Shane Cowlishaw at Stuff reports:

An embalmer who was forced to counsel the grieving father of a suicide victim has been denied ACC cover because it was not the only harrowing incident of her career.

The woman, who cannot be named, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2009.

Her routine job involved collecting the bodies of people who died naturally, but occasionally she would be called to police scenes such as murders and suicides.

In 2007 she attended a scene north of Auckland where a young man had hanged himself.

The police and victim support were unable to get his father to release the body, so she sat and talked with him, eventually persuading him to help in getting his son on to a stretcher.

But a police officer then threw the rope on top of the body, causing further distress to the father.

The woman continued to work as an embalmer until 2009, when she resigned and lodged a claim for mental injury. She was shocked when ACC declined it.

Under section 21B of the ACC Act, a claimant can seek cover for a work-related mental injury that is not linked to a physical injury.

However, it must be related to a single traumatic event, and ACC argued the woman’s condition was the cumulative effect of a number of sad or distressing events she had had to attend.

I’m glad to see this decision, because what makes ACC less sustainable is the way it has inevitably expanded from its core role, which was to provide income to people who injured themselves while working – while they recovered.

It was never meant to be  general counselling service for the entire country.

I’m not trying to be unsympathetic, but if you choose to be an embalmer (I could never ever be one) then it is highly likely you will see a lot of dead bodies including homicide and suicide victims. And yes it will be traumatic – but it is not an accident.

Toby Manhire has put together at The Listener an amusing collection of photos of MPs with their youth wings at university campuses around the country.

There has been a real revival in recent years of students getting involved in politics, through their youth wings. I don’t know the numbers for the other parties but understand the Young National signed up 1,500 members over the course of Orientation Week. That’s more members than some parties have in their entire membership!

Labour said in January 2011:

Election Will Be A Referendum On Asset Sales – Goff

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important strategic assets sold.

Labour and the Greens are using taxpayer funds to try and relitigate the election result. As the Labour Party Leader said, the 2011 was to be a referendum on asset sales. It was the most debated policy of the campaign with 11 months of campaigning about.

I do look forward to seeing media asking David Shearer if he agrees with his predecessor that the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales.

Well done Inventory2 for finding this gem at Keeping Stock.

Stuff reports:

A pre-asset-sale study in 2011 for the Government had highlighted over-optimistic coal price assumptions and questionable alternative fuels investments, which led ultimately to changes to the board and management, he said.

O’Connor said the previous government had supported Solid Energy as a sustainable business that was looking into alternative developments, while National saw it solely as a cash cow which could help it fund tax cuts.

Very nice of Damien to claim credit for the alternative developments which of course failed, and led to the increased debt. Solid Energy did not borrow money to pay dividends. Dividends come out of profits. Debt is used to fund “developments”.

This reinforces for me why the Government should not own commercially risky trading enterprises. If people want to fund “alternative developments” they should do so voluntarily as direct shareholders.

Stuff reports:

Stephanie Cook has announced she will not stand again for the Wellington City Council in October.

Cr Cook, a veteran of local politics, has represented the Lambton ward for 18 years.

She is retiring to run a bed and breakfast on a lifestyle block in the Tararua Ranges.

First elected in 1995, she holds the social affairs portfolio under Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

Under Mayor Kerry Prendergast, she was one of the leading opponents of the inner-city bypass project.

Aligned with the left of city politics, she was a member of the Greens until 1999 and then stood as a councillor for the Alliance.

Stephanie’s retirement opens up god good opportunities in Lambton Ward for aspiring Councillors. It is very difficult to beat incumbents as name recognition is very influential on voting behaviours – unless the incumbent is very unpopular. So having a retirement of an incumbent is the best opportunity for aspiring new Councilors.

The results of the Falkland Islands referendum are just in. The question was:

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

There are 1,672 adults eligible to vote. 1,517 votes were cast which is a 90.73% turnout.

There was one invalid vote. Excluding that there were 1,513 yes votes and three no votes. That is a yes vote percentage of 99.80%.

The Argentinian claim to the islands is flimsy – their period of sovereignty was a total of two months – from December 1832 to January 1833. It is also worth noting that on three occasions the UK offered to take the dispute to mediation with the International Court of Justice. Argentina has declined every time.

The right to self-determination is the key issue for me. The residents are mainly descended from families who have lived there since the 1830s. This is their home, and their only home.  Their wishes must remain paramount.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Brown claimed space for 15,000 homes but now concedes just 2000 sites ready.

Auckland has 2000 new sections ready to build houses on, says Mayor Len Brown, who last month claimed there was enough land for 15,000 homes.

As debate grows about housing and land supply in Auckland, Mr Brown is no longer claiming the city has enough new land to build 15,000 houses “right now”.

Instead, he is saying there is capacity for 15,000 homes on ready-to-go greenfield land in areas such as Flat Bush, Takanini and Hobsonville, but only 2000 sections have reached the building stage.

That’s a big reduction, in fact an 87% reduction.

Councillor Dick Quax said Mr Brown had proclaimed to all who would listen that Auckland had 15,000 sections ready for houses to be built on “right now”.

“The mayor is now having a big helping of humble pie as he acknowledges that there are just 2000 sections ready for construction to begin.

“What this means is Auckland runs out of land to build on in May,” Mr Quax said.

The latest admission, he said, showed just how dire the land supply was and an acknowledgement the council had got it seriously wrong.

They have.

Auckland has a higher urban density than every major city in Australia. Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense. Town planners don’t like it, because they want everyone to comply with their views on where people must live to make their job easier. But frankly I think the rights of home owners trump the rights of town planners.

The Auditor-General has reported their findings into the decision by Shane Jones to grant Bill Liu citizenship against official advice. This is a matter of discretion for the Minister so it never has been about whether the decision was legal.

