The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Finance: What economic and fiscal conditions is the Government factoring into its planning for Budget 2016 on 26 May?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have any financial interests which may affect his decisions around foreign trusts; if so, what are those financial interests?
3. JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Revenue: What is the Government doing to reduce tax compliance costs for small businesses?
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “there’s a difference between surgery people actually need, and surgery people think they need”?
7. NUK KORAKO to the Minister for Small Business: What online tools is the Government providing to help small businesses make informed decisions and reduce costs?
8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing:Does he stand by his statement that “The areas that Mr Twyford has identified are not on any of the lists that have been provided to me by officials” in relation to his Auckland Crown Land Programme?
9. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made as part of the Ministerial Work Programme on family violence?
10. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will Crown Irrigation Investments Limited continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam Project, in light of information released this morning that the total cost of the project is nearing $1 billion?
12. JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Health: What steps is the Government taking to improve the oral health of New Zealanders?

National: Five questions on the Budget, small business x 2, family violence and oral health

Labour: Four questions on PM’s financial interests, surgery, Auckland housing and FinanceMinister standing by his statements

Greens: Two questions on Pm standing by his statements and irrigation

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

A one hour debate of 12 speeches of five minute each.

Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 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.

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.

Extending Sitting 9.00 am to 1.00 pm Thursday 14 April 2016

Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This Bill gives effect to the deed signed on 21 January 2015 between the Crown and the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective. It also gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 21 June 2012 in which the Crown and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui.

• Introduced November 2015

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

Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 7 April 2013 in which the Crown and Ngāti Pūkenga agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Pūkenga.Introduced November 2015

• Introduced: February 2016

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

Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa Claims Settlement Bill – first reading

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 18 December 2015 in which the Crown and Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa agreed to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngatikahu ki Whangaroa.

• Introduced March 2016

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

Bjorn Lomburg writes:

Before unveiling the car, Musk sanctimoniously declared that Tesla exists to give the planet a sustainable future. He pointed to rising CO₂ levels. He lamented that 53,000 people die from air pollution from transportation. Tesla, the story goes, is a lifesaver. Like other electric cars, it has “zero emissions” of air pollution and CO₂.

But this is only true of the car itself; the electricity powering it is often produced with coal, which means that the clean car is responsible for heavy air pollution. As green venture capitalist Vinod Khosla likes to point out, “electric cars are coal-powered cars”.

If the USA had 10 per cent more petrol cars by 2020, air pollution would claim 870 more lives. A similar increase in electric ones would cause 1,617 more deaths a year, mostly because of the coal burned.

If we were to scale this to the UK, electric cars would cause the same or more air pollution-related deaths than petrol-powered cars. In China, because their coal power plants are so dirty, electric cars make local air much worse: in Shanghai, pollution from more electric-powered cars would be nearly three-times as deadly as more petrol-powered ones.

Very valid points.

In NZ, most electricity is from renewables, not coal, so in NZ using an electric car does help the environment. But not so in many other countries.

Moreover, while electric cars typically emit less CO₂, the savings are smaller than most imagine. Over a 150,000 km lifetime, the top-line Tesla S will emit about 13 tonnes of CO₂. But the production of its batteries alone will emit 14 tonnes, along with seven more from the rest of its production and eventual decommissioning.

Compare this with the diesel-powered, but similarly performing, Audi A7 Sportback, which uses about seven litres per 100km, so about 10,500 litres over its lifetime. This makes 26 tonnes of CO₂. The Audi will also emit slightly more than 7 tons in production and end-of-life. In total, the Tesla will emit 34 tonnes and the Audi 35. So over a decade, the Tesla will save the world 1.2 tonnes of CO₂.

Yet Musk has had $5 billion of corporate welfare for his cars!

Reducing 1.2 tonnes of CO₂ on the EU emissions trading system costs £5; but instead, the UK Government subsidises each car with £4,500. All of the world’s electric cars sold so far have soaked up £9 billion in subsidies, yet will only save 3.3 million tonnes of CO₂. This will reduce world temperatures by 0.00001°C in 2100 – the equivalent of postponing global warming by about 30 minutes at the end of the century. 

