Kiwiblog

The Press reports:

Waimakariri Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove faces a crushing defeat as a new poll shows his National rival, Kate Wilkinson, has opened up a huge lead in the seat.

A Fairfax Media-Research International snap poll in the seat put Wilkinson on 53.9 per cent of decided voters against 36 per cent for Cosgrove. The only consolation for Cosgrove is that the poll of 250 voters had a margin of error of 6.2 per cent and a high proportion of undecided voters – 23.5 per cent.

The poll also showed a huge lead for National of 71.9 per cent to Labour’s 17.4 per cent.

That compares with 2008 when National won the party vote in the seat by 49.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent for Labour.

Paul Epplett of Research International said his best explanation for the huge shift in support was related to the earthquake and polling on that had been positive for National.

This will worry Labour greatly, to be 18% behind in a seat they currently hold. Having said that, the party vote figures look a bit extreme to me, so I wouldn’t take the exact margin as gospel.

But what will be worrying Labour, is if one seat they hold now has them 18% behind, what about the others? Their next most marginal seats are Rimutaka, Christchurch Central, Palmerston North, Wellington Central, New Lynn, Hutt South and Te Atatu.

UPDATE: Whale has a post pointing out that the woman in the advertisements Cosgrove is running who says “Why I’m voting for Clayton Cosgrove” is not even registered to vote in Waimakariri – she is on the Te Tai Tonga roll. He couldn’t even find someone from his electorate to endorse him so he got a union official

The photo is from The Press, and for those who can’t recognise him from that view, yes that is the PM (and Kate Wilkinson).

Captions below please – as always they should be funny and not nasty.

UPDATE: Some of my favourites to date are:

• Here do I swear
  By hand and by mouth
  Fealty to Gerry
  King of the South.
• Like this five times a day & no bacon sandwiches.
• Not to be outdone by Air New Zealand, Jetstar begins filming its new safety video.
• PM responds to Treasury advice on Superannuation.
• False alarm – it was just Gerry walking past.

John Key has announced:

Steven Joyce becomes Tertiary Education Minister, allowing Anne Tolley to fully focus her efforts on the Education portfolio, and in particular the implementation of the Government’s national standards policy.

I said almost a year ago that I thought both Education and Tertiary Education was a huge workload, especially with no Associates from your own party.

I will be fascinated as to Steven’s approach to tertiary education. It has quite a few pressure points in it.

Kate Wilkinson becomes Conservation Minister, a portfolio in which she is currently Associate Minister. This change reflects the fact that Tim Groser is frequently out of the country representing New Zealand’s interests in the Trade and Climate Change fields.

In other words Kate has effectively been the Minister, so this makes it official.

Mr Groser, because he has primary ministerial responsibility for the international negotiations aspects of Climate Change, will have a change in title and becomes the Minister Responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations.

That should not take up too much time, as there isn’t much to negotiate. The US, China and India are all running 100 miles an hour away from an agreement.

The SST report:

WORKERS WILL be allowed to swap one week of their holidays for cash from next year.

The government will introduce legislation early in 2010, despite opposition from unions who see it as a move to rewind the Labour government’s law change two years ago, which increased the minimum annual leave entitlement for fulltime workers from three to four weeks.

This was of course election policy. It also may not mean great change for some people as if you do not take all your annual leave, and leave your job, it gets paid out to you anyway. Also it gives an employee the right to sto an employer closing the business for four weeks over summer, and forcing them to take four weeks leave then. They can now only be forced to tale three weeks leave, and get the fourth paid out as extra salary.

The government will also legislate to standardise the rate at which leave is calculated. There will be a single rate of pay for all leave whether annual, sick, bereavement or public. …

Wilkinson said the only workers who would be worse off under the changes were those who engaged in “gaming” the system; for example, by manipulating their work hours to maximise their pay while on leave.

Under current law, holiday payments factor in penal rates in the four weeks before the holiday. An employee could exploit that by working considerable overtime before going on leave.

Seems sensible, and much much easier administratively.

Wilkinson said the review was needed because the current system was so complex and confusing that even the courts had trouble determining disputes between employers and employees over rates of pay for leave.

“We are not reducing entitlements. We think the new formula for relevant daily pay will be easier to calculate. We also think it will be fairer to employees and employers and prevent the `gaming’ of relevant daily pay calculations.”

I suspect very few employers apply the law absolutely correctly because it is so difficult to understand. Most just pay leave at the normal rate anyway I suspect.

