Stats NZ reports:

New Zealand’s economy grew 0.8 percent in the last three months of 2014, led by retail and accommodation, Statistics New Zealand said today.

Combined with increases in real estate services and manufacturing, this boosted growth for the December 2014 year to 3.3 percent. This is the highest annual increase since 2007, before the global financial crisis.

Excellent.

Manufacturing activity was also up this quarter, with an increase of 1.0 percent.

That manufacturing crisis continues.

A useful graphic to put the sectors in perspective.

The annual growth by sector is:

1. Construction +11.7%
2. Retail +7.0%
3. Mining +5.6%
4. IT/Comms +4.5%
5. Public Admin +4.2%
6. Primary Industries +4.1%
7. Health +3.4%
8. Financial +3.0%
9. Professional +2.9%
10. Real Estate +2.3%
11. Manufacturing +2.0%
12. Wholesale +1.8%
13. Arts +1.5%
14. Education +0.7%
15. Transport +0.4%
16. Utilities -2.2%

So while construction helps, this show many sectors also booming.

The Herald reports:

A heavily pregnant woman is flabbergasted at being refused a single glass of sparkling wine on her wedding anniversary last night at an Auckland restaurant.

Nichola Hayes and her husband Michael were looking forward to a rare night out just weeks before she is due to give birth to the couple’s second child.

They chose Mac’s Brewbar at the Nuffield Street Trading Company in Newmarket where Mrs Hayes asked for a glass of wine with pizza while her husband opted for beer.

But Mrs Hayes was “completely flabbergasted and embarrassed” when a waitress denied her service on the basis of her pregnancy.

A bar has a right to decide who they serve alcohol to. And a customer has a right to not go to a bar that will try and make decisions on their behalf.

It does seem the bar staff were overly zealous. While no level of alcohol is entirely safe, a single wine is unlikely to have an impact. The question is whether the decision should be the mother’s, or the bar staff.

Stuff reports:

All copies of University of Canterbury’s student magazine have been recalled after backlash over a “poor taste” article about virtual rape.

The story in Canta magazine, written by a student under the alias Queen B, was published in its Monday edition, and discussed the issue of simulated rape in forums such as video games.

It included the lines: “one might liken you to a drunk sorority girl whose whorey tendencies gets her in stupid situations – you were aware of the risks: you were asking for it”, and “get the f*** back in the kitchen, b****.”

University of Canterbury Students’ Association (UCSA) president Sarah Platt said all copies of the magazine had been recalled from around campus, and the online version removed.

I don’t have a problem with student magazines being edgy and controversial. That is their traditional role.

But what I do have a problem with, is all students being forced to fund them.

Canterbury University gives $274,000 to UCSA for “media”, of which the bulk probably goes to Canta. A student magazine is not an essential student facility or service that should be funded by a compulsory levy. They even state:

Handle UCSA’s communication channels to inspire debate, make you laugh, cry, angry, informed, ambivalent, nonplussed or otherwise.

So the University of Canterbury is so plush with funds, that it forces students to fund a publication that is designed to make some students angry. This shows very clearly that the university is over-funded.

A guest post by Flipper:

Flipper hears that there are some very upset people (seriously p****d off is the way one source describes them) at the Court of Appeal, particularly Justices E France, J Wild and F Miller.

The reason?
The Crown Law Office (M Heron/ U Jagose (?) and P Dacre) sat on information that clears John Banks, and did not disclose it either to the C o A or to J Banks’ counsel, David Jones.
Had the information withheld been disclosed to Jones and the CoA, experienced observers assert, the appeal would have been allowed immediately, and no retrial ordered. That would have been the end of the matter, apart for some later unfortunate consequences for the Crown.

To recap, the Crown sent solicitor Rowan Butler to interview Dotcom over the new evidence (from two US businessmen) that Banks would present to the CoA. Banks’ counsel had observed the rules and disclosed that to the Crown. The interview with Dotcom took place on September 29, 2014, and Butler reported to Crown Counsel Dacre in a memorandum, also on September 29. The “Butler Memorandum” introduces a new Dotcom claim – that there were two meetings with Mr and Mrs Banks, one of June 5, 2010 and the other on June 9, 2010. He had earlier asserted that there was only one meeting on June 9. Wylie J, however, found that the lunch was on June 5, as latter also attested by the US businessmen.

