By Bernard Hickey
With less than three weeks to go until the September 20 election, here's my daily round-up of political news on Wednesday September 3, including Prime Minister John Key causing David Cunliffe to stumble over Labour's Capital Gains Tax policy in last night's leaders debate hosted by The Press in Christchurch and National launching its Water policy. There's also two fresh poll results.
Roy Morgan published its poll taken over the two weeks to last Sunday, finding support for National fell 3% to 45%, while support for the Green Party rose 4.5% to 16%, its highest level since April 2012. Labour fell 1.5% to 26%, while New Zealand First fell 0.5% to 6%.
Maori fell 0.5% to 0.5%, Act rose 0.5% to 1% and Internet-Mana fell 1.5% to 1%. Support for Conservative rose 2.5% to a record high 3.5% in the Roy Morgan survey. It polled 762 voters by mobile and landline phone and 3.5% (down 3%) did not name a party vote preference.
If these results were repeated on election day, National would likely require a confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to govern comfortably.
However, a 3 News Reid Research poll published on Wednesday evening found John Key's support as preferred Prime Minister rose almost 4% to 45%. Support for National in the poll taken from August 26 and September 1 rose 1.4% to 46.4%. The previous poll was taken from August 19-25.
Labour fell 0.5% to 25.9%, Green fell 0.9% to 12.6%, New Zealand First fell 0.5% to 5.8%.
Nats would buy farm land
On the campaign trail, Prime Minister John Key, Environment spokeswoman Amy Adams and Primary Industries spokesman Nathan Guy announced National's water policy at an event at the Waituna lagoon in Southland.
The policy included a plan to spend NZ$100 million over 10 years to buy and retire farmland next to important waterways and to regulate the exclusion of all dairy cattle from waterways by July 2017.
National would also work with industry to exclude other cattle from waterways over time on intensively farmed lowland properties. National also included its already announced NZ$400 million fund for Government investments in irrigation schemes in the policy.
"This fund will give councils another option to help manage freshwater by enabling these sensitive areas to be retired for environmental purposes," Adams said.
Green Co-Leader Russel Norman described the policy as an "election band-aid."
"Fencing dairy cows out of streams is a token gesture if you stop at that. We need to put a halt on dairy conversions in regions where there are already too many cows, and too much pollution in our rivers," Norman said, saying that the NZ$10 million spent per year on excluding cows from adjacent land equated to 777 fewer cows per year.
"Two new conversions and that's gone," Norman said.
Irrigation NZ said it applauded National's "pragmatic" policy.
"With the new freshwater fund and fencing requirements, plus objectives set by the National Policy Statement for freshwater, communities now have the tools to actively and collectively solve freshwater problems,” said Irrigation NZ Chairwoman Nicky Hyslop.
Key wins leaders debate
Key was widely viewed to have done much better in the second leaders debate overnight than in the first.
The often rowdy affair before a town hall style audience in Christchurch seemed to suit a more energetic Key better and included one embarrassing moment for Cunliffe that some are comparing to Phil Goff's 'Show me the money' moment from 2011.
Key appeared to trip up David Cunliffe on Labour's Capital Gains Tax policy. Key asked Cunliffe if a family home in a trust would be caught by the tax and a briefly rattled Cunliffe would not answer, preferring to check the policy.
"I think New Zealanders will say that's a shocking revelation they have been told by the Labour Party that the family home will be exempt, but there's hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who will not be exempt," Key said.
"He doesn't know the answer, but the answer is if you own a family home and you put it in a trust, it will be subject under Labour to a capital gains tax," Key said after the debate.
Cunliffe later told reporters the family home would not be subject to the Capital Gains Tax, regardless of whether it was owned directly or in a trust.
"I've learned to check my facts and John Key got it wrong, a family home does not incur Capital Gains Tax whether its owned by a trust or not. John Key got that wrong," Cunliffe said.
Key said about 300,000 homes would be affected. There are about 215,000 family homes in family trusts.
The verdicts
Writing in the The Press which hosted the debate, Vernon Small declared it a tie , but said it was a more even contest than the first TVNZ leaders debate last week, which was judged a points victory for Cunliffe.
The New Zealand Herald's commentators were less equivocal. John Armstrong, Audrey Young, Toby Manhire and Fran O'Sullivan all declared Key the winner. Armstrong and Young compared Cunliffe's Capital Gains Tax moment to Phil Goff's 'Show Me the Money' in the same debate three years earlier.
