The Guardian reports:

Boris Johnson has won a £1,000 prize for a rude poem about the Turkish president having sex with a goat.

The former mayor of London’s limerick, published by the Spectator as a rebuff to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s efforts to prosecute a German comedian’s offensive poem, also calls the president a “wankerer”.

Johnson, a former editor of the magazine, won the Spectator’s “President Erdoğan offensive poetry competition”, despite judge Douglas Murray saying the contest had received thousands of entries. The prize money has been donated by a reader.

The limerick was written off-the-cuff by the Conservative MP during an interview with the Swiss weekly magazine Die Weltwoche. …

Johnson then offered the limerick: “There was a young fellow from Ankara, Who was a terrific wankerer.

“Till he sowed his wild oats, With the help of a goat, But he didn’t even stop to thankera.”

Not bad for something created on live television.

This is why Boris as Prime Minister would be such fun – he’ll offend so many people!

Stuff reports:

He had an early exposure to the murky world of espionage when called on as director of the Office of Treaty Settlements to give evidence about claims the intelligence agencies had spied on Maori organisations and provided information to the Crown in their negotiations.

That was news to him at the time, says Hampton, and – as it turned out – news to the intelligence agencies also, given that it turned out to be a “complete hoax”.

“So I’ve not necessarily believed everything I read. But yeah, there was public concern so I wanted to reassure myself there wasn’t a basis for it. But people don’t need to take my word for it: the [Michael Cullen, Patsy Reddy] report did a really good job of looking at what GCSB does and concluded they don’t consider there is any mass surveillance underway.”

Hampton’s appointment is the next step in the evolution of the GCSB as it is brought blinking into the public glaze after years of living in the shadows. Like his predecessors – acting director Una Jagose and, before her, career public servant Ian Fletcher – Hampton’s appointment breaks with the tradition of GCSB directors drawn from the military and diplomatic worlds.

I think that has been a major beneficial change under this Government – that both the SIS and the GCSB are no longer run primarily by ex military staff. Nothing against those staff, but there was a culture that absolutely everything had to be secret, rather than assessing the balance between operational security and transparency.

Prior to the GCSB, he was at the Education Ministry (helping sort out the Novopay debacle), Crown Law and chief talent officer at the State Services Commission. And like his counterpart at sister agency the Security Intelligence Service, Rebecca Kitteridge, Hampton brings a public service sensibility to the job. He is focused on GCSB’s “customers”, and liberally uses words like accountability, transparency, and added value – things the GCSB was not so good at a few years ago.

The change has been difficult and necessary; the story of the GCSB’s bungled spy craft in relation to German entrepreneur Kim Dotcom is now history, but it remains dogged in controversy as the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, probes a series of allegations, including that the agency wrongly spied on Kiwis in the Pacific, and used its eavesdropping powers to snoop on rival candidates for the job of World Trade Organisation boss when our Government was backing former trade minister Tim Groser for the job.

Hampton says he can’t talk about the specifics of any of those inquiries but points out they are “legacy” issues, pre-dating not just himself, but his two predecessors.

But, as he is at pains to note, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that the GCSB collects foreign intelligence.

“One of our three core roles is to gather foreign intelligence. That is what we are [tasked] with doing. It’s not for us to set out own intelligence priorities, they are set for us by the Government of the day. Nor is it for us to decide what to do with that intelligence. We are not an enforcement agency. But the fact we do seek intelligence about the intentions, capabilities, and activities of foreign parties shouldn’t come as a surprise. That’s one of the key reasons we exist.”

The Inspector-General reports will be interesting. I doubt much will come of the Pacific inquiry as from what I have read any material picked up accidentally from NZers in a foreign country is disposed of. The WTO inquiry could be more interesting as that will focus on whether gathering intelligence on that contest fits within the purposes of the Act.

Stuff reports:

NZ First has added a new party policy to its list – voting the opposite to ACT leader David Seymour.

In a weird twist of events on Wednesday night NZ First pulled its initial support for the Official Information Act (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill purely because Seymour had decided to vote for it.

It passed its first reading in October after United Future leader Peter Dunne and the Maori Party broke ranks with National and ACT to get the Labour bill over the line.

Seymour, who is under-secretary for education and responsible for charter schools labelled it a “silly bill” but rather than lobby members to oppose it he decided to vote for it as well.

The bill is designed to make under-secretaries subject to the OIA but Seymour claims it’s a “stunt bill” targeting him. 

