Lord Ashcroft has announced:

With the General Election exactly a week away, I am delighted to report on a new initiative to tackle electoral fraud.

The “Don’t Stand for Electoral Fraud” project from Crimestoppers, the crime-fighting charity, is perfectly timed. It will see a four-pronged attempt to tackle those who intimidate voters, bribe voters, steal postal votes and vote for someone else.

The move follows a partnership between Crimestoppers, the charity that I founded 27 years ago, and the Electoral Commission, the independent elections watchdog and regulator of party and election finance.

I am delighted that the Electoral Commission has embraced this project and I hope it will mark the beginning of a long and happy association between Crimestoppers and the elections watchdog.

As with all Crimestoppers’ work, we are urging the public to be our “eyes and ears” and to report any evidence or suspicions that they may have of criminal activity in this field – by using our on-line form or our 0800 555 111 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0800 555 111end_of_the_skype_highlighting number to highlight their concerns anonymously.

Depending on the nature of the alleged offence or malpractice, it will then be up to the police and/or the relevant Electoral Registration Officer/Returning Officer to pursue further inquiries aimed at preventing the fraud and catching the offenders.

The key message of the new initiative is: “One person, one vote – that’s how democracy works. We each get one ballot and one vote. This is our right and it is our right to vote freely for whoever we want, without anyone doing anything to stop us.”

A very worthy electorate. It is wrong to pressure someone to vote a particular way. It is also wrong to pressure someone entitled to vote, not to vote. Likewise it is wrong to vote more than once, as that is effectively stealing a vote from someone else.

You might think there is no problem to be solved but:

Early last year a report entitled “Electoral fraud in the UK”, presented by Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission, concluded simply: “Electoral fraud is a serious issue.”

As recently as last week, a London mayor who “cynically perverted” the religious feeling of his Muslim community and “silenced his critics with accusations of racism and Islamophobia” was removed from office after a bitter legal battle.

The disgraced Lutfur Rahman repeatedly played the “race card” in his bid to seize the mayoralty of Tower Hamlets and later cling to power, Richard Mawrey, the Election Commissioner, ruled.

It was ordered that last year’s mayoral election, which was riddled with corruption, be run again and Rahman – who was re-elected to the position after forming his own party, Tower Hamlets First – was barred from standing.

The BBC reports:

The Election Commissioner upheld a number of the allegations, including:

• Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses

• False statements made against Mr Rahman’s rival Mr Biggs

• Bribery: large amounts of money were given to organisations who were “totally ineligible or who failed to meet the threshold for eligibility”

• Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman

• Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people’s “religious duty” to vote.

So double voting, bribery and treating.

You’d think this would see him condemned universally, the UK’s largest trade union is backing him fully!!

The Guardian reports:

The leader of Britain’s biggest trade union has expressed his support for the former mayor of Tower Hamlets, who was removed from office after being found guilty of electoral fraud.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, Labour’s biggest donor, gave his backing on Thursday to Lutfur Rahman, who was dismissed following a court ruling last week. …

Andrew Murray, the union’s chief of staff, told the rally in Stepney Green, east London: “I am not speaking in a personal capacity, I am speaking on behalf of the union … and I am sending a message of support from our general secretary, Len McCluskey. Unite is proud to associate ourselves with Lutfur Rahman.”

He called the judgment “an undemocratic assault on the people of Tower Hamlets” which was both “racist” and “Islamaphobic”.

Exposing electoral fraud is racist and Islamaphobic!

And this is not some mad loner, but the official view of the UK’s largest union.

The Herald reports:

The average Auckland family will have to find an extra $200 a year from July to pay for Mayor Len Brown’s latest budget plan.

Mr Brown sprang a surprise on councillors yesterday by announcing a special “transport levy” that equates to an extra 4 per cent on rates from July. The levy is $99 for households and $159 for businesses.

It is on top of an overall rates increase of 2.5 per cent, which is down from the previous figure of 3.5 per cent.

So a 6.5% increase in rates, when inflation is just 0.1%.

That’s what happens when a Council can’t control its spending.