Here are some extracts from the report:

Mr Barker acted properly in deciding that he could not make the citizenship decision for Mr Liu, but we do not consider it was wise for him to have signed the letter – at least in that form. We appreciate that the letter was one of many pieces of correspondence that a Minister has to deal with in the course of a busy week, and that it related to procedure rather than any substantive decision. Nonetheless, it created an impression that Mr Barker would be taking a personal interest in Mr Liu’s file. 

Mr Barker would have been better either to amend the letter to make clear that he would not be personally involved in the file or to arrange for someone else to sign the letter.

It is worth noting that signing a letter on an issue regarding someone you had a personal connection with, was sufficient grounds for Nick Smith to resign as a Minister. Of course Barker was defeated at the 2008 election.

Mr Jones had significant concerns about the advice he was given, but did not take steps to clarify that advice with other officials. He also knew that both the New Zealand Police and Immigration New Zealand were still actively investigating Mr Liu, but did not consult those agencies before making his decision. In keeping with his usual approach for ministerial decisions, he wanted to make a final decision.

A serious mistake.

He did not record the reasons for his decision, and Mr Liu’s advisers were notified of his decision before the Department was notifed.

That is appalling. Liu got told before the Department was even told! This shows he had special access.

This effectively deprived officials of an opportunity they might otherwise have had to correct the misunderstandings on which Mr Jones’ decision was based.

I still can’t believe he told Liu before he told his own department.

One recommendation is:

We recommend that the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister record the reasons for any significant decisions they make on citizenship applications, particularly when the decision involves a departure from normal policy or procedure. 

Recording the reasons for decisions is important to ensure transparency. It also provides an important protection if  concerns are raised that the decision has been made for an improper purpose. 

This has always been my major criticism of Jones. If you are going to go against a recommendation, a semi-competent Minister should do a file note and state why.

Now Jones did produce a three page file note to the Auditor-General. But because it was not attached to the official files, and not recorded in any official way, it is impossible to know if the file note was written at the time, or written some time later after the story blew up. The fact that the DIA official involved states the file note is inaccurate in parts damages the credibility of this claimed file note. The whole purpose of a file note is to attach it to the file.

We recommend that a Minister considering making a citizenship decision against the advice of officials should explain their reasons, and give officials the opportunity to respond, before finalising the decision. 

Although ultimately the decision is for the Minister to make, this additional step would give officials the opportunity to confirm that the proposed decision is within the terms of the Citizenship Act 1977 and is not based on any misunderstanding of relevant policies or the facts.

And it goes without saying don’t tell the mate of your mate before you tell your own officials.

Some interesting stuff also on the Cunliffe decision:

The advice provided to Mr Cunliffe by officials, in particular the advice provided by the senior legal adviser in August 2007, conveyed, in reasonably strong terms, that it was open for the Minister to revoke Mr Liu’s residency. We were told that Immigration does not usually provide advice that strongly advocates that the Minister should make a particular decision. The strongly worded advice on this occasion was not common.

In other words, it was not a marginal call in the eyes of the Department.

In our view, this decision was made in an appropriate way. It represented a sensible way in which the difficult decisions arising from unproven allegations could be addressed. The reasons for the Minister’s decision were made clear, and were formally recorded on the file in the way that was understood. 

Also, although the Department’s effective recommendation was not being followed, the decision-making process shows that Mr Cunliffe addressed the issues with considerable thought and care. There was no evidence of favouritism or that the Minister made the decision for improper reasons.

And this is the key difference between Cunliffe and Jones. Cunliffe documented his decision. This sounds a minor thing, but as the AG says is very important. When there is no reason given, and the person is a donor to your political party, then how can we know it was not because Dover told his mate Shane that this guy was a donor and they should look after him?

The detailed conclusions around the decision are:

We acknowledge that Mr Jones gave considerable thought to Mr Liu’s application, and that, in his view, it was important to make a decision reasonably promptly. 

However, in our view, he made his decision too hastily and without ensuring that he had a full understanding of all the relevant information. In particular, Mr Jones either did not understand or did not accept the Department’s advice that neither section 8 nor section 9 of the Citizenship Act were applicable.

A Minister who made decisions based either on ignorance or refusal to listen.

In our view, given that he knew there were ongoing investigations by Immigration and the New Zealand Police, he should also have consulted them before making his decision, as the Investigator’s note of the first meeting suggested he was intending to do.

Absolutely.

We also consider that Mr Jones should have recorded his reasons for authorising the grant of citizenship. He was making a decision against the Department’s recommendation, and the basis for his decision and reasons for departing from normal policy would not have been obvious from the papers. Indeed, on the face of the decision-making papers, it was not even clear under which section of the Citizenship Act he had authorised the grant.

Shane Jones is incredibly talented, but also notoriously lazy and sloppy. He has the potential to make a significant contribution to NZ Politics, and may get that opportunity to do so again as a frontbencher for Labour. But to succeed, he is going to have to make sure there is never a repeat of a situation like this.

A guest post by Tom Haig of the PPTA on the issue of whether charter schools should be covered by the Official Information Act:

Funny how history turns out eh? Back in 1977 a young Labour MP took on Muldoon, promoting a ‘Freedom of Information Bill’ to challenge the principle of the ‘Official Secrets Act’ which meant that, unless otherwise specified, all state information was kept secret. That Labour MP was Richard Prebble, and in 1982, following his first attempt five years before, the Official Information Act overturned the Official Secrets Act. Fast-forward 36 years, and Prebble’s parliamentary heir is hastily scrabbling for reasons why the OIA should be undermined to promote the politically expedient project of charter schools. 

One of the aspects of the Bill introducing charter schools that attracted a lot of attention at Select Committee was section 158X which would grant them exemption from the Official Information Act and Ombudsman Act. Three justifications are put forward for this, and I don’t believe the Richard Prebble of 1977 would have had a bar of any of them.

