Kiwiblog

A few thoughts:

• Isn’t it amusing that when Helen Clark agreed to take some boat people who were seeking asylum in Australia she was lauded by the entire left for her humanitarian gesture yet when John Key agrees to do much the same, but annually, he is condemned by the exact same people. And yes, the Tampa refugees were treated as part of the quota also.
• How can one criticize this deal for encouraging queue-jumping yet also advocate that Australia should resume onshore processing which has been shown to massively encourage boat voyages and queue jumping.
• Personally I think there is a legitimate criticism that this deal may encourage queue-jumping, but probably not significantly enough to actually lead to a group of people deciding to make a boat voyage they otherwise would not have.
• There is a surprising lack of sophistication in understanding our relationship with Australia is not purely a transactional one. The decision by the NZ Government helps Julia Gillard (and any successor)  in what is arguably her most difficult domestic issue. That will not be forgotten.
• The notion that Australia bullied NZ into this is ridiculous. In fact as reported it was a NZ initiative
• What is surprising is the lack of focus on a centre-right NZ PM helping out a centre-left Australian PM. It’s a nice example of not letting domestic politics interfere with having a strong relationship.
• I’m surprised also no one has cottoned on to Gillard making an unprecedented early announcement of the election date, almost certainly being because Key the same thing in 2011.
• Personally I think taking in refugees is one of the better things a country can do, so long as they are able to integrate well into their new country and that the level is sustainable. Note that Australia takes in 20,000 to our 750. I’d like that to increase at some stage in the future when our economy is stronger. But I think it is best increased through the UNHCR process, not through increasing the number in the bilateral agreement with Australia
• You have to love Labour’s strong clear policy on this issue. They are outraged of course, but when asked what they would do, the answer is “Shearer said if elected, Labour would discuss the policy with Australia.” – you can’t make this stuff up.

Quite a few things announced by Gillard and Key in Queenstown. They are:

• Joint action to address the high cost of mobile roaming rates between the two countries
  
• an $8 million trial of fast‑track automated border technology for trans-tasman travel
• Commencement of new retirement savings portability arrangements between Australia and New Zealand from 1 July 2013
• Entry into force of the CER Investment Protocol from 1 March 2013
• New Zealand has agreed to resettle 150 refugees who are subject to Australia’s offshore processing legislation, as part of their annual quota of 750 refugees
• NZ$3 million in matched funding over two years to support trans-Tasman collaboration to identify potential vaccines for rheumatic fever
• Investigate a possible reciprocal student debt recovery scheme.
• An A$5 million memorial will be erected in Wellington’s National War Memorial park precinct by the Australian Government

When the PM was Opposition Leader he said he would attend Waitangi Day at Waitangi as Prime Minister, for as long as he was PM. He has kept his word and as far as I know is the only Prime Minister to have attended 100%.

I think it is very good for the PM to attend. It is a chance for dialogue and discussion. Shouting past each other is not a substitute for fronting up.

However there is some obligation on the hosts to be good hosts. By that I don’t mean that Waitangi should be protest-free. That is not under their control, and protesters have freedom of speech.

But what I do think is unacceptable is to keep the Prime Minister waiting for almost an hour, while you work out who accompanies him. It is rude, and inconsiderate. I doubt any other Head of Government would sit around for an hour while they have a silly squabble.

The fact that there are some strong personalities like Titewhai Harawira involved, is no excuse. Waitangi Day is once a year. They could have raised this issue months ago to try and get an agreement. Trying to change things at the last minute was always going to end badly.

While I am sure the PM will keep his pledge to always attend, it would be wise for the hosts to consider what responsibilities they have. Having the PM there is a privilege – not a right.

Teuila Fuatai at NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key shared tales of his Jewish mother’s escape from Nazi-controlled Austria at the United Holocaust Memorial Day event this morning.

Mr Key addressed a crowd of about 200 people, which included Holocaust survivors, politicians and Israel’s Ambassador to New Zealand, Shemi Tzur, in Auckland.

His mother, born in Vienna, Austria, moved to the United Kingdom in 1938 with her brother. She moved to New Zealand after marrying a British soldier.

She did not speak any English and left her own mother in Austria when she fled, Mr Key said.

My father and his mother also left in 1938. Sadly not all my family managed to get out.

He spoke of his mother’s pain over the Holocaust.

People often asked: “Why is it that I can’t speak German?

“The simple answer is my mother refused to teach me.” She “did not want to reflect on her history”, Mr Key said.

I didn’t even realise my father’s side of my family was of Jewish ancestry until I remarked one day how a schoolmate was Jewish and how he seemed so normal.  And never once did we talk about what happened with my grandparents. I can only imagine how awful it was.

ZB reported:

Newstalk ZB’s Allan Lee says it was a moving event, with Mr Key speaking passionately and without notes.

