Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom took part in “racist day” and referred to his American crew as “my little n……” – giving them gollywogs while recording his album Good Times.

The Mana Party has said that Dotcom may help it win the Maori seat of Waiariki at the next election. However, the Internet Party founder failed to show on Saturday at a media opportunity in Rotorua where Annette Sykes was confirmed as Mana’s Waiariki candidate.

Christchurch musician Aaron Tokona, who played guitar on Dotcom’s album, said German-born Kim Schmitz, also known as Kim Tim Jim Vestor or Kimble, took part in “racist day” during the recording of his album last year at Auckland’s Roundhead Studios.

“On racist day you were allowed to speak freely, make racist jokes and it was OK apparently,” Tokona said yesterday.

“He could be called an evil Nazi and given the Hitler salute and he would call people ‘his little n……’.”

Now just imagine that Kim Dotcom was not offering the Mana Party millions of dollars. Just imagine that say Mr Dotcom was still a supporter of John Banks. What do you think the reaction of the Mana Party (and Labour and Greens) would be to revelations he used the nigger word.

Tony Ryall and Jo Goodhew announced:

From July, patients will have the opportunity to provide feedback and rate their experiences in hospital – a move welcomed by Health Minister Tony Ryall and Associate Health Minister Jo Goodhew.

“DHBs will be running a quarterly survey of patients to find out what they think about their most recent stay in hospital,” says Mr Ryall.

“The survey has 20 questions covering issues such as whether patients understood the advice they were given by their doctor, whether they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and whether they were treated with respect and dignity by hospital staff.

“Responses will be collated to give each DHB a rating out of 10 in four areas: coordination, partnership, communication, and physical and emotional needs,’ says Mr Ryall. 

Mrs Goodhew says this will be the first time this information has been collected and measured in the same way across the whole country.

“The results will help DHBs to make improvements in care and give the public valuable insights into the performance of their local health services,” says Mrs Goodhew

“The new survey, which was developed by the Health Quality and Safety Commission, will be an important way of measuring the quality of health services.

That’s a very good idea – both getting patient feedback, but also having comparable data across hospitals.

Of course that data may be used to make one of those evil league tables, so I guess some parties will be against it!

The TVNZ report is quite damning of Shane Taurima. While it clears him of political bias in his interviewing and editorial decisions (which I never thought there was a case for), the damning part is how he ran a Labour Party branch from within TVNZ for many months.

Labour has declined to give him a waiver to stand for Tamaki Makaurau. This is the right decision, as a failure to do so would have been a de facto endorsement of his activities at TVNZ. These activities were not coincidental – but designed to win him the nomination for Tamaki Makaurau.

The report is here. Some key aspects:

• A TVNZ meeting room was used to host a Labour Party meeting – just five weeks after the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election which he had sought the Labour candidacy for. This is quite damning, as it shows an almost immediate commencement of activities for Labour – not a gradual decision to get involved again.
• Four TVNZ staff sent or received “hundreds of e-mails” from or to their TVNZ accounts, related to the Labour Party.
• Taurima recruited three TVNZ staff members to join the Labour Party less than one week after the Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election. The timing is daming, as well as any boss pressuring staff to join a political party – let alone staff at the state broadcaster
• One staff member said she found it hard to complete her TVNZ duties due to the requests from Taurima to do Labour Party business
• Taxpayers, through TVNZ, paid for someone to fly from Gisborne to Auckland to attend a Labour Party meeting at Taurma’s home
• In a number of areas, the panel casts doubt on Taurima’s version of events
• Less than a week after returning to TVNZ Taurima was being e-mailed about how to win Tamaki Makaurau. These e-mails do not come unsolicited.
• The most damning evidence in my eyes is that he did nto set up one branch for Labour – but three branches!! I’ve been in party politics a long time, and let me tell you there is no reason you set up multiple branches – except to win a nomination. You might help set up one branch to help the party grow, You set up multiple branches to win a nomination. Taurima consistently claims he only decided to stand for Tamaki Makaurau six months later in February 2014. I do not believe he is telling the truth. All his activities from the week he returned to TVNZ were what you would expect from someone seeking a nomination – and using their employer’s resources to help gain it.
• Taurima became the Electorate Chairman for Labour in September.
• In January 2014 he hosted a hui attended by David Cunliffe on how Labour should win the Maori vote
• Both Taurima and the other TVNZ staff who were active in Labour actively worked to keep their activities secret from TVNZ
• Taurima was asked by the Herald on November if he was standing for Labour. He told them “categorically” he would not be standing and told his TVNZ boss abotu the denial and the media speculation on him (based on a tweet from Julian Wilcox) was “mud-raking”. As it happens, the speculation was entirely correct and Taurima deceived when he ruled out standing.

