Kiwiblog

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

The Government appears set on publishing primary school performance data, criticised by a teacher union as “junk information”.

Education Minister Hekia Parata yesterday said she would consider setting up a website similar to the MySchool resource that operates in Australia.

The Australian example “deals with a number of the concerns that have been rumoured” about the risks of league tables, Ms Parata said.

Comparisons between schools on MySchool were only between “statistically similar schools,” giving a fairer picture of performance.

“I think that parents vest a lot of trust in the principals and teachers of the education sector – and so they should – and that trust should be returned by letting parents know accurate information about what’s happening,” she said.

I think it is far better to have a database which allows parents to do “smart” comparisons, such as between schools with the same decile rankings, rather than just leave it to the media to compile their own tables.

The solution to bad data is good data – not banning the publication of data.

John Key has announced:

Prime Minister John Key today announced that Hekia Parata is to be appointed a Minister in Cabinet.

“Ms Parata takes over the Ethnic Affairs and Women’s Affairs portfolios previously held by Pansy Wong. She will also be Associate Minister for ACC, of Energy and Resources and for the Community and Voluntary Sector,” Mr Key says.

Ms Parata’s role as Associate Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector follows discussions with Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Tariana Turia, who requested an associate in this portfolio. It is no longer considered necessary to have an associate in Mrs Turia’s Disability Issues portfolio.

Ms Parata will be sworn in on Wednesday afternoon by Her Excellency the Administrator of the Government.

“Ms Parata has a strong background in the public service and has also been a successful businesswoman.

A well deserved promotion, and I predict Hekia will shine as a Minister.

Audrey Young writes at the Herald:

The strong performance of National candidate Hekia Parata in the Mana byelection has boosted her chances of being promoted this week.

It certainly has not harmed it. And the fact the PM did not announced last week the new Minister night suggest he was waiting to see how Mana went.

Ms Parata, a former public policy and Treaty of Waitangi consultant, not only slashed Labour’s majority, but performed well under pressure and ran a strong team.

Counting against her is that she is a first-term MP. Her promotion ahead of the class of 2005 could put some noses out of joint.

The leading contenders in that pack are Craig Foss, the MP for Tukituki and chairman of the finance and expenditure select committee, and Chris Tremain, MP for Napier and the chief Government whip.

I think both Craig and Chris know that their ascension is a matter of when, not if, which would help molify them if Hekia jumps ahead of then. But having said that, 2010 is far preferable to 2012 in terms of ascension.

What may count against them this time is that if they are promoted, then there has to be a minor reshuffle. While Hekia can slip in and take over Pansy’s portfolios directly.

Selwyn MP Amy Adams, in the same cohort as Ms Parata, is also tipped for future promotion in a commerce or economic role.

Or Agriculture. Or Justice. Amy is multi-talented

Mr Key could save a little money by appointing no one to the Cabinet and appointing another minister outside the Cabinet. He could make an even bigger saving by appointing no one at all and upsetting no one.

This is the only error in Audrey’s article. If the PM makes no appointment at all, this will in fact upset every single Backbencher. Reducing the size of the Ministry means more people competing for fewer places. A smaller Ministry is regarded by backbenchers with the same loathing as teacher unions performance pay.

Personally an Executive of 28 is larger than we need. However the time for change would have been when first forming the Government, rather than doing it by attrition.

But that would suggest Mrs Wong’s role was surplus to requirements in the first place.

Well …..

Mr Key is not seen as a slave to “political correctness”; he is not oblivious to gender and identity issues in National’s line-up either.

It is a factor, but not the sole or even the dominant factor.

The importance of the Mana byelection is that a promotion would be seen on the basis of talent, not tokenism

Yes, a promotion would be seen as gained on the basis of performance.

Making one appointment outside of the Cabinet to take over Mrs Wong’s two portfolios makes most sense, and of the contenders, Ms Parata’s sphere of interest is best suited to the vacancies.

We may find out later today who it is.

Talking of Mana, kudos must go to Phil Quinn who predicted a Faafoi win by just 1,000 votes.

On tonight’s One News:

She’s trying to make herself feel better. She lost, and this is the second time the people of Mana didn’t want her.

That was Kris Faafoi talking about Hekia Parata.

Such a gracious victor.

Labour came far too close to doing something that has never ever happened before in recent New Zealand electoral history – having an Opposition lose a seat in a by-election. No Government has won a seat off the opposition in the 59 by-elections since 1936.

And even worse it was not a marginal seat – it was a safe seat that has been held by Labour since 1938 (in that its predecessor seats were also Labour).

I was hoping the majority would be below 3,000 – my pick had been 2,500. I never thought it would almost drop to a triple figures and get as low as 1,080. In some ways it was the ideal result. If the margin had been 500 or so, then you’d be kicking yourself for not doing that extra bit to win it. And if Labour had actually managed to lose the seat, then Goff would be goneburger, and National doesn’t actually want Goff rolled.

