Jonathan Coleman announced:

An extra $39 million will be invested in 2016/17 to enable Pharmac to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines, Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says.

“Pharmac’s model for increasing subsidised medicines and treatments for New Zealanders is world class,” Dr Coleman says.

“This funding boost in Budget 2016 – an extra $124 million over four years -will mean that Pharmac can further increase access to new medicines, benefiting more New Zealanders.

“On top of the Government’s extra $39 million investment in Pharmac in 2016/17, $11 million will be injected into Pharmac’s annual budget by DHBs.

“Pharmac’s budget for 2016/17 will be a record $850 million – this means the Government has increased Pharmac’s budget by $200 million since 2008.”

Also NZ City reports:

Pharmac says the money will allow it to look at seven new drugs, including Bristol Myers Squibb’s Opdivo, a treatment for advanced melanoma where New Zealand now has the highest rate in the world.

Although Pharmac has only been looking at the drug since March, it’s clinical data indicated more certain survival data, chief executive Steffan Crausaz says.

It costs about $7800 to treat a patient with Opdivo over a fortnight.

He would not say whether it was cheaper than rival, Merck’s Keytruda, which costs around $200,000 a year for each patient.

The government has been under pressure to fund an advanced melanoma treatment and a petition seeking funding for Keytruda drew 54,000 signatures.

There will be a consultation period, but the board could make its decisions by July.

Mr Crausaz believes that despite vocal support for Keytruda, people will be optimistic about Opdivo.

Studies showed 73 per cent of patients were alive after one year’s treatment, compared to 42 per cent with the current treatment.

Andrew Little wanted to over-ride Pharmac’s decision making, and instruct them to fund Keytruda. This shows why politicians should not be involved in such decisions. Little would have forced Pharmac to fund a drug far less effective than the one actually funded – basically because the drug company behind Keytruda was running a PR campaign to get funding for their drug.

The Herald reports:

The Reserve Bank has banned MediaWorks from its media conferences until further notice as punishment for its journalists leaking sensitive market information from the Official Cash Rate cut decision in March. …

An advisory from the bank says representatives “from Mediaworks news outlets are excluded from Reserve Bank media conferences until further notice” as a result of the March 10 leak.

That is appropriate. The exclusion should not last forever, but there should be some consequences for their breach of the terms of the media lockup.

It would have been better for the Reserve Bank not to scrap the lock ups, but just exclude Mediaworks from them (as they have now done for media conferences).

It occurs to me that the best “punishment” for the serious breach by Mediaworks would have been for Treasury to exclude Mediaworks staff from the Budget lockup. Not attending a Reserve Bank media conference or lock up is a very very minor thing. But if you were excluded from the Budget lockup, you’d be massively disadvantaged as all the other media would have had two hours head start to write their stories. Excluding from one Budget lockup would be sufficient to get the message across about consequences.

A guest post by David Garrett:

Introduction

The murder – and that is undoubtedly what it was – of three year old Moko Rangitoheriri has dragged the system of state initiated plea bargaining into the light. Over a period of weeks, Tania Shailer and her boyfriend David Haerewa bashed, stomped, strangled and kicked little Moko to death. His injuries were so bad that his mother had trouble recognizing him, and the pathologist had difficulty determining which of his many life threatening injuries had actually killed the little boy.

Shailer and her scumbag boyfriend were quite rightly charged with murder under a section of the Crimes Act which deems intent to kill  to be present  where life threatening injuries have been inflicted, and the defendants are reckless as to whether death will result.  Inexplicably, a sleazy plea bargaining deal was done under which the charges against Moko’s killers were reduced from murder to manslaughter. How could that have happened?

History

Although it has never been publicized, plea bargaining has been a reality in New Zealand for at least the last 25 years or so.  The major change in recent times is that the initiative for the negotiations aimed at agreeing on a lesser charge a defendant will plead guilty to may now come from the Crown as well as from  the defence. Some defence barristers are of the view that the Crown now has, because of funding changes, (see below) an incentive to initiate these kinds of deals, whereas in the past,  they resisted them.