The crux of the date issue is that both Mr and Mrs Banks were proven to have been elsewhere on June 9, and could not have been at a “second” meeting/luncheon with Dotcom on that date.

Now, understand this: This information was known to the Crown on September 29, 2014. It was not disclosed to Jones/Banks, nor to the Court of Appeal when it heard the case on October 29, 2014 – one month later. In fact the existence of the Butler memorandum was kept secret by the Crown until finally it was released (received by) to David Jones (Banks) on February 27, 2015.

On March 2, 2015 (the weekend intervened) David Jones filed a memorandum with the High Court requesting a section 347 (discharge) hearing. Flipper hears that the Crown has now agreed to this hearing. But that is not all the bad news for the Crown. It is also said that David Jones has gone back to the Court of Appeal because it appears, on the face of evidence now disclosed by the Crown, that the Court was deliberately misled.

It is of concern to some that SG Mike Heron should have been a party to that, and there have been comments linking the withholding decision to his deputy.

Where this unhappy saga will end is open to speculation. But it surely is:
• Good news for John Banks who has now spent more than a month (all up) in the Courts and appeared before more than 15 Judges;
• Bad news for the Crown Law establishment;
• Likely to give rise to assertions of malfeasance;
• Likely to adversely impact on the careers (future Bench appointments) of those involved on the Crown side of the case.

It will be very interesting to see where this ends up.

A reader (no one associated with or working for a party) has sent through an analysis they have done of Hansard:

I wondered how much Winston cared about Northland before the by-election, so I did a bit of research in the Hansard for last term.  I’ve taken out passing references (e.g ‘the member from Northland’ and ‘from Northland to Southland’) and compiled the results.  (Green mentions are undated because I was focussing more on parties contesting the by-election)

Some tallies – NZ First’s biggest advocate for Northland was . . . Andrew Williams.  He raised Northland 8 times last term.  Sadly for Northland he’s now gone.
Winston referred to Northland 6 times in speeches, plus one session where he raised it while barracking Mike Sabin. In each case it’s usual Winston style – all bluster, without actually looking at the facts (links to the Hansard are in the document in case you want a look).  But more importantly for Northland residents, 3 of the times he mentioned them in the House it was actually attacking spending up there!

Going by these numbers Eugenie Sage cares more about Northland than Winston.

Labour gave 31 mentions, so Northland was clearly higher on their priority list that NZ First’s.  Mind you, a lot of these are about trying to stop the Puhoi-Wellsford highway, so obviously they can’t care about regional development that much.

As for the government ignoring Northland?  The facts do not bear that out – a staggering 63 references! 

So Winston only mentioned Northland six times in the last three years, and half of those were attacking spending up there. Yet some people think he will be an advocate for them.

The Herald reports:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has lost the backing of key members of his campaign team, who are turning their attention to other left-leaning candidates at next year’s local body elections.

The Herald has learned of a meeting last month where key campaign and mayoral advisers delivered the “blunt message” to Mr Brown that he has no chance of winning and should step down.

I would have thought this was obvious a year ago.

Present at the meeting with Mr Brown were key members of his campaign team – Labour strategist Conor Roberts, who ran the mayor’s successful 2010 election campaign; David Lewis, chief press secretary to former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark who ran Mr Brown’s 2013 election campaign; advertising guru Mike Hutcheson; and Pacific Events Centre chief executive Richard Jeffery.

Two senior mayoral staff were also present, chief of staff Phil Wilson and chief policy and political adviser James Bews-Hair.

The meeting was confirmed by four sources, none of whom wanted to speak on the record.

If Len isn’t listening to his closest advisers, who is he listening to?

In December the Supreme Court turned down the final appeal by Clive Bradbury and Gregory Peebles in relation to the Trinity tax avoidance scheme which was found to be unlawful. It involved potential tax losses of $3.7 billion.

A reader has pointed out that Mr Bradbury was declared bankrupt in January, and Mr Peebles in February.

I guess this means taxpayers won’t be getting all their money back. A pity.

