Kiwiblog

Oh this is great. Go to In the House and watch the video of this question from David Parker to Gerry Brownlee:

Has he received my invitation dated 14 December to accompany me, after Parliament rises, on the Gillespie Pass tramping circuit in the north-eastern parts of the Mount Aspiring National Park, so that he can inspect first-hand areas in the conservation estate included in his stock-take of mineral resources, and will he accept it?

Gerry’s response is superb, as is the other contributions to the debate. A nice light touch for the final session of the year.

If anyone is able to You Tube the video, that would be great as I could them embed it here. I see in the comments that next year In The House will allow embedding which is excellent.

You can make a submission until 10 December on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill.

The bill is generally excellent – it merges the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office, and allows the Commission to give advice on the legality of propose ads etc.

The one change I would like is to the method of appointment of the Electoral Commissioners. The current bill provides for the Minister to (effectively) appoint them after consulting with other parties. I would like to see the appointments either made by Parliament directly, or for the consultation requirement to be made an agreement requirement.

The reason is that different Ministers interpret a consultation requirement in different ways. I know in the 1990s that National consulted Helen Clark as Opposition Leader on some appointments and actually withdrew proposed nominees after Clark objected.

But when Margaret Wilson was Attorney-General, she was terrible. Her idea of consultation was to send a letter out Friday notifying the name of the person she proposes to have Cabinet appoint on Monday.

I was hoping some MPs would touch on this issue in the first reading, and they did:

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be supporting the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister of Justice for the consultative process that has surrounded this bill. He has properly engaged with Labour, as, indeed, I am sure he has with other parties in this House in the preparation of this bill. As a consequence of that, Labour members are happy to support it in its reference to a select committee. Initially, the Electoral Commission, which is a new body set up by this bill and not the current Electoral Commission, was to include the Secretary for Justice as a member. Labour and, I understand, some other parties said that would not be right. Of course, the Secretary for Justice is the head of a Government department, so it would not be appropriate for that office holder to hold a role on the new Electoral Commission. The Minister agreed with that, so the commission will now be fully independent, and we agree that that is appropriate.

This is an example of good consultation. Simon Power had feedback from other parties, and modified the proposal. My concern is not about Simon as Minister of Justice failing to act on consultations. He won’t be Minister for ever, and my concern is some future Minister will act like Margaret Wilson and ignore any objections from consultation. That is why I think it should requirement agreement, not consultation.

I think there is still a question as to how the commission should be appointed. I have heard some people suggest that the commission ought to be appointed by Parliament, rather than by the Minister as part of the Government. I think that some people may submit on that issue to the select committee. We in Labour would be interested to hear from submitters and be informed by them on that matter.

I’m glad David Parker raised the issue, and hope that Labour will agree to a change – despite the fact they will be Government again one day.

The need for independence is even greater now, with the Chief Electoral Officer being one of the three Commissioners, as the CEO is the key individual who actually runs the election, and declares the result.

Previously the CEO was within the Ministry of Justice. So the State Services Commissioner appointed the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Justice appointed the CEO. While I don’t particularly like it being witin the Ministry of Justice, it did make it hard for a Minister to put in someone inappropriate.

Now though the Minister can appoint the Chief Electoral Officer directly. That is too great a power I submit.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I do not intend to take a long call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will support its first reading to get it before the select committee. We look forward to submissions by the public on the bill. …

When the National Government consulted the Greens on the proposal, we suggested from the outset that an Officer of Parliament – type body should be established, that it would be preferable to ensure that the new agency is absolutely and fully independent of the Government, and does not report to a Minister. The Officer of Parliament model is used here in Aotearoa with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for example. It is also used in Canada for their electoral organisation and management. It places the oversight of the body with Parliament, as opposed to a ministry of the Government managed by one particular political interest. It reinforces its role to oversee and enable free and fair elections, which is a core concern of the House of Representatives and of Parliament. Certainly an Officer of Parliament model would be perceived by the public as more truly independent and would have more ability to comment on how the electoral process is operating, because it would not report to a particular Minister in the executive.

I agree with Metiria that the Commission is most suitable to be an Officer of Parliament. If this change is not practical in the short-term, than a fallback option is to at least require the Minister to gain agreement, not just consultation, with a super-majority of parties on appointments.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) :

There is also the police, and I will speak a little bit about their function, because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned.

Although Labour supports this bill being read a first time, we believe that the bill does not address the issue of the enforcement machinery when there is a breach of electoral law. I suggest that that might be something the select committee looks at. The problem that the police always have, of course, is that electoral offences never go to the top of the queue. The police will always be concerned with crimes against the person, and with dealing particularly with violent crime. They will never be able to prioritise electoral matters, nor will they necessarily have the forensic expertise to do so. These days those questions require skills in dealing with tracking donations and financial disclosures, and so on, which call for quite sophisticated levels of skill that are probably more properly found in organisations like the Serious Fraud Office rather than the police. It might well be that with the forensic skills that are required, it would be useful to think about having an enforcement function under this new independent Crown entity rather than the police being responsible for that function, if we are truly interested in bringing all the functions together in an expert body that has the resources and the time to deal with the questions before it.

I agree with Charles that the Police do not see electoral breaches as a priority and it would be better with the Commission. However that is not so much an issue for this bill, but more for the bill which will come out of the Govt’s electoral finance review.

The final point I make is that if one has a look at the explanatory note, one sees that one of the options canvassed was to have an Officer of Parliament for this function. Personally, I think that would have been the most compelling option to go for. The explanatory note suggests there was not enough time to get that sort of apparatus going before the next election. But if we really want a truly independent body, charged with the conduct of elections in an honest and serious way, then, given the conduct of our other Officers of Parliament, in whom we have enormous faith, then that seems to me to be the best way to go.

Excellent.

