I went to a boys’ high school back in the day. It wasn’t flash (it is worse now – the leavers get UE at 1.4%). But at no point was I told that there were certain parts of academia (e.g. English) that I was unsuited to through being male.

Roll ahead six years after leaving that school and I was sitting in the staff room of another boys school. As the external exam results were discussed the HOD English excused the English results (in comparison to Math and Science) on the basis that “after all we are teaching boys.”

Three examples give us that state of play that our approach has got us to in 2022.
1.

2. Matched single sex schools. Here are five examples (I can find no matched example where the boys school is ahead).

3. Retention. One myth is that in South Auckland – and other low decile areas – that it is the girls leaving early.
   
   

Into Year 13 only 38% of the males remained while 73% of the females did?

What is happening here people and what are the solutions?

For the full processed data set for all NZ High Schools’ leavers contact: [email protected]

Newshub reports:

The government intends to charge GST on fees paid on KiwiSaver accounts from April 2026, potentially netting it hundreds of millions more in taxes. …

Financial Markets Authority modelling showed it could also shave an estimated $103 billion from KiwiSaver funds by 2070.

So $100 billion less in people’s saving accounts and $100 billion more in the Government’s coffers.

Jamie Mackay has six reasons why Labour will win in 2022 and 13 reasons why they will lose. The six in favour are:

1. Jacinda
2. Possible economic recovery
3. Sam Uffindell saga
4. Election before the Rugby World Cup
5. Greens gets 8%
6. Robertson, Hipkins and Woods

The 13 against are:

1. Jacinda
2. The economy
3. Chris Luxon
4. The All Blacks
5. The Greens
6. Nicola, Bish and Erica
7. Primary sector
8. Three Waters
9. Co-governance
10. Winston and Seymour
11. Sharma Karma
12. Wokeness
13. Lethargy

Not a bad list!

The Auditor-General writes:

As Controller and Auditor-General, I assess whether public spending is within the scope and amount of appropriations (spending authority) set by Parliament. In this case I have needed to determine whether payments made to ineligible people were outside the scope of the appropriation and consequently unlawful.

Giving money away to ineligible people can be both unlawful and wasteful.

Inland Revenue does not know, and has said it may never know, how many ineligible people might have received the payment.

So we don’t even know how to assess how big an issue it was.

It was not intended that the payment would be made to people who had died.

LOL that he even has to state this!

Inland Revenue noted that some of the information it holds might not be up to date, which meant there was a risk that some eligible people might not receive the payment and, conversely, some ineligible people might receive it.

I am concerned that the Government does not know how significant the scale of payments to ineligible people is. The Minister of Revenue has been quoted by media as saying that it could be around 1% of payments. Inland Revenue told my staff that it is doing some work to improve the accuracy of future payments, but does not know, and may never know, how many ineligible people might have received the payment. This is, in my view, unacceptable.

Unacceptable is strong language from the AG.

So the Government was warned.

Aaron Gilmore has sent me his proposed polices for Wellington. I like many of them, so am sharing them here:

My Key Policies for Wellington:

– Stop wasting your money. Stop spending that is uneconomic, subject all spending over $5 million to the same benefit cost rigor that Treasury uses for Central Government. Require a ‘regulatory impact statement’ for any project of significance

– Generally refocus WCC to be a regulator of the provision of local services not a property developer (Private Sector role) and social agency (Central Govt role)

– Cap rates to 3% per annum, provide greater certainty and less volatility (ie 3% fixed over ten years of each Long Term Plan not changing rates every year all over the place)

– Switch infrastructure spending to match asset life. So borrow long term (30+ years) not short, stop using annual rates to fund 100 year assets

– Defer all new cycleways (saving $200 million) until the benefits can be proven and until all pipes etc are fixed (poo and water are more important than cycleways)

– Don’t build light rail, it does not stack up, do designate transport corridors and implement the Spatial Plan and bus mass transit (saving over $1 billion) work to progress new infrastructure where its needed. Work to redevelop more high rises where it works (e.g. Te Aro and Kent/Cambridge Tce) and less suburban heritage destruction

– Don’t make Mt Victoria tunnel walking and biking only, it won’t work and would destroy access to Hataitai