The first reason, advanced in the Cabinet papers describing the establishment of charter schools is to ‘avoid vexatious and costly complaints’. This is a terrible argument. Firstly on the practical side – yes, addressing OIA requests can take time and effort, but organisations are allowed to bill for their reasonable costs. Secondly, if this is allowed to stand, shouldn’t every government department mired in scandal be allowed to opt out for just this reason? Finally, charter schools would be within their rights to refuse to answer frivolous or vexatious requests, and if the Ombudsman agreed it was a worthless request then they’d be able to throw it out.

The second justification is that exemption is consistent with the status of the sponsor as a community organisation. This is problematic, as it’s about the type of organisation providing the service, rather than what the service is. By extension, this could mean that if the government was to contract out all variety of services to community or private organisations the extension of OIA coverage would shrink. Locking up core state services in contractual agreements with private providers is risky for numerous reasons; this is certainly one of them.

The third justification is that charter schools are analogous to early childhood or private training providers, which are not subject to these acts. However, there’s a glaring difference between these sort of providers and schools – and that is the aspect of compulsion.  As a ‘classic liberal’ party, Act should be well aware of this distinction – protecting citizens from the power of the state is after all one of their main concerns. Students have to go to school, while going to early childhood education or tertiary is a choice, and as such the role of consumer is quite different from that of a child at school.

So what would it mean for students and families at charter schools if they’re not covered? For one thing, the OIA and Ombudsman Act provide important protection in regards to decisions made about them, by giving them access to the reasons for those decisions, which the Privacy Act does not. Similarly, students and their families, or teachers at the school, or the wider public, will have no automatic right of access to the school’s policies, which could lead to decisions made by school managers seeming arbitrary and unfair.

This issue of making school policies public had some coverage recently following cases of schools not allowing students to take same-sex partners to their balls. In 2011 Blogger Matthew Taylor wrote to secondary schools around the country asking for their policies on this, a request which threw a number of school principals into a fluster.  As they do in such situations, some brought this concern to the PPTA, and we advised them that they should give the information – it’s a perfectly reasonable request and there’s no good reason not to make it public.

I’ll finish with a quote from the Ombudsman’s submission to the Select Committee:

“Clause 158X of the Education Bill runs the risk of creating a state funded schooling regime which is shrouded in secrecy and is unaccountable. This is likely to hamper the ability of partnership schools to achieve their central goal of achieving better outcomes for students. Applying the Official Information Act and Ombudsmen Act to partnership schools will assist partnership schools in exercising their statutory functions, enhance transparency and accountability, bring New Zealand into line with international models and avoid the constitutional anomaly inherent in the current Bill.”

Removing this clause won’t make me support charter schools. But if they’re going to exist there’s no good reason that they should be shrouded in secrecy. And if the more ideologically consistent members of the Act party were to search their scruples carefully, I suspect that they would agree.

Personally I’m not convinced by the arguments for charter schools to be excluded from the Official Information Act and Ombudsmen Act, and think that as they are primarily taxpayer funded they should be included in both Acts. I hope the select committee recommends changes to that effect.

Stuff reports:

One of the men accused of raping a 23-year-old woman on a Delhi bus found dead in jail. …

The alleged ringleader in a gang rape and murder case that sparked outrage across India, Singh was found dead in his prison cell on Monday, once again putting the New Delhi slum he used to call home in an unwanted spotlight.

This is a pity. I think more good would have been done by having him stand trial, and the country and the world hearing what happened.

Authorities in New Delhi’s Tihar jail said Singh hanged himself before dawn. His father rejected that explanation, saying he believed his son was murdered.

“He confessed about his mistake, then why would he commit suicide? He was prepared for any punishment the government would have given him,” Mange Lal Singh told reporters in his home in the slum.

His mistake???

I think we are starting to see how attitudes can be passed on from one generation to the next.

Legal experts said Singh’s death does not undermine the prosecution’s case against the other accused, which was largely based on DNA evidence and the testimony of the rape victim before she died and her friend.

Good.

Andrea Vance reports at Stuff:

The Government has rescinded its threat to veto the Mondayisation bill, which seems set to pass tonight.

That would be most surprising as members’ bills are only debated on every second Wednesday and today is Tuesday,

The private members bill, introduced by Labour MP David Clark, is up for a crucial second reading and looks to have the numbers. It would give Kiwis a Monday off when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend.

National had rejected the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill. Last year Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would use a financial veto to oppose it.

However, speaking from Brazil this morning, Prime Minister John Key said it had now decided not to exercise that power.

The “lineball call” decision was made at a caucus meeting three weeks ago.

That is the right decision. The financial veto should only be used on bills which have a fairly significant financial impact such as the paid parental leave bill. But the impact on the Crown finances of four extra days off every seven years is minimal. Arguably in fact there is no financial impact – just a small drop in work productivity.

Key conceded the cost would largely be borne by the private sector and wasn’t a “huge” bill for the Government.

“It’s a hard cost to quantify because there is a whole lot of factors you have to take into account…we pretty much reserve the veto for government expenditure.”

Most private sector employers aren’t really too worried by this bill either. We budget for employees to have 11 public holidays a year. The fact that some years they only get 9 or 10 isn’t something that employers get excited over.

We Mondayise pretty much all other holidays, so including Waitangi and ANZAC Days just means w are being consistent.

