Wellington Central? Eh?
Grant Robertson has won the last two elections fair and square in a regular contest, as did Marian Hobbs before. Grant could even have survived the loss of all the ~5,700 Green party voters who didn't support James Shaw. (The interesting thing is that many *National* party voters must have given their electorate votes to Grant rather than Foster-Bell. I assume this is the liberalism / tax dodging conflict manifesting itself, or the sheer repulsiveness of the National candidate).
Morever, any shenanigans in Wellington Central (or any Labour/Green/Nat contest) would make absolutely no difference to the composition of parliament. If Grant lost, he'd be a Labour list MP for the Wellington area and National would be +1 electorate, -1 list.
The assumption is that National would be able to herd most of those 14,000 voters into the yards of whatever party they wished to favour*
Look! I made a sheep metaphor
One of the issues at the crux of Dotcom's extradition is the difference between criminal and civil copyright infringement.
In most of our laws this is pretty clear: not paying a bill is something for civil action, whilst obtaining goods by pretending you paid (like bouncing a cheque in old skool times) is fraud, and criminal.
Most criminal copyright infringement cases in NZ have involved deceit, such as selling fake DVDs, or a shop full of laptops built from one copy of Windows.
The Dotcom case wasn't like this - the rights holders knew what he was doing and could (and did) take action through takedown notices or if they felt he wasn't compliant, by suing in civil court.
It's possible to likely that the courts will agree and reject extradition on the grounds that Dotcom's conduct did not constitute the equivalent of criminal copyright violation in NZ. If not, a future government might well want to review our copyright law and clarify the limits of the criminal law. To discuss this pre-election is entirely legitimate politics.
If our next government were to move to change the law, it's entirely reasonable that they might also reject the extradition on the grounds of incompatibility with the changed NZ law. (Legally, if someone had a homosexual relationship in Tonga or some similarly neanderthal jurisdiction before 1986, they could be extradited by NZ based on the law then applying. They wouldn't be though, I hope).
[I just discovered the Cook Islands criminalizes (male) homosexuality. WTF? ]
Is your patron going to retire if he keeps polling zero, then?
I remember seeing a couple of cops walk into a backpackers poorly disguised as tradies (Bunnings shirts) looking for someone. They had giant handguns on their belts, loosely covered by the shirts.
If they did that here, they'd just trigger a flood of calls to the AOS about a couple of blokes walking around with poorly concealed handguns.
My understanding is that an FTT is not meant to catch ordinary business transactions such as import/export payments, but to tax global speculative capital flows, which form the majority of financial transactions of all kinds.
Sadly, even if all the OECD countries were to participate, this wouldn't stop speculative transactions moving to some offshore location that's willing to operate an untaxed market.
Here's an example of the type of tax avoidance that goes on:
Apple pays $3.9mln in NZ tax on $500mln plus turnover
SCUDs trained on various places in the region and Americans were bailing out from Europe and places like Egypt (we taught a couple of them to pass as Canadians
Those must indeed be smart missiles ;-)
Bloody yanks, thinking everyone plays basketball.
An FTT as usually proposed would be trivial for large companies to evade. It would only take one jurisdiction not to participate or to set a smaller rate/flat fee/etc. Banks would then simply structure transactions such that they nominally took place in Vanuatu or the Cayman Islands between shell companies set up for the purpose. Look at the Eurobond market for an example.