Historically,  plea bargaining negotiations were initiated by the defence. Let’s consider a fact situation from a real case which I am familiar with. Two men hired a taxi, ostensibly to take them from one town in Taranaki to another. Once the cab was out of town, the men demanded that the driver hand over his money, and give them the car. He resisted both demands. One offender then produced a hammer, and while saying “I’m gunna kill you, you cunt”, bashed the driver until the cab ran off the road. The men severely beat the driver, stole the cab, and left the driver for dead. They were quickly apprehended, and charged  inter alia with attempted murder. 

Once lawyers had been instructed, negotiations were initiated with the police and Crown Solicitor. I am told that attempted murder is a difficult charge to prove (the element of intent being the difficulty) even when, as in this case, clear threats to kill had been made by at least one offender. In the event, the attempted murder charges against the pair were withdrawn, and both pleaded guilty to  lesser charges.

It is important – and perhaps not easy – for lay people to understand that when the defence  attempts to get charges reduced, they are simply doing the job which ethics demands of them. Lawyers who do criminal defence work are committed to getting the best possible deal for their clients – both in terms of charge and sentence – and to testing the police/Crown case thoroughly. Although many may find it distasteful, it is wrong to criticize defence lawyers for initiating these discussions. They are simply doing their job.

Funding of prosecutions

Traditionally, the Crown solicitor in any particular area of the country had complete discretion whether to proceed with a prosecution of the original charge he had laid, or to negotiate with the defence, if they  proposed a lesser charge to which the defendant(s) would plead guilty. This system created an incentive for prosecutors to take cases to trial – they were paid per day  of court time. Perhaps this also partly explains why murder trials which fifty years ago would be completed in a week, now take three or four, or even longer. The Crown didn’t care how long the trial took – they got paid for every day of the trial.

As a result of the above system, having the Crown Warrant for any particular area was widely seen as a licence to print money – crime is always going to be with us, and a hard arse prosecutor could theoretically take every case to trial, even when it was likely that  the evidence would not support the charge being prosecuted. Given that most serious offenders are on legal aid, the result of the old system was an ever growing blowout in the legal aid bill.

Changes to the sytem were introduced three years ago. The main change was that rather than the Crown Solicitor – and his or her juniors – being paid for every day they spent in court, they are now “bulk funded.” In other words, every Crown Solicitor is given a sum of taxpayers money annually which they spend on the prosecutions in their district. The amount they are paid remains the same, whether 100% of cases go to trial or only 10%, with the other 90% resulting in  negotiated guilty pleas to a lesser charge or charges.

This has apparently created a reverse incentive from the old system: it is now very much in the Crown’s interest to “plead down” cases, and save the $1-5 million that a major trial may cost. That means that for those cases which do  proceed to trial, the Crown Solicitor is effectively getting a much higher hourly rate than if he or she had taken every case – or even most of them – to trial.

In addition to bulk funding, the second major change is that plea bargain negotiations may now be initiated either  by the defence or  the Crown. It appears that in Moko’s case, the negotiations were initiated by the Crown Solicitor at Rotorua, although I am unable to confirm that. As we will see, experienced defence barristers cannot understand why this case was plead down.

Reform

It is acknowledged that the old  system – under which Crown Solicitors could take any and every case to trial –  created an incentive to try more cases for longer than perhaps justice would demand. It now seems clear however, that we have created the opposite incentive – one that rewards Crown Solicitors for disposing of cases by way of plea bargain where they feel so inclined – regardless of the legal merits or the justice of the outcome.

I have spoken to two senior defence barristers about this present case. Both are bewildered by the decision to downgrade the charges – one said that if the reported facts are correct, he would not even have bothered trying to get the charges reduced for these two killers.

It is clear that the reform of the system which had led to the legal aid budget blowout has created the unintended consequence of giving Crown lawyers an incentive to avoid trials where justice demands that a trial ought to have taken place, and therefore  allow  a  jury to  decide whether the facts support a verdict of murder or manslaughter. As with my criminal barrister colleagues, I am very firmly of the view that this case is one where the defendants were properly charged with murder, and where no plea bargain ought to have been made.

That said, it is clearly not an option to simply revert to the old system which reversed the incentive, and gave Crown Solicitors a licence to print money.  One simple and effective solution would perhaps be  to require Judges to approve plea bargaining deals  which involved murder –  either all murders, or just those where children are victims. That is the arrangement in a number of American jurisdictions – if the Judge doesn’t like the deal, there is a trial on the originally laid charge.