Around NZ$20 billion of subsidies to reduce temperatures by 0.00001 degrees!

Electric cars will be a good idea, once they can compete – which will probably be by 2032. But it is daft to waste billions of pounds of public money on rich people’s playthings that kill more people through air pollution while barely affecting carbon emissions.

They will be a big part of the future, but subsidising them makes no sense.

Peter Dunne announced:

DHBs rather than local authorities will decide on which community water supplies are fluoridated under proposed changes announced today by Health Minister Jonathan Coleman and Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne.

“New Zealand has high rates of preventable tooth decay and increasing access to fluoridated water will improve oral health, and mean fewer costly trips to the dentist for more New Zealanders,” says Dr Coleman.

“This change could benefit over 1.4 million New Zealanders who live in places where networked community water supplies are not currently fluoridated.

“Water fluoridation has been endorsed by the World Health Organization and other international health authorities as the most effective public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.”

DHBs currently provide expert advice on fluoridation to local authorities.

“Moving the decision-making process from local councils to DHBs is recognition that water fluoridation is a health-related issue,” says Mr Dunne.

“Deciding which water supplies should be fluoridated aligns closely to DHBs’ current responsibilities and expertise. It makes sense for DHBs to make fluoridation decisions for their communities based on local health priorities and by assessing health-related evidence.”

A Bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament later this year. Members of the public and organisations will have an opportunity to make submissions to the Health Select Committee as it considers the Bill.

This law change will be treated with massive cheers from every councillor in New Zealand, as they no longer will be on the receiving end of anti-fluoridation campaigns.

I’m not sure there is a strong case for having DHBs decide. Yes it is a health issue, but it is the Councils that run the water supply.

Once the law changes (assuming it does), I suspect this will mean every region of NZ will end up with fluoridated water. I can’t imagine one DHB deciding differently to all the others.

A downside is that you may get people stand for election to DHBs on this single issue. Sole issue politicians rarely do well.

Now we look at the favourability ratings for the party leaders in 2014. Again first those who have a favourable view of each leader.

No surprise that Key had the highest favourability at 60%. But considering this was done after two months of Hager and Dotcom allegations against Key, still a remarkable level.

The 2nd most popular leader is Winston. 30% of NZers like him. Will be interesting to see how that breaks down by which party they voted for.

The two Green leaders were next – Turei on 22% and Norman 20%.  In between then was David Cunliffe on 21%. When only one in five NZers like the alternative Prime Minister, then the outcome may not be a huge surprise.

Flavell does quite well for a minor party with 18% favourability, then Dunne on 13%, Craig 12%, Harawira 10%, Harre 7% and poor Jamie Whyte last on 4%.

This shows how many New Zealanders dislike each leader. The leader with the lowest level of dislike was John Key at 28%. One can have high favourability and unfavourability (think Muldoon), but this shows Key didn’t have a high level of dislike in 2014 – lower than any other leader.

Next lowest was Flavell on 32%, then Turei 37%, Norman 38%, Peters 42%, Whyte 42% and Dunne 46%.

Colin Craig had high unfavourability at 49% but this was less than David Cunliffe at 54%. That is a very high level of unfavourability for the proposed alternative Prime Minister.

The two most unpopular leaders were Laila Harre with 60% dislike and Hone Harawira with 64%,

This graph shows the net favourability for each leader. Key was the only leader whom more voters liked than disliked – at +32%.

The least unpopular was then Peters at -12%, Flavell -13%, Turei -15%, and Norman -18%.

After that Cunliffe was at -32%, Dunne -33%, Craig -37% and Whyte -39%.

Finally Harre on -53% and Harawira on -54%.

A pity they didn’t survey opinion on the true Internet Party Leader, Kim Dotcom – I suspect would be even lower.

The Daily Caller reports:

Leftist Norway politician Karsten Nordal Hauken was brutally raped by a Somali and felt so incredibly guilty in the aftermath he subsequently questioned whether authorities should even deport the man.