– Do build another tunnel for all transport users

– Stop hating cars, one of the long term options for Wellington is more focus on zero emission transport of all types, start process of making the Capital the world’s first drive-less zero emission vehicle and public transport capital

–  Make Council meetings, papers more transparent and open, with less waffle more work

– Greater work to identify and improve resilience of natural hazard risks and management with 3rd parties including EQC and others (flooding, earthquakes and sea level changes)

– Build the Miramar Regional Park, not turn the peninsula into a housing estate

– Sell the convention centre for the $200 million spent, to a professional operator

– Sell the WCC encroachment land back to users ~$100 million 

– Evaluate the re-development and exit of Wellington’s marinas to a better long term owner and instead focus on regulatory powers

– Work with Central Government and 3rd parties better on Social Housing (WCC is the 2nd largest landlord in NZ and still loses money)

– Repeal the Wellington Milk Supply Act with support of a local MP

– Work with the local 5,000 strong local Greek community into the summer festival programme like we do with other large ethnic groups.

– Have a transition to better match Commercial vs Residential rate loadings to other main Centres

-Reform Wellington Water (it took me 13 letters and calls to confirm who owned a pipe on my own land – nuts!), but I oppose the Government 3 Waters Plans as a misguided solution to the problem. 

Dr Sharma has done a lengthy post on Facebook providing details of what he claims was poor performance by staffers which he repeatedly complained about. It is too long to summarise here, but I will note a few things.

1. The reference to raising 66 specific issues regarding a staffer seems over the top at best or obsessive at worse.
2. It does seem rather bad luck (at best) to have had three staffers who were all so bad at their jobs.
3. One aspect worth exploring is the allegations that the Parliamentary Service Relationship Manager was not (as you would expect) a neutral public servant, but a Labour Party activist who had tried to stop Dr Sharma from being selected. This should be easily verifiable. When I worked at Parliament, the core PS staff were absolutely politically neutral.
4. Dr Sharma has only one real request – an independent inquiry into the employment issues. This could well find he was at fault and a bad boss, or it could find that he had legitimate issues about the staff and he was totally let down by PS and Labour. Why not give him the inquiry he wants, as it would provide closure to the issue?

The BFD reports:

Last week Australian journalist Avi Yemini was prevented by Immigration NZ from entering New Zealand. Media at the time suggested that the decision was made by Immigration NZ, but an investigation by The BFD suggests that it was in fact the NZ Police who were acting to stop both Avi Yemini and Rukshan Fernando from entering New Zealand and covering the protest at parliament in Wellington.

And what was the basis for the Police action?

A trusted source contacted The BFD to let us know that Police were lying and that documents existed to prove that. Police had used the Interpol Global Secured Communication System (IGSC) to ask Interpol Canberra for assistance in providing information that would enable the NZ Police to “stop the two from entering New Zealand”. …

As you can see the email is dated the day after the NZ Herald article, and also quotes the same information used in the NZ Herald article. The email also explicitly states that “NZ Police would like to stop the two from entering NZ.” So, it was Police who wanted the two journalists banned, not Immigration NZ. 

So the Police decided to try and get them banned on the basis of a Herald article, and then asked Interpol to find some information to justify the ban!

Read the full article at the BFD to see the leaked e-mails. This is hugely concerning that the Police work behind the scenes to ban people from entering New Zealand because they may speak at an anti-Government protest.

When Holocaust denier David Irving wanted to come to NZ, I supported his right to travel and speak here even though I regard him with total contempt. But I would rather he speak, and we could criticise and mock what he says, than have the Government decide on the basis of political views who can come here. Only those who actively promote violence should be banned.

HDPA writes:

Christchurch City Council deserves a public bollocking for trying to keep information secret this week.

The information in question was the 30-year draft Christchurch Transport Plan.

It could be controversial. Most transport plans nowadays are. Especially when they propose what this plan does. Reducing city speed limits to 30km per hour. Road pricing charges (even when the council admits “congestion is not currently a major problem in Christchurch”). Charging for CBD car parks when 79 per cent of parks are currently free.

Council staff were clearly worried it would anger the public. They warned the plan might be “presented out of context”. So they wanted to keep its contents hidden. Staff admitted they had “no applicable grounds for withholding” the draft plan. But they were going to try anyway.

