is political parties to deliver both extra spending and tax cuts.

The debate should be about what the mixture is, but not about whether there should be a mixture. ACT might say it should be 80% tax cuts and 20% spending. Labour might say 75% spending and 25% tax cuts. National might be 50/50. But I have no time for those who say there should be no tax cuts at all, once they are clearly affordable.

Shane Jones was at is best in his valedictory speech last night. A 30 minute example of great oratory that had the House and spectators in laughter constantly – but also with some important messages.

Afterwards he had drinks at the Backbencher which had huge numbers of MPs, former MPs and staff there. I left around 2 am, and let’s just say today will be a very slow and painful day.

Some extracts from his valedictory:

The notion that the people who should come to see me at my valedictory are Willie Jackson, John Tamihere, Mr Prebble, Mr Douglas, and Ron Mark is a comment, perhaps, on the nature of my politics as a member of this side of the House. There is Willie Jackson, the Māori equivalent of Pam Corkery; John Tamihere, Labour’s No. 1 exile; and the two gentlemen who belong to that generation of Labour politicians of the day.

The Willie and JT lines were superb.

They are part of the legacy of the party that I belong to, that group of reformers including Sir Geoffrey Palmer, including Mike Moore, and including David Lange, who in my time as a young man was a hero in the political world. 

Jones had a message in his words here. Many in Labour today despise the 4th Labour Government. Jones was saying that while you can disagree with some of what they did, Labour should be proud of its history as a reforming party.

I was born in a little area in Kaitāia, Awanui. My dad was one of 17. My dad’s mother was born in 1893. She visited upon me, along with my mother and father, an enormous amount of love and affection for the Māori language and respect for the Anglican Church. Sorry, Mum, I did not always hold up that part of the bargain.

Heh.

The first duty that I undertook, of an international character, on that committee was to lead a delegation to Rarotonga to advise them on transparency. The only problem with that delegation—it comprised Doug Woolerton, Murray McCully, and Hone Harawira, a tall order—was that while I was there, unfortunately, I fell off a motorbike. Despite parliamentary ambitions about transparency, I did everything I could to hide that accident from Heather Simpson and Helen Clark. Hone Harawira immediately reported it to Ruth Berry. By the time I got back to New Zealand, there were 25 messages from Heather Simpson and Helen Clark. If you do not believe me, I am willing to lift the leg of my trou, but for fear of sparking unintended consequences in my own caucus I will resist it.

Double heh.

My colleagues will tell you that I never agreed with Helen that we should have a shower head policy. But when you are a member of the team and junior, as I was, you deliver the policy of the day. As you recall, we were going to regulate the amount of water, have a certain covering for hot water heaters, and, as the water sort of dribbled into a bucket, then you could work out whether it was 8 minutes, 8 seconds, whatever it was. I knew I was in a dire situation when the only person who came to my rescue was Jeanette Fitzsimons. In those days the Greens were my fans.

One of his best lines.

 I want to acknowledge Annette King. Phil Goff was out of the country when John Key, in a fit of enthusiasm, decided that all credit card receipts should be made available to the public. If there was ever a motivation to get the CIA on to the Prime Minister, God knows that was it. Our deputy leader trusted me to go forward with one adviser, John Harvey , and front up to that issue. It did not cover me with a great deal of glory, but please know this: I never, ever ran, and I was prepared to front up to the media, whether it was good or bad. If I can say to Kelvin Davis as he comes in—because, Prime Minister, Parliament is now dishing out credit cards, and I understand they are called purchase cards—cash is king, brother; cash is king.

Possible the line with the most laughter.

