It may surprise few people that I am a big debating fan. I took part in debating at school, and have enjoyed the sport ever since. Seeing people advocate for a moot, and rebut the arguments on the other side is great intellectual fun. You’re mentally critiquing the teams, while also enjoying their style and sometimes their humour.

The Australs Grand Final was last night at the Paramount Theatre and there were around 400 people there. 72 teams from around the region took part. As with all university sporting tournaments there is a active social side to the event also, and Andrew Butler from sponsor Russell McVeagh got a lot of laughs when he spoke about how experienced the adjudicators were at scoring, and how many participants had left a little of themselves in Wellington of taking a little of Wellington home. In fact his whole speech was hilarious, and very un-Russell Mcveagh like. Was pleased to note that the antics of a certain RM lawyer (and former YN President) at a certain Australs in Australia are still being talked about in hushed tones.

The moot or topic for the final was that we should introduce good samaritan laws. The two topics not selected (three are chosen and each team can veto one) were that the state should not favour monogamous couples and that school vouchers should be introduced. A debate on not favouring monogamous couples could have been fun but I guess arguing the affirmative would have been difficult.

The afffirmative team was Monash 1 and negative team Monash 2. Victoria University got knocked out in the semi-finals, but they joked at least the trophy would stay in Victoria. They were a bit gutted as they had won it the last two years in a row and a hat trick would have been a first. Monash however had won the world champs.

I won’t detail all the arguments but basically the affirmative argued that a law requiring people to intervene, if it is safe to do so, would generate a culture change and reduce crime and victims of crime levels. The negative mainly attacked the practicality of it and how intervention may make things worse. I thought the negative team had the better arguments but that may be influenced by the fact I agreed with them. They did miss an opportunity to not argue against it on philosophical grounds as well as practical grounds. You can see some of my tweets during the debate here.

After the debate we heard from (Supreme Court) Justice Tipping, Andrew Butler, Chris Bishop and someone else whom I can’t recall. Then the adjudicators came back and announced in a 5-4 decision the winning team was Monash 1.

It is no mean feat to organise a week long tournament for 400 people – all pretty much done by volunteers. The Victoria DebSoc members and friends did a great job, according to participants, arranging a total of well over 200 debates.

Sadly work meant I couldn’t stay for the free booze afterwards in The Establishment, but one of the co-conveners commented to me he had already arranged Monday off work which was sensible. I suspect it was a very big and late night. Very sad that if the purchase age is lifted to 20 by MPs, so many of the smart motivated participants wouldn’t be able to celebrate the end of the tournament with a drink.

Stuff reports:

Lees-Galloway had drafted a series of amendments to the Bill that he would put up when it came back to the debating chamber for a clause by clause debate, which was expected this month.

They included restricting alcohol advertising around schools, early childhood centres and at all but R18 films, and prohibiting advertising discounts.

Labour acknowledged many organisations relied on alcohol sponsorship, just as many once relied on tobacco sponsorship, he said.

“That is why I want to take this moderate approach to consider the viability of this option and to plan a smooth implementation should it go ahead.”

Lees-Galloway also wanted alcohol sponsorship phased out the same way tobacco sponsorship was phased out.

I’ll come to the amendments in a second, but I think banning alcohol sponsorship would be a draconian move, and unjustified.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES:

– Remove alcohol advertising on posters or billboards within 300m of schools and early childhood centres.

I don’t have a problem of removing within a fair distance of schools. ECEs is a bit over-board – I don’t think three year olds look at billboards much – and more practically an ECE can move about anywhere – unlike schools which tend to be in a fairly fixed location.

Remove alcohol advertising in cinemas unless the film screening is R18

This is an effective ban in all movies. When is the last time an R18 showed? I have some sympathy for the notion thought that one shouldn’t advertise in films targeted for kids. Maybe a lower threshold though?

Prohibit television advertising of alcohol before 9pm.

Sounds reasonable.

Prohibit using price in alcohol advertisements except in catalogues. Prohibit advertising discounts on alcohol, including in catalogues.

This one has some merit. Brand advertising I do not have a problem with, but advertising that promoted very cheap alcohol does cause issues. But one has to be careful how far you go. Making happy hour illegal can be taking things too far.

Establish a “Alcohol Advertising Reform Committee” with the health and justice ministries which would include the Health Promotion Agency.