Parliament 12 March 2013 

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

Questions to Ministers           

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Greens) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I think we got a mandate” for asset sales at the last election, given a majority of New Zealanders voted for parties that opposed his Government’s asset sales policy?
2. MIKE SABIN (National) to the Minister of Finance: What impact is the current drought likely to have on the economy?
3. DAVID SHEARER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for State Owned Enterprises?
4. Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What results have the Government’s Gateway Assessments for children in care had to date?
5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by his statement “There was no change to Dr Elder’s pay or entitlements. Therefore, there was no effect on what his contractual arrangements would be during the changes to his employment”; if so, why?
6. JONATHAN YOUNG (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What can he report on potential oil and gas development in the North Island’s East Coast?
7. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is the Government planning to reduce the numbers in the Immigration New Zealand Parent Category?
8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Auckland’s metropolitan urban limits?
9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports from the Police has she received on the results of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009?
10. EUGENIE SAGE (Greens) to the Minister for the Environment: Are the proposals in the recent Government resource management discussion paper intended to give greater weight to economic benefits than environmental outcomes in Resource Management Act decision making?
11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What were the “high profile matters in education last year that contributed to strained relations across the education sector” and why did they lead to the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education?
12. JACQUI DEAN (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made aimed at improving the quality and management of fresh water?

Labour is asking five questions, the Greens two, NZ First one, and National four. Labour is asking on SOEs, Gateway Assessments for children, ex-Solid Energy CEO Don Elder, Auckland urban limits, and the resignation of Lesley Longstone. The Greens are asking on asset sales and RMA reform, and NZ First is asking on immigration. Patsy of the day goes to Jacqui Dean – what recent announcements has the Government made aimed at improving the quality and management of fresh water?

Government Bills 3.00 pm – 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

1. Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill – committee stage
2. Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) – committee stage
3. Building Amendment Bill (No 4) – second reading (cont.)

The Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill is under the guidance of Bill English and confirms the financial matters relating to the financial year ended 30 June 2012. Four hours are allocated to it and all financial reviews are available for debate.

The Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced by Peter Dunne in August 2012, in his role as Minister of Revenue. The Bill introduces data-matching with the New Zealand Customs Service to locate borrowers in serious default when they enter or leave New Zealand. It will also change the definition of income, bringing it into line with the definition used for Working For Families tax credits and student allowances, from April 2014. At second reading only the Greens and Mana voted against.

The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) was introduced in September 2011 by Maurice Williamson. It is the second of two Bills to implement the Building Act Review policy decisions. There are 9 x 10m speeches remaining in its second reading

Two taxation issues have been getting some publicity of late. They are about fringe benefit tax on company car parks and taxation on long-stay accommodation.

As I have said many times the best tax system is low rate, broad base and as few loopholes as possible.

At this stage, I find the the proposed tax treatment of car parks quite reasonable, but the new tax rules on long-stay accommodation quite troubling. Let’s look at both in turn.

3 News reports:

Finance Minister Bill English is backing a controversial move to make company carparks subject to fringe benefit tax. That’s despite strong opposition from an unlikely coalition of trade unionists and employers.

It’s an unusual union of convenience. New Zealand’s most left-leaning trade union is working with the country’s biggest business association to topple a Government tax bill, with bumper stickers.

“Sometimes we have common causes,” says Unite Union secretary Matt McCarten. “To fight an obnoxious tax like that is one of them. We are united in hating the Government on this one, I’m very pleased to say!”

The Government wants to tax company carparks. Revenue Minister Peter Dunne is proposing a 50 percent hike on the perk, but only in central Wellington and Auckland. He’s got support from the top. 

“It’s going to not raise any money,” says Employers and Manufacturers assistant chief executive Kim Campbell. “It’s picking on Auckland and Wellington. It’s picking on CBD workers, not everybody.”

The proposed law change was announced by the Government on 11 December 2012.

He said public submissions on the proposed salary trade-off changes resulted in adjusted proposals to focus mainly on employer-provided car parks.

A wider set of car parks provided to employees (predominantly in Auckland and Wellington CBDs) will be taxed, through the fringe benefit tax (FBT) rules.

“These changes enhance the integrity of the tax and social assistance systems by providing a fairer, more equal, way of treating those who receive non-cash benefits as part of their remuneration and those who receive only cash remuneration,” Mr Dunne said.

The SOP is here.

Fringe Benefit Tax is designed to remove the incentive for employees to reduce their taxable income by having part of their remuneration in non cash terms.

Rather than (for example) pay someone a $100,000 salary on which they pay $33,000 tax, the employer used to be able to say we’ll give you $90,000 salary and $10,000 of fringe benefits (say medical insurance, superannuation contribution etc). That reduces the tax bill to $30,000 and advantages that employee over someone who is just on $100,000 with no fringe benefits.

Hence without an FBT, you’d get a huge number of employers and employees agreeing on as many fringe benefits as possible to reduce their tax liability. Which is why FBT was introduced in (off memory) the early 1990s.

So now the issue is whether car parks are a fringe benefit. It seems hard to me to argue they’re not. Not all employees travel to work by car, but those who do need to park it of course. There are dozens of private car parks available for hire, but they of course save money if the employer provides one.

The biggest argument against FBT on car parks is that the value is so low, that the administrative cost of doing so is greater than the revenue. But the value of car parking in the two main CBDs (the Christchurch CBD is now basically one big carpark!) is now quite significant, say $3,000 a year. This is why the FBT will only apply to the two big cities – because elsewhere the value of car parking is not great enough to bother.

But $3,000 a year is enough for employers to say we’ll either pay you $100,000 a year and no car park or $97,000 a year and a car park.

So I don’t have a huge issue with the principle of FBT on car parks. I want lower taxes, but you get those by lowering rates – not by having loopholes.

However it may be that the cost of extending FBT is not worth the revenue. Those against would be better focusing on that issue, rather than trying to argue in favour of tax loopholes which are in their self-interest.

The issue of taxing long-stay accommodation I find much more troubling. It is worth noting that this doesn’t come from a law change initiated by the Government, but from the IRD changing its position on what the lawful treatment is.

On 6 December 2012 the IRD Commissioner said:

Under section CE 1(1B), the market value of accommodation provided by an employer to an employee is income of the employee. Equally, the market value of an accommodation allowance paid by an employer to an employee is income of the employee. The employer must account for PAYE.