To move away from a wee bit of levity, as my senior colleagues would know, you have fantastic opportunities when you are a Minister to rub shoulders with power brokers and incredibly influential people around the world. One night, Helen invited a number of us to dine with Condoleezza Rice . We were treated to an inordinately clever exposition and account of where affairs of the world, in terms of the military and economy, were. I went there in my self-drive car back to Tai Tokerau, and within 8 hours I picked up a hitchhiker. So here I am going from meeting with one of the most powerful women in the world, I am in the car, and I pick up a hitchhiker, a young Māori lad of similar age to my boy. As he sat in that car and we went down the road, I said to him …  “Close the window, it’s getting cold.” He said: “Oh, matua, I want to leave the window open.” I said: “Why’s that, son?” He said: “It makes me feel free, and I have just come out of a 3½ year lag from Ngāwhā prison.” If there ever was an incident within a short period of time that made me feel humble as a Māori parliamentarian and a junior Minister—to go from that level of power and influence, and still to have the confidence to relate to one of my own rangatahi on the other side of the tracks, so to speak.

I think that is one of Jones’ skills. He could relate to anyone from Condi Rice to the prisoner just released.

 I wanted to be a champion for industry, and I have been well supported by fisheries and forestry, and that enabled me to bring their ideas forward. I am a firm believer in trade. I admired, as a junior Minister, Phil Goff and the China free-trade deal. I will totally resist any suggestion that my country will grow richer by turning our back upon the essential importance of international trade.

A very strong implicit plea there for Labour not to become anti-trade and anti–industry. But I suspect he has lost that battle.

The most common question asked by people last night in the Backbencher was who can replace Shane in Labour. The most common answer was no-one. His departure does leave a void.

The latest monthly migration stats came out yesterday. This is a graph of migration just between Australia and NZ. The trend is clear.

Now Labour has joined NZ First in saying we have too many migrants, I want to know how they plan to stop Aussies moving here, considering we have a mutual right to work and live in each other’s countries. Will they rip up CER?

Whale points out that Labour are now backing off their pledge to reduce net migration to under 15,000. Mainly because it is impossible. Residency visas are actually down on 2008. You can not stop Kiwis returning home or Aussies moving here – and nor should we.

It’s amusing that just a year ago Labour was claiming too many Kiwis are leaving NZ. Now they’re effectively complaining too many are staying on!

3 News reported:

Labour says New Zealanders can have confidence it’s getting its numbers right despite dumping a Treasury staff member from their position in the leader’s office.

Radio Live revealed a long-standing Treasury secondment has been terminated after a dispute over who should pay their salary.

This now leaves Labour with no independent number-cruncher, but leader David Cunliffe says his office has a strong policy team.

“We have very high grade, quantitative analysis and economic modelling skills in our office,” says Mr Cunliffe. “The team is led by the Honourable David Parker, who has my absolute confidence.”

Getting rid of the Treasury secondee is possibly the dumbest thing you can do in Opposition if you want to have credibly costed policies.

It has been a long-standing practice that Treasury will allow one of its staff members to be seconded to the Opposition Leader’s office, just as departmental staff are often seconded to ministerial offices.

The secondee, while no longer working in Treasury, has access to resources such as the Treasury model for forecasting the cost of policies.

I spent four years working in the Opposition Leader’s office and our Treasury secondees were Godsends. They had massive institutional knowledge, and added huge credibility to the development of policies and costings.

I can’t work out any reason the Opposition would turn down the traditional offer of a secondee, unless they simply don’t want their policies credibly costed.

There is no dispute over who pays the salary. It is always the Leader’s Office. When someone is seconded, you always pick up their salary. That is a red herring I believe.

So whenever Labour releases a policy, and claims the cost will be x dollars – remember that is is not a cost estimated by an independent professional. This is the cost that Labour has dreamt up.

I think I can understand why Labour don’t want their policies credibly costed. Look at this policy on the hoof by Labour today:

National gives up on insulating cold damp homes. @DavidShearerMP http://t.co/gliydLnMXP Labour will make every rental warm and dry.

— Phil Twyford (@PhilTwyford) May 21, 2014

So Labour is pledging to insulate every single rental property in NZ. I’m outraged. How is it fair they won’t insulate my place also, just because I live in it. What if I transfer it to a trust and rent it to myself – will Labour then come and insulate it.

Also while they are here insulting my house, could they clean my windows also.

