Kiwiblog

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Labour Party top-dog Andrew Little could step forward for a tilt at the New Plymouth electorate seat in next year’s national elections.

Mr Little, the party’s president and touted by many as a future Labour leader and prime minister, has refused to rule out the possibility.

“It’s certainly no secret I want to get into Parliament next year,” he told the Taranaki Daily News yesterday.

“As to how I do that, or where, I’ve made no decisions.”

He said he hopes to have made a decision within the next two or three months and wouldn’t rule out running in New Plymouth.

This is no surprise. The fact that Labour did not open nominations for New Plymouth at the same time as the other seats they lost, was obviously to keep options open for their President.

Andrew can of course just place himself at No 3 on the list, and be assured of entering Parliament that way. However a seat is almost a pre-requisite to becoming leader.

The city electorate is often viewed as a swing seat come election time and in 2008 National candidate Jonathan Young squeaked in past Labour’s 15-year encumbent MP Harry Duynhoven, with the tightest margin in the country – just 105 votes.

Mr Little has strong personal and family links to New Plymouth, having grown up here.

It was a very tight contest between Young and Duynhoven, but that is not the same thing as being a marginal seat between National and Labour.

While the electorate vote margin was only 0.2%, the party vote margin was a whopping 19.1%. Now nationwide the party vote margin was 11%, so 19% is a huge amount.

Harry Duynhoven had 13% of National voters, voting for him as the candidate. Will Andrew Little attract 13% of National voters?

It is a difficult decision for Andrew. His four main options are:

1. Stand for Rongotai, with Annette King going list only, allowing Annette to retire easily if Labour lose in 2011.
2. Stand for Hutt South if Trevor decides to retire in 2011 to become a full time blogger
3. Stand for New Plymouth.
4. Stand list only

No 1 is what I would go for if I was Andrew. There are rumours that Darren Hughes may seek that nomination though, and Annette is very good mates with Darren and would probably support him. It is also possible Annette will want to keep her seat, as many would see her going lost only as an indication she is not confident they will win the election.

No 2 depends on whether and when Trevor makes a judgement call that Labour are unlikely to win in 2011. He has said he doesn’t want another term of opposition. But I think Trevor still thinks the Government is on the verge of collapsing and is looking pretty comfortable where he is.

No 3 is Andrew’s for the taking. But the big negative is that he may lose, and lose big – which would not help him with his leadership aspirations.

No 4 is the default fall back option. As President, he would receive a massively high rating. But no one has yet become Prime Minister without not just a seat, but in fact a safe seat,

I suspect Bill English enjoyed yesterday. It is always a bad sign for an Opposition when Governments are looking forward to question time and complaining it is only three days a week. From Hansard:

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has a great deal more confidence in the Minister than a certain Charles Chauvel had in a former Minister when, as president of the Labour Youth Council in 1988, he told the then employment Minister, Phil Goff, to “take action or resign”. Charles Chauvel is probably feeling the same way today.

Some Researcher or staffer earned his pay yesterday.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of an employment Minister dealing with rising unemployment during a recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he has seen a report that states: “It takes more than hot air, more than rhetoric, and more than using the backs of unemployed people to make political points. … I despair at the gamesmanship of politicians trying to get votes from the problem of unemployment”. That was said by Annette King in this House.

This is the problem you have when both the Leader and Deputy Leader were Ministers in not just the last Government, but also the one a decade before that.

Moana Mackey: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister responsible for cutting the training incentive allowance, and does he agree with Christine of Gisborne, a solo mother of four who now cannot do the nursing qualification that would enable her to move off the domestic purposes benefit and into paid work, when she says: “The Government has been sitting there telling us to upskill, get into jobs, not run up debt, to ride out the recession, and then they go and take away the assistance that some people need to enable this to happen.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What we have learnt from the activities of the Labour Party over the last month is that we have to be pretty careful about believing whether Christine of Gisborne even exists, and also whether she is on the domestic purposes benefit, whether she owns three investment houses, and whether all the information she has given to the Labour Party about her situation has been truthfully represented here.

Once bitten, twice shy. Everyone is going to be very wary of any “example” put forward by Labour.

Kate Wilkinson got a pretty tough grilling on Q&A yesterday as she was in the unenvious position of saying she thinks the compulsory medicating of bread with folic acid was wrong, yet she would not or could not stop it occurring due to our treaty with Australia – the best being offered is a review in October.

It is true that it is much easier to decide not to do something, than it is to pull out of a decision after it had been made by a previous Government – especially when it deos involve a treaty with a friendly Government. But the transcript shows the difficulty of trying to say we think this is a bad decision, but can’t stop it:

KATE The science is actually light on it.  I agree with what the Irish are doing, I’d have to say I agree with what they’re doing.

PAUL Well then do it.

KATE That’s why I’m doing it – the first opportunity I’m taking it and asking for a review.

PAUL I’m sorry you’re gonna put folic acid which may give me prostate cancer again, into my staple food, the bread, and then you’re gonna&

SUE And then review it.

PAUL And then review it, so you could be threatening the health of this nation.

Ouch.

KATE If you drill down into those studies though you’ll find that they’re not that qualitative or quantitative and it is a bit light.  Now if we can get a review through the Ministerial Council it’ll be done in three months.

PAUL Oh so we have three months of possible poisoning.

Holmes was very worked up on this issue.

PAUL Forgive me Minister, I read yesterday in researching this that is some link between excessive folic acid and prostate cancer.