Not sure we need a committee, but an issue with alcohol advertising is that the only penalty for breach of an ASA code on alcohol advertising is you have to pull the advertisement. This I think encourages some advertising which does breach the code. It is worth looking at having some sanctions for code breaches.

The Herald reports:

The Productivity Commission has renewed its call for more land to be freed up for lower-cost housing.

The commission in April released a report into housing affordability which found house prices doubled in the last decade.

Among its recommendations was for more land to made available to ease housing affordability pressures, particularly in Auckland where the pressure was most acute.

Productivity Commission chairman Murray Sherwin today renewed his call for lower-cost land to be made available.

Even if you ignore the extra million people that will live in Auckland in the next 40 years, there’s already an estimated shortfall of 15,000 houses. The Government can not build 15,000 houses (unless you know of $6 billion it has spare), so the private sector needs to. But people will only buy (and in turn rent) these houses if they are affordable – and it is the land rather than the house which is pushing prices up.

Mr Sherwin said councils and developers needed to work together to bring section prices down.

“In Auckland now the analysis we did suggested that around 60 per cent of the value of the property is represented by the land alone, and the rest of the country it’s around 40 per cent. We need to get that back down.”

If you get Auckland in line with the rest of NZ, then that is a 20% reduction in price.

He said that could come about through more green fields development or more intensification within existing urban limits.

We need both. Just as only idiots argue that it is a choice of roads or public transport (they are complementary not substitutes), only an idiot would say all new development should be just brown fields or just green fields – we need both.

Yvonne Tahana at NZ Herald reports:

The contested burial of Christchurch father and Tuhoe man James Takamore goes to the Supreme Court tomorrow but an academic says a decision overriding customary Maori law is akin to “cultural genocide”.

Mr Takamore died in 2007 in the South Island, where he lived with his partner Denise Clarke and children.

In a move described as “body snatching”, his wider whanau took him from Christchurch for burial according to Tuhoe custom at Kutarere in the Bay of Plenty.

Ms Clarke’s fight to disinter the remains was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal based on her rights as executor and spouse. However, Mr Takamore’s sister Josephine has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ms Clarke told the Herald she expected to succeed in the latest round of litigation. “They’re not willing to compromise, they’ve made that clear.”

Associate Professor Nin Tomas of the Auckland University law school has researched customary and common law: the first emphasises rights held by whanau, the second holds that executors or spouses have the final say in burial matters.

Neither should have the final say. The clearly expressed wishes of the deceased should have force in law, and if necessary it should be a criminal offence to act against them (so long as they are legal and practical).

In the absence of clear directions in a will, then the order of precedence should be:

1. Executor
2. Spouse or partner
3. Children
4. Parents
5. Siblings

Miss Takamore’s wishes should be well down the chain.

Professor Tomas said the Takamore case “is a conflict-of-laws situation and the court needs to look at the overall custom and its importance to the society it supports”.

“To dismember [tikanga], or to outlaw it as a system, as the [courts] have done, is cultural genocide.”

The law needed to change to better accommodate customary law.

There may be a clash of laws. I have no problem at all with saying a law which respect the wishes of the individual deceased and then the person that individual chose to marry should trump a customary law which robs the deceased and their chosen family of their rights to decide place of burial. Of course in a cross-cultural situation, individuals should try and compromise to agree on something palatable to all – but if agreement is not achieved, then the law should be followed and there should be penalties for body stealing.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Sometimes the Government must think it simply cannot win. Take the action plan outlined in the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. If Social Development Minister Paula Bennett failed to pay particular attention to this group, she would be accused of being negligent and uncaring. But her formulation of proposals to overcome shortcomings in the identification and tackling of child abuse has led only to criticism on another count. According to a joint statement issued by 72 non-government agencies, the funding of services for better-off children must be sacrosanct in this drive to help the neediest.

I bet you all 72 of those agencies get most of their funding from the taxpayer.

The agencies’ statement is, in effect, a plea for the retention of universal social spending, no matter the fact that many parents could afford to pay more if they had to. …

In an ideal world, such universal benefits would be retained. But the present situation is far from that.

Actually in an ideal world, there would be no universal benefits outside schools and hospitals. There are significant economic deadweight costs in taking money off people in taxation and giving it back to them in subsidies. We should provide subsidised services to those who can not afford them for themselves – not to everyone.