Issues arise most often in the situation of relocation or temporary accommodation arrangements.

Taxpayers have argued that where the employee is still maintaining a home in another location, employer-provided accommodation or accommodation allowances are not taxable. Taxpayers argue this is because there is no net benefit provided to the employee; the value of any accommodation or allowance received by the employee is nil as the employee continues to pay the cost of their own house.

This is a view I agree with. If you live in Wellington and maintain a house there and your employer says we need you to go to Christchurch for three months, then it is their responsibility to provide accommodation for you and it should not be regarded as taxable income as you are not receiving a benefit from it. It is no different (in my view) from having your employer pay for a hotel room when you stay overnight somewhere on their business. But the Commissioner says:

The Commissioner does not agree with this view. The law does not support a net-benefit approach.

If that is the case, then I think the law needs changing.

The Commissioner acknowledges there has been some uncertainty and inconsistent practice, by both Inland Revenue and taxpayers, regarding the taxation of employer-provided accommodation and accommodation allowances. The Inland Revenue Technical Rulings Manual paragraph 57.11 reflected a net- benefit approach to determining the value of employer-provided accommodation and accommodation allowances. However, taxpayers were advised in September 1998¹ that the Technical Rulings Manual was being discontinued and that Technical Rulings should not be relied upon as representing Inland Revenue’s views or practice. In addition, the legislation has changed considerably since the relevant Technical Rulings chapter was written.

This is a polite way of saying we’ve changed our mind.

This ruling has been much criticised. David Cunliffe has said:

The Government’s plan to tax accommodation for earthquake rebuild workers is more akin to the actions of a vulture picking over a carcass for every last morsel than it is to sensible fiscal management,  Labour’s Revenue spokesperson David Cunliffe says.

“The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has ruled that employers who send workers away from their usual homes must pay tax on provided accommodation. The ruling seemingly ignores how little remuneration benefit there is to the worker, who must still maintain their family home even though they can’t use it.

I agree with the criticism of the ruling, but would point out the Government (in the sense of Ministers) have no say on this issue. Once a law is passed, the IRD Commissioner decides how IRD will interpret it – not Ministers (thank God). An issue can be litigated in court of course – or Parliament can change the law.

The decision was criticised at the time:

The rule change requiring employers to pay PAYE on any accommodation provision an employee gets when working in another location – particularly the decision to make it retrospective – has taken the tax fraternity by surprise.

Hooft said the move was in contrast to recommendations made by the IRD’s own policy advice division last month.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA) said it was “deeply concerned” about the new tax.

It would have a significant impact on industries which relied on itinerant workers, such as agriculture, the film industry, and the Christchurch rebuild effort, the accounting industry body said.

Acting general manager tax, Jolayne Trim, said it was a retrospective law change “of the worst kind”. 

The Herald editorial has been critical:

Auckland firms that send engineers and construction staff to Christchurch for the rebuild have just learned their projects are going to be much more expensive. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has ruled that employers who send people to work away from their usual home for a period must pay tax on the value of accommodation provided for them.

The decision, which is not confined to the earthquake recovery operation, of course, has astonished tax advisers and no wonder. It defies reason and common sense.

Accommodation provided by an employer is quite properly treated as taxable income when it is a benefit to the employee. But a worker who is provided with free or subsidised accommo-dation away from home is not getting a benefit; he or she still faces the normal costs of maintaining a home without the benefit of being able to live in it.

The commissioner in her ruling last week readily acknowledged that reasoning but “the law,” she said, “does not support a net-benefit approach”. She has not explained why the law does not support it. This appears to be another of those arbitrary decisions that is based on a literal and unreasonable reading of tax law.

Also NBR reported:

However, KPMG tax partner Murray Sarelius accused IRD of rewriting the rules in order to deal with what appeared to be “a few extreme cases on audit”.

The new position was contrary to common practice and “is stretching to justify its position in a way that applies much too broadly. The result penalises the majority of situations where there should not be an issue”.

Now IRD does appear to be backing down somewhat. Last week they said:

“Generally, accommodation payments made by an employer, or the value of accommodation provided by an employer are taxable. However, when an employee temporarily shifts to a new location for work, the payments or the value of the accommodation provided is not taxable.”

Mr Tubb said that this approach will not apply if the person has relocated to take up a new job with a new employer.

“There are a number of factors that the Commissioner will consider in determining the tax treatment of accommodation and whether a person has made a temporary shift.”

“This includes whether they have retained their substantive employment position in the original location or have relocated to take up new employment, for the duration of the transfer, and if their original location has remained the centre of their domestic life.”

What they seem to be saying is that if (for example) your family still live back in (say) Wellington, and that is still your primary home, then providing you accomodation in (say) Christchurch is not taxable. But if you have actually taken up a long-term position in (say) Christchurch and that is now effectively where you live, that may be taxable.

That sounds like an improvement over their original position in December, but is still very uncertain (and tax law should be clear). I think the best solution is for the Government to amend the tax law to say that the “net-benefit” approach should apply.

A terrifying op ed in the NY Daily News by a Marion Nestle:

Barring any late legal surprises, Mayor Bloomberg’s 16-ounce cap on sugary sodas goes into effect on Tuesday, March 12. After that, restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and food carts will not be permitted to sell extra-large portions of sugar-packed drinks.

Stay calm. This does not signal the end of democracy in America. This is not the nanny state gone out of control.

Actually is is the precise definition of nanny state out of control.

If we want Americans to be healthy, we are going to have to take actions like this – and many more – and do so soon. It’s long past time to tax sugar soda, crack down further on what gets sold in our schools, tackle abusive marketing practices, demand a redesign of labels – and extend the soda cap, no matter how controversial it may seem. This must be the beginning, not the end, of efforts toward a healthier America.

Be scared, be very scared

I’m amazed she doesn’t just advocate making soda drinks illegal.