What has been nice is that all the Opposition praised Simon Power for his consultation with them over the bill. It is great to see the merger happening after years and years of no action, and electoral law should be an area of bipartisanship as much as possible – it is too important to be treated as a bauble of office, as some sort of winner takes all prize.

I hope other people take the time to do a submission. If you don’t, then no complaining if you wake up one day in the future to read that Winston Peters has been appointed as an Electoral Commissioner

NZPA report:

Insurance companies which stood to gain from the privatisation of ACC could have made donations to National’s election campaign and no one would ever know, Labour MP David Parker said in Parliament today.

Mr Parker did not say the insurance companies had donated, his point was that because most donations don’t have to be disclosed it wasn’t possible to know one way or the other.

Except he is wrong. Donations over $10,000 do have to be declared. This represents around 0.2% of total election spending by a party.

He was speaking during the first reading debate on the Electoral (Administration) Bill, which puts the agencies responsible for running elections under a single authority.

I hope he spent some time talking about the actual bill, rather than on matters not covered in the bill.

Mr Parker said Labour and National both spent $2.2 million on their campaigns during last year’s election.

Labour disclosed the source of donations worth a total $422,000 and National $130,000.

The level at which donations have to be disclosed is $10,000. Any donations below that remain anonymous.

No they are not anonymous – they are not disclosed. There is a significant difference.

Mr Parker argued the threshold should be $1000.

“Before the election, Merrill Lynch said if ACC was privatised…there would be $2 billion of ACC levies up for grabs and $200 million of additional profit could be earned by Australian insurers,” he said.

Hmmn so in this fantasy world, the insurers will gain $200 million of profits for a less than $10,000 donation. Sure.

If Mr Parker thinks donations buy policies, may be he could explain the $100,000 Labour got from the Vela family a few days before the election.

“We all know that the private insurers stand to gain from the privatisation of ACC. There’s no doubt about that. But what we don’t know is whether those same private insurers were contributing to the National Party.

Yes you do. You know they did not donate more than $10,000.

“I can never prove that they were, but it is wrong for our democracy to be tainted by that accusation.

This is so funny. He invents the smear, and then says it is wrong for the smear to exist.

Mr Parker said the lack of transparency around donations was “a glaring problem” in the electoral system.

In case anyone has forgotten, the laws around donations are exactly those passed by Labour just two years ago.

Grahame Armstrong in the SST looks at the bad news:

Cabinet will tomorrow approve a bailout plan that also aims to safeguard ACC’s financial future. The proposed changes will be open to public discussion for four to five weeks before ACC makes recommendations to the government. …

Wage earners currently pay an ACC levy of 1.7% of what they earn, up to $110,000 (any income above that does not attract a levy). That is set to rise to 2.5%.

The Sunday Star-Times understands the ACC levy for a family earning $38,000 is likely to rise by $304 a year, plus an extra $52 to register the family car and 4c a litre more at the fuel pump.

If the government chooses not to increase the ACC petrol excise, which is now 9c a litre, the ACC component of registering a car, now $168, will go up even more – possibly by as much as $107.

Someone on the average wage of $45,000 will pay $360 more a year to ACC, plus the extra fuel and vehicle registration costs. The ACC levy for those on $65,000 will go up about $520 a year while those earning $85,000 will pay $680 more.

This is all because Labour kept adding on more and more entitlements, but didn’t fund them. It was fiscal folly. Don’t think this is just about the investment losses.

ACC chairman John Judge told the Star-Times ACC’s debt was worth about $3000 for every New Zealander, and it was going to take a “hard-nosed” approach – and possibly up to 10 years – to get it into a sustainable position. This would require “substantial” levy increases and legislative change to get people off the scheme and back to work quicker.

“In the last five years we’ve lost $9b. We need to act today because this liability is like a mortgage – if we don’t start paying it off tomorrow it gets bigger by $700 million-$800 million a year.”

Yes, the time has come to get the scheme under control. It really is about saving ACC, because if no changes were made the increased levy payments would be even more horrific.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said the choices for the government were “pretty ugly”.

“It is inevitable there will be levy increases,” he said. “The government’s preferred approach is to get savings out of ACC operationally and out of pulling back on some of the welfare-type entitlements … Without change, ACC is on course to go broke.

It has changed from a well intentioned scheme which provided support if you had an accident and were off work for a few weeks, to a massive extension of the welfare state.

Labour’s ACC spokesman David Parker said the situation was not as gloomy as the government was projecting. The ACC’s liabilities and costs were increasing but it was also the country’s biggest insurer, and the cost blow-out could not simply be blamed on poor management.

Oh yes we are going to believe Labour’s projections on this.

Just going to respond to press releases from Labour and the Greens on electoral finance reform. Now to some degree it is no surprise they disagree with some of the details in the proposal document. But it is useful to put their comments into context and recent history.

First Labour’s David Parker:

The Government is happy to consult on aspects of electoral law reform that suits it, and won’t look at changes to the donations regime that might disadvantage National, says Labour Electoral Reform Spokesperson David Parker.

First of all I must point out the Government in which Mr Parker served did no consultation on electoral law reform prior to introducing legislation. Yep, zero zip.

Mr Power has consulted all parties over the issues paper, consulted the public on the issues paper and is now giving both parties and the public an opportunity to give feedback on the proposal paper.

So the hypocrisy from Mr Parker is immense. It is also wrong.

The Electoral Finance Reform Proposal issued by Justice Minister Simon Power today shows he is determined to retain the regime governing donations to constituency candidates and political parties even though it became clear at the last election that the rules do not achieve transparency, David Parker said.

Mr Parker does not seem to know what a multi-stage consultation process is. That is because Labour never did them.

The first stage was the issues paper where people could havetheir say on issues, without any idea of the Government’s thinking.

The second stage is the proposal paper, where the Government says this is what we think should happen, but we want your feedback. In some cases they identify options.

