Kiwiblog

The full list is here. I’ve summarised the changes in the table below.

The brand new Cabinet Minister is Amy Adams, the third of the 2008 intake to make it after Joyce and Parata. She is joined by Craig Foss and Nathan Guy who were Ministers outside Cabinet.

Three new Ministers outside Cabinet are Chris Tremain, Jo Goodhew and Chester Borrows. They are all from the class of 2005, and I suspect that is a signal from the PM that all future Ministers will now come from the 2008 and 2011 intakes.

The cabinet rankings are more symbolic than a reflection of actual power. For example last term Joyce and McCully were on the second row, but both are very influential. However the symbolism is important to a degree.

Parata moves up 13 places which is a huge vote of confidence in her, and Joyce moves up 10. Paula Bennett also moves up seven spots and Jonathan Coleman up four.

A significant reshuffle in terms of portfolios. Brownlee is freed up to keep working on Christchurch, but gets Transport.

Joyce’s role with Economic Development and Science and Innovation will be at the heart of National’s second term agenda.

Collins gets Justice, so expect to see further reforms.

Tony Ryall gets to be the Minister who sells off minority stakes in SOEs as he did such a good job of it last time. He keeps Health of course.

The move of Parata to Education is inspired – Hekia will champion measures to improve the lot of the 20% who are failing – many of whom are Maori.

Tolley gets Police and Corrections. Her experiences with the NZEI and NZPF will stand her in good stead for these portfolios!

Coleman gets Defence, which is handy as he has Devonport Naval Base in his electorate.

Amy Adams gets Comms/ICT, which will fit in quite well with having Internal Affairs also.

Tremain and Goodhew become Ministers as expected, and they are joined by Chester Borrows who should make a good Courts Minister as a former cop and former lawyer – knows both sides!

Worth noting that 10 portfolios have been disestablished or incorporated into other portfolios.

The Herald reports:

Wellington Police investigating a serious assault in Boulcott Street early yesterday morning have upgraded it to a homicide investigation.

The 43 year old male victim, believed to be Phillip Alexander Cottrell from Radio New Zealand, died in Wellington Hospital a short time ago.

Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Miller of the Wellington CIB says the victim suffered the fatal injuries between 5:30am and 6:15am yesterday morning, as he walked home from work on The Terrace.

“As the victim got halfway down Boulcott Street outside the Baptist Church it appears an altercation has taken place and as a result the victim received fatal injuries.”

I used to work on Boulcott Street, and it is not an area I would have ever thought would have a homicide occur.

My thoughts go out to his colleagues at Radio NZ, and family and friends.

From the sound of it this was not pre-meditated, but a situational killing. Those sort of killings strike fear in many of us – it could happen to anyone. I hope the Police find his killer.

The Law Commission has publicly released today its report on legal and other issues around new media such as blogs. I was one of those interviewed by them in initial consultation phase in formulating this issues paper. It is open for public comment until 12 March 2012.

I think the report is an excellent one, and I am enthusiastically supportive of their proposed model of media regulation in the digital age. There are some risks around the model proposed, but these can be mitigated. Balanced against those risks are considerable opportunities for “new media”.

News media have special protections under the law. The Law Commission recommends “news media” be defined as a publisher in any medium who

1. has a significant proportion of their publishing activities being the generation and/or aggregation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. disseminates this information to a public audience
3. regularly publishes
4. is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process

Kiwiblog (not that this is my main concern) would clearly qualify under points 1 to 3, so would need the accountability and complaints process to qualify. Whether or not this is worthwhile, will depend on the details.

A key point made by the Law Commission is:

It is important to note this definition is not intended to exclude others from reporting or commenting on the news. It simply proposes a set of statutory criteria to resolve the current uncertainty as to which groups and individuals qualify for the legal privileges and exemptions assigned to the media.

This is quite crucial, and one of the risk areas of a new definition. At present bloggers are allowed to report on court proceedings, attend Treasury lockups etc. This should continue to occur, even if a blogger does not qualify under the proposed definition. The definition is for qualifying for legal privileges, and should not be used to block genuine access for online publishers.

The key aspect of the Law Commission paper is an independent regulator for all news media regardless of format or delivery platform. This would replace the Govt appointed BSA for broadcasters and the Press Council for print media. There are significant anomalies in the current system, with an example being:

• A video broadcast by a broadcaster is subject to the BSA
• A video placed on a broadcaster’s website is not subject to any regulation
• A video placed on a newspaper’s website is subject to the Press Council

The Commission proposes the following features for a new regulator

1. Independent of both government and the news industry
2. Appointments to the regulator would be by an independent panel
3. Regulator would work with industry on different codes, so bloggers might have their own code (for example accuracy required, but possibly not fairness)
4. Recognised by statute and part-funded by industry and subsidised by the state

I think the independence from Government is crucial. Without that it becomes a path through which the Government could censor the media and I would be against. The details in these areas will be vital.