SUE That is right.

PAUL And you are gonna put that in my bread?

SUE But Paul it’s the stupidity of this, that the Minister accepts there are these health risks.

KATE Yes she does.

SUE But she’s saying we have to do it so we’re eating up for Australia, we’re going to be forced because of some trade relationship with Australia, surely we should put – public health issues should be paramount, not some diplomatic relationship.

Never good when you let Sue Kedgley answer on your behalf

Worth remembering this, from NZPA:

Former Food Safety Minister Annette King said when the decision was made that it was “a triumph for humanity and common sense”.

I think this may become a bigger and bigger issue as September gets closer. If I was in Government I would be looking very hard at how to get a decision on this before the scheduled meeting in Australia. Surely one can get the agreement of the Australian Ministers by e-mail or something to allow New Zealand to suspend implementing the folic bread addition due to health concerns.

My God. Labour in their dying days snuck through a regulation forcing bakers to plant a synthetic form of folic acid into every loaf made in NZ.

The plan aims to reduce the number of brain-damaged babies, although the fall may be a few as four a year.

But new research shows folic acid may cause an increase in colon cancer cases. And another study suggests it may cause colon cancer to grow faster.

The Bakers’ Association has labelled the compulsory introduction “mass medication” of the population, and warned that bread containing folic acid will be less safe than it is now.

This is like National Hospital’s unfortunate experiment – no informed consent for the test subjects.

The scheme was a favourite of former Health Minister Annette King but never went before Parliament. It was passed under special rules which do not allow the same level of public scrutiny.

The mandatory scheme was developed after it was decided the current scheme – in which specific brands are fortified with folic acid – was unsuccessful.

So the public didn’t choose the right sort of bread, so Labour passed a special law (regulation) to force everyone to have folic acid in their bread.

To me this is different to the flouridation debate, where the water supply is centralised. But at least with that debate, people can get their own water tank and supply. But this regulation will mean people have no choice to get bread without folic acid.

Bakers’ Association head Laurie Powell said it was difficult to address the issue because the industry did not want to put consumers off bread. “Our products are safe but probably not as safe with folic acid.”

He confirmed concerns about the scheme had led the association to ask the Government for legal indemnity.

“If it is found in 15 years’ time this stuff is bad and it causes health problems, we would be sued,” he said.

Powell was also concerned the industry could not regulate the amount of folic acid going into each individual loaf.

“It is a mass medication experiment that won’t work,” he said. “A trip to your baker should not be a trip to the pharmacy.”

The bakers have a point – they could get sued.

Authority officials confirmed pregnant women would not get enough folic acid from fortified bread and would still need to take supplements.

Which means the scheme may be counter-productive as it could mean women think they don’t need the supplements.

I’m not sure if Annette King penned this herself, or one if her staff did, but it actually is pretty damn funny so worth a repeat:

The Melissa Key Guide to Crime Busting

1. Build a motorway – the more lanes the better.
2. Direct all criminals (from areas you want to insult) to travel on the motorway preferably with signs on their vehicles saying “CRIM-IN-TRANST” to help Police identify them.
3. Chose an electorate as far away as possible from the place you want to win as the destination for the mobile crims.
4. Have all off-ramps removed to ensure a smooth flow of crims to chosen destination.
5. Dedicate one lane as an expressway for crims who own cars.
6. Dedicate one lane for a busway for crims who don’t have cars or haven’t stolen one yet.
7. Increase public transport concessions for crims who are prepared to travel during off peak times to carry out their crimes.
8. Encourage car-pooling of crims to cut down congestion and reduce the carbon footprint.
9. Build motorways which cut through communities removing hundreds of houses thereby reducing the number of homes that can be burgled.
10. Get a TV production company to make a video of your success in reducing crime.
11. Avoid the PM at all costs because although you were once his “chosen candidate” he now thinks your crime busting ideas are silly.
12. Avoid the good people of South Auckland you have labelled as crims.

I especially like the busway for crims that have not yet stolen a car!

Even I was laughing yesterday as Annette King was reading out some frank observations from Grey Power on initial Ministerial meetings, wth Bill English trying to sugarcoat them. Claire Trevett reports:

The post-mortem by president Les Howard on the March visit has handed King a wonderful arsenal.

She first reads out his rendition of bumping into ACC Minister Nick Smith, who had not responded to their requests to meet.

“His face reddened, and with his head down the moment the lift arrived at the ground floor he took to his heels and was last seen hurrying away in the distance.”

Heh, and even better:

King, obligingly, shares their verdict of that hard-won meeting as one that “left a sour taste in our mouths as we felt we had received the old-fashioned ‘brush-off’.”

It went on, saying Bennett needed to “shape up to her obligations”, before ending, “It appears she thinks a loud laugh will solve all questions put to her and this meeting was a complete waste of her time. Well, it certainly was a waste of ours.”

Ouch.

However Claire goes on to report on teh quotes that Annette did not read out:

Had English read the full report, he would have had a happier time. Grey Power described him as “very pleasant”, and Senior Citizens Minister John Carter as “one who can be trusted to get things done, rather than just talk about what needs to be done”.

Nice.

But the real killer English needed to take the wind out of King’s sails came in their verdict of the PM: “I found John Key much easier to talk to than the previous Prime Minister”.

Heh that would have been a wonderful rejoinder, if Bill had it at the time.

