The Herald reports:

A Manurewa property owner who owes $11,000 in rates has lost her home in a court ordered mortgagee sale.

The unrepentant owner had refused to back down, saying she does not recognise Auckland Council’s authority and her property is not for sale.

“I don’t see how those people can come in and take my house.”

Quite easy. It is called the law.

Council general manager accounting services Sharmaine Naidoo said Ms Marsh had made no rates payments since August 6, 2010, and currently owed $11,781.27.

“Council has sent four rates notices and around eight reminder letters to the ratepayer each year, however they have been returned to council.

So why did she stop paying?

Ms Marsh, who works for KiwiRail, told the Herald she had paid her rates to the rightful landowner – Arikinui o Tuhoe – and she refused to recognise the council’s authority over the land.

Does Tuhoe provide water to her former house? Do they provide sewerage?

“The house is not their house to take. I own the house which is fully paid for.”

You did own it. No longer.

Though she could afford to pay the outstanding rates, she refused to do so. The issue was not a Maori land rights issue “as such”. “It’s got everything to do with the rights of people all over.” Asked if she was prepared to lose her house, she said: “I’m certain that’s not going to happen.

“I don’t give them permission to sell it. It’s my home and they want to sell my home for $11,000. It’s a kick in the teeth. Who has the right to do that?”

The Council when you refuse to pay your rates.

Personally if I was the Council I’d be more inclined to just cut off their water and sewerage until they paid.

Property records show Ms Marsh has owned the house since January 1995, when it was purchased for $137,000.

So she paid for 15 years but suddenly in 2010 decided she no longer had to pay.

With three members’ bills yesterday completing their first readings, that means another three get drawn from the ballot today. Those in the ballot as of late last night are:

dd

The bills by party (Ministers excluded) are:

• National – 13/34
• Labour – 31/32
• Greens – 14/14
• NZ First -11/12
• Maori – 1/1
• ACT – 0/1

If the other 21 National MPs got a bill in the ballot (or could get agreement of the hierarchy for their bills) then the chances of a non hostile bill being drawn would increase from 13/70 to 34/91 or from 19% to 37%.

The Dom Post editorial:

Changing the rules, however, proved much more tortured than it needed to be. The ACT MP David Seymour saw an opportunity to throw off the yoke of alcohol licensing laws, and introduced a bill to let pubs open for all cup games. Yet the Greens at first scuppered the effort, concerned, they said, about drunks spilling out of bars as parents dropped children off at school.

So Prime Minister John Key said he would consider urgent legislation, and levelled that the Greens were eternally “opposed to anything that’s sort of vaguely good fun”.

It’s true that the political rituals of this are wearying – the male politicians bragging about how much they enjoy beer, the charge that all those concerned about alcohol harm are wowsers.

Yet the Greens’ complaints were too precious by half. This wasn’t the issue on which to make a heroic stand about the perils of drink. Relatively few people will race to a pub to see the All Blacks stomp on Namibia at 7am on a Friday – and only a handful will drink too much as they do so.

Judging by past Football World Cup games screened at dawn in Courtenay Place, more fans are likely to eat a pub breakfast on their way to work. In any case, several All Blacks games start at 8am, when pubs can be open anyway.

The Greens pointed out that pubs can already apply for special licences to show cup games. But those require outlets to jump through silly hoops, like imposing a fancy-dress requirement or holding a quiz. No-one needs such frippery at 4am.

By yesterday afternoon, the Greens seemed to have realised this – they withdrew their opposition to Seymour’s bill, apparently after assurances that it would be tweaked.

The bill was always open to amendment at select committee. Nothing has changed there.

The real story is that on Tuesday night, after they refused leave for the bill to be introduced, was the annual function of Saunders Unsworth. This is one of those events where half of Parliament attends, along with scores of business and community leaders, plus media.

It is a great networking event. You have around 50+ conversations with different people, normally on very different topics.

I understand from multiple sources that James Shaw and Julie-Anne Genter had dozens of conversations with people there. But there was only one topic. Why the hell did you stop the bill to allow bars to be open for the rugby. As the night wore on, I think they realised how badly they had stuffed up. This was summed up by this tweet from their supporter, Danyl:

The day John Key saved the rugby! GREAT job, Green Party. pic.twitter.com/tlNQItOKw2

— Danyl Mclauchlan (@danylmc) August 11, 2015

The next day the Greens changed their stance 100%.

