Treasury

via treasury.govt.nz

Last year, Treasury released iPhone and Android apps for those who like to see all the Budget data come alive (after the 2pm embargo, of course).  They’ve updated the app for the 2013 budget.  Sorry Windows Phone / Surface users, you miss out, but the rest of you can get your fix here:

• 2013 Budget App for iPhone (iTunes)

• 2013 Budget App for Android (Google Play)

Read more »

Labour are pushing their line about asset sales hard out. By John Armstrong has pointed out the obvious flaw in their plan:

Labour’s private member’s bill has about as much chance of becoming law as Namibia has of lifting the Rugby World Cup. Probably even less.

It will need something close to a miracle even to make it onto Parliament’s playing field this side of November’s election.

That is because Labour sees their number priority this election cycle as stopping students from having the same rights as everyone else does in choosing wheter or not they belong to a union, more to the point they wish to use up as much legislative time as possible opposing a private members bill from Heather Roy.

Priorities? Yeah it’s got me stuffed too.

It is here the problems start. First, the bill has to be lucky enough to be drawn in the irregular ballot of private member’s bills. At last count there were 24 other competing bills in the ballot.

As Labour’s opponents point out, the order paper is now clogged with 11 private member’s bills at various stages of debate because Labour has been filibustering an Act bill promoting voluntary membership of student unions.

The killer blow, however, is the provision in the 1995 rewrite of Parliament’s standing orders that any requirement for a 75 per cent majority for altering or removing something must itself get a 75 per cent majority to become entrenched.

To top things off, were the bill to hurdle that obstacle and become law, a future National-led Government could still repeal it with a simple 50 per cent-plus majority.

Labour are just sabre rattling but the problem is the blade fell off a long time ago. All they have is a scabbard, albeit a rusty one and a broken hilt.

But more to the point history shows that when it comes to asset sales and the record of the current Prime Minister vs. the man who would be Prime Minister, head to head only one Party Leader has a track record of selling assets.

His career average is a pretty solid 17 assets that sold for $9,490,000,000.

That party leader is the MP for Mt Roskill, and the most experienced asset seller in the New Zealand parliament, Phil Goff.

Treasury handily provides all the evidence.

State Asset Sales 1988 – 1999

These statistics do not show the sell off of Housing NZ state houses. Labour will say that they were surplus to requirement but the fact remains that they were an asset that they flogged off too. The value of those would probably add another billion onto Labour’s total.

Phil Goff was in Cabinet between 1984 and 1990 (Minister of, variously, Housing, Employment, Youth Affairs, Tourism, and Education). Annette King was elected to Cabinet in 1989 and had responsibility for Employment, Immigration, and Youth Affairs.

When Labour talks about asset sales and what National did, then know with certainty that Labour are hands down winners of the asset sales crown and any talk otherwise is more lies from the mouth of Phil Goff.

The UK government recently launched a website to garner ideas for how the government could save money. It was touted as a first and a brilliant move for inclusive democracy…until…

Employ Crocodiles in Benefits Offices — HMT - Spending Challenge

Oh dear, that isn’t so good….there are plenty more Lol suggestions. go have a look. One particularly fine example is the suggestion to set up a website to get suggestions.

The Standard after attacking me and making it look like a cuddle then goes on through the mad rantings of Marty G to propose there is some conspiracy between Treasury and National.

National’s favourite public servant (who got himself a nice pay rise), John Whitehead, has been offering dire warnings of the future. $2 trillion in debt by 2050! Something must be done!

Naturally, the Treasury has an extreme right-wing solution – cut everything: cut health – yeah, a less healthy workforce that’ll be great for the economy. Cut education – yup, that’s the route to a high tech economy. Cut superannuation – you’re going to die anyway, why not die a pauper? Even cut taxes – yup Treasury reckons part of the solution to the government not taking in enough money to cover its costs to to cut its revenue.