How many households will have a salary increase of 6.5%? Almost none. So this means a drop is disposable income.

I’d hate to be an incumbent Councillor who votes for this at the 2016 elections.

Politik reported:

To get an idea of how difficult the campaign to sell the Trans Pacific Partnership will be you only had to drop into the Foreign Affairs Select Committee hearings on the free trade agreement with Korea. One submitter managed to link investor- state dispute settlement provisions with Adolf Eichman, the riots in Balimore, Barrack Obama and the next world war. All in one paragraph.  

So were they for or against?

Tyler Cowan blogs:

Here is an assessment from the Peterson Institute that Vietnam will be the biggest gainer from TPP.  Do you get that, progressives?  Poorest country = biggest gainer.  Isn’t that what we are looking for?  And if you are a deontologist, Vietnam is a country we have been especially unjust to in the past.

Some people think the TPP is all for the benefit of the US. This study found that Vietnam will gain the most benefit, so the TPP could help lift hundreds of thousands out of poverty.

Yes, I am familiar with the IP and tech criticisms of TPP, and I agree with many of them.  But if you add those costs up, in utilitarian terms I doubt if they amount to more than a fraction of the potential benefit for the ninety million people of Vietnam.  TPP is more of a “no brainer” than a close call.

Likewise I agree with the criticism of the US proposals for the IP chapter. However we don’t yet know how much of their proposals make the final agreement. Only then can we look at whether the costs are bigger or larger than the benefits.

The latest data on early childhood education rates came out this week. The non-participation rate continues to fall:

• All children 3.9%, down 2.5% from 2008
• Maori children 6.2%%, down 4.2% from 2008
• Pasifika children 9.0%, down 5.9% from 2008
• Decile 1 children 11.2%, down 8.6% from 2010

So the fall in non-participation rates has been significant.

The Guardian reports:

David Cameron will pledge to introduce a new law within the first 100 days of a Conservative government to prevent any rises in income tax, VAT or national insurance in the next parliament.

In an attempt to step up the pressure on Labour leader Ed Miliband on tax, the prime minister will say the new law will help voters to choose between the Tories, who say they have cut income tax for 26m people, and Labour, which, he claims, taxed people “to the hilt”.

A five-year “tax lock”, to be included in new legislation, would guarantee no increases in income tax rates; no increases in VAT, nor an extension of its scope; and no increase in national insurance, nor an increase in its ceiling above the higher rate threshold.

I like this.

We should do this here – pass a law that guarantees no increase is tax rates, GST or ACC levies for five years. That would force Labour, Greens and NZ First to vote for or against it. Yes a future Government could repeal it, but considering NZ should be in surplus, it would be politically more difficult for them to do so.

Richard Harman at Politik writes:

Labour is looking for a replacement for its capital gains tax.

And one influential former advisor is advocating a wealth tax, particularly the return of death duties.

Yes, because people should be taxed for dying.

However Finance Spokesman, Grant Robertson, while he says the party is looking at taxing wealth thought estate duties would be unlikely.

They fought abolishing them, so why wouldn’t they bring them back?

But scrapping the Capital Gains Tax proposal leaves a big hole in Labours fiscal projections.

The party forecast that the tax would bring in $25 million in its first year rapidly rising to over $1 billion a year after six years.

Labour either will have to restrict their spending promises to what the current tax take can afford, or they will have policies to increase taxes and impose new taxes to fund their promises. Sadly I doubt it will be the former, so we wait to see whether or not they will opt for death taxes.

Stuff reports:

Protest group Oil Free Wellington says it is against granting a consent for the Maui gas field to keep running for another 35 years.

The group set up a mini oil rig and protest banners in the foyer of the Majestic Centre in Wellington where hearings into the gas field’s consent are being held.

“You can’t live on a dead planet with a dead ocean,” Oil Free Wellington said.

The consent for the Maui gas and condensate field is being considered by the Environmental Protection Authority.

The EPA had received 380 submissions opposing the marine consent, Oil Free Wellington said. Most were concerned about the risks to the marine environment and the need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels “if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change” the protest group said.

Actually natural gas produces only half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal.