The Herald reports:

The attempted murder of an entire family, an actor’s affair with a teenager, and tax dodging are just some of the things that people are asking Google to hide.

The search engine has been inundated with more than a thousand take-down demands in the past few days, triggered by a European Court ruling last week giving people the right to be forgotten.

Half the demands made in the UK are from people who have a criminal past, such as one man who is trying to remove links to information about his conviction for possessing child abuse images, according to a source close to Google.

One person is trying to remove a link that reveals a conviction for cyber-stalking, while another wants links to information about tax offences erased.

In another case, a man who had tried to kill his family wants to lose links to a news report about the crime. A well-known actor is also demanding links to articles about an affair he had with a teenager be removed. And the child of a celebrity has tried to get news stories about a criminal conviction removed.

It is not just criminals and celebrities attempting to hide their past. A former MP seeking re-election is trying to get links to details of past conduct removed. And a university lecturer who was once suspended wants that information taken down.

Businesses are also demanding that certain things are removed. One company is calling for the deletion of links to forum discussions by customers complaining of being ripped off.

The European Court ruling that Google should be made to remove links to old information on some people is another reason why perhaps the UK should leave the EU. It’s a ruling that is very bad for the Internet and freedom of speech – and very good for criminals and fraudsters.

I was listening to a US podcast on this case and what was interesting is that it was from a man who had his home repossessed a decade ago and this got reported in his local newspaper. His court case was asking both the newspaper and Google to remove the story.

The court said that the newspaper can’t be forced to remove the story, but Google (and other search engines) should hide from search results if it is ‘inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive’. 

Apart from the insanity of Google having to somehow judge what is inadequate, irrelevant or excessive, the ruling rides over the fact that Google only indexes material that publishers say they can index. If you don’t want it to appear in Google, then you can mark your page x-no-archive.

The newspaper that published the story is the entity that should decide if they want to keep the story online. And as a compromise they could have kept the page on their website but marked it x-no-archive. But that is a decision for them, not Google.

I often get people e-mailing me asking for some deletion or amendment of a post or comment that names them, as it comes up very high on Google. I consider each request on its merits, and usually will agree. But that is my decision as a publisher – and if I decide not to – it is outraegous that in Europe Google would be forced to second guess me. Google should be a search engine – not a Judge.

Opinion remains divided on the ruling, with EU Commissioner Viviane Reding saying it was a clear victory for the protection of personal data, while Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says it was one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings he had seen.

I agree with the great Jimmy Wales.

The first billboard of The Civilian Party. Love it. Some extracts:

We believe that New Zealand is the greatest country in Australasia, with the possible exception of Australia.

New Zealand is a place where dreams come true, particularly if those dreams are about drinking heavily.

New Zealand has a long record of great accomplishments. We’ve done so many things we can be proud of. We climbed a big mountain. We said no to new forms of energy because we were scared. We got bombed by France. We had a nationwide argument about whether to actively oppose segregation or watch a game of rugby. We gave women the vote. We went to war and lost a significant portion of our population. We crashed a plane in Antarctica. We had a Prime Minister who called an election while drunk.

Heh.

But six years on, John Key has failed us.

The economy is performing well in some aspects, but poorly in others, the gap between rich and poor is growing faster than ever; earthquakes, hurricanes and floods have killed thousands*, and frozen L&P is a limited-time offer at best.
(*In other places)

To add to this, unemployment is high, innocent synthetic cannabis junkies are not, and our small country doesn’t even have the beginnings of a space program, unless you count the one time we all deliberately let go of our helium balloons. It didn’t occur to even one of us how we’d retrieve the cameras we put inside them.

It is clear to anyone who examines the record that this government is weak, it is tired, and its time has come.

But it is not simply enough that the Government needs to go. A strong and viable opposition is required, and this is something that our country is sorely lacking.

The Green Party, our nation’s main opposition party, once strong, has become shrill and petty, while the Labour Party remains adrift, with current leader David Cunliffe performing even worse in polls than the previous leader, a polite forehead.

