Richard Harman writes:

Labour’s leadership change may have dealt a serious blow to National’s ability to form a Government after the election.

Not only is the Maori Party now saying it could work with Labour but Party President, Tukuroirangi Morgan, says the decision which party to support into Government will be made by the party’s whole membership.

And he concedes that the membership as a whole leans towards Labour.

Actually the Maori Party have never ever ruled out working with Labour. They often vote with them. They have always said if they have the balance of power, they will consult their members on whom to support to form a Government.

The fact Labour has been saying they are the last cab off the rank and they want to wipe them out, has made it more likely they would choose National. But this has never been a done deal, or far from it.

In my poll summaries I always include the Maori Party with NZ First as a centrist party that could go with either National or Labour.

The latest revelations about Metiria Turei have fatally compromised her position as a political leader and potential Deputy Prime Minister. If she is not removed before the election, I suspect she will be challenged at their next AGM.

Let us look at what we now know in terms of her fraud. First it is important to reflect on what the DPB is for. It is for parents of children with no partner and no significant income for the upbringing of the child or children.

It covers situations where your partner dies, or you split up or you were never in a commited relationship and the father doesn’t want to contribute etc.

In many situations such as a split, the custodial parent doesn’t go on the DPB. You work out a support arrangement. In our society the primary responsibility for paying for children is the family or families. The Government has a secondary role where they provide the DPB as a backstop and also WFF to boost incomes of parents etc.

So the DPB is for when you are having to look after the child fulltime and hence unable to work and not receiving any money from the other parent. If the other parent is not contributing to their child’s upbringing, then they are legally obliged to pay child support to the IRD to partially offset the cost of the DPB.

Here’s what we now know about Metiria’s case:

1. Lied over a period of at least three years covering at least three different houses about how much rent she was paying
2. Was either living with the father of the baby for at least two years (which was welfare fraud as ineligible for DPB) or lied to the Registrar of Electors about where she lived in order to illegally vote in an electorate (electoral fraud which had a maximum penalty of three months jail under the 1956 Electoral Act)
3. Refused to name the father of the baby, making it impossible for MSD to detect whether or not she was living with him at the time
4. The father not only lived with Metiria (according to the electoral roll) but had a mortgage on the property, which almost certainly means he owned it. So are we to believe that despite being wealthy enough to own a house, he was contributing nothing to the upkeep of his child? He certainly wasn’t paying child support to the IRD as Turei refused to name him.
5. The father’s mother was at the time the Mayor of North Shore City. Are we to believe that the Hartley’s were not contributing to their grandchild’s expenses at all? If so, this should be disclosed to MSD. The DPB is an income tested benefit.
6. Metiria was living with her mother for at least two years but claims they were financially independent. So again we are meant to believe Metiria was receiving no support from either set of grandparents, despite living with them.
7. Metiria never sought employment during this period, but did find time to twice stand for Parliament despite claiming to be so poor that she had to lie to MSD in order to get more money from taxpayers
8. Was believed to be living with her new partner for some of the time she was on the DPB, which also could invalidate her eligibility or mean his income should be included

Now you can have a view, as Metiria does, that taxcpayer support should be unconditional. That if you want the DPB you should get it as of right. That you should never ever have to look for a job. That you can be in a relationship with someone of extreme wealth but still get the DPB. They are all legitimate views, albeit ones I strongly disagree with.

But what you can’t do is unilaterally decide that your view of what the welfare system should be trumps what Parliament has decided, and simply lie in order to get more money.

What is astonishing is that at the time Turei was lying to MSD and lying to the Registrar of Electors, she was studying to be a lawyer. She obviously missed the classes on legal ethics.

Newshub reports:

Ms Turei says she claimed a benefit between 1993 and 1998. The habitation index – that’s an official public record of addresses collated from the electoral roll – shows Ms Turei listed at the same address as her daughter’s father, Paul Hartley, in both 1993 and 1994.

