Doug Sellman writes:

The days of cannabis prohibition in New Zealand appear to be coming to an end. Peter Dunne is reflecting a change in public attitudes towards cannabis that is gathering momentum.

The brave admissions by Helen Kelly and others about their illegal use of cannabis for medical purposes has helped reignite public discussion about cannabis law in general.

Drugs, including alcohol, are here to stay – our job is to get better at managing them as a society. Declaring war is a failed strategy, which needs to be replaced by scientifically based harm-reduction approaches.

I agree with this.

Excessive harm is caused at both ends of the continuum, where big business flourishes, one within the law and the other outside of it. Both share the goal of profit maximisation from supplying and selling as much of their drug as possible.

Sellman is basically comparing alcohol companies to illegal drug gangs.

Behind the scenes, however, alcohol corporates target new young customers, avoid paying tax, schmooze politicians, and attempt to denigrate those who point out their devious tactics.

The organised criminal cannabis suppliers also flagrantly target the young and avoid paying tax, but they don’t try to pretend they are anything but gangsters making money out of drug dealing.

So alcohol corporates are gangsters!

Leaving recreational drugs in the hands of big business, without very strong regulation, is a recipe for harm maximisation.

We do have very strong regulation around alcohol. Almost every aspect of the industry is regulated.

Lobbying of our parliamentarians may already be under way by business leaders salivating at the new fortunes they anticipate reaping. This is especially so since the dramatic changes in the United States where four states now have laws allowing private businesses to supply and sell cannabis.

There are alternatives to a private business model, one of which is the establishment of state-owned enterprises.

Government monopolies of retail sales of alcohol exist in Scandinavia and are documented as a highly effective harm reduction intervention for alcohol .

Sellman wants the state to take over the alcohol industry. Every pub, hotel and bottle store in NZ must be owned by the Government. I can’t think of anything more dreadful.

OMSA has dismissed two complaints against Whale Oil by a Joshua James.

What is interesting is the complainant lied over the details of his complaint, and when asked by a Whale Oil staff member for details of what comments he was upset by, refused to tell him. Instead he complained to OMSA (again refusing to give details).

What this means is this left activist is trying to use the OMSA complaints process to damage a blog he doesn’t like. It had nothing to do with the substance – just an attempt at censorship.

It’s activist like Mr James that makes bloggers cautious of joining a complaints body. The concern that people will try and use it against you as a weapon. This may be why only three blogs have joined so far – Kiwiblog and Whale Oil for OMSA and Pundit for The Press Council.

One solution I’d propose is limiting the number of complaints an individual can make in a year.

Tyler Cowan blogs:

Let’s say a group of criminal defense lawyers kept a database of their confidential conversations with their clients.  That would include clients charged with murder, robbery, DUI, drug abuse, and so on.  In turn, a hacker would break into that database and post the information from those conversations on Wikileaks.  Of course a lot of those conversations would appear to be incriminating because — let’s face it — most of the people who require defense attorneys on criminal charges are in fact guilty.  When asked why the hack was committed, the hacker would say “Most of those people are guilty.  I want to make sure they do not escape punishment.”

How many of us would approve of that behavior?  Keep in mind the hacker is spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law.  The hacker is not backed by the serving of any criminal charges or judge-served warrants.

Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers.  Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations.  Admittedly, very often the underlying tax laws should be changed, just as we should repeal the deduction for mortgage interest too.  But in the meantime we are not justified in stealing information about those people, even if some of them are evil and powerful, as is indeed the case for homeowners too.

I agree – the ends don’t justify the means.

As Cowan says, imagine the outrage if the hack was of a criminal defence lawyer.

Stuff reports:

Smoking is close to being banned in most of Wellington’s public spaces – including bus stops and the Botanic Gardens – as the capital heads towards becoming a city of non-smokers.

City councillors will debate on Wednesday whether to approve an action plan that will turn the entrances of all publicly accessible buildings, such as shops and offices, into smokefree areas.

The ban will also cover all of the city’s bus stops, libraries and community centres, as well as the Botanic Gardens, Waitangi Park, Civic Square and its surrounding precinct.

This would incorperate the Wellington City Council building, central library, City Gallery, i-Site, Michael Fowler Centre, Town Hall, Jack Illott Green and the City to Sea Bridge.

The new rules would include the smoking of electronic cigarettes, known as vaping, as the Ministry of Health does not yet consider this an effective way to stop smoking.

Which is ridiculous. Public Health England has found them to be 95% less harmful than cigarettes.