Indeed, no one is doing well in John Key’s New Zealand; especially not the opposition.

But not all is lost. With the traditional vehicles of resistance fading, a new opposition rises from the ashes, one better equipped to echo the sentiments of a nation that barely knows what it’s talking about. That opposition is the Civilian Party.

Where the Labour Party is shrinking in support, the Civilian Party is growing. Where the Greens have had half their leadership threatened with legal action by Colin Craig, the Civilian Party has had its entire leadership threatened with legal action by Colin Craig; and before the year is over, we intend to be threatened again.

I hope they get lots of candidates. Will make candidate meetings much more fun to attend.

Some policies:

• Declare New Zealand’s independence from Hamilton. (Read more)
• Close the pay gap between men and women by working to reduce men’s wages.
• Alleviate poverty amongst children by giving every poverty-stricken child a llama as a means to a basic income.
• Make Wellington airport safer by moving it to Christchurch.
• Reform the Justice system so that every citizen is required to prove why they shouldn’t be in prison.
• Issue a formal apology to Australia’s aboriginal population.
• Maintain New Zealand’s long-term commitment to free nuclear energy.
• Ice cream.
• Lower greenhouse gas emissions by placing restrictions on the number of greenhouses, and greater obligations upon trees to absorb carbon dioxide.
• Bring ultra-fast broadband access to the majority of rural New Zealand by 2016 and dial-up to Invercargill by 2017.

And a final thought from them:

The only thing that our great nation has to fear is fear itself, stagnant unemployment, low wages, superannuation costs, the economic consequences of existing and prospective free trade deals, rheumatic fever, Winston Peters, small pointy objects, daytime television, oil spills, earthquakes, cancer, traffic congestion in Auckland, systemic poverty, the ineffectiveness of throat lozenges, tornadoes, the housing shortage, global warming, gay marriage, straight marriage, bullying, chemtrails, losing one hour of sleep at daylight savings time, paedophiles, the current account deficit, terrorism, bus fares, and the possibility that a crab will sever our undersea telecommunications cables.

That crab fear is quite a worry!

The Herald reports:

The MP whose tweet caused the Speaker to refer the issue of Twitter to the Privileges Committee does not resile from his description of the Speaker as a “Mafia don”.

The Speaker has referred the use of Twitter and other social media by MPs in Parliament to the Privileges Committee to consider how social media use affects Parliament’s rules, such as contempt and privilege.

It followed concern from National’s Gerry Brownlee about an MP using Twitter to criticise the Speaker. He did not name the MP, but Labour’s Trevor Mallard had just objected to a decision by the Speaker, tweeting: “2nd week in a row where the Speaker looked like Mafia don running his @NZNationalParty protection racket.”

In his ruling, Mr Carter said MPs needed to be clear about the rules, which should be reviewed. Tweets were actionable in court and could result in findings of contempt in Parliament.

“Accusations that the Speaker has shown partiality in discharging his or her duties have in the past been judged very seriously, given the special position the Speaker holds.”

I think that generally what an MPs says on Twitter should not an issue for the House.

But I do think it is unacceptable to have MPs live tweeting from the House, making extremely derogatory comments about the Speaker, in response to his rulings. The place to interact with the Speaker is in the House – not to character assassinate him in Twitter.

The Privileges Committee will consider this issue. I don’t think they should over-reach and try to generally bring MPs tweets under Standing Orders. But I do think there has to be some restrictions around being derogatory of the Speaker during sessions of the House.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions for Minister 2.00PM -3.00PM.

