The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister responsible for the flag referendum process?
3. RON MARK to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement from September 2015, “But now we are moving into a bit of the cycle where it’s likely that migration must flatten out sometime.”?
4. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Revenue: What estimates, if any, does he have for the total amount of tax multinational enterprises operating in New Zealand may have avoided paying in the last tax year through incorrect transfer pricing practices?
5. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on actual and forecast job growth?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Has the district health boards’ projected deficit for the end of this financial year increased or decreased against what was planned according to advice he received in March?
7. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: How will families in low-income households be better off due to the Child Hardship Package coming into effect on 1 April?
8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he support the request made to Parliament today, by over 12,000 New Zealanders, to legislate “swimmable” as the minimum standard for our freshwater lakes, rivers and streams in New Zealand?
9. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Has real gross national disposable income per capita dropped in percentage terms over the last year?
10. DARROCH BALL to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
11. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he think home ownership in Auckland is affordable given it now reportedly takes nearly half the income of a typical first home buyer to buy a lower-end home?
12. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding irrigation funding in Marlborough?

National: Four questions on the economy, job growth, benefit increases and irrigation

Labour: Four questions on the flag referendum, DHB deficits, GNDI per capita and affordable housing

Greens: Two questions on multinationals’ tax and water quality

NZ First: Two questions on migration and PM confidence in Ministers

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

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill – committee stage

This bill is provides a new legal framework to support the regeneration of greater Christchurch over the next 5 years.

• Introduced: October 2015
• 1st reading: October 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: February 2016, support with amendments by majority, Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: March 2016, passed unanimously

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

New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Amendment Bill – first reading

The bill seeks to provide more flexibility for product groups in developing their export strategies.

• Introduced: December 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill – first reading

The bill aims to reduce offending against wildlife by improving the powers available to effectively detect and investigate offences and apprehend offenders.

• Introduced: December 2015

The first reading debate has 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes, so a maximum debate of two hours.

Stuff reports:

A new study by the Taxpayers’ Union has rubbished a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which the Labour Party is investigating.   

A discussion paper from  Labour  raised the possibility of a UBI,  where every adult New Zealander would receive $11,000 a year ($211 a week) in exchange for scrapping many current welfare payments.

To understand how daft this is, consider this.

At the last election Labour said the age of eligibility for superannuation is too low at age 65 and should go to age 67 (they’re right).

What they are now “floating” is to decrease the age of eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 18!!!

The Taxpayers’ Union has come out swinging at the idea, saying its study shows the introduction of a UBI would mean record-high tax rates, and potentially result in another recession. 

Executive director Jordan Williams said it was “startling” that  Labour  was floating the idea as it would make the most vulnerable in society worse off because higher taxes would reduce incentives for work and economic growth. 

“If you take Labour’s assurances that no one will be left worse off under their UBI, the amount would need to be so high that Treasury’s economic modelling suggests a flat income tax of between 50.6 per cent and 55.7 per cent would be needed to pay for it.”

The only way a UBI could come even close to affordable would be if it is was set at a level much lower than people on welfare currently get. And can you imagine Labour cutting the pension of every retired New Zealander?

Labour’s finance spokesman, Grant Robertson, said the party did not have a policy to introduce a UBI, but was “investigating a range of options” to ensure New Zealanders have income security.  

Yeah, investigating allowing people to get superannuation from age 18!

“We are following the debate on UBI with interest, but we do not regard the Taxpayers’ Union as either credible or independent commentators on this matter or many others,” he said. 

Claims that taxes would soar to more than 50 per cent were incorrect.  

They’re not. Unless you introduced new taxes such as capital gains, that is what you would need to fund a UBI at the level of NZ Superannuation.

The study also addressed Gareth Morgan’s theory of a UBI, which he proposed in his book The Big Kahuna. 

The study said Morgan’s idea would cost $10 billion more than the current welfare system. 

Morgan, who had not seen the study, said claims it would cost that much were “ridiculous”. 

Introducing a UBI would have to be part of a larger overhaul of the tax system, he said. 