So what happened? Well as I blogged during the week, I didn’t expect there to be a uniform swing – I expected different swings in different areas. I’ve divided the seat up into four areas – Porirua East, Porirua West, Northern Suburbs and Kapiti.

Porirua East

In 2008 Laban got 82% and Parata 9%. There was basically no swing here at all with 2010 as Faafoi got 82% and Parata 11%. The total vote was 72% of 2008, and McCarten got 4% here.

This shows how hard it is to win Mana, when one large portion of the electorate votes Labour 9:1 over National. Even if the rest of the electorate votes 3:2 National over Labour, it is hard to compensate for such areas.

Porirua West

In 2008 Laban got 59% and Parata 28% so still very much core Labour areas. There was a good swing here as in 2010 Faafoi got 51% and Parata 35%, so the margin dropped from 31% to 16%. The total vote was 66% of 2008, and McCarten got 6% here.

I had been expected Porirua West to be like Porirua East, and not swing much. But in some booths in Titahi Bay Hekia lifted her vote share by 9% and Faafoi lost 15%.

Northern Suburbs

These areas are pretty solid Nat, In 2008 Laban got 35% and Parata 54%. That was good enough, but there was a massive swing here as in 2010 Faafoi got 25% and Parata 67%, so the margin grew from 19% to 42%. The total vote was 74% of 2008, and McCarten got 2% here.

Kapiti

The Kapiti area voted Labour last time, and flipped to National this time. And what is more extraordinary about this is it happened despite noisy local opposition to a new expressway.

In 2008 Laban got 46% and Parata 41%. There was a big swing here as in 2010 Faafoi got 37% and Parata 47%, so the margin went from +5% to Labour to +10% for National – a 15% net movement. The total vote was 69% of 2008, and McCarten got 3% here.

Polling Places

In 17/42 polling places the vote share for Labour dropped by 10% or greater. That is huge.

Interestingly the advance votes actually had Faafoi getting a bigger vote share than Laban did in 2008. This reflects my view that Hekia got real momentum in the final week as several community leaders endorsed her, but by then many advance votes had already been cast.

CR v CL

Matt McCarten didn’t achieve a great result (but he did get lots of signatures for his petitions) and the Greens had a solid third. ACT was battling it out with Legalise Cannabis for 5th place. What was the total CR and CL vote in 2008 and 2010?

In 2008 Labour & Greens got 60% of the electorate vote, and National/ACT got 37%. In 2010 Labour/Greens/McCarten got 57% and National/ACT got 42%. So even taking the minor parties into account, you had the centre-right close the gap by 8% in Mana!

Historical Comparisons

Labour did manage to retain the seat, but they had a massive swing against their candidate. Again, this is historically very rare in by-elections. I’ve gone through the last few by-elections to note what happened:

• 2010 Mt Albert – remained safe for Opposition
• 2004 Te Tai Hauauru – not contested by major parties
• 1998 TKC – big swing against Government
• 1994 Selwyn – big swing against Government
• 1993 Tauranga – not contested by major parties
• 1992 Wellington Central – was marginal Labour and majority increases slightly for Opposition
• 1992 Tamaki – big swing against Government
• 1985 Timaru – falls to Opposition
• 1980 East Coast Bays – falls to Opposition (Social Credit)
• 1980 Onehunga – Opposition holds comfortably
• 1980 Northern Maori – stays with Labour
• 1979 Christchurch Central – Government comes 3rd
• 1978 Rangitikei – Government loses to Opposition (Social Credit)
• 1976 Nelson – Opposition increases majority
• 1977 Mangere – Opposition holds comfortably
• 1977 Pahiatua – Government holds

So this has not happened in the last 35 years – an Opposition almost losing a safe seat in a by-election.

The closest we have is 1992 Wellington Central, and they have a number of things in common

• Both held in the first term of a new National Government
• Both held two years into that term
• Both had popular retiring MPs (Wilde and Laban)
• Both had Labour put up a candidate with no background in the party (Laidlaw and Faafoi)
• Both had a high profile third party candidate on the left (Denis Welch and McCarten)
• Both times the National candidate was married to Wira Gardiner (Pauline Gardiner and Hekia Parata)
• Both times the National candidate had stood in the previous general election
• Both times Labour got a narrow victory on the by-election

The really interesting thing is that in the 1993 general election, Laidlaw lost the seat to Gardiner – it was the only seat lost by the Opposition in that election.

Kris has won the seat, but it is now a marginal seat, and he is going to have to work very very hard in the community to match Hekia and retain the seat in 2011.