The opposition to the bill was obviously led by Kevin Hague who denounced the idea of bars being open as appalling – drunken revellers spilling out of pubs as schools open. I wonder if the new co-leader effectively pulled rank and just told his caucus that they need to back down on this, or be tainted with it for years to come?

Peter Reidy, CE of Kiwrail writes at Stuff:

The cost of rail to New Zealanders and the value of rail to New Zealanders are two different debates. They are related, but they are not the same.

This financial year, for example, taxpayers will contribute $210 million to KiwiRail. That is one very basic measure of the cost of rail. Also this year, freight trains will replace an estimated 1.4 million trips that would otherwise have been required by trucks on our roads. That is a measure of the value of rail.

One could divide the value by the cost and get the taxpayer subsidy for each truck trip not required is around $150.

But actually it is more complicated. Most freight trains operate profitably. The $210 million subsidy will only be for a small portion that are on unprofitable routes.

The benefits can also be measured in lower carbon emissions because of greater fuel efficiency than road transport, and reduced congestion on the roads.

Yes, but that is why we have a price on carbon. That price should cover the carbon emissions of road transport which makes rail more economic. However even with that, rail is needing $200 million a year.

It is estimated that in June alone, Wellington commuters avoided more than 650,000 car trips by taking a train. Fewer vehicles on the road also means a likely reduction in accidents, and the need for fewer new roads.   

Yes, but that is not the part of the network needing the $200 million subsidy. Wellington rail is funded by user fees and direct transport funding by local authorities.

I agree with Transport Minister Simon Bridges that it is worth investigating whether a stronger land transport system can come from a more integrated approach. That means that the various attributes of road and rail would be weighed and considered when making planning and investment decisions about transport. At KiwiRail, we think a more integrated land transport strategy would make more efficient and effective use of the significant investment that New Zealanders make in road and rail.

The reality is that we currently operate lines that are uneconomic. To us, it makes sense that where there is minimal bulk freight to be carried, then trucks should do the work and where the bulk freight load is highest, trains should be preferred. It is about the need for road and rail to work together and “code-share” to determine the most efficient arrangement in the best interest of the Government’s business growth agenda, and in the best interests of New Zealanders themselves.

I agree. Where there is lots of freight, use rail. But where there is minimal bulk freight, then trucks are the sensible choice.

Stuff reports:

Heritage campaigners are dismayed by the rejection of a council proposal to protect pre-1944 character housing areas.

The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel rejected the council proposal for a pre-1944 damage control overlay in the proposed Unitary Plan as “unnecessary”.

The overlay is a proposed interim measure to last for three years and protect all pre-1944 houses not already covered by special character or heritage controls.

This interim period is to allow the council to assess each house individually and determine its historic and special character value.

The panel says based on the evidence submitted, the pre-1944 buildings are not deserving of historic heritage scheduling or inclusion in a special character area.

Very pleasing the panel is making decisions on evidence, not sentiment.

This would have deprived every home owner of a pre 1944 home of the ability to control their own house.

Decisions on heritage status should be based on individual properties, not broad classifications.

In theory the Council only wanted this for an interim period, but I am sure once all these houses were classified as heritage, it would be an uphill struggle to get them removed.

The panel’s interim guidance is not binding and the council will have the final say on the pre-1944 demolition control.

It will do this once the panel makes its final Unitary Plan recommendations toward the end of 2016.

Hopefully they will not over-turn the panel.

The Herald reports:

A pizza company’s drivers will be able to be tracked from the moment they leave the store to when they drop the pizza off at your door.

Domino’s New Zealand general manager Scott Bush said the company’s GPS Driver Tracker was developed with Navman Wireless as an extension to the company’s smartphone app and is launching in New Zealand following a successful trial in Australia.

“Our customers will be able to watch their driver on route to their door in real time [and] know exactly who their driver is,” Bush said.

The software was inspired by Uber and also works on desktop computers and also keeps delivery drivers safe, Bush said.

This is a very smart move. It is frustrating not knowing when your pizzas will arrive, and the ability to see where the drive is in real time, will be a significant selling point.

It won’t be the only point of difference. Taste is still king, and for me Hell reigns supreme over Pizza Hut and Dominos. Wholly Pizza is very good also.

However another story by Stuff has the unions protesting this really smart move:

Service and Food Workers Union organiser Russell Taylor said unions were nervous about monitoring technology in the workplace, which was becoming more common.