Morgan’s website makes very clear that a UBI could not be funded out of current taxes and would need both higher marginal tax rates on lower paid workers and a capital gains tax.

The NZTU report will be on the website later today.

UPDATE: It is here.

Louisa Wall writes:

Last week in New York at the 60th Commission on the Status of Women I attended a session titled “Advancing Gender Equality through Sports: 2030 Agenda – the contribution of sport to achieve gender equality and end violence against women and girls”, organised by Mission of Brazil, United Nations Women, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

One idea proposed was for all international sporting organisations – and therefore national sporting organisations – to have 50 per cent of women on their boards to qualify for their sport to be at the Olympics. 

What a daft idea.

Some sports are male dominated and some are female dominated. So rugby union would not be eligible to be an Olympic sport unless half the board were women.

Does this apply in reverse? Netball is a female dominated sport. Would netball be banned if half the board are not men?

Just ‘ is you own a flash beach house doesn’t mean you get to decide our flag. #democracy #FixChildPovertyInstead pic.twitter.com/aaWtejxA7P

— Sue Moroney (@suemoroney) March 27, 2016

Just look at the hatred and resentment coming from Labour MP Sue Moroney towards these people.

Their sin is:

1. They own a beach house
2. They were flying the Kyle Lockwood flag

Is this a new Labour policy – people who own beach houses should not get to vote?

Perhaps this sneering at New Zealanders explains Moroney’s electoral record:

• 1996 – lost Karapiro
• 2002 – lost Piako
• 2005 -lost Piako
• 2008 – lost Hamilton East
• 2011- lost Hamilton West
• 2014 – lost Hamlton West

UPDATE: I’m told Sue Moroney has a beach house herself. So she is against beach house owners, except if they are Labour MPs? Hypocritical as well as offensive.

The Herald has been running a series on multinationals, and the low level of tax they pay in NZ.

But there is one multinational they have ignored.

That is APN, which by coincidence owns the NZ Herald.

The Herald keeps looking at tax paid in relation to revenue, so we should do the same for APN. What are the stats?

• Revenue – 2014 $843.1 m, 2015 $850.0 m
• Tax paid – 2014 $9.2m, 2015 $19.8m
• Tax as a percentage of revenue – 2014 1.1%, 2015 2.3%

But that isn’t the real shocker. Here’s the real hypocrisy.

The 20 companies being targeted by the Herald have all paid the amount of tax they are legally bound to pay. APN HAS NOT.

Look at their annual report:

The Company is involved in a dispute with the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department (IRD) regarding certain financing transactions. The dispute involves tax of NZ$64 million for the period up to 31 December 2014. The IRD is seeking to impose penalties of between 10% and 50% of the tax in dispute in addition to the tax claimed. The Company has tax losses available to offset any amount of tax payable to the extent of NZ$48 million.

On 22 February 2013, the Adjudication Unit of the IRD advised that it agrees with the position taken by the IRD. Accordingly, the Company was issued with Notices of Assessment denying deductions in relation to interest claimed on certain financing transactions. In response to this step, the Company has commenced litigation in the High Court of New Zealand to defend its position in relation to this matter.

APN, the owners of the Herald, are tax dodgers. The IRD has pinged them for $64 million of tax, and penalties of up to 50% (which they generally only do if they think it is in bad faith). And APN are fighting this in court.

How on earth does the Herald have the gall to lecture other companies on the amount of tax they pay, when their own parent company has been found by the IRD Adjudication Unit to have illegally dodged $64 million of tax.

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.”

– Abraham Lincoln

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.

A pet peeve of mine is that we don’t do well in NZ with displaying out history. We have so few statues and history panels around our cities. Take for example, Wellington. We’re named after one of the greatest people in British and military history. But where would you find that around the city? We should have a statue of the Duke of Wellington, explaining we are named after him.

For those interested, I’ve done a table of who or what the 13 major cities in New Zealand are named after. If I have the time, I may extend it to larger towns.

I knew most of these before I looked them up, but not the Hutt or Invercargill ones.

Stuff reports:

Kids at a Wairarapa primary school will no longer be able to climb trees on school property because of fears the school could be fined if there was an injury.

