Rob Salmond is sad because we take advantage of Labour’s stupidity.

In this morning’s National Business Review (paywalled), Matthew Hooton estimates Labour’s Universal Basic Income Policy could cost up to $86 billion.

This is the latest in a series of escalatingly absurdist claims about the UBI, starting with David Farrar’s $38 billion, John Key’s $76 billion, and Stephen Joyce’s 80% tax rates.

Matthew responded to Rob’s column pointing out his figure is based on a UBI with no losers. Also in my blog post I correctly calculated $38 billion is the cost of a UBI at $11,000 per adult. However I was generous and said that if you assume it replaces all current benefits then it would cost only $19 billion.

It is far from clear that it would replace all benefits. The Morgan Foundation responded to the NZTU critique by saying that it wouldn’t replace superannuation for many decades, so you can’t assume all current benefits would cease with a UBI.

But the hilarious part of the cry from Rob is this:

But here’s the thing, and I’m complimenting Matthew Hooton here: He’s far too smart to be this stupid.

I don’t think he honestly believes a UBI in New Zealand would cost $86 billion, any more than David Farrar believes it will cost $38 billion or Stephen Joyce believes it will lead to 80% tax rates.

Instead, all these insane figures are part of a deliberate, coordinated strategy of scaremongering, coming from many of the usual Dirty Politics suspects, aimed at shutting down an important policy debate just as it’s getting started.

Waa waa waa.

Dirty Politics is now the label the left give anything they don’t like. And no it is not co-ordinated. It’s more like shooting fish in a barrel – we’re all trying to join in the fun, because you can’t miss.

If Labour is so moronically stupid to float the idea of a UBI, to refuse to give any details of what level it might be, and how it might be funded, and to expect that no one would criticise them – well its beyond moronic.

Let’s turn this around. What would left commentators do if a National Opposition floated the idea of a scrapping all welfare benefits and replacing them with a negative income tax. And National refused to give any details or scope. According to Rob no one on the left should criticise this or talk worst case examples because that shuts down important policy debate.

Not only are Labour incredibly naive (to be fair most in Labour have now run 100 miles from a UBI) to be floating the idea with no details, but Rob’s ongoing defence is equally bad.

He seems to be saying oh this policy may not cost $80 billion or $38 billion or $20 billion but *only* $15 billion.

When that is your argument, well good luck with that.

Stuff reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters doubts it was “deliberate” but says Labour leader Andrew Little is wrong to say there are plans for the two parties to jointly campaign on policy.

Earlier on Sunday Little said he was talking with both the Greens and NZ First, separately, about issues where there is common ground that they could campaign on ahead of next year’s general election.

He said the public would know “well in time for next year’s election” where all three parties line-up and where there are differences.

“In terms of specific joint policy announcements, we’re certainly not there yet, but between now and the next election I certainly wouldn’t rule out (joint policy) with either of those parties.” 

But Peters says his position not to discuss potential coalition governments, or joint policy, hasn’t changed in 23 years and he “won’t depart from that now”.

“We row our own boat and we formulate our own policy.”

Labour are desperate to get Peters on board. Little claimed he wanted to get Labour to 40% so there could be a Labour-Green Government. Now as they are polling below 30%, they are aiming for 35% on a good day, which means they could only govern with both Greens and NZ First.

But will Peters want to go into a three way coalition where the Greens can veto all his policies? In a two way coalition you have a lot more leverage.

Stuff reports:

The Government isn’t fazed  by a group of health professors lobbying to introduce a tax on sugary drinks.

The professors want Cabinet to introduce a 20 per cent excise tax on sugary drinks, which they say would generate $30-$40 million that could go towards obesity prevention programmes.

Basically they want this tax to fund their own work.

Sugary drinks make up on average 1.6% of daily calories.  A tax on them would achieve nothing expect more money for the Government.

Our levels of sugar in drinks has been decreasing, while obesity has been increasing. Not surprising when they represent such a small proportion of energy.

Labour leader Andrew Little said the issue was wider than soft drinks and the country needed “to come to grips with total sugar content” in a number of foods.