It wasn’t only council staff in on this. So were some councillors.

Mike Davidson who chairs the council’s urban development and transport committee was worried it would be confusing to the public.

He didn’t think it was wise to release the report during the “funny season” for councils. The funny season is the election period. Better, he said, to “park it and let the new council decide”.

With that one remark, Davidson probably revealed the real motivation for keeping the document secret. For councillors, the risk of losing council seats. For council staff, the risk of their plan being scuppered by angry ratepayers.

Sums up everything wrong with the current culture at Christchurch City Council.

In the end, we do know what is in that plan. Two councillors – Phil Mauger and Aaron McKeown – went to the media to force the council to ‘fess up. They were, in turn, accused of scaremongering and pulling an “election stunt”. Of course that’s what they did. But an election stunt is a lesser crime than trying to hide information during an election period.

Those who tried to hide the plan deserve public opprobrium.

They’d do well to remember they work for the ratepayers. And ratepayers would do well to remember that too, and use their votes accordingly.

Vote for Councillors who don’t try to hide things from the public.

NewstalkZB reports:

A recent briefing to incoming police minister Chris Hipkins detailed how youth prosecutions had halved since 2017 with more referrals and non-court solutions being reached when young people broke the law.

In 2021, 64 per cent of youth offending was addressed through non-court action.

In the same year, more 15 to 19-year-olds were apprehended for burglary than any other age group, with 10 to 14-year-olds the second-highest age group.

So they have stopped prosecuting young offenders and the result is that the the average burglar is a teenager!

Brad Moss at The Daily Beast writes:

I have finally seen enough. Donald Trump will be indicted by a federal grand jury.

You heard me right: I believe Trump will actually be indicted for a criminal offense. Even with all its redactions, the probable cause affidavit published today by the magistrate judge in Florida makes clear to me three essential points:

(1) Trump was in unauthorized possession of national defense information, namely properly marked classified documents.

(2) He was put on notice by the U.S. Government that he was not permitted to retain those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

(3) He continued to maintain possession of the documents (and allegedly undertook efforts to conceal them in different places throughout the property) up until the FBI finally executed a search warrant earlier this month.

That is the ball game, folks.

Moss makes the point that all Trump had to do was hand over all the classified documents when asked to. But he refused, and his lawyer lied to NARA and said they had all been returned.

Moss is a lawyer specialising in national security issues. If he is right, it will be a fascinating trial.

Stuff reports:

A new programme designed to help Māori recover faster from injury is being piloted at the University of Auckland.

I hope the pilot will be independently evaluated.

Named Ngākau Oho, the university and ACC programme aims to implement rongoā Māori (traditional healing practices) in mainstream healthcare systems in Aotearoa.

Rongoā Māori is the name of a number of traditional Māori healthcare practices and remedies to cure ailments and injuries.

Passed down through generations of whānau and hapū, rongoā Māori involves physical, mental and spiritual therapy.

Ngākau Oho includes online and in-person wānanga on rongoā Māori, including the use of medicinal native plants, romiromi (body alignment), maramataka (relationships to the lunar calendar) meditation and mahi tinana (body movement).

Why are we treating Maori as second class citizens who get lunar healing foisted on them, rather than therapy that actually is proven to work?

It is quite possible that certain plants will have medicinal benefits. Meditation and body alignment and movement can be useful also. I have no issue with those.

But to have the Government funding injury recovery based on the lunar calendar is akin to them funding astrology as careers advice.

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt writes:

Last week, as part of the Human Rights Commission’s housing inquiry, I highlighted that many renters are having to make trade-offs between their fundamental human rights, such as the right to adequate food and the right to a decent home.

Renters are also unfairly burdened with enforcing the government’s tenancy laws.

I suggested two short-term initiatives: a freeze on rent increases and an increase to the accommodation supplement.

So the Human Rights Commission wants to return to Muldoon style economics with a rent freeze.

There is 50 years of economic research that shows rent freezes or controls leads to fewer houses being available for renting. So in fact the HRC is campaigning to increase homelessness in New Zealand.

The Herald reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters has ruled out – kind of – working with the Labour Party after the 2023 election.