“It’s an invasion of privacy. Employers say it’s being done for the benefit of the employees but more often than not it is used against them.”

Unions did not want workplaces relying on technology for health and safety.

“In our view all workers should be within sight and sound of another person at all times,” he said.

Is it any wonder why so many unions are regarded as dinosaurs?

Stuff reports:

New Zealand will let 27 people who came here under false refugee claims stay.

Radio New Zealand obtained documents from Immigration New Zealand’s refugee and protection unit and appeal tribunal.

The Immigration New Zealand’s refugee and protection unit were not happy with the decision by Department of Internal Affairs to allow the 27 refugees to stay in New Zealand despite it being found out, once the refugees were in New Zealand, that their claims had been false.

I’m not happy either.

The department had not explained its reason for allowing the refugees to stay, Radio NZ reported.

They should front up and explain.

The minutes show Immigration NZ believed the decision undermined the refugee system from being a future target for fraud.

You encourage more fraud if you reward the fraudsters with what they wanted to achieve with their fraud.

Labour immigration spokesperson Sue Moroney said Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne needed to explain the situation, which could have left 27 genuine refugee claims out in the cold.

Yep, there are a limited number of spaces.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on recent developments in the international economy, and how will these affect the New Zealand economy?
2. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: If Government health expenditure has not kept up with all inflationary pressures as he admitted two weeks ago, what impact has this shortfall had on patients?
3. DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he happy with the financial returns the taxpayer is achieving from State-owned enterprises; if so, why?
4. RON MARK to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he have confidence in his department?
5. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Economic Development:What reports has he received on how New Zealand’s industries have diversified since 2008?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he have a “Plan B” for the New Zealand economy, as has been called for by ANZ Bank Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie, or is he satisfied with the prospect of rising unemployment, declining GDP growth and shockingly low business confidence as described by the Westpac Quarterly Economic Overview?
7. METIRIA TUREI to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the legislative framework of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies that “there are a range of deficiencies that they have identified”?
8. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand’s domestic violence laws?
9. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Aucklanders are getting wealthier because their house prices are going up?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Trade: Does he have any concerns about the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, provisions which allow multinational companies to sue governments in secretive offshore tribunals; if so, what are those concerns?
11. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he seen on growth in beef exports?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement today that Hon Murray McCully was saying “he didn’t want the lawyers brought in to be talking about compensation because the deal was never about compensation and he didn’t want lawyers going in there saying that”, given that Cabinet noted the “settlement for the long running dispute” was part of the purpose of the $4 million payment to a Saudi investor; if so, why?

National: Four questions on the economy x2, domestic violence and beef exports

Labour: Four questions on health spending, the economy, Auckland housing and the Saudi Arabia farm

Greens: Two questions on intelligence agencies and the TPP

NZ First: One question on Minister of Internal Affairs having confidence in his department

ACT: One question on SOEs

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

The general debate is 12 speeches of up to five minutes each for a debate of an hour.

Private Bills 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

• Introduced: July 2015

• Introduced: June 2015

News.com.au has a list of the 10 worst spending excesses by Australian MPs, and what strikes me is that almost all of them couldn’t happen here. Let’s go through them:

1. $152,000 on office admin costs including printing of $100,000. NZ MPs get a bulk allocation for office costs they must live within ranging from $47,000 to $110,000 depending on size of electorate
2. Office renovation for an MP of $150,000. NZ MPs just get assigned an office in Parliament and the bulk budget above is for out of prlt offices.
3. $200,000 on office facilities for a Minister. Again in NZ Ministers just basically get a standard office.
4. An ex MP has spent $250,000 on 750 taxpayer funded flights. In NZ ex MPs no longer get free travel after they retire.
5. A Senator spent $74,000 on domestic airfares. This could happen here as no cap on domestic airfares, but quarterly publication of costs discourages them.
6. An MP spent $43,625 on overnight stays away from home and Parliament. This would be very hard to do in NZ as MP can claim only $210 a night.
7. An MP spent $67,000 on chartered flights. NZ MPs can not charter flights except in exceptional circumstances for maybe the PM or senior Ministers.
8. An MP had $28,500 of family travel. In NZ there is a limit of 30 one way trips for spouses and eight for children.
9. $8,000 on a family holiday. This would not be funded in NZ.
10. $6,000 for a helicopter trip. NZ MPs can not use helicopters for travel

Things are not perfect in NZ, but overall our rules look far far more stringent (as they should be) than Australia’s.