The Herald reports:

A solution may have been found to keeping veteran “Dambuster” Les Munro’s medals in New Zealand.

Lord Michael Ashcroft has offered to donate $150,000 to the upkeep of London’s Bomber Command Memorial if Mr Munro withdraws his medals from auction.

Philanthropist Lord Ashcroft will donate GPB75,000 to the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which looks after the memorial, in return for Mr Munro donating his medals to the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) in Auckland.

MOTAT has offered to cover the auctioneer’s fees and out of pocket expenses.

Mr Munro’s awards, including the Distinguished Service Order and Distinguished Flying Cross, were expected to fetch between $80,000 and $100,000 at auction.

The 95-year-old veteran had put the medals up to be auctioned on March 25 to raise money for the upkeep of the memorial, which commemorates his fallen comrades.

A very generous offer to Lord Ashcroft who has a genuine affection for both New Zealand and military medals. He has the world’s largest collection of Victoria Crosses, which are freely displayed at the Imperial War Museum in London.

I played a very minor role in the development, tweeting the story to Lord Ashcroft (whom I know through the International Democrat Union) last week. By coincidence he was en route to NZ.

Obviously it is up to Les Munro whether he will accept the offer, or still put them up for auction. But the offer seems to be significantly higher than what they are likely to fetch at auction, so hopefully he will accept and we get a win-win of the medals remaining in NZ, and the Bomber Command Memorial getting a further donation of $150,000.

Lord Ashcroft donated more than $2 million to build the Bomber Command Memorial, which commemorates the airmen who died while flying with the Bomber Command, known as the “Dambusters”, during World War Two.

His proposal has the support of the NZ Bomber Command Association, and if successful, MOTAT will develop a travelling exhibition on the history of the Bomber Command.

He has also offered to personally collect the medals from the auction house in London and fly them to New Zealand.

Lord Ashcroft is also a major pollster in the UK. He commissions polls at both national and electorate level, and publishes them free to the world. He also publishes summaries of focus groups of undecided voters. Very very interesting material for political players and observers.

Stuff reports:

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy has scotched calls for a moratorium on dairy conversions in the Waikato.

Guy was unavailable to be interviewed, but in a statement said while discussions on the issue were welcomed: “I don’t believe we are close to needing a moratorium.”

Regional councils made decisions on consents and the Waikato Regional Council had approved the plans so obviously they were comfortable with the plans and the environmental impacts, he said.

Waikato Federated Farmers president Chris Lewis asked about the need for a moratorium and debate on further dairy conversions at the organisation’s recent monthly executive meeting.

He raised the issue citing concerns over water quality and availability and the cost of meeting tight new rules. The sector, which underpins the regional economy through a $4.2 billion annual contribution and more than 10,000 direct jobs, has grown dramatically, adding 270,000 more dairy cows in the past five years.

Lewis won support from the Greens and industry commentators.

In a free country, it is land owners who decide what they do with their land – not the Government. The thought of the Government deciding who is allowed or not allowed to be a dairy farmer is what I’d expect in the old USSR, not NZ.

Now it is quite appropriate for central and local government to have regulations around environmental impacts of activities, and also to regulate water access. And this already happens. But to have the Government just declare by fiat that no more farms can convert to dairy is ridiculous.

Guy said the issue should be the overall environmental footprint, not just the number of farms or cows.

“New conversions have to meet the toughest environmental standards – higher than for existing farms. They have to fence all waterways and have environmental management plans.

He said the industry had made huge strides in recent years with more than 90 per cent of dairy waterways fenced off.