Wellington office worker Phil Layzell, who was a smoker for 28 years before switching to vaping three years ago, said it was good to see the council taking action on smoking, but disappointing to see electronic cigarettes would also be banned.

“I think it’s terrible because it’s demonising a device that has helped so many people … I probably would have gotten cancer by now if it wasn’t for this.”

I know lots of people who now vape, after years and years of smoking. It is not a gateway into smoking – it is a gateway away from tobacco.

WCC’s proposals may be well intentioned, but they may actually do more harm than good by making it harder for people to switch to a less harmful product.

The Herald reports:

A $23 million annual increase in development contributions collected by councils means the Government’s reforms have failed, an opposition MP claims.

Phil Twyford, Labour’s housing spokesman, said councils got an extra $23 million, or 9 per cent more, from developers in the last year.

It all depend son if the number of buildings consented increased by more or less than 9%.

It’s idiotic to say that a policy is a failure based on whether total revenue to Councils increased or decreased. What is important is the amount per property.

The Government had put in place initiatives to constrain building materials costs, rein in development contributions, cut compliance costs and invest in improved sector productivity, Smith said after Statistics NZ data showed 27,745 residential consents were issued in the year to February, up from 24,766 the previous year.

That’s a 12% increase in consents and a 9% increase in development contributions which means the level of average contribution has decreased. Thanks to Phil Twyford for highlighting this.

The Reserve Bank announced:

An independent investigation has confirmed that highly sensitive and valuable market information on the March Official Cash Rate (OCR) cut decision was leaked by a journalist ahead of the official release, the Reserve Bank said today.

Following the investigation, the Bank will tighten its procedures for the release of confidential information.  The Bank will discontinue embargoed lock-ups for news media and analysts ahead of announcements of interest rate decisions, Monetary Policy Statements and Financial Stability Reports.

The investigation by Deloitte’s forensic unit found that, contrary to the rules of the lock-up, information on the Bank’s decision to cut the OCR was transmitted by a Newshub Mediaworks reporter to several people in the Newshub office from the media lockup for the Monetary Policy Statement on 10 March.

This information was then passed on by another person in Newshub Mediaworks, well before the MPS official release, to an economics blogger.

This is very bad behaviour by Mediaworks and I believe the fair thing would be for Mediaworks to pay for the cost of the investigation, rather than taxpayers.

Multiple staff behaved badly. In summary what happened:

• A Mediaworks employee e-mailed a draft story an hour before the lockup finished to his colleagues. This was clearly against the rules. I have been in Budget lockups and you are told multiple times, and in writing, that you must not communicate with anyone before the lock up concludes. In an OCR lockup it is even more vital as currency markets will change on the OCR news.
• The Mediaworks employees who got the e-mail discussed it amaongst themselves, instead of telling the reporter he should not have sent it to them early
• Another Mediaworks employee overheard the conversation and for some reason decided to leak it to an economics blogger, Michael Reddell

The actions of the journalist in the lockup and the employee who leaked it to Reddell are appalling. Mediaworks should discipline them. Instead they won’t even name them.

Most media must know who was the Mediaworks journalist in the lockup. Why has he not been named? If it was say an analyst for a major trading bank who broke lockup rules, I’m sure their name will be in the media.

Finally this brings us ot the decision to end the lockups, I think this is regrettable. Lockups play a valuable role in allowing media and analysts to read the background to decisions, and write a more considered story. In an age where media compete to be the first to report the news online, lockups are even more valuable.

The better course of action for the Reserve Bank would be to ban Mediaworks employees from their lockups for say 12 months. Getting rid of the lockups punishes the innocent and will lead to a reduction in the quality of analysis of the Reserve Bank decisions.

Danyl McLauchlan blogs:

The party has moved to the far left for the first few months of 2016 and it hasn’t gone well. …

But if you look at more recent history, their poll results under the centrist leadership of Shearer went as high as 36%. Then he was rolled, Cunliffe took the party to the left, and they wound up in the mid 20s. Then Little came in and seemed more moderate, and the poll results went up. But this year they’ve campaigned on free tertiary education, a UBI, fuck the TPPA etc, with a subsequent decline in support and they’re back in the 20s. It kind of seems like the voters are telling them something here.

Free tertiary education was once the delusional dream of the Alliance. Now Labour has adopted it as their senior leadership are all former student politicians, and they think this is what everyone wants.