Marty G must be about 12 years old because if he was any older or involved in labour then he would know that John Whitehead was once a treasury wonk seconded to Labour’s research unit and then liked it so much he stayed on eventually rising to Deputy Director of the Labour Research Unit before returning to Treasury.

Massive own goal there.

Further Marty G simply doesn’t understand that Treasury are really just scientists that look at evidence and plug details into complicated economic models and provide forecasts. There is no ideiologiy except when Michael Cullen thinks there is, the forecasts and results just are and they just tell what it is.

The plain simple fact of the matter is that New Zealand is living beyond its means, it can’t pay its bills and it won’t be able to pay its bills in the future unless we do something.

I’ve had an interesting contribution via the tip line. It is a copy of a letter from National Party Board nominee Wira Gardiner. It appears Mr Gardiner has sent this letter to the “rangatira” (otherwise known as the office holders and key influencers) of the Party.

The part that interests me the most is this;

It seems Wira has missed the point. The concerns around conflict of interest really don’t relate to his wife Hekia’s ascension through the ranks. The conflict issue is much simpler than that as I’ve highlighted before. It is a bit like Church and State… there should be a very real line between the Party organisational wing and the Party parliamentary wing. If one side is substantially stronger than the other then the Party simple can’t operate successfully. Like it or not, Wira and Hekia will talk shop. And, Hekia will probably suggest directions that might be more comfortable for the parliamentary wing and forget the organisational wing. Even if she doesn’t do that, any time that a decision appears to be made in favour of the parliamentary wing the perception will be that Wira was influenced via pillow talk. This issue is very real whether he is just a Board Member or the President.

The other concern is how does Wira propose to be a part of List Ranking when he has the substantial conflict of interest of being married to a current MP? We assume he’ll declare his conflict and sit it out. How crazy would it be for a President or indeed even a Board Member of the National Party to not even get a say in the ranking of the Party’s candidates? I wonder if this also means he’ll need to sit on the sidelines of the Candidates’ college as well? And, how would it work for selections within the greater Wellington area?

Wira’s major issue in the Party is whether he’ll continue to be a fair-weather friend. Perhaps Wira could answer the very simple question of whether he’s had continual membership of the National Party for the “over 30 years” that he professes to have. Or, are the news reports correct that he’s resigned at least twice when he’s disagreed with current policy positions?

In fact perhaps all board candidates might like to outline their longest period of contiguous membership. If I’m going to be vting for someone to sit on the board then I want to know they are loyal to the Party and not just a fair weather friend thinking it might be advantageous now the Party is in government.

personally I don’t even see the point of voting for a candidate that can’t even sit on the List Ranking Committee as either a board member or as the President if they are conflicted by being married to an MP. I mean why even bother to stand, that is a conflict that can never be resolved.

There is an article today in the Waikato Times about a family of three Benneydale siblings who were supposedly groomed for a life of crime and had a “horrendous and violent upbringing”.

I disagree. Two of the sibilings could have been saved if their parents hadn’t named their younger brother with his silly first name and thus doomed the others simply by their close proximity to him.

Three Benneydale siblings were groomed for a life of crime and had a “horrendous and violent upbringing”, a court has heard.

Judge Phillip Connell made the comments in the Te Kuiti District Court while sentencing Joshua Cloke, 25, sister Kelly Cloke, 24, and their younger brother, Chazas Cloke, 22, on burglary charges on Thursday.

The trio had earlier admitted the burglary of an industrial building in Te Kuiti last year, adding to an extensive list of convictions.

Kelly Cloke’s lawyer, Andrea Jones, said her client had a tumultuous background which, in turn, contributed to her impulsive behaviour.

If I was Kelly’s lawyer I’d be making the claim that her client was a normal person until the arrival of Chazas. From his arrival in the family ill-will has beset them and dogged them to the situation they now find themselves in.

Silly First Name Syndrome appears to have claimed this whole family.