Speaking in the House on Wednesday night NZ First MP Denis O’Rourke said his party was “comforted” by the fact Seymour initially opposed the bill because he “always gets things wrong”.

“So by supporting it we thought we must be getting it right.”

But Seymour’s voting in favour of the bill at its second reading meant NZ First had to have a “re-think” and now “feel strongly that we must oppose it,” O’Rourke said.

What pathetic puerile politicians. You might expect this from ten year olds, but not MPs.  How can anyone take them seriously when they decide how to vote in Parliament based on this.

One News reports:

Andrew Little says it will take a Labour-led Government a single term in office to fix the housing crisis the Government denies even exists.

Well that’s nonsense as almost every major city in countries like NZ is facing the same price increase for housing. There is no magic wand that will change the fundamental challenge of demand rising faster than supply. But there are things that can help. But their impact will take a long time.

Last week the party announced a new policy to relax the rules around Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL), which Mr Little says are artificially driving up prices.

“We said we would change the rules on urban limits so we’re not having this arbitrary distinction between properties in Pukekohe selling for $600,000 — that’s just for a section — then just over the boundary you know, properties actually at a more reasonable sort of level,” he told Paul Henry on Monday.

“There’s this arbitrary rule that’s been created that’s just causing this ridiculous inflation in section prices.”

Great to see Little campaigning on this also though. I was worried that Twyford had got the policy through caucus when they were all sleeping. But if Little is promoting it, that means Labour is committed to it – which is good.

Mr Little says if the council doesn’t approve the Unitary Plan later this year, a Labour-led Government will override it and open up the land anyway.

Excellent. I wish National would say the same.

Nate Silver writes on how he got Donald Trump so wrong (as almost everyone did). He notes:

But it’s not how it worked for those skeptical forecasts about Trump’s chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Despite the lack of a model, we put his chances in percentage terms on a number of occasions. In order of appearance — I may be missing a couple of instances — we put them at 2 percent (in August), 5 percent (in September), 6 percent (in November), around 7 percent (in early December), and 12 percent to 13 percent (in early January).

Silver notes five things:

1. Our early forecasts of Trump’s nomination chances weren’t based on a statistical model, which may have been most of the problem.
2. Trump’s nomination is just one event, and that makes it hard to judge the accuracy of a probabilistic forecast.
3. The historical evidence clearly suggested that Trump was an underdog, but the sample size probably wasn’t large enough to assign him quite so low a probability of winning.
4. Trump’s nomination is potentially a point in favor of “polls-only” as opposed to “fundamentals” models.
5. There’s a danger in hindsight bias, and in overcorrecting after an unexpected event such as Trump’s nomination.

The interesting thing is that if you just looked at the polls, then you should have concluded Trump would win. He basically led in every poll for six months. But everyone found reasons to argue why the polls would change. 538 for example places great store on endorsements. And endorsements have been a good predictor in previous elections, but as Silver notes the sample size of previous elections is not great.

So one lesson from this is not to ignore the polls. They’re not always right, but polls vs assumptions, polls tend to win out.

Another source of info I look to is the prediction markets. At the moment they have Clinton at 66% likely to win and Trump 32%.

Rodney Hide writes:

The good thing about stunts is that you get to prepare them. You get to choose when and where and have time to develop and craft your message. You have staff and MPs to check things out.

It is important to check every detail and every fact from every angle. The journalists will pounce on the slightest mistake to write a story contrary to the one that you are hoping to make.

You especially have to check the talent. Involving real people is good but they can wander off message.

A lot of work normally goes in to anything like this, and even more if it involves the leader.

The issue was housing. The problem overcrowding.

The journalists were given the address. Turn up and Labour will show you 17 poor people at one address living in a tent.

The journalists are there ahead of you. Everything is ready to go. But then the homeowner wanders out to tell the journos there is no problem, there is no overcrowding, the tent is for furniture and material while he renovates.

The homeowner sounds content and aspirational. He’s fixing up his house. He’s looking to the future. It’s a disaster.

It was.

It’s hard to comprehend how such a monumental error could be made. Had the local MPs not talked to the homeowner? Had Little’s staff not checked and rechecked the story?

I don’t have the answers but the stunt reinforces the impression that Little is unlucky and bumbling. The story will have hardly registered to most and will soon be forgotten except by political tragics such as myself who will tell and retell the story to highlight the importance of preparation and how things can go horribly wrong.