It is important to understand that cases like this will be happening all over the country every day. It is only due to good fortune – and in fairness some good journalism – which has led to this particular case, and the system which has allowed it to happen, to be dragged into the light.

Media coverage of the Invictus Games.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “There’s actually quite legitimate business in New Zealand for servicing foreign trusts”?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
3. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the state of the Crown accounts ahead of Budget 2016?
4. RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
5. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What support will Budget 2016 provide for people in need of emergency housing?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies since 2011/12 made by the 20 district health boards and how much have they made for the February year to date?
7. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement, “these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts … There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts”?
8. MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on progress of the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made in Budget 2015 that “the unemployment rate is expected to fall below 5% in 2016”?
10. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Communities of Learning?
11. Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Has EQC’s position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as “when new” been applied to every home repaired in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme; if so, why does the EQC customer guide state that customers’ homes will be returned to a “pre-earthquake state”?
12. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections’ ability to keep both staff and prisoners safe?

National: Four questions on the surplus, emergency housing, broadband and education

Labour: Four questions on foreign trusts, health efficiencies, unemployment and EQC

Greens: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and foreign trusts

NZ First: Two questions on PM standing by his statements and corrections

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

Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax, GST on Online Services, and Student Loans) Bill – third reading

This bill allows sharing of information between the Inland Revenue Department and the Australian Taxation Office in relation to New Zealand student loan borrowers residing in Australia; proposes a new residential land withholding tax to act as a collection mechanism for the bright-line test; and provides for the collection of GST on cross-border services and intangibles, including internet downloads and online services.

• Introduced: November 2015
• 1st reading: December 2015, passed 109 to 12, NZ First opposed
• SC report: March 2016, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 108 to 12 with NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: March 2016,

The third reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are three speeches remaining.

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill – first reading

This bill repeals and replaces the Social Security Act 1964 and the Social Welfare (Reciprocity Agreements, and New Zealand Artificial Limb Service) to enhance clarity, coherency, and consistency.

• Introduced March 2016

The first reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours.

Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill – third reading continued

The bill proposes amendments to the Building Act 2004 to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.

• Introduced: December 2013
• 1st reading: March 2014, passed 106 to 14 with Greens opposed
• Select Committee report: September 2015, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 120 to 1 with ACT opposed

The third reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are 11 speeches remaining.

New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Southern DHB) Elections Bill – committee stage

This bill exempts the Southern District Health Board from the 2016 triennial general election as it will be governed by a commissioner until the 2019 triennial general election.

• Introduced: December 2015
• 1st reading: December 2015, passed 95 to 26 with Greens and NZ First opposed
• SC report: April 2016, supported without amendment and without dissent
• 2nd reading: May 2016, passed 95 to 26 with Greens and NZ First opposed

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

The WSJ reports:

Sales of soda are climbing two years after Mexico imposed a roughly 10% tax on sugary drinks …

Purchases, however, are rising in Mexico after an initial drop, making the country a key-growth market again for soda giants Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.

Underscoring the resiliency of sugary drinks, the tax of one peso per liter has raised more than $2 billion since January 2014, about a third more than the government expected.

The tax data is the best proxy for sales. So the sugar tax has raised lots of money but not decreased sales, let alone decreased obesity.

While that public-health campaign is long gone, soda makers continue to advertise their products heavily and say it is unfair to single out something representing less than 10% of daily caloric intake.

In NZ they are just 1.8% of daily calories yet the tax and tax brigade insist a tax on soda drinks would reduce obesity. It would be like trying to reduce alcohol consumption by only taxing vodka.

Coca-Cola Femsa SAB, the country’s largest Coke bottler, said last Wednesday that its Mexican soda volumes rose 5.5% in the first quarter from a year earlier. Arca Continental SAB, the No. 2 Coke bottler, reported soda volumes surged 11%.

The turnaround began last year, when Mexican soda-industry volume rose 0.5% after falling 1.9% in 2014, said data service Canadean.

So as is often the case a small initial impact, that then disappears and reverses.

