The Government has published the latest greenhouse gas inventory. Labour and Greens and their proxy groups go on about the need to reduce emissions, and if you listened to them you would think they shrunk under a Labour Government and skyrocketed under National.

So what does the official data show.

• 1999 – 73,049 kt
• 2008 – 80,205 kt – an increase of 7,156 kt or 9.8% over 1999
• 2015 – 80,155 kt – a decrease of 50 kt or -0.1% over 2008

So emissions increased 10% under Labour and have slightly decreased under National. Do you think Greenpeace (led by a former Green MP) or Forest and Bird (ditto) would ever highlight this?

Note this is just gross emissions, which is those produced by activities such as energy, manufacturing, transport and agriculture. Net emissions include the impact of tree planting and deforestation and swings about more wildly as in any particular year there can be a big change in planting or felling activity.

A guest post by Grant F, Board Member of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners:

The Arms Act 1983 controls the ownership of firearms and some types of airguns in New Zealand. It is a world leading piece of legislation as it focuses on the firearms user as opposed to the firearm itself. Essentially, to legally possess a firearm a person must be “fit and proper”, have appropriate security, and have attended a training course. Firearms that are considered requiring extra control are stored to higher levels of security and are registered, and may have an additional requirement such as a pistol owner must be a member of a bona fide pistol club. This system has worked very well for many years and must be considered a success. Despite the very high firearms ownership rate in New Zealand the rate of misuse of firearms is low. Sporting rifles and shotguns do not need to be registered as this is demonstrably costly and ineffective- with Canada having abandoned their long gun registry due to unprecedented cost blow outs which ate into the Police budget.

Until recently, the relationship between firearms groups and the Police has been harmonious. In the past few years, however, this relationship has begun to fray quite badly (as was shown by a North Island Gun Club halting the Police from using their range) and a number of legal challenges through the Court system. Firearms owners are reporting to COLFO ( The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners) an increasing number of worrying issues with the Police administration of the Arms Act.

Just this week firearms users spotted a serious problem with the Arms Code 2017. The Arms Code is the primary safety handbook for safe firearms usage.  The online version contained a number of errors and when this was pointed out to Police it was swiftly taken down. Police advised in a statement that this was only an IT error and regretted. It was then pointed out that a printed hard copy with the same errors was also available at Police stations and then the thousands that have been printed were withdrawn. The cost to the taxpayer of withdrawing this is unknown but must run into the thousands of dollars.

DPF: These errors were not an accident. They were the Police asserting the law as being what they thought it should be, rather than what it was. There are parallels to their activism on alcohol issues where they are trying to impose their view of what the law should be on license holders.

Firearms licences are renewed every ten years. COLFO is aware that people have applied for a renewal of a licence and this process can take up to 9 months. This means that a person is no longer licenced and cannot legally possess firearms that they could the day before. Dealers are reporting serious business flow on effects for the failure of police to action requests for import permits for stock for their businesses. When security is inspected license holders are reporting unlawful requests by Arms Officers regarding justifications for firearms and ammunition lawfully held, which are not in the Act or regulations.

Unfortunately, these are not one offs. COLFO is aware of:

• Inconsistent interpretation of the Arms Act across districts and individuals,
• Police publically stating that they were using licence photographs for purposes which they were not taken for (this was stopped after a threatened reference to the privacy commissioner);
• Poor investment, accountability and transparency on administration of Arms Act, record keeping, funding, actual manning versus paper manning of positions;
• No regular oversight or audit of performance;
• Long list of underfunding that has now resulted in issues for operation, however the blame has been placed on the door of compliant firearm owners;
• Low priority on administration of Arms Act due to operational conflicts;
• Political positioning within Police to use marginal services as a lever for careers;
• Disingenuous engagement with the community;
• Sloth in renewing arms licences (up to 9 months reportedly);
• Revisions to storage requirements for all categories of licence holders; and
• Changes in Arms Code without legal backing of Act or Regulations.

