I hope the one action step that should come out of this from Key and Co is a process to ensure that we no longer have to waste time and money on appallingly worded referendums.

It's not clear whether people voting No want a law change or are simply agreeing with an almost tautological proposition and believe that the current law actually reflects this. So what have we gained?

Any move by Key to actually revist the "anti-smacking" legislation will just encourage more of this sort of referendum tactic.

Fair point, that's a bit more reasonable. Looking at the lease cost, it was quite a bit more than that at purchase but still a big discount over new.

No mention of the $150,000 VW Touareg leased during the year. Not a good look and certainly makes you wonder about how gold-plated some of the other expenses might be.

Well done getting this issue aired, both Russell and Rick for a fairly detailed response but, as the comments indicate, still leaves many questions to answer.

I'm very uneasy about valuing the non-cash aspects of any charity, just as accountants in general are wary of valuing non-cash "revenue" items of any sort. The fact is, every business or charity generates services and benefits that don't have a dollar amount attached but any move by the Charities Commission to allow this kind of reporting would devalue the whole exercise. Better to compare apples with apples and let each charity explain what it does with the money as a separate exercise, not by dubious accounting. I, too, like the idea of the Commission picking out some basic financial ratios from all accounts so we can quickly line them up on key metrics. We all know people have to be paid and events, etc, cost money but let's see how efficiently and prudently the basic enterprise is run.

I don't have any doubt that the people involved have got into this with good intentions but I personally have an aversion to charities that are run with slick marketing and, in many cases, are designed and packaged from initial concept to appeal to sponsors. I personally always avoid these - kids, cancer, etc - and would only support unpopular causes that don't make for good TV or supermarket labelling. They're probably more likely to squeeze every ounce of value from the few dollars that do come their way.