Yes – Little is right on this.

At the party’s annual conference in November deputy leader and health spokeswoman Annette King set out plans to make it clear to industry to cut the sugar content in foods but ruled out a sugar tax.

On Sunday Little said getting food producers to label products more carefully and making sure they reduce the sugar content was the priority and if they didn’t co-operate there were other tools.

Sugar in food and drink has been reducing. It would be good to reduce more, but ultimately consumers should be making informed choices – not having the Government decide for them.

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 tax havens?
2. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm that KiwiBank will remain 100 percent Government owned?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Did he read the report “Taxation of Multinationals” prepared by the Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department dated 15 August 2013, and did he undertake the action sought from him to agree to the recommendations contained in that paper?
4. TODD BARCLAY to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress is the Government making in ensuring overseas-based New Zealanders meet their obligation to repay their student loans?
5. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing:Does he stand by his statement, “Well of course someone has to buy the houses and so of course they will be affordable to somebody”?
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Given his answer to Oral Question No. 1 yesterday, how does he stand by his statements?
7. STUART NASH to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has she seen on the conduct of Hikurangi Forest Farms in Gisborne?
8. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Health: How is the Government supporting the protection of New Zealanders against influenza this winter?
9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement that in Aotearoa “nobody owns water”?
11. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister for Communications: What recent reports has she received on improvements in internet speeds?
12. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister for Land Information: Can she assure the public that the Overseas Investment Office has not approved any applications by foreign investors implicated in the Mossack Fonseca tax avoidance scandal; if so, how?

National: Four questions on Kiwibank, student loans, flu and Internet speeds

Labour: Five questions on tax havens x 2, multinationals’ tax, housing and Hkurangi Farms

Greens: One question on water

NZ First: Two questions on PM standing by his statements

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

12 speeches of five minutes each for a maximum of one hour.

Members’ Bill 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for RNZRSA Clubs from Special Licencing Requirements for Anzac Day) Amendment Bill – first, second and third readings

This bill allows RSA to serve liquor on Anzac Day without needing a special licence. It is in the name of National List MP Paul Foster-Bell

• Introduced: December 2015

The bill was not drawn from the ballot but given priority by the Business Committee, which also determined it would go through all three readings. The first reading will take up to 65 minutes, there will be no debate at the second reading and up to two hours of debate for the third reading

Private Bills 7.30 pm to 9.30 pm

• Introduced: July 2015
• 1st reading: August 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2015, supported unanimously
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed unanimously
• Committee of the whole House: March 2016, passed unanimously without amendments

Curia’s monthly newsletter is out. The executive summary is:

There was one political voting poll in March 2016 – a Roy Morgan.

The average of the public polls has National 18% ahead of Labour in March, the same as February. The current seat projection is centre-right 58 seats, centre-left 51 which would see NZ First hold the balance of power.

We show the current New Zealand poll averages for party vote, country direction and preferred PM compared to three months ago, a year ago, three years ago and nine years ago. This allows easy comparisons between terms and Governments.

In the United States Obama now has positive approval ratings for the first time in many years. The prediction markets have Trump at 44% likely to win the GOP nomination and Cruz at 36%. Clinton is at 83% to be the Democratic nominee.

In the UK polls show Remain just 3% ahead of Leave in the EU referendum.

In Australia the Coalition remain ahead of Labor but Turnbull’s approval rating continues to decline.

In Canada the Liberals have dropped 4% this month but remain well ahead in the polls.

We also carry details of polls on the NZ flag and cannabis plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, please go to http://curia.us10.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=e9168e04adbaaaf75e062779e&id=8507431512 to subscribe yourself.

Bill English has announced:

NZ Post’s proposal for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the NZ Super Fund (NZSF) to purchase part of Kiwibank will ensure the bank remains wholly owned by the Government, Ministers Bill English and Todd McClay say.

Kiwibank is currently a subsidiary of NZ Post. If the proposal goes ahead, a total of 45 per cent would be owned by the two additional taxpayer-owned shareholders.

“Kiwibank will remain 100 per cent Government-owned – that is a bottom-line,” Finance Minister Bill English says.