3News' Patrick Gower also awarded the debate to Key.
"Some people won't like Key's performance, but he riled Cunliffe and got on top; the capital gains tax blow in particular handing him victory," Gower said.
TVNZ's Corin Dann also said Key had bounced back with a more aggressive showing.
Tax cut carrot
Elsewhere in the debate, Key said National would release its plans for a modest tax cut for low to middle income earners next week, possibly of no more than NZ$30 a week.
"Even if it's a small amount, we want to reward New Zealanders for working hard, whether it's $10 or $20 or $30 bucks (per week), it adds up to $500 or $1000 for an individual or a couple (per year)," Key said.
Dirty politics
Judith Collins gave her first interview since her resignation, telling Fairfax she was confident she would be cleared and was "sick of this nonsense." She rejected Cunliffe's call for her office to be sealed, calling him a "moron."
3News reported from Rawshark that Collins' and Cameron Slater's denial that they had corresponded on Facebook was a lie. Collins and Slater have suggested the Facebook between the two revealed earlier this week was a forgery.
Collins and Key have begun calling 'Rawshark' a 'criminal'.
Winston Peters said a full Royal Commission of Inquiry into 'Dirty Politics' would be a bottom line in any government-forming negotiations. Key would not rule that out in later comments to reporters.
Slim majority want Labour
A Horizon Poll of 1,676 eligible voters from August 29 to September 2 found 71.1% of those planning to vote for New Zealand First would prefer a Labour-led government, while 28.9% would prefer National.
More generally, the poll found 48.7% would prefer a National-led government, while 51.3% preferred a Labour-led one.
CERA shift
Gerry Brownlee announced on Tuesday CERA would be moved into DPMC from February next year and a transition plan would be put in place to hand over its powers to local and other Government authorities as the CER Act approaches its April 2016 expiry.
Key said in the debate that Brownlee would continue to be Earthquake Recovery minister if National was re-elected. Cunliffe said Clayton Cosgrove would be Labour's Minister if elected. Cunliffe also criticised the CERA move into DPMC, saying the "new name plate on the door is not going to kickstart the rebuild. It will just mean more bureaucrats in Wellington."
(Updated with debate verdicts from Corin Dann and Patrick Gower, National's water policy, Roy Morgan poll)
I'll update this regularly through the day.
See all my previous election diaries here.
See the index for Interest.co.nz's special election policy comparison pages here.
76 Comments
Interesting that left leaning Kiwis did not want power companies sold when it had zero effect on them financailly , but are happy with CGT proposed under GreenLabour's TAX AND SPEND POLICY which is going to hit them really hard when they sell the old - folks home after they die.
Its a WTF ? moment if anything
Elsewhere in the debate, Key said National would release its plans for a modest tax cut for low to middle income earners next week, possibly of no more than NZ$30 a week.
Where is the money going to come from?
Does JK genuinely not realise that his supposed 'surplus' was dependent on continuing high dairy commodity prices?
Are any of the other parties any more cognisant of economic reality?
Why would John Key overseeing the rebuild help? His focus should be on national and international events.
Either he will pay too little attention to Christchurch and Canterbury will continue getting a 'too little too late' response or John will spend too much time in Christchurch (unlikely) and the rest of the country will complain.
The solution is to acknowledge that NZ's public institutions are weak and ineffective. Then put in place structures to improve them.
Micro-management will not work. Helen Clark tried that and eventually that just 'p...d' everyone off. John Key doesn't have those sort of micro-management skills even if wanted to go down that route.
Don't forget, Andrew Kibblewhite, Head of DPMC is the guy who forgot to tell the PM about Peter Dunne's emails being released without his permission during the Henry investigation;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10908657
Point is - when the PM builds a culture around loose lips and dodgy processes it infects everyone. They not only forget rules around privacy, but when breaching these rules they even forget to tell the PM that they have done so.
Looks like we are all us Christchurch people are voting Greens then... Below is from their facebook page.
"First National takes away Cantabrians' right to vote in regional council elections, and now major decisions about the future of this city are to be moved even further from those most affected, with no certainty around when CERA’s draconian emergency powers would end.
The Green Party will restore local democracy, hold elections for ECan, end CERA’s emergency powers and empower our locally elected councillors to make decisions about Christchurch’s future.
