Kiwiblog

I have blogged very little this year on the Auckland Central race. The reason why is I’ve got a lot of time for both the candidates. I would have rather they weren’t both competing for the same seat.

It is no secret that Nikki is one of my very close friends. I’ve known her since she was 18, and she is one of the most determined, and caring, people I know.

I also got to know Jacinda before the 2008 election, and like her a lot. She’s obviously one of the more capable Labour MPs, and a good person.

There’s been a huge media interest in their contest. They’ve had to contend with weekly opposing columns in the Herald Online, dinners with the Metro editor, profiles for the Listener, endless days being accompanied by journalists, the normal series of debates and public meetings and regular mentions in the Sunday papers. Few MPs who are not Ministers have had to endure the scrutiny the pair of them have.

Under such pressure it would be pretty easy for the race to get personal, or worse. But it didn’t. While they were both fierce competitors, I’m not aware of any situations where they really slagged each other off, derided the good intentions of the other or made it personal. They debated policy and issues instead. Now this is not to say that it was all love and roses. They’re competing for the same seat, and have very different viewpoints on most issues. It was a tough sometimes bruising  race. I recall seeing Jacinda at Wellington Koru Club and asking her if she was going to manage any time off between then (it was before the campaign) and the election. Her response was that if Nikki takes a day off, then she’ll do the same. The end result being I think they both worked seven day weeks for several months.

Unless specials do something very very very unusual, Nikki has retained the seat. I’ll be very interested to see how the votes were split when we get final results. The Greens got a massive 22% of the party vote. In 2008 only one third of them voted for the Labour candidate, while this time I suspect around two thirds did.

On the night Jacinda went around to Nikki’s celebration to concede, and she got a huge round of applause from the Nats gathered there. I am a huge believer that candidates should concede in person to the winner, and equally that they should get a good reception from the winning team. I recall going with Mark Blumsky in 2005 to concede to Marian Hobbs.It’s not something you ever enjoy doing, but it is a good thing to do.

I understand Nikki is still waiting for Judith’s concession from 2008

2014 is three years away. There will be a census in 2013, and new boundaries drawn up for the 2014 election. Until the boundaries are done it is impossible to be certain about how they will affect the seat. However I have a fair amount of experience with boundaries, and in my view Auckland Central is likely to lose some of its redder areas. Time will tell.

So my congrats go to both Nikki and Jacinda for their contest. That finally brings me to the name many have applied to the contest – the “battle of the babes”. Even now the election is over, Fairfax are still using the name for their video interviews with both candidates.

I am not exactly a campaigner for political correctness, but the point has come where that tagline should die a natural death. It is demeaning, as it makes it all about their attractiveness, rather than their political abilities.

For the avoidance of doubt, yes of course both Nikki and Jacinda are attractive young women. But, so what!

Did any media call the battle for Napier the “battle of the hunks” between Chris Tremain and Stuart Nash? No. They’ve only done it to the female candidates. It is sexist, and it should stop.

The Auckland Council has been removing signs that do not comply with their bylaws. It seems Jacinda not only put her signs up too early, but they were twice as large as the maximum size allowed, so the Council has started to remove them.

This is the sign that was up at Western Park on Ponsonby Road. This is arguably the most high profile public site in Auckland Central.

And this is what is there now, a blank space.

Why does Labour keep having such a problem obeying laws and bylaws? They are not that complicated, especially a maximum size restriction.

TV3 report:

Auckland Councillor Cameron Brewer says it is very disappointing the Labour Party’s Auckland Central candidate Jacinda Ardern has deliberately ignored official advice around election hoardings.

On Tuesday Auckland Council’s senior lawyer Wendy Brandon advised candidates that election signs are allowed up from 12.00am, Monday 26 September – two calendar months prior to the 26 November general election. Signs up around Auckland today breach the Electoral (Advertisements of a Specified Kind) Regulations 2005 bylaw.

“Like every other party, Labour was given very specific legal advice from the council but deliberately chose to breach the bylaw. It’s very disappointing and only reflects poorly on them.”

Cameron Brewer says people who are annoyed by signs up illegally today, or poorly placed given the Rugby World Cup, should report them to the council by phoning (09) 301-0101.

The Press reports:

Labour youth affairs spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said yesterday there was no link between youth rates and joblessness.

No link? I’m sorry Jacinda, but that is a grossly illiterate comment to make, economically. Are you really saying the cost of labour has absolutely no impact on whether said labour is hired?

This is like saying there is no link between the cost of cars and the numbers of cars people buy.

“The current youth unemployment rate is at similar levels to those reached in the recession of the early 1990s when youth rates [existed].”

