1. Don’t cut spending in a recession – spending has increased from $87 billion to $114 billion so tick for that but the increase is too large.
2. Don’t increase taxes in a recession – no tax hikes sighted at this stage
3. Run a deficit in short to medium term – Deficits forecast for at least seven years which is more medium to long term
4. Debt should increase – it is increasing from $58 billion to 200 billion which is over $50,000 per household. That is far too big an increase.
5. There must be a path back to surplus – well in theory in eight years which is too long
6. Extra spending should be temporary not permanent – total fail here. Spending was $87 billion last year and will be over $113 billion not just this year but for the next five years. We will drown in debt
7. Capital Expenditure generally preferred over Operational Expenditure. Vast majority of the increase is operational.
8. Expenditure must make economic sense. A bit too early to judge but not promising. Seems like a random collection of projects to mollify key Labour constituencies
9. Capital expenditure should be on projects that can commence soon. Do you recall the 100,000 Kiwibuild houses and Light Rail by 2021? Expect more of the same – rhetoric rather than action.
10. Low quality spending must be ruthlessly reprioritised. Total fail at this stage as not a single pet project appears to have been axed
11. Don’t try and pick out some sectors as winners. Sigh, should have known better from politicians. Another handout to media has been flagged.
12. Costs on businesses must be decreased, not increased. The only initiative I can see is extending the wage subsidy scheme until after advance voting starts. Basically they want to delay the huge rise in unemployment until after the election. Nothing in the Budget about permanently decreasing costs on businesses.
13. We need economic growth. No real initiatives to boost the economy.

A special report from Kiwiblog analyst Neil Miller:

Today I attended my first ever Budget Lockup in the Beehive’s awkwardly shaped Banquet Hall. I could see the screens and the speaker’s podium which is good sign. Famously, if you are seated somewhere where you cannot it is a clear message you are not considered important.

In a normal year, I would probably be in one of those seats of shame. However, this year’s lockup was different. For starters it was the smallest in modern times with only Parliamentary Press Gallery and 25 independent analysts allowed in. The analysts were only allowed in at the last minute and only if the country dropped to level 2 COVID-19 alert. It did so 10 hours and 47 minutes ago and here I am, the only member of the briefing wearing sneakers.

Social distancing is not very social in real life. Having been confined to home or the supermarket for six weeks, it was unusual and honestly unnerving to be out and about with other people. It was interesting to watch journalists, economists and commentators waiting to get in trying to power mingle on the Beehive’s semi-circular balcony while maintaining correct social distancing.

At 11am the lock down starts as the first document is distributed and the race is on. The first impression is that is a lot of information – media releases, Wellbeing Budget report, and additional information on a USB stick. In addition, you can ask a Treasury officer to see three more documents with long technical names, or beg for another USB stick (if numbers permit).

All Governments release a lot of information in the lockup – it is a long-standing political strategy to control the message as much as possible. Governments want media and analysts to use their language and their numbers. They have branded it the “Wellbeing Budget 2020: Rebuilding Together” but others here will be searching for other, possibly less kind, names. Accordingly, the official messages are nicely packaged up into press releases which can be cut and pasted. Of course, those in the lockup want to find the real message, their own angle, test the maths and consider the actual impact on the economy or their industry.

Unlike many of the trade organisations here, Kiwiblog covers the entire gambit of politics, economics, and trolling. This of course means I cannot just go to the section on my sector. Having read and analysed budgets for many years, I can confirm that being able to do that makes it a lot more manageable. Here, I will take a broad view and note my views do not represent Kiwiblog.

However, the document distributors are hovering, and my three hours are about to begin.

The Government is promising 8000 more public houses to be delivered. We have heard plenty of promises about building houses and planting trees before. This time, Hon Megan Wood gets a chance to address the Government’s poor record on delivery.

It is a big-spending budget as was to be expected. There is a $50b COVID-19 package though much of the money has already been spent. Health also receives a substantial boost as was to be expected in the situation. There are no new taxes so the funding will be covered by debt which has to be repaid sometime.

One of the hardest things about reading a Budget is that the same money can be counted multiple times. For example, there is a press release on $900m to support Maori. There is a $911m Maori package, but it is spread across nine portfolios and is announced and counted in other releases many times. For example, $136m extra for Whanau Ora is announced and counted under social support as well..