Helen Kelly, president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and a member of the review panel, was worried the government would allow bosses to transfer days in lieu and public holidays to avoid paying double time.

Although she was happy with the proposals as they stood, she was concerned that the final legislation could go further than the report, leaving workers worse off.

“There should be a condition [in the legislation] that the reason for transferring is not to avoid paying time-and-a-half.”

Nice to see a constructive approach by the CTU. They will of course be against the cashing in a weeks leave, but pleased to see not against the other changes necessarily.

Some workers spoken to by the Star-Times were pleased to hear of the law change, saying they would be keen to cash in their leave. Others though, would not. “Hell no, I don’t need the money…I would rather take the break from work,” said one.

And now they will have the choice, so both camps can be happy. Different employees have different needs. Those with kids probably love having a 4th week leave. Those without kids are more likely to love being able to earn some extra money by only taking three weeks. And there are also those in positions who find it hell to take too long a break, as the work piles up so much in their absence. So not treating all employees as wanting the same thing is good.

Among the 241 submissions was a call for March 18 to become a public holiday. Wilkinson said she was “amused” at the suggestion but was not interested in “legislating for behaviour that condones hangovers or the over-indulgence of alcohol”. March 17 is St Patrick’s Day.

Heh.

No surprise, but the Government has confirmed there will be no mandatory addition of folic acid into bread – at least for the next three years.

Today, Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson said mandatory fortification of bread would be deferred until May 2012.

The Government and Bakers were now likely to focus on introducing a voluntary range of fortified breads.

The deferral was the “best way forward”, Ms Wilkinson said.

“I agree with public health advocates that folic acid is beneficial to the health of women and can prevent neural tube defects, but I also understand consumers overwhelmingly want to be able to choose whether or not the bread they buy is fortified.

“This approach will provide for consumer choice while also helping to address folate deficiency and increase the protection for babies resulting from unplanned pregnancies.”

Works for me.

John Armstrong writes:

The political furore over putting folic acid in bread is not confined to arguing the scientific merits of putting folic acid in bread.

It is about much more than that. It is an argument about the morals of mass medication. That raises all the connotations of “nanny state” knows best .

And no one is against people being able to buy bread with folic acid added to it. But why should every male, and every female aged under 16 or over 50 be dosed with folic acid, when the main benefit of it can not apply to them, and there is some uncertainity about risks.

Her handling of this hot potato has been lambasted largely on the back of a less than impressive performance on TVNZ’s Q&A programme the Sunday before last. Wilkinson seemed woefully under-prepared for the bombardment she received from interviewer Paul Holmes and the Greens’ food safety campaigner, Sue Kedgley. …

While making it clear she was looking for a means for New Zealand to escape its transtasman obligations, she looked like a minister hostage to the advice of her officials and seemingly powerless. Her solution that the decision to mix folic acid into bread be reviewed after its introduction may have satisfied legal considerations but it seemed somewhat farcical.

There were three basic positions you could take. One is you are against compulsory addition of folic acid in bread and are not going to let it happen. Another is you think it is a good thing to have folic acid added to bread and defend that decision. The third is that you are against adding folic acid to all bread, but won’t or can’t stop it happening. That is the worst position to adopt as it is saying I agree it is wrong, but I’ll let this bad thing still happen because I am powerless. It is a lesson for other Ministers.

Exit Wilkinson. Enter the Prime Minister. The Government will release a discussion document tomorrow with three options – deferral, rejection or the status quo. But Key has already said he prefers deferral, bringing the matter to a close. If this is another example of Key’s brute pragmatism, there are also lessons for his Administration.

The reason Key is so popular, is he is always getting involved and sorting out problems like this one, the old s92A etc etc. But over the longer term, the Government as a whole needs to be seen as performing very well – not just the Prime Minister.

Labour’s unwavering backing for folic acid in bread might have meant the issue was dead in terms of parliamentary politics. However, it has turned out to be very much alive politically outside the Beltway.

And Labour still back the mass medicating of folic acid. This means it may be an issue in the 2011 election as Labour will effectively be campaigning on their plans to make folic acid compulsory in bread. The review of the decision is timed for just a few months after the 2011 election so parties will be expected to have a position.

According to the Sunday Star-Times, Cabinet tomorrow will throw out Labour’s decision to introduce mandatory addition of folic acid to bread:

THE BUN-FIGHT is over. Bakers will not be forced by law to add folic acid to our bread, bagels, crumpets and English muffins. The Key government will announce this week that it is throwing out the former government’s policy.