Shortly before the sentence was over, Hauken learned the man was about to be deported from Norway and sent back to Somalia.

“I got a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility,” Hauken wrote. “I was the reason he wouldn’t be in Norway, and instead be sent to an unknown future in Somalia. He had already done his time in prison. Would he get punished again, and this time much harder?”

Amazing – he doesn’t think the criminal bares any responsibility – even when he is the victim.

“I don’t feel anger against my rapist, because I look at him as a product of an unjust world. A product of an upbringing full of war,” Hauken said.

It’s not his fault – it’s society’s!

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Andrew Little has tabled his tax records in Parliament, but failed to convince Prime Minister John Key to follow suit.

Mr Little said the Prime Minister should make a full disclosure to back his statements that all of his tax affairs were above board.

He sought leave during Question Time this afternoon to table his tax forms for the last five years.

The records covered Mr Little’s time as chief executive of the EPMU, where his income rose to $178,000, and his first three years in Parliament.

After tabling the documents, Labour MPs yelled across the House: “Show us yours, John.”

Silly puerile people.

They just want Key to reveal his finances, so they can campaign against him as being a rich prick. They hate his success.

I suspect Key’s tax return would show he pays more in tax than the entire Labour caucus. But that wouldn’t be hard.

Mr Key said he would not release his records, and reiterated that any rumours that he held assets in foreign trusts were false.

He also shot back, saying that Mr Little should be tabling his CV instead, “because he will be out looking for another job soon” – a reference to Mr Little and Labour’s poor poll results.

Just desperate stuff from Labour.

The register of pecuniary interests, published today, confirmed that all of Mr Key’s investments remained in a blind trust, the Aldgate Trust. He was also a beneficiary of the Key family trust.

The register also revealed, however, that Mr Key’s lawyer was the head of a company which specialised in foreign trusts – an embarrassing disclosure in the middle of the Panama Papers debate.

Shock horror – law firms do trusts. Stuff tries to make it a scandal:

Prime Minister John Key has declared a financial link to a company specialising in foreign trusts.

The latest register of MPs pecuniary interests listed the Antipodes Trust Group Limited as a debtor in Key’s entry. The register was released on Tuesday.

On its website, the Antipodes Trust calls itself a specialist provider of trustee and associated services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice.

I’ve seen a tweet that the short-term deposit is simply from the sale of an apartment in London. As anyone knows when you sell a property it goes into your lawyer’s trust account and they then pay it out to you. So the big scandal is that Key sold an apartment!!

But hey I hope Labour keeps this up, rather than focusing on the economy, jobs, hospitals and schools. I am sure they can drop even lower than 28% if they try.

UPDATE: Felix Marwich has a statement from the PMs Office. The deposit is even more mundane – it is a payment in advance of costs and the money is invested in a NZ trading bank. Yawn.

UPDATE2: As far as I can tell Little has not in fact released his tax returns – merely his wage and salary information. See them at Stuff. They specifically say they exclude income from investments. So what he has released is meaningless – just a schedule of his salary and PAYE.

Now I don’t think Little needs to or should release any information. But when he is trying to take the moral high ground by claiming he has released his tax returns – well the simple fact is he has not. If Key released what Little released, all he would be releasing is his salary as PM and the PAYE on the salary.

The Herald reports:

A prominent New Zealander has been cleared of sex charges against two girls.

After deliberation, the jury in the High Court at Whangarei returned not guilty verdicts on all 12 charges of doing an indecent act.

Members of the man’s family cried as the not guilty verdicts flooded in.

Several supporters clapped and celebrated as the final acquittal was read out by the foreperson.

The jury heard all the evidence and decided the defendant was not guilty – that the accusations were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m not surprised by the verdict. The media reports on the trial didn’t indicate a strong case for the prosecution (of course you need to be wary of relying on media reports), and several people who actually attended the trial said the prosecution’s case was very weak.