He says it’s personal for the Prime Minister – his mother was an Austrian Jew and was forced to leave as a result of the Nazi invasion.

“She never wanted to talk about it and he told the audience today that his mother, whenever he tried to question her about it, she would just not answer. So he’s never really found out the full story of what happened to her.”

Mr Lee says Mr Key also spoke about Holocaust, saying people who deny it happened can only be described as mad.

And to prove this point, we have the lovely intellectuals at Stormfront who reacted to the PM’s comments with:

When the evidence stacking up against the Holocaust, makes the world realise it was a plot to secure Israel and that we must teach the truth…

Will the UN then change the day to UN Holohoax Memorial Day?

What sad people.

John key gave today his first major speech of 2013. Some good sections to it, and a fairly major policy announcement. Extracts:

So here in New Zealand we have to be a magnet for investment.

That’s investment by individuals and small businesses as well as big businesses; and it’s investment by people from overseas as well as Kiwis.

The more investment we get, the more jobs will be created.

That’s not to say there won’t also be jobs lost.

In any three-month period in New Zealand, between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs disappear, and between 100,000 and 200,000 new jobs are created, as businesses start up, expand, contract and close altogether.

The labour market is a very dynamic place.

But the only way net new jobs can be created is by private investors putting their money into businesses in New Zealand.

Governments can encourage investment but they can also discourage investment.

A government can load up big costs and uncertainties onto business.

It can make people unwelcome because they are considered to be the wrong nationality to invest here, or in the wrong industry.

And it can lock up the resources of the country.

That would certainly discourage investment.

The fluid nature of the labour market is worth reflecting on. We are decades beyond the jobs for life NZ once had. Jobs get created and disappear on a daily basis. And it is investment that leads to more jobs.

But the big changes we are making this year are to industry training and, in particular, to apprenticeships.

Under Labour’s wasteful management, up to 100,000 people a year listed as being in industry training were in fact “phantom trainees” who achieved no credits and in some cases were no longer alive.

Heh.

1. From 1 January next year, we are going to combine Modern Apprenticeships and other apprenticeship-type training under an expanded and improved scheme called New Zealand Apprenticeships. These new apprenticeships will provide the same level of support, and the same level of subsidy, for all apprentices, regardless of their age. Fewer than half the people doing apprenticeship-type training are actually funded as proper apprentices, through the Modern Apprenticeship scheme, and we are going to change that.

2. We are going to boost overall funding for apprenticeships. The current top-up for Modern Apprentices will be redistributed across all apprentices, regardless of age, as an extension to their learning subsidy. In addition, overall subsidy payments will be increased by around $12 million in the first year, rising over time. Increased funding for apprenticeships will allow industry training organisations to invest in the quality of education for apprentices, lower fees for employers and encourage growth in the uptake of apprenticeships.

3. We are going to boost the educational content of apprenticeships. At a minimum they will require a programme of at least 120 credits that results in a level four qualification.

4. We are going to set clearer roles and performance expectations for ITOs, and give employers other options if their ITOs don’t perform; and

5. To lift the profile of, and participation in, apprenticeships, we are going to give the first 10,000 new apprentices who enrol after 1 April this year $1,000 towards their tools and off-job course costs, or $2,000 if they are in priority construction trades. The same amount will also be paid to their employers.

The Govt estimates this will lead to 14,000 more people doing apprenticeships in the next few years.

We need more houses built in New Zealand, at a lower cost.

That means we need more land available for building, more streamlined processes and less costly red tape.

This doesn’t require the Government to spend a lot of money. We are already a huge player in the housing market and I’m very wary of spending more of taxpayers’ money.

But there are plenty of private sector investors who want to invest in housing – if only we can remove the roadblocks that are slowing down the process and driving up costs.

It’s ridiculous, for example, that developers can wait six to 18 months for a resource consent.

It’s ridiculous that we allow councils to demand almost anything as a condition for the consent.

And it’s ridiculous that we allow them to charge whatever fees they want.

Unless these sorts of issues are dealt with there won’t be more affordable housing built.

Labour’s so-called ‘plan’ to build 100,000 houses doesn’t do anything to fix the actual cost of building – so will either fail miserably, deliver dwellings that people don’t want to live in, or require massive taxpayer subsidies.

It’s dishonest and it doesn’t stack up.

Far better to reduce the cost of housing for everyone, than introduce Housing Lotto when 10,000 lucky people a year get a taxpayer subsidized house by having their names drawn out of a barrel. And yes – that is their actual policy!

… overseas investment in New Zealand adds to what New Zealanders can invest on their own.

It creates jobs, boosts incomes, and helps the economy grow.

Overseas capital can make things happen here that wouldn’t otherwise happen, grow businesses that wouldn’t otherwise have the means to grow, create jobs that otherwise wouldn’t exist, and pay wages that are higher than they would otherwise be.