As I said above, the setting up of multiple branches is a very strong indicator of a desire to be the candidate. The very small period of time between returning to TVNZ and preparing the way for his candidacy is, in my opinion, proof of very bad faith on the part of Taurima.

Now it will get interesting. Presumably Julian Wilcox will enter the race. I rate Wilcox based on his skills as the former host of Native Affairs on Maori TV. However I do wonder what, if anything, a well targeted Official Information Act request to Maori TV may turn up regarding the Labour Party! Hopefully Julian kept his Labour Party involvement (he was a member last year) away from his work!

Meanwhile the PSA is campaigning for the rights of TVNZ political journalists to be activists within a political party. Not the finest moment for the PSA who should be supporting political neutrality.

These social media stats for MPs were collacted by Brand Gauge, a social media metrics site and tool.

No surprise the PM has the most followers. Interesting that David Shearer still has more followers than David Cunliffe.

The top tweeters are Tau Henare, then Clare Curran and Trevor Mallard. Gareth Hughes and Kevin Haguge are also above the 10,000 mark.

A study from China has found ways to maximise your chances of winning at Rock Paper scissors. Their advice is:

1. If playing against a dude, start by throwing paper
2. If you just lost to rock, go with paper
3. Be aware that people won’t do the same move three times in a row
4. Close your eyes as you throw

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s neediest could miss out on taxpayer-funded homes under a proposal being put forward by Work and Income, an expert says.

The Ministry of Social Development is considering applying an “investment” approach to social housing as Labour claims state housing stocks are expected to drop by more than 2000 in the coming decade.

A similar “investment” approach, taken from the insurance industry, has already been adopted for beneficiaries to help target groups that are expected to cost the state big money in future and push them into work quickly.

MSD, through Work and Income, took over assessing rent subsidies from Housing NZ this year, as part of a push to get more private players involved in social housing.

MSD investment approach general manager Damian Edwards said it was early days in the switch and adopting the investment approach for housing was far from a done deal.

But Victoria University public policy professor Jonathan Boston said while it was “perfectly reasonable” for the Government to seek independent advice, using an insurance model for housing would produce “perverse incentives”.

If the Government was trying to minimise its long-term cost this could push them toward prioritising families and people in high incomes over lower incomes, undermining the whole purpose of state housing, he said.

“Those on higher incomes would be eligible for a smaller state subsidy, thus reducing public funding costs. Yet it is those on low incomes who have the greatest need for social housing.”

I think this is totally misunderstanding the investment approach. This approach doesn’t just look at direct spending, but looks at the long-term costs and benefits. Families most in need will get the most benefits from housing support – it can lead to better health and education outcomes for them. To suggest the investment approach would see state houses go to wealthy families is ridiculous.

In fact this Government has been saying that when a family is no longer poor, then they should give up their state house for a family that is more needy – a policy which incidentally is opposed by the opposition who think that once someone gets into a state house they should never ever be required to leave it – no matter their income.

The Adelaide Advertiser reports:

The Advertiser revealed on Thursday that there are a whopping 7313 Australians who receive the disabled pension but don’t live in Australia.

Many of them live in holiday destinations such as Bali and Thailand, where the $813 dollars they receive from the taxpayer every fortnight goes much further in the form of rupiah or baht.

More than 1200 of them are in Greece, nursing the kind of injuries which are so permanently debilitating that they apparently prevent them from ever re-entering the workforce, yet not from jumping on a 30-hour economy class flight to Europe and a ferry ride to the island of their choice.

Almost 1000 of them are over the ditch in New Zealand, just a stone’s throw from the country which is kindly subsidising their existence. …

The purse for this largesse is sizeable, coming in at $99.9 million a year. And at a time when the nation has been put on notice that the age of entitlement is over, it is a stellar example of how witless governments are when it comes to reining in unjustifiable drains on revenue, yet so adept at creating new streams of revenue by launching another assault on the people who are actually working.