Good God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things. Labour has put out the press release quoted below:

National begins dirty tricks campaign in Mt Albert

Press Release by New Zealand Labour at 5:37 pm, 28 Apr 2009

National’s dirty tricks have started even before Labour has selected a candidate for the Mt Albert by-election, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Annette King said today.

First of all don’t you enjoy the hypocrisy of the party that was behind the attempted H-Fee smear, to talk about dirty tricks. Did Annette never notice Mike Williams over in Melbourne?

National and John Key’s dishonest attempt to discredit one of eight potential Labour candidates shows the Government’s eyes are off the ball when they should be focusing on peoples jobs and the upcoming budget.

“National has trawled through research papers written by David Shearer dating back to 1998. The papers looked at the use of private security in war torn nations where innocent civilians, mostly women and children, were dying and there were no better alternatives.

“They’ve fed this information to their right wing blogging friends.

Amazing – she just invents this from thin air. Let there be no mistake, I got the material from no one in National, in Parliament or the Government. I would be very happy to swear an affidavit before a JP to this, or undertake a polygraph. No one in National even pointed me towards this, and the first John Key would have known about this I suspect is when the media asked him for comment.

It amazes me that Labour is so embarrassed by these revelations, that they feel the need to just invent whoppers.

“Instead of this, John Key should be getting his staff to tackle real problems like job losses and the struggling economy.

Again nothing to do with the PM or his staff. Annoys me when people always credit them for our work! I know Labour is anti private sector, but maybe they can not comprehend the idea of people doing stuff on their own initiative.

“Why are they trying to dig dirt on one of the nominees, I predict that by the weekend they would have gone through the whole eight. Unlike National, we don’t yet know who our candidate will be. We are having a competitive selection process which will not be completed until this weekend.

And I urge all Labour delegates to vote Shearer. Far from this being dirt on him, I think it is great he supports a role for the private sector in wars and the military. The problem of course is that his sensible views stand in stark opposition to Labour who are against the private sector being involved in most things.

And I am also bemused how it is considered “dirt” to re-publish an article Mr Shearer wrote in a publicly available journal. Does Labour think there is something wrong with people knowing the views of its candidates on important policy issues? This is not some personal private issue which is embarrassing to Shearer – it is not digging up share transactions – it is a public article on a matter of public policy.

“I hope it’s not a sign of the tactics National plans to adopt for the campaign. Labour is committed to fight a strong, clean and fair by-election

Insert Tui billboard – just like their general election campaign no doubt.

“John Key should stop spending his time on negative politicking and concentrate his efforts on how the budget can address the real problems facing New Zealand,” Annette King said.

Annette – nothing to do with John. Honest. Ask him. Ask me. Give us a polygraph test. Drug me with sodium pentothal. You’ll get the same answer.

The articles by Shearer were found almost by luck in fact. Someone mentioned something to Whale about something Shearer had once written. He mentioned something to me. I asked a couple of friends with access to academic databases to try and fnd something, and one of them found it on an academic database and sent it to me.  Total time on it was around ten minutes.

Just an update to my post of 9 March where I said I thought Annette King would contest the Wellington mayoralty and Andrew Little would possibly enter Parliament in 2010 through a Rongotai by-election.

I had a very enjoyable chat with Annette today and she said that she had not had any discussions with anyone about standing and is very happy as the MP for Rongotai, and that the Wellington Mayoralty is not on her radar screen at all.

It wasn’t quite a Shermanesque statement, but very few politicians will do that. I told Annette that I was happy to inform people of her current intentions being firmly focused on Parliament.

I tend to shy away from making firm predictions, but in this case I am going to go out on a limb, and make a series of related predictions:

1. Annette King will stand for Mayor of Wellington in 2010
2. The resulting by-election will see Andrew Little enter Parliament as MP for Rongotai
3. Unless Labour wins the 2011 election, Andrew will become Labour Party Leader shortly after the election, successfully challenging Phil Goff.

Time will tell if I am right or not. I’m quietly confident.

From Hansard today:

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister—or the country—have any confidence in the transparency and honesty of the Minister of Finance, who, while ramming through legislation before Christmas without subjecting it to the scrutiny of a select committee, deliberately suppressed and withheld from the public and parliamentarians the advice he received from his own ministry that the fundamental parts of that legislation were deeply flawed?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I have complete confidence in the Minister of Finance. If we want to have concerns about Ministers of Finance, maybe we should have concern for a former Minister of Finance, who may well find himself in breach of the Public Finance Act.

Ouch. Does JK know something or was it just a general reminder? Remember you can be prosecuted for breaching the Public Finance Act.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister categorically assure the House that National is not concealing Treasury advice or other departmental advice against any of the legislation now being introduced in the House today under urgency?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can confirm that the Government is not concealing any briefings or hiding anything from the House. If the member wants to talk about concealing things, maybe he should go and ask people in his own research unit about that, because the last time I saw them they were concealing the booze from the parliamentary Christmas party.

There were gasps to that one. Talking of which what has happened to the thieves?

David Garrett: Can the Minister confirm that the prefab prison—when it is built—will not have underfloor heating, plasma televisions in every cell, and expensive gymnasium facilities, and that criminals in those facilities will be required to work?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can advise that there will be no underfloor heating or plasma televisions in a new prison. Inmates will have appropriate exercise facilities, rather than the type of gymnasium I saw at one of the new prisons built by the previous Government. It seemed flash enough to charge a joining fee and for yearly membership.

Heh annual gym membership fee indeed.