Exactly. You regulate impacts, not inputs. If a land owner wants to convert to dairy and can meet the environmental standards, they have that right. They should not need permission of a Government.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress the Government has made in supporting higher wages for New Zealand families?
2. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that reducing tariffs on construction materials will save “about $3,500, for a new home”; if so, when will new home buyers see these savings?
3. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister for Economic Development:Does he stand by his statement to RadioLive’s Duncan Garner yesterday, in respect of starting the Pūhoi to Wellsford Motorway, that “2016 sounds like a pretty good date to me”?
4. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the principals of decile 1 to 4 schools he has visited have told him “the number of children in those schools who actually require lunch is the odd one or two”?
5. Dr SHANE RETI to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on job growth in New Zealand?
6. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Can workers still expect that the average wage will rise to $62,000 in the next three years, as he stated during the period of the election campaign in 2014; if so, what annual percentage increase will be required to make that a reality?
7. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the number of teen mothers receiving a benefit?
8. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree that the Government’s Northland bridges policy was “absolutely” the idea of National by-election candidate Mark Osbourne as he claims?
9. STUART SMITH to the Minister for Disability Issues: What is the Government doing to improve the lives of families with disabled children placed in out-of-home care?
10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is he confident that the Department of Internal Affairs manages New Zealanders’ personal information, documents and records effectively and safely?
11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements regarding dairy conversions that the debate should be driven by the “capacity for maintaining and improving the environment”?
12. JONO NAYLOR to the Minister for Small Business: What reports has he received about support for measures the Government has taken to assist small business?

National: Five patsies on wages, jobs, teen benefit numbers, disabled children and small businesses

Labour: Four questions on home affordability, wages, Northland roads and DIA infromation handling

Greens: Two questions on food in schools and dairy farms

NZ First: One question on Northland roads

General Debate 3.00 pm – 4.00 pm

A debate with 12 speeches of up to five minutes.

Members’ Bills 4.00 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm – 10.00 pm

Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill – second reading continued

The bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to establish a clothing allowance for children whose caregivers receive an Orphan’s Benefit or Unsupported Child’s Benefit. The entitlement is intended to parallel the clothing allowance for foster children. It is in the name of NZ First MP Tracey Martin.

Introduced: December 2012
1st reading: October 2013, passed unanimously
Select committee report: June 2014, supported without dissent

The debate has one hour remaining.

Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill – first reading continued

This Bill amends the Education Act 1989 to provide for the introduction of fully State funded breakfast and lunch programmes into all decile 1 and 2 schools and other designated schools in New Zealand. It is in the name of Green MP Metiria Turei.

Introduced: November 2012

The debate has five five minutes remaining.

Electronic Data Safety Bill – first reading

This bill establishes a Commission of Inquiry into privacy breaches within government agencies. It is in the name of Labour MP Clare Curran.

Introduced: November 2012

The debate can last up to 65 minutes.

Education (Food in Schools) Amendment Bill – first reading

This Bill is to provide for a legislative basis for making food in schools available to all decile 1 to 3 primary and intermediate schools. It is in the name of Labour MP David Shearer.

Introduced: September 2013

The debate can last up t0 65 minutes.

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill – first reading

This bill has the purpose of ensuring that every rental home in New Zealand meets minimum standards of heating and insulation. It is in the name of Labour MP Phil Twyford.

Introduced: October 2013

The debate can last up t0 65 minutes.

Underground Coal Mining Safety Bill – first reading

This bill requires the immediate adoption of the Queensland framework for mine safety.

Introduced: October 2013

The debate can last up t0 65 minutes.

The MPs Remuneration Bill passed all three stages last night, and during the debate I got quoted over a dozen times by Labour and NZ First MPs. Oh dear.

Annette King said:

What we want to know from the Minister when he gets into the chair a little later on is whether he has got the formula right. I am not sure, because last week when we were meant to be debating this bill I just happened to read David Farrar’s blog. Unlike the Government, he had done some work on the methodology that the Government was using to set MPs’ salaries. What did he find? He found, in fact, that if MPs used the formula put up by the Government last week we would have got a bigger pay increase than what actually was provided. Under the new legislation that was put up last week the average would have been 3.1 percent; under the current law it would have been 1.7 percent.

Annette is referring to my blog post here.

Tracey Martin referenced another of my posts:

It was interesting that Mr Farrar, David Farrar—he is a well-known leftie, I think, is he not—has helpfully compared MPs with judges. An MP used to get 73 percent of what a district court judge gets, but today they get just 48 percent. This excludes superannuation subsidies that are far more generous to judges. And then Mr Farrar compared Cabinet Ministers with High Court judges. In 1985 they were paid almost the same. Ministers got $957 more. Today a Cabinet Minister gets just 67 percent of what a High Court judge gets. They get paid almost $150,000 less. We are not suggesting that that means we need to go up towards High Court judges; what we are suggesting is that things have got out of kilter.