The name of the prominent New Zealanders is suppressed. So no hints or worse about who it is, even though of course most know. The reason for the name suppression is to protect the complainants.

Personally I wish there was not name suppression. I actually think the defendant has been disadvantaged by the name suppression, as he has been unable to defend himself publicly – except in court.

A number of other prominent New Zealanders spent months declaring the defendant was guilty and doing everything they could to both destroy him and deny him a fair trial. They should apologise if they had any decency, but I am sure they won’t.

At the end of the day there are no winners out of this case. The complainants will be feeling very bruised and sad, and the defendant has to now rebuild his life. It’s a very sad case.

Stuff reports:

The man who ran down then stabbed and raped Blessie Gotingco has failed in his appeal against his sentence.

Tony Robertson was convicted and sentenced last year for the 2014 murder and rape of Gotingco.

​He had only just finished an eight-year sentence for sexual offending against a five-year-old girl when he killed the 56-year-old mother-of-three in May 2014.

He was still on GPS surveillance as part of his prison release conditions at the time.

For the rape he was sentenced to preventive detention and for the murder he was sentenced to life, with a minimum non-parole period of 24 years.

Good – may he never be released.

He appealed on multiple grounds – the most disgusting being he couldn’t have raped her as she was dead when he did, so it wasn’t rape!

One of interest to me is:

Suppression issues about his prior offending: The details of his sexual offending against a child was withheld from the jury, but he argued they may have found out anyway.

The Police thought he would try this line at appeal, so they worked hard to prevent any chance it could succeed.

I blogged a couple of years ago that the person arrested for the murder was well known to the Police. This was not in breach of any laws at the time it was made, or later. However the Police rang me up (given me a minor panic as I was on holiday and got a message to call back Waitakere Police) and asked if I would consider removing it, as they said he may point to it (if convicted) and use as grounds for appeal. They said I had no legal obligation to do so, but of course I was happy to comply.

Looks like they knew their man well, as he did try.

This is very funny, and pointed.

A guest post by John Palino:

Phil Goff’s comments about a potential waterfront stadium in Auckland suggest he is out of touch with reality says Mayoral candidate John Palino.
 
When commenting on the whole source of funding a potential stadium Mr Goff said. “Private sector money should be sought.”

If it were possible to build a large stadium without any public money it would have already happened somewhere in New Zealand. It has not because it cannot be done “Mr Goff must know this”, says Mr Palino.

“Either Phil Goff is deluded in thinking he can fund a stadium without imposing costs on the Auckland ratepayer, he is ignorant of the facts, or he is outright misleading the public for votes” says Mr Palino. “Wellington and Dunedin’s stadium cost the ratepayers significant amounts of money, and the proposed Christchurch Stadium has council money of $253m allocated to it”.

“I challenge Phil Goff to explain how he can get the private sector to entirely fund a new stadium”, says Mr Palino. “Phil Goff needs to show that he is economically credible by demonstrating an understanding that stadiums in New Zealand are not built without public money.”

“After six years of Len Brown not telling us the truth about rates rises and council spending, Auckland needs a Mayor who will be honest with ratepayers. If Auckland is going to have a new stadium, ratepayers will be funding it. Phil Goff knows this but  he wants to hide behind dubious Len Brown type rating promises during the campaign, only to massively increase rates if he gets elected.”

“Phil Goff needs to demonstrate that his promises about transparency and openness are not just empty. He cannot say that ratepayers will not pay for the stadium without explaining credibly how he will fund it. Aucklanders deserve a mayor who will tell them the truth, not one who does a Len Brown promising one thing then doing the opposite if elected.”