But they key difference is that overall unemployment is far less than in the early 90s. For most age groups, it is only half what the peak was in 1991. It is only the under 20s which have reached the same peak.

This graph show the total level of employment (in 000s) for the two youngest age groups. Now do you really want to say there is no link, considering when it was youth rates were abolished?

Labour and Jacinda could argue that they would rather have say 110,000 young people earning $12.75 an hour than say 130,000 young people in work where some only earn say $9 an hour. That sort of trade off is what setting minimum wages tends to be all about.

But to claim there is no link at all between the cost of hiring a young worker, and the number who are in work, is just not possible.

Some wonderful quotes from Hansard. First we have the General Debate of 24 Feb 1988:

From 1 April 1988 the rate of company tax will decrease from 48 percent to 28 percent, and that will create an environment in which enterprises can succeed—both New Zealand enterprises and those that are attracted from overseas. That, too, is the path to future sustainable growth.

So cutting the company tax rate to 28% in 1988 was the path to future sustainable growth, yet something he condemns today.

Then we have the Appropriation Bill (No 3) second reading on 10 November 1988:

Let us consider the Government’s track record. It has introduced a new taxation system that is closing off the loopholes that in the past made paying tax a voluntary exercise for many companies and some individuals. The top marginal tax rate was 66c in the dollar when the Government took office, but it is now half that level—33c in the dollar.

And reducing the top tax rate to 33% and closing off loopholes was also laudable according to Phil.

And finally the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No 2) on 18 August 1988:

Taxation has gone from 48c and 30c in the dollar to 33c and 24c in the dollar. That reduction allows New Zealanders to keep more of their own money.

And an endorsement of dropping the top tax rate to 33% so NZers get to keep more of their own money.

Now to some degree all politicians will have made statements earlier in their careers, which they later change their mind on. However they tend to be fairly minor issues, not something as core as whether reducing the top tax rates is laudable or deplorable.  And these are not statements from when Phil was a Young Labour member, but as a Minister of the Crown.

Now in the budget debate the PM had a great time pointing out the massive hypocrisy in having the Opposition Leader condemn almost everything he had previously praised. And this is quite legitimate – it is not some sort of personal attack – it is highlighting changed policy positions. He then went on to talk about the budget itself.

Now Phil himself, and Annette, took Key’s speech in pretty good humour and were smiling at parts of it. They know that is what it is about. However the same can’t be said of some of the delicate wee flowers in his caucus who within seconds were whining on Twitter.

First Clare Curran complains:

Key starts his speech with a cheap shot. So Prime Ministerial!

That was in response to Key’s opening line that Shane Jones was really happy with Phil’s speech. Good God.

Then Clare complains further:

He’s a comedian. Does he take this country seriously! It’s embarrassing

So the PM is monstering you in the House pointing out (with considerable humour) that everything Phil Goff said is contradicted by what Phil previously said and your response is to complain he is being too funny.

But not just Clare. Iain Lees-Galloway joined in:

John Key thinks he’s on stage. What an embarrasment of a Prime Minister!

Personally I would be embarrassed to be tweeting such whines.

The trifecta was completed by Jacinda Ardern complaining:

hard to tell if this is a budget speech the PM is giving or a pep rally/stand up routine. yet to mention the actual budget.

I’m sorry guys, but it is such a bad look to be whining that your opponent’s leader is doing too good a job of winding his own troops up. Especially when your own leader’s speech was somewhere between awful and really awful (Goff generally has been much better in the house this year but his budget speech was just all over the place).

Finally Clare Curran declares:

Worst budget speech ever

People can watch the video and decide for themselves.

Whale Oil has blogged a summary of a 24 page story in Investigate, with a large number of allegations by a Jevan Goulter against various Labour MPs and others.

These are not anonymous allegations – Goulter is making them himself under his name. However that does not mean they are overly reliable, and are the gospel. In fact Ian Wishart himself concludes the article by saying:

As for the abuse of trust, did Labour abuse its trust in looking after a troubled 14 year old badly, or did Jevan Goulter abuse the trust of a political party who’d taken him under their wing?

At several points through the article, Wishart reveals that Goulter’s story is incorrect or exaggerated, and my personal take is that there is a lot of bragging there. It does not mean everything he has said is false, but I would caution people not to assume everything he has said is true.

Also in one section he says:

As for Phil Goff I probably had more to do with his daughter, who worked for a Government agency when Labour was in. Her name is Samantha. She was just stunning, she was beautiful when I met her, she was really hot. And I was like, ‘Piss off, you’re not his daughter?’ And she was, so we used to go out and have dinner and lunch quite a bit. Phil was a, I think he was a bit of a nobody then.