Sandra Goudie: Has the Minister received any other feedback on the cost savings from building prefabricated modular units?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition has criticised the Government’s plan to save taxpayer dollars, stating that “If you are short-sighted enough to build something cheap and nasty you will be rebuilding before very long.”, and “When you are building a public institution, you build it to make it last.” That is a surprising claim, when the four prisons built under Labour, where costs blew out by half a billion dollars, have already racked up $9 million in repair bills.

Amazing what you learn once you are n Government.

Hon Annette King: Can she confirm that rather than sitting on its hands, as she claimed, Labour in Government reduced the unemployment rate from 7.5 percent to 3.8 percent through active labour market policies that saw 140,000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit, and if the previous Government’s policies did nothing, which programmes has she cancelled since she became Minister?

Here Annette tells a big porkie. Labour did not reduce the unemployment rate from 7.5%. It was 6.2% at the end of 1999 and at the end of 2008 it was 4.6% – a 1.6% reduction that averaged 0.18% a year reduction. Incidentially the unemployment rate under National declined by 2.5%, which was an average 0.28% a year reduction. And if you discount the nine months of 1991 before National’s policies such as the ECA kicked in, then the reduction was 4.7%, or an annual 0.57%.

Bottom line is Annette lied, and that the unemployment rate declined far more under National in the 1990s, than Labour during their nine years.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did the Minister reopen the debate on Transmission Gully when it was the preferred route of the previous Government, and continues to be the preferred route of the Wellington region; and is it not a little hollow to claim, as he tried to yesterday, that the Crown contribution was unfunded, when it has been earmarked in the Crown accounts since 2005 when the Wellington regional transport package was first announced?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raised it because the previous Labour Government, which was in office for some 9 years, raised expectations regarding this route that were unfunded at the time that it left office. It suggested that $400 million would be allocated to complete the $1 billion project, but left the remaining $600 million to be funded by local bodies in the region. A regional fuel tax was talked of as a means by which that might happen; I am informed by the ministry that a Wellington regional fuel tax in the order of 13.5c per litre would be needed to fund the $600 million that the Government of the time left unfunded, so it could be described as more of a wish than a plan.

Nice line – more of a wish than a plan.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree in principle with the proposal for the Government to provide alternative funding for community law centres to ensure they do not need to drastically cut services at a time when demand for those services will inevitably increase; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: I can assure the member that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few who can afford to access such redress as that offered by, for example, the Supreme Court. Coincidentally, the drop in community law centres’ funding is roughly equivalent to the $4.3 million that was committed by the previous Government to the bronze plating of the new Supreme Court.

And that’s a home run!!

What I found most interesting is that Lockie is taking a strong line with Ministers about answering the question, if it is the primary question. He basically said that if the primary question is asking for some fact or figure, the Minister must provide that as they have hours to prepare for it.  I think it is excellent that he is raising the bar in this way.

I repeat what I said earlier: where primary questions are laid down clearly, members of the public expect an answer. When Ministers are answering questions, they can expect that the answers they give may be further questioned by members of the Opposition.

I was worried about how Lockwood may go as Speaker as he was not a lawyer or a standing orders expert. But he seems to have turned a potential weakness into a strength, noting today:

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. I do not want to take up further time of the House. Had the Prime Minister not wished to answer the question, he could have made it very clear that he believed the question was out of order. The Prime Minister seemed to answer it with some enthusiasm. That entitled the Leader of the Opposition to ask a further supplementary question, and I believe that is the way the House should flow, in good order. We do not need to get too precious and pedantic about these things.

This is like a good rugby referee – making sure the “game” keeps flowing. Of course one has to follow the rules, but a but of latitude is a good thing.

Of course not having Winston there does make it a lot easier!

Inaugural Health & DIsability Commissioner Robyn Stent writes in the Herald that then Health Minister Annette King changed the law in 2004 to allow the storage of body parts or bodily substances without the consent of the patient they came from, if it is for the purpose of approved research.

I’m all in favour of embryo research, but only if the parents give consent. It is shameful that Annette King nationalised their embryos to allow embryos to be stored without parental consent.

The National Secretary of that independent third party, the EPMU, is set to become Labour Party President, and then a Labour MP no later than 2011.

Personally I think this is a good move for Labour. Andrew Little will bring a proven organisational track record to the job, and will also be a very good MP for them. In fact if Labour lose in 2011 he could rise to a leadership position very very quickly.

It’s almost a pity the Electoral Finance Act will be just a bad memory by 2011, as we won’t get to see Andrew argue that he can be the Labour Party President and the National Secretary of the EPMU, yet the EPMU would still be eligible for third party status.

The challenge is to find a seat for Andrew. Andrew is far too smart to rely on being a List MP. Before Annette King became Deputy Leader, I would have said Rongotai. That may still happen. Annette will be 64 at the next election and could step down as Deputy in late 2010, having helped stabilise the Opposition.

If not Rongotai, then Hutt South is the logical other choice. Now Mallard will choose the timing of his own departure but he entered Parliament in 1984, and it is not impossible he’ll retire in 2011 unless Labour are looking to have a good chance of winning. Even if they do win though, Mallard will not be guaranteed to be a Minister with all the ambitious new MPs wanting promotion. He may also be too associated with the Clark era.

Hipkins and Robertson won’t be giving up their seats, and Ohariu will favour National if Dunne retires. Mana is a dark horse possibility for Little. Winnie Laban is a lovely person, but not well suited to Opposition. Will she want to do six or more years in Opposition, with no guarantee of a Ministerial role when they do make it back? Labour now has several Pacific Island MPs.