UPDATE:

A reader sent me this graph, of the ten largest polling places in Mana. It tells a big story about how Cannons Creek saved Labour.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff has admitted National’s Hekia Parata could win the Mana by-election if turnout is low.

His press secretary, Kris Faafoi, is standing for the seat, traditionally seen as a Labour stronghold. But yesterday Mr Goff said a low turnout would “jeopardise Labour’s hold on the seat”.

Goff is trying to do two things here. The first is to motivate Labour supporters to turn out and vote. He is right – turnout is important.

The second is he is trying to make the seat sound marginal, so that if Labour’s majority is slashed, it does not reflect so badly on them.

Mana is one of their safest seats. It (and its predecessors) have never been held by National. Mana has a larger majority than Lianne Dalziel in Christchurch East, Trevor Mallard in Hutt South and Jim Anderton in Wigram.

A few people point to the party vote margin at 2,500 and say this means it is not safe for Labour. But they make a fatal mistake. The releveant comparison with the party vote is between right and left, as both right and left voters will vote tactically on the electorate candidate (many green voters vote for a labour candidate and many ACT voters vote for a National candidate).

So what was the party vote for the right in 2008 in Mana? 39%. And the left vote? 53%.

In the median electorates, the right is 8% ahead of the left on the 2008 party vote. In Mana the right is 14% behind the left on the party vote.

Now this does not mean Hekia can not win. She has been winning endorsements from some non traditional National voters. Even Willie Jackson and John Tamihere have come out and said people should vote for her or Matt McCarten (partly because they fronted up onto their radio show).

But the reality is that no Government has ever won a seat off an Opposition in a by-election. I’ve checked back over 90 years. If Hekia wins, or even comes close, it will be a seismic event.

On The Nation this morning they reported that there is a real split in the Pacific Island vote in Mana, which has traditionally been very strong Labour. They interviewed Liz Tanielu the head of the Teaaomanino Trust which is the biggest pacific island service provider in the region. She says she traditionally votes Labour but that Faafoi is an outsider, and she is angry they could not find a single local to stand, while Hekia has been active for some years in the electorate and “walks the talk”, and that the by-election should not be a party vote but a vote on who will be the best MP.

Then they had on Api Malu, who was representing 40 pacific island church ministers. He says they are looking for people who have worked with them, and that Hekia Parata has impressed a lot of people, and the leadership with what she has done.

Also on the show, Tariana Turia endorsed both Hekia Parata and Matt McCarten as candidates who would make effective MP for Mana.

By coincidence in the Dom Post this morning, Porirua Deputy Mayor Liz Kelly also endorsed Hekia:

Porirua Deputy Mayor Liz Kelly has backed National Party candidate Hekia Parata to win the Mana by-election.

Her prediction will cause ripples as Labour’s Kris Faafoi has been favoured to take the seat, which is viewed as one of Labour’s safest. The party has always polled strongly in the Pacific Island and Maori communities.

Local leaders suggested yesterday that Mr Faafoi’s lack of experience is seen as a drawback.

Ms Kelly, an independent councillor, said Ms Parata’s work in the electorate had not gone unnoticed. “The feedback I’m getting is that Hekia is very popular … There is a lot of support because she’s been working the whole time.”

Mr Faafoi was a “nice guy” but “there’s no history” with the electorate and some voters resented that.

And a local community leader:

Samoan community leader Paula Masoe said Ms Parata had won over a lot of Pasifika supporters. “She’s a hard worker and we respect people who work hard for our community. I’m really happy that someone like Kris put their hand up. But it’s not time for him yet. I don’t want the sweat of our people to be put on someone who’s not ready yet.” …

Experience was valued in the Pacific Island community, she said. “It’s not about having someone who is Pacific Island there, you’ve got to have somebody who is able to carry the huge responsibility and he probably will. But not yet.”

There was a “strong feeling” among local voters that Mr Faafoi was imposed on the community by the parliamentary Labour Party.

“Labour needs to look at themselves because we don’t want to be treated like the poor relations. When they look at putting someone in to speak up for us I’d like to think that they’ve considered a whole lot of other people of our community that have been involved in Labour.

And also in the Dom Post, Chris Trotter effectively endorses Matt McCarten in his weekly column:

I asked Matt if he’d heard of Slavoj Zizek – the Slovenian socialist currently setting the cat of principle among the fat, pragmatic pigeons of the European Left.

“I’m busy, Chris,” he chuckled, “of course I haven’t.” “Well, Matt”, I replied, “Zizek is challenging Europe’s social democrats to stop looking over their shoulder at the European Central Bank; to govern “as if they were free”.

“Maybe that’s what you should ask the Mana electors, Matt. To stop looking over their shoulder at Labour. Could be your slogan: ‘Vote – as if you were free’.”