The soda size cap is a nudge in that direction. You will still be able to drink all the soda, and down all the sugar, that you want. The cap on soda size makes it just a tiny bit harder for you to do so.

That “tiny bit harder” is its point. If you have to order two sodas instead of one, maybe you won’t. If you have to add sugar to your coffee drink yourself, maybe you will only add one or two teaspoons instead of the 10 or more someone else put in there for you.

Oh, so she also wants it to be illegal to sell coffee with sugar in it?

So-called “nanny-state” measures – like bans on driving while drunk, smoking in public places and, now, selling absurdly large sugary drinks – help to level the playing field. Such measures are about giving everyone an equal opportunity to live a safer and healthier life.

Again, she can’t see any difference between measures about preventing harm to others (killing people while drink driving, passive smoking effects) and measures to control how people live their own lives.

Fix the price differential. A 7.5-ounce can of soda costs twice as much per ounce as a two-liter bottle, and you can’t buy just one; it comes in an 8-pack. Price determines sales. If a 16-ounce soda costs a dollar, a 32-ounce soda should cost two dollars.

They should also abolish large chocolate bars being not the same price per kg as small chocolate bars. In fact let’s just regulate all food pricing. No volume discounts for any food except broccoli.

Actions like these will evoke ferocious opposition from the soda industry, and it will spare no expense to make sure such things never happen. We would surely hear more and more howls of “nanny-state” from those who insist Bloomberg has led us to the brink of a public health police state. Polls say that many New Yorkers oppose the 16-ounce cap and would oppose measures like this, too.

But I can’t tell whether the opposition comes from genuine concern about limits on personal choice or because soda companies have spent millions of dollars to protect their interests and gin up histrionic, misinformed opposition.

That’s easy. Its is genuine concern about personal choice – something that the author seems to regard as having no weight at all.

Hat Tip: Eric Crampton

UPDATE: Great news. A Judge has invalidated the ban on large soda drinks. The NY Post reports:

“[The city] is enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations,” New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling ruled.

The judge said Bloomberg and the Board of Health overstepped their bounds, to enforce rules that should be established by the legislative bodies.

“The rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” Tingling wrote. “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened drinks.”

“It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the rule, including but not limited to no limitations on refills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the rule,” Tingling wrote.

The regulations are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,” the judge wrote.

A defeat for the nanny statists. But they will try again and again.

The House of Representatives will tomorrow vote on the second reading of Louisa Wall’s bill which will allow same sex couples to marry. I’ve blogged previously on the issues involved, and want to focus on the quite remarkable change in opinions on this issue around the world.

Consider that just over 25 years ago, consensual adult sex between two men was illegal. And today Parliaments all around the world are saying that same sex couples should be able to marry.

Micah Cohen of 538 looks at the latest poll in California. In 2003 support for same sex marriage was just 42%. A decade later it is 61%. Just four years ago California voted in favour of banning same sex marriage. A vote today would inevitably see that reversed.

Polling Report has an archive of all US polls on this issue. The CBS poll has support nationally go from 46% to 54% in just one year.

Looking at other countries:

• Canada voted 175-123 in 2006 to maintain same-sex marriage, A 2012 poll showed 66% support
• Opinion in the US Gallup poll has gone from 25% in 1996 to 53%
• Maine voted 53%, Maryland 52% and Washington 54% in 2012 referenda to allow same sex marriage
• Recent polls in Australia show support for same sex marriage at around 65%
• The French lower house last month voted to allow same-sex marriage by 329 to 229. The most recent polls show 65% in support.
• Support in Germany for same sex marriage was 66% in a poll two months ago
• Support in Ireland for same sex marriage is at 73%
• The UK House of Commons voted 400 to 175 in favour of same sex marriage. Public support is 55% in favour to 36% against
• Her Majesty the Queen signalling her support for non-discrimination against gay men and women

So what does this all mean in my view?

1. Within a few years same sex marriage will be legal in pretty much every English-speaking country and most European countries.
2. Support for allowing same sex marriage will continue to rise at the incredibly fast rate it has been. This is because there is a huge age differential on this issue. Support amongst those aged under 30 is often well over 3:1 and the only age group opposed (if any) tends to be over 60s
3. I predict there will not be a single MP who votes for same sex marriage will will regret that vote.
4. The fact that so many MPs who voted against homosexual law reform in the 1980s and civil unions more recently have later said they regret their vote, suggests that the same will apply with the vote on same sex marriage.

On that last point, it is worth reflecting that just a few weeks ago the former Speaker, Lockwood Smith, said how much he regretted voting against homosexual law reform. In fact I doubt you can find a single MP who voted against it, who still thinks they were right to do so.

We saw the same with Civil Unions. Don Brash has said how much he regrets swapping his vote to vote against civil unions. Even the PM, John Key, has indirectly indicated he regrets voting against civil unions (he says he was following his electorate, not his own views). And I know many others who voted against, and now say they agree they were a good thing. It is ironic that the existence of civil unions is used as a justification by some to vote against same sex marriage, because of course they were against civil unions also.

There is no real question that Louisa Wall’s bill will pass second reading. The only real issue will be by how much, and who voted which way. So my concern is not the bill passing into law. My concern is that a number of MPs may come to sincerely regret how they voted, as so many others before them have on similar issues. We should learn the lessons of history, not repeat them.

Look if an MP genuinely truly believes that same sex marriage will be very bad for New Zealand, then of course they should vote against. I believe MPs should vote with their conscience and with their true beliefs. I disagree with those beliefs and think they are wrong on this issue, but I can respect people who stand by what they believe (within reason).

But some MPs don’t have strong views on the issue. They are focused on economic issues, education, health etc. They don’t see the the issue of same sex marriage as a burning issue for them.

And to some degree I agree – as much as I support same sex marriage – I far from think it is the biggest priority for the Government and Parliament. I regard the economy, education, welfare reform etc as more critical issues.