Defence gets $1.77b which may surprise many. Most of that (898m) is contingent capital funding for C-130J Super Hercules airplanes – but Cabinet is yet to approve a business case. Ron Mark said “progressing the procurement of the C-130J Super Hercules continues to be my highest priority as Minister of Defence.”

Grant Robertson said “This strong fiscal position, built on the work of Bill English and Michael Cullen, now means we are much better placed than many other countries.” We certainly did not hear this praise of Mr English’s financial management on the campaign trail or in the House before COVID-19.

If you want to play a Budget Day drinking game (responsibly) at home, drink every time a speech or press release  today mentions New Zealand going hard and early”, “a team of five million” or “cushioning the blow”. You may be surprised at the results!

For the record there was nothing to drink at the Budget lockup, not even water. I really could have done with a cold beer by 2pm… However, the biggest tragedy of the lockup was the food. In the sense that there was not any. My whole life had been building towards trying one of the famous Budget sausage rolls, and this was the first year they did not appear. I now hate COVID-19 even more than before. Disclaimer: I really like sausage rolls. The Minister of Finance went out of his way to stress the decision was made the Speaker, not him.

Neil Miller is a former National Party staffer, now a policy analyst, writer and radio commentator. He has known and worked with Mr David Farrar for a long time. How long? At their first meeting Mr Farrar was sporting a fine mullet (“the calm before the storm”) but it sadly did not last long and tragically was in the days before Facebook. He is currently eating a sausage roll.

• Unemployment to hit 9.6% forecasted
• Economy to stay in recession for over two years until June 2022
• Net debt to increase by $140 billion (that is around $70,000 per household) from 19% of GDP to 54%

Newsroom reports:

Labour MP Louisa Wall is preparing to take legal action against her own party over a bid to oust her from her Manurewa electorate, Newsroom understands.

The threat of a court case played out in the public eye stems from the party’s decision to accept a late nomination from lawyer and recently-appointed Waitematā DHB board member Arena Williams, seen as a viable threat to oust the incumbent.

A supporter of Wall said some in the party were upset by how the MP had been treated during the selection process, given her experience and advocacy on LGBT issues.

There was a feeling that Labour’s national headquarters was overreaching into the local selection process to push out candidates who senior MPs did not like, or who were not fully compliant with the messaging from the top of the party.

Newsroom understands Wall’s partner, lawyer Prue Kapua, contacted Labour’s governing body, the New Zealand Council, threatening legal action if Williams’ application was not declined.

After taking advice from a QC over the weekend, the party’s executive has formed the view that its position is defensible, leading to the prospect of a showdown in the High Court.

Parties set a deadline for nominations. It is a specific date and time. If you get it in one minute before you are fine. One minute late and you miss out. That is the nature of deadlines. The Electoral Commission doesn’t accept a nomination for example if you are half an hour late with it.

Arena Williams did not get her nomination in by the required time. So it should be an open and shut case.

But Arena is very close to senior Ministers such as Grant Robertson (who got her appointed to a District Health Board) and someone pressured Party HQ to accept her late nomination.

That reeks of the party hierarchy ignoring their own rules to favour a hand chosen candidate over a sitting MP.

The obvious solution is to move forward with a selection between the two valid nominations of Ian Dunwoodie and Louisa Wall. Williams will no doubt get parachuted into another seat at some stage and will learn the value of getting your nomination in on time.

Of course if Labour really are so desperate to get Williams in, they’ll let this go to court which to me seems like a lose lose for everyone.

A guest post by ACT Leader David Seymour:

This Budget week, we face a stark choice in how we respond to the economic fallout of Covid-19. There are two basic strategies.

The first involves the Government taking on significantly more debt, running the rebuild from inside the Beehive, and raising taxes to pay for it all. This approach nearly bankrupted us in the 1980s.

On the second path, we harness the energy of businesses, workers, innovators and investors with lower taxes and less red tape. The result is higher growth and wages and lower unemployment and debt.

Earlier this week, ACT released an Alternative Budget showing how we can unleash New Zealand’s potential and come out of Covid-19 as a richer country.

Our first priority is getting New Zealanders back to work. Businesses are hurting and will be cautious about entering new employment relationships. We would remove barriers to hiring by allowing businesses to employ workers on 12-month trial periods, returning the minimum wage to its 2019 level, and placing a three-year moratorium on minimum wage increases.

