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.

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