But regardless it is now up for the second reading vote. This is automatic under standing orders, and MPs now have to vote on it.

If you’re an MP who doesn’t have a strong view on the issue, my advice is simply to think about whether in 10 years time you want to be explaining to the many married same sex couples (and their friends) why you voted to ban them from being able to marry?

As an issue, it may not be as important as the economy, jobs, welfare reform etc but for many people it is a deeply personal issue. Effectively telling 6% of the country that they should remain unable to marry is something that does matter to them. And it does matter to their friends also.

We saw yesterday all eight youth wings advocate in favour of same sex couples being able to marry. That is an extraordinary thing. But it reflects the world they live in, which is the world of the future – as we see around the globe.

Almost all younger New Zealanders have some gay friends. They had gay friends at school, had gay friends at university, work with gay colleagues. They, for the most part, can’t understand why some of their friends should be able to marry, but not all of them. They don’t think that having more of their friends able to marry, will undermine their own future marriages.

As I said, there is a global and frankly irreversible trend in the “Western” world on this issue. Future generations will be just as bemused by the fact that once upon a time same sex couples couldn’t marry, as today’s generation are bemused by the fact that once women couldn’t vote.

I just wonder in the end, why would you want to be on the wrong side of history?

The NZ Herald reports:

Geoff Braybrooke, former long-serving Labour MP for Napier, died on Saturday.

Mr Braybrooke had been in a Palmerston North hospice following a lengthy illness.

That’s sad news. Geoff was a very likeable MP, who served his constituents well. He was MP for Napier for 21 years.

Mathew Dearnaley at NZ Herald reports:

A senior Grey Power official has complained about the planned increase in immigrants in Auckland – prompting claims from his national president that his submission is racist.

Auckland zone director Bill Rayner wrote in a submission to Auckland Council that the community and lifestyle of the region’s older residents “is under serious threat from the rapid and huge changes in size and ethnic mix projections included in the Auckland Plan”.

His submission also calls on Auckland Council to hold a forum to make decisions about the Super City’s “optimum size and ethnicity”.

It is not at all racist to say the pace of immigration is too high. It is racist though to say we only want people from certain ethnicities.

One size should not fit all when it comes to hairdressing licence fees in a multi-cultural Auckland, says Grey Power regional director Bill Rayner.

Arguing against a standardised fee of $207 across the region, Mr Rayner has referred Auckland Council to the varied hair types .

“It is clear that in South Auckland with a large Pasifika population, [with] big people with good heads of hair, the hairdresser needs are quite different from Remuera where perms and pin curls are probably still a key feature of the hairdressers’ professional skill,” he wrote.

Members of the Asian population have very straight hair, and “due recognition should be given to the greater productivity that results from cutting thinning hair in areas of a high population of seniors”.

Oh dear. I think his comments speak for themselves.

Lee Suckling at Stuff has an in-depth article on trolling and bullying on-line. I’m one of those quoted in the story.

Trolling and cyber-bullying are related phenomena, although not interchangeable terms, argues David Farrar of the Wellington-based Kiwiblog.

“The intention of the troll is to disrupt, be provocative and get a reaction,” he says. “Trolling can be mixed with bullying, but cyber-bullying requires very personal, very vindictive behaviour; either of someone the bully has met in person, or someone in the public eye where there’s lots of personal information out there about them.”

Cyber-bullying often involves a sustained campaign against an individual, while trolling has no rhyme or reason, says Netsafe’s chief technology officer, Sean Lyons.

Trolls are just painful, while bullies are nasty.

A troll, conversely, deliberately goes against the grain of the other posts, with a goal of creating outrage among other commenters, Farrar adds. “Trolls say inflammatory things in lots of places: on popular blogs like Kiwiblog, in sections that allow comments on Trade Me, on Facebook and Twitter.

“They’re persistent for one or two reasons. Either they do it simply for the reaction or they use it as a weapon because they’re ideologically against whatever that blog or page is about.”

And a typical troll:

Farrar says his posts about religion always elicit trolls. “I have one troll, who goes by many fake identities, who I call a ‘Christian baiter’. He’ll jump into a post and say something like, ‘All Catholics are paedophiles’, then sit back and revel in the chaos caused.”

And Greer Berry on troll profiles:

Typecasting the typical troll is difficult. “The presumed profile of the troll is a single, unemployed, overweight white male with two cats,” says Greer Berry, former social media editor of stuff.co.nz.

“But in reality, trolls are working people, and they’re just as likely to be women – though they often go by male usernames online.”

I’ve noticed a lot of women use male usernames.

Vic Debsoc have their great comedy debate tonight at 6.30 pm in the Hunter Lounge. Details are:

Come and watch some great debaters and comedians debating the topic “The rent is too damn high!”

This year we are delighted to announce an absolutely fantastic line-up of comedians and debaters for this event. Including former Billy T nominee and NZ Comedian Jerome Chandrahasen, amateur comedian and former Weir House member John Heslop, renowned beer critic and free lance writer Neil Miller, amateur comedian and former desoc member Nik Bruce Smith and finally our own debating extraordinaires Josh Cameron and Richard D’Ath. 

We will be selling tickets at our stall at clubs week or on the door for $10.

d

Stuff reports:

When he was hired last May, Television New Zealand chief executive Kevin Kenrick rebuffed putative interviewers with the words “not until I know more about it”. …

“Most people think of TVNZ as being a TV business,” he begins. “Not surprisingly, I guess; we’ve got it in our name.” He goes on to explain they are now delivering 2.5 million online video streams a month and the number is growing at 30 per cent a year. “It has gone beyond a toe in the water to a really significant part of what we do every day.” …

He says people in the business don’t think of themselves as working in television any more – I suspect that would surprise some of them – but as being “in the video content business”. Would he change their name, then? He ponders this – “what would you call yourself?” – and settles for saying they will change people’s perceptions. He talks about giving people content when and where they want it. So one day, then, there might be no TV1 or TV2? He doesn’t know, doesn’t care much.