News.com.au reports:

THE father of Gold Coast ­jihadist Amira Karroum has launched a legal battle to claim her $300,000 life insur­ance policy.
Karroum, 22, changed from a “beautiful and loving” girl spending her days lounging on beaches to an armed soldier who died fighting for Islamic extremists in 2014.

Distraught father ­Moha­med Karroum, 72, said his daughter’s life insurance policy should be honoured because she was “tricked” into entering Syria at a time when it was not illegal to do so.

IntrustSuper refused to pay Karroum’s life insurance because of her ties to terrorist group al-Qa’ida and was ­supported by the Australian Government, which formally labelled her a terrorist after she was shot and dismembered by ISIS militants.

“They will not pay because you are not supposed to travel there but the law came in after Amira was killed,” he said.

It’s not just a matter of whether travel to Syria was banned. She joined a terrorist group and took part in armed combat. Of course insurance will be void in those circumstances.

Rodney Hide writes:

Every time I think of Labour Leader Andrew Little – which I must confess is getting less and less – I can’t help but feel sorry for him. Nothing ever goes his way.

Prime Minister John Key sails on and on, seemingly effortlessly. Little fumbles and falls. And if he doesn’t trip up, one of his team does it for him.

Now Helen Clark has teamed up with Key for her tilt at the UN’s top job.

That must rankle.

It’s not just Key endorsing Clark. It’s Clark endorsing Key. They are now a team who talk and strategise. They are Richie McCaw and Dan Carter after the top prize.

It’s impossible for Little to present Key as arrogant and incompetent when Clark calls on his help and he agrees. It looks good for Key. In 2008 voters were forced to choose between the two but now they are a team. It makes Key middle-of-the-road and attractive to the former Labour voters he won in 2008.

This is true. When Key is going all out working with Helen Clark to get her elected, it makes it hard for Labour to paint him as hostile to Labour voters.

The other unfortunate impact on Little is that having Clark back in the news reminds people of what a strong leader she was, and how much Labour has struggled since she left them.

Stuff reports:

Plans to build a 200-room hotel at Christchurch airport have upset some city developers and business people who say the location will damage inner city regeneration. 

Christchurch International Airport Ltd, which is 75 per cent owned by the Christchurch City Council and 25 per cent owned by the Crown, announced last month that it was building the $80m Novotel Christchurch Airport hotel to fill a major gap in the accommodation market. …

However, prominent local businessman Philip Carter, a key player in the proposed convention centre which includes a hotel, described the decision as “one of the most unfortunate decisions made in Christchurch since the earthquakes.”

“Fresh investment has stimulated the regeneration of the central city, but this announcement to spend public money outside the CBD will have a negative impact and send a confusing signal to the investment community both within and outside the city.” …

Central City Business Association chair Antony Gough said the new hotel, due to open in late 2017, would encourage passengers to stay overnight then “shoot through” without spending time and money in the central city. 

But Johns said that was exactly the market the hotel was targeting and it would cater for about a million short stay passengers a year who flew in and out late at night or in the early hours of the morning.

“They’re not coming to stay for two, three or four nights, they’re coming to transit through the airport.”

Local Tourism Industry Association hotel sector representative, Bruce Garrett, said there was already plenty of accommodation at or near the airport and the need was for more beds in the CBD.

“It’s effectively the council going into competition with private hotels.” 

Tony Sewell, property consultant and former chief executive of Ngai Tahu Property, said the airport was only 15 minutes by car from the CBD  and the location of the hotel went against efforts to regenerate the inner city.

The public ownership of the airport is a red herring. It is a private company whose aim is to make money. If they think they can make money by building an airport hotel, then good on them.

Those saying that it will compete with other hotels, miss the point. It is meant to. If getting people to stay in the central city is dependent on a strategy of having nowhere to stay outside the central city – well doomed to failure.

Stuff reports:

The Labour Party would put $3 million a year toward helping young Kiwis with start-up ambitions.

A one-off grant of up to $20,000 would go to any New Zealander between the ages of 18 and 23 to start a business based on an innovative idea.

This isn’t a bad idea. Many young Kiwis want to set up their own business once they finish studying, rather than work for others.

The grants seem at around the right level – enough to help with start up costs, but not enough to attract people not serious.

The grant came with the safety net of funded business training, an ongoing business mentor and a business plan approved by an independent panel of experts, he said.

“The grants will be capped at 100 per year for the first three years.”

A pretty good policy. I suspect there are similar programmes at the moment, but good to see Labour being constructive in this area.