That’s significant – if she was living at the same address as her baby’s father she would not have been eligible for the benefit she claimed, the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

We showed the evidence to Ms Turei on Tuesday, and asked whether the electoral roll had not been updated or whether the father was living with Ms Turei.

“I’m not sure”, “I’d have to have a look”, “I was living in Mt Eden at the time”, she told Newshub.

“I’m not talking about the personal relationships or other people.”

This is very significant. If she was living with the father of their child, then she wasn’t even eligible to get any DPB at all. Saying “I’m not sure” is very suspicious. You know where you lived. Why would you be enrolled in a house you don’t live in?

But there is even more to this than Newshub has reported. Property records shows that there was a mortgage on the property in the name of Mr Hartley. That very strongly suggests he owned the property. So the rent she was claiming, was possibly being paid to the baby’s father.

Of course there may be mroe to this than what the electoral roll and property records suggest. But beyond doubt this will be information MSD will be wanting to evaluate to determine how much money Turei owes taxpayers, and if her deception rose to the level warranting criminal prosecution.

Turei has said:

So Turei’s defence to welfare fraud is it was electoral fraud, not welfare fraud!!!!

Keep digging that hole deeper.

There were what seemed like dozens of articles yesterday full of outrage that Jesse Mulligan and Mark Richardson had asked Jacinda Ardern about balancing family plans with the new job.

As I understand it, Jesse Mulligan is very good friends with Jacinda and her partner. So this was not a hostile question. In fact I suspect it was asked deliberately so that it would generate the coverage which it did. It successfully got 36 hours of non stop publicity for Jacinda.

You’d think there would be someone in the media who would point out that this outrageous question was asked by a close friend, not by some hostile journalist. But alas no. It was a rush to join in the virtue signalling.

On the wider issue, first let me say that women in politics do have to put up a lot of sexist questions that men do not. I am still outraged over how a friend of mine who sought a candidacy was told by a party official she should wait until her children were older. So there is a double standard often, and whether or not you have children, do not have children and/or plan to have children should not be a litmus test for politics.

But as Jacinda had done interviews in the past where she explicitly mentioned she would not become Labour Party Leader as she wanted to start a family, I don’t think it was out of bounds to follow up on that previous statement as Mulligan did.

I do think however Richardson was boorish and offensive in demanding to know her plans. No politician should be pressured that way.

A number of people have said that Bill English never gets questioned on how he copes with being a parent and politician. This is incorrect. Just a week ago the media reported how he is skipping question time to watch his son play rugby, and this got plenty of criticism on social media.

When Bill was opposition leader he was asked about how he can do the job and be a father to six kids. In fact there was criticism of him by some former colleagues that he would go home at 6 pm every evening to have dinner with his family (something he has continued to do) rather than be in Parliament all the time.

We also have double standards from Labour MPs. Yesterday Trevor Mallard said:

“I wouldn’t ask that question of anyone I was going to employ in any job… it’s an indication of deep-rooted sexism. I don’t do that sort of stuff… it’s the stuff of 1950s and prior. You have to be pretty stupid these days to do it.”

This is the same Trevor Mallard who has repeatedly attacked Chris Bishop for not having kids having said:

• “my successor knows what it is like to have a young family. Grounded not privileged” (14 Jan)
• “Keeps keep my successor grounded. Ginny knows how the world works like most families do. No privilege there.” (21 Jan)
• “kids help keep my successor grounded. Contrast that with the privileged opponent.” (15 March)

So Trevor Mallard thinks not having kids means you are not grounded and privileged. No uproar on media about this.

Now again certainly female politicians get it much harder than male politicians in terms of people questioning their ability to be MPs in terms of their family status. But it is not all one way traffic. All those who condemned two broadcasters for asking Jacinda about her family plans, have been silent on an actual MP attacking his opponent over not having kids.

The Herald reports:

Auditor-General Martin Matthews has resigned after a critical report about his handling of a fraud case.

“It is with great regret that I have tendered my resignation as controller and Auditor-General,” he said this afternoon.