The subsidy is also a necessary evil. Bloggers are generally non-commercial and you can’t charge a blogger $10,000 a year to come under such a regulator. Likewise, I can’t see APN and Fairfax wanting to pay on behalf of bloggers. The Commission says:

It is in the public interest that as many news publishers, including small startups, belong to such a standards body and a lack of financial resources should not be an impediment to joining. The state and wider public have a strong interest in a robust and ethical news media and we see no reason why this body should not receive state support, provided there are no strings attached to the appropriation.

One of the issues in the paper would be whether membership of the regulator would be entirely voluntary for everyone, or whether commercial media should be required to join.

I believe it should be voluntary for everyone. The incentive to gain the legal protections of being news media should be enough. A key issue will also be what are the powers of the regulator. If they have the power to (for example) suspend a newspaper, then newspapers would not want to join. If the power is to require publication of a finding, and low level fines, then perhaps less of an issue. The print media are the ones who potentially lose a wee bit of freedom in this model, while broadcasters would end up with greater freedom. In a converged world, all media should be on the same level, and so long as the regulator is not Govt controlled I think that is a good model.

The Commission notes:

The large majority of New Zealanders publishing on the internet would not come within the ambit of the new regulatory system we propose. In essence they will be able to exercise complete freedom of speech. They can, without fear of any regulator, be inaccurate in their facts, unbalanced in their coverage and extreme in their opinions. The public can rely on them, or not, as they see fit. They would not be recognised as “news media” for the purposes of the statutory privileges.

They also note that such publishers are still liable to the laws of defamation, copyright, contempt of court etc.

There are other interesting issues the Commission looks at in its paper

• consider introducing a new offence of maliciously impersonating another person
• amend the Harassment Act 1997 to explicitly include cyber-bullying

But rather than have these go to court, which would be over-kill, they float a model of a Communications Tribunal “which could administer speedy, efficient and relatively cheap justice to those who have been significantly damaged by unlawful communications”

I think this aspect is more problematic, while well-intentioned. They do say:

The Tribunal would only deal with cases which it judges would have met the threshold of a breach of the law. It should not be a port of call for those with insubstantial complaints.

My suspicion is it would become exactly that. For such a model to work, it will need considerable safeguards against malicious and trivial complaints designed to (ironically) harass the person complained about.

The Tribunal would not have the ability to impose any criminal sanction they say:

Sanctions and remedies available to the Tribunal would include the ability to award monetary compensation up to a prescribed level; to order publication of an apology or correction; to order that a right of reply be granted; to order that the defendant cease the conduct in question (a type of injunction); and to make takedown orders against either the perpetrator or an innocent avenue of communication such as an ISP. It might also make a declaration that statements made about the victim are untrue. Failure to comply with an order would be an offence.

I do like the notion of the Tribunal being able to make a declaration that statements about a victim are untrue. Defamation is rarely viable for those who have false things said about them online. And victims of lies and slander often just want the truth affirmed, not damages. I do see considerable merit in the concept of the Tribunal. My concerns are around the small number of nutters out there would would try to use it as a form of harassment in itself.

Two safeguards against this might simply be requiring complainants to use their real names to complain. Those who post under an alias can not claim they have been harmed by speech against them when no one knows who they are. A further safeguard would be a requirement to pay a filing fee. This is the most effective way to stop serial complainers.

An alternate option they put forward is a Communications Commissioner as part of the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think this would be a good fit for the HRC, and in fact could distract them from their primary focus.

The paper is (as expected) very well researched, and shows great understanding of the online environment. I encourage people to read it, or at least the summary paper, and give your feedback. It is my understanding that there are likely to be some sort of forums organised where people can attend and discuss and debate the issues and proposals. I’ll blog details of these as they are known.

Finally it is worth noting this is an issues paper, not a final paper recommending action to the Government. That means this is the best time to influence it.

Computerworld reports:

A common sense approach has put the New Zealand government’s social media policy in high regard with IT research company, Gartner.

On a blog post on Gartner’s website, vice president Andrea Di Maio commends the policy for its principles based on an individual’s role, which he says are down-to-earth and provide actionable decision frameworks.

Di Maio is particularly impressed by the policy’s passive-active-engaged approach, which asks social media users in government to first listen to their community, understand what it is they are voicing, and then engage if it is appropriate.