Now Phil Goff does have a daughter whom, umm could be seen to fit that description. However her name is not Samantha. If Jevan really was going out for meals with someone “quite a bit”, you think he would correctly remember their name. So again, does not help the credibility.

He makes allegations of sexual harassment against Tim Barnett. And some time later his partner (Mika) asked Barnett to pay $25,000 as compensation for Javen’s mental health. To my mind that is close to blackmail

Barnett makes the reasonable point that as a prominent gay MP pushing the boundaries of social legislation he was careful, like Caesar’s wife, to be above reproach, and not to be alone with people in situations that could be misconstrued.

There are no witnesses to the allegations so it is a case of he said vs she said. As someone who worked in Parliament for eight years, I got to hear a lot of gossip about a lot of MPs. You get to know which ones screw around and are sleazy. I don’t recall at the time any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour from Tim Barnett, and to the contrary he seemed very committed to his partner, Ramon. Without witnesses, I do not regard the allegations as credible. There are other MPs I would be more sceptical of.

Another allegation I find lacking in credibility is this:

INVESTIGATE: Michael Cullen?

JEVAN: I know he smoked it at the annual – I think it was the Christchurch Labour conference with Annette, but I don’t think Annette had it. I couldn’t be honest and say I saw her smoke it.

INVESTIGATE: But you did see him?

JEVAN: He had it in his hand, yes. I just remember him having it, it was passed to him by one of the young Labours.

This is in reference to cannabis use. It is quite possible Dr Cullen, like many NZers, has used cannabis at some stage. However to think the Deputy Prime Minister would openly smoke cannabis at a labour party conference – and in front of dozens of Young Labour activists is frankly incredible. I just don’t think it happened, and if that did not happen, I doubt some of the other allegations about cannabis use.

Not everything can be dismissed though. It seems very clear that some Labour Party MPs did lie about whether or not they knew Javen. The most blatant fib came from Lianne Dalziel, who confessed it online:

And yet…within five minutes of making the call to Dalziel’s office, Investigate received a phone call from Jevan, “You’ve just rung Lianne? She’s just sending me a Facebook chat apologising for denying that she knew me”.

This is what Dalziel said to Goulter:
“I owe you an apology. Ian Wishart has just contacted me and I’m afraid I said I didn’t remember you. I feel so guilty. All I’ve said, I told him you were a Facebook friend, so I knew ‘about’ you.

I hope this doesn’t affect what he is writing about you.”

Considering Lianne lost her ministerial job for not telling the truth, this doesn’t help her credibility.

The person who comes out of this looking very wise and sensible is Jacinda Ardern:

Young Labour were always very angry towards me, they didn’t like how I got to do what I wanted. Jacinda Ardern, who’s now an MP, she was my biggest hater….

But then I’m getting drunk and Jacinda comes over and rips the glass of wine out of my hand, ‘You can’t drink in here, you’re only 15!’

‘Yeah I can drink in here, it’s a private function, you’re not my mum, piss off’, and I got really verbal with her, I really didn’t like her.

So I walked over to Helen and I said,‘Jacinda’s just said I’m not allowed to drink. Am I allowed to drink or not?’ And Helen’s exact words were, ‘Of course you are, this is my house.’ I said, ‘I’m only 15’. And she said, ‘It’s my house’.

So I got my glass of wine and I started boozing up again. Jacinda just went off her nut. Now, Helen was drunk that night, in my view. Helen was drunk and she gets to the point when she’s drunk where people just take her away.

I think a number of Jacinda’s colleagues may rue that they were not as cautious around Jevan as she was. Jacinda’s actions look very prudent to me.

Incidentally I am also unconvinced of Helen Clark being drunk, and having to have people take her away. It’s not exactly an image that fits the former Prime Minister.

So overall I find the allegations lacking in credibility in significant areas. Having said that though, I think there are some lessons for Labour in the perils of letting a 14 year old run riot through Parliament and the party. He should have been in school in Christchurch.

As I have said before, I am a big fan of encouraging young people to get involved in politics. But I never encourage school age people to get significantly involved. Your school years should be a time of fun and learning, plus one often lacks the maturity to cope with “adult politics”.

That is not a universal rule. One friend of mine got involved at age 15 or 16 and went on to become a highly valued parliamentary and ministerial staffer. [UPDATE: Said staffer has e-mailed to say they are not highly valued but in fact under paid and over worked ]

But I also recall the 1993 election night when I allowed a 14 year old Young National to attend the election night HQ function, as a “results chalkie”. There was of course an open and free bar and I failed to supervise properly with the end result being the poor girl vomiting up in the boardroom, and then collapsing unconscious on the floor as she had never drunk alcohol before. I had to decide whether or not to take her to A&E or home, and had to deliver her still unconscious to her parents, who quite rightly were less than impressed. I visited the next day to check she was fine, and the parents were blaming her more than they were holding me responsible, but in the end I was the one responsible as the adult and still feel some remorse about it to this day.  Similarly, I suspect some Labour MPs are regretting allowing Jevan to spend so much time at Parliament, at functions at Premier House and the like.

