A) ZeroIf you answered A or B - or, for that matter, D - then you will be disappointed by today's paper. A headline on the front page reads: "'Poo tax' plan for island dumping". That's dumping of treated sewage on Puketutu Island, not just... well, you know. The article begins:
D) More than two
Auckland's wastewater company is fighting a suggestion it should have to pay a "poo tax" to local iwi for sewage dumped on Puketutu Island.I cannot confirm the origin of the phrase 'poo tax' in this case, as environment reporter Eloise Gibson declines to identify exactly whence she has quoted it. I would go so far as to claim that a Herald subeditor has simply tried to 'sex up' the article with 'poo' but... well, you know.
But, and this is the more important point (thanks Brad - I couldn't bring myself to read past the first paragraph, originally), the 'poo tax' "plan" is actually just a suggestion by a consultant that has already been rejected by local iwi on the not-unreasonable grounds that it's a bit insulting to be offered $2 to have a cubic metre of (admittedly treated) faeces dumped on your ancestors' graves. So, yeah, it probably won't happen. Worse (or is it better?), the original title from the paper edition has been changed from "'Poo tax' plan..." to "Proposed 'poo tax'", covering up the error of some overworked and/or incompetent subeditor.
All in all, a load of old... well, you know.