There have been relatively few SMOGs (Social Media Own Goals) by government agencies. Most have been by politicians and corporates.

Labour wonder why they are known as the nasty party and their vote dropped. Look at Carmel Sepuloni’s response to winning Waitakere:

‘‘I don’t think Paula Bennett has been good for Waitakere,” she said.

”At the end of the day, the voters have spoken. And despite the fact it is close, it just goes to show that there are 11 more people that think she wasn’t [good].

This reminds me of how Labour MP Kris Faafoi after his narrow victory in the Mana by-election, labeled Hekia Parata a two time loser. So classy.

Has Kate Wilkinson got up and said nasty things about Clayton Cosgrove whom she beat? Has Nicky Wagner put the boot into Brendon Burns? Did Nikki Kaye’s team put the boot into Jacinda Ardern when she conceded, or did they give her a round of applause?

The only thing worse than sore losers is ungracious winners. Perhaps Carmel could have said things about what an honour and privilege it is, and how she will work her hardest for all her constituents – rather than put the boot into her opponent.

I hope the new Labour leader can help engender a culture change within Labour.

On a related note Phil Quin notes:

Don’t get me wrong, Carmel Sepuloni pipping Paula Bennett at the post is a pleasing outcome, but I was surprised to read a statement this afternoon from Labour’s President Moira Coatsworth and General Secretary Chris Flatt that described the 11-vote win as a “momentous” and “a great victory for Labour.”

By this measure, the Christchurch Central result must be a “shocking blow” and a “grave defeat”; Raymond Huo’s departure from Parliament must be “a tragic loss”; and my  lacklustre 40 minute cardio workout at the gym this morning must surely qualify as “an athletic triumph”.

Tone-deaf.

Waitakere is a seat which normally goes Labour. It is of course a blow to National and to Paula to lose it, but it was held by Labour from 1946 to 1981 continuously by Labour, and since being re-formed in 1993 has lost some of its bluer areas to Helensville so was always going to be tough to hold (even though I personally did think Paula would hold on).

Losing a seat like Christchurch Central which you have held for 60+ years is a far bigger event.

National and the Maori Party have just announced their confidence and supply agreement, which means the Government can now win such votes 64 – 57. It might not even be that close as Peters suggested he might initially back the largest party on confidence and supply or at least abstain. Personally I think that commitment holds about as much value as a peso, but the initial votes could be 64 – 49 or even 72 – 49.

The key aspects of the agreement are:

• Maori Party will vote for confidence and supply
• Maori Party do not have to vote for the legislation outlined in National’s Post-Election Action Plan (unlike ACT and United Future)
• Whanua Ora to be given a specific appropriation and a stand-alone commissioning agency to be established
• A Ministerial Committee on Poverty to focus on alleviation of poverty. Chaired by Bill English with Turia as Deputy Chair.
• Double funding for rheumatic fever prevention to $24m
• Target 20,000 low income homes for home insulation
• All state houses to be insulated, where possible
• Aim to lift Maori educational and employment outcomes
• Agree to offset pre-1990 forests
• Continue with constitutional review to report by Sep 2013, and status of Maori seats remains unchanged for now (no abolition or entrenchment)
• Refocus TPK on improving outcomes for Maori in education, housing and employment
• Conclude decision making on spectrum by May 2012
• National to support to select committee members bills to reduce gambling harm and a Maori cultural heritage bill
• Partial asset sales legislation not to be part of a confidence or supply motion
• Sharples Minister of Maori Affairs, Associate Education and Corrections
• Turia Minister for Whanua Ora and Disability Issues, Associate Health, Housing, Social Development

Doesn’t appear to be anything there with a huge price tag, which is good as the top priority has to be reducing the deficit, not increasing it. But there is plenty there to keep Ministers busy, and the constitutional review especially could be huge.

Kennedy Graham blogs:

In Durban, the Kyoto Protocol is kept on life support.

Kyoto is, of course, the only binding climate instrument with specific emission targets. It compels the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. But it has always been inadequate in itself – a first step to greater things. And it terminates within 12 months.

Kyoto does not compel the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. It compels only 37 countries to reduce emissions. Now let us look at the top 10 emitters in 2005″

1. China 16.4%
2. US 15.8%
3. EU 12.1%
4. Brazil 6.5%
5. Indonesia 4.6%
6. Russia 4.6%
7. India 4.3%
8. Japan 3.1%
9. Canada 1.8%
10. Mexico 1.6%

Those countries bolded are not required under Kyoto to reduce or even hold emissions.