The Herald reports:

Next month’s Budget will not contain plans for tax cuts, Prime Minister John Key said today.

“There will be no personal tax reform in the Budget,” Mr Key told reporters in Wellington afterwards.

Asked if that included tax cuts, he said, yes.

Why not?

Now the books are back in surplus. hard working Kiwis should get to keep more of their income. Through bracket creep, most Kiwis are paying more in tax now than previously.

Once the books are in surplus, the Government should allocate the surplus to both increased spending and tax cuts. It shouldn’t be one or the other but both.

It’s very disappointing that we’ve had to wait so long for tax cuts.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (L) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the comments by the Chief Executive of the Southern District Health Board on Tuesday that “there is clearly an issue with the food otherwise patients would not be complaining”; if not, why not?
2. RON MARK (NZF) to the Minister of Defence: Does he believe that our Navy is sufficiently resourced to protect our fisheries from foreign poachers; if so, why?
3. TODD MULLER (N)to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that one of the Government’s main priorities is “to build a more productive and competitive economy”; if so, what recent announcements has the Government made that will save businesses time and reduce costs?
4. GRANT ROBERTSON (L) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information?
5. MATT DOOCEY (N) to the Minister for Social Development: What measures will help engage New Zealanders in the care and protection of vulnerable children as part of the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family?
6. METIRIA TUREI (G) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana tauākī e mea ake nei, “We want to ensure Government activities are effective in changing the circumstances that trap people in poverty”?
   • Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “We want to ensure Government activities are effective in changing the circumstances that trap people in poverty”?
7. MARAMA FOX (M) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha te hiranga o Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori i roto i te hītori o te motu?
   • Translation: What is the historical significance of Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori?
8. MELISSA LEE (N) to the Minister for Small Business: How will small businesses benefit from changes to the provisional tax system?
9. CARMEL SEPULONI (L) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. ALASTAIR SCOTT (N) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How will New Zealand be marking the 100th anniversary of the first Anzac Day commemorations?
11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (L) to the Minister of Conservation: Is she satisfied with her department’s stewardship of forest parks, and if not what are the major problems she has identified?
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (G) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he concerned that pure, fresh drinking water could be bottled for sale from the Canterbury region, where the water that the locals have to drink has been described as a “ticking time bomb” by the Canterbury District Health Board medical officer of health?

National: Four questions on provisional tax x 2, CYF, and ANZAC Day

Labour: Four questions on Southern DHB food, confidence in Minister for Land Information, Finance Minister standing by statements and forest parks

Greens: Two questions on poverty and water

NZ First: One question on the Navy

Maori Party: One question on Maori Language Bill

Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – committee stage

This bill confirms and validates unappropriated expenses and capital expenditure incurred for the 2014/15 financial year.

• Introduced: December 2015
• 1st reading: March 2016, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed

This bill has a 10 hour debate consisting of up to two hours on the Government’s financial statements for 2014/15 and the remainder of the time on 10 sector debates. There are five and a half hours remaining.

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.

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.

Whale Oil has reported that Trevor Mallard dmeared and defamed John Key yesterday on Twitter.

Mallard has since deleted the tweet, which basically said John Key is involved in tax evasion.

Now tax evasion is a crime, a serious crime. You often go to prison for tax evasion. So Mallard accused the Prime Minister of being a criminal. This is highly defamatory (and why the actual tweet is not being republished).

Labour are obsessed with smearing John Key. They’re been trying to do it since 2008 when their party president tried to dig up dirt around the H Fee, only to have it explode in their face.  They never stop though.

They hate that John Key is wealthy and successful. Even worse than being wealthy, is the fact he didn’t inherit it. He grew up in a state house and became a multi-millionaire. If it was inherited wealth then they could paint him as a Tory, but instead they keep trying to suggest he must have been dodgy or broke the law because he is wealthy. Some in Labour seem to think becoming wealthy is a bad thing, and only bad people manage to do it.

Now what makes this worse is Trevor Mallard is an Assistant Speaker of the House of Representatives. He is Labour’s nominee to be Speaker. His behaviour is incompatible with being an officer of the House. Smearing and defaming the Prime Minister on Twitter (and during question time) does not make people think you can preside fairly over the House.

Mallard needs to decide – does he want to be Assistant Speaker, or does he want to be Labour’s Attack Dog? You can’t be both.

As for Mallard’s smear. Well they’ve been trying the same line for almost ten years now and it hasn’t worked. You think they would come up with a new strategy, but it seems they can’t.