Saw an article about the “inventor” of the sandwich, Lord Sandwich – so checked out his Wikipedia page.

The modern sandwich is named after Lord Sandwich, but the exact circumstances of its invention and original use are still the subject of debate. A rumour in a contemporary travel book called Tour to London by Pierre Jean Grosley formed the popular myth that bread and meat sustained Lord Sandwich at the gamblingtable.^[21] A very conversant gambler, Lord Sandwich did not take the time to have a meal during his long hours playing at the card table. Consequently, he would ask his servants to bring him slices of meat between two slices of bread; a habit well known among his gambling friends. Because John Montagu was the Earl of Sandwich others began to order “the same as Sandwich!” – the ‘sandwich’ was born.

Never realised it was named after a person.

But what I really liked was this part:

In a famous exchange with the actor Samuel Foote, Sandwich declared, “Foote, I have often wondered what catastrophe would bring you to your end; but I think, that you must either die of the pox, or the halter.” “My lord”, replied Foote instantaneously, “that will depend upon one of two contingencies; — whether I embrace your lordship’s mistress, or your lordship’s principles.”

Wonderful!

Tomorrow is the 10th 11th anniversary of the death of David Lange who died on 13 August 2005.

And four days ago was the 26th anniversary of his resignation as Prime Minister on 8 August 1989.

I was a student when Lange resigned. I remember it vividly though, when I heard about it on the radio. Despite the infighting in Labour, no one really thought the incumbent Prime Minister would just throw it in and resign.

I recall thinking that this was probably the day that the 1990 election was decided, as Labour winning without Lange seemed impossible.

His death at age 63 was very sad.  I recall his valedictory speech to Parliament in 1996.  It remains I think the best valedictory speech I have heard – very funny yet also poignant.

Stuff reports:

The “spiteful” Green Party has blocked a bill that would allow pubs to open for Rugby World Cup matches. 

A bill, introduced to Parliament by ACT Party leader David Seymour on Tuesday, sought to allow pubs to open outside of legal trading hours to show Rugby World Cup matches being played in the United Kingdom.

But the Greens objected, with co-leader James Shaw accusing Seymour of trying to boost his profile. Without the unanimous support of MPs, the bill cannot be rushed through in time for the tournament.

Seymour said the Greens were being “spiteful”.

“Certainly if it’s rejected today, I’ll be texting the PM to say he’s got my vote to put a bill through with the Government. 

“I think it’s the right thing to do, it’s what most New Zealanders want and I’m opposed to the majority being punished due to actions of an irresponsible minority.”

The bill could now only proceed if it was picked up by the Government, something Prime Minister John Key has indicated is a possibility.

He said a decision would be made in the next day or two. 

I hope they do.

Green Party health spokesman Kevin Hague said the bill would see “boozed-up people spilling out of bars just as parents are dropping their children at school”.

Oh that’s just so silly. Apart from the fact you know bars don’t tend to be next door to schools, watching the rugby over a couple of pints is not really being boozed up. People who get up at 4 am to watch the rugby are doing it for the rugby, not the booze. Sure they may enjoy a drink or two during the game, but this is not like a nightclub closing at 8 am.

Labour MPs voted not to object to the bill when its caucus met on Tuesday and leader Andrew Little said he personally supported it.

“There’s hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who enjoy a tipple, usually when watching sporting games and they do so responsibly,” Little said.

“This is a tournament that happens once every four years and it’s totally in keeping with social intercourse that they have a drink.”

Little said if he was in a pub at 5am and the All Blacks were winning he wouldn’t say no to a drink.

“If we’re losing I’d probably have two beers at 5am.”

Well said Andrew Little.

Just heard on the radio that the Government is likely to introduce a Government bill. Labour will treat it as a conscience vote.

Stuff reports:

According to ratings statistics website Throng, Story – co-hosted by Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis-Allan – kicked off last night with an audience of 276,780. 

So how does that stack up?

Well, last year Cambell Live averaged 219,406 viewers per night and that dropped to nearly 190,000 before its demise this year.  

That said, at its best Cambell Live enjoyed average ratings of more than 280,000 viewers per night, and it’s important to note that many viewers will have tuned in last night simply to see what the new show was like.

It would appear that some 100,000 viewers switched from TV One’s Seven Sharp to see what Story had on offer but Mike Hosking and Toni Street still drew more than 28,000 more viewers than the new kids on the block.