There is a simple way to test if someone talking climate change is seriously concerned about the environmental impact, or they are just a politician or pseudo-politician wanting to score points.

The test is do they mention China (and preferably India). Any agreement that exempts China is a disaster for the environment, based on climate change science. Only a moron would promote an agreement where China can continue to increase emissions at 10% per annum.  Because if China is not part of the agreement, then by 2020 their emissions will be greater than the rest of the world in 2005. So even if every other country went carbon neutral at a cost of trillions of dollars, it would be of not benefit to the planet as China’s increase in emissions will be greater than everyone else’s reductions.

Dr Graham in his entire blog post doesn’t mention China once. That is conclusive proof that his concern is the politics, not the environment.

We have 51 List MPs, 44 of whom also contested an electorate. I’ve compiled a quick table of how many people actually voted for them, given the opportunity to do so, on the electorate vote.

The MPs who had the most electorate votes by party were:

1. Clayton Cosgrove, Labour  – 16,145
2. Hekia Parata, National – 14,093
3. Russel Norman, Green – 7,262
4. Brendan Horan, NZF – 4,611

The MPs who had the least electorate votes by party were:

1. Richard Prosser, NZF – 588
2. Julie Anne Genter, Greens – 1,258
3. David Parker, Labour – 3,751
4. Kanwaljit Bakshi Singh – 3,561

In total:

• 14 List MPs got over 10,000 votes
• 11 List MPs got from 5,000 to 10,000 votes
• 9 List MPs got from 2,500 to 5,000 votes
• 10 List MPs got under 2,500 votes
• 7 List MPs did not stand in an electorate

Dave at Big News blogs:

Kevin Campbell is the campaign manager for the Conservative Party. Prior to the election he was very happy in using Facebook to promote the party and most comments were of a political nature. But after the election he appears to have closed ranks after something he posted that many found offensive. Incidentally I was told by a Conservative Party candidate that they were not to use social media during the campaign.

Campbell questioned whether new Green MP Mojo Mathers, who is the world’s fifth profoundly deaf MP, should even be an MP as she didn’t have all her “faculties” – and only people who have all their faculties should be MPs. In other words, because she is deaf, she is unsuitable as an MP. Mathers became an MP after special votes were counted and I think she is perfectly suitable to be an effective MP.

I don’t support her politics, but I certainly also think Mathers is perfectly suitable to be an effective MP. We should celebrate people who overcome adversity and disability, not denigrate them.

Incidentally one of my favourite actresses is Marlee Matlin who played pollster Joey Lucas on West Wing. She’s currently on the Celebrity Apprentice and doing well.

As for Mr Campbell, I presume it is the same Mr Campbell who used to refer to the Prime Minister as “John the Jew”. Need more be said.

David Fisher at HoS reports:

A conservative Christian politician has a secret life as a sperm donor for lesbian couples – even though he has campaigned against gay marriage.

American politician Bill Johnson has spent most of this year in Christchurch helping run the earthquake recovery, all the while using the online persona “chchbill” to meet women who want help to get pregnant.

Under that persona, he has discussed making donations to at least nine women without the knowledge of his family in the US.

Three of the women are now pregnant, and Johnson has assisted another three with donations in the past month. It is believed he has been in communication with at least another three women to discuss sperm donation.

His actions as a sperm donor sparked concern in the fertility medicine community, whose guidelines recommend donations are made in the regulated environment of a fertility clinic, and that no man provide sperm donations to more than four families.

The restriction is to reduce the chance of accidental incest and to reduce the adverse impact on donors and children if – as the law allows – they seek each other out later in life.

It’s a curious case. He has done nothing wrong, and in fact being a sperm donor is generally a very generous thing to do. But there does seem to be an almost compulsive element to his actions.

Johnson was a 2009 candidate for the office of Governor of Alabama. He then went to work for disaster recovery company Ceres Environmental in Haiti after the devastating quake there in January 2010.

He moved to Christchurch after the February quake without his wife Kathy, a two-time Mrs America finalist who has three children from a former relationship. Johnson is long-term recovery manager for Ceres NZ.

The Herald on Sunday approached Johnson on Thursday at a restaurant in Christchurch where he had just finished dining with one of the women he had successfully impregnated.

He said the urge to become a biological father was “a need that I have”.

“I am married to the most beautiful woman in the world. When I married her I knew we couldn’t have any more children. She had a hysterectomy 10 years ago.

“There is nothing my wife would want to give me more in the world than a child of my own.”