That is referring to this post.

Michael Woodhouse as the Minister responsible, responded to my blog post:

Mr Farrar, on Kiwiblog. I can give that member the date if she wishes. It is true that the average increase, were it calculated over that period of time, would have been higher than the actual increases that were handed down by the Remuneration Authority under the current legislation. Why was that? There were straitened times. The Remuneration Authority quite rightly interpreted the legislation in the way that it was intended. Indeed, this is the only increase, for all the tub-thumping and rhetoric from the other side about the Prime Minister talking a good game and not acting—in fact, the Remuneration Authority listened very carefully, and this determination set out in 2015 was the first increase of over 2 percent since this Government came to office. In 2009 and 2010 the quarterly employment survey increases were 4.8 percent and 5.5 percent. Why was that? It was because that was the ongoing sequelae of an out of control Labour Government that taxed and spent and taxed and spent and built up the public service until it was out of control in terms of numbers and salary growth, and locked this Government in to wage increases that went out years ahead. That was the parting gift to the incoming National Government. Ten years of deficits and salary increases that the Labour Government arranged before it left office—4.8 percent and 5.5 percent.

It is worth remembering that the QES measures the average remuneration in the public sector, which is not the same as the average pay increase. If for example you have fewer entry level jobs, and more managerial jobs, then the average remuneration will increase.

Michael is right that the 2008/09 and 09/10 had very large increases in average public sector pay. However in 10/11 and 11/12 the increases were also higher than what MP pay rises were. It is only in the last two years that MP pay rises have been greater than public sector average remuneration increases. The Remuneration Authority has, as Michael said, been quite restrained.

I suggest to the Labour Opposition members that if they aspire to the Treasury benches again, they will do so knowing that their profligate spending will have direct benefit for them, and the public will have no truck with that.

This is why the PSA is worried. A future left Government that signs off on massive pay increases for PSA collective contracts will look like they are doing it, so they gain bigger pay rises themselves.

The last thing I will say is in relation to Grant Robertson’s intervention in the second reading around public servants’ pay linked to ministerial pay. He said that he did not believe that public servants should be paid any more than the Prime Minister and other Ministers in their charge.

I have good news for Grant in that regard. The Taxpayers Union at some stage will be publishing a list of every person or position on the public payroll who gets paid more than the Prime Minister. People may be surprised by how large it is. I’m sure the Taxpayers Union would welcome Labour’s support in keeping top public sector salaries restrained.

The Herald reports:

The Prime Minister has warned New Zealanders they could soon be paying GST on online purchases as small as a song download from iTunes.

Mr Key said it was inevitable that the cost of online shopping would go up as GST was charged to more goods and services.

GST is not currently charged on imported digital products such as music and film downloaded from services including iTunes.

Because they are not NZ companies. Good luck getting global companies voluntarily agreeing to put their effective prices up so they collect tax for the NZ Government. It is unfair to NZ companies, but there is no easy fix.

A suicidal government could try and ban NZers buying goods from companies not registered for tax in NZ. Ban access to iTunes, Netflix and the like. I think david Parker proposed banning Facebook if they didn’t pay more tax in NZ. National is not so stupid.

The only real solution is for the major economies to agree that a company resident in one country will register for GST type taxes in each country it sells to. But if even one major economy doesn’t become part of such an agreement, then it won’t work. The OECD does have a work programme for this.

Physical goods bought online and worth less than $400 also usually escape GST.

Because the cost of stopping every envelope and parcel at the border, and holding it until GST is paid by the buyer, would cost tens of millions. The de minimis amount should be set at the point which the revenue would significantly outweigh the collection costs. This may be less than $400, or more than $400.

Danyl McL has blogged:

My friend James – last seen on this blog demagoguing it up at the Te Aro Meet the Candidates event – has entered the Green Party leadership contest. I’ll be helping him with his campaign so will possibly not be the most impartial commentator on the race.

The data-based argument for James’ leadership is basically the chart below. He wasn’t an MP when he ran in Wellington Central last year yet more people there voted Green than any other electorate in the country.