The new Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), a response to the Pike River mine tragedy, comes into effect next week.

It will have a big impact on the legal liability of schools and especially the principal – who could be fined up to $600,000 if someone is hurt. 

The cure is often an over-reaction to the problem.

Because people died at Pike River (which happened due to breaches of the current laws), the Government is told it must have much stronger safety regulation in every aspect of NZ life – workplaces, schools, voluntary organisations and the like.

The result is kids can’t climb up trees anymore, because somehow this might stop another Pike River.

I recall at school once s piece of 4 by 2 fell out of a tree structure onto my head. It hurt, and I needed stitches. I think the tree fort was made safer.

Today there would be a full OSH inquiry, consultants hired, and somebody fined for it.

UPDATE: Worksafe NZ advises the school has been advised by MoE they are over reacting and absolutely no need for tree climbing ban.

The Telegraph reports:

Jeremy Corbyn’s PMQ’s performance was an ‘effing disaster’ and David Cameron turned the Party into a laughing stock, according to one Labour MP.

John Woodcock accidentally tweeted out a private message on Twitter, which he has since deleted, saying: “F****** disaster. Worse week for Corbyn since he came in and that stupid f****** list makes us into a laughing stock.”

The Prime Minister repeatedly mocked the Labour leader for a leaked ‘list’, which categorises Labour MPs by their loyalty to Corbyn.

“You can include me in the ‘core support’ group”, he joked.

Labour’s London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan and Ed Miliband have been reportedly labelled “hostile” towards Jeremy Corbyn.

The document, which was leaked to the Times, was reportedly complied by the Labour leader’s political secretary Katy Clark and dates back to January.

I wonder if NZ Labour has such a list. As only four MPs voted for Little (including himself), the core support group could be pretty small 🙂

Stuff reports:

Easter Sunday – it’s quiet. But next year it could be bustling.

Labour leader Andrew Little has expressed favour in allowing shops to trade on the weekend, but he had a few concerns.

“I wouldn’t object to a law that allowed trading on Easter Sunday, providing the right of the worker to genuinely opt-out,” he said.

That’s great. Such a sensible position.

The union movement insists that employers are evil and no matter what the law says, will force employees to work on Easter (ignoring they already work Easter Saturday and Monday).

Little seems to be saying what I advocate – if an employer wishes to open, an employee wishes to earn some extra money and customers wish to shop, then the law should not make that illegal.

The amendment to allow councils to create bylaws and decide for their areas was “wrong in principle”. Little believed the laws should apply nationally.

My preference is for there to be no ban on shops opening nation-wide.

But allowing each Council to decide is preferable to the status quo of a few historic areas being allowed to open, while others can’t.

Ultimately, Little was prepared to run with public sentiment on the issue, as long as Kiwis could decline to work.

“The bottom line is you’ve got to protect the right of workers to genuinely opt-out and not be subject to stigma and pressure.”

The Labour Party would make be making a conscience vote on the legislation, meaning each member would vote individually.

Why not put up an amendment to allow Easter trading nationally, in return for penalties on employers who coerce employees to work?

Stuff reports:

Two brothers fighting for Vogel House to be returned to their family say preserving their heritage should trump government red tape.

“It’s very important with this cultural heritage that we are not alienated from it because [the government] wants to follow some blind policy,” Geoff Vogel said.

Geoff and his brother Tim are fighting for the multimillion-dollar Lower Hutt home, built in 1933 for their grandparents, James and Jocelyn Vogel as a wedding present. …

In 1965, Jocelyn gifted the stately home to the Government, which has decided to dispose of the property, citing high maintenance costs.

With respect, it is not their house. It was gifted by their grandmother to the Crown. She could have stated that it was to be returned to the family, if ever not needed. She didn’t.

The Government has decided to offload the home to two charities that are beneficiaries of Jocelyn’s will – Wellington SPCA and the Vogel Charitable Trust, which gives grants to the needy in Lower Hutt.

I believe in respecting the terms of the will.

Geoff added: “The government has had 50 years’ free use of it and need to man up and give us our house back.”