Viewers and critics praised Story’s straight-up-the-guts approach, getting right into the news without too much delay. In their debut episode, Garner and du Plessis-Allan tackled dodgy real estate agents, – ultimately resulting in one agent losing their job – criminals tampering with ankle bracelets and a light piece about gaming.

It was a good first episode. The real estate CEO looked incredibly uncomfortable under HDPA’s interviewing.

The Herald reports:

Auckland’s night-time revellers have spoken – there’s no room for a dry bar in the city.

Tap Bar, the country’s first alcohol-free bar, has shut its doors after only five weeks of business on Karangahape Rd.

This is not surprising.

It’s not far removed from launching a cafe with no food.

Tap Bar, which stands for The After Party, charged a $15 entry fee and non-alcoholic drink prices started at $5.

A $15 entry fee and inflated prices for soft drinks?

Elliott said the bar had a few customers but they drank water and little money was passed over the counter.

If you want to stop drinking alcohol, water is a very good choice.

The Independent reports:

Stuff reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters is backing Waikato Federated Farmers’ call for a suspension of Fonterra’s online auction until sliding dairy prices stabilise.

On Sunday, Peters called on the dairy giant to temporarily suspend the twice monthly GlobalDairyTrade (GDT) auction which sets the benchmark price for whole milk powder.

Peters’ call comes after Fonterra slashed $1.40 from its forecast for the 2105/16 season to $3.85 per kg of milk solids on Friday, two days after dairy prices fell 9.3 per cent in the latest auction. It was the 10th consecutive fall on the platform, as dairy prices fell to levels not seen in 13 years.

“It is high time Fonterra’s board comes down from Mt Olympus to act in the best interests of its farmer-owners and not some economic theory,” Peter said in a statement.

Waikato Federated Farmers president, Chris Lewis, made the same call on Wednesday, suggesting the auctions should be suspended until prices stabilise.

“Auctions are great in bull markets like the Auckland property bubble, but it is a terrible way to sell when markets turn ugly, as the record low price for Whole Milk Powder indicates,” Peters said.

It’s true auctions favour sellers when demand is high and favour buyers when demand is low.

But auctions also guarantee you get to sell everything.

Fonterra could try and pull out of the global auction. They could set their own prices at which they are willing to sell dairy products. But if that price is higher than other companies are selling for, then Fonterra may end up with reduced sales.

But Waikato Rural Support Trust chairman and Ohinewai dairy farmer Neil Bateup didn’t agree.

“It’s very easy to say put reserves on GDT auctions, but in reality you have to keep moving product on the market,” Bateup said.

He was concerned Fonterra could be left with stockpiles of product it couldn’t sell if it introduced reserves.

“In theory it sounds OK, in practice everything has a shelf life and that depresses prices long term.”

Ultimately it is very hard to force buyers to pay more for a product than they wish to, or can elsewhere, unless you have a monopoly.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. RON MARK to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is on the “cusp of something special”; if so, was that “something special” rising unemployment along with plummeting dairy prices?
4. ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Economic Development:What progress is the Government making in diversifying the New Zealand economy?
5. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that dairy prices are likely to be low for “a little bit longer”, given the latest auction was a record low?
6. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on the outlook for primary sector exports?
7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Dairy is 5% of our economy. So yes dairy prices are down and it’s tough on those dairy farmers who are resilient people, but 95% of our economy is not involved in that”?
8. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister for the Environment: Why has he announced a plastics recycling initiative rather than a levy when recycling will only maintain the volume of plastic in the waste stream, whereas a levy will reduce the number of plastic bags in circulation?
9. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the number of patients benefiting from elective surgery has increased by 5,030 in the last financial year, and that 49,234 more patients are having surgery now compared to 2007/2008?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Prime Minister: Did he chair the Cabinet on 18 February 2013 when Cabinet noted the initial $4m payment to a “Saudi investor”, and did he ask why Cabinet approval was not being sought?
11. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made that supports the learning of Asian languages in schools?

National: Five questions on the economy x2, exports, electiver surgery and Asian languages

Labour: Four questions on the economy, dairy prices x2 and the Saudi Arabia farm

Greens: One question on plastic bags

NZ First: One question on Primary Industries Minister standing by his statements

There is one fewer question than normal. Presumably one of the minor parties failed to submit their question by the 10.30 am deadline.