The Government has said it proposes no change to the donations law, and the public and parties can give feedback on that before they make a final decision. That is consultation – again Mr Parker may be unfamiliar with the concept.

“Unfortunately, the current regime on donations doesn’t promote transparency. Labour included the regime in good faith in the Electoral Finance Act 2007, but it failed to achieve its purpose.

This is worth stressing. The regime Mr Parker is so bitterly complaining about is one his party passed into law less than two years ago.  Now how about the claim it has failed to get transparency:

“This was shown by the low rates of disclosure by both major parties. National disclosed the source of just $130,000 in donations and Labour just $420,000, though both spent more than $2 million each. This is clearly not transparent.”

Mr Parker is having 2+2=5. He is like the cop who demands tougher powers to search premises, and upon not finding any drugs there, cites it as proof they must be elsewhere and wants even greater powers.

The intent of the donations disclosure regime is to identify the source of any donations that could be large enough to be though to purchase influence. Personally I reckon you need $50,000 before you start to get inflluence but the the law for the last 15 years or so has been set at the lower limit of $10,000. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument to break the privacy of supporters who gives say $1,000 considering that represents 0.02% of a party’s election spending. Even $10,000 is (for a major party) only 0.2% of a party’s election spending.

Even putting aside that argument, how about the complaint that very few donations were declared in 2008. Well there is a very obvious reasons for that. Many donations normally made in election year, were made in 2007 before the increased transparency (which I supported) requirements came in.

In other words if Mr Parker is patient enough to wait until the next election, he may find a higher level of donations disclosed.

Incidentially I do favour some tightening of the limits. I advocated getting rid of the provision for parties to received up to $240,000  in anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission. Mr Parker does not support getting rid of that, I believe.

I also think a disclosure level over a three year term, not just annually, should also be introduced. But that is a debate for another day.

David Parker said Labour strongly believed there should be public comment on potential improvements to the existing disclosure regime.

“But while the proposal paper seeks submissions on other issues, National has clearly already made up its mind on the donations regime because it suits their purposes.”

There are a number of areas where I intend to submit against the Government’s proposed option. That is the whole pointof seeking feedback on a proposal paper.

Finally I must point out how Labour responded when there was real proof of inappropriate donations. The Serious Fraud Office revealed that the Foreign and Racing Minister in the Labour-led Government had received tens of thousands of dollars in personal donations (to pay his court costs) from a source in the racing industry which had greatly benefited by the Minister’s advocacy of extra funding for the industry.

What did Labour do when the SFO revealed this? They complained bitterly about the actions of the SFO. ANd what did then PM Clark say in response to questions in the house? She said she had not had the time to read the report.

So in case anyone thinks there is anything remotely sincere about Labour’s position, think again.

Then we have Metiria Turei:

Metiria of course voted for the EFA and voted against abolishing it. The Greens never used their power to force Labour to consult on the EFB before it was introduced. Their credibility on these issues is much dented after that.

“It is vital that New Zealand’s democracy cannot be bought by big business.

Funnily enough if you look at the spending at the last election campaign, there was masses of spending by lots of unions but no spending from any businesses or business groups. The only purchasing of democracy has been from the left.

But the whole notion of “purchasing” democracy is bumper slogan politics, rather than rational analysis. The relationship between the amount a party spends and the vote they get is pretty weak. As an example Labour spent more than National last election and got whacked. ACT spent more than the Greens and got under half the vote.

“One of our key concerns is that National’s proposals will not stop political parties secretly giving money to third parties to run campaigns,” said Mrs Turei.

Now we get the paranoia. First they worry about third parties donating to political parties, but now they are worried about political parties having so much money they will give it away to third parties to spend.

I’ve yet to meet a political party that gives away its money. Do the Greens have any examples of when this has happened?

If a third party runs expensive ads in a campaign, I am sure the media will ask who is behind that third party, and where did the money come from. And if the third party refuses to say, well the public are pretty good with this stuff, and will tend to punish those involved.

In the 2005 election, the Exclusive Brethren ran a secret $1 million dollar campaign against the Green Party.

From their own money. Or is Metiria saying she thinks National were secretly funding the Exclusive Brethren?

“Another problem is that donations to political parties under $10,000 can be kept secret – the public has a right to know who is giving their MPs money.

Yes, but at what level. As I said $10,000 is 0.2% of an election campaign for a major party and maybe 0.5% for a minor party. Are the Greens saying you can get “favours” for such a small amount?

The Greens of course have an agenda. They find raising money a hassle, as do all parties. They think taxpayers should be forced to fund their political party. And the best way of doing that is setting the disclosure threshold for donations so low, that fewer people donate voluntarily so they can force everyone to donate to them compulsorily through their taxes.

“We are also concerned about the proposal to allow anyone to run electoral ads on TV and radio, as this would lead to the airways being saturated in electoral ads paid for by wealthy special interest groups,” said Mrs Turei.

Consider what they are really saying here. They are saying that in an election campaign, they do not want anyone who wants to criticise a party, to be able to do so through a broadcast medium. They are saying that only political parties should be able to have their voices heard on broadcast medium. Even worse they are saying that only political parties funded by the taxpayer can have their voice heard, while individuals or organisation who want to use their own funds, are banned from the airwaves.

Such defenders of free speech.

“We don’t want to end up like the US where negative campaign ads paid for by big business dominate the airways.”

Ironically almost everything the Greens propose takes us closer to the US system of political finance. It is the limit on donations to parties and candidates that has shifted the spending to the lobby groups.

Oh and their constant bogeyman of big business is tiresome. Again in NZ there were no business funded election ads, but plenty of union ones. And in the US last election the left massively outspent the right.

Again it would be nice to see some sensible analysis rather than slogans.

The Government’s proposals do not include the option of a fixed election date.