The other item of interest is who will suceed Little at EPMU in three years? Will it be a moderate like Andrew or is there an opportunity for a more radical leader?

Whanganui had a 3% lead in the party vote in 2005, and this expanded out to 22% in 2008. And the 3,500 majority for Borrows goes to 6,000.

Rangitikei sees a 25% lead in the party vote and Simon Power moves his majority from 9,000 to 11,000.

Tukituki has an 18% lead in the party vote, and a 2,600 majority for Craig Foss gets a boost thanks to Labour’s sacking of the local District Health Board to over 7,000.

Palmerston North has been held by Labour since 1978. The party vote was narrowly won by National but Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway held off Malcolm Plimmer by 1,000 votes.

Wairarapa has National 17% ahead on the party vote. And John Hayes turns the seat safe with a 2,900 majority converting to 6,300 in 2008.

Otaki was a huge battle. I’ve door knocked Otaki in the past and it is not natural National territory in the Horowhenua parts. So winning the party vote by 8% is good for National after trailling by 3% last time. Darren Hughes put up a huge fight to protect his sub 400 majority but Nathan Guy grabbed the seat by almost 1,500.

In Wellington, Labour does a lot better starting with Mana. Labour remains 6% ahead on the party vote but reduced from 18% in 2005. Winnie Laban’s 6,800 majority shrinks only slightly to 5.300.

Rimutaka was the last hope for NZ First. Labour won the party vote there in 2005 by 11% and in 2008 by 0.3%. On the electorate vote just as narrow with Labour’s Chris Hipkins pipping Richard Whiteside by 600 votes. Ron Mark got a credible 5,000 votes but stll trailed by 7,000.

Hutt South is home to Wainuiomata and Trevor Mallard. Trevor delivered a party vote margin for Labour of 4% and a 3,600 majority for himself. In 2005 the party vote margin was 14% and the personal majority 6,600 so some movement there.

Rongotai is now the home of the Labour Deputy Leader. But even before her ascension, Rongotai gave Labour a massive 11% margin on the party vote – 43% to 32% for National. And her personal 13,000 majority in 2005 was only slightly dented to just under 8,000. If that is her low tide mark, she’ll be happy.

Wellington Central saw in 2005 a party vote for National of just 33%, Labour 43% and Greens around 16%. In 2008 it was National 36%, Labour 34% and Greens around 20%. Marian Hobbs had a 5,800 majority and Stephen Franks cut that to 1,500 against new MP Grant Robertson with some Green party votes giving Robertson their electorate vote to keep Franks out.

Ohariu was assumed by almost everyone to be safe as houses for Peter Dunne. But it got close this time. First on the party vote, National beat Labour 43% to 40% in 2005. This time it was 47% to 33%. On the candidate vote Peter Dunne dropped from 45% to 33% making him vulnerable. National’s Katrina Shanks lifted her vote from 21% to 26% and Labour’s Charles Chauvel from 26% to 30%. The Greens candidate got 7% of the vote and may have ironically saved the seat for Dunne.

• Leader: Phil Goff
• Deputy Leader: Annette King
• Finance: David Cunliffe
• Foreign Affairs: Helen Clark
• Shadow Leader: Michael Cullen
• Senior Whip: Darren Hughes
• Junior Whip: Steve Chadwick

Congratulations to Phil Goff for achieving his long held ambition, and without even a ballot. He will be a very happy chap tonight. Annette is probably taking up the Deputy more through a sense of duty than ambition. She will be a key person in keeping people happy.

Overall looks pretty sensible to me.

We also have the unusual situation where Clark remains as Prime Minister for another week or so, despite no longer being party leader. I don’t thik there has ever before been a leadership change before the new Government has even been sworn in.

The common theme on the left blogs seem to be to try and use Sir Roger as a bogeyman for the new Government, even though he won’t be a Minister in it.

I find this amusing as the new Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party will be two of Sir Roger’s former loyal lieutenants.!

Yes Clark and Cullen did serve in Cabinet with Sir Roger, but they were in the Lange faction. Goff and King were definitely in the Douglas faction. Maybe a journalist could ask them whether or not they voted for Douglas to return to Cabinet in 1989, against Lange’s express wishes?

Personally I hope Sir Roger is made Chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. He would do a good job holding both Departments and Ministers to account for their spending.

The Herald editorial talks about how Phill Goff will be a caretaker or temporary caretaker for Labour.

The decision allows Labour no time to find a promising successor. In the absence of a new face, it will probably elect the capable Phil Goff to lead it for the time being. Mr Goff has many of the attributes of Helen Clark: wide ministerial experience, a good command of all issues, instinctive common sense and a sure political touch. And he is a more forceful public speaker than she is.

But he is not much younger than she is, and as a minister in the 1980s has been on the national scene for just as long. He can never give Labour the fresh image a party normally needs to recover from a long period in power. By the next election Mr Goff would be in much the same position as Bill English was in 2002. As a leading minister in a recently defeated Government, Mr English could not lead National back to office.

Actually a lot worse than Bill’s example. Bill entered Parliament during the 4th National Government and was Leader of the Opposition for the 5th Labour Government. Phil Goff entered Parliament during the 3rd National Government, served as a Minister in the 4th Labour Government, spent nine years in Opposition during the 4th National Government, nine years as a Minister in the 5th Labour Government, and now will become the fresh face of Labour during the 5th National Government hoping to lead a 6th Labour Government to power.