The way it works now is an insult to people with genuine and permanent disabilities, exploding as it has from 500,000 to 800,000 recipients in less than two decades, its annual bill careening towards $15 billion.

The rule of thumb for government should be to provide generous support for those who genuinely cannot work.

It should also involve the ruthless denial of assistance to those who simply choose not to work, and who hide behind confected conditions to opt out of a contributive life, even heading overseas to bludge in a more agreeable climate where the beers are cheaper.

A good summary those last two paragraphs.

Stuff reports:

Auckland risks becoming a “nanny city” compared to party-friendly Wellington if a proposal to cut bar hours is adopted, a city councillor has warned.

Hot on the heels of new national 4am closing hours for bars, the Auckland Council wants to close Auckland pubs and clubs even earlier – at 3am in the city and Ponsonby, and 1am everywhere else.

Bars would not be able to sell shooters, shots or many cocktails after midnight throughout most of the city and not after 1am in city and Ponsonby bars.

The council’s proposed local alcohol policy, set to be approved for public consultation tomorrow, also specifies more restrictive hours for off-licences by limiting alcohol sales to not before 9am and not after 10pm.

National laws that began in December 2013 set off-licence hours from 7am to 11pm.

Auckland city councillor Cameron Brewer lashed out at the proposals and said Wellington would be the biggest winner from the proposed policy.

“This policy will make a joke of council’s latest marketing campaign that promotes Auckland as ‘the show that never stops’.”

Auckland has also made the same mistake as many other Councils and not distingished between types of off-licenses.  There’s a difference between people going into a bottle store to buy more spirits for a party and people wanting to buy a bottle of wine at the same time as they are doing their weekly groceries shopping. The proposed Auckland policy will inconvenience many responsible shoppers and drinkers – while not actually reducing alcohol abuse. A more targeted policy could reduce the inconvenience with no trade off in terms of reducing alcohol abuse.

Brewer said Auckland’s “puritan” laws had taken the new powers “to the extreme”. Events like champagne breakfasts for the Rugby World Cup or Commonwealth Games would become illegal with new minimum opening hours of 9am, he said.

Brewer said the limiting of off-licence hours would annoy a lot of people.

“Wine and beer will be roped off like we used to have in the old days when you couldn’t buy alcohol from supermarkets on Sundays. It’s ‘back to the future’ stuff,” he said.

“Mum and dad shoppers won’t be able to buy wine or beer with their weekly groceries before 9am and after 10pm.

“It makes no sense, particularly the morning ban . . . These grocery shoppers are not the problem.”

Exactly.

But councillor George Wood, who supported the proposal, said on-licence operators would be able to apply for extensions after a 12-month trial.

George is of course a former Police commander, and the Police view is that nothing good ever happens at 3 am. That’s an appalling view. I’ve been in town many times after 3 am with friends – and none of us have ever caused problems.

Wood said the Wellington City Council proposed 3am in its draft but 5am was adopted after consultation.

So will the Auckland Council listen, like Wellington did?

I’ve said for days that this donation stuff is all about Labour and Greens trying to change the law so taxpayers are forced to fund their political parties (so they no longer will be reliant on members and supporters). This got confirmed today:

David Cunliffe believes it’s time to consider publicly-funded elections. …

The Labour leader says it’s time to have a conversation.

“There’s a trade off to be made between investing more taxpayers funding in the political process to guarantee fairness and democracy on the one hand and making sure that every dollar is well and prudently spent.”

I’m 100% opposed. For a start taxpayer funding political parties does not reduce private donations – look at Australia where they have state funding – and you have unions donate tens of millions of dollars to Labour.

It is healthy for political parties to need members and supporters to raise funds. It’s a good thing that if a party loses say 75% of its members, it loses a lot of its funding.

Most of all it is wrong to force taxpayers to fund political parties whose policies and candidates they may detest.

But you have been warned. If the opposition get into power, beyond doubt they’ll try to legislate for taxpayer funding of political parties.

The Press editorial:

There was something both a little overwrought and naive about the attempt last week to drum up a fuss about the fact that some people had paid large sums to attend functions at which they would have the opportunity to meet and talk to politicians. All political parties put strenuous effort into raising money to keep themselves going and those efforts reach a peak in the period leading up to an election. To try to convert perfectly legitimate fundraising into something more sinister shows a view of the rough trade of politics that is touching but wildly unrealistic.