As an involuntary shareholder in TVNZ, I’m pleased to see this statement from Kenrick because I agree that the future is not necessarily in channels.

Traditionally there are three segments in broadcasting. Producing the content, playing it on a channel and distributing the content.

The future is more and more about the first and third segments. There will be money in producing content and money in distributing content. But not a lot of money in channels per se.

I watch very little live TV. I set My Sky to record programmes that interest me over around 20 different channels. I hardly even notice what channel they were originally on, and don’t really care. I care about content, not about channels.

Some viewers are different, especially older ones. But the world is changing and channels will become less valuable – especially as on demand content also increases in popularity.

Brian Carney at the WSJ reports:

Seventeen years ago, Bernard Connolly foretold the misery that awaited the European Union. Given that he was an instrumental figure in the EU bureaucracy and publicly expressed his doubts in a book called “The Rotten Heart of Europe,” he was promptly fired. Mr. Connolly takes no pleasure now in having seen his prediction come true.

The solutions:

Two immediate solutions present themselves, Mr. Connolly says, neither appetizing. Either Germany pays “something like 10% of German GDP a year, every year, forever” to the crisis-hit countries to keep them in the euro. Or the economy gets so bad in Greece or Spain or elsewhere that voters finally say, ” ‘Well, we’ll chuck the whole lot of you out.’ Now, that’s not a very pleasant prospect.” He’s thinking specifically, in the chuck-’em-out scenario, about the rise of neo-fascists like the Golden Dawn faction in Greece.

The other “solution” is they leave the Eurozone.

Yet unemployment is close to 27% in Spain and Greece. The euro-zone economy shrank ever-faster throughout 2012. And—most important in Mr. Connolly’s view—the economic fundamentals in France are getting worse. This week France announced it would miss its deficit-reduction target for the year because of dimming growth prospects.

It’s one thing to bail out Greece or Ireland, Mr. Connolly says, but “if the Germans at some point think, ‘We’re going to have to bail out France, and on an ongoing, perpetual basis,’ will they do it? I don’t know. But that’s the question that has to be answered.”

Italy isn’t too flash either.

Which brings us back to the politics of the euro crisis. At some point, the people in the affected countries presumably will call a halt to the pain and sweep in a government willing to think the impossible—leaving the euro, for example.

To avoid that, Germany could well agree to pay for a transfer union, either believing that the transfers needn’t be permanent, or hoping they’d be less expensive than a euro break up. But, Mr. Connolly warns, once a mechanism is in place to transfer money from Germany to the current-account deficit countries, it’s only a matter of time before Germany is faced with the question of adding France to its list of dependents—something even Berlin may not be willing or able to afford.

I suspect Germany’s limit may come before even that.

Parliamentary youth reps unanimously back marriage equality

 In an unprecedented joint initiative youth reps from all eight parties in Parliament have combined together to demonstrate the overwhelming support amongst young New Zealanders for same sex couples to be able to marry.

Young Nats Vice President Shaun Wallis said that Young Nats were delighted the majority of National MPs voted in favour of marriage equality at first reading and hope they will continue to do at the second reading this week “Our members overwhelmingly supports marriage equality as we believe in freedom and equal opportunity for all Kiwis.”

Young Labour spokesperson Sam Thompson said that marriage equality and adoption reform are the number one policy priority for Young Labour. “We believe our representatives in Wellington really value equality and a fair go and will continue to support expanding the right to marry to everyone who has a partner they love and want to spend their life with.”

Young Greens spokesperson Izzy Lomax said that the Young Greens were delighted that all 14 Green MPs voted in favour of marriage equality as we believe in a society without discrimination, and look forward to an end to all discrimination against rainbow communities, starting with allowing loving same sex couples to marry”.

“NZ First Youth leader Curwen Rolinson said that NZ First Youth is united in supporting a referendum on this issue. While there is a large and vocal proportion of NZ First Youth who would vote in favour, it is by no means unanimous. We feel that the important thing is for progressive changes in legislation to come with the direct backing and support of the people – not filtered through layers of temporarily empowered politicians and political parties. A referendum is the fairest, most inclusive and democratic method of achieving this. It is our hope that MPs of other parties will realize this and join our call for a referendum.”

Maori Party kaikorero rangatahi Teaonui Mckenzie said that he is proud that all three Maori Party MPs support the right of same sex couples to marry and form a whanau. “This generation will not tolerate any form of discrimination, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation.”

MANA Rangatahi spokesperson Ian Anderson says that “MANA are fully behind the Bill and will work to reduce societal inequality wherever possible, in this case bringing New Zealand law into line to provide the opportunity for same-sex couples to enter marriage.”

Act on Campus President Taylor Warwood said that “Act on Campus have been long-time supporters of marriage equality, and were delighted that ACT MP John Banks voted for Louisa Wall’s bill at its first reading and believe its passage will be entirely consistent with ACT policy of one law for all.”

United Future spokesman Damian Light said that “allowing couples who love each other to marry is just common sense and we’re proud that Hon Peter Dunne, our Party Leader, has been a vocal supporter of this bill. Our support of this bill is consistent with our liberal belief in equality for all.”

“This show of support for marriage equality by every party’s youth wing sends a powerful message. Marriage equality is no longer a question of if, but of when. We can’t wait for Parliament to vote in favour of the Bill.” said Campaign for Marriage Equality Spokesperson Conrad Reyners.

The eight youth reps, representing youth members of parties comprising 120 of the 121 MPs in Parliament believe their combined show of support reflects the over-whelming support for marriage equality amongst younger New Zealanders (76% in favour in Colmar Brunton May 2012 poll).

ENDS