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.

The Herald reports:

Long-serving Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove has announced he will not be standing at next year’s election.

The list MP, who has been in Parliament for more than 16 years, said today it was not a decision he had made lightly.

This is no surprise. It was highly highly unlikely Cosgrove would have got a winnable list place. Many in Labour are very angry that he campaigned for Waimakariri by barely mentioning Labour on his billboards, but then took up a spot on the party list, when he effectively didn’t campaign for the party vote for them.

Speaking to the Herald this afternoon, Mr Cosgrove would not rule out leaving Parliament ahead of the election.

The next person on the Labour Party list is former party president Maryan Street, who is based in Nelson.

That would hardly be renewal.

It is a shame in one sense that Cosgrove is leaving – he was one of the few Labour MPs who had ever worked in the private sector.

I know some people hate facts getting in the way of their desire to tax anything they don’t like, but I’m quite attached to them.

Associate Professor Winsome Parnell has written at the Sugar Research Advisory Service. Professor Parnell was the Nutrition Director for the most recent NZ Adult Nutrition Survey.

New Zealanders are consuming a moderate level of sucrose that’swithin the WHO recommendation for added sugars:  below 10% of our total energy intake. Sucrose consumption can be used as a proxy for measuring added sugar intake, and sucrose intakes declined between 1997 and 2008/09, from a median of 53g/day to 48g/day. That’s about a teaspoon less per person a day – nearly 2kgs less a year!

So sugar consumption is declining in NZ, even though obesity is rising. So why is a tax on soda drinks the answer?

The latest adult nutrition survey also indicates a reduction in the proportion of sucrose from non-alcoholic beverages and sweets, and an increase in the proportion of sucrose from fruit, compared with 1997.

And less sugar is coming from soda drinks.

Every election a major study/poll is done by the academics involved in the NZ Election Study. They’ve started to release data from their 2014 study and there is a trove of interesting data, which all parties should be looking at (if they want to increase their vote).

The first set of data I want to look at is party favourability. Respondents were asked to assess how much they like each party on a 0 to 10 scale. So a 0 to 4 is unfavourable and a 6 to 10 is favourable.

So how many people had a favourable opinion of each party? This is an important measurement as it effectively shows the current maximum likely support for each party. If you don’t like a party, there’s no way you’ll vote for it. If they do like the party, they may vote for it.

National is viewed favourably by 58% of NZers. That helps explain why 47% voted for them.

Labour is viewed favourably by just 35% of NZers. This is very significant as unless they can fundamentally change the brand and image of their party, that is their effective lid.  And as they really need to get into the high 30s to be able to form a clear centre-left Government. So they have a favourability rating lower than the minimum they need to win.

The Greens are also viewed favourably by around a third of NZers. This is possibly the same third who view Labour favourably, which suggests Greens could get more votes off them. We won’t know for sure how much they overlap until NZES release the full data set.

I was fascinated that 15% had a favourable view of the Conservative Party. If things hadn’t fallen apart after the election, this indicates they had definite potential to break the 5% barrier. Also of interest is the Maori Party have 19% who view them favourably – suggesting again they could pick up more votes.

ACT and United Future both have less than 10% seeing them favourably. The change of leader of ACT may have changed that, but regardless a real challenge.

Now we turn to the Unfavourability – how many NZers say they don’t like that party.

National has the least unfavourable – only 28% of NZers dislike National. This will come as a surprise to hard left activists who live in a bubble where 100% of their friends dislike National.

At the other extreme the Internet and Mana parties were massively disliked and toxic. The thought of them deciding the Government was a turn off for many voters.

ACT have the next highest unfavourability at 55%. Not a big surprise with the Banks prosecution.  Also on 50% are the Conservatives.

All the other parties are in the 40s for Unfavourability.

Now we look at the net favourability – those who like less those who dislike.

Only one party has positive net favourability – National at +30%.

Labour and Greens are both slightly negative net favourability at -5% and -7%.  Following them is NZ First on -17%, and Maori Party -22%.

The next five are Conservatives on -35%, United -38%, ACT -37%, Mana -57% and Internet Party -72%.  The Internet Party may be the most unpopular party in the history of NZ politics.

Overall the data shows the huge gulf between National and other parties when it comes to both favourability and unfavourability.

The Herald reports:

Police officers stood at the door of Auckland’s Heritage Hotel last night, as about 80 protesters played music and chanted outside the venue.

Sophie Morgan of Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) said the group was protesting the event to draw attention to increased inequality.

She said beneficiaries, the unemployed, and low-wage workers were hit the hardest, while the rich continued to benefit.

“The Young Nats are celebrating while the policies of the National Party continue to wage a war on the poor.”

Such awful people that they can’t let a bunch of 18 to 25 year olds have a social function together.

As for their war on the poor, did they miss the first ever increase in core benefits rates since 1972 that came into force last week?