#LoveNZ Party Vote #Green2014 "
Bernard, John Key blatantly lied at 17mins into part 2 during the discussion of the numbers of households still with unresolved insurance claims.
Key claimed only 1000 overcap claims were not settled, when in fact over 11,000 overcap claims were not settled. Add to that the 25,000 claims still sitting with EQC, many of which are severely damaged and near the cap and add to that the many thousands where inadequate cash settlements have been paid by EQC.
I personally have had 2 claims only go over cap in recent months (one just this week), a close elderly family member has too only had her home go overcap last month. All 3 will still take months or years to resolve with the private insurers. Next to one of my properties at least 3 neighbours still sit in limbo "undercap" with severely damaged homes.
Bernard, the media need to expose Key as a liar or that he is simply out of touch with reality.
At least 36,000 properties await settlement not 1,000 as Key claimed.
Those waiting are either awaiting a rebuild, a repair or a cash settlement offer. Many still have no idea where they stand.
I could easily take you on a tour of my and my family's properties and immediate neighbours who are in limbo or awaiting an outcome.
On top of that, those properties which are settled and have only been so in recent months show the ridiculous length of time it has taken for EQC to process these settlements.
Key is out of touch. This is an opportunity for an investigative journalist to expose the truth.
EQC have about about 13% of their claims still to settle,, although the last figure I saw published was 25,000 which is closer to 15%. (On top of that there will be many who have received a cash settlement who do not feel that their payout is correct - which it probably isn't - included in the EQC settled claims total).
Private insurers have 23,000 claims and increasing by the day as EQC are still passing them across after 4 years! Of these only half were settled at the end of June. 11,000 remain to settle according to ICNZ.
http://www.icnz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Q2-2014-Progress-Stats-Summar…
Cunliffe's 37% figure was the number of overcap claims that have not had any physical work done or even a building contract signed nor a cash settlement paid, ie the total number of claims where nothing had happened.
The fact that John Key said all but 1000 overcap claims were settled and have received their insurance cheques is rubbish. 1169 having received no offer is what Key used as his statistic which shows he is out of touch. Firstly it is outrageous that many people have had no offer from their private insurer after 4 years and secondly the insurer sending a letter saying that we will repair your house in 2016 is hardly a settled claim.
Key deliberately tried to downplay the problem. He thinks people in other parts of the country will believe him that only 1000 people with issues remain unsettled...
This is highly relevant especially given CERA is moving into DPMC if National wins the election.
I think the reason the wheels are coming off the National party's bus is that Key is neither a micro-manager like Helen Clark was nor is he capable of setting up good processes and structures. As Kate says the management culture John Key has created is not working.
JK's managememnt style only works if he can make stuff up or have the likes of Slater distract the poor sheepie when he is in public difficulty.
JK comes from an investment banking background where you are only answerable up to your boss, so long as you are making money all good. Managing down, he's the boss and can make up whatever he wants.
He's not used to having to account to the public, and the journalists in this country have not tried to hold him to account until about a week ago. He normally gets away without answering difficult questions, brushing them off and dismissing them. I can't believe the sorts of 'interviews' he gets on the likes of 7sharp where they get him in to talk about whatever he wants and don't question a word of it.
As Prime Minister you are accountable to 4M+ New Zealanders. He needs a new management style
Chris, Bernard - John Ward:
As Josef Goebbels remarked in 1932, “the masses respond to relentless repetition and confident assertion with total belief”.
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/greek-radio-an-american-repeal-c…
Raw numbers of claims means diddly, absent a categorisation of these claims.
And don't forget that a not-small rump of claims includes those horribly tangled cases e.g. cross-leases, unit titles, body corporates, rows of flats, and other gnarly legal knots.
And as policies are often expressed in terms of events (there were, to refresh your memories - at least four major quakes: Sept 4 10, 22 Feb 11, 13 June 11, 23 Dec 11), so one property may well have 4 claims.
Raw numbers being bandied about is simply cherry-picking.
Waymad the first part of dealing with a problem is to accurately measure how big it is and what progress is being made to fix it.
There is clearly more than 1000 households that have not got the 'peace of mind' that they paid for.
If the government hasn't got on top of this after 4 years then it doesn't reflect well on them does it?