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: In preparing Budget 2014, what advice did the Government receive on how responsible fiscal management will take pressure off interest rates for New Zealand households and businesses?
3. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any report from the Treasury disproving the analysis from Westpac’s chief economist that a proposed 15 percent tax on capital gains on investment property would have a significant effect on the net present value of residential rental property investments; if so, will he table that Treasury report?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Education: How will Budget 2014 continue to support the education system?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What consultation with general practitioners, nurses, and district health boards did he undertake before announcing free doctors’ visits for children aged under 13?
7. Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What measures does Budget 2014 contain to support vulnerable children?
8. Su’a WILLIAM SIO to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that he has a “plan to deliver a brighter future for New Zealand.”?
9. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister for Building and Construction: Will he change the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill or promote other legislative change to ensure that money held by a main contractor, for payment to subcontractors when their work is completed, is not used for any purpose other than paying those subcontractors?
10. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: How does Budget 2014 help communities and councils manage their local freshwater resources?
11. Hon MARYAN STREET to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 11 yesterday?
12. ANDREW WILLIAMS to the Minister of Finance: How much have departmental output expenses been cut in Budget 2014 for the 2014/15 financial year compared with the 2013/14 financial year?

Today Labour are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, capital gains tax, free doctors visits, whether National is delivering a brighter future, and whether the Minister of Justice stands by her answers yesterday. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements and payments to building contractors. New Zealand First is asking about cuts in departmental budgets as a result of the budget.

Patsy question of the day goes to Maggie Barry for Question 5: How will Budget 2014 continue to support the education system?

General Debate 3.00PM-4.00 PM 

A wide ranging consisting of 12 speeches of no more than 5 minutes in length. Amusing and informative.

Valedictory Speech of Shane Jones MP 5.30PM-5.45PM

The Valedictory Speech of Shane Jones, a Labour List MP. His Wikipedia biography is here.

Government Bills 4.00PM – 5.30PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill – Second Reading

2. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3)– Third Reading

3. Food Bill – Third Reading

The Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill (The Budget) is  being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill seeks parliamentary authorisation of the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2015 .

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is being guided throught the house by the Minister of Local Government, Paula Bennett. This bill would implement the Government’s second phase of legislative reform relating to the operation of local government.

The Food Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Food Safety, Nikki Kaye. The bill introduces substantial reforms to the regulatory regime for the safety and suitability of food.

The Herald reported:

Labour’s chances of a strong showing in the vacant Maori seat of Tamaki Makaurau are diminishing after broadcaster Julian Wilcox’s confirmation that he was not a contender left the party with only a single nomination. …

Tamaki Makaurau Labour electorate committee member Shane Te Pou said he was gutted that Mr Wilcox did not put his hand up for Labour.

“Head office has got a lot to answer for here. This whole process has been politically mismanaged. We are now about 100 days away from an election and we don’t have a candidate in … one of the most, if not the most crucial seat in the country.”

He said Labour should have at least six nominations for the seat, but the selection process was not open enough and was too dependent on “shoulder-tapping”.

This is giving the Maori Party an enhanced chance of winning the seat.

The Maori Party has chosen Rangi McLean as its candidate. The Greens have chosen Marama Davidson, a former Human Rights Commission educator.

Davidson is an articulate candidate who could do well, and help split the anti-Maori Party vote between Labour, Greens and Mana. She is not campaigning for the electorate vote, but Green candidates often gets significant levels of electorate votes – even if not asking for them.

Was going to stand for Labour in Tamaki Makaurau at the next election but then I remembered I had to crush my nuts in a vice #priorities

Mike King commenting on Twitter.

The Press reports:

Chris Cairns continues to protest his innocence amid more evidence against him being disclosed, this time from Lou Vincent’s ex-wife, alleging he was a cricket match-fixing ringleader.

Cairns’ name was publicly linked with sworn evidence to International Cricket Council investigators for the first time today, as the former New Zealand allrounder issued a second statement in a 12-hour period: ”I totally reject the allegations against me and I will prove this.”

The latest leaked evidence is a sworn 10-page document from Elly Riley, Vincent’s ex-wife, that she provided to anti-corruption (ACSU) investigators last October. It follows leaks in the past week of former test opener Vincent’s explosive 42-page testimony, and New Zealand captain Brendon McCullum’s signed three-page statement, both of which are understood to name Cairns as a fixing ringleader.

Riley’s evidence, reported by One News tonight, was that the fixing began at the Indian Cricket League in 2008, and that Vincent told her: ”Chris was going to pay him US$50,000 (NZ$58,000) a game for the fixing.”