“The issues and speculation about how I handled matters in relation to the fraud committed on the Ministry of Transport during my term as CEO have made it untenable for me to continue in this role.”

In a highly unusual case, his resignation comes despite his appointment being approved by all political parties. His suitability for the role, however, came into question after it became apparent that MPs were not told the full details of his response to a major fraud case at the ministry.

This is the right call. Matthews is an honourable man and has served the public well in various roles. But the fact there were multiple warnings about Harrison’s fraud while he was CEO of Transport does undermine confidence in him as Auditor-General. Any other public sector role he would be fine for, but not that one.

UPDATE: As Matthews has resigned, the Officers of Parliament Committee has decided not to release the report into whether the fraud by Harrison could have reasonably been detected earlier. This is a very bad decision. The public deserve to know the full facts about what happened, especially if it has led to the Auditor-General’s resignation.

From the Electoral Commission:

1. Gareth Morgan to TOP $900,000
2. Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry (NZ) Ltd to National $150,000
3. E Tu Union to Labour $120,000
4. Hon Robert Smellie to Labour $115,000
5. Alpha Laboratories to National $112,000
6. Dame Jenny Gibbs to ACT $106,200
7. Alan Gibbs to ACT $100,000
8. Bruce Plested to Maori Party $100,000
9. Barry Colman to National $56,000
10. Phillip Mills to Labour $50,000
11. De Yi Shi to National $50,000
12. Carrus Ltd to National $50,000
13. Christopher Reeve to ACT $45,000
14. Maritime Union to Labour $40,500
15. Murray Chandler to ACT $35,000
16. MF Management Ltd to National $32,000

So by party:

1. TOP $900,000
2. National $450,000
3. Labour $425,500
4. ACT $286,200
5. Maori Party $100,000

Stuff reports:

Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig has been dealt another blow at court, with a judge throwing out his attempt to sue a former employee for defamation.

Judge Gary Harrison said at the Auckland District Court it would be a waste of time to let the embattled businessman proceed with his attempted legal action.

“I have serious misgivings that it would be appropriate to keep these proceedings alive,” Harrison wrote, in a decision released on Monday.

Craig claimed he had been defamed by Jacky Stiekema, who previously worked as a trust accounts manager for his company Centurion Management Ltd, and he sought $240,000 in damages.

Craig must have sued more people for defamation than any other person in New Zealand.

Judge Harrison concluded it was highly unlikely court proceedings would prove Stiekema wrong in her denials, and said the Facebook comments in themselves did not warrant defamation proceedings.

He wrote that only one other of Stringer’s 200 friends responded to the message thread, and Stiekema’s remarks would have had little impact.

“I regard the effect they would have on Mr Craig’s reputation as minimal,” he said.

“The costs associated with a trial that would occupy the order of five days, perhaps more, are simply not justified.”

Stiekema was given 10 days to file an application for costs.

The trouble is that any costs granted never come close to covering your time and expenses if you are sued.

How long has each Prime Minister been party leader before winning an election? Let’s take the post WWII ones.

1. Sidney Holland, 109 months
2. Norman Kirk, 84 months
3. Walter Nash, 83 months
4. Helen Clark, 72 months
5. Jim Bolger, 57 months
6. Peter Fraser, 42 months
7. Keith Holyoake, 39 months
8. John Key, 24 months
9. Robert Muldoon, 17 months
10. David Lange, 17 months

So it is asking a lot of the public to make someone Prime Minister of New Zealand, when they have not had a chance to actualy observe their leadership skills for just two months. Campaign skills will be on display, but there is a difference between leadership skills and campaign skills.

Stuff reports:

Maduro called the vote for a constitutional assembly in May after a month of protests against his government, which has overseen Venezuela’s descent into a devastating crisis during its four years in power. Due to plunging oil prices and widespread corruption and mismanagement, Venezuela’s inflation and homicide rates are among the world’s highest, and widespread shortages of food and medicine have citizens dying of preventable illnesses and rooting through trash to feed themselves.