Antisoda groups aren’t ready to declare the tax a failure and say sales got a boost from unusually warm weather.

Blame climate change!

Even the initial downturn only lowered the average Mexican’s daily caloric intake by 6 to 7 calories, or 0.2%, according to the study.

That is equal to around two extra minutes of walking per day. Yes, seriously.

In 2014 Labour got only five List MPs. Andrew Little only got in on special votes.

They are polling well below the level they were at three years ago. They normally lose support once an election campaign starts as minor parties get more attention. And already Winston is picking up support at their expense.

So at this stage it would be a brave person to predict they will lift their party vote from 2014, and hence their total number of MPs from 32.

However it is quite possible they may pick up two or three electorate seats due to retirements in National etc. They picked up five electorate seats in 2014 despite a drop in party vote. They’ve got some candidates who did fairly well in 2014 (and 2011) and may win if they stand again.

While this is good news for those electorate candidates, it is bad news for Labour List MPs. This means that if they don’t lift their party vote from 2014, they may get only one or two List MPs.

And their problem is that the Leader is a List MP. Also Annette King and Trevor Mallard are likely to go list only for 2017. This means that David Parker, Jacinda Ardern and Sue Moroney could miss out, let alone Labour getting any new MPs on the list.

Ironically if they lost Ardern, this could benefit Little as she is probably the only one who could beat him if they lose the next election. If she goes, then he will probably get to try again in 2020.

If you want to know why Donald Trump is getting so much support,it is because of the politically correct who try to close down debate. We see this in NZ, where some people who don’t believe in free speech have complained that Mike Hosking expressed an opinion against Maori only wards on Council. They call him racist.

Stuff reports:

A “racist” editorial outburst from TVNZ personality Mike Hosking may have landed him in hot water. 

After TVNZ’s Seven Sharp aired a segment on the abuse New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd received for proposing a Maori ward for local government councils, Hosking added his own two cents.

“Sad to say I’d never personally attack him obviously but he’s completely out of touch with middle New Zealand,” Hosking said. 

He went on to say: “There’s nothing wrong with Maori representation on councils cause any Maori that wants to stand for a council is more than welcome to do so and you can sell your message and if you’re good enough you’ll get voted on.”

In a statement Radio New Zealand received from TVNZ, a spokesperson for the broadcaster said a formal complaint had been laid against Hosking and a committee would review the complaint in the coming days. 

“In terms of the dialogue between colleagues, there has been some discussion about this piece as you’ve seen – robust conversation and differing viewpoints are not unusual in the current affairs environment,” the spokesperson said. 

One complaint on Seven Sharp Facebook page came from a medical student called Kera May. 

“Deeply offended by the racism exhibited by Mike Hosking on your show tonight. If anyone is “out of touch with Middle New Zealand” (which includes many Maori like myself thank you very much!) it’s you Mike.”

This is what people hate. Sell appointed guardians of speech who proclaim anyone who disagrees with them to be racist.

It is not racist to oppose Maori only seats on local bodies. It is absurd to suggest it is.

One can agree with all the sentiments about wanting Maori to get better outcomes than they do at present, but also be against Maori only seats because you think they are a bad solution. Being against a particular solution does not make you racist. It is called political debate.

For example the Government has a programme called Whanua Ora designed to help (mainly Maori) families. Now one might oppose this programme on the grounds some of the spending is low quality and it has high overheads. That doesn’t make you racist or not wanting to get better outcomes for Maori. It just means you disagree with that particular policy.

Ms May’s complaint is ridiculous. She is saying that anyone who disagrees with her is racist. This sort of politically correct attitude of trying to control what people can say is what leads to demagogues like Donald Trump.

What we need as a country is an intelligent discussion and debate on the pros and cons of things like Maori only seats – not just calling people who disagree with you racist – a term that is used so often now it has become near meaningless.

“The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.”

– Claude Frederic Bastiat

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.

Trans-Tasman sums it up nicely:

Usually it has been Labour, going back to then party president Mike Williams’ infamous 2007 “H Fee” Sydney trip, which has persistently taken the view Key is a crook and if they keep digging for long enough they will find something on him.