So it’s sad to see the Labour Party that was such an advocate of trade and investment in the past somehow turning into the number one defender of Fortress New Zealand.

Indeed.

So as you can see, we’ve got plenty on.

But I can guarantee you one thing – Labour will oppose almost all of it.

And the few things they might find to like, Russel Norman or Winston Peters will vehemently oppose.

And that’s the irony of the New Zealand Opposition in 2013.

They criticise the Government for being too hands-off; and yet between each of the Opposition parties they oppose every hands-on change we make to encourage investment, growth and jobs.

Tax changes – they oppose.

Major roading projects – they oppose.

A free trade agreement with the US – they oppose.

RMA changes – they oppose.

90 day trials – they oppose.

Work expectations for beneficiaries – they oppose.

Oil and gas exploration – they oppose.

The Hobbit legislation – they oppose.

A national convention centre – they oppose.

Every piece of legislation or policy we have developed to encourage growth and jobs they have opposed.

And that’s because there is only one type of activist government they know – the big-spending and big-borrowing kind that we know so well from the Labour Party and the Greens.

It’s called “chequebook activism” and New Zealanders know it well because they’ve seen it before.

As a country we are still paying for it – literally.

It means big, wasteful and unaffordable spending, charged to the taxpayer’s bill. And it means Labour and the Greens meddling and choking off private sector investment.

Good to see the PM pointing out the inconsistency. There is a balance to be had when going on the attack. You need to both talk up your plans, but also point out the alternative. The announcement on apprenticeships was a nice anchor for it.

It will be interesting to see what Shearer announces tomorrow apart from the fact Labour will be “hands on”!!

John Armstrong writes:

John Key’s dramatic Cabinet reshuffle displays a streak of ruthlessness hitherto rarely seen in a New Zealand prime minister.

Ruthless is a very good word for it. I’m trying to recall the last time there was a reshuffle of this nature, and I can’t recall one. As I said yesterday generally Ministers are gently eased out at election time, or in the year before an election – allowing it to be arranged as a retirement. Or they are pushed out due to a major scandal or incompetence. To just dump two Ministers because you needed to rejuvenate the team, is a cold political call. It is however very much the correct one.

Above all, what the reshuffle does is put the entire Cabinet on notice.

Indeed. I suspect most Ministers also thought it would be a very minor reshuffle with Nick Smith just replacing David Carter. As news spread yesterday of two Ministers forced out, a cold sweat would have broken out with some of their colleagues thinking “That could have been me”. They will also be thinking “That could be me next time”. This is not a bad thing. Complacency is not a good thing in politics. No one should be thinking they have a eight or even expectation to remain a Minister for an entire Government. Renewal is crucial.

Tracy Watkins also calls it ruthless:

No-one saw the brutal dumping of long-time Cabinet ministers Kate Wilkinson and Phil Heatley coming – least of all them.

The usual route out of Cabinet for underperforming ministers is a slow slide down the rankings and reassignment to lesser portfolios.

But Prime Minister John Key, a man once known as banking’s smiling assassin, refused to offer them even that fig leaf, giving them just a few hours’ notice of their fate.

The smiling assassin. It’s nothing personal. It’s just necessary.

By launching 2013 in such dramatic fashion, Mr Key has signalled his intention to draw a line under those failures and regain the political initiative.

I think it shows significant determination that 2013 will not be like 2012. It also puts the acid on David Shearer’s reshuffle. It is widely acknowledged his front bench is not performing. Will he just move one or two people around or do a very significant reshuffle?

The Herald editorial approves:

With the Government holding up well in the polls, it would have been tempting for the Prime Minister to keep the changes in his forced Cabinet reshuffle to a minimum. Why, after all, change a winning formula? But in acting as boldly as he did yesterday, John Key has actually enhanced the prospects of prolonging his ministry. The Government has freshened its face at an appropriate time, rather than waiting until closer to next year’s general election, when such a shake-up would risk being seen as a mark of desperation.

I agree. Also it gives new Ministers a chance to score some runs on the board. If you become a Minister in the year before an election, it is hard to achieve much as election year is often so polarised.

Well John Key managed to surprise me and most other people, and has done a quite significant reshuffle, with a substantial rejuvenation of the Ministry.

Those leaving the Ministry are:

• David Carter to become Speaker
• Kate Wilkinson
• Phil Heatley

Kate and Phil have performed well in their portfolios, and their departures are not sackings. It is simply the reality I talked about this morning that you need rejuvenation.

Promoted direct into Cabinet is Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye who has become Minister of Food Safety, Civil Defence and Youth Affairs and Associate Minister of Education and Immigration. She will be the youngest female Minister in National’s history.

Senior Whip Michael Woodhouse becomes a Minister outside Cabinet as Minister of Immigration, Veterans’ Affairs and Associate Transport.