The position has now been reached that the many shooters do not believe the Police can administer the Arms Act, and that this is now rapidly becoming a political issue for many shooters. Many law abiding shooters feel that they are “low hanging fruit” and are being made accountable for the actions of the criminals who won’t bother with a  firearms licence anyway. New Zealand First has positioned itself as being very pro-lawful firearms users and it remains to see what this will mean in terms of votes. If social media is anything to go by, they may well have just snagged many tens of thousands on this one issue.

The job of the Police is to enforce the laws passed by Parliament, not to enforce their view of what the law should be.

Stuff reports:

A Republican politician has won a special election for a US House seat in the state of Montana, even after being charged with assaulting a reporter the day before polls opened, in a race seen as a referendum on US President Donald Trump.

“Great win in Montana,” Trump told reporters in Italy, where he’s attending a Group of Seven summit, after tech millionaire Greg Gianforte won the statewide contest for Montana’s only House seat over Democrat Rob Quist, a political novice and musician.

Gianforte had 50.4 per cent of the vote to Quist’s 43.9 per cent, according to the Associated Press, with 98 per cent of precincts reporting. The seat had been held by Ryan Zinke, whom Trump appointed as interior secretary.

Once upon a time assaulting someone would see you disqualified from office. No longer I guess.

Gianforte seems to be a loony tune as well as a thug. He opposes raising the age of retirement on the basis that Noah was 600 years old when he built the ark. Yes, seriously.

He also believes there were dinosuars as recently as 4,300 years ago and what wiped them out was the flood that Noah built the ark for.

Steve Kilgallon writes:

Newstalk ZB quite frequently calls on the services of a British woman called Katie Hopkins to opine on overseas news stories. She’s presented as an ‘outspoken commentator’. In the aftermath of the Ariana Grande bombing in Manchester, Hopkins thought it wise to send a vile tweet (since deleted) saying that “we need a final solution”.

Let us be clear: Hopkins’ consistent record of vileness (more of this anon) means it is quite clear that she intended this to mean a widespread murder of Muslims. In the unlikely event that Hopkins didn’t know the currency that term carries, then she doesn’t have the general knowledge worthy to act as a commentator (she wouldn’t have the general knowledge worthy to go on The Chase). But as a reminder, it refers to the genocide of six million Jewish people in World War Two.

Hopkins is, I reckon, clearly a vile woman who says vile things, but this tweet seemed as disgusting as you could possibly get, particularly contrasted with the nobility of most Mancunians in the face of the terror attack.

Anyone who talks about needing a final solution, should not be on air.  Implictly advocating genocide is so far over the line it is not funny.

UPDATE: She has been fired from some of her UK roles.

The Herald reports:

The Budget’s $6.5 billion a year tax and families package has passed into law with support from all parties but Labour.

Labour should be ashamed of themselves. They voted against a package that will give up to $165 a week more to some of the poorest families.

The fact that Greens and NZ First voted for the package is significant. This is the first time the Greens have voted for the key component of a National Budget.

The bill was passed under Urgency and provides for tax cuts of up to $20 a week for workers earning more than $14,000 a year and increases in Family Tax Credits and the Accommodation Supplement.

Those are scheduled to kick in from April next year. The tax cuts package is worth about $2 billion a year while the Working for Families and Accommodation Supplement increases will cost $300 million to $400m a year.

The Green Party and Labour took different positions on the bill – the Green Party co-leader James Shaw said it was a line call. While the party did not support the tax cuts, the changes to Working for Families and Accommodation Supplement would benefit about 50,000 children in severe hardship and the party could not ignore that.

However, Labour leader Andrew Little said Labour would not support it because the tax changes were poorly directed and gave too much to higher income earners rather than those on very low incomes.

Oh nonsense. Low income earners have their tax burden proportionally reduce by far more – 17% for someone on $20,000 vs 4% for someone on $100,000. Of course a higher income earner gets a bigger gross reduction – that is because they pay far far more tax.

Look at Labour’s 2008 tax cuts package. It gave someone on $20,000 an $1,130 tax cut and someone on $100,000 would have got $2,870. Yes Labour’s 2008 tax cuts package would have given a three times larger tax cut to someone on $100,000 than National’s 2017 package does. It is ridiculous to argue the tax cuts are not targeted at lower income workers enough.