Basically these protesters would never ever be satisfied with anything National does, because simply their politics are hard left. Fair enough – but they look pathetic protesting outside a youth wing social function,

I’ve blogged at Curia the results of tonight’s One News Colmar Brunton poll.

It is almost half way through National’s third term, so it is useful to compare it to the same poll halfway through National’s second term.

In April 2013 National was at 43% and Labour 36% – a 7% gap.

In April 2016 National is at 50% and Labour 28% – a 22% gap.

This is the lowest Labour has been since the election, and also the highest National has been. And taken after the flag referendum which Labour were convinced would damage National, so they opposed change against their own policy. Nice outcome guys.

Key Little is also at 7% Preferred Prime Minister. This is the lowest for a Labour Leader since May 2010. He is now 3% behind Peters.

Labour said in December 2014 their aim was to be polling at 40% by the end of 2015. It’s April 2016 and they’re in the 20s.

If I was a Labour MP, I’d be asking what exactly do they think will change in the next 18 months, so it isn’t a repeat of the last 18 months?

Trans-Tasman reports:

Roaches have infested the press gallery. Some will take this opportunity to make obvious and uncalled for jokes but seriously: the press gallery kitchen is infested with cockroaches, and worse, the press gallery building is the only part of Parliament not made earthquake safe, and there seems no great urgency to make it safe.

Are they sure it wasn’t just Patrick Gower? (just kidding Paddy)

The political parties have different stances on the issue. National praises gallery members for their resilience and talks about doing more with less, like the public sector, although most news organisations have been doing more with less for a lot longer than the public sector has had to. Not a lot is going to change though, because it might be a bit unpopular.

Labour has some ideas for getting rid of the cockroaches, but these are not policy. There will be a Commission of Cockroaches. And position papers and lots of think pieces about what policy might be, one day, perhaps around 2025.

Winston Peters says he has been warning about cockroaches since 1984 but these folk in the media never listened, and it serves them right. But he will buy them a drink anyway.

The Green party is wondering if there is some way to get cockroaches onto buses or trains. It is also worried about emissions from this number of cockroaches.

The Maori Party is concerned the cockroaches might make stories which are disrespectful, and suggests they go and work for Radio New Zealand. Peter Dunne and David Seymour are wondering if the cockroaches can be signed up as party members.

Heh- I like the last ones especially.

I am sure improving conditions in the press gallery for be a key budget priority in the 2026/27 Budget.

Susan Hornsby-Geluk writes:

The recent exposure of employers paying holiday pay incorrectly has lifted the lid off a festering can of worms. …

So, where and why do the issues arise?

Firstly, the Act provides for annual holidays in weeks – employees are entitled to four weeks leave a year. This creates all kinds of problems because typically, we take our holidays, and our payroll systems record our entitlements, in days or hours rather than weeks.

While it’s easy to divide a “week” into a number of days for those who have a steady Monday – Friday work pattern, that is not necessarily the case for shift workers, part timers and people who work overtime. In these cases the days and hours of work may change from week to week.

Where employees move between full and part time employment, the situation becomes even more complex, requiring recalculation of leave balances based on the new hours.

Secondly, the Act contains a significant number of different calculations and formulae that must be used for working out what to pay people who are on holiday or leave.

Employees get paid “relevant daily pay” (or a different formula if this cannot be worked out) for sick and bereavement leave; time-and-a-half of relevant daily pay for public holidays; and the higher of average weekly earnings or ordinary weekly pay for annual holidays.

Average weekly earnings is the total of an employee’s gross earnings over the last 52 weeks, divided by 52. This calculation includes the value of all allowances, overtime, penal rates, incentive payments, contractual bonuses and other regular or semi-regular payments earned in the period.

Almost no employers actually calculate holiday pay different to normal pay – and to be honest the law shouldn’t require it.

Most employers just pay you your normal daily rate on a day you take annual leave. They treat it as if you were in the office. That is the common sense thing to do – you don’t get paid more or less by taking one of your 20 days annual leave.

Sadly the law though is way more complicated as described above. If you worked one extra day seven months earlier, then your average pay is higher and on your annual eave days you should get paid a few cents more.

Also if you had a pay rise, then your annual leave pay may be a bit lower than your new rate, as it is over the average of the last year.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Holidays Act is not fit for purpose. Tinkering with it in the past has not fixed the problem, and has only added to the complexity.

What is required is a complete rethink and a clean sheet of paper.

Seriously, if companies with the resources of Fonterra cannot get it right, what hope is there for anyone else?

I agree. The compliance cost burden on medium and small employers would be huge. They just want to pay what they normally pay, when someone takes leave.

What I would do is set some principles such as:

• Leave  is calculated as hours, being 8% of your annual hours (for 4 weeks leave)
• The pay rate for leave is your current contractual pay rate

So for every 100 hours you work, you earn 8 hours leave. And no calculating average pay rates for the last year – just use the standard current pay rate they get for ordinary time.