Second, we would refocus government on its core job of protecting New Zealanders. For years, politicians spent billions on buying votes while at the same time leaving us unprepared for a pandemic.

Our Budget reduces spending on corporate and middle-class welfare. We can no longer justify nice-to-have spending that was affordable in good economic times. It is irresponsible to further indebt future generations without asking what savings we can make today.

We would invest $816 million over the next three years in fighting the next pandemic with stronger border measures, better research, and more protective personal equipment.

ACT would restart the economy, not with low-value handouts and Phil Twyford-run public works, but by cutting taxes and red tape.

Our Budget temporarily cuts GST to 10 percent until June 2021 to spur consumption. We permanently cut the 30 percent individual tax rate to 17.5 percent, delivering a $1,300 tax cut to workers on the median wage, and encouraging New Zealanders back to work.

These fiscal changes would get us back to surplus by 2024. We would take on $13 billion less debt that the Government.

ACT also proposes an ambitious programme of pro-growth reforms by cutting red tape in housing, primary industries, energy, transport and infrastructure, and overseas investment.

We would create a construction boom and reduce housing costs by replacing the Resource Management Act and amending the Building Act.

ACT proposes to replace the Zero Carbon Act with a simpler, cheaper alternative that ties our emissions price to the efforts of our trading partners, and we would repeal the bans on offshore oil and gas exploration and genetic engineering.

We would replace fuel taxes with smart road pricing and take infrastructure decisions away from politicians and give them to a new, independent Infrastructure Corporation.

We would also remove barriers to investment from friendly OECD countries to boost productivity, wages and jobs.

And that’s just the start.

New Zealand can respond to the current crisis, as we did in the 1970s, with protectionism and bigger government – that is, more debt, higher taxes, politicians picking winners with taxpayer money, and more barriers to employment, trade and investment.

This would mask the economic pain temporarily, but it will leave us behind in the global economic recovery. Fortress New Zealand took us from being the third richest country in the world to 21^st. Think Big proved to be an economic and financial disaster.

Instead, we can unleash New Zealand’s potential with lower taxes and regulatory barriers. We can have a job-rich economic boom in the wake of Covid-19 for the benefit of the next generation.

Government can create the environment for growth, but it must be the innovators, investors, businesses and workers who drive our response through a bottom-up recovery. History shows that an economic recovery is much stronger when it is led by people on the ground, rather than politicians and bureaucrats.

We need to put our trust in the people. Our economic recovery will come not from the Beehive, but through millions of New Zealanders making a difference in their own lives.

Graham Adams writes:

In fact, we are living in such unusual times that the adage “a week is a long time in politics” seems overly cautious, and Lenin’s observation “There are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks where decades happen” is more appropriate.

While Simon Bridges is very unlikely to ever come close to matching Ardern’s popularity, he still has time to revive National’s prospects — which, it should be remembered, were rosy enough on February 13 for a Colmar Brunton poll to predict National could form a government with Act.

And while the government’s response to Covid-19 has catapulted Ardern into the political stratosphere, it has also brutally exposed the lack of depth in Labour’s line-up. It’s extraordinary that in a pandemic that has paralysed the economy, and the tourist industry in particular, the government appears not to have a capable Minister of Health or Minister of Tourism.

In fact, David Clark had disappeared from public view even before he broke lockdown rules to visit his holiday home, while Kelvin Davis — who is also the party’s deputy leader — has been mostly AWOL in the heat of battle. And you’d have to say his rare media appearance on Paul Henry’s show Rebuilding Paradise last week did little to inspire confidence that the future of what was our biggest export earner is in safe hands.

National may not have an international star as a leader but it does have a clutch of experienced former ministers within its ranks who know how to get things done. The government has earned itself a well-deserved reputation for failing on logistics — from KiwiBuild to Auckland’s light rail proposal. The fact it may also have failed to ensure that the severe lockdown it imposed was lawful will come as little surprise to many.

Can anyone name a major infrastructure project that has gone well under this Government?

Whether the virus is quelled or not, in four months’ time the wreckage of New Zealand’s economy will be visible from space. Last week, leaked documents showed the Ministry of Social Development is preparing for an extra 300,000 benefit applications in response to mass unemployment generated by the pandemic.