Ten years is a long time to run the same strategy when it isn’t working but, after apparently ditching it earlier in the year, Labour is back with a vengeance

Hopefully Labour will ignore this and continue on with their ten year strategy and make it a 20 year strategy.

Stuff reports:

A Wairarapa council has approved the appointment of unelected iwi representatives, with voting rights, to its standing committees.

Masterton District Council voted on Wednesday to appoint representatives from Wairarapa’s two iwi, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rangitane o Wairarapa, each with speaking and voting rights, to its policy and finance, and audit and risk, committees.

They also have speaking rights at full council meetings, which ratify the recommendations from the two standing committees.

I think it can be a good thing to have Iwi representatives as non-voting members of appropriate Council committees, or even of the Council. It can be an effective way to make sure they are consulted. I think Iwi do have special interests in certain areas of natural resources.

But I am totally against voting rights. Doing so undermines democracy. You should not have unelected people voting which means a majority vote may only be achieved because of them.

Stuff reports:

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is no longer king of the browser hill.

That distinction belongs instead to Google’s Chrome, which according to NetMarketShare.com, registered a collective desktop market share for all versions of the browser of 41.67 per cent in April, nipping IE, which had a 41.37 per cent share.

The market share for Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer’s successor, is included in the tally.

Mozilla Firefox (9.76 per cent), Apple Safari (4.91 per cent) and Opera (1.89 per cent) round out the top five.

I’ve have not used IE for 15 years or so. Netscape Navigator and then Firefox for many years and Chrome for the last few.

On Kiwiblog the browser breakdown is:

• Chrome 44%
• Safari 27%
• IE 11%
• Firefox 11%
• Edge 3%

Stuff reports:

A major announcement on the future of media company NZME – publisher of The New Zealand Herald – is expected by Wednesday.

Shares in its parent, APN News & Media, are in a trading halt on the Australian Stock Exchange pending details of a “potentially material transaction’ for its New Zealand media arm.

The Australian reported APN and Fairfax Media were both considering spinning off their New Zealand media businesses which could then be merged, citing unnamed sources.

Wow, that would be huge. If the two media operations merged, I imagine there would be massive job losses as you would presumably have one combined news desk, press gallery team, website etc etc.

It would be very bad for media competition. However there is already limited competition at the print level, as every city has pretty much one daily newspaper only. I imagine the Sunday newspapers might rationalise also.

Fairfax Media acknowledged The Australian’s report in a statement to the Australian stock exchange but did not confirm its content.

“Fairfax continues to explore options for all its businesses including Fairfax New Zealand, but at this time there is nothing to disclose,” it said.

Hardly a denial.

For the second year in a row Labour has received fewer donations than the Greens. This shows how much trouble Labour is in when basically no one will donate to them. There’s money out there for left wing parties – but it is going to the Greens.

Total donations (over $1,500) in 2015 were:

1. National $1,400,896
2. Greens $407,978
3. Labour $279.134
4. ACT $162,067
5. NZ First $79,620
6. Conservatives $39,360 (plus loan of $99,000)
7. Maori Party $28,085
8. ALCP $1,492
9. Internet Part $677

I understand Labour is so broke they are forcing their MPs to pay a levy to fund the likely Mt Roskill by-election.

Major donors are:

1. National – Gallagher Group – $60,000
2. Conservatives – Colin Craig – $39,300 (and $99,000 loan)
3. ACT – Dame Jenny Gibbs – $33,589
4. National – Adrian Burr – $27,350
5. National – GMP Dairy – $25,338
6. National – Garth Barfoot – $25,000
7. ACT – Heather Anderson $24,448

Rosemary McLead writes:

I am bored with the Sounds murders. I’ve had it up to my nostrils with them. I am bored with Scott Watson. I do not count him as a martyr to the justice system, but as a convicted double murderer. Which is reasonable, because that is what he is. As far as I’m concerned he doesn’t deserve your sympathy, or mine.

I think of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope, two young people with their whole long lifetimes before them, whose existence was snuffed out – a jury agreed – by this man, who now merits my tax dollars being squandered on him in the name of fashion.

It is fashion, of course it is, because documentaries that cast doubt on criminal convictions are beloved of kindly people who believe the justice system is an evil thing about which they cannot bring themselves to be kind. Many nice people like to believe the world is an evil place, and that dark forces drive the police to frame the innocent. Yes, it happens, but this is how often in this country: not much.