Labour has no route to power without the support of Winston Peters. Peters can’t abide amateurs. He isn’t about to make one Prime Minister.

Also if Winston has a choice between a party polling in the 40s, and in the 20s, he won’t go for the one in the 20s.

Duncan Grieve writes:

Last night TV3 screened a “special report”, “written, directed and produced” by Bryan Bruce, the veteran of dozens of documentaries over the years, many of which he has fronted with a familiar, bleakly beseeching on-camera presence.

This one was called World Class? Inside NZ Education – A Special Report, and was comfortably the most asinine of those I’ve seen from the man, a windy and handwringing collection of reckons and I thinks which saw him jet around the world to have confirmed for him what he had already decided – that our education system is fucked, and neoliberalism is to blame.

Pretty much every documentary from Bruce is the same – neoliberalism is to blame.

It was a rambling, incoherent mess of a product, at once disdainful of testing and reliant on it, dated in its construction, sloppily assembled and wilfully misrepresentative of both the intent and reality of the teaching systems it assessed.

And they were the highlights.

We see some kids getting on a train to go to school in Wellington, which he unaccountably finds offensive – choice is an enemy in his mind.

How dare parents and students have a choice of school.

Bruce went into this project with supreme self-righteousness and certainty of his perspective. He was driven by the powerful nostalgia so many of a certain age and gender experience for life before the fourth Labour government. He sought out people who would echo his opinions. Then he delivered us his findings from the mountain, and sat back waiting for the applause.

There’s a lot of people like Bruce. They think the 1970s were some magical utopia and they’re been railing against everything that has happened since 1984.

In the end the enduring image I’ll take away from this truly awful hour is the unedifying spectre of an old pākehā man, wandering slowly toward the camera and plaintively asking – certainly not for the first time – why the world has to change. I hope I never have to see him pose the same question again.

Sadly I suspect NZ on Air will continue to fund them.  A quick search shows they have funded at least 17 documentaries from him which means he has received from the taxpayers over $1.7 million.

Stuff reports:

For years the government has fought to keep cellphones away from drivers, but now it wants to put mobiles back into motoring.

The government will review transport law this year with an eye to ensuring drivers can use smartphones to access safety information.

The aim is to make driving safer, but in reality it could be like letting addicts have their favourite drug within easy reach, a road safety group says.

So whichever group is talking hysterically like that we can ignore.

Ministry of Transport spokeswoman Fran Lovell said the smartphone initiative was one of four “key actions” to cut deaths and serious injuries.

“Smartphones have the ability to interact with the driver without the driver having to physically operate them.

“For example, they can give audible feedback to prompt safer speed or correct lane use.”

She said the transport agencies believed smartphones were the best way to give real-time safety information to road users.

I use Google Maps all the time when driving. It advises me the fastest route and how to avoid congestion. It also indicates where traffic is slow.

Caroline Perry, director for road safety charity Brake, said phones should be switched off, or on silent and completely out of reach.

I don’t think anyone switches their phone off when they get in the car.

The decision to embrace smartphones comes after warnings about their use from the very agencies involved in the review.

A Ministry of Transport report released last September, titled Diverted Attention, said distracted drivers – including drivers on cellphones – accounted for about 12 per cent of all crashes in 2014.

Note that they don’t say what proportion of the 12% were distracted by cellphones.

The order paper is here. (link available after 1 pm)

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by all his statements; if so, why?
2. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking in Budget 2016 to deliver better public services – particularly for the most vulnerable New Zealanders?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements with regard to housing that “we take responsibility; we need to do a better job of it”, and “we need to do more”?
4. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with all of this Government’s spending choices?
5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What new investment is the Government making in health research?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What dollar increase in core Crown health expenditure is required to meet all demographic and inflationary cost pressures in 2016/17?
7. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made towards achieving the Government’s national health targets?
8. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Tū ai a ia i runga i te mana o āna korero katoa?
   • Translation: Does he stand by all his statements?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Why has he brought forward spending previously earmarked for Budget 2017 into Budget 2016?
10. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for ACC: What initiatives are being delivered to reduce the number of people injured in New Zealand?
11. JAMES SHAW to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did she make a bid for Budget 2016 to cancel Government-held carbon credits to compensate for the past use of “dubious” credits, in order to meet New Zealand’s climate commitments?
12. RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister for Primary Industries: Was he aware in 2013 of the pervasive illegal dumping of fish from inshore trawlers, as documented in the MPI reports on Operation Achilles and Operation Hippocamp?