At the next election, Goff and King celebrate the 30th anniversary and 27th anniversary respectively of their first election to Parliament.

So I think Goff and King will struggle to be seen as long-term Leaders. In a way, that is a pity. Goff and King are amongst the more moderate Labour MPs (or have been to date) and should move Labour more towards the centre.  They both are regarded as amongst the more competent Ministers also (even though King’s halo took a beating this year) and should be an effective team working together.

Labour have learnt nothing from the Electoral Finance Act. It was a partisan attempt to skew the electoral laws in their favour. And they have done it again their announcement of an expert panel to review electoral administration and political party funding.

Electoral law does not belong to Labour. It represents the basic constitution of our country. And once again they are desperately trying to bring in further state funding of political parties.

Labour have announced the expert panel just weeks out from a general election. That is bad enough and a breach of conventions. A panel which reviews electoral law is a bloody significant appointment. But they totally failed to consult the Opposition on its composition. Electoral law issues should be as bi-partisan as possible. Sure at the end of the day, parties may have to agree to disagree, but you do not start off the process by excluding the major Opposition party.

I made this point back in June, when the proposal was announced. I said:

1. The independent experts must be chosen by a super majority of parliamentary parties, not just by the Government of the day. The formula which I like is that any appointments must be agreed to by party leaders representing over 75% of the MPs and over 50% of the parties in Parliament. This means that not only must both major parties agree, but so must at least half of the minor parties.
2. The issues, terms of references and high level process must also be signed off by that super-majority. The most unforgivable crime that Labour and the Greens have done with the EFA is to treat electoral law as a bauble for the winner, rather than a bipartisan constitutional law.
3. Issues referred to a Citizen’s Jury should be in totality, not just a narrow aspect such as taxpayer funding of political parties. It is ridicolous to exclude from consideration all the issues dealt with by the Electoral Finance Act. In fact the EFA should be abolished immediately upon a change of Government, and a citizen’s jury could be used as part of the process of consulting on and determining its replacement.

You see the concept of a panel of exports and a citizen’s jury is not without merit. But as usual Labour’s desperation to skew everything, destroys what should be a worthwhile endeavour. Now that was not just my view back in June, but also Green co-leader Russel Norman agreed partially with me:

David Farrar says some silly National Party things about the citz assembly but he also makes some good points over at Kiwiblog. He says the political party buyin should be as broad as possible – I agree with that but don’t know how to acheive it give the politicisation of the issue.

He also says that the terms of reference should be broad. I agree that they should be broader than simply ’state funding of parties’ but after talking to Jonathan Rose (an expert on citz assemblies) I’m not sure the ToR should be too broad. He says that if they’re too broad the assembly lacks focus. maybe there is a compromise in there somewhere.

So did Russel stand up to Labour and say don’t just appoint a panel without consulting the other parties. We insist you go to National and ask if they have any recommended panelists and what they think of the ones you propose? No they roll over, as usual:

“The Forum will provide much needed independence in the review of election funding”, Green Party Co-Leader Russel Norman says.

Independent? When the Government hand picks the panel that will advise them?

“While the Act was needed to close loopholes in the law revealed at the last election, we need a more inclusive and disinterested process to further consider the bigger picture of political party and election funding.

“We hope that all New Zealanders will support this process and that we can find a place to have some non-partisan reasoned discussion about the future of our democracy.”

Non-partisan??? Fuck all hope of that considering there was *zero* consultation with the Opposition.

Now I am not attacking the integrity of any the three panelists. I know two of them, and they have a lot to contribute in this area. However the Government has obviously chosen the panel, based on the known viewpoints of some of them. Associate Professor Geddis has written supportively of state funding on many occassions and in the Press described the issue as:

This failure to really debate the pros and cons of public funding is regrettable. The public was never given the choice of whether it would rather politicians get their money from large, hidden, private donations or taxpayer grants.

Now if the citizens assembly gets the choice described to them in that terms, I can guarantee you what they will say. Just as if you describe it as “Should parties raise their own money from volunteers and supporters or take it from unwilling taxpayers” you would get a quite different result from the assembly.

Now I am not saying Geddis, would put choices in as crude terms as he did in The Press article. He has written some very useful stuff on the issue. I am not even saying I would not have him on the panel. What I am saying is that the process has been tainted from the very beginning by the lack of consultation with the Opposition.

Also ironically Andrew Geddis now is the victim of something he advocated against:

First, the failure to consult with opposition parties before introducing the Bill to the House leaves it vulnerable to allegations of partisanship. Electoral law should not be, nor be seen to be, a vehicle for one party to gain an advantage over others.

Geddis is right. Maybe he should have made a condition of his participation on the panel, being that the Government consult on its membership.

The panel and assembly should be terminated if there is a change of Government. However I would advocate that a National-led Government look at using a similiar mechanism in reviewing parts of the Electoral Act post-election. And they should consult with and get buy-in from all the parties on the composition and terms of reference of such a panel.

The NZ Herald has reported on the comments by Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt, which I blogged about yesterday.

The head of the Electoral Commission has warned that the law she is charged with overseeing is having a “chilling effect” on public participation in the election.

I would encourage people to keep that quote and at every Meet the Candidate’s Meeting they attend ask Labour, NZ First and Greens candidate a question along the lines of: “The CEO of the Electoral Commission has said the Electoral Finance Act is having a chilling effect on public participation in the election. Why did your party pass a law that has achieved the exact opposite of its stated intention – discouraging people from political involvement?”