Give the Greens credit for putting principles ahead of politics and voting for a package that will boost the incomes of 50,000 families to above the OECD poverty line. Labour just wallow in mindless opposition.

Stuff reports:

Businesses in central Wellington want to mark a perimeter around ATMs to keep “intimidating and forceful” beggars out.

The idea is just one suggestion as inner-city residents and businesses push for banks to become involved in finding a way to protect customers from beggars.

Money machines had become a beacon of activity, particularly for opportunist and forceful beggars, said First Retail Group managing director Chris Wilkinson, who heads a Wellington business group called Our CBD.

A begging exclusion zone around ATMs is a good idea. I think 400 metres should suffice.

The Electoral Commission has announced its allocation of funding to parties for broadcasting advertisements. This time around there is just an allocation of money, and no time allotments for opening and closing broadcasts.

Of course we should have no allocation and parties should fund their own advertising. But such a change will only be made if all parties agreed to it (as significant electoral changes should have cross-party support) so unlikely to occur.

I’m interested in what proportion of the pool each party got, as compared to last time. If a party has dipped in the polls, they tend to get less.

• National 31.0% down from 32.4% last time
• Labour 25.0% down from 28.0%
• Greens 12.0% down from 12.2%
• NZ First 9.5%, up from 6.1%
• Maori Party 3.0%, down from 3.1%
• ACT 2.3% (nc)
• United Future 2.3% (nc)
• Conservatives 1.3%, down from 1.8%

Most parties get allocated pretty close to what they are polling. National is the significant exception.

Stuff reports:

A hairdressing councillor landed himself in hot water for discussing confidential council information about potential chief executives while giving people haircuts. 

Earlier this month, Stratford District councillor Graham Kelly, who owns hairdressing salon 5th Avenue in Stratford, was suspended from the council’s executive, and policy and services committees for breaching the council’s code of conduct. He was also asked to write a private apology.

The stereotype of hairdressers is they love a good gossip. This really reinforces the stereotype with the thought that a councillor was sharing details of Chief Executive applicants with every random person who came in for a hair cut!

On February 13, Kelly phoned Candidate 1 and Candidate 2, as they were refereed to in the report, to say he would not be able to make it to their interviews.

Kelly told Candidate 1 he was impressed with their CV and wanted them to be successful in their application.

The report said Candidate 1 was disconcerted about Kelly’s phone call and reported it before their interview.

Candidate 2 said they had also received a phone call from Kelly, and was told by Kelly the job was likely to go them them or Candidate 1, who Kelly then named.

After the interviews on February 14 and 15, Candidate 3 phoned Volzke after being told they were unsuccessful and said the confidentiality of their name and title had been breached by Kelly, who had told it to one of the clients at his hair dressing salon in Stratford. 

The customer told Candidate 3 that Kelly had “engaged in a long conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, their backgrounds and whether he thought council could work with each”.

He really doesn’t sound suitable to be a councillor if he doesn’t understand basic employment processes. You do not call candidates and tell them who their competition is.

Interesting stats from the US election campaign. Clinton spend $1.18 billion on her campaign – almost double the $0.62 billion Trump spent.

Useful reminder that while money is useful in campaigns, it is not a major factor in success. We see this in NZ also where Dotcom and Craig spent millions and got nowhere.

Some interesting stats from MBIE on the fibre and associated rollouts.

• 75% of UFB1 completed
• 33.3% of UFB1 eligible households have taken it up
• RBI1 is complete
• 39.9% of RBI1 eligible households have taken it up
• 90% of businesses in UFB areas have fibre available
• UFB1 covers 75% of premises and NZ and UFB2 a further 9%.
• Auckland is 59% complete
• Wellington is 56% complete
• Christchurch is 77% complete
• Dunedin is 71% complete
• Hamilton is 100% complete

The Herald reports:

Christchurch millionaire Earl Hagaman has died.

Hagaman, a tourism pioneer and owner of the Scenic Hotel Group, died today in his Christchurch home after an illness.

Lani Hagaman, Earl’s wife and business partner of 30 years, said he died peacefully surrounded by family and friends.