And in the NZ Herald, Audrey Young says Parata should be promoted to the Ministry:

Pansy Wong’s resignation from the Cabinet a week before the Mana byelection presents Prime Minister John Key with a golden opportunity.

He has the chance to add fresh blood to his ministry without the usual resentments around reshuffles and a chance to show Mana the calibre of National’s Hekia Parata. …

promoting Parata before a byelection – even to a minister outside Cabinet – would tell the Mana electorate something of the calibre of the National candidate.

It is clear that some traditional Pacific Island Labour voters are saying they people should vote for the best MP, not for the party. They are right – this is how MMP works.

I previously blogged on how Trevor Mallard criticised Hekia Parata for attending select committees instead of campaigning for votes in Mana.

Now Clare Curran has done the same, and criticised Hekia for attending question time.

Hekia is campaigning non stop whenever she is not required to be at Parliament. But I for one think it is a good thing she actually is also doing the job she is getting paid an MPs salary to do, even if Labour think campaigning is more important.

So Matt McCarten is standing as a UNITE backed Indpendent for Mana. What does this mean for the by-election?

The only certainty is that it means it will be a lot more interesting and even exciting, and will have more media coverage of it. Beyond that, it depends on a few things.

Most would conclude it is a slap in the face for Phil Goff and Kriss Faafoi. Rather ironic to have the candidate who won thanks to the union block votes, to now face a candidate from another union.

Does it mean Labour could lose the seat? To be honest, at this stage no one knows. It is safe to say that Matt is unlikely to pick up many votes from Hekia, so that helps National and Hekia.

What we don’t know is whether he will get 500 votes or 5,000 votes. That may depend on what issues he campaigns on.

It is even possible this could help Faafoi and Labour. A battle on the left could get more left wing voters voting. And if Labour are tactically cunning, they could try and position themselves as the moderate party between National and McCarten.

So this announcement is a slap in the face for Labour, and no one in Labour will be happy with McCarten’s candidacy. But that does not mean this has suddenly become a three-horse race, or that it is suddenly a marginal seat. Mana is very tribal Labour and UNITE has fewer activists on the ground here than in Auckland.

As I said, the only guarantee is things will now be more exciting. I wasn’t planning to attend any of the Meet The Candidates meetings, but now I might just go along to see what stunts Matt gets up to with chicken suits and the like.

UPDATE: The Electoral Commission has announced eight candidates for Mana. They are:

Nice name for the Libertarianz candidate!

The Dominion Post has done a profile of the candidates for Mana, and also an article about the race to win, which includes quite a few comments from me. I thought I would use the blog to expand on my printed remarks and out a bit of context around.

First if all, I have consistently said that the chances of a National win are low (but not of course non existent). I say this for two historical reasons:

1. This particular seat, and its predecessors, have never been won by National. Now that is not a guarantee – Nikki Kaye broke a 95 year old lock Labour had on Auckland Central. But it is a seat which is consistently Labour.
2. No Government has won a seat off the Opposition in a by-election for at least 80 years – if not for ever. I’ve checked back to the 1930s.

The article quotes me:

He said the Government’s popularity meant there was little impetus to vote. Mana is a Labour safe seat. “Is there an incentive to give a government that already has a majority an extra seat?

This is why I think no Government has even won a seat off the Opposition – because they don’t actually need it. If people want to change the party that represents them locally, they tend to do it to send a message they are unhappy to the Government. It is harder to motivate people to vote to send out a message they are happy, and like the Government.

Now again this is not to say it isn’t possible, but that the incentives are harder for the Government than they are the Opposition.

The way for National to win, or at least reduce the majority, is not to only frame it as give National an extra seat because John Key is a good PM. The message needs to also be about who will be the best local MP for Mana.

“Hekia will pull `I will be a better MP’. People who have met Hekia and like her, could well respond. But you don’t get to meet the entire electorate.

The context of this is that when people meet Hekia, they are normally very impressed with her, and the more people she meets the more votes she will get. I think her career and background make her a considerably stronger candidate and MP than Kris. That is not to say that Kris won’t make a fine contribution if given the chance – but Hekia has a very formidable record of achievement, and a strength of character which I believe will see her become a Minister in the next term.

But the reality is it is very hard to meet every voter, or even half of them. And those who don’t meet Hekia, will then be faced with the question “Why do we vote to give the Government an extra seat”. That is the difficult part.

John Key’s smile only goes so far.

I really must restrain my sense of humour. This was short-hand for the PM is a popular Prime Minister, but being popular doesn’t necessarily mean voters will want to take a seat off the Opposition and give it to the Government as a thank you note.

So yes the chances of National achieving two historic firsts – winning Mana and a Government gaining a seat off the Opposition in a by-election is remote. But it is not nil, and the way to improve the odds is to have as many voters as possible meet Hekia and decide they want her as their local MP. She would be an outstanding electorate MP if given the chance.