It is imperative that any fiscally responsible Government adjusts both its spending and its priorities. Those most in need of temporary help should be targeted.

In the context of children, that means concentrating funding where it is most needed and most cost-effective. It makes no sense to provide welfare for the comfortably off as well as the most vulnerable if the burden on the budget cripples the economy on which all New Zealanders depend.

Agreed.

The United Nations children’s fund Unicef, which drafted the agencies’ statement, also said that Ms Bennett’s proposals risk “stigmatising” the 15 per cent of children defined as vulnerable. That, again, is a skew-whiff view of the Government’s intent.

Oh, get out of here. This is like the PPTA saying it is racism to try and improve educational outcomes in South Auckland and Porirua. Helpng vulnerable families is not stigmatising them.

Marika Hill at Stuff reports:

Auckland’s Catholic schools ruled in Metro magazine’s annual school league tables, but an education expert has warned parents the rankings are too “crude” to take seriously.

Each year Metro rates the best and worst schools in Auckland based on academic results, adjusted according to a school’s decile rating.

McAuley High School, a Catholic school for girls in the lower socio-economic area of Otahuhu, topped the rankings based on the past three years’ NCEA results.

So league tables do not necessairly discriminate against schools in lower socio-economic areas.

Catholic schools took eight of the top 10 positions in a table comparing year 11 NCEA results earlier this month.

Metro editor Simon Wilson suggested Catholic school principals should be giving a hand-up to principals of low-decile schools.

“If this country is really going to get serious about eliminating the long tail of failure in our schools, it’s possible the single most valuable thing we could do is shoulder-tap the key Catholic educators and gives them a free hand in low-decile schools that are not doing well.”

Not a bad idea. Or allow them to set up more schools.

Waikato University education professor Martin Thrupp said it was misleading to assume Catholic schools are better.

State-integrated religious schools have more flexible enrolment schemes compared to state schools.

While state schools must give priority to local students, a state-integrated school can give preference to Catholic students from a wider catchment area.

Thrupp said this effectively means Catholic school principals can be more selective when accepting students.

That’s a fair point, but it would be useful to know to what extent principals do accept from outside their area. I’m doubtful it would be enough to invalidate the fact Catholic schools took up eight out of the top 10 spots.

“Just because the school is top of the pops in the league tables doesn’t necessarily mean it will be right for your child. They might not fit the culture of the school,” he said.

“I wouldn’t pay it too much attention myself, there’s other more rounded forms of information like ERO reports.”

Absolutely one should not decide on a school just because it is top of a league table. And yes one should read ERO reports, talk to current students, former students, staff etc at a school. But comparative data on academic achievements can be a useful part of the mix.

Metro magazine looked at the last three years’ worth of NCEA results to create the tables.

The writers attempted to create a level-playing field by taking into account decile rating, which denote the socio-economic area the school is situated in.

Schools are compared against other schools in their deciles, and they determine what schools added the most value to the student intake.

It would be interesting to know their exact formula.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Labour is urging a “hard look” at the accommodation supplement, amid claims landlords are pocketing a $1.2b “subsidy” despite providing substandard housing.

Housing spokeswoman Annette King said the Salvation Army had warned in the 1990s that the supplement to support low-income people would turn in to a subsidy for landlords – and that had happened.

Where is the proof for this claim that it has turned into a subsidy for landlords? Is Annette King saying that landlords are charging more to someone who is eligible for the accommodation supplement?

“It is a major subsidy for landlords but it hasn’t produced better housing or more access to housing or an ability for people to buy housing,” Ms King said.

It is not a subsidy for landlords. It is a subsidy for low income tenants who are renting.

“If we just let it keep growing year after year as more and more people struggle to pay rent, then we are doing nothing in terms of changing the ability to house people and it’s time that we had a highly focused look at how do you turn that into something that is a whole lot better.”

The supplement is paid in addition to other welfare payments at varying rates, depending on circumstances. It is meant to help cover rent, board or home ownership costs.

In 2007, the Government paid $877m through the supplement, but it is expected to top $1.2b this year.

If Labour is proposing abolishing the accommodation supplement, then they should say so. You could divert the $1.2b a year into new state homes through Housing NZ, which are then provided at 25% of people’s incomes. I suspect this is what they want to do.