Born in America, Earl Hagaman and friend Ralph Brown bought their first hotel, the 48-room Graham Motor Inn – which is now the 130-room Scenic Hotel Franz Josef – in 1980.

Lani Hagaman said her husband was “loved and respected by many, including business and industry colleagues, and our 1000 staff working throughout Scenic Hotel Group both here in New Zealand and the Pacific”.

“He put all his energies into developing New Zealand’s tourism industry, as well as bringing much-needed jobs and income into the regional economy where most other hotel companies did not want to take that risk.

“He was a visionary and loved this country.”

A real loss. Condolences to Lani and family.

1. Saffie, aged 8
2. Megan, aged around 11
3. Eilidh, aged 14
4. Sorrell, aged 14
5. Nell, aged 14
6. Olivia, aged 15
7. Chloe, aged 17
8. Georgina, aged 18
9. Courtney, aged 19
10. Liam, aged 19
11. John, aged 28
12. Martyn, aged 29
13. Philip, aged 32
14. Kelly, aged 32
15. Michelle, aged 45
16. Alison, aged 45
17. Lees, aged 47
18. Wendy, aged 50
19. Jane, aged 51
20. Elaine
21. Angelika
22. Marcin

They were for the most part children and parents of children. All targeting of innocents is vile, but this particular act seems to hit a new level of callous.

Kudos should go to those members of the Muslim community who tried to stop this. Stuff reports:

Two friends of Abedi also became so worried they separately telephoned the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago and again last year.

“They had been worried that ‘he was supporting terrorism’ and had said that ‘being a suicide bomber was OK’,” a source told the BBC.

Akram Ramadan, 49, part of the close-knit Libyan community in south Manchester, said Abedi had been banned from Didsbury mosque after he had confronted the Imam who was delivering an anti-extremist sermon.

Ramadan said he understood that Abedi had been placed on a “watch list” because the mosque reported him to the authorities for his extremist views.

A well-placed source at Didsbury mosque confirmed it had contacted the Home Office’s Prevent anti-radicalisation programme as a result.

A US official also briefed that members of Abedi’s own family had contacted British police saying that he was “dangerous”, but again the information does not appear to have been acted upon.

It is good that he was reported my multiple people for his growing radicalisation. No doubt there will be a focus on whether he should have been placed under surveillance. He can’t be arrested just for saying things like being a suicide bomber is okay, but if he had been monitored they may have been able to stop him. On the other hand, you will never prevent every attack if someone is willing to kill others and die doing so.

Labour are trying to say that the Budget provided more for the rich than the poor. They claim poor families are only $1 better off.

Well Stuff profiled five imaginary families before the Budget and looks at what it means for each of them:

1. Petrovs, solo mother of three in Hamilton – $165 a week more through WFF and Accommodation Supplement increase
2. Bennetts, couple with three children in Dunedin earning $49,000 a year – $114 a week more through WFF, tax cuts and accommodation supplement
3. Saxon-Mahutas, couple in Wellington earning $150,000 a year – $31 a week more through tax cuts
4. Chin-Wilsons, couple in Nelson earning $115,000 a year – $31 a week more through tax cuts
5. Seuseus, couple earning $78,000 a year with no kids in Papakura – $20 a week more through tax cuts

The Greens are voting for the families package because it is targeted mostly towards low and middle income households. Labour are voting against because – well just because.

Even putting aside the WFF and Accomodation Supplement changes, the tax cuts proportionally target lower income earners. Someone on $20,000 a year has their tax drop from $2,520 to $2,100 – a 17% decrease.

Someone on $100,000 a year has their tax drop from $23,920 to $22,860 – a 4% decrease.