The Sunday News gushes over Jacinda Ardern:

Ardern is sleek and luminous today, despite running late after a morning spent hearing submissions on the Super City.

She says she’s flustered but it doesn’t show. Her classy tan-and-black dress is by Christchurch designer Carolyn Barker. Her make-up is flawless, her hair frizz-free. The overall impression is one of both energy and calm.

Sleek, luminous, classy, flawless, energy and calm. It sounds like an interview with Angelina Jolie

Ardern’s single and has been devoted to Labour since before she could vote.

So it’s a little strange that she has been compared to former National MP Katherine Rich, who bowed out before the last election to spend more time with her family.

Ardern: “Someone said to me, `are you the new Katherine Rich?’ I said, `you know I am in Labour?”‘ She laughs.

I would have thought the more appropriate comparison is to a young Helen Clark.

“Helen [Clark] dedicated her entire life to what she did, in lots of ways. As long as I’m able to make a difference, I’d be willing to do that as well, I think.”

Like Helen, Jacinda plans a life in politics.

Good friend and fellow Labour MP Grant Robertson shared an office with Adern through the “extraordinarily stressful” 2005 election year, when they were both advisors to Clark.

He says Adern defies her age.

“I think she’s made a great beginning. I’d like to think Jacinda will be a cabinet minister in fairly short order.”

Labour are unlikely to be in Government until 2014 or even 2017+, but I have little doubt Jacinda will be a Minister in the next Labour Government – as will Grant.

The Herald reports:

Labour’s nominations for Auckland Central and four other seats it views as winnable opened on Friday as part of a strategy to get recognisable candidates on the ground early.

I may be wrong, but I can not recall any other time when a party has gone to candidate selection (for a seat not held) within a year of the election. Normally selections are late in the second year of a three year term. Sometimes earlier in the second year, but never heard of selection starting in the first year.

I’m speculating that Labour had a few nervous List MPs, and they didn’t want them fighting each other all year for seats, so they decided to minimise any in-fighting.

Ms Ardern has confirmed she is putting her name forward to be Labour’s candidate in 2011, meaning the high-profile race will start almost two years before the election.

Ms Kaye won the seat for National for the first time at the last election, and Labour is desperate to get it back. …

Ms Ardern, who is originally from Morrinsville, has recently moved to Auckland and said she was passionate about the city and enjoying life as an “apartment dweller”.

Jacinda was highly ranked by Labour in 2005, and is one of their more able MPs. As she said, she has just moved to Auckland, and in fact she is still officially the shadow MP for Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. I think her office is actually in Tauranga.

Ms Ardern has been able to avoid an internal party struggle for the nomination, with fellow list MP Phil Twyford deciding to go for Waitakere, currently held by National minister Paula Bennett and another of the seats Labour is holding early selection for.

You almost have to feel sorry for Twyford. He’s basically been shafted again (after the Tizard factor had him withdraw from Mt Albert). Jacinda had the numbers on the ground to win the looming selection battle, so Phil has (wisely) decided to concede. However as his office is in Auckland Central (in fact he set it up just two doors away from Nikki Kaye, the National Electorate MP) it is all going to be somewhat strange.

The Waitakere candidate has his office in St Marys Bays, and the Auckland Central candidate has her office in Tauranga. Aucklanders are less parochial than provincial seats, but may still find the carpet-bagging a factor.

Mr Twyford, the party’s Auckland Issues spokesman, said he believed Waitakere should be a Labour seat and its loss was a “temporary blip”.

I think Phil will do better if he doesn’t say things like that. It comes across as somewhat arrogant and a sense of entitlement to the seat. What I would have said is:

I believe that Labour’s values are the values of most Waitakere residents, and I am looking forward for the opportunity to contest and win the seat.

Talking of a temporary blip, suggests you think the voters made a horrible mistake, and that it will right itself given time.

Normally in Opposition, you hope to win seats back, and don’t expect to lose any more. But on current polling, Labour needs to worry about some of the 21 seats it still retains, as well as try and claw some back.

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern blogs her concern that the unemployment rate for under 20s has reached 25%. I share her concern.

I wonder if anyone else thinks that in hindsight maybe abolishing youth rates wasn’t the smartest move?

I know I only got some of my teenage employment because of youth rates. I started at $1.99 an hour.

The combination of ending youth rates and increasing the minimum wage to $12.50, has meant for some employers the cost of hiring teenagers has doubled.