The ruckus was manufactured out of the publicising of the entirely unsurprising fact that the National Party has been running events which donors pay to attend and socialise with Government ministers. It became even sillier with the reporting of a perfectly ordinary Wellington event organised by a prominent National Party fundraiser that gathered (and properly reported) $45,000 for the party. It was suggested that the fact that Prime Minister John Key was there with his chief of staff somehow turned his presence into an official appearance and amounted to using his office to support the party.

That was probably the most farcical aspect of the Green inspired hysteria (which is designed to get compulsory taxpayer funding of political parties). The PM has two parliamentary offices – the Office of the PM and the Office of the National Party Parliamentary Leader. The chief of staff heads up both, and to say this his attendance at a fundraiser means it is an official appearance is farcical.

This is nonsense. Using high-ranking politicians and ministers as bait at fundraising events is practised by all political parties. As the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, the Labour Party at its last conference in Christchurch offered one-on-one meetings with its MPs for a hefty fee. It is perfectly legitimate and dubbing it “cash for access” and calling it a scam does not make it any less so.

Yet the Greens are silent on Labour selling one on one meetings with MPs. I don’t have a problem with them doing so, but the hypocrisy is massive – they decry MPs attending fundraising breakfasts and lunches – yet say it is fine for their own MPs to be pimped out for one on one meetings in return for a fee.

It is not as though there is anything exclusive in the practice. New Zealand members of Parliament, including ministers, are extraordinarily accessible and open to meeting anyone. Those who pay money to meet politicians are doing so not because the encounter bestows any particular benefit on them but because they are showing support for those of a like-minded political disposition.

Exactly. There isn’t a democracy in the world where politicians don’t attend fundraising functions.

There is, moreover, nothing wrong with ministers having general discussions about political issues at such gatherings. In fact, the more views politicians and ministers hear before they frame policy the better. Even if an individual is able to bend a minister’s ear about some policy or other, the policy must still make it through the meatgrinder of the political process where a thousand other voices are added to the outcome.

“Cash for access” is very far from “cash for favours”, of which New Zealand is blessedly free. New Zealand politicians are undeniably the least corrupt in the world and to suggest scams where none exist is mudslinging for no useful purpose.

The purpose is to get taxpayer funding of political parties, so parties no longer have to worry about relying on their own supporters.

To keep things above board, though, it is important that there is as much openness about what goes on as possible. Some donors to political parties, while willing to part with their cash to support their party of choice, come over all bashful about having their support publicly known. And both major parties unfortunately have been willing to indulge them in their shyness. Parties must declare the gifts they have received, but even after two rewrites of electoral finance law in the last decade it is still possible for an individual to gift up to $15,000 without revealing his or her identity.

I thought the previous limit of $10,000 was about right. Labour incidentally voted for the level to go up to $15,000. But still put that in perspective – $15,000 is less than 1% of the cost of a major party’s election campaign. It may be quite a lot of money to an individual, but it isn’t a lot of money to a major party.

I'm no fan of John Key, but he has every right to be proud of his kids and they have every right to live their lives as they choose.

— Chris Hipkins (@chrishipkins) May 11, 2014

Nicely said Chris Hipkins.

Forest Treasure, Otway Ranges, Victoria, Australia

Heading towards the Gt Ocean Road is the Otway National Park which is an idyllic place packed with lush forest, superb waterfalls and generally great landscape photography opportunities. I came across this little scene while on the way to Hopetoun Falls and the soft diffused light was ideal to capture a little of the essence of this wonderful location.

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

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

Stuff reports:

Tens of thousands of well-off pensioners are claiming up to half a billion dollars in superannuation every year.

With government debt at more than $60 billion, critics say the wealthy are asking their children and grandchildren to fund their so-called retirement.

Ministry of Social Development figures revealed more than 26,000 people with total income of more than $70,000 a year claimed superannuation last year. At current rates, this could add up to $570m a year before tax..

These figures, released under the Official Information Act, come as the country wrestles with how to pay for our growing retirement-age population and looked increasingly isolated in offering universal super.

The Australian Government recently announced plans to raise their retirement age to 70 in a bid to ease the growing financial burden of the ageing population. They already means test pensions.