Simon Bridges moves into Cabinet from outside and gets more grunty portfolios of Labour and Energy.

Oh and as expected Nick Smith moves back into Cabinet as Housing and Conservation Minister. Paula Bennett is made Associate Housing.

Nathan Guy as expected gets Primary Industries and Jo Goodhew Associate.

Chris Tremain pciks up Local Government Minister.

And in a very good move Steven Joyce is put in charge of Novopay, and fixing the problems there.

The caucus will need to elect a new senior whip, but I can’t imagine any reason whu junior whip Louise Upston won’t succeed to that – so the focus is probably more on who from 2011 may step up to become junior whip.

I’m delighted that the PM has been bolder than expected, and effectively brought forward what I thought would be a year end reshuffle. And I’m looking forward to the new Ministers making a difference in their new portfolios.

Big thanks to Phil and Kate also for their service.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key fainted and collapsed while out for dinner last night.

He was at dinner at the Italian restaurant Tutto Bene in Merivale, Christchurch.

He was taken to Christchurch hospital in a police car and assessed. He was there for two and half hours before being released.

Key is in Christchurch to fly to Antarctica and has been cleared to leave this morning.

A spokeswoman for Key said he was seen by three specialists during his time at the hospital but they had not given a reason for the fainting. 

“They said these things happen sometimes.”

Key returned from his summer holiday in Hawaii yesterday and has not been unwell, she said.

“He was given a clean bill of health,” his spokeswoman said.

It is well known that the PM is often up soon after 5 am for a morning run before work, and is often working until close to midnight. Being Prime Minister is the sort of job where you never can say there is no more work to do, but the hours take a toll.  Even on so called holidays, you are working a fair amount of the time.

It may indeed be just one of those things, especially as it was just after a return from a break. I hope so.

Deidre Mussen at Stuff reports:

John Key wrote to Solid Energy before Christmas saying a new expert panel was being set up to advise the Government on the feasibility of body recovery at the underground West Coast mine.

The men died after an explosion at the mine in November 2010.

Key had reiterated to Pike families at a meeting in Greymouth last month the Government was unlikely to fund body recovery because his experts said it was too dangerous and expensive.

However, he admitted the families were frustrated by his stance because their experts were more optimistic about it.

As a result, a panel of mining experts from diverse backgrounds, including from Solid Energy, Mines Rescue Trust, Pike families and the Government’s High Hazards Unit, would be brought together to try to get a consensus on whether it was possible plus its risks and costs.

Key wrote that he was “very keen for the families to have closure one way or another as soon as reasonably possible”.

He also confirmed the Government would pay for all out-of-pocket costs to explore the mine’s 2.3 kilometre tunnel, where some bodies might remain, if a viable plan was developed that the Government’s High Hazards Unit backed.

It included paying for the families’ international mining experts to return to New Zealand to meet other experts to develop a tunnel exploration plan.

Pike families were “ecstatic” with the prime minister’s offer.

“Certainly it’s a turnaround in that he is finally listening to us instead of sticking to his expert’s advice,” said Bernie Monk, who lost his son Michael, 23, in the fatal explosion.

I think the issue has been different experts have said different things. Paying to get them all together in one room, and seeing if they can agree on what can be safely done is a good thing.

Also useful to clarify that costs will be met by the Government in any tunnel exploration, even if not a full reclamation.

The Herald reports:

Two unemployed men arrested after trying to put their meals onto Prime Minister John Key’s bar-tab this week claim Key had offered to shout their meals and then reneged – a claim the Prime Minister’s office has rejected.

Also:

Mr Jellema said his bail conditions prohibited any alcohol, but had only had one beer and had the incident with Key not happened, it would not have been an issue. Mr Boyd said his bail conditions prevented him being drunk in a public place – but he also had only had one beer and subsequent testing had shown minimal alcohol in his system.

If he is already on bail, and has an alcohol prohibition as part of his bail terms, I think we can make some conclusions about their reliability.

It does remind me though of a National Party conference in the 1990s. One of my mates asked for my room number. I deduced he probably wanted to charge his drinks to it, so I gave him the number of the room next door to me.

Later in the night caught up with him, and he boasted how he had charged half a dozen drinks to my room. I then responded that it wasn’t in fact my room, but the one next door to me.

He was still very unconcerned at this point, and casually asked whose room it was. I replied that it was (then Finance Minister) Bill Birch’s. He turned several shades of pale and rushed downstairs to the bar to try and pay for his drinks, and get the charges removed. He correctly concluded that Mr Birch would have been very unimpressed to find my friend’s signature on bar drinks charged to his room!

The Herald quotes US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell:

“We fully understand that New Zealand is not looking to go backward to re-create a relationship of the past,” he said, “but to re-create a strong, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional relationship for the 21st century.

“This is pretty much the model of how we want to do business. I think we have about as close a relationship as two countries can have now.”