Key details so far are:

• Family Incomes Package to “cost” $2 billion a year
• Income between $14,000 and $22,000 drops from 17.5% to 10.5% tax rate
• Income between $48,000 and $52,000 drops from 30% to 17.5% tax rate
• An extra $20 a week for those earning $52,000 or more
• Family tax credits increase by $9 a week for first child and for each subsequent child by between $18 and $27 a week
• Accommodation Supplement maximum rate increases by between $25 and $75 a week for two person households and $40 to $80 a week for larger households
• Extra health spending of $3.9 billion over four years including $900 million next year. Total health spending up $5 billion since 2008
• $1.5 billion more for education over four years including $386 million for ECE, $460 million for school funding
• $434 million for vulnerable children
• $2 billion for law and order including 1,125 more police staff
• $205 million for social housing
• 3.5% GDP growth forecast for next year
• Core crown expenses as % of GDP to go from 29.2% to 27.5% in 2021
• Net debt to fall to 19.3% of GDP in 2021
• Surplus forecast of $1.6b for this year, $2.9b next year and rising to $7.2b in 2021

Looks a pretty sensible mixture of tax cuts and increased spending. Spending as a percentage of GDP still forecast to decline (as economic growth is projected to be high) so the surpluses will grow and allow more debt reduction.

For the first time since 2006 I won’t be in the Budget lockup, as I have as scheduling clash and have to chair a board meeting today. Hence I won’t have my usual analysis at 2 pm. I’m also on a flight this afternoon so not sure when I’ll get to write something – hopefully later afternoon.

Feel free to use this post for comments on the Budget once details are out.

Tracy Watkins writes:

If he had not already done so, Auditor-General Martin Matthews would have had no choice but to stand aside after the committee of MPs that appointed him agreed to an independent review of his handling of a major fraud case.

Matthews informed Speaker David Carter by letter on Tuesday of his decision. It was already clear by then Carter would have to intervene otherwise.  Matthew’s position had become untenable as questions mounted about his management of a staffer who defrauded the Ministry of Transport.

Carter underscored the gravity of Matthew’s situation when he labelled the review as necessary to protect the integrity of the office of Auditor-General.

No one, not even Labour leader Andrew Little who called for the review, is suggesting impropriety on Matthews part.

This is not about Matthews being culpable. He acted properly. But the argument is he acted too late. That would not make him ineligible for almost any other CEO role (no agency is fraud proof) bit I think it does make him ineligible for the role of Auditor-General. It is about the integrity of the office.

Matthews, for his part, maintains that he stands by his actions at the ministry and blames misinformation and media speculation for the need to stand down.

But Matthews is not just any public servant. He is the parliamentary appointed watchdog of tax payer funds. That includes holding agencies and departments to account over their systems of oversight and governance.

It is his stewardship over both those areas that is being questioned after a staffer, Joanne Harrison, committed large scale fraud while he was Transport Secretary.

Allegations this week that two former whistle blowers were later restructured out of the ministry go to the heart of public confidence in the integrity of the public service and New Zealand’s whistle blower laws. The two men allege that senior managers were informed about fake invoices used by Harrison, including a $123,000 payment, and believe that was why they lost their job.

There are now two inquiries underway.

State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes will conduct an inquiry into the treatment of public servants who raised the alarm about Harrison, while the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Sir Maarten Wevers, will carry out the Parliamentary inquiry.

The public can have confidence in the integrity of both not to deliver a whitewash.

Both highly respected. And while I am sceptical, if the inquiries found that no reasonable person could possibly have detected Harrison’s fraud at an earlier stage, then he may be able to resume his role. But the evidence to date of eight specific complaints or warnings is fairly damning. But there may be abother side to these stories.

Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post reports:

To everyone dreaming of a quick and easy impeachment: What do you imagine happens the day after?

Passions subside. President Mike Pence begins his orderly reign. Donald Trump retreats to Mar-a-Lago. Normalcy returns.

That’s about what you have in mind, right? Dream on.

Here’s a likelier scenario: Trump goes to Mar-a-Lago to regroup, not retreat. Early in the morning, he tweets: “Join me on Day One of our campaign to reverse the most corrupt theft in political history and reclaim the White House in 2020.” His supporters vow to reverse the coup d’etat.

And they may not restrict themselves to political protest. Unless there was clear and undeniable proof of wrong-doing, his supporters would think there was no way to change the system from within.