University of Auckland business lecturer Susan St John said there were likely to be far more than 26,000 well-off people claiming super, as many were able to hide their earnings through investments and trusts.

She said the country had become far more generous to retirees at “the top end” in the past few decades. In the 1980s, a surcharge was used to rein in super payments for high earners, but that had been abolished in the late 1990s.

“There is a case for redesigning the tax system to gently claw back NZ Super, at the top end – without affecting the living standards of the bulk of people who might genuinely only have small amounts of additional supplementary income.”

I think all benefits should be income tested.

St John has proposed such a system to the Treasury, that would effectively claim back the bulk of super payments in tax from the wealthy.

Brian Gaynor, of Milford Asset Management, said New Zealand was an exception and most developed countries, including Australia, means-tested super payments.

“There are people who are very wealthy, and I don’t see why they should be eligible for NZ Super,” he said.

“They do pay higher tax on it than someone who has no other income, but that doesn’t justify it. It doesn’t seem to me to be the best use of the country’s resources.”

Means testing can be both income and asset testing. Useful to be specific about which we are referring. Incidentially a reader pointed out to me by e-mail that in the 1950s the means test included how many pairs of underpants you owned!

But Grey Power president Terry King said retirees who have saved to supplement their income, even by $60,000 or more a year, should not be penalised by income-testing policies.

“If they’ve worked hard through their lives, through business or whatever – superannuation is an entitlement, not a benefit.”

I disagree. Far better to have people pay less tax when they work, rather than over tax people during their working lives – to then give a fraction of it back to them when they turn a certain age.

And while Labour has mooted raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, neither of the main parties nor the Greens were interested in giving less public money to retirement-aged people who had a little extra cash.

Not quite correct. The fine print of Labour’s policy is that they will effectively income test NZ Super from age 65 to 67. That sets a precedent for extending income testing to all ages.

ACT have done an alternative budget, which is here.

The Herald reports:

Act Party leader Jamie Whyte has produced an alternative budget that would slash Government spending on what he calls “middle-class welfare” and “corporate welfare”.

He said cuts of $4 billion would allow the top personal rate of 33 per cent and corporate tax rate of 28 per cent to be cut to 24 per cent with a view to cutting them to 17.5 per cent by 2020.

Treasury estimates (roughly) that the cutting the 33% rate to 24% would cost $1.8 billion. Cutting the 30% rate to 24% would cost $0.8 billion. Cutting the company tax rate to 24% would cost $1.5 billion.  That’s a total cost of $3.9 billion.

Matt Nolan at TVHE is unimpressed with the alternative budget. Not so much with some of the specifics, but with the claim that this would increase economic growth from 3% to 5%. I agree with him that this is an unjustified assumption.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that over time, developed economies with a smaller proportion of economic activity taxed by the Government, will have a higher long-term growth rate. But it isn’t a magic wand that overnight lifts economic growth by a massive 2%.

The Herald continues:

Act would phase out Working For Families by 2020, lift the age of eligibility for superannuation to 67, cut Kiwsaver kickstart and the tax credit, scrap paid parental leave and parental tax credits, end climate change obligations and reintroduce interest on student loans.

“This spending confers private benefits on politically favoured groups.”

It took money off people in tax then gave it back to them if they fell into one of the Government’s favoured categories.

Dr Whyte said corporate welfare was “a kind of system corruption which compromises a nation’s commercial culture”.

Under capitalism, entrepreneurs were supported to solve their problems by themselves or go out of business if they don’t.

“Labour want them to jump on a plane to Wellington with their hand outstretched to pick the pocket of the ordinary taxpayer.”

Those agencies that would be spared cuts under Act include ACC, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, the GCSB and SIS, Corrections, Courts, Defence Force, Education Review Office, the Office of the Ombudsmen, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Police, Serious Fraud Office and Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations.

Three Government agencies would be abolished: Women’s Affairs, Pacific Island Affairs and Tourism New Zealand.

Most government agencies would be required to spend less.

Education, for example, would have to function on 1 per cent less, saving about $24 million. Customs would have to save 2 per cent or $3.17 million.

Treasury would have $7 million cut from its policy advice budget.

The biggest savings would come from cutting funding programmes within the Science and Innovation portfolio, $659 million, and Economic Development, $281 million.