Stadium Expenditure

Wellington Westpac Stadium The Stadium cost $130 million to build. The finance came from: Wellington Regional Council: 25$M Wellington City Council: 15$M Grants and Donations: 7$M Fundraising: 50$M ANZ Bank Loan: 33$M http://westpacstadium.co.nz/about-us/history/

Dunedin Forsyth Barr Stadium
Originally the total cost of the stadium including land purchases was projected to be NZ $198.3 million. The following contributors make up the original total funding of the project: Otago Regional Council $37.5 million Community Trust of Otago $7.0 million University of Otago $10.0 million Government $15.0 million Dunedin City Council $98.5 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth_Barr_Stadium

Proposed Christchurch Stadium
The stadium’s estimated $470m pricetag will be split 50:50 between the council and the Crown and/or private sector. The council’s contribution is capped at $253m. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/66427863/John-Key-Christchurch-stadium-iscouncils-call

This is the Preferred PM rating of the four Labour Opposition Leaders. Rather speaks for itself.

The Nikau Foundation announced:

A man who has dedicated his life to the law, Retired District Court Judge, Ian Borrin, has established a charitable trust devoted to the development of legal education and research for the betterment of New Zealand’s legal system.

The Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation will promote legal scholarship in all areas of the law and the development of legal research, scholarship, writing and education.

The Foundation, announced at today’s memorial service, is expected to be worth around $30 million, and is one of the largest single purpose bequests made in New Zealand.

That is huge.

It will be administered by the Nikau Foundation as trustee, with an advisory independent Grants and Scholarship committee established by retired Judge Borrin comprising: The Chief Justice of New Zealand; the President of the Law Society; the Dean of the Law School at Victoria University; Retired Chief Judge, Thomas Goddard and his alternate David Goddard QC; and a representative of the Nikau Foundation.

The Nikau Foundation is a charitable trust that attracts gifts, trusts and legacies and invests them for the benefit principally of the Wellington region. The income from these investments is distributed to charitable purposes in accordance with each donor’s wishes. Nikau Foundation also manages some funds that benefit all of New Zealand and the Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation will be by far the largest of these.

Chris Milne, Chair of the Nikau foundation said: “This is a marvellous legacy left by a man who has dedicated his life to law. Ian Borrin was a humble and gentle man of integrity, who sought no recognition for his generosity. He worked hard in his final months to ensure there was clarity in the Foundation’s purpose, and that it would be a lasting tribute to the memory of his parents.

The rule of law is what underpins a successful country. It’s an excellent area to donate to.

“Ian supported scholarship and legal publications, perhaps a neglected object of philanthropy in New Zealand, but he knew that the rule of law underpins any community and he believed very strongly in its importance for New Zealand. It is entirely consistent with the way in which this modest, kind and scholarly man lived his life that this parting gift is one that looks to the future with optimism. We will all greatly miss this good man. 

“Members of the legal community at all levels will be supported by grants and scholarships to undertake legal writing, research and education through this gift. Although the Foundation provides direct support to those in the legal community, there is no doubt that its primary beneficiaries are the people of New Zealand who live under the security of law, something Ian Borrin believed in and worked tirelessly for. It is a magnificent legacy which will be of lasting benefit,” Dame Sian Elias said.

A $30 million legacy will probably mean around $1.5 million a year is available for grants and scholarships.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his statements in relation to the Panama Papers?
2. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the statement made by John Key in 2004 regarding stealth taxation through bracket creep that the government “loves taxing the hard-working, productive sector of New Zealand. It loves taking extra dollars off those people at every opportunity it can”?
3. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to lift capital spending in transport, education, and other core public infrastructure?
4. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the findings of the recent TNS survey showing about 174,000 New Zealanders are in need of publicly funded surgery, but have not been placed on a waiting list; if not, why not?
5. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Finance: Will there be the opportunity for public submissions as a part of his review of foreign trusts?
6. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Economic Development:What reports has he received about diversification of the New Zealand economy?
7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
8. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Social Development: What feedback has she received regarding the overhaul of Child, Youth and Family?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, “it has become pretty much unacceptable in the developed world at least to be running a tax haven that undermines other people’s tax bases”?
10. MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen estimating the fall in the number of overstayers in New Zealand?
11. STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: What does she believe are the main contributors to the increase in the number of burglaries and the drop in resolution rates over the past 12 months?
12. EUGENIE SAGE to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree with the statement made by GNS Senior Scientist Nancy Bertler that sea-level rise of 30cm in 30 years is “incredibly certain”, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s analysis that a 30cm rise would result in 1 in 100-year high water levels in Wellington happening every year?