The winners among the 5500 ruling-party candidates running for 545 seats in the constituent assembly will have the task of rewriting the country’s constitution and will have powers above and beyond other state institutions, including the opposition-controlled congress.

Maduro made clear in a televised address on Saturday (Sunday NZT) that he intends to use the assembly not just to rewrite the country’s charter but to govern without limitation. Describing the vote as “the election of a power that’s above and beyond every other,” Maduro said he wants the assembly to strip opposition lawmakers and governors of constitutional immunity from prosecution – one of the few remaining checks on ruling party power.

Declaring the opposition “already has its prison cell waiting,” Maduro added: “All the criminals will go to prison for the crimes they’ve committed.”

Maduro and the socialists just want to retain power at any cost. Never mind the millions starving in their country due to their policies.

This outcome is not exceptional. It is almost inevitable when you get governments that pursue full socialism or communism.

Stats NZ reports:

The unemployment rate fell to 4.8 percent in the June 2017 quarter (down from 4.9 percent in the March 2017 quarter) Stats NZ said today. This is the lowest unemployment rate since December 2008, after the start of the global financial crisis, when it was 4.4 percent. 

That’s not bad. The OECD average is 5.9%. We are in the top third of the OECD.

The ODT reports:

The powerful new role played by unions and party members in selecting Labour leaders needs to be reviewed, one of the party’s Dunedin MPs says.

The system has delivered two leaders, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little, who failed to connect with the public.

Dunedin South MP Clare Curran said a discussion was needed about whether unions and party members should continue having a say in who leads.

 ”I think we do need to re-look at the way we select our leaders, but that’s a question for after the election,” Curran said.

I believe MPs should decide their own leader. They are the ones who work day after day with their colleagues and know their strengths and weaknesses.

University of Otago public law specialist Prof Andrew Geddis said it was a matter for the party, but the unions’ involvement was problematic.

”The problem is, it’s not the members of the unions who [vote], it’s the officials within the unions. It’s not a popular choice by union members.”

Yep in most unions a few union officials get a huge vote.

Stuff reports:

Smokers might need to travel to the next town to buy a pack of ciggies by 2022, if the Government accepts drastic recommendations made by a group of health experts. …

One of the five key strategies is to cap the number of tobacco retailers at 300. New Zealand has more than 550 officially recognised towns and cities, so the recommendation would mean many population centres would miss out. …

Another strategy would see the current purchasing age of 18 increased gradually every year, starting from December 2022.

All well intentioned but also likely to increase harm from smoking.

Basically they are proposing prohibition. Don’t yet anyone born after 2004 every legally buy cigarettes and make it almost impossible to find a retailer.

But prohibition rarely works. Cannabis is illegal yet almost half of New Zealand have tried it – a far greater percentage than who have tried smoking.

The black market in tobacco in NZ is already growing, due to the increased excise tax.  Every week there is a robbery of a dairy for tobacco.

These policy proposals will fuel the black market and turn tobacco into a lucrative income source for gangs.

So what are the pros and cons of Labour electing Jacinda.  Here’s the pros:

• Genuine – what you see is what you get with Jacinda. She is comfortable in her own skin. The public like genuine people, as we saw with John Key
• Warm, funny and likeable – people generally don’t vote for someone they don’t like. It is not enough by itself, but it is a prerequisite
• Good communicator – nine years of weekly TV appearances
• Excellent debater – could well overshadow English one on one
• Motivational – will motivate many Labour activists who had given up
• Policy wonk – will not be left floundering on details
• Social Media – huge followings
• Media – many in the media love her and will give her a coronation
• Time – with just eight weeks until the election, honeymoon effect will not have worn off