Peters made a speech attacking Labour for its co-governance policies. The speech ended with Peters saying he would “never” work with any party “whose policies threaten … fundamental rights” – a hint that Labour would have to drop those policies if he were to work with them after the next election. …

Speaking to the Herald, Peters would not explicitly rule out Labour, but implied it would be very difficult to work with the party again.

“We were in government for three years. There were matters which were clearly not disclosed to me or my party – He Puapua and going to Ihumatao.

“Since the election you have seen the emergence of what are clearly race-based policies and a pathway to apartheid – there’s no other word for it.

“They’ve ruled themselves out as far as we’re concerned,” Peters said of Labour.

Winston’s best chance of making it back is through opposition to co-governance. But to succeed, he will need to convince people that he won’t put Labour and Greens into power again, as he did in 2017.

George RR Martin writes:

He emerged as one of the world’s leading defenders of free speech, which only deepened my admiration for him.   Freedom of speech is a central pillar of our democracy, and every other democracy in the world.   There is nothing, but nothing, that I believe in more strongly.

And these days freedom of speech needs defenders, for when I look around, I find it under attack everywhere.   Blacklisting, cancel culture, libraries being closed or defunded, classic works of literature being banned or bowdlerized or removed from classrooms,  an ever growing list of “toxic” words the mere utterance of which is now forbidden no matter the context or intent, the erosion of civility in discourse.   Both the Rabid Right and the Woke Left seem more intent on silencing those whose views they disagree with, rather than besting them in debate.    And the consequences for those who dare to say things deemed offensive have been growing ever more dire; jobs lost, careers ended, books cancelled, “deplatforming.”

And now, it seems, attempted murder.

The ultimate form of cancel culture!

I don’t know Salman Rushdie, as I said.    That cannot be helped.   There’s not much I can do for him… except to hope that he makes a full recovery, or as much of a recovery as he can possibly make, given his injuries… or maybe I should call them wounds.   For that is what they are, wounds received in battle in a war he has been fighting most of his life, a war for freedom of speech, for art, for compassion.

I don’t know Salman Rushdie’s work either, however… and THAT is something I can do something about.    I just placed an order for copies of THE SATANIC VERSES, MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN, and several of his other books.   And I have instructed the managers at Beastly Books, my little bookshop here in Santa Fe, to order every Rushdie title presently in print.   Beastly is not an ordinary general interest bookshop (Santa Fe has several of those); almost of the books it stocks are autographed.   They carry my own titles, of course, along with books by the authors who have appeared at Beastly Books and the Jean Cocteau Cinema over the years for signings, interviews, readings, and other events.   Rushdie’s books would not previously have been on our shelves, no more than those of thousands of other writers who we have never hosted.   But that’s changing, as of today.   From here on, we will be stocking everything Rushdie wrote…

The man who rushed on stage in Chautauqua with knife in hand wanted to do more than murder Salman Rushdie.   He wanted to silence him.

Well, fuck that.   I say, let his voice be heard.  

I hope that all of you reading this will join me.

What a great idea. I have just purchased a Kindle version on Amazon. Let’s send sales skyrocketing.

Great quote.

A guest post by Jordan Williams:

If you’re in the 85% of New Zealander’s who don’t smoke, or 95% of younger people now smokefree – you’d be forgiven for thinking “tobacco laws, no impact on me”.

Well, not so fast, you virtuous fresh-air breather. Let us recap the latest dystopian, desperate policies this Labour Government are hell-bent on bestowing on everyday New Zealanders.

For a government so deeply committed to breathing new life to Ronald Reagan’s failed war on drugs, they would do well to remember his other advice – the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”.

Could a cause as noble as reducing smoking drive a fundamental reshaping of communities’ and the next explosion of thriving black market crime?  Prohibitionist policies have consequences for wider society.

Hard-working neighbourhood dairies and convenience stores gone, closed for good. Replaced by tinny houses for cigarettes a new boom-time for the usual benefactors of prohibition – organized criminal gangs. Many imported from across the ditch and bringing their smuggling connections with them, look set to receive a $2 billion dollar payday on top of the current $270 million of evaded tax each year.

But let’s start with the ‘good’ – credit where it’s due and all of that.