Brendon: insurance is all individual contracts, individual wording. You cannot mass-modify any of this without irrevocably changing the nature of contract law, and no-one is about to do that.....so it's back to individuals, with individual contracts, with individual damage, talking to their perhaps multiple insurers.......that's why the Gubmint is essentially an onlooker.
I do agree with Kumbel that some form of early-mediation/small-claims processes, could have been agreed early on. But hindsight is always 20/20.
You are also forgetting the real backstop here, with a keen legal interest in every claim: the re-insurers such as Munich Re, Swiss Re, or Buffet's General Re. They have a tight rein on what boundaries the retail insurers can negotiate within, and again will not tolerate any talk of breaking or relaxing legal contracts. That way lies Zimbabwe....
Waymad,
The ICNZ link above is numbers of properties not claims.
EQC state they have settled 144,000 out of 169,000 properties. Not individual claims. The properties would have included all claims made including those in distant regions such as South Canterbury, Otago etc resulting from the September mag 7 event.
All figures mentioned in my comment relate to individual properties not individual claims. Note however that a block of 3 flats which were individually insured (ie paying 3 EQC levies) would be counted as 3 claims.
Key asked Cunliffe if a family home in a trust would be caught by the tax ...
Have a look back at the footage, Bernard. When Key first asked the question - he did not use the adjective "family" in front of the word home - just asked about a home in a trust.
Not sure whether this is why Cunliffe looked miffed, but my first thought was... well doh, of course it will be subject to CGT, given most rental/investment properties are held in trusts.
Cunliffe just looked 'blank' then changed the subject - and it wasn't until JK interrupted him pressing for an answer that JK clarified that he meant a family home.
Personally I'd prefer that family homes in trust did become subject to CGT - given the primary reason for putting the family home in a trust is to avoid means testing (and the requirement to sell the asset) if it comes to housing an elderly relative. Hence, given the state, through general taxation, makes up any shortfall regarding that elder care, it's fair enough that when all the occupiers are gone (i.e., both elder partners and any dependents) and the trustees decide to liquidate the asset - that a CGT should apply. Point is, we don't have any inheritance tax at all - whereas they are a staple revenue stream in most western economies.
Agree, I dont see why such tax dodging should continue. Though if its an estate being liquidated I'd assume it attracts the CGT as its not the family home of the ppl receiving the $s, its no ones family home as the previous occupiers are dead, so its a windfall gain.
Devil in the detail I guess.
regards
I saw the clip on the TV1 news and the word 'family' was indeed omitted.
To be pedantic the answer would be that the property is not necessarily be where the family lives.
So Key's question was imperfect as well as Cunliffe's non answer being more difficult to criticise.
I still see CGT as clumsy and lacking early revenue. The Hong Kong 15% front end loading on purchases is much more productive to lower foreign ownership. It could be applied to all property sales payable on settlement, but not payable if say 12 months proven personal occupancy is applied for.
Then if the occupant can prove same and is a NZ resident who has fully complied it can be cancelled.
It would make a better balance between bidders for their own occupancy and all others including foreign, local investors and short termers.
I've just been making this point on another thread, Kiwis should be terrified of this CGT because it's just the start. In my opinion it will be expanded to include the family home and inheritance and eventually anything and everything else. There will literally be nothing the government can't tax.
Property in a Trust is considered to be the property owned by the Trustees. A trust is not a corporate entity for any legal purposes. Trusts are a system of privileged ownership, in which Trustee put aside a portion of their assets (provided to the Trustee(s)) by the settlors). In return for contractual recognition and a written obligation of undertaking those Trustee owned assets are treated separate for tax and legal purposes.
In cases such as CGT, they will be considered jointed owned property of Trustees (c.f Tenants In Common). This is true because that is what the ownership is.
FYI Updated with National's water policy:
On the campaign trail, Prime Minister John Key, Environment spokeswoman Amy Adams and Primary Industries spokesman Nathan Guy announced National's water policy at an event at the Waituna lagoon in Southland.
The policy included a plan to spend NZ$100 million over 10 years to buy and retire farmland next to important waterways and to regulate the exclusion of all dairy cattle from waterways by July 2017.
National would also work with industry to exclude other cattle from waterways over time on intensively farmed lowland properties. National also included its already announced NZ$400 million fund for Government investments in irrigation schemes in the policy.