And he credited the personal regard President Barack Obama had for Prime Minister John Key for the improvement.

“I see President Obama regularly in meetings and I see the leaders that he is attracted to and he has to deal with a huge number of people.

“The truth is there are three or four leaders in Asia that he [strongly] respects and kind of listens to when they talk.

“It’s Prime Minister Lee in Singapore, it’s Prime Minister Najib in Malaysia, SBY (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) in Indonesia, Lee Myung-bak in South Korea but Prime Minister Key is in that list.”

A long way removed from when the previous Prime Minister had to do a written apology to the US President for her comments!

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says Winston Peters’ dislike of him stands in the way of a deal between National and NZ First in 2014.

Mr Key said he expected Mr Peters to back a Labour government, despite his long-standing clashes with the Green party.

“I think that the argument that he really really dislikes the Greens, let’s put it politely, that’s all true . . . but he’s not overly enamoured with me,” Mr Key said.

He and Mr Peters had chatted during a trip to Samoa as part of a New Zealand delegation.

“I had a brief chat to him but realistically I think he will go with Labour . . . Even if we were prepared to change, and that would be a big if, he was always going with Labour . . . in 2008,” he said. “I think it’s just personal.”

My view is that Peters is strongly motivated for revenge on John Key for ruling him out in 2008.

There is an argument that if Peters holds the balance of power in 2014, the bigger revenge would be to keep National in Govt but reliant and subservient to Winston, rather than sacking him.

The factors at play, if Peters holds the balance of power (and assuming National does not rule him out as they did in 2008 and 2011) are:

• Biggest party – Peters has always said he would negotiate with the biggest party first. Note that does not mean conclude a deal.
• No of parties needed to form a Govt – better to be the No 2 party in Govt than the No 3 party.
• Policy alignment
• Relationships with leader and front-bench

The first two factors favour National, the last two favour Labour.

NewstalkZB reports:

Phil Goff says newspapers’ biased coverage of last year’s election certainly didn’t help his result.

He led Labour to its worst-ever defeat, and a Massey University expert says he has grounds to feel he was unfairly treated by four of the country’s biggest newspapers.

Associate Professor Claire Robinson has assessed all the images run in those papers in the last month of the campaign, and found John Key’s picture featured 138 times while Mr Goff featured only 80 times.

“It would have substantially helped to have had favourable coverage and greater coverage, and particularly of photos,” said Mr Goff.

Yeah, you lost because there were not enough photos of you!

If Goff thinks Labour would have won if there were more photos of him – why then did his own campaign team decide not to have photos of him on their billboards and hoardings!!! Their campaign strategy was based on promoting Labour, and not promoting Goff, as they knew he was a negative for many people.

John Key launched the “Kicking the Tyres” book reviewing the 2011 election last night. He referred to the aforementioned study, and commented that he may have had more photos of him, than Phil Goff, but most of his were with John Banks and were not necessarily that helpful

I’ve purchased a copy of the book and am looking forward to reading the various chapters.

UPDATE: Poneke also analyses the study:

Dr Robinson’s research looks flawed because it treats the election campaign as a two-party race between Mr Key and Mr Goff when in fact it was a multi-party contest between National, Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, ACT, the Maori Party, Peter Dunn and Mana, to name most of the main contenders.

I think that is  valid point. We are no longer in FPP where it is National v Labour. The analysis would be better looking at centre-right v centre-left.

It is also flawed because it examines the content of just four newspapers, whereas the election campaign was a cacophony of coverage by newspapers, television stations, radio stations and countless websites, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds.

I’m not sure that is a flaw, more a limitation.

An interesting interview with John Key by Audrey Young. Some extracts:

Who first suggested you visit Burma?

My trusty foreign policy adviser [Ben King] and it worked because of location – it is close to Cambodia – and because we as a Government genuinely do believe that the Myanmar [Burma] Government is making progress. I don’t think we are naive to that progress. We understand it is not all perfect. It’s a long way from perfection, but fairly much every country is recognising them now and taking sanctions off them and trying to encourage them. The other EAS leaders have been very strong in their personal views to me. Certainly [President Susilo Bambang] Yudhoyono of Indonesia and [Prime Minister] Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore have been very much of the view that [Burmese President] Thein Sein is quite genuine in his progress. …

You said in a press briefing with President Thein Sein that New Zealanders were passionate about human rights.

I care about people’s human rights and, as a country, we have a very proud record indeed. But I’m also realistic about what we can do … we can raise those issues with leaders and we can talk about those issues, and we do that. Moral persuasion over a period of time makes a difference, but we shouldn’t be naive to think that just because we raise it in a meeting it will make all those problems go away. It won’t and it doesn’t.

Can you have real democracy in Burma and still keep the ban on motorbikes?