National: Four questions on capital spending, the economy, CYF and overstayers

Labour: Four questions on Panama Papers x2, surgery numbers, and burglaries

Greens: Two questions on Panama Papers and climate change

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

ACT: One question on taxation bracket creep

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 – committee stafe

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

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

Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill – second reading 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

The second 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 Business Number Bill – third reading

This bill enables certain entities to obtain, or be allocated, a New Zealand Business Number and to be registered on a New Zealand Business Number Register

• Introduced March 2015
• 1st reading: May 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: September 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, Labour dissenting
• 2nd reading: December 2015, passed 108 to 12 with NZ First opposed
• Committee of the whole House: supported without amendments

The third reading is a debate of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each so a maximum debate of two hours

The National review reports:

A male-to-female transgender woman who prefers the pronoun “it” says it believes it was born not only the wrong sex, but also the wrong species, and has been undergoing human-to-dragon transition procedures to fix the problem.

The 55-year-old, who was born “Richard Hernandez” but now goes by “Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa,” has already had a whole slew of transformative work done: Tooth extraction, eye coloring, horn implants, ear removal (!), nose modification and a procedure to give it a forked tongue.

So what type of toilet does a dragon use??

The Herald reports:

Mr Tookey said problems with New Zealand’s driver licence database included that it left out non-drivers; willing donors thought saying yes on the licence was all they needed to do, so might omit the more important step of telling family; and in situations where a person’s body might be suitable for donation, hospital staff “refuse to check” the licence.

Organ Donation NZ, based at the Auckland District Health Board, has said staff consult the licence database only if a family asks, because many families already knew their relative’s wishes.

I’m staggered by this. It is almost as if they don’t want more organs. As an absolute minimum the database should be checked automatically if a patient is clinically suitable to donate, and the family informed of the patient’s declared wishes.

To only consult the database if the family proactively raise the issue is neglectful. No wonder our rate is so appallingly low.

I’m listed as a donor. Unless my family read this blog post I doubt they’d know my wishes. It isn’t something I’ve discussed with them, and I suspect the same is true for many families.

How can you expect a family to make an informed decision, when you won’t inform them of what the patient has previously said they want?

Another question asked in the 2014 Election Study was where voters say each party on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is hard left and 10 is hard right. They were also asked where they assessed themselves.

ACT was assessed as the most right party with a median score of 8. Both the Conservatives and National had a median score of 7.

The median voter score was a 6 – so slightly centre-right. United Future was placed there also.

NZ First is in the middle on 5. The Maori Party slightly centre-left on a 4.

The Mana and Internet parties were judged to be hard left.

I find it interesting that Labour and the Greens both have a median of 3. Once upon a time the Greens would have been seen as more to the left of Labour, but now they are seen as not far apart.

Now consider all the left activists who claim Labour need to go further to the left in order to win. They are already three away from the median vote on six. National is only one away from the median voter. So going further to the left for Labour just makes them look more extreme.

As the median voter is a six, then a three is as far away from them as a nine is.

For Labour to win, they either need to shift the median voter from a six to a five (very difficult to do) or they need to shift the perception of themselves from a three to a four. I doubt they will, and they will be surprised when they fail again.

“Being willing to donate the taxpayers’ money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.”

– Thomas Sowell

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.

Stuff reports:

Wellington City Council is chasing $50,000 it gave to organisers of Wellington Fashion Week, as the man in charge appears to elude efforts to track him down. 

Last year the event was cancelled just one week before it was meant to start, and this year it is not going ahead at all. 

The debacle comes just months after CallActive, a call centre to which the council gave $300,000 in 2013, folded leaving 60 Wellington-based staff without a job.

The Council’s track record is not looking too flash.

If they gave away less of our money, then our rates would not be increasing so much.

Eric Crampton writes in Stuff:

There has been a lot of outrage that a water bottling plant is being set up in Ashburton. A similar one was built in Hastings last year.