If we ever wanted a priceless example of how Labour regard taxpayers and Parliament, it is this blog post from Trevor Mallard:

She is a member of the Electoral Legislation Committee. It sat from 10am to 4pm today with a 45 minute lunch break.  Anyone who was outside Room 3 Parliament House would have seen her going into the room and coming out with other members of the committee.

Asked Nats why she wasn’t working on her campaign.

” No one would replace her.”

“Slack discipline.”

Don’t think they believe they have a chance – but they didn’t  need to throw in the towel so early.

So just think about this. Hekia is paid by the taxpayers to be a Member of Parliament. Her role as a by-election candidate is supplemental to that – ie to be done when not conflicting with parliamentary duties.

But Trevor wonderfully shows us what Labour thinks of that notion – scorn and derision.

Now everyone knows that Mana is not marginal. For National to win would require two unique firsts – a Government to win a seat off the Opposition in a by-election and for Mana to vote National. But having said that, Hekia is working very hard on the campaign. But unlike Trevor I don’t think that means she should never turn up to the House and not turn up to select committees.

The Herald reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne has given up on his annual list of worst-behaved MPs, saying Speaker Lockwood Smith’s reign has ushered in a new era of dignity and propriety.

To be fair, I think the absence of Winston helps also. But the House has been a far less toxic place this year.

Mr Dunne did honour Labour’s Trevor Mallard with a lifetime achievement award in bad behaviour “for services to melodrama, fisticuffs, and generally aberrant behaviour”.

When Lockwood orders him to apologise, you can actually see the supressed rage in his eyes!!

The Herald does find a few insults though:

Labour’s Moana Mackey apologised for referring to Hekia Parata as “Lady Parata” and “her royal highness”. National’s Paul Quinn was pulled up for calling Labour’s backbench “monkeys”.

I’d rather be called Lady Parata than a monkey I have to say – well if I was a female Parata that is!

Some apologies:

SHANE JONES
For saying of Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee, “the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility”.

PHIL HEATLEY
For claiming another “fiddled the books” in ACC and Housing; for wishing the Speaker would use a 90-day eviction order on Trevor Mallard.

Heh.

RODNEY HIDE
For North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams’ “madness”, for calling Trevor Mallard “the angry one”.

Isn’t truth a defence?

JOHN KEY
For claiming Green MP Metiria Turei thought Phil Goff was “racist”. She had said his speech was “the worst kind of politics”.

So worse than racism?

The Herald series continues:

Hekia Parata hit out at the impact the “capricious ideas of officialdom” have had on small towns struggling to keep themselves going, saying she had seen communities such as the Ruatoria she grew up in “succumb to the disease of dependency”.

A former public servant and consultant in the business she ran with husband Wira Gardiner, she said in some communities state intervention had become the norm rather than the exception.

“Caregivers and providers and facilitators and sector workers replace aunts, uncles, neighbours and friends.”

Bravo.

She knows now that even the Ruatoria of her childhood was economically challenged. “But its cultural wealth and social richness, its determined self-belief and hard work kept it viable.”

However, in such communities state welfare – “rather than social welfare” – had become a first resort, spawning “an intergenerational life sentence, rather than a life line”. In such communities, “despair and alienation are masked by drugs and alcohol and abuse, and displaced anger makes victims of children and their mothers, where low expectation in schools is predictably repaid with low achievement; where fault and blame laying has become the defence of failure”.

She said she felt called to Parliament to “lay bare the causes of these symptoms” and act to find durable solutions.

Her recipe for doing so was for the state to play a lesser role in communities and instead be filtered through organisations that worked and lived with the people affected. She also believed cultural diversity should be invested in, “not because it is fashionable, but because it carries identity and the potential for innovation and new technologies”. The final ingredient was education.

“All other aspirations for economic growth, raised standards of living, national confidence and pride, will flow from getting these basics right.”

There is a reason why Hekia had such a high list ranking.

Paul Quinn

Background: Iwi affiliations include Ngati Awa, Tuhoe and Te Arawa. Former Maori All Black from 1977 to 1979. Degree in economics, he most recently ran his own business advisory and consultancy company. Has worked in the forestry sector and on Treaty settlements, including as a negotiator for Ngati Awa’s Treaty claim. Director of the NZ Rugby Union since 2002 and remains active at a grass roots level on the committee of his old Marist St Pat’s rugby club.

In his own words: “[The Treaty settlement process] is but one specific reason why I now stand in this House. It is my response to the total lack of leadership provided by the previous administration in getting on with the job, particularly when it was obvious there was a better way. I note they magically found that better way some six months out from an election.”

Paul, like Hekia, has an excellent background and will be able to make a contribution across a number of areas.