The problem with this though is those low income families who get into a Housing NZ home get massive state support, while those low income families who do not get into a Housing NZ home would get zero, nil, nothing.

Ms King said the supplement supported people in rental accommodation but a lot of the houses were “incredibly poor quality”.

“Some of it is absolutely appalling housing and landlords take whatever the accommodation supplement is and add it to their rent,” she said.

Again, proof? Labour are smearing tens of thousands of landlords with this allegation.

“I think we need to take a hard look at how we could turn some of that accommodation supplement into providing affordable, decent, warm housing and how we could turn some of it into people being able to own their own housing.”

She did not know exactly how that might work but said it should be discussed.

So Labour actually has no alternative. They just wanted to smear evil landlords.

Whitcoulls have announced their top 100 books, as voted on by 20,000 readers. The top 10 are:

1. The Millennium Trilogy
2. The Hunger Games Series
3. The Lord of the Rings
4. Pride and Prejudice
5. The Fifty Shade Trilogy
6. Harry Potter
7. Cross Stitch
8. Song of Ice and Fire Series (Game of Thrones)
9. The Pillars of the Earth
10. The Hobbit

I’ve read all but two of the top 10.

A mixture of old and new. 28 of the 100 are on the list for the first time. There was also a vote for favourite author and the top three are:

1. Jodi Picoult
2. JK Rowling
3. Lee Child

The HoS reports:

Taxpayers are forking out $2000-plus a week to a select group of benefit-dependent parents with more than 10 children.

Official figures show that twelve families on welfare have 10 or more kids, receiving a range of top-up payments on top of their average of nearly $1000 a week.

It would be interesting to see how many families there are with more than 10 children who are not on welfare. A generation ago there would have been quite a few. Jim Bolger had nine kids for example. I suspect far fewer today. Even the Catholics seem to manage to restrict themselves to four or five kids – Vatican roulette must have got better over the years 🙂

As for the 12 families on welfare with over 10 kids, what I’d be interested in is whether the kids came before or after they were on welfare. If one parent died, then their surviving partner would go onto welfare with the kids. That is how it should be (although I would recommend life insurance for parents with large families). But if a family has had 11 or more kids, and the parents have never been in the workforce – that is not a good thing.

“There’s two words we don’t use often enough in this country and that’s self-responsibility,” Bennett told the Herald on Sunday. “The size of someone’s family is their business, so long as they don’t expect someone else to pay for it.”

Absolutely. So long as the parents are capable of providing for their family, it is no one’s business how many kids they have. However if you are already unable to provide for your existing kids, and you choose to have more – then the taxpayer does take an interest.

The data, released by the Ministry of Social Development under the Official Information Act, shows there are 143 parents on Work and Income’s payroll who have eight or more children and receive basic payments of $7 million a year, plus supplements.

There are more than 3000 large families with five children or more on the benefit. One-third have been on the benefit for more than five years and 430 for more than 10 years.

This is what the recent welfare reforms are designed to reduce – long-term welfare dependency.

Bennett said there were some people, such as grandparents and foster carers, who had taken children into their care who were doing a valuable duty for the community – but others who were taking advantage of the system.

Yep, need to differentiate.

But beneficiary advocate and former Green MP Sue Bradford said everyone would be better off if beneficiaries received more money.

Umm, except taxpayers I presume. I would also dispute that keeping people on welfare is good for those families long-term.

The HoS reports:

PPTA official Bronwyn Cross interjected at the meeting, describing the idea of placing the new schools in impoverished areas of south Auckland and Porirua as racism.

Trying to improve educational outcomes in South Auckland and Porirua is now racism. Really?

But the PPTA opposed the idea of sponsorship. Bunker said: “If there are commercial people out there wanting to contribute to the school system, they’d be better to pay additional taxes actually.”

How dare commercial people want to help local school kids. Does the PPTA also advocate no businesses donate items for school auctions?

The Australs debating semi-finals are this morning and finals tonight at the Paramount Theatre. The two semi-finals this morning are Monash 1 v Vic 1 and Monash 2 v Sydney 2. The final teams are not yet known of course.

