Stuff reports:

The tenant of a $1 million state house is making a buck off Housing New Zealand, charging boarders rent for a room vacated by her grown-up children.

Housing New Zealand said its tenancy agreements forbid tenants to rent out the HNZ-owned premises they were occupying – or “any part of it”. 

It will now investigate this case. 

The tenant has occupied the two-bedroom house in Auckland’s posh Freemans Bay, which has a council valuation of $1.4 million, for more than a decade.

She has also, flouting Auckland council rules, built a ‘dwelling’ in the back yard without building consent.

Housing NZ should sell the $1.4 million house and use the proceeds to build or buy two or three more affordable houses.

When the boarder was approached for comment, his landlady had been on holiday in Australia. 

He did not know how long the woman had been making a profit from her own tenants. 

She doesn’t seem to be in dire poverty. This is why state houses should not be a house for life, but go to those most in need. For some reason Labour opposes this.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key, who was in Christchurch on Thursday to open stage one of the BNZ Centre, said he did not take a particular view on “any mayor”, but lauded Dalziel’s time at the helm.

“I don’t endorse any mayor around the country.

“But I’ve come to Christchurch regularly over the course of the last three years and I’ve got up and praised Lianne for the work she’s done as mayor and I say that because I genuinely believe it,” Key said.

Dalziel had put her “heart and soul into the job”.

“In the end it’s for her to decide whether she wants to continue and if not I’m sure others will put their names forward and ultimately it’s critically important that Christchurch gets a strong leader.

“I’ve enjoyed working alongside Lianne, if she wants to continue as the mayor the Government will have a very constructive working relationship with her,” Key said.

Dalziel has indeed not been a partisan Mayor, which was the worry many had. She has worked constructively with the Government in many areas, while of course disagreeing also.

I’m always going to prefer a more fiscally conservative Mayor with policies to limit rates rises. But overall Dalziel has done a reasonable job.

Stuff reports:

A Marlborough widow has 40 days to pay back $373,000 after lying to ACC about her new partner.

The woman illegally claimed benefits for close to a decade, saying she was not in a de facto relationship, despite living with her new boyfriend, building a house and having a child with him.

The woman, who cannot be named, was eligible for survivor’s grants and weekly compensation from ACC after her husband died in an accident in the late 1980s.

She signed an ACC form every year until 2012 stating she was not married or in a de facto relationship. 

However, an ACC investigation discovered her new partner moved into her home in 1992.

They had a child together later that year, and the man became joint owner of the property in 1996.

The couple acquired a further 10 properties over the years.

ACC’s investigation in 2013 determined their relationship was “in the nature of marriage”, and weekly compensation to the woman should have stopped in 2004.

Her payments stopped following the investigation.

She admitted in an interview with ACC that she lived with the man and that they had a child together.

But she denied their relationship was de facto or in the nature of marriage.

They live together. They own property together and they have children. Of course they are a de facto couple.

She just has entitlementitis. Believed she should have got state support for ever.

She was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, which was converted to 12 months’ home detention.

She was also sentenced to 150 hours’ community work, and to repay $373,000 within 40 days.

If the woman had not paid the full amount by May 25, the court would apply to review the sentence and the only option would be prison, Judge Ruth said.

A very light sentence. Four week’s community work and staying at home.

Her name was suppressed until that date.

Her lawyer said the woman was likely to appeal the decision.

If there is an appeal, I hope there is a tougher sentence.

Stuff reports:

There will be no sudden increases in basic phone and broadband prices after telecommunications regulations get a clean sweep in 2020, the Government has promised.

In a relief for Sky Television, Communications Minister Amy Adams also said she had decided against introducing new regulations governing broadcasting competition, saying broadcasters were “facing more competition than ever”.

Yep. Competition is alive and well with almost a dozen competitors.

The rules that will govern the telecommunications industry will be largely rewritten to reflect the fact that the ultrafast broadband (UFB) network will be largely built by 2020 and will be something of a monopoly.