I feel very sorry for Lance Cairns, who was one of my cricketing heroes growing up. His one handed six off Dennis Lillie remains etched in my memory. He will be torn between love for his son and love for his game.

Lincoln Tan at the Herald reports:

A mosque in Auckland has been shut down indefinitely following violent attacks and the declaration of jihad, or holy war, against private security staff hired to guard the premises.

Bill Frost, who leads the Global Security Intelligence team at the Avondale Islamic Centre, was assaulted twice on Sunday and said he feared for his life and the safety of his family after one worshipper threatened him with jihad.

High fences, seven security guards and two police officers were yesterday seen on the site as worshippers were turned away from afternoon prayers.

The New Zealand Muslim Association, which owns the property, said it was shutting down the centre until further notice because of safety concerns.

The centre’s administrator was brutally beaten two weeks ago after issuing trespass orders to a Salafist imam and some of his supporters, and spent 10 days in hospital with fractures and eye injuries.

Mr Frost said he was assaulted twice as he was handing out six trespass orders to people causing trouble at the Blockhouse Bay Rd mosque on Sunday.

There has been an ongoing battle against a small number of extremists. It’s been massively pleasing to see those who run the Avondale Islamic Centre, rejecting the extremists. I’ve often said the only solution to extreme Islam, is moderate Islam.

The extremists claim they are not extremists. But the fact they respond to the trespass orders with violence and threats of jihad, suggests that the NZ Muslim Association has judged the situation correctly. They should be congratulated.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has declared he once owned a stake in a racehorse, a week after NZ First leader Winston Peters faced controversy over his share in a racing syndicate.

Key said he owned the horse, which he dubbed a “donkey” due to its lack of racing success, as part of a syndicate with nine other people.

Key bought his share in 2007 and sold it in 2008. He never thought to declare it in Parliament’s register of pecuniary interest until he was asked about it by media, he said.

“I can’t see why I’d need to declare it, but honestly it’s so long ago I can’t really be bothered going through the arguments so I’ve declared it.”

Key said the horse was a failure and said he had never kept his prior ownership a secret.

“It should be more correctly referred to a donkey than a horse.

“I think it managed to win one race where everyone else was running in the other direction and it now lives in Noumea – apparently, hopefully, a happy life.”

Winston could learn some lessons about about how to deal with questions over racehorse ownership!

I await Campbell Live revealing that John Key’s former donkey is in fact Player X in the cricket match fixing scandal!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Veterans’ Affairs Minister Michael Woodhouse has upset an Otago family by wrongly claiming Trooper Frank Woodhouse, who died in Gallipoli aged just 20, was his great uncle.

Woodhouse told a reporter while he was in Turkey for the 99th anniversary of the Anzac landings last month that he had seen the name on a memorial there and after checking online found it was his great uncle.

But a spokesman for the aggrieved family, Gareth Woodhouse, said the man was his great uncle, not the minister’s. The family had his medals, a letter from the King about his service, and the original of a picture now on the Auckland Cenotaph website.

He had sent a “long, pointed” email to Michael Woodhouse about his claim and he had come back with a “semi-apology”.

Gareth Woodhouse said he had not done an exact genealogy, but Frank was the brother of his grandfather Cecil, who just before he died had told him about Frank.

He said Woodhouse was a minister of the Crown and Veterans’ affairs minister. “The family feels Michael Woodhouse should have done more research before making claims to the media about Frank Woodhouse.”

And he should have. While there could well be a relationship there, you shouldn’t claim a specific relationship such as great uncle when it is wrong.

Matt Nolan at TVHE warns:

I see that the Spirit Level authors are in town, and as a result there was a recent Herald article took aim at income inequality in New Zealand, relying strongly on the book ‘The Spirit Level’.  A conversation about the inequalities society believes are fair, or at least justifiable, is a good thing.  However, the Spirit Level’s claims that simply targeting measures like the Gini coefficient will make everyone better off is a misleading, and dangerous, place to start this conversation.