National: Four questions on Budget 2016, health research funding, health targets and ACC

Labour: Four questions on housing, health spending, spending and fishing

Greens: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and climate change

NZ First: One question Pm standing by his statements

ACT: One question on Government spending

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

12 speeches of five minutes each for a maximum of one hour.

Members’ Bill 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill – second reading

This bill extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks. It is in the name of Labour MP Sue Moroney

• Introduced: July 2015
• 1st reading: September 2015, passed 61 to 60 with National and ACT against
• SC report: April 2016, committee tied on the bill

The second reading consists of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each so the debate is a maximum of two hours.

Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill bans non-residents purchasing residential property. It is in the name of Labour MP Phil Twyford

• Introduced: November 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, being two ten minute speeches, eight five minute speeches and a five minute right of reply for a maximum of 65 minutes.

Oaths and Declarations (Endorsing the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill will allow a person taking any oath to also state that they will perform their duties in accordance with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is in the name of Maori Party MP Marama Fox.

• Introduced: November 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, being two ten minute speeches, eight five minute speeches and a five minute right of reply for a maximum of 65 minutes.

Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill – first reading

This bill would give the Department of Corrections the power to issue warnings to persons who have not complied with community-based sentences, with the consequence of withholding benefit payments. It is in the name of National MP Mark Mitchell.

• Introduced: November 2015

The first reading consists of 11 speeches, being two ten minute speeches, eight five minute speeches and a five minute right of reply for a maximum of 65 minutes.

The White House announced:

Our Nation has always been guided by the belief that all young people should be free to dream as big and boldly as they want, and that with hard work and determination, they can turn their dreams into realities. Schools help us uphold this ideal by offering a place for children to grow, learn, and thrive. During National Charter Schools Week, we celebrate the role of high-quality public charter schools in helping to ensure students are prepared and able to seize their piece of the American dream, and we honor the dedicated professionals across America who make this calling their life’s work by serving in charter schools. 

Charter schools play an important role in our country’s education system. Supporting some of our Nation’s underserved communities, they can ignite imagination and nourish the minds of America’s young people while finding new ways of educating them and equipping them with the knowledge they need to succeed. With the flexibility to develop new methods for educating our youth, and to develop remedies that could help underperforming schools, these innovative and autonomous public schools often offer lessons that can be applied in other institutions of learning across our country, including in traditional public schools.

This is from a Democratic President.

QC report:

Income inequality in the US has increased in the last few decades, but inequality and well being are different. If everyone is living better than before, the fact that some people are much better off isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The recent inequality has been a problem because, at least in income terms, a few have prospered while most stagnated. But income does not tell us much about living standards. Anecdotally it seems like living standards increased for everyone since the 1970s. Once, hardly anyone had air-conditioning, now everyone has mobile phones. Others argue the poor are struggling like never before.

An article in the latest version of the American Economic Review finds that Americans’ consumption has become more unequal too: The amount high-earning Americans spend grew much more than that of low income earners in the last 30 years. But that does not mean low earners are worse off. The figure below shows the share of low and high earners who own goods that used to be considered luxury items. Despite more inequality, low income Americans have better access to dishwashers, laundry, and entertainment goods.

I’d argue access to goods is more important to low income households than relative inequality between deciles.

The Herald has what is meant to be a sob story about a women who owes WINZ $60,000. But I think most people who read the story will be horrified by how much money taxpayers are spending on this family.

A mother of eight has been lent $60,000 by Work and Income to pay motel bills because she has been banned from state housing for a year.

The Mangere woman, aged 28, has been put up in motels with her partner, 30, and eight children aged from 5 months up to 11 years for the past 10 months.

She’s 28 and he’s 30, and they have eight kids. Problem number one.

Work and Income is paying $1200 a week for their current motel, where they have been for five months. Some of their earlier bills were for up to $1700 a week.

On top of the massive welfare payments they’ll be getting, taxpayers are also paying $1,700 a week for them to stay in a motel, That’s how generous our welfare state is. There is of course no chance it will ever be repaid I’d say.

The woman, who asked to be called “Jane”, said she was suspended from all Housing NZ properties after her last state house was found to be contaminated with “pure” methamphetamine (“P”).