“To ensure this occurs, the proposal includes a right of first refusal for the Government over any future sale of shares – which we would exercise.”

State Owned Enterprises Minister Todd McClay says that the proposal, which values Kiwibank at $1.1 billion, could see benefits for Kiwibank, NZ Post, ACC, NZSF and taxpayers – but needs to stack up for all parties before it proceeds.

“When NZ Post’s Chair Sir Michael Cullen approached Ministers with the proposal, he explained it could give Kiwibank access to extra sources of capital for future growth and broaden its exposure to commercial expertise,” Mr McClay says.

Very interesting.

This is a proposal from NZ Post to the Government, not vice-versa.

On first glance it seems an improvement on the status quo. The NZ Super Fund and ACC have highly skilled investment staff who would be very good at weighing up decisions around future capital for Kiwibank to grow.

NZ Post has limited capacity to invest more in Kiwibank, as its main business line is fading.

Personally I’d sell both NZ Post and Kiwibank, but that is politically not going to happen.

“NZSF and ACC would have an investment in a profitable local company. NZ Post would receive a return for the shares, some of which would be used to repay debt built up to support Kiwibank’s expansion and some would be paid to the Government as a special dividend.”

NZ Post, NZSF and ACC are currently in discussions over the details of the transaction. A final decision about whether it goes ahead will be made later this financial year.

I can’t see any reason to say no, so long as the price for the shares is fair.

The Guardian reports:

The leader of Scotland’s Labour party, Kezia Dugdale, has become the fifth key political figure and the fourth party leader in Scottish politics to come out as gay. Giving an interview to a magazine, Dugdale said she had a female partner.

Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party; Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Scottish Green party; and David Coburn, the leader of Ukip Scotland, have also come out as gay or bisexual, along with Scotland’s only Conservative MP, David Mundell, the secretary of state for Scotland.

This means Nicola Sturgeon is the only senior politician in Scotland who isn’t gay – obviously there needs to be a quota for heterosexuals!

Most people don’t care about the sexual orientation of their politicians. We should judge politicians on their choices, not on who they are.

But statistically it is rare to have so many gay senior politicians. If one accepts only 6% of the population is gay, then the chances of the leaders of the Tories, Labour, UKIP and Greens all being gay is very very small.

Wellington Deputy Mayor Justin Lester has launched his campaign with some promises. Let’s look at them:

Under Lester, any Kiwi citizen or permanent resident who builds their first home in Wellington will have the first $5000 of city council rates on that property rebated. Regional rates would still apply.

It would need to be the first home you have owned in this country. People who have owned property overseas will be able to claim the rebate, provided their residency status checks out.

Lester estimated the plan would cost the council about 500,000 per annum.

Money already set aside to market Wellington would be re-prioritised to cover the rebate, meaning no new costs would be lumped on ratepayers, he said.

“It’s about making Wellington a place where people want to live and want to succeed. So $500,000 off-set with money for economic development … is an easy win.”

So this is taking $500,000 a year from ratepayers and giving it to 100 lucky ratepayers?

Rather than have a policy to benefit just 100 ratepayers a year, why not have a policy that will benefit all aspiring home owners? Such as freeing up more land for new homes?

Allowing children under the age of five and their guardians free entry into council pools would only cost a “paltry” $55,000 per year and would also be funded from within existing budgets.

I’m okay with this one. Teaching kids to swim is important and the cost is minimal.

Charging Wellington’s bars, cafes and restaurants to have chairs and tables outdoors was only adding $75,000 per year to the council’s $450m budget, so it made sense to wave the fee and make it easier for those businesses to thrive, Lester said.

I quite like this policy also.

Lester also promised to scrap the fees businesses pay to have outdoor dining on public land, and to tackle the council’s “ingrained sexism” by having more senior female employees, if elected mayor in October. …

He promised not to interfere in the hiring process of chief executive Kevin Lavery as mayor, but said there would be expectations of more “diversity and balance” among the council’s “five or six” top leadership positions, which currently only features one woman.