Minister of Justice Annette King would not respond to Dr Catt’s comments, saying Dr Catt was an independent commissioner and “she’s entitled to say what she likes”.

Isn’t it sad when the Minister is actually unable to rebut the central proposition that her pet law has had a chilling effect on people’s participation in the electoral process?

The Police Association has attacked Police Commission Howard Broad for letting the taser decision (which is his) be used as a political delaying tactic in Parliament yesterday.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said that while frontline officers should have been celebrating, the decision instead “highlights the politicisation of the highest levels of police”.

They are strong and damning words from the head of the police union.

The Police Association are also upset that the Goverment has decided to ban Police Officers from serving on local authorities. The flip-flop puts sees Labour now supporting NZ First on this issue.  Probably part of of a deal on the ETS.

Annette King tells the Police Association off for being ungrateful:

“Quite frankly, I am very disappointed Greg O’Connor and the association have used that sort of language. The reality is that New Zealand police have never had a better period than they have had under this Government.”

Yes Greg. What would you know about the Police. Listen to the Minister, shut up and be grateful.

I thought of trying to cover question time from Parliament (you can apply for a one day pass) but wasn’t sure if they have a power supply handy there, so decided to watch it on TV and blog it from home.

Wilson is speaking now, defending her decision yesterday to take Peters’ word that Hide’s question was covered by a case before the courts. She is saying she had no choice but to take the word of an MP, as it is extremely serious if an MP misleads the Speaker.

Annette King has chosen today, of all days, to make a Ministerial statement that tazers are being introduced. This is a good decision, but MPs are suspicious of the timing. By making the statement today, it leads to a debate which delays question time and general debate. She could easily have delayed the decision until tomorrow.

Brownlee is laughing at the ploy saying King just announced a decision that isn’t even final, but just in principle. He is pointing out that many more major decisions never get Ministerial statements, and there was no need for it to be made today

Brownlee is right – it is a ploy to give Clark and Peters more time to work out their stories. The decision is being made by the Commissioner, not the Minister.

Gerry finished by suggesting the tazers may be used on Winston later in the week.

You know it is a setup to delay, when Dail Jones then gets up and says he agrees this is a serious issue which should be debated by the House.

… Fuck I am bored with tazers. Bring on the main show.

Rodney is now using the tazer debate, to attack Peters. Cullen is running interference for Peters which gives you some idea of how desperate they are to cling on.

… Now onto question one. Question Two is the big one.

Clark has said she does have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs!!!! She is clinging to him.

She is not even suspending him. She says she will just wait for the Privileges Committee to report.

Clark keeps saying there is a conflict of evidence. But that does not mean she can not act. She knows Glenn is telling the truth, and is just trying to cling on to power.

Dail Jones is desperate. He is suggesting the Owen Glenn letter is a forgery. Fuck the man is a moron or does a good job of impersonating one.

Key has pointed out that if she is implying Owen Glenn paid to the Privileges Committee.

Peters is clinging to the fact that Glenn donated to his legal fees not NZ First. But that is a red herring for the issue of his denial that he did now know of the donation until July 2008.

Peters is basically calling Glenn a liar. He may regret that.

God Clark is desperate. She is saying that as the letter is to the Privileges Committee, not from it, there is nothing for her to do.

Clark keeps talking about waiting for teh trial. But this is not about whether or not Peters broke standing orders. It is about whether or not he is a liar. And she sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying and David Benson-Pope for lying, without needing a “trial”. She is using the Privileges Committee inquiry as an excuse for inaction.

Someone shoot Dail Jones. He is now asking for all the National MPs on the Privileges Committee to be thrown off it. Clark is almost agreeing. No-one can say National is going soft – that is for sure!

Wilson is doing better today I have to say.

Okay onto the next question. Who cares. General Debate will be fun.

Maurice Williamson on Agenda yesterday confirmed that National would look to speed up construction of new roads with private-public partnerships and tolls.

The party’s transport spokesman, Maurice Williamson, said yesterday that commuters could face bills of up to $50 a week for tolls of $3 to $5 a trip on new motorways or similar “roads of national importance”.

But he believed that most people, if given a choice between tolls or queuing on free roads, would gladly pay.

Also free roads are not free. They are just funded through petrol tax. I think it is vitally important that users of roads pay for them, and tolls are better at doing that, plus will allow for some roads to happen, which would not have happened otherwise.

He believed an obstacle to public acceptance of tolls had been removed by a new law requiring all money raised from fuel taxes to be paid into the national land transport fund.

“I think New Zealanders will now say, ‘Well okay, if it is going to provide a solution to a problem I face and you are not stealing my petrol tax, well then I’ll go for it’.”

Another policy Labour stole from National!

Transport Minister Annette King accused Mr Williamson of not thinking his toll plans through properly.

She said that even if the $365 million Albany-to-Puhoi toll road, to open early next year, had “maximised” use, a $2 toll would still pay only half its cost.

So what? Half is better than none.

But she said the Labour-led Government believed strongly there was a place for PPPs.

But I thought they were evil privatisations in drag?

Mr Williamson listed these possible candidates for tolls:

• Auckland’s next crossing of the Waitemata Harbour (expected to cost at least $4 billion).
• Auckland’s motorway tunnels through Waterview on the western ring route ($1.9 billion).
• A 19km motorway extension to Warkworth or beyond ($1 billion-plus).
• Completion of the Waikato Expressway on State Highway 1 ($1 billion).
• Kopu Bridge, on the way to Coromandel Peninsula ($32 million).

