We can't help but wonder...

So; if either David Cunliffe or Grant Robertson wins the Labour Party leadership, tax rates are going up, and the "living wage" will be implemented; whether businesses can afford to pay it, or not.

And we note that there will be a significant increase in the threshold at which point the top PAYE rate kicks in; David Cunliffe suggests that it will be what it was previously under Labour; around $150,000 per annum.

Leaving aside the fact though that when Labour was kicked out of office in 2008, the top rate of PAYE kicked in for income over $60,000 per annum, the rather arbitrary number of $150,000 has got us wondering.

And what we can't help but wonder is this; is the fact that the top tax rate will apply to income in excess of what a backbench MP earns merely a coincidence, or is it a very careful case of colleague-interest from the Labour Party leadership aspirant?

We can't help but wonder...

Early in July, Cameron Slater broke the story of Labour's Man-Ban. On this occasion, the NZ Herald was sufficiently gracious to give him credit for a significant political scoop; check this out:

The Labour Party is set to introduce a new rule under which electorates will be able to prevent men from seeking selection as a candidate by restricting it to women only.
A copy of the draft rules were leaked to blogger Whaleoil and include a provision: "An LEC [Labour Electorate Committee] may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate."
Labour's secretary Tim Barnett confirmed the rule change was included in the changes the NZ Council hoped to get approved at the party's annual conference in November. The proposal was from a working party set up after last year's conference, at which the party had set a target of 50 per cent female representation.

Labour copped an absolute shellacking in the media, on social media and in the blogosphere, and rightly so. And because it took David Shearer five days before he flip-flopped and declared the Man-Ban to be off the agenda, the party was damaged in the polls. It is ultimately poor poll ratings that has cost David Shearer his job.

Someone else will be the Labour Party leader come the party's annual conference in November. So we can't help but wonder; given the roles of Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson in harnessing caucus discontent with Mr Shearer, might the Man-Ban be back on the agenda now?

Whatever would Waitakere Man make of that? We guess now that all those who stick their hands up for Mr Shearer's job are going to face significant scrutiny on issues such as the Man-Ban

We can't help but wonder...

Phil Goff is under fire, even from within his own party; Andrea Vance from Stuff reports:

Labour MP Phil Goff is under fire for a "misogynistic" barb directed at Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
During a parliamentary debate on new spying laws yesterday, the pair traded insults about election defeats.
Goff mocked Finlayson for being "beaten on three occasions, each time by a woman".
"I've won 11 times and I've lost once, but the member in the chair [Finlayson] has lost three times," he said.
"You would think that would be a humbling experience, but the arrogance of the minister shows no sign at all that he's learnt from being beaten on three occasion, each time by a woman member of Parliament."
Finlayson ran against Annette King in the Rongotai electorate in 2008 and 2011. In 2005, he lost to former Labour MP Winnie Laban in Mana. 

It's not the first time of course that Labour members have singled Christopher Finlayson out for abuse. As we have previously blogged, both those wonderfully liberal Labour MP's Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove are recorded for posterity in Hansard for calling Finlayson "Tinkerbell".

But Goff has even attracted attention from high up the Labour Party tree:

Kate Sutton tweeted that the Mt Roskill MP's remarks were "bad form".
"Its that kind of sexism the Labour Party doenst [sic] need," she said. 

Kate Sutton is, of course, a former Women's Vice-president of the Labour Party, and is influential within the party's hierarchy. So we can't help but wonder; when the Labour Party proposed women-only electorate contests ( the Man-Ban), was Phil Goff's Roskill electorate the kind of electorate that they had in mind?

We can't help but wonder...

Cameron Slater has blogged on a subject that we've been pondering over the last week or so; check this out:

via the tipline
How come Winston Peters is sitting on the Privileges Committee investigation regarding Andrea Vance and the idiot Peter Dunne when he has claimed all along, in parliament, that he has known the content of the emails since the get go?
Why isn’t he giving evidence instead of sitting in judgment?
Surely this is closer to Zimbabwe than his fanciful claims?

Whaleoil's tipline correspondent makes a very good point. All along, Winston Peters has dropped all sorts of "hints" that he had all the good oil on Peter Dunne. Here's just one example, courtesy of the NBR:

United Future leader Peter Dunne exchanged personally embarrassing emails with Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance, NZ First leader Winston Peters claims. Mr Peters told TV3's The Nation he had seen the email exchange that Mr Dunne refused to hand over in the inquiry into the GCSB report leak.