The Maui joint venture partners contributed $550m in royalties, levies and tax to the government between 2008 and 2013 operator Shell Todd Oil Services says.

About 73 per cent of Maui gas goes toward meeting domestic requirements for energy.

That’s a big contribution towards our schools, hospitals and welfare system.

Of course the greenies who now say Maui must be decomissioned, were saying a decade ago that we had peak oil and gas, and Maui would be gone in two years. Here’s Powerless NZ in 2004:

When the question of oil and gas depletion is raised the flat earth fraternity often can’t help themselves laughing whilst pointing out ”but we’ve never produced more than we are today, the world is awash in oil and gas”. A sobering lesson is to be learnt by looking at the current depletion rates in the Maui natural gas field.

They claimed that those who don’t believe we are at peak oil and gas are flat earthers. In fact science has proven them to be the flat earthers.

Maui gas production is in free fall. In peak oil terminology we are over the cliff. Within a year, maybe two tops, Maui gas will be gone.

No if,s no buts Two years max. I hope the EPA considers their credibility in future.

NBR reported in 2012:

New-age drilling techniques are extending the life of New Zealand’s veteran Maui gasfield.

Shell Todd Oil Services has invested more than $100 million to extend the life of the 33-year-old field and says it should last at least three more years, and possibly 10.

But we were told it would be all gone by 2006 at the latest. How can it be still going in 2022?

Here’s the recent data for gas from Maui, the site that was meant to have ended in 2006:

• 2011 – 35 PJ
• 2012 – 37 PJ
• 2013 – 42 PJ
• 2014 – 52 PJ

Those 52 PJ in 2014. That’s equal to 14.4 billion kilowatt hours.

That’s enough to power around 1.3 million homes!!

So think if we had listened to them in 2004, and think if we listen to them again today.

The Herald reports:

A peer-reviewed study authored by Massey University scientists has claimed that worst-case scenario costs to society from environmental harm caused by farming could equal the economic benefits of the dairy industry, creating a “zero-sum” situation for the country.

However, the paper, titled NZ Dairy Farming — Milking Our Environment for All Its Worth, has come under heavy criticism by economics academics approached by the New Zealand Herald today.

I’m somewhat surprised it got through peer review, after reading the critiques. Some extracts:

“The report does a good job in identifying some of the environmental harms from dairying, but, at least on a first reading, does not provide a reliable estimate of the value of those harms,” said Dr Eric Crampton, head of research at the New Zealand Institute.

He believed some of the tallied costs used in the calculations — such as harm a farmer might do to his or her own pasture through soil compaction where stocking rates were too high — should have never been considered “external” costs, while other costs appeared “over-estimated”.

This is the same fatal flaw that the BERL alcohol study had also – treating private costs as public costs. That is not a minor issue.

“The high-end estimates of the costs of nitrogen leaching, estimated at over $10 billion, seem to assume we would need to remediate all water in New Zealand to a drinking water standard — however, very few sites currently exceed nitrogen standards for drinking water.”

So it is based on the most far fetched scenario possible.

Dr Crampton also took issue with the upper-bound cost of the second largest cost component factored into the report, national dairy greenhouse gas emissions, which was put at over $3 billion.

“But that figure cannot be relevant for policy without considering relative greenhouse-gas intensity of dairy production in different countries and without considering the alternative uses to which dairy land would be put if it were not in dairying — and especially where the paper notes that dairy makes up half of New Zealand’s agricultural emissions,” he said.

“If every dairy cow in New Zealand disappeared, we would see more cows elsewhere and more beef and sheep production here. The net effect on greenhouse gas emissions is not particularly clear.

Exactly. It might indeed increase greenhouse gas emissions globally.

Professor Frank Scrimgeour, director of the Institute for Business Research at Waikato University, slammed the research as “sloppy” and argued its bold claims could not be substantiated.

“The authors do not do any original data collection, estimation or modelling,” he said.

“They synthesised existing data without ensuring that measurements are consistent through space or time.

And also:

University of Waikato professor of agribusiness Jacqueline Rowarth said it was “naive” to expect water quality in waterways could be restored to drinking water standards, and she noted people reading the study needed “to consider alternatives and relativities”.