Johnson, who has a degree in chemistry and is a member of the international high-IQ club Mensa, said he had told his wife he wanted to act as a sperm donor. The couple had sought counselling shortly after. He said he left believing she was aware he was going to continue.

Asked if his wife knew he was donating sperm, he said: “She does now.”

Not the ideal way to find out.

Incidentally Johnson was not exactly a well known figure in US politics. His candidacy for the Republican nomination for Alabama Governor had him come 5th with 1.7%. Only 8,350 people voted for him, around the same as a councillor might get in a small town in NZ.

There are two further stories on him – here and here. The latter story is his wife’s reaction.

The final results have just gone live.We now have a confirmed National-led Government

There are three changes:

Party Vote

National loses one list seat to the Greens, as often happens with special votes. Commiserations to Aaron Gilmore (who only made it by around 32 votes last time) who drops out, and congratulations to new Green MP Mojo Mathers, NZ’s first deaf MP.

If National has any vacancies during the term, those in waiting on the list are Aaron Gilmore, Paul Quinn and Paul Foster-Bell. Whether any would take up a list vacancy is likely to depend on when it occurs and what they are doing at the time.

This also allows National to go ahead and announce a Ministry, and be sworn in. If they had lost two list seats on specials, then the Maori Party would hold the balance of power. But National can pass laws 61-60 with support from ACT and united Future only. This means the Maori Party has a choice between opposition or getting some gains and influence through a confidence and supply agreement. As National only wants them, not needs them, their negotiating power is somewhat reduced. However worth remembering that Labour never gave the Maori Party anything beyond being last cab off the rank, choosing in 2005 to go with NZ First and United Future in preference to Maori and Greens.

Waitakere

Carmel Sepuloni has beaten Paula Bennett by 11 votes. That is probably close enough for a judicial recount, but based on this count congratulations go to Carmel who would have been out of Parliament otherwise. Commiserations to Paula who will of course remain an MP and Minister, but will miss her beloved seat.

The bigger loser is Raymond Huo, who loses his list place, as Sepuloni makes it back. While not a huge contributor to Labour within Parliament, I understand he is a relatively large fund-raiser for Labour.

Christchurch Central

Nicky Wagner has emerged with a 45 vote majority. As Brendon Burns is not high up enough on the list, he is out of Parliament entirely. Hence he may consider a judicial recount. Note a judicial recount is relatively quick and inexpensive compared to an electoral petition which costs so much you need to have someone like Owen Glenn pay for it

If Burns had won, then Labour would have also lost Rajen Prasad. I think Labour were hoping Brendon would win.

It is no small thing that National now holds Auckland Central and Christchurch Central. Neither are swing seats. They are heartland Labour. Auckland Central has been held by Labour (and Alliance for one term) since Labour’s 1st election outing in 1919. That 89 year run ended in 2008.

Christchurch Central has been much the same. It was created in 1946 and for 65 years has only been held by Labour. That loss will hurt.

Demographics

The demographics for the 50th Parliament are now the following:

• Gender – 67% male, 33% female (this is just one fewer woman MP than in 2008 as the two new MPs are both women)
• Ethnicity – European 74%, Maori 17%, Pacific 6%, Asian 3%
• Age – 39% 50s, 31% 40s, 16% 60s, 12% 30s, 2% 20s, 1% 70s
• Area – 35% Auckland, 24% rural/town, 18% provincial city, 13% Wellington, 11% Christchurch
• Island – 75% North, 25% South

I’ve also looked at how many MPs entered in each Parliament

• 39th (1978) – 1
• 40th (1981) – 1
• 41st (1984) – 4
• 42nd (1987) – 3
• 43rd (1990) – 4
• 44th (1993) – 5
• 45th (1996) – 4
• 46th (1999) – 7
• 47th (2002) – 6
• 48th (2005) – 24
• 49th (2008) – 35
• 50th (2011) – 27

So 86 of the 121 MPs entered in 2005 or later. Note those who enter part-way through a term are included in each Parliament’s total. Only 22 of 121 MPs entered before 1999.

OTHERS

Pleased to see Nikki Kaye increase her majority to 717. That’s a huge endorsement of her work in that seat considering in 2008 she was against Judith Tizard and in 2011 against Jacinda Ardern, who is already being talked about as a future Labour deputy leader.

Also congrats to Kate Wilkinson whose win in Waimakariri against Clayton Cosgrove has been confirmed.