You don’t have to be a seer to guess that material concerns and a desire for economic and logistical competence will likely trump all other considerations — including abstract notions of “wellbeing” and admonitions to “be kind” — in choosing the next government.

People will want jobs rather than handouts — and quickly. Like Scott Morrison in last year’s Australian election (which he won against nearly all predictions), Bridges will be able to fuel his election campaign with a cry of “Jobs and growth!”

In fact, National may have already found its election mantra with its slogan currently circulating on social media: “We’ll get New Zealand working again.”

While Labour seems intent on continuing with policies that make it harder and more expensive to hire people.

Tomorrow we will see the Budget. I’m won’t be in the lockup myself, but a colleague Neil Miller will be in there and will do a post for Kiwiblog on what is in the Budget, appearing just after 2 pm.

What I thought would be useful is to elaborate some principles for how we should recover from what is probably the worst economic shock since the Great Depression.

1 – We shouldn’t cut spending

For at least the period we are in recession we should increase government spending to cushion the impact of the recession, just as happened under Key and English during the GFC. Cutting spending in the midst of a recession will probably just deepen it.

2 – We shouldn’t increase taxes

Increasing taxes during a recession will also deepen the recession. We want households and businesses to have more money, not less. Many households and businesses will be struggling and the last thing they need is more taxes.

3 – We should run a deficit in the short to medium term

The aim should be to be in surplus over an extended period of time, but that doesn’t mean you have to to run a surplus every single year. During a recession it is almost impossible to run a surplus as you have both tax revenue drop and non discretionary spending (welfare benefits and interest on debt) increase.

4 – Debt should increase

As a consequence of running a deficit, debt should and will increase. We are able to do this because despite howls of austerity and false claims of health spending cuts from Labour, the last National Government managed to impose enough fiscal discipline to get back into surplus within five years of the GFC and start reducing debt again. They inherited a projected decade or more of deficits.

5 – There must be a path back to surplus

While most of us accept there must be deficits and growing debt for a while, there must be a path back to surplus and reducing debt. In 2008 National inherited no path to surplus – it was a structural permanent deficit.

It may take five to six years again, but it is vital that decisions in this Budget do not make it impossible to get back into surplus again.

The reason we need to get eventually back into surplus and repaying debt is there will be another global economic downturn again at some stage – generally every 10 – 12 years. The history is:

• 1973 – oil shocks
• 1987 – Black Friday sharemarkets (14 years)
• 1998 – Asian Crisis (11 years)
• 2008 – GFC (10 years)
• 2020 – Covid-19 (12 years)

6 – Extra spending should not be permanent where possible

If we want a chance of getting back into surplus one day, then the vast majority of extra spending during the recession should not be permanent. The decision to permanently hike welfare benefits was a reckless one as it imposes a permanent cost increase we don’t have revenue for. The additional winter energy payment for one year was a more sensible response.

Basically the only areas that should get significant additional permanent funding is those related to Covid-19 such as Vote Health, Vote Civil Defence etc.

7 – Capital Expenditure generally preferred over Operational Expenditure

Capital Expenditure tends to be on infrastructure that provides longer lasting benefits to the country. A great example is National’s spend on fibre to the home -it has given us a broadband network that has made a real difference.

Likewise enhanced transport routes, more modern hospitals and schools etc can all be valuable investments.

8 – Expenditure must make economic sense

Any idiot can spend money on infrastructure projects. The test needs to be projects that produce benefits in excess of the costs of building them. Now is not the time for spending on low quality projects.

9 – Capital expenditure should be on projects that can commence soon

The reason we want to spend more on capital expenditure on infrastucture is to generate more economic activity while we are in recession, to soften it, create or maintain jobs etc. Projects that won’t actually commence until 2023 or 2024 etc will not meet that criteria. Claiming that building a rail line between 2024 and 2029 is a solution to a recession in 2020 is nuts.

10 – Low quality spending must be ruthlessly reprioritised

We want to eventually get back into surplus but also increase spending in areas such as Vote Health and on infrastructure projects. That will require a formidable level of fiscal discipline. Low quality high cost spending such as free tertiary fees and the provincial slush fund should be redirected to areas of more need.

If you are unable to do this, then you will not be able to get back into surplus one day.

11 – Don’t try and pick some sectors to be winners

Some politicians are saying we need to reshape our economy as we can no longer be reliant on tourism. It is true that tourism revenues are likely to be lower for years to come.