So we can't help but wonder; given that Mr Peters has shown a significant amount of personal antipathy towards Mr Dunne, and given that he has told the media that he had either seen or had in his possession information germane to the Privileges Committee, does he not have a pretty significant conflict of interest here. After all, how can Winston Peters objectively judge an issue over the release of personal information when he has claimed to have that very information, and has used it to make political attacks on Peter Dunne.

Winston Peters is, of course, no stranger to the inner workings of the Privileges Committee. But on this matter, he should and must recuse himself from the hearing. Perhaps he could ask his deputy leader to deputise for him; oh, wait...

We can't help but wonder...

Labour took a lot of heat over its women-only electorate selection policy, which quickly attracted a nick-name that stuck; the Man-Ban. David Shearer was forced to distance the parliamentary Labour Party from the party's rank and file, which won't have done him any favours, given the rank and file's love affair with the Other David.

But we can't help but wonder; if preventing men from contesting candidate selection in certain electorates constitutes a Man-Ban, is Labour's policy to stop foreigners (except Australians) buying New Zealand houses a Chan-Ban?

Oh; and what happens when the potential buyer is Chinese, but either an Australian resident or citizen? Has Labour really thought this policy through, or is David Shearer shooting from the populist lip?

We can't help but wonder...

David Shearer hasn't just changed his Chief of Staff; the Herald reports:

Labour Party leader David Shearer says a shake-up of staff in his parliamentary office had been planned for some time and is wider than just his chief of staff.
Mr Shearer and Labour previously told media there was nothing happening behind closed doors with staff in the party and the party's policy had been not to talk about staffing matters.
Mr Shearer has appointed his former press secretary Fran Mold as his chief of staff in order to tighten up the political management of his office in time for the election next year.
Asked if the changes had been sparked by bad poll results, Mr Shearer did not answer.
He said there were no firm, or confirmed changes but the changes had been in motion for some time.
"The last thing I wanted to do was start talking about making change before we had it all tied down.
"You don't do this over night, it's been in the offing for some time and so it's just the way it's happened this week - it's a recess, it's the best time to do it,'' he said.

When asked how changing a chief of staff would allow great focus on the issues, Mr Shearer said his whole parliamentary office had been reorganised.
"It's just simply about being much more focused on where we're going - the campaign is coming onstream now for the election and we wanted to sharpen up on many of our messages.''

So we can't help but wonder; how many of these "changes" will affect friends and colleagues of Grant Robertson, hand-picked to help? 

After all, Mr Shearer must have been flattered at first that his deputy leader cared so much about him as to surround him with Robertson loyalists, but it hasn't necessarily worked out as planned; for either Mr Shearer OR Mr Robertson!

We can't help but wonder...

David Shearer has a reprieve; today's Labour Party caucus retreat in Napier has been cancelled because some MP's are unable to get there; Radio New Zealand reports:

The Labour Party caucus in Napier has been cancelled.
The retreat was due to start on Monday, but 10 MPs, including party leader David Shearer, were unable to leave Auckland because of airport fog.
Deputy Leader Grant Robertson, who is MP for Wellington Central, also indicated he wants to stay in the capital due to the earthquakes.

So we can't help but wonder; isn't it kind of appropriate that Labour's caucus meeting has had to be delayed because of fog? After all, Labour's policy vision is hardly clear at the moment, and if the polls are to be believed, few people can actually see what Labour stands for any more.

We can't help but wonder...

Apparently, Wati Holmwood's streak at ANZ Stadium on Wednesday night happened because the game was "boring"; the Herald reports:

Mr Holmwood last night tried to justify his actions at the Origin game.
"The whole game was a bit boring from the start, I wanted to spice things up," he told RadioLive. " ... so I thought 'you know what? I'll go on the field and perform my self'."

Well; we can't help but wonder if Mr Holmwood is telling a wee fib here. We've been to dozens of football matches over the years, and although a few have been boring, we've never felt the urge to get our kit off and run onto the field. And we've certainly never got a fake tan before the match, and covered ourselves in vaseline prior to getting dressed and going to the game. 

Wati Holmwood is a publicity whore. This isn't his first streak; he's already banned from the Sydney Football Stadium for a previous streak two years ago. He's also trying to cash in on his infamy by soliciting donations towards his fine. And if he ever comes back to New Zealand, there are warrants outstanding for his arrest relating to shoplifting, resisting police and breaching bail.

And bro; if you must get your gear off, get a real tan; that colour didn't suit you Wati!

We can't help but wonder...