There would be no documentary to establish Watson’s guilt for a million dollars.

No ratings in a show saying the Police got the right person. But maybe Ian Wishart should apply for funding for a documentary backing his book that concluded Watson did do it.

These documentaries are made because kindly people, people with good hearts, just cannot bring themselves to believe that a man who says he’s innocent could lie. Or that his lawyer most likely crafted a defence without knowing the whole truth any more than you or I. Or that everybody’s family believes them to be innocent and will say so, repeatedly, as Watson’s father does. And rather than sit through the tedium of a long trial, which Watson – and his jury – did, they would prefer to believe a documentary that sweeps aside inconvenient detail and spells out a story in words of one syllable, between ad breaks, in a commercial hour.

Will this documentary show the evidence that supports Watson’s conviction, or only the evidence that supports their contention? Will it be advocacy or factual?

Stuff reports:

The Labour Party would ban foreign trusts to protect New Zealand’s reputation as the Panama Papers saga continues.

God, is Labour incapable of any form of considered decision making.

There could well be some changes needed to foreign trusts, and John Shewan is reporting back exactly on that.

But a trust is not some evil thing. Half the Labour caucus have a trust. Anyone who has a will has a form of trust. And having a foreign trust is not proof of wrong doing or tax evasion or even avoidance. To quote Roger Thompson:

Wealthy people in other countries have these same reasons for using trusts. There may also be a prevalence of kidnapping and blackmail in their country of residence, forced heirship laws (lack of freedom to choose who inherits their wealth when they die) and possibility of arbitrary state seizure of assets. The family and their businesses may be spread geographically and be subject to multiple laws in multiple countries. These are all situations where a trust can offer protection and flexibility.

However many countries do not have laws which enable the creation of trusts. Trusts are typically only found in countries that have adopted the English common law type systems such as UK, commonwealth countries and the USA.

For people in countries that do not have trusts they will need to consider trusts established in other countries that do have laws under which trusts can be created.

Any party that doesn’t make up policy based on is it a good soundbite would look at a proportionate response to the issue of whether some foreign trusts in NZ has been mis-used. Do we need changes to disclosure, to how they are taxed, to what level of details are provided. Do we need a central register? These are all legitimate and worthwhile questions.

But just coming out and saying all foreign trusts are bad and evil and must be banned from New Zealand is hysterical populism that just shows how desperate Labour is.

Banning something should be the last resort, not the first resort.

Stuff reports:

Plans to buy up property in rural Marlborough to make way for a hydroelectric scheme have hit a road block, with one man refusing to leave his home.

It’s not his home. He was renting it and the rental agreement has expired.

Wairau Valley man Kieran Venning said he had no intention of leaving his rented property, about 40 kilometres west of Blenheim, despite being served an eviction notice.

Power company TrustPower tried to remove Venning on Friday by sending a bailiff round to his house, but he locked the doors and told the bailiff he was trespassing.

Actually Venning is trespassing.

TrustPower community relations manager Graeme Purches said the company bought the property Venning lived on along with several others in preparation for the scheme.

So it is Trustpower’s house.

Purches rented the house to Venning on a periodic tenancy agreement, he said.

When Venning did not leave after 42 days’ notice, Purches went to the Tenancy Tribunal to have him evicted.

“We’ve tried all the reasonable approaches with this guy. We’ve been dealing with this guy for over two months,” Purches said. 

Rural constable Beau Webster, of Blenheim, said he accompanied the bailiff on Friday to “avoid animosity”.

Venning told Webster he had lodged an injunction in court to stop his landlord evicting him.

A court officer had no record of the injunction, Webster said.

So he is a liar also.

Venning said he had lived in Marlborough since November 2011. 

The Wairau Valley was already being “desecrated” by vineyards and he wanted to stop further destruction, he said. 

“The eco-system and the environment can’t sustain or withstand it.” 

Those desecrating vineyards provide jobs to thousands of people. Also some pretty good wines.

Since the Budget last year I’ve been compiling a list of spending demands made by various MPs, unions, NGOs and others. For each spending demand I’ve calculated a ballpark annual cost of the demand, once fully implemented to see how much taxes would need to increase to fund the demands.