It is called a gift, made by their grandmother. That’s not free use. That is receiving a gift.

This property is held under the Land Act 1948. Under this legislation, the Crown land commissioner decides how the property should be disposed of and, in this case, has ruled it should go to the two charities.

Under the act, anyone aggrieved by the commissioner’s decision can apply for a rehearing, which the Vogels are in the process of doing.

If the commissioner ultimately rules in their favour, the Vogels intend to live in the house with their families, if they decide they can afford its maintenance costs.

That reads to me that they could very well sell it.

They have every right to test their case in court. But they are also trying to test their case by trial of media.

He acknowledged selling was an option the brothers would have to address, if they were unable to meet ongoing costs.

“If it’s far too expensive to maintain, then the only other realistic option is to sell it.”

So it is about the money. Fair enough. The property is valued at just under $4 million. Who wouldn’t want $4 million for nothing.

Stuff reports:

Sevens rugby is to stay in Wellington, with the capital the only city serious about hosting the colourful sporting spectacular.

Wellington has won the event at a cut cost against scant opposition, sources say.

No contracts have been signed but, following detailed board room discussion, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) is expected to confirm on Thursday the event will remain in the capital for the next couple of years.

I’m glad. Now the challenge is to make it fun again.

A combination of factors, including waning interest and a crackdown on intoxication which led to breath-testing complaints, has turned punters off the event in recent times.

New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association chief executive Rob Nichol is confident the event can be a success.

“We all know for various reasons and pressures there’s been a move towards a more responsible pitch of the tournament where there is the opportunity to go and have your party, but there has to be certain levels of responsibility met,” Nichol said.

Breath testing people at a sports game is just nuts,and if they keep that up, it will die.

Maungaraki School Special Licence Decision

You have to read this decision on an alcohol licence. It was granted, which was the right decision. But the amazing thing is the local Medical Officer of Health opposed it. It shows the wowser culture that public health activists are trying to create so some adults can’t have a drink in the school staffroom during a gala.

The MOH argued that this would normalise alcohol consumption for children, while the committee correctly said that the event is a good opportunity to model responsible and moderate alcohol consumption.

What annoys me is that taxpayers are funding this activism. Surely the Medical Officer of Health has more important things to do than try to prevent a one off alcohol licence for a gala.

Liam Hehir writes:

So now that Andrew Little has said Labour is “keen” to have a “debate” on whether New Zealand should adopt a Universal Basic Income, you might infer this means that a UBI is something he would like to see happen. And the chances are you’re probably right. 

Under a UBI, every New Zealander would receive a benefit. Everybody would get the same amount, regardless of their employment status, wealth or needs. There would be no strings attached and so every person would be guaranteed the bare necessities of existence without the need for work (though if mere existence were not enough, you would certainly be free to pursue employment).

You can spend your life never working, if you want to!

In fact, the idea of a UBI has tempted many anti-socialist thinkers down the years. And I’m not just talking about eccentric cranks here. Nobel laureates Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, arguably the most influential free-market economists of the 20th century, both supported some form of a UBI. 

A UBI is attractive in theory. But no one has ever managed to get the sums to work without either it being set at a level too low to live on, or without it needing massive tax increases.

In the first place, these schemes usually operate on the basis that the new system would completely supplant the existing galaxy of benefits, allowances and other payments comprising the constellations of the modern welfare galaxy. For example, the UBI proposed by Charles Murray (an influential American political scientist) would see the termination of all individual social welfare programs in favour of a simple annual payment to all adults of $10,000 USD.

Because the UBI would be so easy to administer, the argument goes, its implementation would allow the wholesale dismantling of much of the existing state bureaucracy. Many on the Right see the existing welfare apparatus as being unavoidable expensive, clunky and impossible to control – and a few even see it as a threat to democracy itself. The UBI looks almost elegant in comparison.

The trouble is, it never will replace all benefits. Can you imagine any Government (let alone Labour) saying to a couple with five kids that they won’t get a cent more than a couple with no kids?