Now when the economy was growing strongly, one could do these things without a big impact on youth employment. But this is the problem with so much of what Labour did – it was assumed businesses would always have money to burn.

The motivation behind increasing the minimum wage and abolishing youth rates was good. But as with most economic moves, there are almost always downsides to any initiative, and we are now seeing part of that.

The more expensive you force up the cost of labour, the less people in employment. Now that is not saying there should be no minimum wage, but a recognition that the more you increase it, the bigger the impact on jobs.

This is a graph of employment of both teenagers and 20 to 24 year olds. It is not seasonally adjusted so every December you see an increase due to holidays.

There has been a dramatic decrease in the number of jobs for under 20s, but relatively little for 20 to 24 year olds. From Sep 07 to Sep 09 the number of teenagers in employment fell 32,800 while for those aged 20 – 24, the fall was just 4,100.

Hence I think the abolishment of youth wages is a major factor. Otherwise you would expect the two age groups to be somewhat more aligned.

Incidentally the teenage unemployment rate has always been traditionally high. Only once in the HLFS history, has it been under 10% – in September 1987.

The Hansard of the first reading of the VSM bill is now online. If I have the time, I want to respond to all the MPs who spoke out in favour of compulsory membership, but for now will just respond to Jacinda Ardern’s speech, as the version of history painted is now one I or my colleagues remember.

Jacinda said:

Unlike the member who is in charge of this bill, I can speak from some experience, having attended a university that looked at voluntary student union membership. I was at Waikato University in the 1990s. I was not a student politician—I want to make that clear—I was a student. I was an observer of what happened, and I voted in the election that eventually led to that university being the first in 70 years, I believe, to go voluntary. I inform members of this House that it was the first university to go back to universal membership, because it learnt that it was a disaster to move to a voluntary system.

Now Jacinda has one thing right. WSU was voluntary, and now is compulsory. But far from VSM being a disaster that students rejected, the return to compulsory membership happened due to the machinations of the then Vice-Chancellor – former British Labour MP Bryan Gould.

You see what Jacinda doesn’t tell you is that Waikato students voted to go voluntary in 1996 by 63% to 37% in a referendum . The supporters of compulsion tried to overturn that the following year with another referendum, which VSM also won easily.

Undeterred they tried again in 1999 in a referendum (triggered by the current law) and got thrashed. VSM won 78% of the vote, in a turnout of around 30%.

So what happened? In 2000 the University, headed by former British Labour MP Bryan Gould, scheduled a further referendum upon receiving a petition late in the year. They scheduled it for a short three day period at the beginning of study week for exams. And they only gave students one days notice of the vote. Their own staff advised against this, and said there should be two weeks notice.

Turnout fell from 30% to around 10%, and compulsion won on its fourth attempt in an election that Iran or Afghanistan would be proud of. I mean at least they get more than one days notice of a vote!

Jacinda’s claim that Waikato students rejected VSM, in fact reminds us of how flawed the referendum model is. Apart from the philosophical objections to having 51% being able to force 40% to join something, you can’t get a fair vote on most campuses. Even if your Labour mate the VC doesn’t schedule the vote to favour the forces of compulsion, you generally have the students association having 100 times the resources of those supporting VSM. More on that another day.

Anyway for those who want more info on what really happened at Waikato, a colleague of mine has put together a summary which is below:

One favourite myth of opponents of voluntary membership concerns the voluntary era at the Waikato Student Union (1998-2000) and the impact of three years of voluntary membership on the association. Labour MP Jacinda Ardern referred to WSU during her speech on the first reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment bill last week. Let’s have a look at her claims.

But first some history and background.

Jacinda claims that Sir Roger’s bill follows previous voluntary membership bills from, in her order, Tony Steel, Donna Awatere-Huata, and then Michael Laws. She has the order wrong. Michael Laws introduced his members’ bill in 1994. It went to select committee in 1995 but lapsed in 1996. The Steel and Awatere-Huata bills were two separate members’ bills that were simultaneously drawn in May 1997. The Awatere-Huata bill did not receive a second reading. The Steel bill was passed in August 1998, but only after a compromise, promoted by some New Zealand First MPs, led to the introduction of referenda as the means to determine whether membership would be compulsory or voluntary.

WSU’s move to voluntary membership happened prior to the passage of the Steel bill. In September 1996, following two years of campaigning by voluntary supporters, WSU members voted 987 to 591 to make membership of WSU voluntary from 1 January 1998. In August 1997 compulsory supporters called another referendum in an attempt to overturn the 1996 decision. This was unsuccessful and students voted to confirm the introduction of voluntary membership. In 1999 there was another referendum, this one triggered by the Steel bill. This time 1984 students voted voluntary, 561 voted compulsory, from a total turnout of 3051. So much for NZUSA’s claim that students don’t want voluntary membership.