Vox reports:

In a new interview with the New York Daily News, Bernie Sanders said something striking — he basically doesn’t think the US should be trading very much at all with countries where wages are much lower than its own.

“You have to have standards,” the senator said. “And what fair trade means to say that it is fair. It is roughly equivalent to the wages and environmental standards in the United States.”

From Sanders’s point of view, this makes sense. He has recognized, correctly, that freer trade with countries like China has hurt a subset of American workers (while benefiting others).

But there’s one big problem, according to development economists I spoke to: Limiting trade with low-wage countries as severely as Sanders wants to would hurt the very poorest people on Earth. A lot.

Free trade is one of the best tools we have for fighting extreme poverty. If Sanders wins, and is serious about implementing his trade agenda as outlined in the NYDN interview and elsewhere, he will impoverish millions of already-poor people.

Yep. Also it won’t really help the US. A few workers in inefficient industries will stay in those industries instead of retraining. And US consumers would be massively less well off and relatively poorer.

Politik reports:

The appointment of John Shewan to investigate foreign trusts in New Zealand was always going to be controversial. Mr Shewan has a well deserved reputation as an establishment figure in Wellington. So it wasn’t surprising that Labour Leader Andrew Little alleged in Palriament yesterday that the Prime Minister had appointed John Shewan and Don Brash as advisors to the Bahamas Government when it introduced GST and “advised  that its financial services be zero-rated for value-added tax in order to protect the offshore services industry of that country”.

Mr Shewan vigroously denied this to Checkpoint  He said the trip  to the Bahamas had absolutely nothing to do with its status as a tax haven, and any suggestion of that was complete nonsense. We recommended that they modify their proposed regime significantly and simply follow New Zealand’s rules across the board.” Mr Shewan said they did recommend backing an existing exemption, as per international practice, that financial services be exempt from GST.

Dirty and nasty politics from Labour. John Shewan has advised both National and Labour Governments over the years. But now as they are desperate to try and make NZ look like Panama, Little defames Shewan under parliamentary privilege.

As Shewan said on Checkpoint (you can listen here) his work for the Bahamas had nothing to do with income tax or trusts. It was how to have a best practice GST, and the advice was basically to follow the NZ GST model (which is seen as one of the best in the world).

The final post looks at views of New Zealanders on various issues from the NZ Election Study.

The first two, and most important are has the Government done a good job and has the economy been good or bad.

73% of NZers said the Government had done a good job in the last three years and only 21% said a bad job.

That’s a staggeringly low level of people saying the Government had done a bad job.

NZES asked about whether we should be spending more,  less or the same in various areas. The table below summarises this:

Health and education stand out as the two areas NZers most want more spending. This is no surprise. They have a net 65% support.

After that is housing and law enforcement on around net 40%.

Then environment on 34%, superannuation 27% and business & industry 19%.

The three areas where NZers want less spending is defence at -1%, welfare -20% and unemployment benefits -29%.

Then they asked NZers if they agreed with a series of statements, that are below.

The biggest agreement at net +63% was people should have to work for the dole.

Next biggest agreement was that Government should subsidise or assist companies with research and development followed by income inequality is too large and should be reduced, unions are necessary to protect workers and exporters should get financial assistance.

NZers also think big business has too much power, we should assist international sportspersons and film makers and SOE privatisation has gone too far.

There is modest agreement that trade unions are necessary to protect workers at +9% and raise the super age to 67 at +4%.

Minor disagreement at -1% that many on welfare don’t deserve help, that NZ needs a Capital Gains Tax, unions have too much power (-3%) and lowering benefits helps people stand on their own feet (-4%).

More significant disagreement that the Government should help banks in times of crisis (-15%), we should have more immigration (-35%) and abortion is always wrong (-40%).

Also some voting issues were canvassed.

• On compulsory voting 44% were in favour and 53% against.
• Lowering the voting age to 16 had 7% support and a massive 90% opposition.
• 48% supported keeping the Maori seats and 39% opposed.
• 35% would vote on the Internet if they had a choice, while 595 would still choose a polling place.
• 45% were confident that Internet voting would be secure and private and 46% were not.
• 14% were more likely to vote if they could vote online and 10% said they were less likely to vote.

Huge opposition to reducing the voting age to 16.

The Herald reports:

The Maori Party is calling for a “long overdue” law change to establish Maori wards on every district council in New Zealand.

Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell will present a petition to Parliament at the urging of New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd, who championed the creation of a Maori ward in his city – a move blocked by a public vote last year.