But the idea that three or four Cabinet Ministers will make the best decisions about where our future earnings will come from is fanciful. The reality is the future is uncertain.

The Government should resist doing specific corporate welfare packages for handpicked sectors such as racing or the media. Any support for businesses should be across the entire economy, rather than those who make the most noise or donate the most.

12 – Costs on businesses must be decreased, not increased

When times were good, government could increase costs on businesses with more modest impacts. But when times are bad those extra costs will mean businesses will close, shed more jobs, new businesses won’t start up etc.

The Government needs to seriously focus on reducing costs for businesses. That could mean a 12 – 24 month freeze on new regulations, no further minimum wage hikes until unemployment gets below a certain level, reducing compliance costs, freezing rates etc.

13 – We need economic growth

Over the next year we are going to have a huge deficit – well over $30 billion and the following year will probably be well over $10 billion. This is almost unavoidable due to lower tax revenue, increased welfare payments, temporarily higher spending, and increased interest on debt.

The way you get back to surplus is to have substantive economic growth which will allow businesses to grow, exports to grow etc. This will increase company tax revenue. It will increase GST. It will lead to more jobs and increase income tax and reduce welfare payments.

You can’t spend your way back to surplus. You can’t tax your back to surplus (without decreasing economic growth). You need to grow your way back to surplus.

So most important of all we need policies that will not just get us through the recession but lead to a strong growing economy for the decade that follows.

So that’s my 13 principles for sensible economic management. We’ll see tomorrow what the Government does.

While I still manage to author five or so posts a day on Kiwiblog, relatively few of them are the longer analytical posts I used to do more frequently.

Part of the reason for this is simply competing demands on my time – a six month old, a three year old and also my polling company.

I’d like to be able to do more of the longer posts I used to, but the opportunity cost of taking the time to write them is a factor.

The current gross income from advertising for Kiwiblog is around $16,000 a year which is around $12,000 net income. I currently spend around three hours a day managing Kiwiblog and writing posts.

If this was an hourly rate I’d be earning $11 an hour which is almost half the minimum wage. So obviously I am not in this for the money – I enjoy writing and the feedback from readers. In 17 years of operating Kiwiblog I’ve never sought donations or money from readers.

What I am interested in exploring is if there is a market for additional content, which would not be free. If I have paid subscribers for something, then I’ll make sure I have the time to produce it.

Now I’m not at all sure if I want to do this, and if I do it will not impact current content on Kiwiblog being free. It is about additional content, that might not even be on Kiwiblog.

The potential content ideas include:

• Weekly article on the political week, assessing each party’s performance and scoring them out of 10
• Exclusive polling results on topical issues
• Analysis of upcoming bills
• A regular summary of interesting polls in NZ and abroad
• Regular data posts examining how well NZ is doing compared to other countries
• Interviews with MPs and other people in politics

Potential ways I could seek revenue are:

• Have additional content on a subscription site such as Patreon with a low monthly sub
• Have the content on Kiwiblog behind a paywall
• Have a micropayments system on Kiwiblog where people could opt to pay say 1c/post they read
• Just have a donate facility with no actual paywall or subscriptions

Anyway I have a survey on this which I’d like readers to take 30 seconds to complete. Even if your feedback is you have no interest at all in paying for content, that is very useful to know.

I’ll share the results of the survey and any further thoughts going forward.

Stuff reports:

A Cambridge widower is calling on the Government to show compassion and increase the number of people it allows at funerals under level 2 alert.

Mark, who does not want his full name to be used, lost his wife Kim to bowel cancer during the level 3 lockdown.

He said the cap of 10 people at funerals was a “kick in the guts,” especially after the Government said last week that up to 100 people could attend.

A lifelong member of his local rugby club, Mark said that he couldn’t understand why funerals could only have 10 people in attendance, when contact sports like Rugby were allowed.

The cap of 10 people at a funeral is poorly thought out.

We may be at Level 2 for 18 months until there is a vaccine. There will be 50,000 deaths in that time. That would be 50,000 families who can’t properly mourn.

If you can have 100 people in a bar, why can’t you have 20 people at a funeral? All you need to do is make sure there is social distancing and caution against hugging etc.

National and ACT are voting against the Level 2 law because of the inflexibility on this and other issues. Wouldn’t it be better if the Government compromised so the law can be unanimously supported?

