0 Conspiracy 101; Dotcom channels Peters

We know that Winston Peters visited Kim Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville last year. We now know the reason; Peters was taking the Large German Gentleman through a crash course in Conspiracy 101.

The Herald reports on Dotcom's latest fantasy:

Kim Dotcom is challenging government minister Jonathan Coleman to explain why he didn't block his application for residency after learning of an FBI investigation into him.
Dotcom claims Immigration officials broke their own rules to grant him residency in a ploy to lure him to New Zealand so the FBI would have an easier time of extraditing him on criminal copyright charges.
There were denials from the Government yesterday of interference in Dotcom's residency after emails between SIS agents in 2010 cited "political pressure to process this case". The claim was made 90 minutes before the spy agency lifted its objection to the tycoon's residency.
Dotcom said it was hard to believe then-Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman was told of the FBI investigation on October 28, 2010 - the day his residency was decided - and then didn't move to block it.
"Why in the world with that knowledge would the Minister of Immigration not intervene and say this is going to be a bad look for us knowing there is an investigation and a desire to extradite.

[They would say] we can't give this guy residency just because of the money ..."
He claims a decision to work with the US to get him into New Zealand for easier extradition was behind the decision.
Dotcom said his bid for residency should have failed because of Immigration NZ rules which automatically put applications on hold for six months if those seeking entry are under "investigation".

This is fanciful stuff from Dotcom, and from his biographer David Fisher who moonlights as an "independent" NZ Herald journalist. 

It was Dotcom who applied for New Zealand residence, via his agent David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific, the country's leading immigration consultancy. 

And it was Mr Cooper who convinced Immigration New Zealand to overlook pending convictions for share-trading offences in Hong Kong.

But most significantly, it was Mr Cooper delivering ultimatums to Immigration New Zealand on behalf of his client as 3News reported on 14 March 2012:

Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom threatened to withdraw his residency application and take his money elsewhere unless New Zealand immigration authorities met his deadline, new documents reveal.

Dotcom, who faces internet piracy charges in the United States over his file-sharing website Megaupload, was granted New Zealand residency in 2010 in exchange for investing $10 million in New Zealand under the Immigration Plus category.

Documents released to the Associated Press show Dotcom set a deadline for immigration officials to approve his application, with a threat that he would otherwise move to Australia or Canada.

On October 26, immigration manager Gareth Grigg sent a memo to a colleague, saying he had been advised by Dotcom's immigration agent David Cooper that "Mr Dotcom wants a decision on his application by 1 November 2010 or he will walk away".

Despite Mr Grigg's warning that "Mr Dotcom may be seen to be controlling the processing of his application" or receiving special treatment, Dotcom's residency was approved on November 1.

For Dotcom to now claim that he was lured here under false pretences is so bizarre it defies belief. And he is essentially arguing that he ought not have been approved for residence in the first place; a point with which we find agreement!

Perhaps the easiest way forward now would be for the Immigration New Zealand to admit that Dotcom ought not have been granted residence, revoke his residence permit, and serve him with a removal notice. If Dotcom doesn't think that he should have been given residence in the first place, then he would have no grounds to appeal the revocation!

In the meantime, Dotcom should leave the conspiracy theories to Winston Peters. And David Fisher should stick to writing Dotcom's publicity material, instead of pretending to present a neutral, accurate version of events to readers.

0 Cash for policy (part two)

We blogged yesterday about the important and growing influence of trade unions on the Labour Party. Affiliated trade unions support the Labour Party with cash, promotion and labour, and the Labour Party responds with union-friendly policies.

3News reports a development which, whilst it will be welcomed by the unions, will be less favourably received by employers:

3 News has learned Labour is planning to lift the minimum wage from $14.25 to $16 an hour in its first year.

Unions have been lobbying Labour on the issue, but the pressure is still on; they want much more.

Labour leader David Cunliffe is comfortably nestled between Labour's union affiliates.

"Colleagues, comrades – we are part of a broad labour movement," says Mr Cunliffe.

The unions are strong within that movement. They are pushing hard for a jump in the minimum wage.

Labour has already indicated two increases in its first year – one before Christmas from $14.25 to $15 an hour, and today came the details of the second.

"Even that's starting to look a bit stingy, so we're looking at a further increase within the first year," says Labour's labour spokesperson Andrew Little. "I expect it will be up around $16 an hour."

So $16 an hour by April next year – for the unions leaning on Labour, it's a pay-off, but just a start.

Increasing the minimum wage from $14.25 per hour to $16 per hour represents a 12.3% increase, by April next year. But that's just the start; read on:

"It needs to be more, above $18, but it certainly would be a big boost," says president of the Auckland Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) Jill Ovens.

"I think the second increase needs to be more than $16; it needs to start moving to two-thirds of the average wage over the term of the Government," says CTU president Helen Kelly.

Two-thirds the average wage is $18.80. It's also the ideal minimum for Labour's man in charge of wages.

"It's a good target to have, yes," says Mr Little.

But it's a high target, even more than Australia's minimum wage of $18.10.

We've blogged in the past about rises to the minimum wage and the proposed Living Wage. Rises of the magnitude suggested by Labour and its union affiliates are quite simply unaffordable for many employers.