The plants draw water from the aquifer, put it in bottles, and sell it in Asia. Because New Zealand awards consents to draw water but nobody puts a price on water, critics see this as profiteering on an unpriced resource.

​At the same time, over a thousand Canterbury dairy farms put water into cows. Dr Daniel Collins estimated that it takes about 250 litres of river and aquifer water, through irrigation, to produce a litre of Canterbury milk. That will not be a net measure, as some of the irrigation does flow back into the aquifer.

But it will take many more litres of water to produce a litre of milk than it takes to produce a litre of bottled water. The milk is collected, the water extracted, and the powder is sold in China.

And so we come to what might be the Canterbury Trabant plant. Does anyone really know whether water from Canterbury’s aquifers is more valuable when put directly into bottles and sold to Asia, or when it routes through a cow along the way?

How low does the price of milk have to be before it would make more sense to leave out the middle-cow?

It is a tough question to answer, and especially where water allocation is set by consent rather than through markets. East Germany allocated iron by something not that different from consents, rationing scarce resources across various industrial uses, and wound up making cars that were worth less than the inputs that went into them.

New Zealand allocates scarce water by consents, and hopefully does a better job of it. Trabants were ghastly; New Zealand milk is delicious.

Crampton correctly identifies that with a limited resource, it is hard to know the best use of water (beyond that needed for home supply) without having some sort of price signal.

Former Canterbury University Senior Lecturer John Raffensperger developed a smart market system letting people with water drawing rights on the Canterbury plains trade those rights.

The system cleverly managed things where drawing a litre of water has different effects on the aquifer depending on where that litre is drawn. It also could make sure that the rivers continued flowing, even in dry years.

What happens when farmers, and water bottlers, and towns and cities, can trade litres of water consent with each other? We can find out where the water really has the most value.

If a dairy farm wants to expand and cannot draw more water for irrigation under its consent, it would have to buy drawing rights from other users.

If those users are happy to give up their drawing rights for the amount offered, then the water is more highly valued when it is run through a cow and turned into milk products. If a water bottling plant that wants to expand is able to pay dairy farmers to hand over some of their drawing rights, then those litres of water are more valuable going straight into the bottle.

Definitely a better idea than the status quo.

Shifting to a trading mechanism would make sure that New Zealand water were put to its best use. That also makes water more valuable – a gain for those with current consents. It also would make it simpler to manage the system in dry years: the government could buy back drawing rights to keep rivers flowing, then sell them back to farmers when rivers run freely. And the farmers who can most easily scale back irrigation in dry years would be the ones to do so.

Public outrage about the bottling plant is really misdirected. What is really outrageous is that New Zealand’s system for allocating water looks so much like East Germany’s system for allocating iron. Let’s hope we have no hidden Trabant plants.

Well argued.

Stuff reports:

Puketapapa Local Board member Michael Wood will put his hand up for the Mt Roskill seat.

Mt Roskill is held by Phil Goff, currently running for the Auckland mayoralty.

Wood is understood to be planning a formal announcement on April 16 to throw his hat in the ring for the Labour nomination.

This is no surprise. Wood has been the under study for Labour for the seat for many years. His Facebook photo is of himself and Phil Goff.

His CV is ideal to win Labour selection. President of Young Labour, a union official, an Auckland local board member and an NGO.

The Herald reports:

Don Brash and Winston Peters formed an unlikely alliance today in protest against what they believe is “preferential treatment” for Maori in new planning laws.

The two men, once sworn enemies, united in criticism of proposals to change the way iwi are consulted in the resource consent process.

Dr Brash, the former National Party leader, was making a submission on Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms on behalf of Auckland-based lobby group Democracy Action.

He said radical reforms of the RMA would do more than any other single measure to improve New Zealanders’ standard of living.

However, the National-led Government’s proposals were “pitifully limited” and “barely scratched the surface of what was needed”.