He is interfering. He’s saying the next time there is a vacancy Lavery must hire a woman.

Good to have a candidate with some specific policies. I look forward to others.

Stuff reports:

For 6-year-old Maddy Hales bringing down opposition players on the rugby pitch is simple.

“You have to take out their legs and use your shoulders to tackle.”

Yep.

The rugby mad Maddy, even though still too young for tackle rugby, loves that part of the the game so much she practices her tackling at home

Along with big sister Briar, 8, the pair are two of 19,792 female players around the country to step onto the rugby pitch last year.

That number increased by thirty per cent between 2012 and 2015, making women’s rugby the highest area of player growth in the sport.

Great to see.

Dean Hales coaches his daughters’ teams at the Clive Rugby Club in Hawke’s Bay.

He was initially surprised when Briar came home from school as a five-year-old asking to play rugby.

But he said the sport was good for girls, who trained hard and listened well.

This year was the second season for Maddy, who said scoring tries was her favourite part of the game.

There’s something magical about a try. I love seeing a cricket ball go over the boundary and a football go into the net but nothing quite beats the thrill of seeing a rugby player cross the try line and touch down.

The Herald reports:

Europe is stronger with Britain in it and if New Zealand wasn’t so far away it would want to join such a union, Prime Minister John Key says.

Both those statements are true.

However the question for the UK is not whether the EU is stronger by having Britain in it, but whether Britain is stronger being in the EU.

Likewise the issue for NZ isn’t what is better for the EU, but what is better for NZ.

I think you could argue that if the UK was not in the EU, it would be better for New Zealand.

Some of the recent restrictions on Kiwis working in the UK are because the UK is trying to limit immigration from the EU. If they were not in the EU, then those restrictions on Kiwis would probably not have been put in place.

Stuff reports:

Janette Walker is in the hunt to be Kaikoura’s Labour candidate for the 2017 general election.

Walker said the Government had failed regional New Zealand and she was working hard within the social services sphere to help people in hardship and give hard-working Marlburians a fair deal.

There was a chance to turn the traditional National-voting electorate towards Labour and “knock John Key off his perch”, Walker said.

Kaikoura Labour Electorate committee chairman Corey Hebberd said nominations for the Labour candidate for the Kaikoura electorate were open until April 29.

Walker was the only candidate to make a formal expression of interest, Hebberd said.

“Unquestionably, Labour has built a strong base in the Kaikoura electorate. We’ll be fighting hard in 2017 to maximise both our party vote and candidate vote.”

A strong base?

Here’s Labour’s vote in Kaikoura:

• 1999 – 11,357 PV 10,728 EV – lost by 1,486
• 2002 – 12,636 PV 12,096 EV – lost by 3,069
• 2005 – 12,515 PV 13,080 EV – lost by 4,675
• 2008 – 10,046 PV 9,297 EV – lost by 11,077
• 2011 – 6,775 PV 8,516 EV – lost by 11,445
• 2014 – 6,269 PV 8,287 EV – lost by 12,570

If this is what Labour calls unquestionably building a strong base, I congratulate them on their strategy and commend them to continue their good work.

Richard Harman wrote in the Politik newsletter:

While the Prime Minister was sticking to his briefing notes at his weekly press conference yesterday on the question of the 11,000 offshore trusts registered in New Zealand, it appears the Clark Labour Government may have enabled their presence here. 
The 2007 rewrite of the Income Tax sets out how overseas people can set up in trusts in New Zealand and pay no tax provided that none of the income in the trust originates in New Zealand.

In 2005 Labour’s Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, tightened up reporting requirements for the trusts but emphasised that their activities would remain tax free.

He said: “”Foreign trusts will be required to have an IRD number, keep records for New Zealand tax purposes, provide certain information when they are first set up in New Zealand or appoint New Zealand trustees, and provide information to Inland Revenue on a regular basis.