It has also budged for $291 million less for the Ministry of Primary Industries, $196 million less for the Ministry for the Environment, and $111 million less for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Interesting that ACT is saying money set aside for Treaty settlements should not be reduced.

Stuff reports:

Labour has questioned whether the Government is keeping money from Canterbury’s earthquake recovery to improve this week’s budget. 

The Government has already confirmed just under $1 billion of new spending will be included in Thursday’s budget, as well as a small surplus.

However, Labour leader David Cunliffe told Radio New Zealand he understood the surplus would be achieved only with “smoke and mirrors”. 

He queried whether funds meant for Canterbury’s earthquake recovery had been held back to make the Government’s books look better than they were.

This shows a high level of both paranoia and economic illiteracy.

The surplus that will (I presume) be projected on Thursday is not for the current year. It is for the 2014/15 financial year.

If there have been delays in spending money for Canterbury earthquake recovery, then it will reduce next year’s surplus, not increase it. The surpluses are about future projections. Hence to maximise them, you’d actually want as much Canterbury spending as possible to take place in this current financial year – rather than next year.

Also if some Canterbury spending is capital, not operational, then the impact of when it is spent on the Budget is minimal – depreciation only – if applicable.

So basically overall the claim is nonsense.

Stuff reports:

Embattled Windflow Technology may have to tap again its expat Kiwi investor for more capital to survive.

Whether ex-Wellington and Windflow investor David Isles, who lives in New York, needs to inject capital or lend more money to Windflow depends on how many wind turbines the Christchurch manufacturing firm manages to sell in its target United Kingdom market.

On the sales front progress has been very slow in the past three years and the company has had to raise capital several times to stay afloat, with Isles the main contributor.

Yesterday Windflow forecast a $4.4 million loss for the year to June 30 2014, after posting a half-year loss of $2.8m for the six months to December 31, 2013.

The half year loss was almost 50 per cent higher than the previous half year of $1.9m.

It shares were steady at 6c with no trades yesterday.

A significant investor in Windflow are or were the Greens. In 2001 they announced:

Green Party energy spokesperson and co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and the Green Party’s Superannuation Fund have joined the growing list of investors in local wind power company Windflow Technology. …

“Our superannuation fund has a policy of ethical investing. Windflow Technology fits with our policy because it brings together local manufacturing and sustainable energy. As such, it is quite a unique investment opportunity in New Zealand and we are pleased to be able to invest at this early stage.”

British environmentalist and investor, Teddy Goldsmith, is the company’s largest investor so far.

Windflow Technology is offering two million shares at $1.50 each. The offer closes 1st June.

So the shares have lost 96% of their value. No wonder the Greens keep pushing policies to favour wind power.

I don’t mind the Greens losing money in sharemarket investments, but be aware they want the NZ Government to invest millions or billions in what they call green jobs, green growth, green tech.

So when the Greens go on about investing in green jobs, what they really mean is losing 96% of your money.

UPDATE: Kevin Hague says the Greens Super Fund was wound up in 2009. Useful to know, but doesn’t change the fact that this was an investment they trumpeted as sound – and is the sort they insist that the NZ Government should be making.

Just published the latest monthly newsletter. The summary is:

There were just three political polls in April – all from Roy Morgan. Hence the poll average for April is based just on their polls.

The average of the public polls has National 14% ahead of Labour in April, down 3% from March. The current seat projection is centre-right 57 seats, centre-left 55 which would see NZ First holding the balance of power.

In Australia support for the Government falls after their plans to impose a temporary tax on higher income earners was revealed.

In the United States President Obama’s numbers are improving slightly for domestic policy, but dropping for foreign policy. The Republicans now lead in generic congressional polls. 

In the UK David Cameron’s approval ratings have fallen away as polls show the UK Independence Party leading for the upcoming European elections. Scottish independence polls show the no vote ahead by 2% to 14% with an average 6% gap.

In Canada the Conservatives are up 3% but remain behind the Liberals who are projected likely to form a minority government.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. The mood in Australia has dropped significantly in the last month.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on the republicanism, the NZ Flag, registering dog owners plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Stuff reports:

A group of high-powered New Zealand women, some of them mothers, say paid parental leave should be means-tested to give more assistance to poorer families.

I agree. Taxing people more to give welfare to families who don’t need it is inefficient and morally unjustifiable.