Topics only get assigned 30 minutes before the debates start, so I don’t know what the finals topic will be. The quarters were:

• That the death of print media is bad for journalism
• That law enforcement should turn a blind eye to drug use and sale in designated areas
• That families whose children perform well in school should receive bonus welfare payments

I’ll update with who the finalists are later today.

UPDATE: The final is Monash 1 v Monash 2

Meeting a couple of friends at Circa to see the Beat Girls. My mate texted me to see where I was, as I was a bit late. His exact words were “Where are you, cunt?”.

The only problem is he didn’t send it to me but by mistake to his ex-wife! 🙂

Danyl at Dim Post blogs:

The question is: is this a real ad, or a satire? Seems too extreme to be real – although dawn-raids era National was an overtly racist party. But were they this overt? If this was real wouldn’t it have entered into notoriety, along with the dancing cossacks ad? Wouldn’t we have heard about it before?

On the other hand, the nation was a lot more regional back then. It’s not impossible that this was an ad in a regional publication put out by a rural MP that nobody ever noticed until now.

Anyone who thinks this ever could have been a real National advertisement is somewhat detached from reality. I think it says more about them, and how desperately they’d want it to be true.

Jack Marshall was National Leader in 1972. He was known as Gentleman Jack for a reason – well known for his being non-confrontational and not liking aggressive politics. Marshall also was an opponent of the Springbok Tour, so this little smear campaign poster is very misplaced.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

I found myself wondering this week whether Shearer – who notoriously hates wearing a suit and tie – really only gets supercharged when he is wearing a flak jacket. He fluffed his way through a punchy interview on NewstalkZB when host Sean Plunket tried to pin him down on Labour’s position on the Maori Council’s controversial water rights claim.

The Shearer argument went something like this: Yes, John Key is inflaming things by rarking up the Maori Council and saying his Government won’t be bound by any Waitangi Tribunal ruling on the push to stop the Mighty River Power share float until a deal is done in this area. But, no, Maori don’t have a valid water claim. Nobody owns water. We pay for water rights to use water, whether it be for irrigation or hydro-electricity or whatever.

In other words, Key is right but I don’t want to say so because my party expects me to go into opposition mode at every opportunity.

There are plenty of other examples.

Shearer’s opposition to foreign investment in New Zealand farmland was also rather contrived. When Labour’s private polling indicated widespread public unease over the Shanghai Pengxin acquisition of 16 dairy farms, he chose to lift the scab off this running sore rather than pour on salving balm. Though privately he is not that fazed. Same too with partial privatisation of state-owned power companies.

Shearer held up Norway as a shining exemplar of what’s possible when it comes to developing a small nation economy. Yet many Norwegian SOEs are partially listed; the country has also built its fortune on oil.

Shearer should not have backed himself into these ideological corners.

Norway seems to be the new Finland.

Shearer needs to get out of this poll-driven mode. He is fundamentally an intelligent man who is at heart an internationalist. There is no shame in agreeing with the Prime Minister on some basic fundamentals. Both men are trying to capture the centre, after all.

His caucus seem to be pushing him towards the left.

Tough this week. 7/10 in 46 seconds. Quiz here.

The Herald reports:

One mayor, one city – but 36 delegates from the Auckland Council will be at the Local Government NZ conference in Queenstown, costing ratepayers more than $93,000.

Six councillors, 22 local board members, three Maori Statutory Board members and five council staff fly to Queenstown tomorrow for the two-day conference.

They will stay in the “spellbinding luxury” of the Millennium and Copthorne Resort Lakefront hotels.

36 delegates? Really.

The cost per delegate is $2600, including registration, flights and accommodation. Taxis, meals and other expenses are to be added.

That’s a fair bit for a two day conference. I’m sure it would have been cheaper in Palmerston North.

Stuff reports:

The high risk sex offender dubbed ‘The Beast of Blenheim’, Stewart Murray Wilson, will stay under extended supervision for the maximum 10 years after his prison sentence ends and his parole term expires.

The order was imposed by Justice Graham Lang in a written decision issued in the High Court at Christchurch today, a week after he heard a day of legal argument.

He described Wilson as presenting “a rare and special case” and said: “He will remain at risk of offending against young females well beyond the expiry of his release conditions.

“An extended supervision order is therefore necessary, in my view, to achieve the statutory objective of protecting such persons from the risk of further offending in the future by Mr Wilson.”