Cons

• Is she ready to be PM? NZ has never elected someone PM who has been a party leader for just eight weeks. She is untested as a leader. Does the public think she can run the country? Running a country is vastly different to running a club of youth wings.
• Can you imagine Winston agreeing to make her Prime Minister if he holds the balance of power? He is more likely to demand the top job for himself.
• Economic credibility? Will the public think her and Grant Robertson will be better economic managers than Bill English and Steven Joyce?
• Caucus support. Her unanimous election was because no one else wanted it before the election. But several senior Labour MPs do not think she has been an effective Opposition MP. Will she face a challenge in October, if Labour loses?
• Effectiveness.  As I pointed out in March, she prioritises empathy over effectiveness.
• Electability. She is popular and liked but she did fail to win Auckland Central (a previous safe seat for Labour) in both 2011 and 2014

Overall the pros clearly outweigh the cons. I think she will do better than Andrew Little. The question is how much better.

Are there any pros or cons I have missed?

New leaders almost always get a boost in the polls, and with Labour at 23% to 24% in most polls it is inevitable Labour will get a boost with the election of Jacinda Ardern as leader.

I’ve gone back through all the One News polls since 1974 to look at what has been the poll boost has been for a new leader (excepting those after an election loss). Here’s the boosts:

1. Geoffrey Palmer 1989, 16%
2. Helen Clark, 1993, 7%
3. Jim McLay 1984, 7%
4. David Lange 1983, 6%
5. Mike Moore, 1990, 5%
6. Jenny Shipley, 1997, 4%
7. Jim Bolger 1986, 4%
8. Don Brash 2003, 4%
9. Bill English 2001, -1%
10. John Key 2006, -3%

So Palmer gave Labour a huge boost when he was elected to replace Lange. It did not last though and half of it was gone two months later and of course he was rolled a year later.

Clark and McLay both got 7% boosts for their parties from their elections, and neither actually ended up winning the next election. Of course they were not elected eight weeks before an election.

Mike Moore was and his party boost was 5%.

The interesting that is that John Key did not initially give National a poll boost. People forget that National under Brash was very popular in 2006. It was at 49% in the polls in Oct 2006 under Brash and after Key took over was at 46% the following February. So you can not get a boost and go on to be very popular.

Don Brash got an initial 4% boost for National by becoming leader, but the big boost was two months later after his Orewa speech where National went up a further 17%.

So what will Ardern’s boost for Labour be? Will it be the same as Bolger, Shipley and Moore at 4% to 5% or will it be larger, or smaller?

Leaders

1. Helen Clark until November 2008
2. Phil Goff Nov 2008 to Dec 2011
3. David Shearer Dec 2011 to Sep 2013
4. David Cunliffe Sep 2013 to Sep 2014
5. Andrew Little Nov 2014 to Aug 2017
6. Jacinda Ardern Aug 2017 –

Deputy Leaders

1. Michael Cullen until November 2008
2. Annette King 2008 – 2011
3. Grant Robertson 2011 – 2013
4. David Parker 2013 – 2014
5. Annette King 2014 – 2017
6. Jacinda Ardern 2017
7. Kelvin Davis 2017 –

That’s a lot of leaders and deputy leaders in under nine years.

Stuff reports:

Hundreds of Island Bay residents gathered at a public meeting on Monday night to hear discussion of the process for rebuilding the southern Wellington suburb’s controversial cycleway. …

The proposals out for consultation include returning The Parade to its original layout with some enhancements, at a cost of $4.1m; keeping the existing layout with some enhancements, for $5.2m; changing to a one-way separated kerbside cycleway above road level, for $6m; or installing the new road-level cycleway and reverting to angle parking, for $6.2m.

However, Island Bay Residents’ Association president Vicki Greco got the biggest cheer of the night when she urged the meeting to endorse a fifth option, known as Option E.

It calls for a return to the pre-cycleway design, with the cycleway put back to the roadside of parked cars, restoring bus stops and removing speed bumps. The residents’ association estimates it would cost only about $750,000.

Greco called the four sanctioned options an insult, and warned the removal of 57 car parks could economically ruin the suburb.