"This fund will give councils another option to help manage freshwater by enabling these sensitive areas to be retired for environmental purposes," Adams said.
Green Co-Leader Russel Norman described the policy as an "election band-aid."
"Fencing dairy cows out of streams is a token gesture if you stop at that. We need to put a halt on dairy conversions in regions where there are already too many cows, and too much pollution in our rivers," Norman said, saying that the NZ$10 million spent per year on excluding cows from adjacent land equated to 777 fewer cows per year.
"Two new conversions and that's gone," Norman said.
Irrigation NZ said it applauded National's "pragmatic" policy.
"With the new freshwater fund and fencing requirements, plus objectives set by the National Policy Statement for freshwater, communities now have the tools to actively and collectively solve freshwater problems,” said Irrigation NZ Chairwoman Nicky Hyslop.
How absolutely ridiculous - $100m to be spent paying private landholders/businesses for private land surrounding public waterways.
Just nuts when sound regulation protecting those waterways will do the job at no expense to the taxpayer!!!!!!!
For $100m we could have lunches in schools, or more money spent on mental health and addiction services, or diabetes prevention, or they could buy up some useful land - such as fringe land for residential development in CHCH and so on and so forth.
This government is going to further radicalise a whole lot of NZers. With all that is going on at WINZ branches - the longer these folks are in charge - the greater the tensions of those with little to lose. It really is just awful.
They are all about ridiculous Kate, why spend maybe a million regulating farmers to do what is just the right thing anyway, when you can waste 100 million on it.
Who's counting anyway, these guys are going for a record debt for NZ, to beat their last record debt for NZ.
What are they up for now? 63 billion in debt in 6 years, not bad considering it was almost nothing when they took office 6 years ago.
theoretically it is the community, ie the taxpayer, demanding these changes in land use, why should they not pay for what they want? They demand it's public/community waterways...
What concerns me is that if there exists a pool of $100m taxpayer dollars with nothing better to do. Then why can't go to protecting existing DoC works?
It's just an attempt to buy back farmers hurt by legislation over the last 6 yrs, and an attempt to buy some green votes away from the Green party. Hopefully no-one will be fooled into thinking that the 100m won't come from the voters wallets.
It is interesting Kate that this was announced at Waituna. There is a dairy farm which recently applied for a renewal of its resource consent which is being robustly objected to by Doc and F&G. This farm is on the edge of the lagoon and it has a bad history of compliance. There has been a feeling in some circles that this farm should never have been allowed to convert and the RC should buy it and let it revert.
I expect it would be for this type of purchase the govt intends its funding to go towards. On a personal level, I agree with the objectors.
Interesting. And that proves my point - all that needs to be done is for the RC to decline to renew the resource consent if indeed the facility fails to meet the criteria set down in regulation (i.e., in the Regional Plan). Sounds to me as if that is the case if it has a bad history of compliance - so I really don't see any reason why taxpayers/ratepayers should purchase land. The land will not be confiscated in refusing to renew the consent - the landowner will simply need to change its use to an activity that is permitted or able to be consented under the plan.
Any sort of farming, including intensive sheep farming (sheep farming is intensive in our part of southland) is going to potentially be a problem for lagoon water quality on that farm.
To tell a dairy farmer they have to become a sheep farmer is like telling a lawyer they have to become a dentist. ;-)
The interesting difference is your attitude to the situation and that of some local environmental groups. Some locals would be happy to see the RC buy out such properties. Land in the Waituna is almost unsaleable due to the media exposure of the lagoons RAMSAR status.
I tend to disagree with the lawyer/dentist analogy - as the dairy farmer has an asset that can be sold or re-worked as a means to change income-earning direction. Subdivision of the land and sale to residential lifestyle blocks is an alternate low intensity land use. I just don't get what you mean by a RC buyout - why would other people be expected to buy out a limited duration licence right that had expired?
There are many examples of similar property rights impacts in respect of environmental management. Private property which finds itself next door to a new motorway or in the shadow of a new power line or recently subject to inundated by the sea are similarly "almost unsaleable" and those property rights were permanent (i.e., they did not have a limited duration) and in most cases, a change of use is not possible.
Public polling lags a couple of weeks behind events (generally about two and a half or so), unlike private polling which pays for speed. A cynic might question if they are delaying their tax cut news so that any bounce from it comes out in the immediate pre election polls.