The obvious problem is the cost. A serious UBI would almost certainly consume most existing state revenues. Some would argue the answer would be to fund it through massive tax hikes. The trouble is that you can only do that so much before government revenue actually decreases as the productive sector disintegrates under the weight of ever increasing taxation.

Labour’s UBI would need an 82% tax rate on those earning over $48,000.

The reality is that a UBI is fun to speculate about, but it is entirely detached from the realities of today’s politics. 

This is the real problem with what Little said. The Opposition gets a limited amount of free media attention. Why burn it up by calling for a “debate” on something that will never happen? 

Shoot for something a little more achievable, I say – like colonising the moon.

I’d be amazed if Labour adopt it as a hard and fast policy, as simply the numbers don’t add up.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says:

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has today called for people to take heed of a report showing that electric cars help combat climate change, but solar panels do little. 

The report released today by Concept Consulting looks at the impact of both electric cars and solar panels on New Zealand’s carbon footprint. 

“If we are serious about tackling climate change, we must keep crunching the numbers. Sometimes the results will be surprising,” said Dr Jan Wright.

“Electric cars are a ‘no-brainer’. Carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles are a big problem and getting worse. Electric cars must be part of our future.”

In contrast, the Concept report shows that solar panels do little to help in New Zealand. In winter the carbon dioxide emissions from generating electricity are at their highest. But solar panels are most effective in summer.

Plus much of our electricity is already from renewable sources, with low carbon emissions.

I’ve just test driven an electric car for a week. Will review separately, but overall have to say very good for getting around the city.

The Guardian reports:

The police investigation into an alleged VIP paedophile ring that was accused of killing three children has collapsed.

The Metropolitan police confirmed on Monday afternoon that Operation Midland had closed after 16 months of investigation.

The force made a statement shortly after the last living suspect in the inquiry said he had been told he would face no charges. Harvey Proctor, the former Conservative MP, was given the news on Monday afternoon following a conversation between his solicitors and a senior Met officer. …

It is understood the police found no evidence to substantiate claims from a single witness, known only as Nick, that Proctor had murdered two boys and helped to organise the murder of another.

The decision to clear Proctor is a humiliating admission for the Met, which had previously described his accuser’s allegations as “credible and true”.

The high-profile investigation has involved raids on the homes of Proctor, the late Lord Brittan and the war hero Lord Bramall.

While all allegations must be investigated, the huge publicity given to the claims of Nick always seemed baffling to me.

It is quite possible that a British MP or MPs have been pedophiles.

But the idea of an organised ring is the stuff of fantasy. If you are a pedophile, you are unlikely to share your secret with your opponents (or colleagues).

Operation Midland has been running for 16 months and has cost in excess of £2m as it examines the allegations of one complainant, known as Nick, that a paedophile ring containing powerful establishment figures abused him from the age of seven until he was 16 and was responsible for the murders of three young boys.

It took 2 million pounds to investigate??

As a result of Nick’s allegations officers opened murder inquiries into the killing of three young boys. But they never established the identities of the victims, recovered any bodies or linked the allegations to reports of young boys who had gone missing in the period in question.

So it may all be fantasy. I can’t imagine three kids get murdered and no one notices.

In December 2014, Scotland Yard held a press conference in which they revealed they were investigating the murders of three young boys and the abuse of children which had taken place over a decade at the various locations. Most significantly a senior officer on the homicide command, detective superintendent Kenny McDonald, said the claims by the witness Nick were “credible and true”.

Or incredible and false.

The Herald reports:

Right-winger Stephen Berry has pulled out of the Auckland mayoral contest at October’s local body elections and endorsed centre-right candidate John Palino.

In a statement issued today, Mr Berry said when he announced in April 2015 he would run for the mayoralty, he said he would stay in the race as long as there was not another candidate with similar policies who stood a better chance of winning.

“Initially, when John Palino announced he would stand for the mayoralty again, I was sceptical of the benefits of yet another candidate splitting the centre-right vote and allowing Phil Goff to sleepwalk to victory.

“Unlike some other centre-right candidates, John has not been slow to offer solutions to the issues facing Auckland. His proposal to cut rates by 10 per cent over three years is a great starting point in the conversation about the role Auckland Council has assumed.