The “cost” of progressing these “modest changes” was a significant expansion of iwi rights, he claimed. The bill would “vastly extend” Maori involvement in the planning process by requiring councils to invite Maori to enter into what are known as “iwi participation agreements”.

“This is surely a recipe for further delay, for corruption and for anger on the part of the rest of the community,” Dr Brash said.

His old party had persisted with the changes despite being offered a “vastly better alternative” by Mr Peters.

The New Zealand First leader has offered to support broader RMA reforms in exchange for removing any iwi-specific provisions. It was “incomprehensible” that Mr Peters’ offer was not taken up, Dr Brash said.

Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox was one of several committee members to challenge Dr Brash.

She asked what he thought of the Waitangi Tribunal’s recent ruling that Maori did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

“Very briefly, bollocks,” Dr Brash said, prompting a chuckle from Mr Peters.

The New Zealand First leader then sought permission for Dr Brash to have his time limit extended, saying the iwi rights debate was “the biggest issue the Government will face this term”.

The motion was denied, but the two men later continued their conversation in a pub on Lambton Quay.

Strange bedfellows in politics.

I share the concern that the proposed law changes will have unfortunate consequences. If National can get NZ First to agree to broader reforms that would be a good thing.

Photo (and caption) sent in by a reader.

The Herald reports:

A flight attendant sacked after being accused of eating food meant for passengers and berating a customer has lost a bid to get her job back at Air New Zealand.

Jennifer Kilpatrick was fired after a dispute about her behaviour on flight NZ19 from Rarotonga to Auckland in March 2012, and her subsequent sick leave.

She fought a long-running battle to get her job back.

In a judgement released last week Judge Perkins ordered Kilpatrick to pay $80,000 in costs plus $795.50 in disbursements to Air New Zealand. She was also told to pay $8,750 the Authority originally awarded.

It is rare for an employee to be hit with such a large costs bill, but you’ll see it was justified in this case as Stuff reports.

She then took a personal grievance case to the Employment Relations Authority claiming she was unjustifiably dismissed, but there was no merit found to her claims.

Kilpatrick appealed the decision to the Employment Court claiming unjustifiable dismissal and breach of contract, in a case that was heard in July last year.

But Judge Mark Perkins again threw out Kilpatrick’s claims and noted that when giving evidence in court she had been deliberately misinterpreting questions to give vague answers.

He found it difficult to understand Kilpatrick’s stance and believed Air New Zealand was well within its rights to start disciplinary action against her.

“Ms Kilpatrick failed to appropriately engage with Air New Zealand in good faith and in a timely manner,” the judge said.

“She refused to agree to meetings with management which were arranged so that Air New Zealand could hear her side of events and possibly get to the bottom of why she had behaved in the way she did and by which discussion she could possibly have saved her employment.”

In his costs decision released on Thursday, Judge Perkins said the way Kilpatrick had presented and conducted her case was inefficient and added significantly to the costs incurred by Air New Zealand.

Some of the details suggest she was very unsuited for a customer job:

A flight attendant on the Rarotonga flight, Michelle Coyle, gave evidence during January’s hearing that Kilpatrick had been combative from the start.

During a pre-flight meeting of attendants, she said she asked Kilpatrick if she preferred to be called Jenny or Jen, which was met with the response: “Neither, I am neither of them and if you want to call me that I’m going home; it’s over”.

During the flight Kilpatrick was responsible for the galley and her attitude was described as poor by Coyle.

Kilpatrick had not programmed the in-flight entertainment screens to include food orders, leading to complaints from passengers about a lack of food.

The galley was described as “a shambles” with carts out and no replenishing of tea or coffee.

One passenger also saw Kilpatrick eating one of the pies, which were supposed to be available for purchase by passengers but had not been added to the in-flight screen.

The passenger made a pointed comment to Kilpatrick about the situation, who then “rudely berated him” for watching her while she ate.

After shouting at several other flight attendants and calling them “useless” she was told to stop shouting but said “I’m not shouting, I have a loud voice”.

I wonder how she got hired in the first place. Maybe she presented well at interview.