“This sort of research doesn’t actually get us anywhere, and that’s disappointing.”

Federated Farmers point out:

“To give you an idea, the report used the 1980’s figure suggesting Taranaki had 40% of its sites exceeding the Drinking Water Standard.  If the authors had bothered to talk to the Taranaki Regional Council they would have found the more pleasing result of just 4% (cite pg. 17 of the 2014 Taranaki State of the Environment Report) of sites in Taranaki exceeding the Drinking Water Standard.”

So they were using 1980s data instead of 2014 data. Again how did this get through peer review?

But no doubt we will see this study promoted by the Greens as justifying their policy to get rid of as many cows as possibly.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements?
2. FLETCHER TABUTEAU to the Minister of Trade: Can he explain why he is “reasonably confident of getting the numbers in the vote” given the growth in international opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?
3. MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to deliver better public services, and how is this benefiting the Government’s books?
4. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he stand by his statement “The Government owns 1 in 16 houses in Auckland and we need to do a better job with them for the sake of tenants and aspiring homeowners, as well as for the neighbourhoods they live in and the wider city”; if so, what experience does the Tamaki Redevelopment Company have that will allow them to do a better job for tenants than Housing New Zealand?
5. DENISE ROCHE to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that “Auckland must have a transport system that meets the demands of its growing population and we are committed to working with the Auckland Council to help make sure Auckland succeeds”?
6. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister for Building and Housing: How will today’s announcement of transferring 2,800 Housing New Zealand properties to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company and a $200 million loan facility contribute to increasing the supply and quality of housing in Auckland?
7. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “If those partnership schools don’t succeed the Government will be just as quick to close them down as we have been to establish them”?
8. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the running of Spring Hill Corrections Facility?
9. ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Education: How is the Government ensuring that Māori and Pasifika children are engaged in education from an early age?
10. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he still committed to the Government’s goal of lifting exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP by 2025?
11. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received recently on the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme?
12. BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Civil Defence: What plans has the Government put in place to ensure as many New Zealanders as possible participate in the national earthquake drill ShakeOut?

National: Five patsies on better public services, Tamaki housing, Maori & Pasifika education, cycleways and civil defence.

Labour: Four questions on does Health Minister stand by all his statements, Tamaki housing, charter schools and exports

Greens: One question on Auckland transport

NZ First: Two questions on TPP and Spring Hills Correction Facility

Government Notice of Motion 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2014/15 financial year in respect of Vote Ombudsmen and the appropriations and information for the 2015/16 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment be adopted.

A debate of six speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum of an hour.

 Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm

Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) – third reading

The Bill amends the Immigration Act 2009 to ensure the immigration system operates more effectively by addressing gaps identified in the compliance regime; responding to opportunities provided by new technology; and introducing measures to address the exploitation of migrant workers.

• Introduced: October 2013
• 1st reading: November 2013, passed 11-7 with NZ First against and Mana abstaining
• Select Committee report: May 2014, supported with amendments with Labour and Greens dissenting
• 2nd reading: February 2015, passed 61-59 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party against
• Committee of the whole House: March 2015, passed 61-57 with Labour, Greens, NZ First and Maori Party against

A debate of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum of two hours.

Stuff reports the top 10 transport priorities  agreed by the Regional Transport Committee, which includes all the Mayors:

1. Improving Paraparaumu’s roads, including Ihakara St extension – $8.5m
2. Upgrading SH2 intersections between Melling and Haywards – $250m
3. Petone to Grenada highway – $349m
4. Building Wellington’s rapid transit bus infrastructure – $60m
5. Ngauranga to Petone Cycleway – $47m
6. Second Mt Victoria tunnel – $487m
7. Rimutaka Hill Road upgrade – $71m
8. Hawyards Hill Road upgrade – $29m
9. Wellington cycleway network – $93m
10. Adelaide Rd Improvements – 29m

Pleased to see No 5 there as the status quo is so stupid. There is a walkway and cycleway from Thorndon to almost Petone. However it stops around 150 metres before Petone! This means you either have to illegally cycle or walk 150 metres on the Hutt Road against incoming traffic, or turn around and go back a km or so until you can cross over to the other side.