A fixed date would provide certainty for the public and political parties, said Mrs Turei, there is no good reason not to have one. The only reason not to fix the election date was to give an advantage to the Government of the day.

Now I agree with Metiria that there should be a fixed election date. But to be fair to the Govt, this is a consultation on finance issues, not wider electoral issues. A change to a fixed election date is a fairly major constitutional issue. It is one I support but probably needs its own workstream.

David Parker manages both with this press release.

The National Government has given its clearest signal yet that superannuation entitlements will be cut in the future, Labour Associate Finance spokesman David Parker says.

Fearmonger No 1

A reminder. John Key has said he will resign his seat in Parliament if he cuts superannuation entitlements. But not even that will stop Labour trying to prey on the insecurity of retired or near retired persons.

“The pensions of tomorrow need to be protected today. National said before and during the election they would continue with payments to the Super Fund, but have now resiled from this.”

And if Parker reads the announcement from Michael Cullen, when the Fund was established, he will see that Cullen explicitly said that contributions are funded out of surpluses and would be suspended temporarily when there is no surplus.

Not even Dr Cullen was foolish enough to advocate borrowing money to save money.

“Mr English argues that he’s not prepared to borrow to fund the investment in the Super Fund, but he’s already done that to pay for his tax cuts – an astounding third of which go to the top three per cent of income earners,” David Parker says.

Then we have the lie – the claimed borrowing for tax cuts. The extra tax cuts by National were fully paid for by reduced expeniture on KiwiSaver. This is a fact. Parker knows this. He just hopes if you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it.

“Those tax cuts were not just unfair, but they are a substantial cause of the structural deficit New Zealand now faces and are behind the Government’s plan to now cut investment in the Super Fund.

And he lies again. National’s tax cuts are considerably less foregone revenue that the reduction in KiwSaver subsidisies. The structural deficit would be worse, not better, if National tax cuts and KiwiSaver changes had not been made. This is indisputable. The quantum of each is known and the foregone revenue from tax cuts is les than the reduction in KiwiSaver subsidies.

Everytime you hear Labour talk about borrowing for tax cuts – they are lying. They are desperate to have people beleive it, but it is not true, as National reduced expenditure by a greater amount than the tax cuts to pay for it.

If Labour were honest they would campaign on how National reduced KiwiSaver subsidies for tax cuts, and debate the merits of that. Of course they don’t want to, as anyone economically literate now concedes the KiwiSaver subsidies were far too generous.

Audrey Young blogs three mea culpas:

• Gerry Brownlee’s stuff up over urgency for the Electoral Finance Act repeal
• David Parker’s mea culpa over inflicting us with the the Electoral Finance Act
• Audrey’s own mea culpa over her doubts about how Lockwood would go as Speaker

Gerry’s stuff up is also covered in this article.

Somewhat annoyingly, the EFA Repeal Bill is not yet online. But Parliament started the first reading debate on it yesterday, and the Herald reports that it was encouraging:

When Labour’s electoral spokesman David Parker stood to speak in last night’s first reading of the bill to repeal the EFA, he was quick to follow his leader Phil Goff and get Labour’s backdown on record.

“So we do concede that there are imperfections with the existing law, that it did produce an overly complicated regime, that it can be improved.”

It prompted MP Jonathan Coleman to yell “so you’re admitting you got it wrong” . Mr Parker – to his credit – refused to rise to the bait and just agreed, in triplicate.

“I have already admitted that. I’m happy to do mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa again. There were imperfections.”

I thought Parker handled himself well, and with dignity.

Yesterday, Labour and Progressives leader Jim Anderton said they would support its repeal after getting assurances National was genuine about working with them on a more enduring replacement.

Only the Green Party is refusing to support the repeal, saying while it was flawed it remained better than the previous law.

And this tells us more about the Green Party, than anything else.

Mr Anderton put in a plea for National not to take vengeance, saying he accepted it was “aggrieved” by what had happened and believed the EFA needed to be replaced.

“Just as we on this side of the House have come to this view, I ask those on that side to be constructive.”

And sadly Jim Anderton is right. I know there are times when I want “utu”, but at the end of the day the Electoral Act is too important to become a plaything for the Government of the Day.

Mr Parker, Mr Anderton and Greens co-leader Russel Norman all stressed that they stuck by the principles of the EFA – and any replacement had to address the transparency of funding of political parties, as well as limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.

I don’t think there is any serious opposition to transparency around party funding.

The issue of restrictions on third parties is more divisive. Ironically the way it is worded about “limits on how far other people and groups could go in campaigning for a party in an election campaign.”, well the limit is $0. It is illegal under both the old and the new law to publish any advertisement campaigning for a party, without the party’s permission – and the cost comes out of the party’s limit.

What Parker and Anderton really mean is they want limits on how much third parties can spend attacking political parties.

I think the bigger issue is around transparency of third party advertising, rather than limiting it. I also think one needs to look at carrots, not just sticks, when it comes to third party activities. I’ll blog in ore detail some ideas at some stage.

The NZ Herald Editorial:

Nasty surprises for incoming prime ministers were meant to be eliminated by Ruth Richardson’s 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act. The legislation obliged Governments to throw open the books before an election, exposing the Treasury’s best estimates and forecasts. The praiseworthiness of such transparency was quickly recognised at home and abroad. But, unfortunately, the law’s good intention has not been accompanied by scrupulous observance of its spirit and thrust. The latest transgressor is Labour’s ACC spokesman, David Parker, who insists former Cabinet ministers were not obliged to reveal a $1 billion hole in the Accident Compensation Corporation budget before the election.

And remember Labour also say that the $1 billion blowout is not significant.

Mr Parker, for his part, said Maryan Street denied knowing details of the shortfall until October, when she immediately told the Finance Minister at the time, Michael Cullen, and the Treasury. That happened after the Treasury had prepared its pre-election fiscal update. While this meant no specifics of the ACC’s problem could be included in that document, Mr Parker did not explain why these could not have been revealed to the public once they were known.