Cabinet is expected to formalise the government’s position when it meets tomorrow, effectively putting the controversial issue on the back burner for three years and, crucially, beyond the next election.

The government is not convinced that making folic acid a compulsory ingredient in all bread is necessary, and wants more time to assess the evidence. Folic acid has been shown to reduce the risk of babies being born with defects such as spina bifida, but bakers say women would need to eat at least 11 slices of bread a day to make a difference to the health of their unborn child.

The Key government favours a voluntary regime. It has been looking for a way to wriggle out of the trans-Tasman agreement, struck by the former Labour government, and due to take effect on September 1.

Community pressure mounted as the deadline approached. Radio talkback shows were last week inundated with indignant callers.

The Star-Times understands that Food Minister Kate Wilkinson on Thursday reached an agreement with the Australian parliamentary secretary for health, Mark Butler, that exempts New Zealand from the new standard.

That is a nice exclusive for the SST, by their political editor Grahame Armstrong.

And the agreement with Australia is much better than unilaterally pulling out. As I have said before, Australian politicians will understand how something can become a major issue.

Under the trans-Tasman agreement, folic acid was to be mandatory in all wheat flour products, including sweet breads and rolls, bagels, foccacia, English muffins and flat breads that contain yeast.

Crumpets, scones, pancakes, pikelets, crepes, yeast donuts, pizza bases and crumbed products were also to be fortified with folic acid.

It was going to be in pizzas also?

Katherine Rich, chief executive of the Food and Grocery Council, said many New Zealanders would breathe a sigh of relief because they did not like the idea of the government tampering with their bread.

There were genuine concerns about the health effects and the prime minister was right to delay any decision until all the facts were known, she said. It was also an issue about freedom of choice.

“It’s quite a scary intervention to dose an entire country,” Rich, a former National MP, said.

“A trip to the baker should not be a trip to the chemist.”

Heh – nice line.

The Herald on Sunday also reveals that Rodney Hide has warned and lobbied fellow Ministers about the issue three months ago.

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

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

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

PAUL Well then do it.

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

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

SUE And then review it.

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

Ouch.

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

PAUL Oh so we have three months of possible poisoning.

Holmes was very worked up on this issue.

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

SUE That is right.

PAUL And you are gonna put that in my bread?

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

KATE Yes she does.

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

Never good when you let Sue Kedgley answer on your behalf

Worth remembering this, from NZPA:

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

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

Former National MP Katherine Rich is now Chief Executive of the Food and Grocery Council. She writes:

If any government decides to mass-medicate every bread-buying New Zealander with a certain additive, it has to be very sure that the costs to the community don’t outweigh any health benefits, and that there are no long-term ill-effects on the population.

Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson faces an interesting test as she decides whether to review or delay a controversial new food standard, which will force all bakers to add folic acid to every single loaf of bread.

The question is, will this centre-right politician – who campaigned vigorously on ridding New Zealand of the “nanny state” – endorse such a major intervention?

An excellent question.

Political ideology and the centre-right principle of freedom of choice aside, however, the big issue is the growing concern that too much folic acid might create long-term health problems for bread-loving Kiwis.

Folic acid has been seen as a miracle vitamin since the 1980s, when increasing pregnant women’s folic acid intake was linked to reductions in birth defects.

No one, and in particular bakers, disputes the beneficial effects on pregnant women. Pregnant women can benefit hugely from taking supplements and eating a healthy diet.

Where some part company is when regulators turn from targeted health programmes for small numbers of women at risk, to a programme of effective mass medication – dosing every man, woman, and child.

I prefer targeting.

Official reports written by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) have been made publicly available. Parts of the reports make disturbing reading to any sandwich-making Kiwi parent.

While it’s been estimated that a pregnant woman will have to eat 11 slices of bread a day to receive the amount of folic acid required, the NZFSA reports confirm in black and white that some New Zealand children will, as a result of mandatory fortification, eat more than their recommended daily intake of folate/folic acid.

In rather alarming advice, the minister at the time was told by NZFSA: “There are unknown risks that may not become apparent for one or two generations. Children will be exposed to much higher levels of folic acid than in previous generations. It may not be until this generation of children have their own children that adverse effects become apparent.”

Does not sound reassuring.

“We continue to have concerns that 13.8 per cent of males aged 5 to 8 years and 8.2 per cent of New Zealand females are going to exceed the upper level intake for folic acid …”

These are the “concerns” that will need to be explained in the event the Government endorses the food standard. It may not be a task the minister will relish.

Katherine is not going soft on her former colleagues!

It’s potentially a very unpopular move.