Does anyone know exactly what extended supervision involves? How often can he be checked up on?

In 1995, a jury found Wilson guilty on seven charges of rape, one charge of attempted rape, two charges of ill-treatment of children, one charge of bestiality, one charge of attempting to stupefy and two of stupefying, three of assault on a woman, and six of indecent assault.

Many of the charges were laid as representative charges, indicating the offences had been committed more than once.

Wilson was jailed for 21 years in 1996 and has remained in custody even though he became eligible for parole some time ago because the Parole Board considers he presents a high risk of re-offending.

In hindsight 21 years was not enough.

The Dom Post reports:

Parts of coastal Wellington could be drowned if doomsday climate change predictions from a new study pan out over the next 100 years.

Two reports issued yesterday by Greater Wellington regional council show Wellington’s sea level is the fastest rising in New Zealand – made worse by seismic rumblings causing the city to sink 1.7mm a year since 2000.

Worst-case scenarios coupling massive sea level rise with intense storm floods show low-lying coastal parts of the Eastbourne bays, Petone, Pauatahanui, as well as the river mouths at Otaki, Hutt, Whakataki (near Castlepoint), and Waikanae and the lower Wairarapa valley, could be forever swamped if sea levels rose 1.5m by 2115.

The scenario of 1.5m in 100 years is rather detached from reality. It would be sea level rise 10 times faster than what is actually happening. A 1.7mm rise a year is 17cm over 100 years if the rate stayed the same. Now sure it may increase – but it is not going to be 10 times as fast.

A reminder that the latest IPCC forecast is that on average over 100 years sea levels will rise between 19 and 59 cm. A 1.5m increase is three times greater than the “maximum” forecast by the last IPCC report.

On the plus side, the doomsday map shows that my apartment block will become a beachfront property, which would be great. So I’m all in favour.

NZ Herald reports:

Apple’s claims that the Galaxy Tab by Korean rival Samsung “slavishly copies” the iPad have been rejected by a British High Court judgment.

There was some consolation for Apple, however, after the judge ruled that Samsung’s designs were “not as cool” as the iPad.

“They don’t have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Judge Colin Birss, QC, said. “They are not as cool.”

Nice to have it official. I’m almost all Apple now – iPod, iPhone, iPad. The fact they can share music and apps is a powerful feature.

Stuff reports:

The mayor of a German town has sparked controversy by introducing special “easy” parking spots for women.

Mayor Gallus Strobel, from the Black Forest town of Triberg, told Germany’s Spiegel magazine he introduced the spots because men were better at parking than women.

The women’s spaces, which are marked by female symbols, are reportedly better lit and wider, while the men-only spots have concrete pillars to negotiate and can only be reversed into.  

Strobel told the magazine that women were welcome to attempt parking in the men-only spots, but that “men are, as a rule, a little better at such challenges”. He denied accusations of sexism, pointing out that there were 10 women-only spots in the carpark compared to only two men-only spots.

This is an excellent idea. I think the Wellington City Council should copy this initiative.  Just as we have special parks for disabled drivers, I think special parks for women is an excellent initiative.

Stacey Kirk at Stuff reports:

Government cuts and poor planning have left more than 70,000 calls to IRD unanswered over its busiest tax return time, the Public Service Association (PSA) says.

IRD figures showed about 70,000 calls weren’t answered between June 25 and July 5 – the two weeks leading up to the deadline for filing tax returns.

During that period 164,000 calls were planned for, but more than 202,000 were received. Of those only about 131,000 were actually answered as the department struggled to cope with increased demand.

The PSA said there had also been a significant increase in the number complaints about the phone service.

National secretary Richard Wagstaff said it was frustrating for both the public and staff but was a “clear consequence” of budget cuts and bad decision-making.

I’m a bit surprised by those numbers as I was one of those callers towards the end of that period. I first registered on their new voice authentication system. You repeat three phrases three times and their system records your voice patterns. This means that for future phone calls, they have a higher confidence they have verified your identity, and can deal with more stuff over the phone.

After the authentication there was a delay until answering, but only one minute. The good thing is the IRD system now tells you how long the delay is which makes a huge difference.

Then once I got through to a staffer, she talked me through how to get a personal tax summary, and I managed to file my effective return online. It went very smoothly.