“John’s call to abolish the Metropolitan Urban Limit mirrors my own proposals to increase housing supply, while his plan to create development hubs outside of the central city revolutionises the usual tired central planning mantra.”

Mr Berry said he believed Mr Palino’s policy positions make his own candidacy unnecessary for this election cycle.

“That’s why I am now endorsing John Palino to be the next Mayor of Auckland.”

Mr Berry was the Affordable Auckland candidate for Mayor in 2013 where he finished third behind Mr Palino, taking nearly 4 per cent of the vote.

Good to see the number of candidates on the centre-right reducing. The more there are, the better it is for Phil Goff.

Stuff reports:

Slashed levels of funding and tight rules around access to a legal assistance fund are blocking conservation groups from a fair hearing on environmental issues, say the Greens. 

Information released by the Ministry for the Environment shows the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund has massively underspent, and after a slight trend upwards since 2010, has had $445,000 slashed from its budget since the 2013-14 financial year.

The fund helps community groups such as residents associations and Forest and Bird to participate in major environmental decisions, under the Resource Management Act. 

This is de facto taxpayer funding of environmental lobby groups. There should be no legal aid at all. If an environmental group wants to take someone to court, they should use their own funds to do so, not my taxes.

The Herald reports:

Kiwi company My Food Bag is offering a double helping of parental leave to staff who are having kids.

All new parents and primary caregivers – including dads – will be allowed an extra 18 weeks of paid leave, on top of the 18 weeks the Government will offer from April 1.

And if staff choose to work through the extra 18 weeks, the firm – co-founded by Nadia Lim and Cecilia Robinson, who are both pregnant – will boost their salary during that time, paying them an extra 60 per cent.

“Our philosophy is about healthier, happier families at home and we do that through our food and recipes,” said Lim, 30, who is due to give birth to her first child in three weeks. “It makes sense to extend that philosophy to helping families through our workplace as well.

“You get so much more out of your staff when they’re healthy and happy.”

My Food Bag is also giving all parents an extra six sick days a year, and has created a flexible environment for mums and dads returning to work, including the options of working shorter days and working from home.

That’s a great move by My Food Bag, and their staff will be thrilled.

But note this was a voluntary decision by the owners and management. That is how it should be. It may lead to competition, and some other firms feeling a need to try and match that. Excellent.

But that is different to legislating for such policies. Not all companies are the same, and not all employers can afford to be so generous.

The Herald reports:

The man who trolled Associate Tourism Minister Paula Bennett over her charge against the sexist slogans says he’s had threats made against his daughter since he posted his comments.

John Lehmann wrote on Ms Bennett’s Facebook page yesterday that a “bit of sexual violence never hurt anyone … LOL”, sparking outrage from anti-violence campaigners.

He has had a barrage of angry messages from strangers, some more extreme than others.

“I had one that sent me a photo of my daughter and said ‘let’s try some abuse on her’.

“Those are the nutters bringing your kids into it,” he told the Herald.

Mr Lehmann, an Auckland resident, said his comments were “taken out of context” and admitted it was tasteless and he didn’t in “any way advocate violence”.

“It was a joke, just a wind up,” he said.

He said he wrote “LOL”, – laugh out loud – to show it was a joke.

However he said the actions of Ms Bennett singling out his comment on her Facebook page was “quite malicious”.

“She set the population against me and is trying to get political mileage,” he said.

What a doofus.

Anyone who writes on someone’s page “A bit of sexual violence never hurt anyone” is incredibly stupid or moronic, regardless of the LOL.

To do it on the page of a female Cabinet Minister is even more stupid.

All Paula did was highlight the comment. She didn’t even link to his profile. And you know what Lehmann did? He proudly commented on that thread, gloating there, thinking he was invincible.

And then the media picked it up, and he’s now whining over the attention.

While he received negative messages, he’s had many say the actions of the associate tourism minister were “tacky”.

“A vast number of people were horrified a member of public was used as a target.”

A vast number means him. And he made himself the target. Paula did not.