Voluntary membership at WSU ended in questionable circumstances. By 2000 WSU had a pro-compulsory president. His executive collected signatures for another referendum but waited until October and the final meeting of the academic year before presenting the petition to council. The referendum was held on 16-18 October. At the time, David Penney, a former president of APSU, the national polytechnic student association and then a university employee, pointed out the problems with the timing of the referendum saying,

the University will have less than one day to officially notify students of the vote, normal practice two weeks; maximum voter turnout may be undermined by the timing of the vote, which is recommended to take place on the first three days of study week when on-campus numbers are low; the integrity of the process may be undermined given the short lead-in time.

Jacinda also claimed that WSU’s return to compulsory membership “happened only after all of the services that (Waikato) students had benefitted from had collapsed.” According to Jacinda the collapsed “services” were foodbanks, emergency housing and a hardship fund. Trouble is WSU never provided any of these things. Waikato students paid (and still pay) separate levies for health and counseling, student buildings, and food, bars and the recreation centre. The university collected levies for these three areas and none of them were affected by voluntary membership.

WSU owned half a dozen rental properties but these weren’t emergency housing. Prior to 1996 they were, however, rented out at below market rates and often to executive members and their mates. In 1995 WSU attempted to justify the use of student money to buy houses by claiming that if they owned enough properties they could eventually force down Hamilton rental prices. I doubt if WSU members were aware they were funding a Waikato version of a Polish shipyard.

Jacinda’s in good company when it comes to making false claims about WSU. In 2000 Steve Maharey complained about the “million the voluntary purists at Waikato fiddled away”. However an examination of WSU’s balance sheets shows WSU’s equity during the three voluntary years fell by $4000; from $578,000 (1998) to $574,000 (2000). I hope Steve’s not using the same calculator at Massey.

Over the next few weeks I’ll be looking at more of these myths.

The main interview on Q+A was Education Minister Anne Tolley. I thought Anne did well (as did two of the panelists – the PPTA President obviously not such a fan).

PAUL Let’s talk about that shortly. But 200,000 New Zealanders a year go to night classes to improve themselves. Grown up people – that’s a helluva lot of people to annoy for 13 million dollars.

ANNE Well 124 million dollars will still be spent in adult and community education. What I’ve said is we’re going to focus on literacy, numeracy, language, foundation skills – those courses that will lead on to employment. We’re still in an economic recession, there are people out there, particularly young people, who are the most vulnerable, they are the most likely to lose their jobs and the least ones likely to get jobs.

PAUL Yes, but night classes in schools of course as adults – migrants, refugees adults trying to improve their lot – the strugglers.

ANNE Some of them are, some of them are hobby courses courses like belly dancing, ukulele playing. We’ve got courses like pilates and yoga – I’ve attended those classes myself. The average age of people attending those night classes is about 46. What we’re saying I had a half billion debt from the previous government to find in tertiary education what we’re saying is we’re going to put those tax dollars into supporting our young people through the recession.

PAUL I understand. Go to those classes again, Minister. Some of those classes might have been questionable – belly dancing, Cook Island drumming, cheese-making, folk art for beginners – but there were also book-keeping basics, English as a second language, learning Mandarin

ANNE Yes, English is important, language classes will remain as I say

I think Labour are deluding themselves that this decision is unpopular. The protesting are mainly the providers. Most of the 200,000 understand we are in a recession.

Recent polls in the UK have found from 70% to 80% of the population support spending cuts to reduce the deficit. I doubt it is much different here. NZ Labour is trying to appeal to 20% to 25% of the population only.

They then had Labour List MP Jacinda Ardern and National Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye on, to talk about how they were finding being MPs. Some extracts:

PAUL Do you get a thrill from that as well from helping?

NIKKI Absolutely. I mean I think my point is that the part I enjoy the most is being in the community and in my electorate actually with my constituents and Ive had some pretty hard cases as well, theyre people whove asked for drugs to be funded and you know that actually theyre not going to be funded.

PAUL Of course, you are both MPs but you are a constituent MP, youve got an electorate (Nikki) and youre a list MP (Jacinda). Does that give you more mana do you think with your senior colleagues that you do have a constituency?

NIKKI I think it was a pretty big win and there are often times when you can talk on an issue and you really know youve got the people behind you in your electorate I think there is something there in that.

PAUL As a list MP, and a young list MP at that, are you made to feel a bit lesser than say a constituency MP?