1. Introduction of licensing for selling smoked tobacco (cigs and roll your own) – seems fair, arguably overdue as a concept considering other regimes. The problems will come in the red-tape, fees, and lottery style implementation.
2. Broadly captures only ‘smoked tobacco’ for now, with vaping appropriately exempt from the more heavy-handed, prohibitionist measures. Some smokers will hopefully be motivated to switch and escape their $9,000 annual tax donations which come with a daily smoking habit.
3. No new taxes! (Just that pesky yearly CPI increase)

The Bad – the emperor has no clothes.

1. In reducing the availability of cigarettes, this will consequently reduce the availability of vaping products which are meant to be there for the smokers now forced cold turkey. As the footfall and associated revenue disappears, so too will thousands of mum & dad convenience stores.
2. Those ‘hole in the wall’ vape shops opened by some dairies (the direct result of this Government banning flavours) – the Government has heard the cries of concerned parents and school principals and banned those too. A double whammy for small businesses which will adversely impact rural and remote communities with the highest smoking rates the most.
3. Enormous new compliance costs for both the tobacco and vaping industries will see prices go up for consumers – another tick in the box for Grant’s ‘inflationary pressures’ checklist.
4. Prohibition by stealth – rather than following proven models of the EU or a dozen other countries with common-sense tar and nicotine ceilings, Labour prefers to do things their way. Not satisfied with smokers paying through the nose for $30-40 packs of smokes (80% of which is tax) – it expects Kiwis to keep paying this for nicotine-free cigarettes rather than a black-market of cheaper, normal-strength smokes.

The downright Ugly

1. While ‘licensing’ of all current retailers seems reasonable, what the Government plans to use this for is cruel and unusual punishment.  According to the Minister in charge, Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, they will cull over 8000 retailers down to 500. This despite the legislation proposing no such number. But this is a majority Government remember, so you can shove your consultation – it’s happening. That’s 400,000 customers who will no longer be visiting 7500 stores to buy their milk, bread, ice block and overpriced pack of smokes. Will smokers really drive miles to the nearest legal shop, or pay a visit to the newly minted tinny tobacco house down the road?
2. Having said all that, it won’t matter if it’s 8000 or 500 shops. If they can only sell zero-nicotine garbage no one wants, then the whole licensing scheme is redundant. Maybe that’s their plan?
3. A “Smokefree Generation”. Let’s be clear, nobody wants our future 18-year-olds taking up smoking. But do we want their new adult choices completely stripped away from them? Young people don’t smoke anymore but it seems no one can be trusted. Not adults, not parents, and not the health education system which has seen NZ already achieve a smokefree generation. The madness with this particular prohibition is you get to the stage where you’ll have 40-year-old Dave getting his smokes illegally from 41-year-old legal Roger, who could cop a $50,000 fine for ‘supplying the smokefree generation’.

This is the epitome of the Labour Government’s ideological fantasy – grab headlines around the world, but with absolutely flawed, faulty policy which treats Kiwis as guinea pigs.

It would be remiss not to mention the winners in all this. Customs New Zealand have been sounding the alarm for years now.  A “booming tobacco black market increasingly operated by organized crime”, the proceeds of which fund drug smuggling, money-laundering and other nefarious activity.

Can’t be arsed driving 40kms to the one surviving tobacco retailer? No worries, the local tinny house should have you covered.

Just turned 21 and fancy a cigar and whiskey with your old man? Nope, that’s “smoked tobacco” so either make it a birthday trip to Cuba, or you’ll have to deal with the gangs for that one too.

Regular hard-working Kiwi who still enjoys a smoko break? Yeah, Nah. You won’t be able to get legal ciggies anymore, not with the nicotine you want. So off to see those nice friendly black-market smugglers for a discount carton in its fully branded glory.

Welcome to the future, the Government is here to help. All 400,000 of you still smoking will magically quit overnight with vaping or cold turkey. Prohibition is what you needed all along.

Even the Government’s own Cabinet Papers include warnings of escalating criminality, black-market supply, mental health consequences and even family violence. Not to mention the explosion of violent ram-raids concentrated on the lucky winners of 500 tobacco licenses.

With such a long list of highly likely negative outcomes stacked against it, it all seems a bit bonkers.