Under New Zealand law, foreign income derived by non-residents is outside the New Zealand tax base, and rightly so. The government has no intention of changing that. “Because they are not taxed here, foreign trusts that are set up here do not have to file New Zealand income tax returns or keep records if they receive only foreign-sourced income.“

As is often the case with the Politik newsletter, you read stuff you don’t see elsewhere in the media.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: How does he stand by all his statements?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven because “New Zealand has full disclosure of information”, given Cone Marshall, a law firm specialising in establishing trusts for foreigners, says “The identity of the settlor need not be disclosed and the trust deed is not registered with any tax or Government authority” and “There is no obligation to file any trust accounts with any person or institution or to have such accounts audited”?
3. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing total New Zealand exports are growing, despite the dairy downturn?
4. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement from 2013 that if Auckland prices continue at the same rate the bubble would burst and “you would leave a lot of potentially first home buyers with very large loans and an over-valued property and effectively negative equity where they owe more than the property’s actually worth”?
5. MARAMA FOX to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is he taking to ensure that regional councils are effectively implementing the objectives of their regional resource management plans related to the protection of water quality from further degradation?
6. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What initiatives has the Government put in place to support health services in rural communities?
7. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealand has full disclosure of information” with respect to allegations of New Zealand being a tax haven?
8. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes were made yesterday to modernise New Zealand’s health and safety law?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Revenue: Has he sought advice from the Treasury on the impact of multinational company tax avoidance on the Government’s fiscal position; if so, what was the advice he received?
10. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Local Government: What recent reforms has he announced to improve local government services for ratepayers?
11. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister for the Environment: Does he accept that people wanting a swimmable standard for rivers are seeking to stop pollution by farms, factories and towns making otherwise swimmable rivers so dirty that they are unsafe to swim in at normal, rather than flood, flows?
12. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Canterbury employment pilot scheme Project 300 helping disabled people and people with health conditions into work?

National: Five questions on exports, rural health services, OSH, local government and Canterbury employment

Labour: Four questions on tax havens, Auckland house prices, multinationals’ tax and water

Greens: One question on tax havens

NZ First: One question on PM standing by his statements

Maori Party: One question on water quality

Government Bills 3.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill – committee stage

This bill provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during the 2016 to 2019 local authority election-cycle period”, being seven elected Councillors and six appointed Counillors.

• Introduced August 2015
• 1st reading: October 2015, passed 62 to 59 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and United Future against
• SC report: February 2016, supported with amendments by majority with Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed 62 to 59 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and United Future against

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.

Te Pire mō Te Reo Māori / Māori Language Bill – committee stage

This bill repeals the Māori Language Act 1987 and Part 4A of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to establish an independent entity, Te Mātāwai, to provide leadership on behalf of iwi and Māori regarding the health of the Māori language.

• Introduced July 2014
• 1st reading: July 2014, passed unanimously but Greens and NZ First against (forgot to call for a party vote)
• SC report: February 2016, supported unanimously with amendments
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed

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.

Stuff reports:

A secret drug-testing operation has allowed more than 60 people to test their recreational drugs at a recent festival, despite it being illegal for organisers to knowingly allow drugs on site.

The covert drug testers, operating with the festival’s knowledge, found more than half the drugs punters brought in weren’t what they thought they were.

Now more festivals – including Wellington’s Homegrown – are considering drug testing tents, but face bucking up against the law.

Over the course of the festival, Allison’s teams tested 63 samples. Of those, 57 percent were not what the festival-goers thought they had.

“A lot of people who said ‘I know this is MDMA, I tried it’ –  I showed them the charts and they were astounded.

“Just under half of the people who had samples that weren’t what they thought told us they weren’t going to take it.”

Of 22 samples taken of LSD, only six were real. A further six tested positive for N-Bom, a drug implicated in a number of deaths overseas.

Emergency medicine specialist and clinical toxicologist Dr Paul Quigley said allowing drug testing at festivals would make hospitals’ jobs easier.

He argued legalising drug testing could both reduce hospital transfers, and provide more information for police about what dangerous drugs were being sold on the streets.

“You have to quite frankly be an idiot if you think that people aren’t going to take drugs at these festivals… Instead of prohibition at least acknowledge it’s happening and let’s make it safer.”