The Herald has an article with short pieces from supporters of David Shearer and David Cunliffe, which I found interesting. The supporters are:

David Shearer

• List MP Jacinda Ardern
• Former Goff staffer John Pagani
• Blogger Lew Stoddart

David Cunliffe

• Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta
• Labour Auckland-Northland Regional Chair Greg Presland
• Former parliamentary staffer David Hawkins

Most generally make their case well for their candidate, and that is not surprising as both candidates are very credible. However David Hawkins was rather aggressive with this statement:

This battle for Labour’s leadership is a choice between obsolete zero-sum politics and a progressive aspirational social democracy.

David Shearer’s a nice paper tiger. He’s just being exploited by a group that don’t respect New Zealand’s verdict. They actually don’t know what normal Kiwis think because they don’t understand modern direct engagement methods.

The Labour Party’s Red Alert website is symptomatic of the problem.

That is a theme I’ve heard quite a few push. Will Shearer be independent enough from the old guard who are supporting him? If he wins, I guess we will see when it comes to his shadow cabinet.

Stuff reports:

A protest against corporate greed has morphed into a group of homeless people and activists more intent on conflict than change, an ex-occupier says.  …

Occupy Auckland spokesman Chris Glen confirmed the homeless were among the protesters in Auckland.

”Of course there’s homeless people. We’re providing them with a home.”

The admission comes as an activist who quit the movement, Andrew Hendrie, spoke out about the changing nature of the movement.

Hendrie wrote to Auckland Council to warn of an increasing number of homeless people joining the anti-capitalist protest.

”I witnessed a consistent erosion in the number of genuine campaigners at the site, a consistent increase in the number of homeless residents joining, [and] a lack of suitable controls around new members joining and their behaviour.”

Group meetings were hijacked by interest groups and protesters rejected ”reasonable” Council requests, he said.

”Those who are leading this leaderless movement are more intent on conflict with authority, rather than positive change.”

And this comes from one of the former occupiers. Can’t say I am surprised.

In my column at the NZ Herald I write on how National’s second term looks to have plenty of reform:

Many National supporters were frustrated at the lack of reform in National’s first term.

They saw National cancels its planned income tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, rather than cut interest free student loans and Working for Families. They saw a soaring deficit, and the Government’s response was to slow the rate of spending increase only. They saw a ban on asset sales, despite this being common amongst centre-right and centre-left Governments around the world.

National’s second term is looking to be far more pleasing to those who want to see a reform agenda. This doesn’t just mean a more right wing agenda. The Hawke/Keating Governments in Australia were good reformers, as was Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. Even Julia Gillard is undertaking some quite good reforms.

So what are the areas of reform for John Key’s second term?

Industrial Relations

The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through strikes and lockouts. Many people are staggered that an unskilled job can pay an average of over $90,000 a year and still have people on strike over it.

I also cover asset part-sales, welfare reform, education and spending.

An excellent editorial in the NZ Herald:

Sir Roger Douglas has departed the political stage again but he may have left another enduring monument in Act’s agreement with National this week. A law to cap increases in government spending could prove to be as effective as one of his great legacies of the 1980s, the Reserve Bank’s inflation target.

Like the monetary target, the spending cap will sometimes be honoured in the breach but the target is no less effective for that. When it is breached, there needs to be a good reason, and a credible path set to bring inflation back into line. So it will be for the fiscal cap.

I think many have under-estimated the political power the cap will have.

It is too easy, as the previous government proved, to take on ever larger commitments when business is booming, the workforce is fully employed and tax revenue is providing budget surpluses. The country hardly noticed that state spending was steadily becoming a greater proportion of the economy in the years that surpluses also enabled continuing reductions of public debt.

More generous medical subsidies, paid maternity leave, early education, interest-free student loans, higher public service pay rates, a “super goldcard” are not the kind of expenses that can be wound back when the business cycle turns down and revenue drops. They instantly become entitlements that a future government fears to threaten.

Exactly. And the sad reality may be that the days of debt fuelled 3%+ growth could be in the past for-ever. In a new debt-averse world, with Europe taking a decade or more to get its debt under control, we may never get growth again like we have had in the 1990s and 2000s.  We may need to get used to 2% growth being the norm. This is why we need to stop Governments from imposing costs on New Zealand we can’t pay for.

Ultimately, of course, a parliamentary majority can do whatever it wants in this country and no Parliament can bind the next. A statutory spending restriction can be breached and even repealed as readily as the Bill of Rights Act. That act requires the Attorney-General to alert Parliament to proposed legislation that would breach the rights enshrined. The public takes note, the government needs a convincing case to proceed in political safety.

Laws of such limited power should not be under-rated. The lack of any stronger sanction is a strength, it makes it harder for a future government to repeal a statute that can do more than keep governments honest.