Social Development Ministry housing chief Carl Crafar said the family was evicted from the house last July due to the meth contamination.

“They are currently not eligible for a Housing NZ house, and have admitted to using meth in their past three Housing NZ properties,” he said.

But Jane said the contamination occurred before she moved into the house three years earlier.

“I have never used meth or cooked it in my life,” she said.

She was sure that no one else used the drug while she lived there.

So it is just coincidence that their last three houses has tested positive for P.  This means taxpayers have probably spent tens of thousands of dollars decontaminating the houses.

She said her partner worked as a builder until the family was evicted, but then stopped work to support her.

So neither of them are working.

She said the family received $800 a week in jobseeker support, family tax credits, accommodation supplement and temporary additional support.

It would be far more than that. They are eligible for:

• Jobseeker support $375
• Family Tax Credits $542
• Accom Supplement $225

So that is around $1,150 a week plus their temporary additional support and plus the cost of the motel not met by the accom supplement.

I can’t imagine there is another country around which would be so generous in supporting a family with eight kids, who aren’t working, and who lost state house eligibility due to drug contamination.

A Newshub Reid Research poll was released yesterday. Details are at Curia.

Stuff reports:

One of New Zealand’s most prolific burglars has died in custody.

Prison, police and judges could not stop Stacey Spinks’ life of crime.

In the end it was a suspected heart attack that stopped the man whose brazen skills led to him racking up over 300 burglary convictions. …

His offending was continual.

He had over 300 convictions for burglary alone, with many others for breaching sentences, impersonating police officers, escaping, and shoplifting.

The man obviously could not be rehabilitated. Burglary is a lesser offence than violent offending. I don’t think you should have a three strikes and you’re locked up forever for burglary. But how about 100 strikes and you’re out? By out I mean an automatic 10 year (maximum sentence) prison sentence for every burglary conviction after you reach the threshold?

No sentence seemed to deter him.

Twelve times he was caught impersonating a police officer. He even handed over a police business card at commercial premises where he asked about security measures.

There comes a point where you accept someone can not be deterred. Then the focus is on community safety. If we know beyond a slither of a doubt that the moment he is out he will carry on, why let him out?

Sent in by a reader.

The SMH reports:

The first central banker to introduce inflation targeting to the world, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Don Brash, says it is still relevant and today’s low inflation problem is probably something that will fade away.

“If you say ‘we don’t like inflation targeting’ what do you propose instead? It’s not at all clear what the alternative is,” the former governor told Fairfax Media.

“You’ve only got one instrument you can only really hit one target effectively. What target is it? Logically it should be some rate of inflation, I would have thought. Is inflation targeting desirable? Absolutely in my view. Is it sufficient? Probably not.” 

Dr Brash saw parallels with the Gulf War when oil caused a period of high measured inflation and “most central banks said you’ve got to ignore that”.

“We know that monetary policy has only a short-term effect on employment and on real growth.” 

Some used to argue that low inflation caused high unemployment but there has been a huge amount of empirical evidence to show this is not the case.

New Zealand targets annual inflation of between 1 and 3 per cent over the medium term, guided by a future midpoint of 2 per cent, versus the preference for 2 to 3 per cent price growth in Australia.

Wellington has shown a willingness to review its inflation target since its seeding in 1988. The concept was originally embraced as a way to protect the integrity of monetary policy setting from political meddling around election cycles.

Former prime minister Sir Rob Muldoon “used monetary policy in a very, very cynical political fashion”, Dr Brash recalls. The RBNZ was asked to find a way of “Muldoon proofing monetary policy” and that evolved into New Zealand’s policy targets agreement. It aimed for zero to 2 per cent growth, which is the same thing as price stability plus or minus 1 per cent.

I think we should still have this as the target range. I prefer 1% inflation to 2% inflation.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand freediver William Trubridge has backed a campaign urging fast food giant McDonald’s to stop sourcing its fish from New Zealand waters after the leak of a report which revealed the unreported capture of a rare dolphin.

The leaked report of a 2013 investigation by the Ministry for Primary Industries, titled Operation Achilles, followed the unreported capture of a Hector’s Dolphin, a close relative of the critically endangered Maui’s dolphin.

This is just the latest part of a ten year campaign by a German group targeting the NZ fishing industry.

And the media report the propaganda without any critical analysis.

The Maui’s dolphin is very endangered. Only around 55 remain.