Four options put forward, none of them what the community want. The Council may end up adding insult to injury if they are not careful.

Stuff reports:

Gareth Morgan is keen to position himself as an anti-Winston Peters “peacemaker”, shoring up a Government on either side of the political divide without introducing the instability of NZ First.

The firebrand economist and newbie politician released a press release attacking Peters on Monday, along with a costing of his “pork barrel promises”. 

Morgan contends Peters’ policies – including the writeoff of student debt, removal of GST from food, and free GP visits for pensioners – would cost $10b every year, with no indication of where that money would come from, other than a vague promise to reduce tax evasion

Winston does indeed promise things left right and centre, and says they’re all bottom lines, but the reality is they are unaffordable.

Promising stuff you know you can’t deliver is a form of deception.

How much would tax rates have to increase to cover Winston’s $10 billion a year of spending. Here’s how you could do it:

• Increase GST from 15% to 24%; or
• Increase top tax rate from 33% to 66%; or
• Increase bottom tax rate from 10.5% to 25% and second bottom tax rate from 17.5% to 25%; or
• Increase corporate tax rate from 28% to 63%

Now this is only $10 billion a year that Winston has promised so far. By the election it will probably be $20 billion. And if you vote for him, well don’t come crying when your taxes shoot up.

Andrew Little has resigned as Labour Leader. Another one bites the dust!

UPDATE: The new leader is of course Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis is Deputy Leader. Sounds like there may have been a contest for Deputy.

Will Little seek to remain in Parliament and be given a winnable list place? Do they have winnable list places?

There is no doubt Ardern will give Labour a bounce in the polls. The question is how long does it last for, and who do they take votes from – Greens, NZ First or National?

NewstalkZB reports:

Labour MP Stuart Nash has admitted the party’s agreement with the Greens is hurting its chances.

It comes as Labour’s support has slumped in the polls and Andrew Little has conceded he considered stepping down.

Mr Nash said ending the memorandum of understanding with the Greens isn’t up to him.

But he told Rachel Smalley voters aren’t happy with the Green Party co-leader’s admission of benefit fraud.

He predicts Labour will distance itself from the Greens as the election nears.

“What you are going to see in the next two months is Labour and Green go in different ways in terms of the way they are delivering their policy. I mean you are not going to see Andrew stand up and admit he’s a benefit fraudster.”

He said voters are unhappy with the Green’s co-leader’s admission of benefit fraud, despite what polling might suggest.

“A number of people I spoke to over the weekend had real concerns about what Metiria came out and admitted and the fact that she may well be the Deputy Prime Minster under Labour, but I don’t think that can happen now.”

The Greens are campaigning for people to be able to spend 15 years on the dole and never ever have to attend even a single job interview.

Labour MPs and candidates can say that isn’t their policy but they have the MOU with the Greens so their voters conclude a vote for Labour may lead to Metiria Turei becoming Minister of Social Welfare and Deputy Prime Minister, so they desert Labour.

Stuart Nash gets it. I suspect many Labour MPs are starting to get it. The issue isn’t Little (even though he has not done well) but their MOU with the Greens.

Stuff reports:

Labour has been hit by a second hammer blow poll showing its popularity taking a dive – and this time the bad news comes from its own pollster.

A UMR Research poll provided to Labour, the pollster’s corporate clients and some other parties last week, and leaked to Stuff on Monday, showed Labour on 23 per cent – down six points from a similar poll in June.

Labour needs 23.1% party vote to get any List MPs (if they hold 27 electorate seats) so on this poll Andrew Little won’t even be returned as an MP.

The Newshub poll is at Curia. Some differences from One News but not for Labour.

Newshub have also put up an archive of their last five years of polling. The data on whether people think Andrew Little is doing a good or poor job is telling.

What this shows is that Little did do well for the first six to nine months. But his disapprovals just kept rising and rising and his approvals also declined. So the net approval line plummeted from +28% to -15%.

He started off with just 17% saying he was doing a poor job but now it is at 45%.