A dedicated cycleway that actually gets you to Petone would be a very good thing. However the cost seems very high at $47m, even if over ten years. A cheaper alternative might be to keep the existing one, and just add on the last 150 metres.

The Herald reports:

A woman who joined in an attack on strangers in the street and yelled “that’s what you get for being white” has been sentenced to community work. 

Isn’t this what some people call a hate crime?

The Productivity Commission has published a draft finding and recommendations on how to improve outcomes for NZers from social services. The Commission’s job is to constantly look at how to improve productivity (better outcomes for the money spent) in various sectors, and is modeled on the Australian Productivity Commission which has strong bi-partisan support,

It is a weighty tome at over 300 pages plus many appendices.

Some of their findings are:

• As a percentage of GDP, public expenditure on social services is currently higher in New Zealand than the OECD average. Expenditure is also higher than common comparator countries such as Australia and Canada, but lower than the United Kingdom.
• From a client’s perspective, government processes for delivering social services can seem confusing, fragmented, overly directive and unhelpful.
• Existing social services are not well placed to deal with multiple and inter-dependent problems encountered by many of New Zealand’s most vulnerable individuals and families.
• The social services system fails to create and share information about which services and interventions work well and those that do not.

So we spend more than most countries, but the services are fragmented and we don’t do well in evaluating which interventions work well, and which do not.

• Strong evidence exists that early intervention in social problems can significantly improve outcomes for individuals and the return on government expenditure. Yet, the social services system’s investments in early intervention are piecemeal and patchy.
• Ministers and government agencies tend to focus on the flow of new social services initiatives. Relatively little attention is given to actively managing the large stock of social service programmes that account for the majority of public expenditure.

So the solution is not necessarily new programmes, but reviewing the current ones.

• Contracting models that give a service provider a geographic monopoly for the duration of a contract deny clients a choice of services and providers, and create a poor incentive for providers to deliver good services to clients.
• The organisational cultures of providers and government agencies tend to be resistant to change and can be paternalistic towards clients.

And the recommendations:

• The Government should take account of the role and value of volunteers as an important part of social services in drafting new legislation to ensure that volunteers are not crowded out by new regulation. The Government should pay particular attention to this issue when finalising the Health and Safety Reform Bill.

• Formal contracts between an agency and its in-house service delivery arm make costs and expectations explicit. They should be mandatory when that delivery arm competes with non-government providers, and are desirable in other cases.

• Commissioning organisations should ensure that in-house provision is treated on a neutral basis when compared to contracting out and other service models. This requires independence in decision-making processes. In-house provision should be subject to the same transparency, performance monitoring and reporting requirements as would apply to an external provider.

So only go with in house provision if it is independently verified to be the best choice.

• The Investment Approach could usefully be applied more widely. Future welfare liability – its underlying proxy for social return – should be further refined to better reflect the wider costs and benefits of interventions.

• The Investment Approach should be extended to operate at a cross-programme, crossagency level.

The Investment Approach has to date been very successful in with MSD.

The Commission considered a couple of hundred submissions and met with over 100 organisations in formulating the paper. It’s only a draft, but the recommendations to date look worthy and hopefully people will engage with the draft, and not just defend the status quo.

Stuff reports:

Aucklanders should pay a levy of a few dollars a week on top of their rates to kick-start transport developments in the city, Mayor Len Brown believes.

The suggestion will come in the mayor’s report to Thursday’s council meeting on Auckland’s draft 10-year budget, it is understood.

Feedback on the draft budget in March and April showed that around half of Aucklanders want significantly more investment in transport, and support the council’s $10.3 billion accelerated transport plan.

A similar proportion of people are prepared to pay a $2 per trip motorway charge to fund it.

However tolling Auckland’s motorways would require a law change by central government plus the setting up of a complex tolling system on the city’s network of state highways.

Brown is believed to be in favour of collecting an interim transport levy from ratepayers until that infrastructure is put in place.