And hopefully it will increase the financial literacy of the public. We will know how much more a Government is planning to spend over the baseline amount per capita.

National has been not much keener than Labour on a legislated spending limit but it is already living within the limit agreed with Act. The cap is a credit not only to Sir Roger who has long argued for it, but to the recently deceased director of the Business Roundtable, Roger Kerr, who maintained a lonely watch against rising public expenditure, and Don Brash whose brief leadership of Act restored its focus on economic fundamentals.

Fiscal responsibility is a prosaic, thankless contribution to public welfare but if government spending rises no faster than population growth and low inflation from here on, we should all be better off.

Absolutely. If you look at all OECD countries over the last fifty years, those who manage to have the state consume a lower proportion of GDP have on average much much higher economic growth than those with a higher proportion.

Now it is a balancing act of course. If the state only consumed 5% of GDP, then we’d probably have no publicly funded schools or hospitals. But the current level of state spending is the highest in our history, so I don’t think drawing a line at today’s spending level and saying real spending per capita should not increase beyond today’s level is if anything a little on the generous side.

Patrick Leyland blogs at The Progress Report:

In a pretty bold break with tradition the caucus have decided to do things slightly differently this time. While the vote will still rest with the MPs, the candidates have been engaging in a more open campaign than we’ve ever seen. They have been on TV debates, spoken about their merits, blogged, and they have also begun a series of meetings with party members around the country. In my opinion this is the biggest step forward. The idea being that the candidates speak, the members are then afforded an opportunity to ask questions, and then the members are welcome to provide other caucus members with feedback.

Some have quietly complained that they do not get a direct vote in the leadership. This is a valid criticism and one that must be taken seriously by the new leadership team, and the party, during its upcoming review. …

They’ve attracted large crowds of members, many of whom have renewed their memberships just to gain entry and others who haven’t been to a party meeting in many years. It goes to show that an open process can really inspire people to get involved.

Imagine how many more members we would have at the door if they were allowed a vote on the leadership?

I congratulate the caucus and the party for the way they have conducted this process, but I hope they see it as a stepping-stone on the way to something bigger and better.

First of all I agree the public leadership contest has been very good for Labour. I’m pleased they took my advice which I blogged prior to their caucus after the election:

If Labour were really smart they would have the vote in February 2012 just before Parliament resumes and have a two month campaign for the leadership. Have the three contenders talk up and down the country to members and supporters about their vision for the future. It will boost the profiles of all three men, and start to get people to tune into Labour again.

Some have asked whether National will do the same, when it next has a leadership vacancy. It depends. If the vacancy is while they are in Government, then it could be difficult to have Ministers campaigning up and down New Zealand building support to become Prime Minister. Ministers are less able to offer policy alternatives than when you are in opposition.

But if the vacancy occurs when National is in opposition, then yes I hope National does do the same and gives members an opportunity to hear the contenders and question them. In fact members should demand it.

In terms of whether the membership should actually be given a vote on the leadership, I do actually favour that. I think the UK Conservative battle between Cameron and Davis did wonders for that party in terms of increasing membership and relevance.

It is important a leader has the confidence of their caucus, and you would want caucus to be able to veto a leader with minimal support. This could be done by requiring an MP to gain say at least 25% of caucus as nominees (MPs could nominate more than one MP).

I can’t see Labour or National signing up to membership elections of leaders, as the Greens do, anytime soon. But change often comes quickly. Labour’s semi-primary has been a step never done before, and will I suspect become the norm. And that step will lead to demands that mebers one day get more than just a voice, but also a vote. Not necessarily a vote equal to MPs, but some say.

Maybe Labour could take some notice of what is happening with Australia Labor, as they try to make their party more democratic:

Labor stalwarts have warned of a dying party unless major reform is embraced and more power given to the rank-and-file membership. …

She won support for the rank-and-file to directly elect a ”component” of delegates for the party’s future policy-setting national conferences.

The conferences are currently dominated by union and state branch chosen delegates.

Hilarious – the unions get to decide whether or not to let rank and file members directly elect delegates to national conferences, and how much power to allow the rank and file.

The conference also endorsed Ms Gillard’s push for a membership increase target of 8000 for next year, a trial of US-style primaries for some pre-selections – where non-members can vote on selecting candidates – and online membership participation in parties.

Also a good idea.

Matthew Hooton writes in the NBR:

Charter schools have received most attention.

 So obviously will this idea benefit the most disadvantaged children that it is shameful it wasn’t implemented years ago, especially as it can be done under existing legislation.

 The concept is almost left-wing – that all children are different and require a school environment tailored to their needs, not the ideologies of bureaucrats or unionists – and New Zealand already has charter schools of sorts.