I agree with Paul Quigley (who I also went to university with!). It is naive to think people don’t have drugs at music festivals, and if testing can reduce harm, lets do it.

An interesting survey of corporate reputations for 25 large NZ companies.

The top seven are:

1. Air NZ
2. Toyota
3. The Warehouse
4. Z Energy
5. NZ Post
6. ASB
7. Foodstuffs

The significant changes from last year are:

• Zespri +4
• Vodafone +11
• Meridian Energy +9
• Progressive -6
• Fonterra -6

Stuff reports:

The contest for Wellington’s mayoralty is heating up, with councillor Jo Coughlan announcing she will enter the race.

Improving the capital’s infrastructure will be her top priority if she manages to defeat incumbent mayor Celia Wade-Brown and fellow councillors Justin Lester and Nicola Young in October’s election.

Coughlan, who has been a councillor for nine years and in charge of economic development for the past six, said she believed Wellingtonians has been let down when it came to roading.

The biggest frustration was the failure to solve the Basin Reserve’s peak hour congestion and the “lost years” of progress that resulted from a proposed highway flyover not going ahead in 2014.

If Nick Leggett stands also, we’ll have standing two Mayors, a Deputy Mayor and two Councillors!

“We need to double-tunnel the Terrace and Mt Victoria tunnels and see four lanes along Ruahine St to the airport. Wellington’s mayor must lead on this, and that is my commitment.”

Great – four lanes from the airport to Levin is the answer.

WHO IS JO COUGHLAN?

* Married with six children aged 13 to 24.

* Has a degree in biochemistry from Otago University.

* Is director of Silvereye Communications, which provides PR and government relations advice.

* Was a press secretary for former foreign Minister Sir Don McKinnon.

* Recently stepped down, after six years, as deputy chairperson of the National Board of Life Education, which provides health education to more than 250,000 children.

Somewhat in awe of someone who has six children and manages a couple of jobs also!

Jo and I were in the same university hostel, so I’ve known here for around 30 years!

Stuff reports:

Helen Clark is poised to confirm her bid for the United Nations’ top job with John Key’s blessing.

Key is expected to announce on Tuesday that New Zealand will nominate Clark for the position of United Nations Secretary General, which becomes vacant with the retirement of Ban Ki-Moon later this year.

The Government’s backing ensures a concerted diplomatic campaign will be thrown behind Clark’s bid, and Key has made it clear he will use his access to world leaders to lobby on her behalf at every opportunity.

As head of the UN development programme Clark is already the third most powerful person at the UN.  But she has increasingly been linked to the top job, in part because of her work at the UNDP, and also because of a push to install the UN’s first female boss.

But there is stiff competition, with Clark expected to join a crowded field that hosts a number of women candidates including the current director general of UNESCO, Irina Bokova.

​There has also been speculation about a rival closer to home – former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd is said to be lobbying intensely in New York as well.

​The biggest obstacle to Clark getting the job may be UN politics, with a number of countries already stating their support for the view that it is Eastern Europe’s “turn” to hold the job.

That’s more than a view. While not a written rule, it has been the unofficial rule for decades that you rotate through the regions.

But there has been talk among UN observers, including Rudd, that Clark could emerge the “compromise” candidate if the large number of Eastern European candidates cancel each other out.

Not if they cancel each other out. It is as simple as if any of them can get past a veto from the P5, especially Russia. If Russia says one of them is acceptable, then they are highly likely to become Secretary-General. If Russia vetoes them all, then Clark’s chances become much greater.

Hard to know what Putin will do. He’d anger a lot of Eastern Europe if he blocks one of them becoming SG, but hey he’s already invaded parts of various countries, so who knows.

He believed New Zealanders would be hugely proud if she succeeded.

“If Helen became the next secretary general of the UN New Zealanders would celebrate in the same way they celebrate Lorde for her singing and Lydia Ko in golf.”

Umm, not quite. It would be a proud moment for NZ for one of us to head up the UN. But someone who has been a partisan politician will never be seen in quite the same way as someone who wasn’t.

UPDATE: Key has now formally nominated Clark. The campaign website is here. As it is Key that nominated Clark, I wonder if Labour and Green MPs will allow KDS to force them to oppose the nomination!