Kind of reminds me of that other law rammed through recently which did nothing except prevent young first-home buyers from getting a mortgage. Labour was warned about that one too.

Nicola Willis discovered some interesting stats under the OIA:

• Staff numbers up 78% over four years from 255 to 454
• Economic staff numbers down 2% from 34 in 2013 to 32
• Comms staff up 233% from 6 in 2013 to 20
• HR staff up 380% from 5 in 2017 to 24
• Governor’s Office staff up 250% from 6 in 2017 to 21

Readers may be interested in the results of an August poll where Curia asked 1,200 NZers:

In response to the high level of inflation in New Zealand, do you think the Government
should be increasing its spending, decreasing its spending or keeping its spending at
the same level?

The results were a plurality of 45% want Government spending to decrease, with only 12% wanting it to increase and 27% to stay the same.

Even Labour voters wanted it to decrease more than increase – 27% decrease, 13% increase and 49% keep the same.

Also asked was:

Would you support or oppose the Government giving every family a temporary 12 month
reduction in their overall income tax by 10%, to help families with the increased cost of
living?

A massive 59% of Kiwis said they would support an across the board 10% reduction in income tax, with only 26% opposed.

And who was most in favour of tax cuts? Labour voters!

They were 68% in favour and only 23% opposed.

So what New Zealanders want is a Government that will cut taxes and cut spending.

A guest post from a reader:

Publishing tax debt is not a good idea … it is a great idea.

Businesses in New Zealand rely on information in order to make trading decisions.  Information is obtained by word of mouth and on publicly accessible platforms such as printed newspapers and websites.

Deciding who to trade with and when to cease trading and or change terms of trade (such as cash on supply) is one critical area where a business relies on quality, reliable information in order to make sound trading decisions.  Use of signed terms of trade that allow the business to access a customer’s financial information such as credit reports is one way business gets good information to assist with trading decisions.  Credit reporting agencies such as Veda are a useful source of information for businesses to determine if who they propose to trade with has a good credit history.  Credit history can be a good indicator of how the trading relationship may go.  Using Veda’s published debt information can also be useful to check up on a debtor during a trading relationship, if there is cause for concern.

A big hole in this information pipeline is the debtor’s tax debt.  Historically IRD has not published individual entities tax debts.  The tax secrecy laws have prevented this from happening.  When businesses go bust many creditors express dismay when they see that IRD is a creditor with a large debt owed.  Many businesses comment that if they had known the extent of the tax debt they would not have traded with the insolvent business or they at least would have amended the terms on which they would trade with the debtor.  To rub salt into the wounds, IRD has preferential status for tax debt such as GST and PAYE, meaning they get first dibs if the liquidator or Official Assignee manages to realise some assets.

There is a glimmer of hope on the commercial horizon.  Section 85N of the Tax Administration Act 1994 was inserted into the legislation on 1 April 2017.  Section 85N of the Tax Administration Act 1994 allows Inland Revenue to share tax debt information with approved credit reporting agencies where the debt is over $150,000.  The aim is to increase visibility of tax debt and enable more informed business decisions.  Of course, in the private sector a creditor can post a debt with a credit reporting agency as soon as there is a default and no matter what the sum.  IRD on the other hand is constrained by the legislation and IRD’s internal policy when determining when to publish debt.

In addition to the prescribed debt level of $150,000 tax debt, information will only be shared when:

• the debt is owed by the taxpayer (duh);
• the debt has been overdue for a year and, is 30% or more of the taxpayer’s assessable income for the 12 months before disclosure;
• the debt is not disputed;
• there is no agreement for repayment in place;
• IRD has made reasonable efforts to collect the debt; and
• IRD has given the taxpayer notice of the intention to publish the debt and 30 days to sort it in some way.

Hmmm, a fair few hurdles to jump before IRD get to the point of actually publishing the debt.  Although, the hurdles are not so different to steps a commercial operation would take.  So, how is it going then? 

On 24 October 2017 IRD published an article entitled Auckland company becomes first to have tax debt reported.  You can access the article here.  Reading between the lines there are some concerning aspects to how IRD are utilising this new legislative tool. 