Indeed the schools are not new, but the extra flexibility they may have could be.

The Muldoon government first supported Te Kohanga Reo in 1982.  Lockwood Smith followed in 1993, providing the first funding for Kura Kaupapa Maori, Wharekura and Wananga.

Catholic integrated schools and those based on particular pedagogies such as Montessori or Steiner are also effectively charter schools.  Dr Smith’s tenure saw the first state-funded Hare Krishna school.

The idea is to give poor families the same educational choices as rich families, and bring new ideas into the system.

But there will be opposition!

The teacher unions, of course, oppose the idea with extraordinary ferocity.  They know that, if the charter school trial is successful, their vision of a single system, controlled by them, with no ability to compare either students or schools, and therefore no possibility of accountability, will be dashed.  They also know that, without their intervention, the trial is likely to succeed.

Vicious campaigns will be launched against the new schools and the teachers who work in them.

Pickets will try to prevent students from attending them.  The atmosphere the unions engender will encourage attacks on students planning to attend the schools …

Now Matthew may be resorting to a bit of hyperbole here, but if he is correct could we see scenes like the below in New Zealand?

From today’s Herald

The Brian Rudman column he refers to is this one. The column is pretty obviously an implicit endorsement of Cunliffe, so this suggests that Davis, like his wife, is a Cunliffe supporter.

Chris Trotter writes:

Now Mr Shearer was a serious contender, but his new front-runner status came at a price. Like David Lange before him, he was no longer his own man. Labour’s spent forces, the MPs epitomised by the politically exhausted figure of Trevor Mallard, were now wrapped around Mr Shearer like supplejack around a totara. And they were clinging to him for only one reason: survival. Their arch-enemy, Mr Cunliffe, had long ago read their use-by dates. That’s why the ABCs couldn’t allow him to win.

But, if Mr Cunliffe cannot defeat Mr Shearer, he can, at least, defeat Mr Shearer’s backers. A rejuvenated, restructured, or, to borrow Labour stalwart Jordan Carter’s term, “refounded” Labour Party cannot be created by a glove-puppet.

Glove-puppet is too harsh a term, but Trotter is right that there is concern that Shearer with his relative inexperience and less alpha male personality could become the front guy for basically the same old group of MPs who entered Parliament under the 4th Labour Government and should have no part in the 6th Labour Government.

If Mr Cunliffe cannot beat Mr Shearer, then he should, over the next 72 hours, think very seriously about joining him. It’s not too late for the best qualified candidate to contact the most popular candidate; set up a meeting; and make a deal. Mr Key and Mr English did it – why not Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe?

Together, they’ve more than enough strength to tear off and make a bonfire of all that parasitic caucus supplejack. Together, they could bend the arc of history towards a Labour victory. Together, a new power curve could hurl their fighters skywards heading for the National fleet.

Cunliffe has gone out of his way to say that Shearer would be on his front bench, but Shearer won’t make the same commitment (on the basis he won’t commit to anyone). However media reports have made it pretty clear that the intention is if he wins, that Parker is Finance Spokesperson and Robertson Deputy, hence demoting Cunliffe. I think this would be a mistake.

I’m not saying that if Shearer wins that Cunliffe should be his Deputy. But I am saying he should at a minimum keep him on as Finance Spokesperson and have him part of the inner team. They would be a good combination.

The NZ Herald reports:

Cabinet minister Paula Bennett is on the verge of losing her Waitakere electorate seat.

Sources report that Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni is ahead by fewer than 10 votes after the counting of special votes.

Paula will be gutted to lose, if the speculation is correct, as she does love to be the MP for Waitakere. However that is the nature of politics.

If Carmel does win the seat, that will be a morale boost for Labour. She remains in the caucus and they lose either Raymond Huo or Rajan Prasad. Losing Huo will hurt them a bit as he is a major source of revenue for them. I can’t think of any downside to them losing Prasad.

Such a close result would almost inevitably result in a judicial recount, which could take until Christmas.

A judicial recount is absolutely sensible when so close. I doubt it would take until Christmas. They are not like electoral petitions.

A recount is also likely to be sought in Christchurch Central, where Labour’s Brendon Burns and National’s Nicky Wagner were in a dead heat on election night and are understood to be within 100 votes of each other after the coutnting of 3717 special votes.

It was not known last night who was leading.

May also go to a recount. It will be a huge morale blow to Labour to lose Christchurch Central, if they do. Labour have held this seat continuously since 1946. To have National hold both Auckland Central and Christchurch Central would be remarkable.