Adams said proposed the wholesale price of both copper and fibre broadband would be set through a “building blocks” regulatory regime, similar to one that is used to regulate utility pricing in Australia.

The wholesale price of UFB is currently set out in contracts between network builders such as Chorus and the Crown, rather than through regulations.

Some telecommunications retailers have suggested the monthly wholesale price of copper and fibre broadband and phone services could fall by at least $10 a month after the regulatory reset in 2020, meaning cheaper prices for consumers.

Adams clarified she was not assuming the new rules would push up wholesale prices rather than reduce them. “Any time you bring in a new pricing methodology no-one really knows what the outcome of that will be.

This model is basically what most other monopolies have such as airport companies and lines companies. Effectively a maximum rate of return on their assets. It’s not perfect as utilities will then try and inflate their asset base, but it is considerable simpler than the current telco regulation where the Commerce Commission has to wok out the cost of each particular service, and then what the price for it should be.

Regulation is a necessary evil when it comes to monopolies. The best response is to have competition, but when it comes to utilities such as fibre networks,  there is no economic case for competing networks, so hence you need to have some price regulation of a monopoly utility.

Pete George notes a tweet from a pollster:

Andrew from Colmar Brunton just tweeted:

Andrew Grumpollie @Unimatrix_0

Wow this week’s poll! The criticism has been much worse than usual. NEVER happens when Labour support increases.

The Herald reports:

Auckland councillor for Manurewa-Papakura Calum Penrose and journalist Duncan Garner have also called for the banning of pitbulls specifically.

Mr Penrose said to RNZ on Sunday: “there’s too many young ones across the country – and particularly in Auckland – that are getting mauled by these dogs.”

On Monday Garner penned an opinion piece which ran on Radio Live’s website, saying they were a “horrible” breed.

However Hazel’s owner, Alanna Gracie of Cambridge, says banning pitbulls is an impractical solution and unfair to the breed, which she believes have a bad rap they don’t deserve.

Cross breeding means it would be practically impossible to enforce such a breed ban, as purebred pitbulls are already banned in New Zealand.

“Where do they draw the line,” she asked.

“They’re just going off their opinion of what a pitbull is. What I think a pitbull looks like and what you think a pitbull looks like could be completely different.”

In the past, dobermans, rottweilers and German shepherds had been singled out for banning, and now it was pitbull’s turn, she said.

“Owners should be held responsible for dog attacks no matter what the breed.”

It was concerning to Ms Gracie that a dog could attack someone, be put down and then its owners could by a new dog the very next day.

The solution was not to ban breeds but to restrict dog ownership, Ms Gracie said.

I think it is both.

Generally I would say the owner is to blame, not the dog. But there are certain breeds that are inherently dangerous and violent. Every week almost there is a story about these breeds and you read that it was out of character for the dog. Well little comfort for the kid whose face was half ripped off.

I would also ban people from having dogs if they have a history of their dogs attacking people. But that is not enough. To many kids get maimed or killed by dogs, and it is almost always the same breeds. You can be the best owner in the world, but some dogs are inherently dangerous.

Stuff reports:

The FBI cracked a San Bernardino terrorist’s phone with the help of professional hackers who discovered and brought to the bureau at least one previously unknown software flaw, according to people familiar with the matter.

The new information was then used to create a piece of hardware that helped the FBI to crack the iPhone’s four-digit personal identification number without triggering a security feature that would have erased all the data, the individuals said.

A much better idea than requiring Apple to create a back door in their phones.

The Herald reports:

National is preparing to try to wrestle the Northland seat back from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and at least five potential candidates are already in line to take on the challenge.

National lost the seat to Mr Peters in a byelection last year after the resignation of MP Mike Sabin.

The date for selecting the 2017 candidate is yet to be decided, but electorate chairwoman Rose May said Northland would be among the first on National’s list.