A levy per household? That’s what people call a poll tax.

It’s also understood he is sticking to his commitment that Aucklanders will pay no more than an average 2.5 per cent annual rates rise, not the 3.5 per cent set out in the draft Long Term Plan (LTP).

No he isn’t. A tax is a tax, no matter what you call it.

A transport levy on top of a rates rise means Auckland households will be paying more in compulsory charges.

News.com.au reports:

On Saturday evening, the high-profile SBS soccer reporter tweeted a number of “highly inappropriate and disrespectful comments” about the ANZACs and Australia’s involvement in numerous wars.

“Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these ‘brave’ Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan,” Mr McIntyre tweeted to his 30,000 followers.

He described Australians celebrating ANZAC Day as “poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers”, and accused Australia and its allies of the “largest single-day terrorist attacks in history” in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So the Axis powers were the victims in WWII and the ANZACs were rapists in his world view.

Since then, many journalists have come out in support of Mr McIntyre, and a Change.org petition calling on SBS to reinstate him and issue an apology has gained more than 1500 signatures.

Writing in The Australian newspaper today, Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson said Mr McIntyre had not been censored as his tweets did not break any law.

“Decrying McIntyre’s dismissal as a free speech violation and censorship is absurd,” he wrote. “McIntyre was free to tweet his bile before he worked for SBS, while he worked for SBS and now that he no longer works for SBS.

“SBS simply decided it didn’t want to be associated with him. No one is guaranteed a job. Employers are not compelled to put up with behaviour that harms their public reputation.”

Exactly.

Accountability is essential to ensure free speech is exercised with respect for others, he said, adding that the issue is not free speech but “how an increasingly hysterical culture led by social media is resulting in people losing their jobs”.

“McIntyre is not alone. Had he tweeted content interpreted as homophobic, racist or sexist, some would be calling on SBS to sack him, not tweeting ‘free speech’,” Mr Wilson wrote.

They very same people I suspect.

“Perhaps McIntyre’s sacking will be a lesson that always calling for retribution against opinions you disagree with is a double-edged sword that can slay your enemies as well as your friends.”

I doubt the lesson will be learnt. In NZ we see now regular attempts by some on the left to get Hosking and Henry sacked for their views – by trying to induce advertiser boycotts.

Don Juan in on at Circa until 23 May.

It’s a cabaret style show mixing atmosphere, singing and acting like a good cocktail. Talking of which, they actually serve you cocktails in the theatre during the brief interval, as part of the show (if you pay for one in advance).

Five actors perform the life of the legendary womanising Don Juan.

It’s a high energy performance with a huge amount of audience interaction. Some of the audience actually sit on chairs on the stage, and get pulled into the show.

The cast play a troupe of Lily, Julie, Maurice, Philippe and Ginger. They each have their own story, and again some interact with the audience. Philippe has a crush on a university lecturer and Ginger’s ex is in the audience, and both add comic to the production.

I found the show a wee bit slow to get into, but after around the first 15 minutes I really enjoyed it. The five actors all have really really good singing voices, and they way they interact with each other to tell the story of Don Juan is a credit to the show’s direction.

Possibly now a show for older audiences, but a very enjoyable production for the young and young at heart.

The data above (2014 is projections for 2014/15 years) comes from the OECD and it tells a pretty powerful story.

All five countries had significant deficits in 2010 in the aftermath of the GFC.  Australia and Canada had lower deficits than NZ, but now have higher one. The US and UK remain with huge deficits.

NZ is on the verge of getting back to surplus. It might not quite make it this year, but relative to the other four countries, we’ve done a lot better. And the difference between 0% and say 4% is not small. If we were doing the same as the OECD average our deficit would be $9.6 billion, not possibly a couple of hundred million.

Some Labour MPs idiotically complain that NZ has been in deficit, as if somehow it was a decision of National’s. National inherited fiscal settings that would have left us with a permanent and ever growing deficit.  And Labour opposed every single measure of expenditure control National introduced.

No other country of those we normally compare ourselves to, is even close to getting back to surplus. Australia actually has had the deficit start to increase again.