 In their initial book Wilkinson and Pikett make the claim that the relative distance between incomes (which they in turn call inequality) in a country/region causes a variety of social ills (worse health outcomes, higher crime rates, etc).  They stated that this implies everyone, even those with higher tax burdens, would be better off if we increased taxes and transfers and lowered income inequality.

When I initially reviewed the book I found that their claims were significantly oversold, the book was filled with inconsistencies, and their policy conclusions were unjustified.  This disappointed me, not because I think we should ignore inequality, but because I believe that asking why income inequality has changed and who has been hurt is an incredibly important question – one that has not been given enough attention.

It turns out that there are a number of left-leaning economists found the claims oversold.  For example, in the Oxford Economic Handbook of Economic Inequality, three authors (Leigh, Jencks, and Smeeding) point out that a relationship between health outcomes and inequality does not seem to exist.

The Spirit Level uses cherry picked data to reach the conclusions they wanted.

An example with life expectancy is in this blog post.

Peter Saunders has also debunked much of the book, which I covered here. He also shows how you can find stats that argue the opposite:

Saunders constructs a social misery index showing that social misery is higher (r^2-0.39, p<0.001) is countries with greater income equality by focusing on racist bigotry, suicide rate, divorce rate, reverse fertility rate, alcohol consumption and HIV infection rate.

The questions that media should be asking the authors is why did they leave out countries like Hong Kong, when their inclusion would have changed their conclusions.

You have to all go and watch Campbell Live tonight and try and stop laughing.

It’s classic conspiracy theory stuff. It sort of goes like this:

• Key appoints Mateparae Governor-General to create vacancy at GCSB – March 2011
• Director of US National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, visits one week later and meets John Key
• McCully visits Hillary Clinton May 2011
• PM has breakfast with Ian Fletcher in June 2011
• Key visits Obama July 2011 and shock horror asks Fletcher to apply for GCSB job the SAME MONTH!
• Oct 2011 – Key, Fletcher, SIS Head, MFAT Head, NZDF  and DPMC Head have a meal at British High Commissioner’s place!
• 12 Dec 2011 – Key meets GCSB (one of 10 meetings that year) and meets Ian Fletcher who is in NZ
• 16 Dec 2011 – surveillance of Dotcom begins
• Obama invites Key to White House – May 2014 – THE PAYOFF!

You especially have to like the spooky sinister music they played. They say they’ve been working on the story for three years. Seriously? They even make it sounds sinister that a civilian instead of military was made GCSB Head and an outsider was made MFAT Head. Yes Allan and Fletcher were both plants by John Key, so that they could all conspire with the US to spy on Kim Dotcom!!

Also part of the conspiracy is that Fletcher had worked for the UK Government (also in Five Eyes) in the Intellectual Property Office (which ties in to Dotcom!).

This is the funniest episode ever. Please please watch it, so you can laugh.

Kim Dotcom tweeted:

Ready to resign, John Key? What more will it take?

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2014

The answer is a lot more than that. More wet than Winston’s water pistol.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Open hostilities have erupted between independent MP Brendan Horan and his former boss after NZ First leader Winston Peters today referred to Horan as “Jimmy Saville”. 

Peters twice made reference to Horan as Saville, the late BBC presenter accused of sex crimes against children.

The first reference followed Horan attempting to table NZ First board meeting minutes which he told Parliament “point to improper use of taxpayer money”.

Peters responded: “This House should not be used in that way particularly by the Jimmy Saville of New Zealand politics.”

His second reference followed Horan attempting to table a document in Parliament linking Peters to a racehorse.

Horan was denied permission to table the document, prompting Peters to say “Jimmy Saville needs to know better than that”.

Calling your former MP a paedophile is a new low, even for Peters. His current colleagues might want to think about what he’ll call them, should he ever decide to sack them from the party also?

Any other MP who called another MP something like this, would be crucified by the media.I hope media ask Peters why he called Horan this, and does he think it is an appropriate remark to make in Parliament?