JACINDA No, not at all I think that part of is that because we accept that this system that uses list MPs, MMP, has made our parliament look more like New Zealand so list MPs are an important part of doing that. Now me personally, I would love to represent a constituency one day

I think Nikki is right that electorate MPs are often in a stronger position as advocates.

Interestingly Jacinda said that she is not ruling out standing in Auckland (in 2008 she stood in her home seat of Waikato), maybe even standing against Phil Twyford for the Auckland Central nomination.

PAUL Is your generation, people of your own age, more likely to have friends across the political divide than say the, are you likely to be less tribal?

NIKKI Well I think Ive built some good relationships on both sides of the house and I think it depends on the politician. I mean, thats the way that I work. I sort of see it as a bit of a sports match, you go in and you fight for what you believe in but then youre able to come off and treat each other with dignity and respect.

JACINDA I would agree with that, I think that that is important. I dont know if tribal is quite the right word , I do believe what I believe strongly, Ive got a really strong values set but I am willing to look at new ideas and new ways of doing things and if that involves the other side then it does. But I still think that there are certain things that I wont compromise on.

Jacinda tended to not reject the ideological label, as much as Nikki did. And that probably reflects the fact Jacinda is more ideological. But I don’t mean that in a bad way. Most successful politicians have a mixture of ideology and pragmatism, and the differences between them are more shades of grey than black or white.

PAUL What are the mistakes? Tell me your one mistake, because you told me a story once about a fellow who came to you with a problem and you did the political spiel and told him what the law was blah blah blah and what did he say to you?

NIKKI He said to me, and you know I think its that whole thing about, theres a whole of politics stuff that happens in Wellington but when you get back to the community people want to know how decisions affect them&.

PAUL&What did he say to you&

NIKKI ..and he said to me you seem like a very nice lady but youve just told me a whole lot of stuff that just means nothing to me and & but we actually ended up going to the pub for a drink and, but what I realised was actually that people just want to know how the decisions are going to affect them, theyre not that interested in the politics.

PAUL Youve got to stay real, is that what youre saying?

NIKKI Thats exactly right.

I thought that was a great example of the difference between people caught up in politics regularly (the beltway) and most New Zealanders who are focused on how decisions affect them, rather than debates about politics.

NZPA have done an in depth profile of Labour MP Jacinda Ardern. Those interested should read the whole thing. Some extracts:

Labour MP Jacinda Ardern talks to SHARON LUNDY of NZPA about the path to becoming Parliament’s youngest current MP.

Wellington, July 8 NZPA – Labour’s youngest MP, Jacinda Ardern, is pretty glamorous, but her six months in New York were anything but a scene from Sex in the City.

Think instead of soup kitchens and dossing on a friend’s couch — what the 28-year-old describes as the “grittier” side of New York.

Ms Ardern headed off on her OE after the 2005 election, having been part of then prime minister Helen Clark’s advisory team.

Flights were cheap, she had a friend in New York who was a fellow member of the International Union of Social Youth, so the Big Apple it was.

That’s Socialist Youth.

Many 24-year-old women living in New York probably aspire to a few Sex in the City moments; buying a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes or or sipping cocktails in the hippest bars.

Instead, Ms Ardern was making meatballs for 150 homeless people and joining them for lunch.

“I probably didn’t experience that kind of glamorous side of New York,” she concedes. “I saw the grittier side, I guess.”

She initially volunteered for the Service Employees International Union, one of the biggest unions in the United States, working on campaigns such as Justice for Janitors.

Then it was on to a soup kitchen in Brooklyn; working there was the highlight of her time in New York, she says.

While disagreeing with her politics, I respect anyone who puts their principles into action and volunteers to help other people.

Jacinda Arden MP does a guest blog at the Hand Mirror on life as a new MP.

Pam Corkery once likened a new MPs first weeks in Parliament to starting a new boarding school. In some ways, she’s right.

You’re thrown into a flurry of inductions covering everything from setting up an electorate office, right through to the correct use of the microphones in the debating chamber (yes, there is indeed a right and wrong way to talk into a mic that doesn’t move). And when the house is sitting in Urgency, which essentially means staying in Parliament Buildings from 9am till midnight, you suddenly find yourself having three meals a day in the same cafeteria, with the same people.

And the cafetaria food isn’t that great, to say the least. I’ve always wanted Parliament to go with a free market and scrap Bellamys and put a food court in. A Subway shop would do very well I suspect!

I’m the youngest member of the new Parliament, a fact I am reminded of on a pretty regular basis. During the election campaign I had my fair share of (usually elderly gentlemen) telling me I was too young to be a candidate. Perhaps in an effort to be constructive, I was sometimes lucky enough get a follow up offer of marriage if I was looking for something else to occupy my time.