Bernard Hickey writes:

With Capital Gains Tax off the table, what’s the next idea boffins and politicians will turn to in the attempt to reduce tax incentives for rental property investors?

The 2010 Tax Working Group looked at a land tax. Arthur Grimes, a former Reserve Bank chairman, proposed it.

It is simple, clean, and he estimated a 1 per cent tax on the value of land would raise $460 million a year and cut land prices by 17 per cent if it was introduced up front.

And the price of land is the major driver behind house price increases.

It would prompt more intense development of land and also encourage land bankers to build, something the Reserve Bank and the Government say they want.

Farmers and iwi would not be thrilled, but it would be the sort of broad-based and low rate tax that works best.

So long as income and company tax rates were reduced to compensate, I support a land tax.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he care what New Zealanders think about climate change, and does he take their calls for action on climate change seriously?
2. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the benefits for businesses of the growing New Zealand economy?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What impact would a tighter funding path for district health boards in 2015/16 have on their ability to provide quality, safe and timely services?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Associate Minister of Local Government: Did she consider all relevant factors in reappointing the Kaipara District Council Commissioners; if not, why not?
5. TODD MULLER to the Minister for Building and Housing: How many applications have been made for KiwiSaver HomeStart since the scheme took effect on 1 April 2015?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Is it Government policy that the Government will return to surplus this financial year and stay there so it can reduce debt, reduce ACC levies on households and businesses, and start modestly reducing income taxes?
7. RON MARK to the Minister of Defence: How does he reconcile not providing any further detail on the deployment of troops in accordance with the NZDF policy of “non-identification of personnel and for reasons of operational security” with the Prime Minister confirming overnight that New Zealand troops were transiting through Dubai?
8. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on welfare numbers in New Zealand?
9. CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister of Finance: Is the Productivity Commission Report released yesterday indicative of a Government agenda to privatise the welfare system?
10. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on improved access to first surgical assessments?
11. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he stand by all his statements regarding workers employed by CNR Dalian Locomotive working in New Zealand?
12. MARAMA FOX to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he support the Māori Party’s call for guaranteed healthy homes through the introduction of a Warrant of Fitness for all rental properties; if not, why not?

National: Four patsies on the economy, KiwiSaver Homestart, welfare numbers and surgical assessments

Labour: Four questions on DHB funding, surplus, Productivity Commission on welfare and CNR Dalian Locomotive

Greens: One question on climate change

NZ First: Two questions on Kaipara District Council and troop deployments

Maori Party: One question on rental WOFs

General Debate 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm

A debate of 12 speeches of five minutes each.

Government Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – committee stage

This bill confirms and validates unappropriated expenditure and validates excess net asset holdings for the 2013/14 financial year.

• Introduced: December 2014
• 1st reading: February 2015, passed unanimously
• 2nd reading March 2015, passed 61 to 54 with Labour, Greens and NZ First against

This bill is has a nine hour debate at committee stage, with four hours remaining.

Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau) Bill – second reading

This bill allows eligible persons who reside in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau to be able to apply from either of those countries or from that territory for New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension.

• Introduced: July 2014
• 1st reading: November 2014, passed unanimously
• Select committee report: March 2015, supported unanimously by the Social Services Committee, but with minority reports from Labour and NZ First calling for more generous eligibility

The second reading is a debate of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, so a maximum total debate of two hours.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand scientists have unveiled major leaps toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions from our belching sheep and cattle, with animal-safe compounds that can slash methane emissions by up to 90 per cent.

Curbing the release of methane gas from ruminant livestock, such as sheep and cattle, has been a long-standing headache among farmers and scientists.

The methane emissions amount to almost a third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, and is the largest contributor compared with other sources. …

At a conference in Palmerston North this morning, the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium announced new research progress from animal trials.

More than 100,000 compounds have been screened, and many thousands tested in laboratory experiments over the past several years.

To date five compounds, selected as the most promising options, had been tested on sheep and resulted in reductions of methane emissions from 30 per cent to more than 90 per cent.

That’s extremely encouraging results.