This, of course, should have been the case. The spirit of the fiscal responsibility law demands as much. An addendum could have been attached to the pre-election update or a public statement about the ACC budget released. Even before then, a fiscal risk flag could have been placed on the pre-election update, as is customary for unquantified sums in pre-Budget documents.

The Herald nails it in one. They could have still released the info or as a minimum flagged it in PREFU as an unquantified risk.

Labour are squealing over the $1 billion ACC blowout that they kept secret. NZPA reports:

Labour’s ACC spokesman, David Parker, said today Mr Key’s assertions were wrong and the Government was trying to divert attention from its plans to privatise ACC.

You always know someone is cornered when they start trying to distract from the issue by raising the nasty bogeyman hiding under the bed of privatisation.

He said he had spoken to former ACC minister Maryan Street who denied knowing any details of the shortfall until October, when she immediately told former finance minister Michael Cullen and the Treasury.

Note her careful use of words – denied knowing the details. She was informed as far back as May of the blowout, just not the exact figure.

Mr Parker said officials told ministers at the time it would be improper for the extra money to be authorised during the election campaign.

And Parker also misses the point. Even if they did not authorise the extra money, they could have disclosed the blowout voluntarily. That is the point – they knew PREFU was lacking a very significant item. And it is not as if there is any choice about the bailout – the Government can’t simply chooise to stop paying out ACC claims. If the blowout had been in welfare, then the adjustment would have been automatically reflected in forecasts.

It is also debatable if it was improper for the Government to approve funding the shortfall. They approved $150 billion depost guarantee during the election, so what is $297 million compared to that? And again this wasn’t some sort of discretionary expenditure such as deciding to build a new road – it was an obligation.

“There’s some really alarmist language being used around this … it’s 6 per cent of the ACC budget, it’s been blown out of all proportion.”

And this shows why they are unfit to be given the fiscal pursestrings again. David Parker saying that $1 billion over three years is nothing to be alarmed about. Think about how many hip operations, how many exra nurses, how many more computers in schools that would buy?

And his 6% of ACC budget is misleading, as the blowout is in one fund and it is around a 25% blowout in that fund. But hey we now know Labour don’t think 25% blowouts to the tune of a million dollars are worth worrying about, let alone telling anyone about.

Steve Braunias hands out his awards for 2008 viewing on Parliament TV. Some of them are:

1. Biggest Wretch: Winston Peters
2. Biggest Flirts: Margaret Wilson & Rodney Hide
3. Best Valedictory Speech: Katherine Rich
4. Best Smile: Sue Bradford
5. Best Impersonation of Eternal Youth: David Parker
6. Cruellest Wit: Michael Cullen
7. Best Debater: Michael Cullen
8. Most Acute Ears: Bill English
9. Best Reply: Tau Henare

That reminds me I must start the traditional Kiwiblog poll for Best MP shortly.

How lovely. David Parker has a big champagne party planned for tonight to celebrate the passing of the ETS. Will they also be celebrating how Helen kept Winston on board just long enough to pass it, and then sacking him? And what will be the carbon footprint of the party? I hear there have been invites to all corners of New Zealand.

The Infrastructure Forum had six questions:

1. How will you stop the risk of power blackouts?
2. Will you privatise power generation SOEs to get more competition and lower prices?
3. How will you get broadband into more homes and businesses?
4. What changes will you make to the RMA?
5. Do you support more protection for businesses at risk from the ETS?
6. Do you support carbon credit allocation based on carbon intensity

Gerry Brownlee

1. Energy Policy released details improvements to both security and supply. Planning for far more growth than Labour. Major consent decisions to be made within nine months
2. No SOE sales
3. Ran out of time
4. Referred to in 1
5. Not a yes/no answer but said credit allocation should be decided by a select committee process and a National ETS will do that. Gave a great example of how concrete plants in Europe will pay far less for carbon credits so just force industry offshore.
6. Ran out of time

David Parker

1. Record investment in energy under Labour. National did not invest in the 1990s
2. No
3. Broadband essential. $500 million fund next five years. WIll not favour incumbent.
4. Does not accept RMA is a barrier
5. Missed
6. Missed

Jeanette Fitzsimons

1. One can have security by over-building capacity so it is wasted every year but the peak year. Not efficient. Better to have a standby plant. Says we had a 1 in 60 dry year. Third way is make smart adjustments to demand to reduce at times of shortage and that is what is missing.
2. Will not sell SOEs. Rejects that it would lead to lower prices.
3. Supported LLU. Broadband key to reducing transport. But not support large state investment.
4. Most changes Gerry wants to RMA already done. Problem is implementation and no national guidelines.
5. Trade-exposed businesses are already highly protected. Some businesses may end up with surplus credits without reducing emissions.
6. No – an intensity basis will lead to continued emissions.

Rodney Hide

1. Does not think we can rule out all the power generation methods the Greens do. Need to reduce cost of capital by lowering taxes.
2. Yes would sell them. No sense in Govt owing competitive businesses. Ownign them locks up taxpayers money and limits companies ability to raise capital for investment it deems necessary.
3. Broadband important but regulation stopping its rollout. Need a stronger economy to be able to afford it. Against National’s policy in this area. Investment is slowing down due to uncertainity.
4. Private property rights need to be enhanced, The RMA damages these rights.

Peter Dunne

1. Rejects ideology. Needs security of supply. Say question is an alarmist straw man. Currently power is an un-cordinated jigsaw (so why are we paying $90 million a year to the Electricity Commission then). Agrees we have had over supply in past – supports smaller local plants but big hydro plants.
2. I think it was a no.
3. RMA needs national policy guidelines. DO not throw away RMA – streamline it and keep core principles.
4. Missed.
5. Do not support further protection to at risk businesses as we do not know enough about impact.
6. No does not support but is subject to how the Act works out. Reason they oppose bill is because so much is uncertain and is being rushed through purely for political gain. Wants it passed by 1 April 2009.