Well as of today the spending demands in the last year have topped a massive $14 billion. That would require the top tax rate to go from 33% to 100% to fund it.

And the scary thing is I have probably missed a few of the demands. This is just something I have done in my spare time. I’m hoping the Taxpayers Union will take up this task after this year’s Budget and keep a more robust check on things.

So what are the biggest items called for:

1. 60,000 more state houses – $1.8 billion a year
2. Eradicate all pests from the mainland – $1.47 billion a year
3. Abolish tertiary fees – $1.2 billion a year
4. Increase aid to 0.7% of GDP – $1.14 billion a year
5. Change early childhood teacher ration from 1:5 to 1:3 – $1.04 billion a year
6. Pay a community wage – $1.04 billion a year
7. $1 billion a year for public housing  – $1 billion a year
8. Increase welfare spending by $1 billion a year – $1 billion a year

Now these costs are not the work of hundreds of hours of economic analysis. They are a superficial ballpark estimate. In the case of the 60,000 more state houses, presumably there would be some rental income to offset them which I’ve not yet calculated. But there would also be ongoing repairs and maintenance and rental expenses. So again this is just about showing the huge amount of spending demands made by politicians and lobby groups, and how any Government that gave into them all would bankrupt the country. I’m sure people can and will quibble over individual cost estimates.

The spreadsheet of the demands is here –Spending Costs

I’ve broken down the demands by who is making them. Again this is incomplete. I suspect most of the stuff Labour MPs has called for, the Greens support also. So this is probably under-states the level of demand each group has made:

1. NGOs – $5.54 billion
2. Individuals – $3.51 billion
3. Labour MPs – $2.47 billion
4. Media – $1.56 billion
5. NZ First – $1.44 billion
6. Unions – $611 million
7. Green MPs – $406 million
8. Govt agencies – $181 million

Now again this is based just on if I have seen it in a news story. I’ve not gone through press releases from MPs, in which case I think the totals would be even higher.

Bob Jones writes in NBR:

Let’s get some facts straight, once and for all on this matter.  First, most house dwellers in Auckland are owners.   Make no mistake, it’s no crisis in their eyes.  Good luck to them for this wealth windfall. 

Prime Minister John Howard summed it up beautifully a dozen years back.  He listened patiently while a current affairs television journalist berated him about house prices.  “Listen,” he said, when the bore finally finished.  “Over the past three decades I’ve been harangued from one end of Australia to the other on every imaginable subject, with one exception. No one yet has complained to me about their home’s rising value.”

Secondly, Auckland is today and has been for the last decade or so, Australasia’s fastest-growing city.  In a nutshell, that’s the market, otherwise known as the public, voting with their feet – a huge compliment to the city.  With that rapid population growth comes unavoidable baggage, namely transport congestion and housing shortages. Nothing is free but what’s undebatable from the continuing inflow, not just from abroad but also from within New Zealand, is that those problems are a price people are willing to pay. That’s not opinion but logic; otherwise they wouldn’t keep coming.

Land re-zoning, house, road and rail construction to resolve these demand pressures can’t be achieved with a wave of a wand. They not only take time but lots of it.  More important, they’re all happening in Auckland right now. No one is sitting on their hands, despite the newspapers’ tiresome handwringing.

This situation is a global one with other cities experiencing similar inflow booms. London, Hong Kong, Sydney, New York, San Francisco and many more, are all having the same growth problems, without the accompanying tedious journalistic infantilism we are enduring.

Bob Jones is right that these large increases are occurring in many major cities around the world.

And there is a huge amount happening on both the demand and supply side, which I detail below. But the one thing which would make the biggest difference – a major shift in the urban boundary for Auckland rests with the Auckland council, not the Government. If you want cheaper land in Auckland, vote for a Council that will make the land available.