Iain-Lees Galloway

Background: One of Labour’s ‘fresh faces’ intake, 30-year-old has two pre-school children. Was president of the Massey University Students’ Association in 2005 and a campaigner for NZ Nurses’ Organisation prior to Parliament. Maiden speech focused on the need for community organisations to help parents support their children and the importance of investing in research and development.

Many of Labour’s new MPs were student association presidents.

Personal: Mr Lees-Galloway is evidence that National is not the only party taking new MPs that don’t fit in with the party’s stereotypical image. He was educated at King’s College, comes from a beef farming family and wryly admitted his parents remained “thoroughly perplexed” by seeing him on Labour’s side of the House.

His candidacy in Palmerston North presented them with the dilemma of choosing between their own son or their beloved National Party. “They came up with a novel if somewhat drastic solution: they moved out of the electorate. I’m sure [National and Rangitikei MP] Simon Power will be relieved to know he now has two more voters whose loyalty is unquestionable.”

I’m not sure Simon’s majority needed the help, but I’ve yet to meet an MP who doesn’t appreciate every extra vote!

Another maiden speech yesterday was Hekia Parata.

In 1885, my great, great, grandfather, Tame Parata, entered Parliament as the Member for the South Island. He served a distinguished career of 26 years, dedicating his efforts to his people in their search for quality citizenship in their own lands.

I never knew Hekia’s great, great grandfather was an MP.

Later, in 1905, another tipuna of mine (ours), Sir Apirana Ngata, entered Parliament as the Member for Eastern Maori, and committed his public service of 38 years to seeking opportunities for, and emphasizing obligations to citizenship.

I enter Parliament and begin this phase of my public service journey proud to follow in the footsteps of these ancestors in the pursuit of quality citizenship for all. They provide a model that I am glad to emulate: unambiguously Ngati Porou and Ngai Tahu; unequivocally a New Zealander.

What a great way of expressing it.

I came from a community at a time when it was peopled by hard, hard workers, who eked out livings on infertile and soft country that even as it was farmed it slipped away into the river and out to sea. These people suffered the boom and bust of officialdom; the capricious ideas of what next to invest in; how now we might be saved – always by well meaning yet very distant bureaucrats and politicians; and all the time, oblivious to the possibility that we might actually save ourselves.

And you see why Hekia is in the National Party.

In my lifetime I have seen the very kinds of communities of my upbringing succumb to the disease of dependency where State intervention is the norm not the exception; where care givers, and providers, and facilitators, and sector workers replace aunts, uncles, neighbours and friends; where State welfare (rather than social welfare) is the first resort and the basis of an intergenerational life sentence rather than a lifeline; where despair and alienation are masked by drugs and alcohol and abuse; and displaced anger makes victims of children and their mothers; where low expectation in schools is predictably repaid with low achievement; where fault and blame laying has become the defence of failure.

The defence of failure – all too common.

I come to Parliament equipped with our experience of starting our own businesses and managing them through all the highs and lows that attend such initiatives. We have faced the risks that small businesses up and down the country face. We have slogged through the mire of compliance regimes and related costs. We have encountered the impervious official at the point of export, indifferent to the effects of inexplicable bureaucracy and the costs incurred.

We must liberate businesses to create employment and wealth, and bend our minds to that, rather than to ever more clever ways to redistribute it.

Hekia is that rare breed – someone who has been a top civil servant and also a successful small business owner.

The full speech is over the break:

(more…)

Audrey Young looks at possible roles in a National Government:

United Future leader Peter Dunne would be the prime contender for Speaker if National formed the Government after Saturday’s election, the Herald understands.

I’ve heard of this possibility for some months. It depends I suspect on how well United Future goes. If only Peter is returned, then Speaker would make a lot of sense. If he gets one or more MPs coming back with him, a Ministerial role makes more sense. For my 2c I think Peter could be a very good Speaker, and very impartial. But he has also proven himself as a competent Minister.

Act leader Rodney Hide could be put in charge of prisons – as well as Inland Revenue.

Hell that is a good idea. Rodney could well sort out Corrections and I love the idea of him being in charge of IRD! It would also allow ACT input into tax policy which I fully support.

And new National MPs Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata could leap-frog incumbent members straight into the Cabinet.

The day they announced Steven’s list ranking, I concluded he would go straight into Cabinet. I’ve also regarded Hekia as the only other new entrant who could credibly go straight in. Not as certain as Steven but definitely a possibility.

If, however, National or Labour needed a support agreement with the Maori Party, co-leader Pita Sharples would be likely to get Maori Affairs and Associate Education.

The Maori Party co-leader, Tariana Turia, would be likely to get a portfolio within the Ministry of Social Development, and Associate Health.