Ms May said it would be a challenge to unseat Mr Peters, but emphasised the need for the right candidate to be selected.

“We need to have somebody who is well known in their own right and has that x-factor. If we can find that person, we will have no problem winning the seat back, but if we don’t, then it’s going to be a struggle.”

Mr Peters was “the perfect politician”, Ms May said. “He’s so well known, he’s so well liked. He doesn’t actually do anything.”

Oh he does put out press releases.

Five people are understood to be interested, including Mark Osborne, who was soundly defeated by Mr Peters last year.

Mr Osborne confirmed he was considering a second tilt, but had not made a final decision. He was “not at all” put off by his bruising first encounter with Mr Peters: “It’s not going to be an easy challenge by any stretch of the imagination.”

Others understood to be keen include Kerikeri doctor Chris Reid, former police officers Matt King and Darren Edwards, who now works for the Far North District Council, and businessman Ken Rintoul.

Dr Reid moved to Northland from Britain about 10 years ago after serving as a GP and a decade in the Royal Marines, including time with the Royal Navy’s special forces. A keen photographer, he published a book last year of photos of his patients.

I just hope the voters of Northland ask themselves in 2017, what has Winston actually done for us!

Stuff reports:

Fonterra will announce plans to cut two directors from its board on Thursday, just months after fighting off a pressure for a similar move driven by its shareholders.

On Wednesday night the dairy giant emailed its thousands of shareholders with proposals to make changes to the way it is governed. The plan will be released to the NZX on Thursday morning.

The most striking change will see the number of directors cut to 11.

I think 11 is still too large for a board. While not a hard and fast rule, the optimal size tends to be between five and nine. Less than five and you may not have enough diversity of opinion. More than nine and you find it challenging to have everyone contribute fully.

Buzzfeed reports:

On 19 April possibly the strangest democratic election to any legislature in the world will take place, with seven candidates competing for the votes of three people for one place in the British parliament.

The winning individual will be able to vote on laws, propose amendments, and challenge ministers in parliament. They’ll also be able to claim £300 a day whenever they turn up to work, take advantage of all the facilities parliament offers, and retain the job for life.

Turnout for the ballot is expected to hit 100% since the entire electorate, who collectively get to choose who will receive lifetime membership of parliament, consists of just three people.

Any British citizen is eligible to stand for election to the position on the conditions that a) they are a Liberal Democrat, and b) they have inherited a peerage from their father.

Which is three people, so three Liberal Democrat Peers will elect a forth peer to join them.

It reminds me of this Blackadder episode:

Interesting data on the number of overstayers in NZ. The change from 2008 to 2016 is:

• Total overstayers down 30%
• Samoa down 42%
• Tonga up 9%
• China down 40%
• Thailand down 52%
• UK down 26%

NBR reports:

A universal minimum income scheme to replace the welfare system would have to be preceded by tax reform and would also need to be phased in over a very long timeframe, economist Susan Guthrie says.

The Labour Party is looking at the concept, which it may adopt as one of its policy planks.

Co-author with Gareth Morgan of a book on the concept, The Big Kahuna, Ms Guthrie, who has previously worked at the Treasury and the Reserve Bank, says such a policy would also need broad agreement across the political spectrum. …

A lot of the right-wing opposition to the concept is coming from people worried about how much such a policy would cost, Ms Guthrie says.

So reforming the tax base would need to happen first.

“Quite separate conversations are being held around the world right now that actually tax bases are pretty loopy and holey and, as a separate issue, let’s close those.”

Ms Guthrie estimates such reforms would generate about $8-9 billion a year in extra taxes – about the same amount critics of the universal minimum income concept have said would be needed over and above the cost savings from dismantling the welfare bureaucracy.

So you need to tax NZers an extra $10 billion a year to pay for this UBI. And this is an UBI that would not be smaller than current NZ Super. So for 20 years or so you’d be paying NZ Super and UBI which means the gap in funding would be far greater than $10 billion.

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.