Don’t forget Transmission Gully!

Claire Trevett takes a look at Annette King – it’s a good balance piece:

It has been a month of rare public relations blunders for King, whose portfolios are critical in an election year in which law and order and rising living costs will be the main acts on the voters’ playbill. …

Her handling of the Electoral Finance Act has also lacked the robust counter-attacks she makes on National over law and order issues.

To be fair to Annette it is a pig of a law to have to defend. However her law of common sense quote will haunt her for ages.

King has assiduously built links with those in the mid and back benches and developed a strongly loyal following.

When Shane Jones needed a makeover, it was “Aunty Annette” who told him to have a shave and get a new suit.

Darren Hughes is another acolyte and her willingness to talk MPs through both portfolio and constituency problems has ensured few, if any, dislike her.

King is loyal to Helen Clark and is one of the first called to the Prime Minister’s office in times of trouble. But she is not so close as to have alienated those who may feel aggrieved at being overlooked for promotion in favour of other Clark favourites.

Come the time Clark decides to go, or caucus decides it for her, it is likely to be King to whom many turn for guidance and to nurse the party through its transition phase without turning into a scene from Lord of the Flies.

Her influence will also be a potent force should she decide to harness it in favour of any individual contender for the leadership.

She is unlikely to want the top job herself. Nor, despite her competence, is she suited for it.

Viciously defensive over her personal life, she will not want the scrutiny that comes with the job.

She resists media throngs, and while she can bang heads with the best of them in debates over general policies in Parliament, her disposition makes her unsuited to spear-head pointed attacks.

The most she can drum up against Bill English – even at his most irritating – is “Mr Nasty”.

But when sniffing the wind to see to whom Labour will look for a future leader, it would pay to check whose barbecues Annette King is going to.

It is true Annette has no real enemies in Labour. And even in National she is not regarded badly. They enjoy denting her reputation – but she doesn’t exude the smugness and arrogance of some of her colleagues which turns it from professional to personal.

I love the description of Darren Hughes as her acolyte. What a great term. Mind you Darren has the amazining ability to be everyone’s acolyte – almost uniquely he is warmly regarded by Clark and Goff. If Labour go into opposition it would be worth watching Darren as well as Annette for their moves.

The ODT looks at who will be the new leaders for Labour:

However, within Labour circles the speculation has started on likely replacements. …

But if Labour loses and the election result is close, party sources believe Trade Minister Phil Goff is the principal candidate for the job.

He is seen as a safe replacement who would not shift Labour markedly away from its centre-left position.

Goff is centre-left but more centre than left. He would be far more in touch with the electorate and less likely to make massive blunders such as Clark’s positioning over Section 59.

Police Minister Annette King is seen as the logical deputy leader for Mr Goff, to give the party a gender balance and an Auckland-Wellington split.

Gender balance will be important for Labour. I am not sure King is looking to spend another nine years in politics though. Also her star has dipped this year.

If the polls hold up, Labour could lose up to 18 MPs, including electorate members.

If the defeat is not too broad, Mr Goff will be challenged by Health Minister David Cunliffe and Labour Minister Trevor Mallard.

The conventional wisdom is Cunliffe will stand against Goff. I can’t see Mallard being a contender after his demotion last year.

Both would bring with them an image problem.

Mr Cunliffe was identified early in his career as a potential leader, but has earned the disdain of some colleagues for his “superior” attitude.

However if he has Helen’s backing against Goff, I would not count him out.

A decimation of Labour will see other candidates chancing their arm in the belief that it will take Labour six years, or two terms, to win office.

Energy Minister David Parker and Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove will mount challenges.

Neither is particularly popular with colleagues, and Mr Cosgrove will be a fiercer competitor than Mr Parker.

Parker for Leader? I’m sorry but my first reaction is has the ODT gone mad? But then I realised no they are just parochial and feel the need to include a local person in the speculation.

Mr Cosgrove has been a member of the party since he was 14, and is a protege of former prime minister Mike Moore.

Which is about as helpful in Labour as being endorsed by Dick Cheney is in the US.

Mr Parker is seen more in the mould of former prime minister Sir Wallace (Bill) Rowling, and would offer a leadership style out of step with modern politics.

Hmmn, the ODT has a point. Parker is a lot like Rowling.

Also in the mix at this level will be Building and Construction Minister Shane Jones, a Maori MP of whom was expected great things.

He is said to be “hugely bright” but pompous and obviously ambitious.

I think they have the hugely before the wrong word

My genuine best advice for Labour after the election would be Goff Leader, Cunliffe as Finance and Street as Deputy.

Hat Tip: Homepaddock (which is now a daily read)

Tomorrow will be a nad news day for the Government with 1,000 or more truckies planning to protest against the increase in road user charges announced by Annette King on Monday.

It will be the first ever national protest by the trucking industry.

The issue is not so much the 7.5% increase per se, but the fact it was imposed with no warning period.

What I find interesting is the increasing trend for groups to be more assertive against the Government, as they calculate the probability of a change is likely, so the fear of retribution is reduced. We see school principals going to Close Up as another example. Something which would never have happened I suspect in earlier years. The same thing happened in 1999.

Congratulations to Annette King for successfully stealing National’s policy to allow the Police to issue instant domestic orders to protect family members,

The current system of protection orders is highly ineffective and far far too many people die or are beaten at the hands of their partners. Reform is long overdue.