A commenter has responded:

With all due respect to James, that’s a very poor starting point for a data-based argument. Wellington Central is choc-full of green votes because the demographics of the seat heavily lean to young urban liberals. If the Greens didn’t make 30% in that seat, then we’d all be calling it a poor result.

I agree that saying Shaw should be leader because his seat gets the most party votes is a poor argument.

What would be a better analysis is how much extra party vote has a candidate got in a seat, when they have stood there.

Let’s look at 2011 and 2014. First of all 2011.

The median increase for the Greens that year was 4.2%. Some selected seats:

• Akl Ctl (Roche) +7.3%
• Wgtn Ctl (Shaw) +7.1%
• Rongotai (Norman) +7.2%
• Ohariu (Hughes) +5.3%
• Chch Ctl +5.1%
• Northcote (Tava) +4.2%
• Hague (WCT) +3.3%

So Shaw got the largest party vote increase of the four candidates in 2011, and Hague the smallest. However Shaw’s increase was around the same as the neighbouring Rongotai and Auckland Central.

Now for 2014 where the median change in party vote was dropping -0.2%:

• Rongotai (Norman) +2.2%
• Wgtn Ctl (Shaw) +1.7%
• Northcote +0.7%
• Akl Ctl (Roche) +0.5%
• Ohariu +0.2%
• Chch Ctl -0.9%
• Hague (WCT) -1.2%

Tava and Hughes did not stand in an electorate in 2014. However the party vote in Northcote in 2014 exceeded the median by more than in 2011.

The increase in Wellington Central in 2014 is much more than the similar seat of Auckland Central.

And the drop in West Coast-Tasman is one of the bigger drops for the Greens.

So while the data used by Danyl was flawed, his conclusion was not. The Greens have improved their vote more in seats where Shaw stands.

Stuff reports:

A “mystery pooper” has pooed in Invercargill’s Splash Palace swimming pool five Friday evenings in a row.

City council aquatic services manager Pete Thompson said the culprit’s acts had cost the pool “tens of thousands of dollars” in lost revenue.

The pool was closed for cleaning for about six hours each time faecal matter was found in the water.

“It generally happens after 5pm each Friday night,” Thompson said.

It was unclear if one person or more was involved, with poo found in three pools in the complex on a Friday night about three weeks ago.

If it was five Fridays in a row, it must be deliberate. Very disgusting.

I wonder if they have cameras at the entrance which they could use to find out who was there all five Fridays. Can’t be too many.

Also is there anyway one could DNA test the poo, and ask those there each night to do a test, to clear themselves? They could refuse, but if only one refused that might lead somewhere.

“In one of those pools was diarrhoea … that was unfortunate.”

Yuck, yuck, yuck. I suspect pool attendance is going to plummet now.

If they catch the person responsible, I hope the prosecution gets a lot of publicity.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland Council committee will consider establishing a ‘Rainbow Community Advisory Panel’ on Wednesday at an annual unbudgeted cost of $116,880.

Community development and safety committee chairwoman Cathy Casey said the creation of the panel will provide an important voice for the community in the same way other communities are represented.

Communities can have voices without panels.

The council already has disability, Pacific, ethnic, youth, rural and seniors advisory panels.

There’s some cost savings to be made! Instead they are cutting library hours!

Council officers have estimated a one-off cost of $35,000 to recruit members to the panel and an annual cost of $116,880 to operate the panel.

The chair of the panel would be paid $3180 to attend six meetings and 12 members $1500 each.

Why pay panelists? If people want to represent their community to the Council, I’m sure they’ll do it happily for free.

The panel would have a discretionary fund of $20,000, $9000 to hold a community summit, plus mileage and catering costs.

The panel would mean the council hiring an additional democracy adviser at a cost of $65,000.

A full time staff member just for one panel that meets six times a year!!!