But that is not the dolphin which was caught in 2013. So they are calling for a boycott of all NZ fisheries, because a non-endangered dolphin was caught by accident three years ago.

Mr Trubridge, who earlier this month broke two world records by diving to 124m and back on a single breath, is supporting the campaign.

“What decent human being or company could possibly buy fish from an industry that fights for the right to kill every last Maui’s dolphin?

But no Maui dolphin has been caught or captured let alone killed in recent years. The area they are in is highly protected. And the industry is not fighting for any right to catch or kill any dolphins, let alone Maui.

• Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins are the smallest and rarest marine dolphins on earth and live only in New Zealand.

• Maui’s dolphins have declined from an estimated 1800 in the 1970s to less than 50 as a result of fishing.

• The closely related Hector’s dolphin is also threatened, with several populations numbering fewer than 100 individuals.

Now note they talk of Hector as having several populations of under 100. Makes you think that perhaps there are just 400 or 500 Hector’s dolphins in total. In fact there are around 7,400. Why did the NZ Herald not bother to tell us the total number? I presume because they just repeat the data fed to them by the German group.

The order paper is here.

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Building and Housing?
2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?
3. TODD MULLER to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2016 build on the Government’s commitment to a more productive and competitive economy while delivering responsible fiscal management?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: What is his answer to Fran O’Sullivan’s question, “Was John Key’s brain fart on the tax front an involuntary exercise or was it calculated”?
5. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Conservation: Is she confident that the Department of Conservation can carry out its work considering the inflation-adjusted reduction in Vote Conservation allocation it has endured under her Government?
6. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister for Building and Housing:What steps has the Government taken to dismantle Auckland Urban Limits that were identified by the Productivity Commission report in 2012 as a key problem for the city’s housing supply and affordability?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing:Does he stand by his statement when asked about the housing crisis, that “the idea that suddenly happened in May 2016 is a figment of some people’s imagination”?
8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
9. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on construction of the Government’s Western Ring Route motorway in Auckland?
10. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe the Police have sufficient funding to meet the expectations of the public?
11. TODD BARCLAY to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve New Zealand’s response to cyber security incidents?
12. MARAMA FOX to the Minister for Social Development: In the revamp of CYFS, will she be strengthening the appeals process for the review of decisions that may prevent incidences such as the death of Moko Rangitoheriri; if so, how?

National: Four questions on Budget 2016, Auckland urban limits, Auckland motorways and cybersecurity

Labour: Four questions on confidence in Housing Minister, tax cuts, housing and Police

Greens: One question on conservation funding

NZ First: Two questions on PM standing by his statements

Maori Party: One question on child abuse

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

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – committee stage

This Bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to require smoke alarms and insulation in residential rental properties.

• Introduced: December 2015
• 1st reading: December 2015, passed unanimously
• Select Committee report: April 2016, supported with amendments, Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: May 2016, passed 107 to 14 with Greens opposed

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a three hour debate as the bill has two parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There are two SOPs from the Minister and Metiria Turei. Dr Smith’s are minor amendments. Turei’s seeks to give tenants rightts to renew tenancies as of right, and for a minimum fixed term of three years. It also lists 30 things that must be provided for in all rental houses.

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – committee stage continued

The bill amends the following statutes relating to taxation in order to facilitate easier communication with Inland Revenue, simplify tax rules and provide for the sharing of information. The Acts amended are: the Income Tax Act 2007; the Tax Administration Act 1994; the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985; the KiwiSaver Act 2006; the Child Support Act 1991; the Student Loan Scheme Act 2011; the Gaming Duties Act 1971 and the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

• Introduced June 2015
• 1st reading: October 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report report: March 2016, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: April 2016, passed unanimously

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a four hour debate as the bill has three parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There are two SOPs from the Minister and Julie-Anne Genter. Michael Woodhouse’s are minor amendments. Genter’s seeks to set up a register of foreign trusts.

Human Rights Amendment Bill – committee stage

This bill establishes a full-time Disability Rights Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission, and make changes to the role and structure of the commission.

• Introduced: October 2011
• 1st reading: November 2013, passed 105 to 15 with Greens and Mana against
• SC report: April 2014, supported with amendments by majority, Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: May 2015, passed 73 to 48 with Labour, Greens and Maori Party against

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a three hour debate as the bill has two parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

There is one SOP from the Minister with minor amendments

Extending Sitting 9 am to 1 pm Wednesday

• Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill 2nd reading
• Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill 1st reading
• Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill 1st reading

Eric Peters writes:

If Elon Musk’s various projects are so fabulous, why do they all need government “help”?