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

New Zealand Flag Referendum Bill – committee stage continued

The Bill establishes a process for the holding of 2 postal referendums, firstly to determine which alternative flag design is preferred by voters, and secondly to determine whether that alternative flag or the current flag is to be the New Zealand flag.”

• Introduced: March 2015
• 1st reading: March 2015, passed 76 to 43 with Labour and NZ First opposed
• SC report: June 2015, supported with amendments by the majority, Labour dissenting
• 2nd reading: July 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed

There is no set time limit for the committee stage. Part 1 and Part 2 have passed so it is likely remaining debate will be an hour or so.

Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill – committee stage continued

This Bill authorises the individual appropriations contained in The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2016.

• Introduced May 2015
• 1st reading: May 2015, passed without dissent
• 2nd reading: June 2015, passed 63-58 with Labour, Greens, NZ First against

The debate is an 11 hour debate divided into ten sector debates. The sectors are:

• Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector – done
• Education Sector – done
• Environment Sector – done
• External Sector – done
• Finance and Government Administration Sector – done
• Health Sector – done
• Justice Sector – current
• Māori, Other Populations and Cultural Sector
• Primary Sector
• Social Development and Housing Sector

Each debate is a minimum of eight speeches of up to five minutes each, led off by the relevant select committee chairperson.

Technology Spectator reports:

New Zealand’s capital city Wellington is fast shaping up as a world-class start-up hub, according to a group of Australian firms who won a trip across the Tasman.

Five Australian start-ups were selected to tour Wellington’s tech and start-up scene as part of the Wellington Adds up competition, a government drive to encourage wider business investment and attract strong ICT talent.

The businesses, from Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Canberra, met with business and industry leaders, and on their return have touted Wellington’s “very progressive” community and small business support by government.

The city, which is home to about 200,000 people, boasts no capital gains tax, no payroll tax, along with liberal laws around equity crowdfunding.

I’ve met a fair few of the start ups in Wellington. They’re doing great things, often operating from a two person office on teh fringes of the CBD.

Kate Raynes-Goldie, founder of gaming consultancy start-up Games We Play, said her feeling was that the Wellington local government was an extremely supportive one.

“The government support and enthusiasm for games and tech startups in Wellington is impressive”, she said. “The scene is vibrant, with innovative co-working spaces like BizDojo and a range of incubator and accelerator programmes such as CreativeHQ, as well as R&D and capacity funding, which all offer great opportunities for game and tech entrepreneurs. I can only imagine what we could do in Australia with the same level of support.” …

Local entrepreneur Melissa Clark-Reynolds told Technology Spectator businesses like Xero could thrive due to the community’s support and willingness to ‘sit down and have a chat’ whenever needed.

“It’s more a village than a city, and everyone knows everyone,” she said. “If you hit a wall and need help, people will just say come see me tomorrow and we’ll have a coffee.

“There’s no class system here really we have a very flat society. Everyone is a peer and everyone is happy to help everyone, it’s a Kiwi thing. We’re fiercely egalitarian.”

It is a village. And people are always meeting to chat over coffee. Some days I have four to five coffee dates in a row!

Some readers may have seen this article by Linda Scott, who basically compares her detention by US border authorities to Nazi Germany.

A reader writes in:

So, to sum up this article in two sentences: Ms Scott applied for a USA work visa, was denied, and then attempted to subsequently enter on a tourist visa. She then wondered why she encountered issues at the border.

Consider this: if a foreign national, say from a “third world” country applied for a work visa here, got denied, then turned up anyway at AKL saying they are now a tourist, what would the reaction be? That they are genuinely a tourist? Or attempting to get in via a “back door” and will actually be planning to work or overstay, in contravention of their tourist visa?

Having worked in the border security industry, I can guarantee that you in this situation would be answering a lot of tense questions, and would quite likely be denied entry to NZ. As Ms Scott stated, the airline transporting a passenger into a country generally is then required to transport that person back if they are refused entry. Until that happens (i.e. their next flight, which could be anywhere between 4 hours to the following week away) you would be detained in a holding cell at AKL. This is standard procedure in almost all western countries, from the UK to Canada to Australia.

As for Ms Scott saying “Osama won” in her article what I have described above has been standard practice for decades, well prior to Sept 2001.