There are many ways one can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I much prefer using science to reduce emissions, to shooting one in five cows, as the Greens propose.

Dr Rick Pridmore, the consortium’s chairman and steering group member of the Manawatu-based New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, said the successful tests of methane inhibitors was news Kiwi farmers could “get excited about”.

“The results are significant for two reasons. First, because they work on livestock consuming a grass-based diet and, second because the short-term trials showed such dramatic results,” he said.

“It must be stressed that these are early days. Further trials are needed to confirm these compounds can reduce emissions in the long term, have no adverse effects on productivity and leave no residues in meat or milk.

“We are already looking to engage with a commercial partner and, all going well, we could possibly see a commercial product within five years.”

Early days but indeed encouraging. If the research holds up, this will have global ramifications.

A great open letter to Belle Gibson, who faked brain cancer and then set up a business promoting her healthy lifestyle cure:

I want you to know that I am angry with you. I’m not actually angry. I’m infuriated beyond belief.

You have just come out telling The Australian Women’s Weekly that you lied about having terminal brain cancer. As a patient who has gone through 15 brain surgeries, numerous angiograms, hundreds of blood tests and many MRI scans, how dare you make money by lying about a hardship that many Australians like myself have to go through every single day?

Do you even know what it’s like for someone to have brain problems? I do. I’m 21 and I’ve been through 15 brain surgeries to fix my brain condition, and I am still needing to have more surgery in the coming months. Each one of my surgeries has lasted on average seven hours.

Do you know how painful those seven hours are for my family and friends? They’re the ones that are sitting in the waiting room at the hospital, refreshing their Facebook news feed to keep them entertained during the ordeal and nervously biting on every little last bit of their cuticles while messaging people who want updates on how I am going. It makes my heart sink every time they’ve waited for me while I’m in surgery.

How dare you make money off these innocent people? I, like many others who suffer from a debilitating brain condition, bought your app, The Whole Pantry. I thought it would be good to try and make my lifestyle as healthy as possible. You said so yourself. You had terminal brain cancer. YOU survived, so I thought I could rid myself of illness as well. How idiotic I feel right now for believing you.

How dare you blame your lies on your rough start to life. You give your excuse that you had “a difficult upbringing.” Although I did not have a rough start, I went through many problems in my adolescence: depression, bullying and severe acne just to name a few. But you know what Belle? I got help from my counsellor and my doctor. And today I am in a much happier place, with some good antidepressants and acne cream to help me.

Gibson is a very disturbed and bad person. But she is not guilty alone. All those in the Australian and global media who accepted her claims without scrutiny and scepticism should also be apologising.

USA Today reports:

A debate has erupted over the decision by PEN American Center to give its annual Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

It was at the offices of Charlie Hebdo that an assault by Muslim extremists in January left 12 people dead, including the publication’s top editor and a number of prominent cartoonists.

How could anyone think that it shouldn’t be Charlie Hebdo? 12 people died because they stood up for free speech and satire.

PEN says on its website that for 90 years, its mission has been “to ensure that people everywhere have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views and to make it possible for everyone to access the views, ideas and literatures of others.”

Cartoonists gunned down for expressing their views sound like worthy recipients of the award.

Exactly.

Not according to six novelists, who announced they were stepping down as literary hosts of PEN’s gala dinner in New York City on May 5.

Their beef?

“A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom of speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?” Peter Carey, one of the protesting writers, said in an email interview with The New York Times. He said, “All this is complicated by PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population.”

This makes me want to vomit. The six novelists basically blame the victims.

Another of the dissenting writers, Rachel Kushner, lambasted Charlie Hebdo for its “cultural intolerance” and its embrace of “a kind of forced secular view.”

A forced secular view? If only? Atheists are not gunning down people who mock secularism. It is the Muslim extremists who believe it is their holy duty to stamp out any non comforming view.

To its credit, PEN is hanging tough. This is a well-deserved award, and the critics are off the mark. Freedom of expression would hardly be a big deal if it were only the freedom to be politically correct, to express opinions that are weak tea, tepid sentiments that everyone can embrace.

Too often only politically correct speech is deemed worthy of defending.