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.”

– Milton Friedman

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:

A supermarket in Auckland’s Grey Lynn is the latest in a spate of Countdowns caught in a police booze sting.

From April 11, the popular Williamson Ave store will be going dry for five days.

In October 2015, the store sold alcohol to a minor, the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority ruled.

I’m pleased to see strong penalties for breaches. I’ve advocated that we need better enforcement of existing laws rather than new laws.

And there is really no excuse for selling to a minor. If they look under 25 or under 30, you ask for ID – simple.

Progressive Enterprises has suffered license a variety of alcohol related suspensions and fines across its 183 New Zealand Countdown stores.

In August, 2015, Its Dunedin central supermarket lost its alcohol license for three days after illegally over-discounting alcohol.

In January 2015, Countdown Takapuna copped a seven-day alcohol sale ban after it lost its High Court appeal after serving a visibly drunk man caught on CCTV. …

Going back to 2011, the chain has had 21 alcohol license suspensions around New Zealand.

In 2015 a judge said Countdown’s repeated breaches showed systemic failures to stop underage alcohol sales.

This does suggest a possible systematic problem.

I don’t know the stats for New World, but they seem to have very few license suspensions.

The Washington Post reports:

Five key members of the U.S. women’s soccer team have filed a federal complaint against the U.S. Soccer Federation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging wage discrimination. In the complaint, the players cite USSF figures from last year showing that they were paid nearly four times less than men’s players despite generating much more revenue.

My first reaction to this story was that there is no issue if a national team of one gender is paid less than a national team of the other gender.

I imagine NZ has a men’s netball team. No one would expect that team to be paid as much as the Silver Ferns. Likewise I doubt anyone expects the Black Ferns to be paid as much as the All Blacks.

The team that attracts the most spectators and viewers is the one you expect to get paid more.

However in this case, the female soccer players have a pretty good case:

The pay disparities exist even though the U.S. women have been successful not only on the field, but also at the ticket booth and in terms of television ratings. The team’s 5-2 win over Japan in last year’s World Cup final was the second-most-watched soccer match in U.S. television history, with 25.4 million viewers. That’s also the largest television audience for a game involving a U.S. national team; the biggest audience for a U.S. men’s game was 18.2 million for a USA-Portugal World Cup match in 2014.

The women’s team also has pulled in comparable revenue to the men’s team.

Their revenue is $50 million compared to $60 million, yet they get paid around 20% of the men. I think they have a very good case.

Breitbart reports:

Rajendra Pachauri, the disgraced former head of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), has produced an ingenious defence against the sexual harassment charges he is now facing in an Indian court.
It turns out that, no he didn’t pester, bombard with emails, and grope the attractive female employee at his TERI climate research institute.

Rather, the whole thing is the result of an evil conspiracy by climate change sceptics and right-wing think tanks, funded by Big Oil. Apparently they hacked into all his computer accounts and, without his knowledge, sent a series of flirtatious emails and love poems to his unnamed accuser.

Wow that Big Oil is crafty.

If – as Pachauri claims – this really was a hack, then his persecutors certainly have a twisted sense of humour.

One of the emails he supposedly sent reads:

“I will go on a fast after a cricket match … I will break the fast only when you believe I love you with sincerity and unfathomable depth.”

Pleased to see his priorities were correct – cricket then fasting.

Sadly, though, it would appear that the Guardian article is already the subject of much ridicule in the Indian media.

First, Pachauri’s claims of hacking have already been rejected by the police investigators, who found no evidence of it.

Also, the offending messages came not only from Pachauri’s computers but also in form of text messages from his phone.

Big Oil knows no bounds!

Those living on NZ Superannuation do very well when you have low inflation but increasing wages – as NZS is linked to the median wage.

In the eight years since April 2008, the net rate of superannuation (for a single person alone) has gone from $285.87 to $384.76 – an increase of $100 a week.

This is a 28.4% increase. Inflation has been 14.2% so the real disposable income of someone on superannuation has increased 12.4%.