While law enforcement in the USA is harsh (and I agree with Ms Scott I would not want to be in a US prison), I am left wondering what exactly her expectations were here upon arrival? That they wouldn’t see through her deception? That when her name came up on their computer that her failed attempt to obtain a work visa wouldn’t be there? That she wouldn’t be detained? That your cell phone wouldn’t be taken from her while a prisoner? Do she think prisoners get to keep cell phones while in custody here in New Zealand?

The article – a kind of whine about American law enforcement having the temerity to be targeting you – an educated white woman from a western country lucky enough flying premium economy… seems quite analogous, albeit in reverse to the recent article in the Huffington Post by Janis Powers complaining about her treatment at the hands of NZ Police. Janis Powers didn’t understand the laws in NZ, and neither, it seems, does Ms Scott at an international border.

My personal view is that US border security is often over the top, but as the author points out, failing to get a work visa, and then turning up on a tourist visa is not a good idea.

I recall an acquaintance who once got held by the US for six weeks because his visa had expired by a day – and he was literally crossing the border to leave into Canada! That to me is a far better example of stupid overreach by the US, than this case.

The Herald reports:

Act Party leader David Seymour is hopeful his proposal to allow pubs to open in the early hours during the Rugby World Cup will be adopted, though he says it might only be applied to games involving the All Blacks.

The MP for Epsom will table a hastily-drafted bill in Parliament this afternoon which would allow all pubs and bars to remain open during anti-social hours if they were broadcasting live from the tournament in Britain.

The bill will be shot down if any MP refuses to grant leave.

Generally leave will be refused to stop bills jumping the queue. But as this is to fix a problem that is going to occur in the next couple of months, it is appropriate to grant leave in my opinion.

Mr Seymour was confident it would progress, but he said getting cross-party support might require some concessions. He said National had been supportive of the proposal, but had asked whether the scope could be reduced so that it covered only New Zealand games.

Justice Minister Amy Adams would not comment yesterday, except to say the National caucus would consider the law change this morning.

United Future leader Peter Dunne also has some concerns about the scope of the bill.

Mr Seymour said he might agree to limit the policy, but he hoped it could be applied to all fans. “There’s a quarter of a million British-born New Zealanders, 50,000 Australians, and big South African, Tongan and Samoan populations. So wouldn’t it be nice to have all teams rather than just the one?”

Labour, New Zealand First and the Maori Party would also decide their positions this morning.

Labour leader Andrew Little supported the law change. “It’s a Rugby World Cup, it only comes around every four years … so the opportunity to meet in a bar and watch a game and have the odd pint is the perfectly normal thing to want to do. Personally, I think we should try to facilitate it.”

Good to see Little supportive.

Stuff reports:

Colin Craig has been accused of election over-spending by a former Conservative Party board member.

Craig denies the allegations.

At a press conference on Monday, John Stringer alleged Craig had left more than $7000 of campaign spending off his electoral return.

The amount would have put Craig over the permitted spending cap, Stringer claims. …

According to Stringer, the group estimated Craig had under-reported his spending by about $7000.

Adding Craig’s unreported spending would put him $2000 over the election expenses spending cap of $25,700 including GST, for all parties, Stringer claimed.

There may or may not be substance to these claims. They should be investigated, but the key issues are three-fold:

• Were these expenses declared either on the electorate or party expense return?
• If they were declared on the party return, were they a Vote Conservative expense rather than a Vote Colin Craig in East Coast Bays expense?
• Were they apportioned to another electorate?

Candidates are allowed to apportion some of their local costs to the party vote campaign. If a billboard promotes both yourself and the party, then you tend to split the cost 50/50.

It gets slightly more complicated if the candidate is the party leader. Their photo is on the party vote billboards also. However I’m sure a party vote billboard of John Key is not treated as an expense for Helensville even if it located in Helensville.

Basically it will come down to what was actually said on the advertising material Stringer is highlighting, whether it was included in the party vote return or electorate returns, and if doing so was correct.

Above are the 40 long listed designs for an alternate NZ flag.

This will be reduced down to four for the first referendum, of which the winner will go into a binding referendum in which the public for the first time ever will get to decide on the design of our flag.

The ones that appeal to me at this stage are:

• Silver Fern (Black with Red Stars) byKyle Lockwood
• Koru Fin by Daniel Crayford and Leon Cayford
• Silver Fern (Red,White & Blue) byKyle Lockwood
• Black Jack by Mike Davison
• Silver Fern (Black & White) by Kyle Lockwood
• Manawa (Blue & Green) by Otis Frizzell