Tariana in welfare would be great. And Sharples in Maori Affairs could lead a devolution of government spending in key areas to Maori providers rather than the state.

Cameron has put onto You Tube our interviews with some of the candidates. Each video is only around two minutes as they answered our five question quiz. I’ll do three of them here and the others later today. The questions were:

1. What is the biggest issue for the voters of your electorate?
2. When did you first stand for election of any sort – was it at school?
3. McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden?
4. What will you do with the tax cuts you just got?
5. Goff or Cunliffe?

Above is Darren Hughes. Darren also answered questions on whether “Gingas” should be given the vote, and he advocated that not only should they be allowed to vote, but that they should be elected in large numbers. It was a fun interview!

His first election was in Standard Four when he won Class Captain in a landslide. He is backing Obama/Biden but was originally a Hillary supporter. His tax cuts have gone towards increasing his mortgage repayments.

For the Goff vs Cunliffe question, Darren just assumed we were talking about Labour Leadership but went on to say the next Leader has yet to be born, but he will happily serve them once they are

Nathan Guy is above. Nathan’s biggest local issue was infrastructure, including Transmission Gully. At school he was elected Chairman of the Student Council. He backs McCain over Obama and then delivered such a word perfect piece on the importance of tax cuts that I suggested the Chief Whip had written it for him (he is Chief Whip for those who don’t get it). On Goff vs Cunliffe he said he does not care but Clark is gone!

And finally Hekia Parata. Hekia named three big issues of lifting productivity and incomes, access to quality education and roading/infrastructure. Hekia’s first political act was taking her third form class on strike in protest over not being able to read the Little Red Schoolbook. She had no idea what was in it but was offended they were told they could not read it. Hekia also mentioned at the end of the story that the Deputy Principal was her father so one can guess how well that went down! Hekia was also elected President of the Waikato Students’ Union.

Hekia said she is concerned about McCain’s age and Palin’s experience so thinks Obama/Biden is a better choice. Says tax cuts are too little too late and taxes should have been reduced a bit every year – not just once at the end of nine years.And finally she dodged the Goff vs Cunliffe question by choosing Key and English.

The Blogmobile had its first official outing to the Kapiti Coast on Sunday. It does take a while to get use to the size and bulk of the vehicle. You do not want to have to slam the brakes on suddenly, so you drive quite cautiously. Mind you, still over took a couple of cars on the way, which surprised them!

I also found no problems working on the laptop while Cameron drove. The Vodafone data card kept a signal the entire trip. And the mat on the table stops the laptop moving about.

Mid afternoon we went to a Waikanae function for Nathan Guy – had 100 or so people there to hear Gerry Brownlee speak. We then had some refreshments at a VWRCNZ farm a few kms north of Waikanae before heading to the Meet the Candidates Meeting in Raumati.

Raumati is actually in Mana electorate, but close to the Otaki boundary so there were candidates there for both electorates. Seven of the candidates (two Nats, one Labour, two ACT, one NZ First and one Progressive) did our five question quiz for the video camera, and I’ll link to their videos later on.

The candidates speaking were:

1. National – Nathan Guy (Otaki) and Hekia Parata (Mana)
2. Labour – Winnie Laban (Mana) and Darren Hughes (Otaki)
3. ACT – Mike Collins (Mana) and Peter McCaffrey (Otaki)
4. NZ First – David Scott (Otaki)
5. United Future – Robin Gunston (Mana)
6. Greens – Michael Gilchrist (Mana)
7. Progressive – Josie Pagani (Otaki)

Each party had eight minutes (they could split between them) to talk, and the topic was meant to be on making communities safer. After that there was an hour of questions from the floor.

All the candidates got a pretty good reception, but David Scott got heckled a fair bit when he spent too much time talking about how wonderful Winston was, and not enough on the actual topic. We got this a bit in the interview also when David said the most critical issue facing voters is getting Winston back into Parliament! I actually know David as he is the ex-husband of a former National MP!

Nathan and Hekia were both very good. Nathan is one of those MPs who speaks to you, not at you – never speaks down at all. And Hekia was wonderful as she gave some great examples from her own family about the challenges parents can have in having their kids safe. You could feel the connection with some in the audience.

Winnie and Darren both gave very polished performances also. Darren uses humour very well, and strikes an easy rapport with people. They were both very on message and avoided stuff which turns off people like blaming crime on a budget from 17 years ago.

Gunston and Gilchrist made no blunders and reflected their party stances as expected.

Likewise Peter and Mike from ACT pushed their party’s policies on law and order. They had one negative moment when Peter pushed Sir Roger Douglas and the generally elderly audience reacted as if he had tortured a cat. But during question time it seemed apparent they had some people agreeing with them on law and order policies.