They should also compromise on the proposed power to allow Police or others to enter your house without a warrant.

Ardern said she knew the rules were causing pain, but they were necessary.

“That’s the risky behaviour. Look back again in the areas where New Zealand has had trouble with Covid. It’s been weddings, it’s been bars, it’s been social gatherings so that’s where we’ve put the limits in place,” she said.

Yet the PM is allowing 100 people at a time into a bar or cafe.

Mark is now calling on the Government to drop the rule, and lift the cap to 100 people to make the rule consistent with the caps applied to restaurants and cinemas. 

I hope he succeeds.

If I die I know far more than 10 people will want to attend my funeral. I expect at least 500 there, evenly divided between mourners and those checking I’m actually dead!

Tracy Watkins writes:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s budget this week will loom over generations to come; it’s no exaggeration to say it’s the most important budget in decades.

There will be intense debate about whether he has got it right; so it’s unfortunate that as we head into budget week the government is exhibiting premature signs of the affliction known as third-termitis.

That was most evident in the emergence of a leaked memo this week in which ministers’ offices were advised not to waste any time defending themselves to the media – not because they had anything much to hide but because (to paraphrase) people love us anyway, so why bother?

It’s the assumption behind that advice that is so alarming; it speaks of supreme confidence at the moment that this government can do no wrong in the eyes of the public.

It was very telling that the PMs Office was saying let’s just dismiss criticism rather than debate it.

Newshub reports:

Newshub can reveal hundreds of Auckland doctors have been told yet again that stocks of flu vaccines are about to run out. 

A message sent to doctors based on advice from the Ministry of Health was sent out just hours after Dr Ashley Bloomfield told the public that everyone can now get the jab.

The revelation has left Kiwi doctors furious.

The instructions for the public were clear from the Director-General of Health at the 1pm coronavirus briefing on Wednesday: “All New Zealanders are now able to get a flu jab, and I would encourage them to do so.”

Precisely five hours and 25 minutes after Dr Bloomfield made that claim, an email was sent to doctors by ProCare, which represents 173 Auckland practices that service more than 800,000 patients.

“Flu vaccine update: read it and weep,” was the headline. 

“Guess what?” the update asked. “The Ministry of Health advises that at the current rate of distribution, New Zealand is likely to run out of stock next week.”

Dr Jan White, Medical Association General Practitioner Council Chair, says the situation is a mess, and “we can’t have a mess like this”.

This is the third or fourth time it has happened. How can you have the DG of Health say one thing and the Ministry of Health a few hours later tell doctors we’re running out?

The Herald reports:

The administration costs for the Government’s gun buyback scheme are believed to have cost nearly double the initial estimate, a report shows. …

In March last year, police produced an initial estimate of $18m to administer the scheme.

“The estimate was based on limited information from the Australian buyback scheme and was completed quickly, before the costs of the supporting technology were fully known,” Ryan said.

“The police now estimate that, once fully completed, administering the scheme will have cost up to $35m. This includes costs of tracked staff time, contractors, and goods and services.

Maybe to make it easier in future we should just automatically double whatever the Government says something will cost, to get an idea of the likely real cost.

Stuff reports:

A Christchurch man is pleading for government officials to exempt him from quarantine so that he can see his dying wife one last time.

Mining contractor Bernie Ryan returned from Australia on Sunday after his wife Christine Taylor’s condition worsened.

He is currently under managed isolation at a hotel in Auckland, and said despite showing no illness symptoms and a letter of support from his GP, the Ministry of Health has repeatedly refused his request for exemption.

Taylor has terminal lung cancer and has been given hours to live.

Again bureaucracy gone mad.

He said the refusal was devastating.

“Well … I cried, and basically a friend suggested that maybe we can get in contact with the media and if not for me, for other people that may have to go through this scenario,” Ryan said.

He asked the government to show sympathy towards New Zealanders in similar situations.

“Well, I’m a proud Kiwi, we’re the best country in the world, just [show] some compassion … instead of these generic emails I’ve been getting, what about just some compassion? And not every case is the same is basically is what I’m saying,” Ryan said.

“It’s breaking my heart really.”

The Ministry of Health said Ryan would have received a letter explaining why his application has been declined, and its exemptions team will contact him to explain further.

This is just nasty.