Hone Harawira made a rare appearance in Parliament on Wednesday, and even asked a Question for Oral Answer; here's the Hansard:

2. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he think the Government’s decision to grant 230 new pokie machines, 52 new gambling tables, and a 35-year licence extension is worth the increase in relationship breakdowns, depression, suicide, family violence, increased money laundering, job losses, increased problem gambling and financial problems, as identified by its own Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment-compiled regulatory impact statement; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) : I reject the premise of the member’s question for a number of reasons. The first point is to note that the regulatory impact statement states that harm from gambling may include the things the member refers to. It is also important that there are a number of things that mitigate those possibilities in this case. Firstly, it is by no means clear at all that a marginal increase in machines in one casino will increase gambling harm, especially when the total number of machines across Auckland and across New Zealand continues to decline. Also, the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines across the casino will together act to reduce harm. Once the concessions are in place there is also absolutely nothing to stop the regulatory authorities introducing new harm-minimisation measures over time.

Hone Harawira: When the Minister said yesterday that it is difficult to quantify the potential size of any increased risk of harm, does that mean he did not read the full regulatory impact statement from his own ministry, which said: “an additional 4,779 … people may be at least partly affected by casino machines and an additional 3,600 … by casino tables.”, and does he now accept that the potential size of any increased risk of harm is not only quantifiable but also unacceptable?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. In fact, the same statement—because it is important to get this in context—says that it is difficult to quantify the potential risk of any increased risk of harm. It goes on to say, in relation to the matters the member raises, that this is a hypothesis, and says in paragraph 91: “it is possible to hypothesise”. It then goes on to say: “It is difficult to estimate the additional numbers …” and “Putting a precise cost on this potential increase is also difficult.” So it does record a hypothesis as a possibility, but, as I answered in answer to the primary question, there are a number of things that mitigate that.

Hone Harawira: Does the Minister accept that the decision to grant 230 new pokie machines, 52 new gambling tables, and a 35-year licence extension is evidence that this Government operates on the basis that deliberately harming its own citizens is acceptable, as long as it achieves its own primary goals of allowing its fat cat friends to profiteer from New Zealanders’ misery, and getting free access for themselves; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject that assertion completely. This Government is focused on jobs and growth for New Zealanders. I appreciate that that member himself is against jobs and growth for his constituents in Te Tai Tokerau. This Government is focused on them. The reality is that many human activities have the potential for social harm, but the important thing is how you mitigate that risk.

So we can't help but wonder; if Hone is so worried about "relationship breakdowns, depression, suicide, family violence, increased money laundering, job losses, increased problem gambling and financial problems" being caused by SkyCity's casino, why does he stay at the SkyCity hotel when he's overnighting in Auckland?

After all, there are plenty of hotels in Auckland to choose from, without staying at one which might contribute to allowing SkyCity to "profiteer from New Zealanders’ misery", as Mr Harawira put it. Maybe he just likes to go and have a flutter himself, thereby proving that the Left is very good at telling New Zealanders what to do, whilst doing the opposite themselves. Or perhaps he's waiting for an invitation to the corporate box. 

We can't help but wonder...

Thus far, David Shearer seems to be weathering the Labour Party leadership "spull", but the jury is very much out if his survival will go beyond the onset of Spring. But if whoever from within the Labour Party caucus leaked the information about an apparent no-confidence letter to Duncan Garner from RadioLive was trying to pull the rug out from under Mr Shearer, they most certainly succeeded.

So it seems as though Mr Shearer is not going to be presented with a no-confidence letter today, although Spring is another day closer.

But it made us wonder, and what we can't help but wonder today is this; if the Act, Mana and United Future (giving Mr Dunne the benefit of the doubt of actually still having a party to represent) caucuses were to hold no-confidence votes in their parliamentary leadership, what would be the outcome?

We can't help but wonder...

The Labour Party has done some stupid things since it was unceremoniously ditched by the electorate at the 2008 General Election. But surely the Man-Ban is the daftest thing of all.

So we can't help but wonder; what would Waitakere Man make of all this? Waitakere Man is of course Chris Trotter's mythical alienated Labour Party voter. Here's one of the things that Trotter said about Waitakere Man:

National’s partner – let’s call him Waitakere Man – has a trade certificate that earns him much more than most university degrees. He’s nothing but contempt for "smart-arse intellectual bastards spouting politically-correct bullshit". What he owns, he’s earned – and means to keep.

If the Labour Party thinks that this kind of stupidity will win them back the hearts and minds of Waitakere Man, his drinking mates and their wives and families, then the Labour Party is even more out-of-touch than we previously believed it to be.