What has been done though is:

1. Tax changes so any sale of an investment property within two years gets fully taxed
2. Houses no longer depreciated for tax purposes
3. Reserve Bank introduced restrictions on the number of mortgages a ban can offer with less than 20% capital (and in Auckland less than 30%)
4. Obligation for all buyers to have an IRD number to track if foreign demand is significant and needs a policy response
5. New home construction in Auckland up from 3,579 a year to 9,566 in the last year
6. The KiwiSaver HomeStart scheme which allows more KiwiSaver members to use their savings and a grant of up to $20,000
7. A Government building programme in partnership with Auckland Council through the Tamaki Regeneration Company building 7,500 homes
8. The fully Government owned Hobsonville Land Company building 400 homes
9. Almost 28,000 new houses and sections consented in Auckland through the Special Housing Areas and a further 28,000 likely
10. RMA changes which have reduced some consenting costs

Stuff reports:

Another Countdown supermarket in Blenheim has been banned from selling booze, meaning all three Countdown supermarkets in town are alcohol-free. 

Countdown Springlands, on Middle Renwick Rd, cannot sell alcohol for five days, from May 20-25, after failing a controlled purchase operation in September last year.

Countdown Blenheim, on Arthur St, is serving a 42-day suspension after it was caught selling to minors for the fifth time in same police sting.

As I have said before, Countdown seems to have a real problem here. It is good the law is being enforced.

In the controlled purchase operation in September, two boys, aged 16 and 17, visited seven off-licence premises including Countdown Springlands and Countdown Blenheim. 

The boys gave identification showing their real age to checkout staff and still walked away with alcohol at three stores.

That’s even worse that not asking to see the ID – they saw it, and didn’t even look at the date of birth (or ignored it).

Countdown area manager Joanne McNaught said her team was very disappointed the stores failed the police sting.

“We apologise to our customers again for the inconvenience.”

All checkout staff at Countdown Springlands were re-trained after the sting.

The store hired more supervisors, stopped selling alcohol through self-checkout, and started asking people who looked under 30 for identification instead of people who looked under 25.

Useful steps but why do these breaches keep happening? Not rocket science to check ID.

The Herald reports:

Students accepted into teaching degrees have some of the lowest entrance scores across all bachelor programmes, prompting calls to mandate postgraduate entry to lift teacher status and quality.

Education leaders from seven New Zealand universities wrote a joint letter to government last week recommending the move, in a bid to get the “best and brightest” graduates into classrooms.

I think there is merit in this. The current requirements are seen as an easy option by many.

Professor Moltzen said the deans group had come up with seven recommendations on how to lift the prestige of the profession. These included requiring a postgraduate qualification before registration, and raising entry requirements to teaching courses.

“We felt it was important to be proactive. There have been concerns about the status of the profession for as long as I can remember, but I think it’s probably lower now than when I started,” he said.

“I think we can always improve our performance and improve the quality of teachers going into the profession – but I don’t think there’s a message there the profession is failing. The vast majority of teachers care deeply about their students and work incredibly hard.”

Lifting the prestige of the profession would be a good thing. Other initiatives such as Teach First can also help attract people to teaching.

The Herald reports:

A New Zealand-born Chinese teenager has blasted the attitudes of some Kiwis towards her, saying they see her as “just another foreigner” here to buy their houses.

The 17-year-old student, who wanted to remain anonymous, said she now felt unwelcome in the country she was born and raised in.

Her experience is felt by many young Chinese, a community leader has revealed.

In an open letter sent to the Herald, the Auckland teen spoke about the influx of foreign buyers in the New Zealand housing market and how she now felt as if ordinary Kiwis blamed her because of her ethnic background.

“Just recently, I no longer feel like I am welcome in the country I have lived in for my whole life. I am viewed daily as just another foreigner who is here to take houses away from local New Zealanders.

“Despite how much I love the land I spent my childhood in, I get annoyed glances because people who share the same blood as me are taking away opportunities that rightfully belonged in our society.

“Except these opportunities are taken from me too.”

The teen lives on the North Shore, where she attends high school.

She said she is proud to be born a Kiwi, that she had been schooled in New Zealand and hopes to contribute to society one day.

Contrary to what people believed when they looked at her, she did not come from a very wealthy family and her parents – immigrants – had worked hard after arriving in New Zealand with almost nothing, she said.

But according to Labour she no doubt has a foreign sounding surname.

Anyone born (legally) in New Zealand is a New Zealander. It is a real shame that certain politicians are trying to make the issue of housing about ethnicity.