Same should apply for public holidays.

The NZ Initiative was born out of a merger of the NZ Institute and the Business Roundtable. When it was formed, there was interest about whether it would just be the NZ Business Roundtable under a different name.

The NZBR made a great contribution to New Zealand, but in its latter years was seen as too ideological and had a fractious relationship with many political parties.

I think the NZ Initiative has done really well to be a consistent and intelligent policy and ideas shop, while being able to work constructively with politicians across the political spectrum. As they approach many issues from a broadly classical liberal perspective, they of course do not have everyone agree with them. But their contributions are seen as thoughtful and constructive.

Their annual report showcases what they have achieved in the last year, and is a good read. But it is two of the quotes I wish to copy:

“I often disagree with the New Zealand Initiative’s proposals – but that’s the point. We need more challenging ideas, quality research and thought leadership in New Zealand, not less. The New Zealand Initiative makes a valuable contribution to robust debate in this country. I wish there were more institutions like them, across the spectrum, committed to finding solutions to the great challenges of our time.” James Shaw, Green Party Co-Leader

“I appreciate the Initiative’s prolific and much needed contribution to policy debate. We don’t always agree but the debate is always worth having.” Phil Twyford MP, Labour Spokesperson for Housing, Building and Construction, and Auckland Issues

I couldn’t imagine the former NZBR having a Labour and Green MP talk about their valuable contribution and useful debates. It’s a sign of their success.

Nick Leggett announced today:

LEGGETT OFFERS NEW ENERGY, NEW LEADERSHIP FOR WELLINGTON

Announcing his candidacy for the Wellington Mayoralty, Nick Leggett says the city needs new leadership and the kind of energy he can bring to the role.

“Wellington is a great city that deserves great leadership, but it’s been stalled at the lights in recent years,” Leggett said.

“As well as offering world class services and infrastructure, it’s up to the council to create fertile conditions that bring economic growth, new investment and high-paying jobs to the city. On that measure, we’ve been underperforming — and Wellington’s overdue a resurgence.”

Leggett will stand for Mayor as an independent.

“I’ve never believed party tickets play a constructive role in local government,” Leggett said.

“Wellington’s Mayor should foster a new sense of civic pride – and rally the council and community behind a vision to make the city as enticing, liveable and exciting as we know it can be.  Party labels and petty bickering are distractions we can’t afford — in local body politics, the word ‘local’ should count for a lot more than the word ‘politics’,” Leggett said.

Leggett says his connections to Wellington “run DNA-deep”.

“My family has lived here for six generations. I went to Tawa College and Victoria University and spent years working in the CBD. Porirua and Wellington’s councils might be separate entities, but we’re all Wellingtonians,” Leggett said.

Leggett said he decided to enter the Mayoral race after approaches from a wide cross-section of community and business leaders.

“I was struck by how people from such a diverse array of backgrounds shared the view that Wellington needs a jolt of adrenaline after a period of drift,” Leggett said.

Leggett said localised decision-making would be a key plank of his campaign.

“Widespread objections to the Island Bay cycleway demonstrate that residents expect better than heavy-handed, top-down decision-making that has more to do with the agendas of elected politicians than the needs of the community,” Leggett said.

“As Mayor, I will enact a policy of meaningful devolution – asking neighbourhoods to take a lead in determining local priorities, whether it’s roading improvements, better parks and recreational opportunities, or holiday programmes for kids. Technology such as social media can be a powerful engine for local democracy.”

Leggett welcomes discussion of a possible merger between Wellington and Porirua, but insists no such reform could go ahead without both cities voting on the proposal.

“I’m in favour in principle of a bigger Wellington but, like every other resident, I only have one vote. We shouldn’t be afraid of the debate, and politicians should step aside and let the community decide in the end,” Leggett said.

In light of the party’s prohibition against standing in elections with endorsed candidates, Leggett resigned from the Labour Party on Friday.

Nick is a very credible candidate who has been a popular and successful Mayor of Porirua.

This means we now have two Mayors, a Deputy Mayor and two Councillors standing to be Mayor of Wellington.

Leggett was elected Mayor of Porirua in 2010 aged 31 – NZ’s youngest ever Mayor. He got re-elected in 2013 with 76% of the vote.

Some MPs are claiming NZ is a tax haven. They’re wrong. And if you don’t trust me, look at what the Tax Justice Network said in 2013.

We’re in 48th place of 82 countries. Behind Singapore, US, Germany, Japan, Canada, Austria, UK, Israel, Belgium, Netherlands France, Australia and Ireland!  Are these all tax havens also?

We do require disclosure of details of foreign trusts – see this IRD form. This info is shared with countries we have tax treaties with. The problem is some countries don’t have tax treaties.