I use eco bulbs at home, because it was my choice. The Government of course is passing a law to make them compulsory, regardless of whether or not people want them.

So it is unfortunate for the Government that they may burn your house down!

The memo, of which The Dominion Post has a copy, warns that compact fluorescent lamps, or eco bulbs, are reported to be melting, blowing up and blackening surrounding electrical equipment.

The concerns have been passed on to the Fire Service by Energy Safety, two months after Energy Minister David Parker announced plans to phase out traditional bulbs in favour of eco bulbs. …

There were reports that eco bulbs had burnt out and scorched fittings, causing smoke stains, and in a few cases they had caught fire.

People should send any charred furniture or fittings to the Minister.

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)

There is a story in The Press about how carbon emissions are increasing due to the power problems as thermal stations are being reactivated and running at full steam. They say:

Figures for the week to Sunday show estimated CO2 emissions from thermal power stations have risen by about 75 per cent from about 125,000 tonnes a week in mid-March to 220,000 tonnes a week.

Now Energy Minister David Parker tried to dismiss this by saying:

Asked if he was concerned about that and if anything could be done about it, Parker said the longer-term trend was more important and that CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000.

Now it would be nice if journalists did not take assertions like this on the word of the Minister, and actually checked the veracity of the claim that CO2 emissions from electricity had fallen since about 2000. Let us do it for them:

The MED has a report covering the period 1990 to 2006. Now what does it say on page eight:

In 2000 thermal electricity generation produced 4,942 kilotonnes of greenhouse gases or CO2 equivalent. And in 2006 it was 8,300 kt. So rather than having fallen, it in fact increased 68% in six years. The increase has pretty much all been coal.

Now we have quarterly reports for post 2006, up to the end of 2007. If you add the four quarters together then the 2007 total is 6,644 – still 34% higher than in 2000.

An analyst tells me the fall in 2007 is due to decommissioning some of the older Huntly turbines – the very ones which are now running at flat tack again!

While on Greenhouse gases, one should also look at the massive deforestation which has happened due to Labour’s policies. Deforestation in 2007 was the highest it has been for 50 years.

And listen to Forestry Minister jim Anderton on Radio NZ about this. He basically says deforestation was inevitable due to government policy!

Is anyone else reminded of Dad’s Army? The Government is saying that yes there will be a power saving campaign, but there is absolutely no crisis at all, and no one is allowed to say that word.

It’s like Lance Corporal Jones running around saying “Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic”.

Unlike previous power conservation campaigns, this one will not have a target for savings and there appears to be little outward urgency within the Beehive to achieve big reductions.

Nobody was even willing to say yesterday how much power they hoped the campaign would save.

Energy Minister David Parker said the situation was being managed well and there was no need for a target yet.

“Power cuts are not even an unlikely prospect,” Mr Parker said. “We’re not setting a target at this stage, we’re actually managing things a lot better this time than we’ve previously managed.”

So Corporal Parker is saying nothing at all to worry about.

The chief executive of national grid operator Transpower, Patrick Strange, said the industry was “very concerned” with the situation and he saw it as serious.

A view that seems to be at odds with the actual grid operator.

The Herald looks at three new Ministers under pressure.

First is Maryan Street who spent all of Wednesday defending the $65,000 conference at Tongariro Lodge (ably backed by various Labour blogs) to then have the carpet pulled out from under her by the PM who declared yesterday it was totally unacceptable, the Minister was wrong, the Chair had been reprimanded and the CEO should have her salary docked.

Clark’s response, while somewhat over the top, is the one Street should have had from the beginning. I do think David Parker went far too far when he actually said he thought the CEO should have their pay docked – does the man not know anything about employment law and undue pressure? Anyway Clark understands that the issue is the nature of the resort. As I said – hold it at Rotorua Novotel and there would be no issue.

It didn’t get better for Street as it was revealed there was a second plush conference in 2003 at the Heritage Hotel & Spa du Vin. Meanwhile the Hawke’s Bay DHB couldn’t help scoring a point, pointing out their retreat for managers cost only $180!

What is surprising is the Street ignored Clark’s advice not to defend it, but did anyway – and then got over-ruled. Street has impressed many for her abilities to date – it remains to be seen.

Then you have Clayton Cosgrove, as more and more questions are asked about what he did or did not know, and how he has claimed there has been no cases of corruption – directly contradicting answers from his predecessor, Again Cosgrove has generally been astute championing populist issues. Hell even I cheered him on as he deals to elements on the real estate industry. But he does appear to have shown a remarkable lack of curiousity when it comes to a less populist issue – the Immigration Service.

The Herald also looks at Parker dealing with both the power shortage issues and the Emissions Trading Scheme. I have to say Parker baffles me. He came in as a potential star and I was initially a fan as he actually had a sucessful business background and appeared to be quite snesible and moderate on economic issues.

I’m not sure what has happened, but he really is struggling for credibility. He is almost cut out of the decision making process on the ETS, and just does not inspire confidence at all. I’m not saying this because he is Labour. Many of their Ministers are quite competent – I just don’t like their policies. I thought Parker would be one of the better ones, but I remain unconvinced.

The Government has spent all year telling us there is no power problem. The reality has been that our capacity has been dangerously low for some years because it is so difficult to get consents for new power plants.

Now consider the latest step to try and stave off power cuts. Workers in breathing gear and protective suits will have to go in to a mothballed asbestos ridden power plant, to supply us with more power.

This comes on top of the lowest lake levels since the 1992 power crisis, big industrial users cutting production (which negatively impacts economic growth) and massive increases in wholesale power rates which will flow through into household bills according to Meridian.