You could if the voters had the chance to vote out the Government that had such a policy. But apparently the genesis of the ban was that one of the generals’ sons was killed on one so they just got rid of them.

Amazing. The madness of absolute power.

Do you think he’ll visit New Zealand as President?

My foreign policy adviser keeps reminding me to ask. I am not so confident. I hope so and he will probably come to Australia and he has obviously been before. He might. He really wants to. But the problem is that there just aren’t areas of disagreement. There’s obviously the anti-nuclear issue but that has been put behind us long ago. In a world that is so intense for him with so little … I know he personally wants to.

Ironically, you’re more likely to get a US visit if there is a dispute to help smooth over!

Was it a good trip?

I reckon really good. The thing about EAS is we got everything we wanted. We got the President saying let’s try and get a deal by the end of 2013. We said to him ‘do you want us to say this in the press because [if] you do, it will be reported and we’ll be held to account on it?’ and he said yes, absolutely. That doesn’t mean we’ll get a deal. There’s a lot of scepticism from those that aren’t involved in TPP. But he’s really serious about it. He thinks there aren’t that many levels for him to pull. It’s hard. They’ve got very low interest rates, they’re printing money, they’ve got big fiscal deficits. What things can he do to stimulate the economy? That’s one of them. It might fail but it won’t fail by want of trying.

My reading of this is the US needs the TPP more than NZ does. This doesn’t mean NZ should be unreasonable and try to screw the US over in negotiations. But it does mean that the NZ position on issues such as the proposed IP chapter shouldn’t be traded away.

This is very funny.

Enjoy – captions below. Normal rules.

A fascinating article by Audrey Young:

He is a little regretful at the latest couple of incidents over the shirt and the Beckham conversation.

“From time to time I might push a little bit too hard and I have got to be a bit more careful.”

But essentially he sees it as the media’s problem, not one that comes between him and the public. He hasn’t changed the way he behaves.

“These stories have always been there from time to time. Actually they are an example of where the media is generally out of sync with the public.

“The public talk colloquially, the public’s grammar’s not perfect. They kid around and I don’t think they overly mark me down for that. They just see me as a normal guy.

“I came in as John Key and I’m going out as John Key. The media or our opponents will try and portray that as being too casual. I don’t agree with that.

“You are not going to change me and if you do, it will look like a fraud, it will be a fraud.”

I’m glad he has said that. I’d hate to see Key become one of those politicians who says nothing at all, because it may offend someone. He has an amazing candour about him, and a great sense of humour. Yes sometimes he gets it wrong, but I see his style as a strength – but more importantly it is who he is.

The defensiveness continues with his challenge to show him an example of where he had been required to be incredibly serious and wasn’t.

“I always am. Frankly, I work 19 hours a day pretty much and six-and-a-half days a week. Within those days is a huge range of things I’m doing, a massive range.”

With 30-odd speeches a week and countless briefings on a huge range of subjects, it was little wonder he did not recall everything that was said.

Labour is trying to portray his style as meaning he is detached or lazy. Simply not the case.

He is referring to the fiasco over the spy agency GCSB which told him in September its surveillance of internet mogul Kim Dotcom in January had been unlawful and how it was unable to give him quick answers in preparation for Question Time about the number of briefings he had had.

“I ended up having to do a bit of bloody forensic analysis myself so I called (GCSB boss Ian Fletcher) in later on and said: ‘look, I just don’t think you guys have served me well. I’ve ended having to do all this work and you guys should be able to provide me with those answers’.

“And I said: ‘you’ve really let me down and you need to go away and think about it’.”

He said that conversation was what caused the GCSB to “rip the place apart” and that is when they found a note about a briefing he had had in February.

So it was Key’s ripping the GCSB a new arsehole, that led to them finding the powerpoint presentation.

Key’s relaxed character translates to his leadership style as Prime Minister – it is not hands-on in the way that characterised his predecessor, Helen Clark.

He is said to give his ministers a lot of freedom and is very relaxed with them, right up to the time he needs to be ruthless, as one insider put it.

Like a soft parent, he doesn’t do a lot of reprimanding of ministers, so that when it does happen, it carries a lot of force.

I’ve heard from MPs and Ministers what it is like, when the Prime Minister is not happy with you. You don’t want a repeat experience.

Key is emphatic that he will fight the 2014 election, dismissing claims by commentators that he has somehow lost his mojo. But that doesn’t stop him talking about legacies.

“I want to leave New Zealand in better shape than I found it. I know the job of Prime Minister is not forever and I’m going to do the best I can every day to make that difference.

There is no question he will contest 2014. I wouldn’t guarantee 2017 if he wins in 2014 – and that isn’t a bad thing. Eight years would be a reasonably good tenure.

So if he got hit by a bus this afternoon, who would replace him?

“I had historically always thought it would be Simon Power, but he obviously left.”