If one can have 100,000 supermarket employees turning up to work every day, we can allow two dozen NZers with dying relatives visit their dying parents or partners.

The default position for anyone in this position should be they gain an exemption, so long as suitable safety precautions are adopted in terms of travel and PPE and testing.

Should Parliament step in to enforce a nationwide rates freeze, what’s happening in Botany and should our relationship with China change? Islay Aitchison interviews Jami-Lee Ross.

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio and all good podcast apps.

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

The Herald reports:

Māori and Pacific patients could be prioritised for some elective surgeries and appointments as DHBs look to reshape a health system emerging from lockdown.

As alert level 2 nears, Auckland, Waitematā, Counties Manukau and Northland DHBs are preparing to tackle waiting lists lengthened by the postponement of procedures, and identify people with the highest clinical need.

“These are frequently Māori and Pacific peoples and they are also often the first to miss out at times of high demand or when there are other barriers to healthcare,” a spokeswoman for the DHBs said.

People accepted for treatment are often given a priority ranking. For example, priority one patients are considered urgent and might be seen within two weeks, priority two may be seen within six to eight weeks, and priority three and non-urgent cases face a wait of months.

One option that’s been discussed is bumping Māori and Pacific patients up a priority band in certain instances, the Weekend Herald understands.

That would be about as terrible a decision as you could make. Surigical priority should be based on an individual’s actual clinical need, not on whether or not they have a great great grand parent of a particular race.

Jim Rose writes:

Big outlays on infrastructure to rebuild the economy are a bad idea because it takes several years for any infrastructure spending to pick up speed.

The Greens want to cover the country with electric railways. It will take several years to work out where they might go, what is precisely wanted, let tenders, for contractors to acquire land and then a few years from now there are workers hired to new jobs in the construction industry.

Infrastructure projects have a terrible history of cost overruns and benefit shortfalls. The average cost overrun for rail projects is 45 per cent; costs over run in nine out of 10 projects. Benefits from rail projects fall short of projections by an average of 50 per cent.

This is key. Rail infrastructure won’t result in any increased economic activity (except consultants) for many years. It will do nothing to help mitigate the economic recession we now face.

And the history of cost overruns and over-estimated benefits means that you really want BCRs well above one to be sure any investment adds up.

The industries doing worst because of Covid-19 are in the in-person services sectors: travel, tourism, education exports, entertainment, cafés, pubs and restaurants.

Do the workers hired for an infrastructure project seem to come from the same part of the labour market skill domain as workers in travel, tourism, education and retail?

Those who work in outdoor hard-labour jobs and those who work in indoor personal service jobs are cut  from a different cloth.

The Government appears to want to throw money away big time at the opposite end of the economy to where most of the 20 per cent unemployment is right now.

Also an excellent point.

When the hundreds of thousands of unemployed travel, tourism and retail sector workers look for new jobs this winter, infrastructure projects that don’t start hiring until a few years from now are of no use to them.

What the Government can do now is change incentives for businesses. Deregulation and a lower company tax rate are an immediate boost to the ability to stay in business. We could close to halve the company tax rate by abolishing the regional growth fund and corporate welfare.

Much better ideas.

The Herald reports:

Katie Nimon has been selected as National’s candidate in Napier for the 2020 general election.

She will go up against incumbent Napier MP Stuart Nash.

Nimon is currently the general manager of her family’s 115-year-old bus company, Nimon Luxury Passenger Transport, based in Hawke’s Bay and Taupo.

She has been working in the business since she was 14.

The National Party said it was thrilled someone like Nimon, who has immense experience in business and regional tourism, has put their hand up.

“I’m incredibly excited to be selected as the National Party’s candidate for Napier and I’m looking forward to getting out and earning Napier’s trust,” Nimon said.

Nimon has an Executive MBA and a bachelor’s degree in Design from Massey University, and a Diploma in Performance from Trinity College London.

Nimon is only 28 but has been working for over half her life in an SME. We need more people in Parliament with her experience.

I thought it would be interesting to look at how the 37 OECD countries have all done with Covid-19. As they are all fully developed economies, it is a reasonable set to compare between.

The first compare is tests done per million residents, where higher is of course better.

So Iceland by far has done the most testing at 15% of their population. Six countries have tested over 5% of their population and 12 countries over 4%. NZ is a respectable 13th at 3.8% of the population tested.