Yet the Government is still trying to say there is no problem. I mean sure it is normal to send workers in hazard suits and breathing gear in to operate asbestos ridden plants.

Again I would ask people to think about whether now is the right time to ban new thermal power plants. Sure do it, after you have made it easier to get consent for renewable power plants, but it would be incredibly reckless to proceed with such a ban- yet David Parker plans to.

That’s my generous term for the Government’s claim that if one doesn’t rush the ETS into law in June, it increase our emissions and cost us more.

The reason it is bullshit is because Labour itself had already announced that the transport sector would not come into the scheme until 2011 instead of 2009. No sector (except forestry which soaks up emissions, no produces them) is in before 2011 now, so taking 3 to 4 more months to get the scheme right has almost no downside.

The hypocrisy of Labour delaying the transport sector coming into the scheme by two years, and then complaining about a delay of just a few months, is as usual quite large.

It is interesting to look at the Government’s resonse to Key’s six areas of concern:

Key: The ETS should be fiscally neutral rather than providing billions of dollars in windfall gains to the government accounts at the expense of businesses and consumers. National does not think it is responsible for the Government to use green initiatives to swell the Crown coffers at the expense of Kiwis’ wallets.
Parker: The ETS would not result in a surplus of credits for the Government in the short term, and any surplus that might result later depends on New Zealand’s target under future international agreements. The five-yearly reviews of the scheme are the way to take account of that.

First of all, note the weasel words – in the short term. That may just means the first couple of years. Now government officials have admitted a profit for the Government of up to $22 billion. There is no requirement in the current law for this to be refunded to consumers and businesses. Now if anyone really believes the Government would voluntarily reduce the amount of money the scheme makes, then I have a bridge they may wish to buy.

After all, remember how it has taken nine years to get tax cuts – and that has been with some of the highest surpluses in the world.

Key: The ETS should encourage the use of technologies that improve efficiency and reduce emissions intensity, rather than encourage an exodus of industries and their skilled staff to other countries.
Parker: The select committee and the Government are already considering intensity-based allocation within a cap.

Now this is absolute proof positive that any revised bill needs to be opened up to a second round of submissions. A change to intensity based allocations would be a major major change, and the impact on stakeholders would be very different to the current proposed law. It would be economic vandalism to make such major changes without any ability to have comment and input on the new model.

Just to show that there is no shame, have a look at how Labour Ministers both claimed wrongly a National MP had said something he had not, but then how nasty they get, and how the Speaker protects them. From yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What changed between the time when David Cunliffe, the then Minister of Immigration, was briefed, as he now alleges, on completion of the Oughton inquiry in July of last year, and when he himself was fully briefed in December last year on the Oughton report—what changed between then and April this year, when the Oughton report was exposed to public scrutiny, other than the fact that the cover-up was over?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In order to assist the member, I tell him that the previous Minister was not briefed in December. I was the Minister at that time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, the member said “the Minister at the time”, and “the previous Minister”.

Now have a look at the Hansard.  Lockwood clearly refers to David Cunliffe as per-December and Cosgrove as the Minister in December as he says “he himself” in the question to Cosgrove. Cosgrove is clearly wrong with his insistance Lockwood had it wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think we may need stretcher-bearers for one particular member. This is a serious issue, and should be dealt with in a serious way. We may need stretcher-bearers for the other Dr Smith. Can I say—

Now again remember Cosgrove is in the wrong here, and Nick Smith is correct in backing up Lockwood. So what does Cosgrove do – resort to the normal smear they use against Nick.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, in reciting my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question, was mistaken in his restating of the course of events. In response to an interjection from me saying that he was wrong, I was then subjected to personal abuse. I think it would be helpful if Dr Smith re-asked his question—in which his dating and timing were correct—because it seems that the Minister was confused about the question that my colleague Dr Smith was asking.

Nick doesn’t respond to the taunt, but just makes the point that the Ministers were mistaken so the question should be re-asked, so the Minister addresses the correct question.

Hon David Parker: I, as well as Minister Clayton Cosgrove, listened carefully to the question, and I am clear that the question that was asked included the imputation that the Minister was the prior Minister, not the current Minister, and that is the point to which Mr Cosgrove was responding.

David Parker jumps in, and also has it clearly wrong, as the Hansard shows.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their interventions. I think if members would keep the noise down, it would be easier to hear. As I have said, interjections do occasion responses. Would the Minister please just respond to the question as succinctly as possible.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would appear that confusion has arisen around my question. It was very clear. I would be very happy to repeat it to avoid that confusion.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we should take it in the order it was. I am happy to look at the Hansard. I heard it also in the way that, I am afraid, others did. The member, obviously, feels that he did ask another question. As I said, I am happy to go and look at it later. Could we have a succinct answer to the question, and there is always an opportunity to ask another question—there are still supplementary questions available.

And now the Speaker also gets it wrong, and even worse won’t let Lockwood re-ask the question, despite the fact clearly the Ministers misheard what he said.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on question No. 8 and we have had Dr Nick Smith running interference on every question across the House. He is not asking questions; he is just interjecting and yelling out personal comments. I think we have just about had enough today, and I ask you to require him not to continue going on in that fashion.

Annette seems to have missed the log in her own colleague’s eyes.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think that today comments have been made from all sides of the House. Obviously, it does create disorder, and it has. Members have noted the comments that have been made from all sides of the House on this matter. Could I please ask the Minister to succinctly address the question, and then we will ask Dr Smith to ask the question again. Thank you.

And then the Speaker totally confused says Cosgove will answer/address the question, and then have it re-asked!!! And then it isn’t!

Labour have been warned many times over their repeated goes at Nick with references to taking pills, and now out on a stretcher. That is bad enough at any time, but Labour may wish to consider the old saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Firstly I note that David Parker has responded to the claim that the Government could make up to $80 billion from the Emissions Trading Scheme:

By 2030, when farmers and the smokestack sector would also be paying for 100 per cent of their emissions, and with a carbon price of $100 to $200 a tonne, the Government would make an extra $5 billion to $10 billion a year.