He agrees that Bill English, Steven Joyce and Judith Collins would put up their hands – “at least”.

And this is what I like about Key. What other Prime Minister would openly agree about possible contenders to replace him? Almost all other occupants of that office would say something along the lines of “I don’t speculate on hypotheticals”  or “It won’t be my decision” or “It is unhelpful for me to talk on this issue”.

But he reserves his highest praise for Greens co-leader Russel Norman, not Labour’s David Shearer.

“If you want my view, the politician of the year will be Russel Norman by quite some margin.

Heh, mischief making – but also true.

Key says there are three types of issues he has to deal with.

The first are those that just happen on your watch, such as the Christchurch earthquake or the application by a Chinese company to buy Crafar farms.

And for all the opposition to the approval, he is convinced Labour would have dealt with Crafar the same way if it happened under its watch.

“Shearer wouldn’t have been putting up a member’s bill to ban overseas sales (or farmland) or putting a flag on a bloody farm.”

The second type of issues are part of the Government’s agenda, such as the sale of up to 49 per cent of Mighty River Power.

Despite the opposition, National campaigned on it and Key believes National would do itself more damage if it did nothing.

“It’s better to do what you think is right and hopefully (voters) like the prescription. But you can’t be scared of your own shadow.”

The last type of issues are “your own self-inflicted mistakes”.

“Yep, we have a few of those but given the huge number of issues we deal with every day, week after week, month after month, do we get that right more often than we get it wrong?

That’s a useful categorization of the three sort of issues. With respect to the last type, I would make the point that you want greater than a 50/50 “pass” rate. I’m not saying Key is implying 50% is adequate. I agree you will never have no self-inflicted mistakes. The challenge is whether a Minister who makes them learns from their mistakes – or keeps on making them.

A very insightful piece by Audrey Young.

This image from Tumblr of John Key and Ian McKellan is very ironic

You know, having now seen the top, the description isn’t totally inaccurate

Stuff reports:

Key flirted with controversy again that day on the Farming Show radio programme when he slagged off host Jamie Mackay for wearing red.

He said the host would not do well in a charity golf event that afternoon because he was wearing ”that gay red top”.

Key had made the remark after offering to donate up to $10,000 for a charity golf tournament if Mackay shot a hole-in-one.

“You’re going to be nervous when you line up in those par threes now, aren’t you. You’re munted mate, you’re never going to make it. You’ve got that gay red top on there.”

Of course there is outrage. But I think the comments from two gay groups were fairly reasonable:

Rainbow Wellington chairman Tony Simpson said Key may have used the word ‘gay’ in the broader sense, but it was a peculiar choice.

“We won’t get really far as a society if we start walking around calling people names. Hardly seems productive activity.”

Gay Auckland Business Association chief executive Gresham Bradley said he wasn’t offended by Key’s comment, but that it could be taken the wrong way.

“Given the way ‘gay’ is used today as a derogatory remark I’m a bit surprised he would say that,” Bradley said.

“I personally don’t take offence from this coming from John Key, who I know to be a very supportive person of the gay community.

‘‘[However] I think he may wish to consider the wisdom of using that word as people could easily misinterpret his meaning.”

I agree with Gresham. People can misinterpret, especially when it is the PM, so he should avoid the phrase. But can we have less of the hysteria sweeping certain people about it.

Whale Oil notes that Labour’s Welfare Spokesperson Jacinda Ardern tweeted:

I heart @homebrewcrew #NZMA

This is the band whom at the Music Awards said John Key was a cunt who should suck their dicks. They are a Labour favourite who plays at gigs to raise funds for Labour. They encourage people to chant “Fuck John Key” at concerts.

So I’m not surprised Jacinda is a fan. I mean how can you not be if you are a Labour MP. I wonder how they would like it if there was a band which had played lyrics about Helen Clark being a bitch, and encouraged people to chant “fuck Helen Clark” and called her a cunt. Somehow I suspect she would be outraged and complaining to somebody about it.

In a Stuff review it was noted:

Initially, the subject matter might be a bit hard to swallow for some audiences – songs about living on the benefit, being an alcoholic and taking deadly drugs like datura are placed prominently at the start of the album and could come across as flippantly celebratory.

So the lyrics celebrate taking drugs and being on the benefit – how appropriate for Labour’s welfare spokesperson.

But it would be nice to know specifically what part of the performance Jacinda was tweeting her approval of – telling John Key to suck dicks or celebrating being on welfare and drugs?

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has described soccer star David Beckham as being as thick as batshit, Radio New Zealand reported.

During a visit to a high school in Dunedin yesterday Mr Key joked with a group of pupils, saying his son spent 45 minutes with Beckham during the star’s visit.

Beckham came to New Zealand in December 2008 for an Oceania All Stars exhibition match which cost the Auckland region $1.8 million, just a month after John Key was first elected Prime Minister.