Four countries have tested under 1% of the population – Greece, Colombia, Japan and Mexico.

Now we have the number of known cases per million population.

Japan has the fewest cases per capita at around 0.01%. Australia is 7th at 0.027% and NZ at 0.031%.

The countries with the most cases are Luxembourg, Spain, Iceland, Ireland and Belgium.

Of course there is some relation between how much you test and how many positive cases you get. So what is the ratio of cases to tests?

NZ has the lowest number of positive tests at 0.8%. Australia and Lithuania much the same.

12 countries have a rate of over 10% with Mexico the highest at 25% – which suggests more testing there would see many more cases.

How what about deaths per capita?

So Australia and NZ doing best closely followed by Slovakia, South Korea, Japan and Colombia.

At the other end the worst are Belgium, Spain, Italy, UK, France and Sweden.

Now how many deaths have occurred compared to known cases?

Once again NZ and Australia doing well with only around 1.5% of known cases being fatal.

Iceland has the lowest rate which probably reflects they have done so much testing and found more people who had a mild version.

Nine countries have rates in excess of 10% which is massive. This suggests that their actual infection rate is much higher as you wouldn’t expect fatality rates to vary so much per country.

Overall Australia and New Zealand have done very well.

On Thursday we move to a semi Level 2.

Retails, malls, gyms, playgrounds reopen on Thursday 14 May.

Educational facilities on Monday 18 May.

Bars on Thursday 21 May.

Parties will be limited to maximum size of 10.

Stuff reports:

A woman has launched a petition to Parliament to ban all freedom camping for non-residents.

Jennifer Branje, who runs the South Island visitor guide website South Proud, said the coronavirus pandemic was a perfect time to “reassess” the tourism industry.

She launched the petition in a bid to stop freedom camping as a support for New Zealand tourism providers. …

It asks “that the House of Representatives urges the Government to abolish all freedom camping for non-residents of New Zealand in support of local tourism providers, and to cease allocating taxpayer revenue for further development of free camping sites.”

Branje said New Zealand now had the ability to reassess how its tourism industry would reset after Covid-19.

“I believe we need value not volume. While freedom camping has previously been allowed, I believe the way forward is to abolish freedom camping for all non-residents in support of our local tourism operators,” she said. 

Ms Branje thinks that if she bans a certain type of tourism, this will benefit tourism operators.

Its a nuts argument.

If you ban freedom campers that doesn’t mean we’ll get more non freedom campers.

Also her premise is based on a bad assumption, that freedom campers spend less. MBIE found:

International visitors to New Zealand who did some freedom camping had a tendency to spend more on average. Average spend for those who did some freedom camping was $4,400 per visitor in 2017 and 2018, and although it was higher than the national average, the overall trend was similar.

One of the major reasons for a high average spend per visitor is that people who did some freedom camping tended to stay longer. The average length of stay for visitors who did some freedom camping was 46 days in 2017 and 2018, almost 3 times longer than the average of all other visitors (17 days).

So freedom campers are worth more to NZ than other tourists.

The number of international visitors who did some freedom camping in New Zealand has been rising recently, from 54,000 in the year ended 2013 to around 123,000 in the year ended 2018. This followed a period of moderate growth from around 10,000 visitors at the beginning of the 2000’s.

Total estimated spending by visitors who did some freedom camping has also increased significantly in this period, from $210 million in 2013 to $540 million in 2018.

So why would we turn down $540 million of spending?

UPDATE: The petition has been withdrawn due to a backlash, including reportedly threats to the author. That is regrettable. She has the right to call for a ban, just as we have the right to call it stupid and harmful.

Stuff reports:

Stuff’s Australian owner says it terminated talks with New Zealand media company NZME last week.

NZME, owner of the New Zealand Herald and Newstalk ZB, said in a statement to the NZX on Monday morning that it was seeking urgent legislation to allow it to buy rival publisher Stuff “for $1″by the end of May.

But Stuff owner Nine said in a release to the ASX that while Nine had had discussions with NZME regarding the acquisition of Stuff, “Nine has notified NZME that it has terminated further engagement with NZME”.

Fascinating that NZME thinks Stuff is only worth $1.

They seem to have shat in their own nest with their statement, as Nine have now told them to go away.

The idea of the Government passing a special law to allow the two main print media companies to merge is abhorrent. This would create one mega company that would be politically beholden to the Government.