Trump was legitimately elected by Americans who knew they were voting for an inexperienced, bombastic, intermittently truthful, thin-skinned, race-baiting businessman. If Trump turns out to be an inexperienced, bombastic, intermittently truthful, thin-skinned, race-baiting president, that should not come as a surprise. Nor is it grounds for impeachment.

Even if Trump turns out to be worse than feared, a failure, a disappointment even to his voters, someone who would, say, boorishly disparage America’s FBI chief as a “nut job” while speaking to America’s adversaries – even that would not be grounds for impeachment. The remedy for poor performance is not to re-elect. It is a decision for the voters.

Yep. Unless you have proof of criminal behaviour, lying under oath etc.

Would Trump, if convicted by the Senate, stage a run for redemption in 2020, fuelling and feeding on that kind of paranoia? That would depend on many factors, including whether Congress chose to bar him from future service, which it is allowed but not required to do in an impeachment trial.

But certainly many among the 46 per cent of the electorate who rallied to Trump’s side in order to “drain the swamp” of Washington elitism would not subside quietly if the swamp, as they saw it, swallowed him. Maybe their candidate would be Donald Jr or Eric Trump, who last week tweeted, “This entire thing is a witch hunt propagated by a failed political campaign.” Maybe they would find another champion.

President Ivanka?

Stuff reports:

Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel wants the Government to buy and repair the Christ Church Cathedral if the Anglicans reject a restoration deal.

Dalziel stated her position on the quake-damaged Christ Church Cathedral on Wednesday, shortly before Labour, Green and National MPs united to break a deadlock over the building.

Labour and Green MPs said Christchurch Regeneration Minister Nicky Wagner had agreed to set up a cross-party initiative to tackle the cathedral. Wagner said she had invited all Christchurch MPs to meet on Friday to “discuss the Government’s next steps” on the cathedral.

So Lianne thinks people living in Stratford and Auckland and Gore should buy a church in Christchurch.

If (and that is a big if) there is a case for public funds to be used, then it should be the Christchurch City Council, not the Government.

She said it was her personal view that the Government may have to purchase the building using its earthquake recovery powers.

I’m against the Government confiscating the church.

Dalziel said if Anglicans rejected the offer and chose demolition it would be bad for regeneration of the city.

It’s their church, not yours. If you want a say then go offer to buy it off them and restore it yourself.

Stuff reports:

OMG, could this be true? It’s still illegal to blaspheme in New Zealand.

Parliament had the opportunity to remove decades-old anti-blasphemy laws but, heaven’s above, bailed out on Tuesday night.

Labour MP Chris Hipkins introduced an amendment to remove anti-blasphemy laws but both the National Party and the Maori Party voted against throwing it out of the Crimes Act..

They voted against throwing it out without allowing the public a chance to submit on it.

It’s understood National changed its mind about dealing with the law quickly and with the help of the Maori Party stopped it going through.

Instead, the government wanted to go through the process of select committee and give the public the opportunity to submit on the potential law change.

Which is absolutely proper. It is an outdated law that should go, but Parliament should not be making changes to the Crimes Act without public consultation, except where it is urgent.

Hipkins said it was a “sad day for freedom of speech, tolerance and leadership”.

“What moral authority does New Zealand have condemning other countries for draconian blasphemy laws when we have one of our own that we refuse to repeal?”

Chris is being hypocritical. He has often ranted against the Government pushing law changes through without consultation. Now he is demanding they do just that.

No one is refusing to repeal the law. They are just saying it should go to a select committee for submissions.

Chris could submit a members’ bill to do so, and I suspect it would get 121 votes if drawn.

A guest post by Auckland Councillor Greg Sayers:

When there is a vote for the Mayor’s targeted rate on hotels to fund the Council owned ATEED organisation odds-on I will be voting against this measure. Introducing a new form of rates is a cop out for an organisation that should spend more time concentrating on efficiencies and cost savings and less time trying to take more money out of ratepayers pockets.  

The targeted rate is flawed in its design. It is not a bed tax which travellers may be familiar with seeing overseas whereby an itemised surcharge is added onto the bill. The revenue raised is then ring fenced for building city infrastructure which visitors can use. Such a tax would have to be central government initiated and I would support this. As I am sure my constituents would.