In effect that represented a substantial change to the tax system, which should be debated up-front and not introduced as the unintended consequence of an environmental bill.

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister David Parker said that if such a scenario was emerging, changes would be made during the scheme’s five-yearly reviews.

Now let us think about it. Parker is aying if the ETS makes too much money for the Government, they would change it. You mean, like if one had say $40 billion of surpluses over half a decade, you would reduce taxes? Yeah Right. If the ETS does turn into a cash cow for the Government, who really think they would ever give any of it back?

John Armstrong looks at rhetoric and reality:

As it is, Clark’s confirmation this week of that delay raises questions aplenty about Labour’s rhetoric surrounding carbon neutrality – which requires as much carbon be extracted from the atmosphere as is being pumped into it – and the Government’s actual record. …

The rhetoric had New Zealand becoming the first country which functions on a truly sustainable basis – “not by sacrificing our living standards, but by being smart and determined”.

Such language offers the illusion that meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved relatively painlessly without changing lifestyles. It is a nonsense, of course. But it is politically appetising nonsense, nonetheless.

This is the part which I have most objected to. The dishonest con job that one can simply cut carbon emissions and not have it done in a painful way.  The pain may be a necessary sacrifice if emissions need to be capped and reduced, but don’t try and con people that you can be carbon neutral and have the same standard of living.

Armstrong concludes:

What was going to be a major plank of Labour’s re-election campaign is now gathering dust – just like the “Champions of the Earth” award now sitting on some shelf in the Prime Minister’s office.

Indeed.

Fran O’Sullivan meanwhile has a way forward:

But by delaying the transport sector’s entry to 2011, Clark basically creates a problem for the next Government to address.

If the international economy is still sour there will be no political incentive to deal with the real problem, which is how to get New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions down to a sustainable basis.

The odds are that the next Government will face similar consumer fears when it comes to the entry of stationary energy into the emissions trading scheme in 2010.

This suggests that Labour and National – which will be the key drivers for New Zealand’s political future – should be talking.

If there is too little time to get a sensible outcome from the legislation before the election the two parties should agree to roll it over for the future Parliament to decide.

That will give New Zealand time to assess Australia’s forthcoming scheme and make sure that the Kiwi scheme stays compatible with our future economic competitiveness.

I think it would be madness to have the Select Committee report back on a NZ scheme, when by waiting just a month or two longer we can see details of the Australian scheme.

Fran O’Sullivan calls on Michael Cullen to intervene to make sure the suite of climate change measures being worked on  does not seriously damage the economy:

Finance Minister Michael Cullen now has all the ammunition he needs to force an urgent rethink on New Zealand’s controversial suite of climate change policies before the economy suffers serious damage.

Cullen doesn’t say so in public. But it’s well known he has growing concerns over the zealous approach his Cabinet colleague, David Parker, continues to take to climate change in the face of obvious policy defects.

New Zealand is already heading towards economic recession. Increasing power and fuel prices further to curb the country’s growing greenhouse gas emissions issue – while farmers make the problem bigger by continuing to expand agriculture emissions – is sheer madness.

Households, already suffering from rising mortgage costs, fuel and food bills, will not vote for a government planning to increase their financial pain next year by introducing a scheme which will impact on their budgets, while farmers escape their share of the cost burden until 2013.

I am not just saying this to make trouble, but I do speak to quite a few people working in the industries trying to get changes and almost universally they are full of praise for Cullen’s understanding of the issues and problems, and equally full of disdain for David Parker who is described in terms best not repeated.

There is also looming trouble with power shortages:

Adding to the political angst will be the mounting problems caused by the lack of rainfall this summer.

The heat can only intensify if ordinary householders are slapped with escalating power bills this winter – or electricity cuts – as power suppliers ration dwindling electricity supplies.

Yesterday’s announcement that the major NZ-based manufacturer Rio Tinto, which owns the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter, is cutting back production in the face of potential brownouts – wood pulp producer Pan Pac may follow – has brought home the absurdity of Parker’s other key decision to enforce a 10-year moratorium on new base load thermal generation.

There is a now a risk that major local businesses, which are not location-dependent, will shift production offshore unless the Government puts security of future power supply back at the top of its priority list. All this suggests that the Government needs to get to grips with cold reality.

New Zealand does need to address climate change issues. But not in a lopsided fashion where ordinary folk – and smaller businesses – feel the brunt first.

The Government has made it to hard to construct new power generation, that it will not be the rain alone to blame if ther are shortages.

The Government announced yesterday that Iain Rennie has been appointed State Services Commissioner.

I regard this as an excellent appointment. Rennie is held in high regard in Wellington, and is a straight shooter. I can’t think of many people who would have a bad word to say about him. People who have worked with him also say he is very affable and approachable.

His appointment was recommended unanimously by a panel of Jim Bolger, Dame Margaret Bazley, Stan Rodger and David Parker. I think it was wise to not just have it done by the Minister. Hell, we may have ended up with Mike Williams as State Services Commissioner then

As predicted here for weeks, the “independent” Ministers has by pure coincidence turned down approval for the Canadian bid to buy a partial stake in Auckland International Airport.

The Canadians only wanted 40% of the shares, with a reduced 25% voting strength. Ironically many of the current shareholders who wanted to sell are foreign.

It is sad to see a Government so willing to do the right thing with the China FTA and ignore NZ First type xenophobia, yet succumb to it on this issue.

The Canadians have a pretty good chance of getting the Ministers’ decision over-turned in Court as it was obvious they pre-determined the matter before they even considered it. From what I can tell, reading the decision, the neutral officials in the OIO concluded allowing the investment would be beneficial to NZ, but the Ministers substituted their own political judgement.