It has taken nigh on seven months to report the first tax debt.  Why so long and why only one?  The article gives some hints as to why.  IRD states, on the basis of one company being reported, that “the new powers have proven to be a useful deterrent for companies in a similar situation.  IRD also state that “there are more cases in the pipeline, which meet the same criteria as the company in Auckland.”  What this seems to mean is that IRD are taking interim steps to secure payment and avoid the risk of debt being published rather than just going ahead and publishing tax debt once the criteria are met.  That is their prerogative.   The publishing of the article is probably part of this approach – make an example of one taxpayer to send a message to others, a sort of waving the stick approach.

The IRD approach is concerning.  The point of the legislation was to address the issue of business being in the dark about tax debts of taxpayers they trade with and the negative impact that has on their businesses.  IRD in the article refer to this issue stating “[IRD]has heard from many frustrated creditors over the years, which have done business with companies unaware they had a significant tax debt on the books.”  Well, taking a piecemeal approach to publishing tax debt is not going to address this mischief or defect that the legislation was passed to remedy (that’s fancy legal speak referring to the mischief rule).  IRD seem to be oblivious to the purpose of the legislation.  In their article they state “anyone running a check on a company will then be able to see these [tax debt] details.”  Ahh, no they won’t.  If a uniform and concerted approach to publishing all taxpayer tax debt that meets the criteria is not taken business will be no better off than they are now.  They may even be worse off.  If they rely on credit reports where publishable tax debt is not published then they will be misled and lulled into a false sense of security.

It gets worse.  IRD go on to state “this is how debt reporting happens in the commercial world so it’s good for us as government debt collectors to have this ability too.”  With respect, this is not how it happens in the commercial world.

How does the commercial world operate?  If we are honest about it the commercial world operates fairly inconsistently.  However, the savvy operators actually take a similar approach to what the legislation requires IRD to do (but without caps on debt level).  They set a period after which debt is enforced, say 120 days overdue.  They ensure it is not disputed and they are usually open to setting up some sort of arrangement to sort the debt.  After taking reasonable debt collection approaches they also usually put the debtor on notice that the debt will be published or they use an alternative notice such as a bankruptcy notice or statutory demand.  This notifies that the debt is being enforced to bankruptcy or liquidation, as the case may be.  The other critical thing they do is act consistently.  Step by step working the debt and doing what they threaten, publishing all defaulters.  There is no point waving a stick if you are not prepared to beat someone with it – in a commercial sense that is.  The savvy commercial approach ensures other creditors become aware as debt is published with credit reporting agencies and notices of intention to bankrupt or liquidate are published. 

Of the IRD criteria (see points (a) to (f) above) you would expect there to be a large number of taxpayers (who meet the necessary debt level) that already tick all the boxes apart from being served notice of intention to publish.  It would not be difficult for IRD to extract all these taxpayers that meet the (a) to (e) criteria, serve them with a 30 day intention to publish notice (criteria (f)) and then publish taxpayer debt for those taxpayers that don’t sort their debt by payment or agreed instalment arrangement within that notice period.  Voila, all done. And going forward, any taxpayer that meets the criteria in future gets the same notice and opportunity to sort their debt before it is published.

If that approach were taken by IRD the business community would be well placed in making commercial trading decisions with regard to taxpayers (companies and individuals) who have significant outstanding tax debt.  There are other benefits from taking this approach.  IRD will collect more tax debt more efficiently.  Many of these taxpayers will sort their tax debt either during the notice period or after the tax debt is published.  If they can’t the path to bankruptcy or liquidation, as the case may be, will shorten.  As grim as that may seem it is a good thing that the commercial world would welcome.

It is also highly likely that other creditors now aware of the tax debt position of the taxpayer will take their own steps to liquidate or bankrupt for debts owed to them.  Currently, IRD bears the cost of most liquidation and bankruptcy applications in New Zealand.  This is largely due to other creditors simply being unaware of the tax debt of the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s overall financial position. Unfortunately, it does not look like IRD will operate like the “commercial world” as they claim.  IRD instead state in the article that “[they] hope businesses will make the appropriate effort to clear their tax debt so that we don’t have to use this tactic more often.”  With that debt collection tactic approach, and what looks like a company tax debt only approach, it looks like the glimmer of hope on the horizon will fade away and business will remain largely in the dark with respect to the tax debts of the people they trade with.