Let's say for example a business here employs an office junior on $15.00 per hour, administration and customer services staff at $17.50 per hour and an office manager on $20.00 per hour. The immediate decision is the pay rate of the office junior; does the employer then pay her just the new minimum wage of $16.00 per hour, or continue to pay her around 5% above the minimum wage? If the employer decides to preserve the margin, the office junior's pay is immediately going to go up to $16.80 per hour.

The employer now has a dilemma. The admin. and customer services team (let's say for argument's sake there are five in the team, working 35 hours a week) are paid $2.50 per hour more for a reason; the value they add to the business, and the greater complexity of their work. So the boss has the choice; increase their hourly rate to $19.30, or have an unhappy staff.

Then there's the admin manager; (s)he too is paid $2.50 an hour more than the staff (s)he manages because of the added responsibilities that go with the role. So the admin manager's hourly rate is increased to $21.80.

Just like that, the weekly wage bill has increased markedly. The cost of the office junior has increased by $54 per week (30 hours at $1.80 per hour), the cost of the administration and customer services team has increased by $437.50 (35 hours at $2.50 per hour times five), and the cost for the admin manager has gone up by $100 per week (40 hours @$2.50 per hour). In the office alone, the wage bill has just gone up by almost $600 per week, without a thought give to wage rises for the technical and sales staff!

The business owner has two choices. He either puts his prices up by 12% which in a competitive, price-sensitive market risks loss of market share, or he cuts his staff costs by either reducing hours, or deciding that four staff can do the work currently being done by five staff in the administration and customer services team. Who wins then?

The unions may see Labour promising them a 12% rise in the minimum wage in return for their cash and kind support as a very good return on their investment. But the unions will also be the first to complain when our hypothetical business owner decides he has to let one of his staff go because wage costs have become prohibitive and he simply does not have the cash to pay his staff.

Increasing the minimum wage by this kind of margin is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Given that more New Zealanders are employed by small and medium businesses than by the super-rich corporates and John Key's Rich Mates the solutions proposed by Labour and its union affiliates will impose a disproportionate burden on businesses which cannot afford that burden. There will be job losses, and some businesses will fail. Again we ask; who wins then?

The unions may be demanding a higher minimum wage as quid pro quo for their cash support. But Labour needs to take a far wider view of the economy as a whole, and not make promises to its affiliates which will damage the wider economy. 

0 Dirty deals

Just in case Labour and the Greens are trying to claim the moral high ground over coat-tailing and dirty deals, here's a reminder that both parties have form:

Probably the worst aspect of this video, sent to us by e-mail today, is Green MP Denise Roche's porkie when asked if she had advised people to vote strategically. The camera and the audio, which came from 3News' The Nation does not lie.

Let's also not forget that when a referendum was held alongside the 2011 General Election, both parties fought hard for the retention of MMP. Now you know why.

0 Be careful what you wish for Paddy

There was a minor party leaders' debate this morning on The Nation. And 3News political editor Patrick Gower knows what buttons to push with regard to two particular minor party leaders:

We love Paddy Gower's little show of defiance to Russel Norman and Winston Peters with his "So sue me" comment. We just wonder however if given the frequency with which one of the two minor party leaders referred to been in the courts over his long parliamentary career, Paddy Gower should be careful what he wishes for!

0 Tweet of the Day - 8 May 2014

Xero founder Rod Drury takes 3News to task over its political coverage over the last few days:

Paddy Gower may have tried to calm the waters with his reply, but it's hard to disagree with Mr Drury's final comment.

It's hard too to escape the conclusion that these donations stories, fed to 3News by the Greens and Labour are anything more than part of the Left's push for taxpayer funding of political parties. But hey; let's not miss the opportunity to smear the National Party in particular, even if this particular issue has ricocheted back on Labour and the Greens in a rather unwelcome (for them) manner.

0 Where's David?

David Cunliffe seems to have gone missing in action.

The Labour Party leader was supposed to have done an "At home with..." segment on Campbell Live at the weekend, but didn't. John Campbell himself and his producer Pip Keane tweeted about the no-show last night:

The Campbell Live programme last week with John Key was an excellent watch, and the PM came across very well. Even John Campbell seemed impressed with the sincerity of the bloke, which is no little achievement! You can watch that video here, given that there is no Cunliffe episode yet.

And now we learn that not only will David Cunliffe not be at Labour's weekly caucus meeting this morning, but he'll also be a no-show at Question Time this afternoon:

There are plenty of issues about which Mr Cunliffe could grill John Key this afternoon. But he won't be there. And now journalists from at least three major news organisations (3 News, One News and Newstalk ZB) are drawing attention to Cunliffe's absences, rather than reporting on what he DOES say. Five months out from the election, that's a huge worry for Labour.

Is this Matt McCarten's doing? Has he realised that David Cunliffe is toxic but that Labour is stuck with him, and rolled out a damage limitation strategy? Or has David Cunliffe simply given up?

These are interesting times for the Labour Party. Caucus is stuck with a leader the majority of its members didn't want. The polls are not looking flash. And the leader has vetoed a formal coalition with the Greens - for the time being - without consulting his troops.

There's only one question left to ask; where's David?