How about no fees for panelists, no new staff member, no $20,000 slush fund and say just $9,000 for a community summit plus say $1,000 for mileage and catering costs? That’s $10,000 a year instead of $116,880.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he still believe that people who oppose the deployment of New Zealand soldiers to train Iraqi Government forces need to “get some guts and join the right side” in light of widespread evidence that Iraqi Government forces are committing war crimes?
2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about higher employment, consumer confidence, and economic growth?
3. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What advice, if any, has he received on the causes of rheumatic fever?
4. JOANNE HAYES to the Minister for Social Housing: What support is the Government providing to families in Christchurch in need of short-term housing?
5. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Can workers still expect that the average wage will rise to $62,000 in the next three years, as he stated during the period of the election campaign in 2014?
6. BARBARA STEWART to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement regarding the closing down of a health centre, published on Newstalk ZB this morning, “there’s no facility in Wellsford that is closing, and that is what my officials have told me”?
7. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Transport: Why was the Government’s new policy to double-lane ten Northland bridges not announced by him or the New Zealand Transport Agency?
8. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has she received on the impact of Tropical Cyclone Pam on New Zealand?
9. DENIS O’ROURKE to the Minister of Transport: When will the detailed plans, designations and construction schedule be available for the full Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway?
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
11. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding responsible lending?
12. Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister for the Environment: Has he, along with the Minister of Local Government, released for public consultation the discussion document on the statutory review of Environment Canterbury and options for regional governance, as advised to do by November 2014 in the Briefing to Incoming Ministers; if so, when?

National: Four patsies on the economy, Christchurch housing, Cyclone Pam and loan sharks

Labour: Five questions on Iraq, rheumatic fever, wages, Northland roads, and ECan

Greens: One question on does PM stand by all his statements

NZ First: Two questions on Wellsford health centre and Northland roads

Maori Party: One question on treatment of Iriheke Pere

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

Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill – 2nd reading

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

This bill is not debated.

Harmful Digital Communications Bill – second reading

Construction Contracts Amendment Bill – committee stage continued

The bill amends the Construction Contracts Act 2002 to remove most of the distinctions between the treatment of residential and commercial contracts under the Act; extend the scope of the Act to apply to contracts for design, engineering, and quantity surveying work; remove the distinction between enforcement of payment determinations and of those relating to rights and obligations and make the enforcement process more efficient.

Introduced: January 2013

1st reading: June 2013, passed 119-1 with only Brendan Horan against
Select Committee report: March 2013, supported unanimously with amendments
2nd reading: March 2014, passed unanimously

The committee stage has no time limit. If fully debated a rough guide can be up to an hour per part (plus title and schedules) so unlikely to be more than four hours. Part 1 is still being debated.

There are three SOPs to be voted on – one each by Nick Smith, Clayton Cosgrove and Julie-Anne Genter. They all deal with the issue of retention payments.

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) – committee stage

The bill makes minor changes to the local government acts and the Official Information Act.

Introduced: May 2014
1st reading: April 2014, passed without dissent
Select Committee report: July 2014, supported unanimously with amendments
2nd reading: March 2015, passed without dissent

A provision relating to travel perks for former MPs will be dropped, following objection from the Green Party.

The committee stage has no time limit. If fully debated a rough guide can be up to an hour per part (plus title and schedules) and there are 33 parts.

The Herald reports:

Dairy giant Fonterra will purchase an 18.8 per cent stake in Chinese infant formula maker Beingmate Baby & Child, slightly less than the 20 per cent shareholding it was aiming for.

The company has this afternoon confirmed the completion of a partial tender for the shares, which was submitted to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange on February 12.

Fonterra will purchase 192.4 million Beingmate shares at 18 yuan a piece for 3.5 billion yuan ($754.3 million), excluding transaction fees.

A good reminder that foreign investment runs both ways. Those who wish to restrict or stop foreign investment into NZ, would see NZ companies like Fonterra shut off from the world unable to invest overseas. Free trade and investment benefits traders, investors and recipients of investment. Long may they occur.

NewstalkZB reports:

Winston Peters is on the attack over the closing down of a health centre the government says doesn’t exist.

The New Zealand First leader says the Wellsford community health office is under threat, but the government’s waiting a few weeks before its closed.

“I kind of think that this is linked to the fact that they don’t want people upset in the by-election, and they’re going to close it afterwards.”

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says there is no Wellsford community health office.

“The best advice that I’ve had is that there’s no facility in Wellsford that is closing, and that is what my officials have told me.”