Musk will tell you all about the virtues of his Tesla cars. They are sleek and speedy. This is true. But they are also very expensive (the least expensive model, the pending Model X, will reportedly start around $35K, about the same price as a luxury sedan like the Lexus ES350).

The real problem with Tesla cars is that no one actually buys them. Well, not directly.

Their manufacture is heavily subsidized — and their sale is heavily subsidized. Either way, the taxpayer is the one who gets the bill.

On the manufacturing end, Tesla got $1.3 billion in special “incentives” from the state of Nevada to build its battery factory there. This includes an exemption from having to pay any property taxes for the next 20 years. Another inducement was $195 million in transferable tax credits, which Tesla could sell for cash. California provides similar incentives, including $15 million to “create jobs” in the state.

Tesla does not make money by selling cars, either. It makes money by selling “carbon credits” to real car companies that make functionally and economically viable vehicles that can and do sell on the merits — but which are not “zero emissions” vehicles, as the electric Tesla is claimed to be.

Laws in nine states require each car company selling cars in the state to sell a certain number of “zero emissions” vehicles, else be fined. Since only electric cars qualify under the law as “zero emissions” vehicles — and the majority of cars made by the real car companies are not electric cars — they end up having to “purchase” these “carbon credits” from Tesla, subsidizing Tesla’s operations.

The amount Tesla has “earned” this way is in the neighborhood of $517 million.

It is estimated that Musk’s various ventures — including his new SolarCity solar panel operation and SpaceX — have cost taxpayers at least $4.9 billion, with Tesla accounting for about half of that dole.

It is outrageous that basically one person has received $4.9 billion in corporate welfare. This is an issue left wing parties should be campaigning against – but they are the biggest cheerleaders for it.

The Herald reports:

Tax is set to be a major battle line in the 2017 election after Labour’s Grant Robertson signalled his party would increase some taxes to pay for its policies – a stark contrast from National’s expected tax cut platform.

Mr Robertson addressed the issue of tax in a pre-Budget speech on today, saying before the election he would set out a tax policy including measures to ensure Labour could raise the revenue needed to pay for its promises in health, education and housing – a clear signal some taxes would be raised.

Labour MPs have already demanded or promised an additional $2.7 billion a year of annual spending. That alone (and this is before they even get into their election manifesto) would require everyone earning over $70,000 a year to pay 45% tax on income over that level. Or alternatively they’d need to increase GST to 17.5%.

Stuff reports:

Since 2007, the income of a household in the top 10 per cent (90th percentile) has increased by at least $28,000, while a household in the bottom 10 per cent (10th percentile) has had gains of just $3100.

By focusing on the gross increase, instead of the percentage increase, Stuff basically produces a nonsensical figure.

Of course the top 10% of households will have higher gross increases than the bottom 10% of households. Just as Vodafone will have a bigger gross increase in sales than the corner dairy. If Vodafone increases its sales by $100,000 in a year that would be regarded as a horrendous failure. If the corner dairy increases its sales by $100,000 they’d regard that as the best year ever.

So this is why we use percentages – something Stuff fails to do, in order to support a narrative.

So what can we learn from the Stuff data:

In 2015, a household with an income in the middle (median), earned $76,180 annually compared to $58,237 in 2007.

For a household nearer the bottom the increase has not been so pronounced. A 20th percentile household (richer than 20 per cent of households and poorer than 80 per cent) has seen its annual income increase by $5200, from about $28,900 to $34,100. 

At the other end of the spectrum, an 80th percentile household has seen its income increase by $24,300, rising from about $110,800 to $135,000. A 90th percentile household had income of $175,700 in 2015, up by $28,000 since 2007.

Here’s the percentage increases for the percentiles above:

• 20th percentile – 18% increase
• 50th percentile – 31% increase
• 80th percentile – 22% increase
• 90th percentile – 19% increase

So those on the 90th percentile have actually had much the same relative increase as those on the 20th percentile. And households in the middle are the ones that have done best.

Note of course this is not actually studying individual households. The households in the top 20% in 2007 will not be the same households in the top 20% in 2015. We have reasonable income mobility in NZ where households move from one decile to another.

“People who are in a fortunate position always attribute virtue to what makes them so happy.”

– John Kenneth Galbraith

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.