Means-testing paid parental leave is supported by Therese Walsh, mother of two, the inaugural Women of Influence winner and head of New Zealand’s 2015 Cricket World Cup campaign.

“We means-test for almost every other kind of benefit, why should this be any different? There isn’t enough taxpayer money to go around and the spend must be appropriate. I don’t have a strong view on how much time should be taken but the dollars should be enough to provide the necessities.”

I think all welfare should be means tested – including NZ Super – so long as the administrative cost of doing the means testing is minor.

Victoria University professor of public policy Jonathan Boston said that if the aim was to assist low-income families, there would be better ways than changing current parental leave arrangements. “In order to get parental leave you have to be at work and you have to have been in work for a year continuously. If you simply extend paid parental leave it’s not going to help any of those not in work.”

Yep.

BusinessNZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly said it was a nice idea but he did not believe the means-testing proposal could be practically implemented. “We have always supported targeting of government assistance. But this won’t have wide support. I suspect in practical terms employers may support universality.”

A very disappointing statement. I don’t believe means testing paid parental leave would be difficult at all. NZ Super would be. But PPL wouldn’t be.

The Herald reports:

Embattled MP Maurice Williamson is facing fresh trouble after it emerged he failed to declare a top-of-the-range $899 smartphone.

The Pakuranga MP claims he did not have to disclose the Samsung Galaxy S4 phone in a register of pecuniary interests, released this week, because it was a long-term loan and not a gift.

Prime Minister John Key and Communications and Technology Minister Amy Adams were also given phones — Key got three — but both declared them on the gifts register.

Williamson told the Herald on Sunday Samsung contacted him through a public relations firm to offer him an “extended trial”.

Williamson said he was known as a fan of technology and companies often wanted to show him their latest products. “It will go back to Samsung and hence, no gift occurred.”

There is still a benefit from the loan. But does it meet the threshold?

The Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests, Sir Maarten Wevers, said it should be on the register if Williamson had more than $500 worth of benefit from the phone over a 12-month period.

“If you were lending someone a house for a year or a car for a year and it has a value of more than $500, I would expect that to be included in your return,” he said. “If you’re in doubt you should declare. That’s the rule of thumb.”

Sir Maarten said he would check with the Office of the Clerk on Monday to see whether there were for any precedents for this sort of thing

Constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis said Williamson was wrong to say it was not a gift. “There’s still a gift involved in that he’s gaining free the use of this device for the period in which it is in his possession,” the Otago University professor said.

I agree with Sir Maarten and Andrew. However the “value” of the loan would seem to be under the $500 threshold.

One could treat the $899 as an interest free loan. At even 10% interest hat is just $90 a year of value.

Or one could take a depreciation type approach and say a mobile phone tends to last for three years, so $900 over three years is $300 a year of value – still uner the threshold.

Having said that, the maxim of “If in doubt, declare” is a wise one.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand’s exports hit $50 billion for the first time ever, Finance Minister Bill English revealed in Queenstown today. …

In the hard data department, 84,000 new jobs were created last year. Government spending had also lost a chunk of its importance to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, meaning private sector earning was on the rise.

”In 2008 government spending was 35 per cent of our GDP,” he said.

”Now that has dropped to 30 per cent, and we want that to be dropping to 26 per cent and 25 per cent in the next six and seven years.”

It would be great to get spending to 25% of GDP. There is a wealth of data showing that economies grow faster if the Government isn’t spending and taxing too high a proportion of the economy.

In the prediction department English weighed in with two sure to prick up voters’ ears: firstly that the average income would rise by $7,500 to $62,000 in the next four years, and that economic growth would increase by 10 per cent in the next three years.

Both sound good.

”In 2008 there were 4,300 people under 20 on a single parent benefit, and figures show each one of those people usually remains on a benefit for 20 years, which equates to about $350,000.

“On the left they might say ‘it’s not your fault’ and give them another $20 per week just to show they care. Today there are 2,800 sole parents under 20 on a benefit. We are dealing with those young people on a case by case basis, and want to say it is not a hopeless situation if you are a parent at 17 – but we want people to have aspirations and be a government that is there to help them achieve.”

That figure that being on a sole parent benefit at under 20 normally means you stay on it for 20 years is shocking. I think the welfare work being done is the most important.

The latest Otago University Vote Chat, with Michael Woodhouse.