There is a public health nurse operating out of her own office in Wellsford.

The local DHB’s deputy director of funding, Tim Wood, says she’s not going anywhere.

“The DHB has no intention to discontinue their role, and they will be based in Wellsford on an ongoing basis.”

Tim Wood says the DHB is looking into extending its services into Wellsford.

Remember the fleet of BMWs that Peters claimed WINZ owned, and scores of other fantasies he has pushed over the years. More recently the sale of Huka Lodge, which was a complete fabrication.

The Herald reports:

Former MPs who were in Parliament before 1999 are able to claim an international travel discount for them and their spouse each year, paid for by taxpayers.

The maximum rebate is recalculated every year by Parliamentary Service, whose staff look up a current airfare to base it upon.

Since the 1970s that airfare has been specified as an Air New Zealand business class return fare from Auckland to London.

But that changed to the lowest-cost business airfare available after the new Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013.

Omitting the Air NZ specification was a mistake, the Government said, and this week’s amendment will fix that.

Because Air NZ is often not the cheapest option, legal blogger Graeme Edgeler has estimated that the change could have increased the maximum rebate from $11,000 to about $20,000 a year.

However, figures provided by Parliamentary Service show that for 2014/15 – the first year an airline’s fare other than Air NZ was used – the cap was $12,414.

In the previous financial year – when Air NZ had to be used as the basis for calculation – the cap was similar at $11,850.

So it is far from clear that going back to Air NZ as a basis would increase the value. In fact the cap was lower when using Air NZ.  But then why not stick with the (new) status quo?

Important to note that the perk has been abolished for MPs who entered Parliament after 1999. Of the 121 current MPs, only 15 will get the perk.

Stuff reports:

A flood of supportive messages has been the “overwhelming” response to news that Vodafone will increase the amount of fully paid maternity leave it offers.

“I didn’t expect it to be latched on to as much,” chief executive Russell Stanners said on Monday.

Vodafone announced last week that new mums on staff will get an extra four weeks fully paid maternity leave under the company scheme from April 1.

The change takes the company’s maternity leave provision from 12 to 16 weeks. It will also offer mothers who return to work within 12 months the ability to work a 30 hour week for 40 hours pay for six months. …

The move brings Vodafone into line with the government paid parental leave term of 16 weeks which will begin on the same day, increasing to 18 weeks from April 1, 2016.

However, the maximum maternity pay available from the government scheme is $504.10 gross a week while Vodafone’s scheme provides the employee’s full pay.

Good on Vodafone for their decision. But understand Vodafone are not doing this to be nice. They are doing this because it is in their commercial self-interest to recruit and retain staff, 37% of whom are women.

This decision doesn’t make the case for the state legislating more generous leave provisions for all companies. It makes the case for not doing so, and allowing those companies that wish to offer more generous leave provisions to do so. Vodafone’s move will put pressure on competitors such as Spark to do the same. But what is appropriate for a giant company like Vodafone is not necessarily appropriate for Jack’s Cafe which couldn’t afford to pay a staffer their full wages for six months, while not working.

Stuff reports:

Two parties are weighing up legal action against a controversial water slide operator alleged to owe tens of thousands of dollars.

They say they have reached boiling point in dealing with Trill Productions, which trades as Monster Slide, and its sole director and chief executive Jamie Templeton.

Structural Support & Panel NZ Ltd (SSPNZ) and youth development worker Lolina Avia were involved with the Christchurch leg of the slide event held in Christchurch six weeks ago.

They spoke out  earlier this month, frustrated in seeking payment from event organisers, who have disputed invoices and made what the creditors claim are incomplete payments.

On top of that are the thousands of Wellingtonians who paid in advance, and have not had a refund for the cancelled Wellington event.

I was planning to go to the Disputes Tribunal to get a refund (more over the principle, than the amount) but a lawyer yesterday said that if I paid by credit card (which I did) just cancel the payment, as the services were never supplied. So I’m going to do that, and others may wish to do the same.

If Templeton is unable to pay his creditors, rather than unwilling, it raises the question of whether he was trading while insolvent.

“If you have been voting for politicians to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.”

– Thomas Sowell

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.