Only 16,000 fans attended the match.

Mr Key said Beckham was handsome and a really nice guy to spend that long with his son, but was also as thick as batshit.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think media were present for the comments. Basically they are reporting what was a private conversation. Now that is always a risk for any PM.

Mr Key would not be the first person to question Beckham’s intelligence. One of his celebrated quotes is: “I definitely want Brooklyn to be christened, but I don’t know into what religion yet.”

Oh dear. My other favourite Beckham quote is “My parents have been there for me, ever since I was about 7″

Mountain Scene reports:

Prime Minister uncut in Queenstown

On Kim Dotcom: “That bloke might have Megaupload.com but I’ve got Megaballsup.com. Anyway, it’s great to be here at The Hills. Frankly, after the week I’ve had it’s great to be anywhere other than Wellington.”

Heh. The domain is available for registration.

On the Labour Party: “We’re here to do the opening of the sculpture, The Wolves are Coming. It sounds like the Labour Party.”

On Sir Michael Hill giving him a red ribbon to cut: “I didn’t give [you] a knighthood to be voting Labour, Michael.”

On Deputy Prime Minister Bill English: “He is the shareholding Minister of Air New Zealand which is the airline that failed to get me here.” [Key’s plane was diverted to Dunedin.]

That’s taking ministerial responsibility to a new level!

Stuff reports:

 Mr Shearer admits Labour does not have “a smoking gun”, but says that “at the same time Key can’t prove that he didn’t know.”

What a stupid statement. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to prove they didn’t know something. I call on David Shearer to prove he didn’t know about John Smith jaywalking in Auckland three years ago.

Sad to see David Shearer go down the Phil Goff route.

Fran O’Sullivan notes:

 David Shearer has scored a glorious own goal – the caucus knives will be sharpening.

You don’t make accusations of this nature based on rumour.

David Shearer is sadly descending into the Trevor Mallard rulebook, and making things up. Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Earlier today Labour claimed a tape existed of Key giving speech to staff in cafeteria at the Government Communications Security Bureau’s Wellington headquarters in which he made a quip about Dotcom.

The prudent thing to do if you hear a claim like this, is to substantiate it. You file an Official Information Act request for the tape (or at least confirming the existence of it) or as an MP you can file a written question. Then when you get the answer, you trumpet it.

But just making stuff up, and trumpeting it in a press release, is risking being the Boy who cried wold.

Fletcher said “exhaustive enquries” at the GCSB have revealed no video tape.

And Shearer doesn’t even realise

Labour leader David Shearer had called on the GCSB or Key to confirm if the recording existed.

“There is one way to clear this up. The Prime Minister should give the green light to the agency to release any and all unclassified material about the visit and John Key’s comments to staff,” he said.

Does Shearer not even know the law? The PM is not needed to give a green light. The Official Information Act applies to the GCSB. They are listed in Schedule 1. Unless the material is classified, or otherwise meets a criteria for non-release, the GCSB is required by law to release the material. Also the Ombudsman can investigate and request and decision.

Newstalk ZB also has an interesting story on where Labour may be getting their information from.

We’ve seen an interesting comparison of two parliamentary leaders who have both not recalled a mention of an issue in a briefing or presentation.

In July 2011, then Opposition Leader Phil Goff said that he was “not aware of the allegations” around the Israeli hitchhikers.

More recently John Key said he was unaware of the GCSB involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until a couple of weeks ago.

It turned out in the case of Phil Goff he was briefed personally by the Director of the SIS in March 2011. A contemporaneous file note states that it was on the agenda, that Goff asked a question about it, that it was “discussed at length” and notes that Goff was shown the investigation paper and that Goff read it.

In the case of John Key, the GCSB has said that the PM was not briefed on the case until September 2012, but that at a visit to the GCSB offices in Feb 2012, he was given a powerpoint presentation where the Dotcom issues was briefly mentioned, and an image of Dotcom was one of 11 in a montage. The Director says he does not recall the reference, but his staff say it was mentioned briefly.

Now I have to say I believe both Phil Goff and John Key, in that they didn’t recall their respective issues. I would point out that SIS meeting with Goff was a one on one meeting specially to brief on intelligence issues – not a general “this is what we are up to” type presentation. But regardless both men have hundreds of meetings a month.

Where there is a stark difference, is when documents came to light that highlighted there was a briefing or mention.

Even though there is no written record of the matter being mentioned to him,, and even though the GCSB Director says he doesn’t recall it, John Key has said he accepts the recollection of the other GCSB staff – and at the first opportunity has made public that fact, and has said he will correct the record.

Now compare that to what Phil Goff did.  Phil Goff accused the SIS of lying, and inventing things, and said he would refuse to meet them in the future without witnesses. Even to this day, he refuses to admit his memory may have been faulty.

I think that speaks volume about character.