With a bed tax the amount charged overseas is a percentage of the room cost. Auckland Council, however, is planning to use the capital value of a property as the calculation tool for introducing a new kind of rate, called a targeted rate. This is a blunt and highly inappropriate financial instrument and is the second major flaw in the model.

All the money will go to ATEED, the arm of Council which promotes Auckland as a tourism destination. This benefits a wide range and a large number of diverse businesses. However, the Mayor is asking for 100% of the targeted rate to be paid entirely by the hotel and motel sector – a sector which gains only 9% of the benefits. This is grossly unfair. The model is again fundamentally flawed.

Essentially the Mayor is asking a few businesses to fund all of Auckland’s promotions and advertising. Using smoke and mirrors the Mayor then promises more money will be allocated to fixing traffic congestion.

It is really just a money grab and Aucklanders need to understand the deceitfulness behind it. This has included direct threats from the Mayor if I don’t vote with him “there will be future consequences” for myself and my electorate.

So, what about the tourism and accommodation industry providers themselves – what do they say? They say the Mayor’s campaign is built on untruths, uneducated assumptions, distorted facts and public consultation documents that harbour clear biases. They are telling me they are thinking Mayor Goff is becoming more like Mayor Brown by the day.

Bottom line, the test for Mayor Goff’s leadership is not whether he can get enough of us as Auckland Councillors to vote with them. It is whether he does the right thing.

This targeted rate is definitely not the right thing. It is a poorly conceived tax on a small number of businesses that allows the Mayor to continue freely spending ratepayer’s money. He should drop this targeted rate, and go back to consult transparently with the people affected. Properly understand how the visitor industry works without a predetermined outcome. Gain buy-in to a workable solution and a fair way of charging visitors to pay their fair share towards Auckland’s growth challenges.

The fight over this targeted rate raises a broader issue about Auckland Council’s costs. Those supporting the Mayor tell us that costs are under control, and that adding targeted rates is a solution to the underlying problem of Council not having control of its spending. The Mayor and his supporters have decided to increase rates and also introduce new rates rather than aggressively attack Council’s waste and overspending.

The Council has an proposed annual budget of approximately $4.2 billion, up from $3.8 billion. The Council staff have come back with a proposal to make $17 million in savings this year on Len Browns budget. This is a fractional savings goal of the total Council budget. This would be completely unacceptable in the commercial sector whose Board of Directors would be looking for 10% savings as a minimum if their company’s debt and financial performance looked anything like Auckland Councils.

Any accountancy firm or Chief Financial Officer presenting savings this low in the private sector would be sacked. Before entering politics I spent a good part of my career looking at cost savings and efficiencies in businesses. My experience is that all organisations can find efficiency gains, however, it is only by setting tough goals that they do find these gains.

Auckland’s Mayor and Council are too weak. The bureaucrats are running the show in the vacuum. Ratepayers remain the soft target being hit with more rates increases, rather than Council initiating a thorough cost cutting process to find savings that can be passed onto ratepayers.

When I was running for Auckland Council I made a series of pledges, including to adhere to rates increases of no more than 2%. I am standing by that pledge, and will be voting against the new targeted rate to fund ATEED. I will consistently call on the Mayor to present options for cutting wastage and cutting overspending not increasing revenue, and I believe he should be more effective in managing the costs across all of council.

Bolding is done by me.

Great to see a Councillor living up to his pledge not to vote for a rates increase of greater than 2%. Goff is proposing a 4%+ rates increase. If Councillors who made that pledge vote for it, they will be targeted for defeat at the next election and their constituents reminded of their broken pledge.

Interesting list of major (over $30,000) donors in 2017:

1. Gareth Morgan $400,000 to TOP
2. Dame Jenny Gibbs $106,200 to ACT
3. Alan Gibbs $100,000 to ACT
4. Phillip and Jackie Mills $50,000 to Labour
5. De Yi Shi $50,000 to National
6. Murray Chandler $35,000 to ACT
7. M.F. Management Ltd $32,000 to National

So by party we have:

1. TOP $400,000
2. ACT $241,200
3. National $82,000
4. Labour $50,000