Under existing legislation, councils can choose to establish Maori wards. However, if 5 per cent of voters sign a petition opposed to such a move, the decision then goes to a binding referendum.

Maori representation on local government has been a heated issue at times, with parties divided at the last general election.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said Maori wards were separatist – a stance backed by the Act and Conservative parties – while National and Labour were not opposed to councils establishing Maori wards if they wished.

I’m with Winston on this one. I think it is appropriate local authorities recognise local Iwi have a particular status with regards to certain natural resources in their area. But I don’t think having separate wards and councillors on the basis of one’s ancestry is a good thing.

The Government has announced a tax reform package for small businesses:

• Provisional tax is being reformed, with a new pay-as-you-go option giving up to 110,000 small businesses a way to pay tax as they earn income from 1 April 2018.
• Use-of-money interest will be eliminated or reduced for the vast majority of taxpayers.
• Contractors will be able to choose a withholding tax rate that suits their needs, rather than one being set for them.
• The ongoing 1 per cent monthly penalty will be scrapped from 1 April 2017 for new debt – although immediate penalties and interest charges for late payments will continue to apply.

Like most small business owners, I dislike provisional tax. Your provisional tax is calculated on your previous year, and if you have a better year than expected, then you get whacked with penalty interest for not having paid enough provisional tax earlier in the year.

A pay as you go option is a great idea, and very easy to do with modern accounting software.

“Around 30 to 40 per cent of businesses currently use cloud-based accounting software. This is expected to grow to 85 to 90 per cent in the next 10 years.

“This package allows small businesses to pay provisional tax through their accounting software, rather than having a separate process for their taxes.

“Small businesses are the backbone of the New Zealand economy. We want to help them spend more time focused on their business, not their taxes.”

The package is expected to cost $187 million over four years.

This move will be very popular with small business owners.

The Herald reports:

The cost of cladding repairs at Auckland Council’s Albert St headquarters has blown out from $4 million to an estimated $31m, according to a confidential report.

The huge bill for essential repairs to heavy granite slabs on the 31-storey building will be discussed by councillors behind closed doors on Tuesday.

You can understand cost blow-outs of 10% or even 20%. But Auckland Council seem to specialise in cost blowouts in the hundreds of percents.

Just whack rates up another 9.9% to cover it all!

Liam Hehir writes:

Earlier this year, American Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died while holidaying in Texas. 

As one of the brightest lights in the conservative legal movement, the process of replacing him is going to be partisan, ugly, public and potentially quite vicious. The American judiciary is just one more battlefield in the culture wars.

By contrast, judicial appointments here barely make the news. Few New Zealanders – even political trainspotters – would be able to name all of our present Supreme Court justices. That is as things should be, since our courts have the trust of the public when it comes to the neutral and impartial interpretation and enforcement of the law.

It is true that a written constitution would increase the importance of the Supreme Court and make partisan politics more of an issue for it. However I’d argue we already have that to some degree – but more quietly.

One of the central outcomes of having an unwritten constitution is parliamentary sovereignty. Aside from some minor provisions in the Electoral Act, Parliament can pass any law it likes.

It can change the entrenched provisions also – just needs to amend the entrenching section first.

The provisions of the constitution, not Parliament, would be supreme. And since the meaning of the constitution would be determined by judges, this would necessarily elevate our unelected courts over our elected lawmakers.

Yep and I trust them more.

The American constitution is a very concise document, with its seven articles and 27 amendments clocking in at fewer than 8,000 words. But despite that brevity, the document has been stretched by the courts to cover such controversial matters as abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment. The actual text of the constitution neither prohibits nor mandates any of these things – but judges have allocated to themselves the final say on these matters to the exclusion of the people and their representatives.

The original constitution didn’t. The Bill of Rights did. One could not have the Bill of Rights in a constitution. Or do what Canada does and allow Parliament to over-ride the Supreme Court using the “Notwithstanding” clause.

Christopher Snowden highlights a bad trend in Australia:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians has called for all women “of reproductive age” who consume more than two standard drinks a day to be subject to “interventions” on the basis that they might be pregnant, in a remarkable submission to a Senate inquiry.

I know a lot of women who need an intervention then!

Children’s toys should be subject to plain-packaging laws similar to cigarettes, an inter­national women’s group says. 

Crazy.

Alcohol packaging should carry warning labels, akin to cigarettes, under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code

Yes every bottle of wine should carry a photo of a corpse on it.