There are still 29 Kiwi miners who have been patiently waiting, at first to be rescued, - and now to have their remains returned to their families. I find this unbelievable (pinch me, am I dreaming?), since the very first explosion! Our sociopatic Government continues to abandon these men and their families. Forget the smiles, crocodile tears, and the handwringing- all acting. Pike River is an ongoing dishonor to New Zealand- and a graphic example of the depths that this government has taken our proud and friendly little Nation. The sociopath feels no remorse.
There are still 2 Kiwi miners who have been patiently waiting, at first to be rescued, - and now to have their remains returned to their families.... Strongman is an ongoing ...
oh, wait. That was in 1967.
FYI updated with Roy Morgan poll results out this afternoon.
Roy Morgan published its poll taken over the two weeks to last Sunday, finding support for National fell 3% to 45%, while support for the Green Party rose 4.5% to 16%, its highest level since April 2012. Labour fell 1.5% to 26%, while New Zealand First fell 0.5% to 6%.
Maori fell 0.5% to 0.5%, Act rose 0.5% to 1% and Internet-Mana fell 1.5% to 1%. Support for Conservative rose 2.5% to a record high 3.5% in the Roy Morgan survey. It polled 762 voters by mobile and landline phone and 3.5% (down 3%) did not name a party vote preference.
If these results were repeated on election day, National would likely require a confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to govern comfortably.
I prefer Roy Morgan without the interpretation:
Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a sharp decline in support for National (45%, down 3%) following the revelations of Nicky Hager’s ‘Dirty Politics’ and a similar gain in support for a potential Labour/Greens alliance (42%, up 3%). However, the gain in support has come entirely from a rise in support for the Greens (16%, up 4.5%) – now at their highest since April 2012, while potential governing partners Labour’s support has declined to 26% (down 1.5%) just over two weeks before the New Zealand Election on September 20.
If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be too close to call with NZ First likely to choose New Zealand’s next Government.
And in the latest debate fallout, does the Prime Minister's detailed knowledge of the contents of advertorials paid by third parties coming out next week make it not independent of National and so count to National's election spending.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/253646/questions-over-election-…
Poor ol Kiwis whose total knowledge of investing is to buy property. Time to join the real world team and pay your CGT on it. Suck it up - you are only delaying the inevitable. We cant just milk cows and buy houses.
Also having decisions made by the minions in guvment who in many cases have more investment properties than the usual punter seems just wrong.
NZ is as far as I know the only country in the OECD without a CGT or equivalent. It is an essential part of re-balancing the tax system so that different equity classes get a reasonably equitable tax treatment.
I know of subscribers to this site hate CGTs, since they will be personal losers to it. However, we have to have it to encourage the creation of a reasonable share market etc., & remove the incentives to keep pouring (borrowed from overseas) money into property.
If Key successfully demonises it, we will be trapped in the Dark Ages for god knows how long. It will be the biggest act of economic sabotage in NZ politics since Muldoon sank the national superannuation fund.
Cheers to all.
Economic sabatoge is implementing Labour/Green Policy...it is a shame that Atlas Shrugged is not compulsory reading.
CGT will inevitably morph into a tax on "unrealised gains" over time. Interestingly it was such taxation that finally crushed Ancient Rome. People need to understand that what is being proposed is a tax on a tax because firstly governments create inflation (a tax on money) which debauches real incomes and savings. Now we have demands to punish people via CGT for that inflation. What "capital gains"? Here's a suggestion - ban all instruments of credit from the housing market for one year. Then let's look at prices commanded in the marketplace. I'll wager prices would collapse - yet how can capital simply vanish? Answer, it was never there in the first place! As Lenin reminded us inflation is the mechanism for overturning the existing basis of society and arbitrarily transferring wealth from one group to another. Without yet more inflation CGT has no rationale to exist - so expect Labour and the Greens to try and gerrymander house prices upwards whilst uttering their shallow pieties about greed.
Finally, a poiltical gaffe that has nothing to do with corruption.
"Education Minister Hekia Parata has been forced to abandon a claim that National has presided over a 15 per cent increase in teachers - after revelations that Novopay clouded the numbers. Parata has been quoted for several months saying that, under the present Government, "teacher numbers have gone up by 15 per cent". But inquiries by The Dominion Post have shown most of the increase stems from a payroll error."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/policies/10457384/Paratas-high…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.