But the real interesting candidate for me (and no not just because I know her) was Josie Pagani. In fact Josie scared me. She sounded like a Tory, while advocating socialist policies. Now this is really dangerous!! A definite wolf in sheep’s clothing!

She managed to defend the anti-smacking law while at the same time condemning the political correct environment that spawned it by talking about how her kids get reflection notes or some bullshit from school now, and what the hell do they mean. So she had all the audience nodding and agreeing with her, and then artfully adds to her story by saying that violence against kids is horrific though and if we need a better law to make it clear, then she is all for it.

One of the questions was on whether the drinking age should be lifted to 20. I resisted identifying myself as a co-ordinator for the Keep it 18 campaign . It was interesting how the candidates split.

In favour of 20 was the Greens, Progressive, NZ First United Future and one of the Labour candidates (Laban). Now it is a conscience issue but I found it interesting that you had Greens and Progressive agreeing with the more socially conservative parties.

In favour of 18 was both ACT candidates, both National candidates and Darren Hughes from Labour. Hekia Parata did make the point that she did not support lowering it to 18, but now it is 18 one can’t turn it back.

Afterwards we gave Peter and Mike a lift back to Wellington. They were impressed that we had on board a box of ACT’s 20 point plans – Rodney never misses an opportunity and got them for Cameron.

An interesting collection in the studio. John Tamihere hosting with Matthew Hooton, Hekia Parata, Derek Fox and Chris Trotter.

Hooton pointed out that National has said it will offer the Maori Party a role, even if they don’t need them to govern. So up to the Maori Party if they want to play ball.

Derek Fox says up to National and Labour to decide what they will do, and they will decide after the election.

Chris Trotter says he used to think National and the Maori Party agreeing to work together in coalition or on confidence and supply as preposterous, but now it is more likely than the Maori Party supporting Labour!!!

Trotter also points out Maori Party will get National to drop Maori seats abolition policy as price of a deal.

Tamihere said Turia favours National, Sharples favours Labour, Flavell is all over the place and Harawira favours a more neutral cross-benches position. Not sure he would know, but an interesting analysis. Derek Fox has just said his analysis is completely at odds with the meetings he has been sitting in. Fox also says he is not conservative and rejects old labels like that.

I am enjoying Tamihere calling Trotter “Trotsky” and telling Matthew “Shut up Hootie” – something Kathryn Ryan probably wishes she could say occassionally

They then turned to Winston and Matthew has a superb quote:

He may use all this publicity to target the mad elderly Pakeha racist vote and get up to 5%

And this is Helen’s coalition partner he is describing!

Hooton points out that Maori Party would be one of many parties if a Labour-led Government is formed but with National could form a majority just with them probably.

Trotter says he thinks Labour does not want to deal with the Maori Party in his view, which is why they need Winston.  If Winston is not there, National can form a stable Government with 46% of the vote.

So Labour is choosing Winston over the Maori Party!

Fox advocates merit of staying on cross-benches to avoid the fate of most minor parties in Government.

An amusing mistake by Hekia Parata as she said John Key had ruled out United Future when she meant NZ First. They joked Peter Dunne had already started slitting his wrists! Parata was very good on the show, and demonstrated why she will probably be a Minister during her first term in Parliament.

The list of major 2008 candidates has been updated, and it now includes hyperlinks to a website or blog for the candidate. Thanks to Carl H for his help in converting my excel file to some neat HTML.

If you have the names of any missing candidates, please let me know. And if a candidate has a website I am not linked to, send that through.

National has two more candidates. Hekia Parata was selected a couple of days ago as National’s candidate for Mana. And I was at the selection meeting last night for Rimutaka where Richard Whiteside won a three way battle. Richard is one of those rare creatures in politics – a small business owner. Amongst his various endeavours, he owned for around a decade what is now called the Speights Ale House on Tinakori Road in Thorndon.  Richard has firsthand experience of what it means to invest your own money into a business, and the environment needed for small businesses to succeed. He’s also been involved with local environmental issues – specifically the toxic sludge from the Hutt based Exide factory.

National has also announced the names of the five candidates seeking the nomination for what should be the very safe Selwyn seat.  They are:

• Amy Adams
• Alex McKinnon
• Dugald McLean
• Todd Nicholls
•  John Stringer

I know, or have met, four of the five candidates over the years.  It will be a hard fought contest, and I suspect it will go to all four ballots on the night.

I blogged previously on how gruelling the National Party selection process can be with 60 delegates to meet and impress. Well Rakaia is even worse for the candidates. Not only does it stretch out over a couple of hundred kms, but they have sought and been given permission to have universal suffrage for the selection meeting. That means that instead of 60+ delegates voting, over 700 local members (who have been members for at least six months) can and generally will vote.  So I predict a lot of travel over the next couple of weeks as the candidates get around Canterbury.