Jacinda doesn’t quantify how many offers she received, or more importantly how many she accepted

The election may be over, but the ‘yuff’ label lingers. The day I was sworn into parliament Radio Live wanted to chat about being ‘young and new’. Much like the gentlemen in my electorate, the interviewer didn’t mince her words, pointing out that my interest in politics from a pretty young age meant I could hardly purport to represent the majority of young people. My response to that is simple – I don’t.

My age, just like my gender, does not give me the right to represent any particular group. But it does give me a sense of responsibility to ensure that young people have a voice in parliament, whether that means ensuring there are platforms for young people to have their say, or by building a greater understanding of the issues effecting young kiwis. Whatever the method, it’s a continuous one. I don’t believe a mandate is simply gifted to you once every three years. It must be earned, and it must be maintained.

I think the Internet through e-voting, e-consultations etc is one mechanism where MPs can engage younger voters mreo effectively.

The Herald profiles Labour MPs Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins plus National’s Jonathan Young.

Jacinda notes her Morrinsville roots:

She calls Morrinsville home – “a place that keeps me grounded”.

When she was asked if she was “a radical” because of her post as president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, she would reply: “I am from Morrinsville. Where I come from, a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota over a Ford or Holden.”

Instead, she was a “social democrat. I believe what I believe, strongly – human rights, equality, social justice, the importance of community – and I do believe New Zealand has a role to play in promoting and defending these principles abroad.”

Chris is noted as:

Grew up in the Hutt Valley. The 80s economic reforms and stockmarket crash were pivotal in shaping his politics.

As Chris was nine years old when the stockmarket crashed, he must have been quite the economic prodigy.

Jonathan Young first visited Parliament at age seven:

Son of Venn Young, National MP for Egmont/Waitotara 1966-1990. Can remember coming to Parliament as a 7-year-old and meeting Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, and seeing the shoeshine stools in the men’s toilets (they are still there today) today, and the silver butter knives, bread rolls and fish in Bellamy’s.

I hope teh Herald keep up the profiles.

The Waikato seat replaces Piako, held by Lindsay Tisch. Tisch won it in 1999 as Karapiro with a 5,216 majority. Before that it was held by John Luxton.

In 2002 as Piako Tisch beat Sue Morony by 1,621 and in 2005, extended his majority over Moroney to 8,351. So not really a marginal seat. I estimate on the new boundaries the majority is 6,916.

We passed through Waikato on the way to Hamilton. Blog reader (and commenter) Tauhei Notts offered us a lunch in Morrinsville so we weant off the main track to get there. And when I say off the main track, I mean it. I love having GPS in the car but sometimes it picks obscure back country roads to travel along, and we ended up motoring through all sorts of narrow roads, bypassing all the main centres totally. Took a bit longer but meant we saw some great countryside.

Now it transpired that Tauhei Notts, despite being an ACT stalwart, is an old family friend of Labour’s Jacinda Ardern, and Jacinda has just got back from the UK the previous day. So Jacinda and her mother joined us for lunch.

Jacinda was wonderful company. She is great to talk to (especially about international politics) and was so charming that even Whale Oil was heard to comment that she is far far too nice to be in Labour (whenever Whale meets a Labour MP or candidate he likes, he just assumes they are in the wrong party rather than concede nice people can be in Labour . In fact one of the most amusing parts of lunch was having Jacinda politely rebuff Whale’s suggestion that she really was a Tory deep down. Considering Jacinda is the President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, her political convictions are rather firm!

What I am saying here, won’t come as a surprise to many within Labour – but Jacinda is one of their real stars.  This is reflected in her stellar list ranking of 20, which would see her come in on a party vote of 25% for Labour. I suspect she will move up the ranks quickly.

She isn’t going to dent Lindsay’s majority this time. But as a native of the Waikato she will be an effective List MP for the area, and at a future election when the tide is going out rather than in for National, she could make it a close race. Definitely worth watching out for.

Adam Smith points out that both the NZ Herald and Radio NZ have repeated the incorrect assertion in Labour’s press release that Jacinda Ardern’s employer (Sir Ronnie Flanagan) is the UK Home Secretary.

What has happened to fact checkers in the media?

Sir Ronald is in fact not even an MP. He is a professional cop working in the Home Office.

Note that I am not in any way suggesting Ardern is respondisble for promoting her boss to Home Secretary. I suspect someone in Labour just summarised her CV incorrectly.

The Herald reports that to help counter the under-representation of unionists in Labour’s caucus, CTU Secretary Carol Beaumont will be the likely Labour candidate for Maungakiekie.

They also mention that Jacinda Ardern and Raymond Huo are expected to get good list rankings. Ardern is London-based.

At some stage I will set up a list of list-only candidates for parties also, to complement the list of the major electorate candidates.