New Zealanders simply don’t like the idea of governments tampering with their bread. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s own research concluded “84 per cent of consumers interviewed, even after providing information on the reasons for fortification, did not support mandatory fortification”.

So listen to them, and don’t do it.

The birthplace of Labour, West Coast-Tasman went to National on the party vote by 11%. In 2005 the had a 3% margin. Damien O’Connor had a 1,500 majority and lost to Chris Auchinvole by 1,000 votes. Auchinvole (who once famously told Parliament you pronounce his name like it was Dock in Cole or a rude version that is easy to work out) wan a strong campaign with 160 hoardings and a large campaign team. O’Connor is first in on the Labour List, so if Michael Cullen retires he will be back as a List MP.

National finally won the party vote in Nelson. Labour won it by 6% in 2005 but National has a 5% lead in 2008. And no one was surprised that Nick retained his seat, although his majority did shrink from 9,500 to 7,900.

Kaikoura was marginal in 2002 and today the party vote was won by 23%, up from 9% in 2005. Colin King doubled his 4,700 mJority to 10,100.

Clayton Cosgrove did well to hold on in Waimakariri with 500 votes against the competent and hard working Kate Wilkinson. National won the party vote by 15%, up from a 0.3% margin in 2005. Cosgrove’s 2005 majority on new boundaries was 5,000.

Christchurch East remains red with 45% party vote Labour to 36% for National. However that 9% gap is a lot less than 24% in 2005. Dalziel’s 11,000 majority halved to 5,500 – still very safe. However National now has a List MP in the seat and will have hopes for when Lianne retires.

Christchurch Central was a great battle. Labour won the party vote by 1.4% and held the seat by 900 votes only. Nicky Wagner ran a very strong campaign but seats ending in Central are very hard to win for National. In 2005 the party vote margin was 22% and the majority for Barnett was 7,800.

Ilam has National 53% to 27% on the party vote. Gerry Brownlee also drives his majority from 5,500 to 10,800. This may finally stop Gerry from referring to his seat as marginal

Wigram saw Labour win the party vote by just 2%. In 2005 it was 12%. And Jim Anderton scored a fairly safe 4,500 majority despite new boundaries.

Finally we have Port Hills. National won the party vote by 16%, yet Ruth Dyson held the seat by 3,100. In 2005 Labour won the party vote by 12% so there was a massive swing there, yet Dyson’s majority shrank from just 3,600 to 3,100.

This is on workplace issues. Panelists:

• Trevor Mallard (Lab)
• Sue Bradford (Greens)
• Kate Wilkinson (National)
• Peter Brown (NZ First)

Questions

1. What changes to KiwiSaver and why?
2. What changes to ACC and why?
3. Will you allow grievance free probationary periods?
4. Will you remove the union monopoly on on collective bargaining?
5. Will you change the “relevant daily pay” provisions of the Holidays Act

Kate Wilkinson

1. No policy released. Key has indicated some modest changes to be announced in due course. Against Labour’s KiwiSaver amendment passed this morning that makes total remuneration packages illegal
2. Will investigate opening the work account to competition so incentives are there for good safety practices, and allow employers to insure for a higher stand of cover. Also will have an independent disputes tribunal for ACC to be fair to claimants
3. Yes a 90 day trial period for businesses with less than 20 employees.
4. Yes will allow a collective agreement with no union. Making employees form an incorporated society just to negotiate a collective contract is cumbersome.
5. The Holidays Act is like the blackboard scribblings in A Beautiful Mind. Will appoint business and union reps to a working group to review the Act, esp for relevant daily pay definition. Not to reduce rights but make law more clear.
6. General comment – important to be fair to all parties – no major changes but some improvements

Peter Brown

1. Want to make KiwiSaver compulsory
2. Do not support competition to ACC. Does support an independent disputes tribunal.
3. Missed
4. Passionate about allowing employees to do a collective contract without forming a union, but NZ First does not have policy.
5. Thinks law has settled down but willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Sue Bradford

1. Support Government, think it is great.
2. Oppose any moves to competition. Want more emphasis on equitable compensation regardless of how someone is impaired.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.

Trevor Mallard

1. Missed but I guess no major changes
2. Against
3. Current Act has probationary periods (but grievances still possible)
4. Against
5. Missed

What was interesting is that every speaker against Trevor just spoke to policies and issues while Trevor sounded like he was blogging at The Standard and was referring to Crosby/Textor and the like.

The forced release of substance of National’s KiwiSaver policy is a mess. It comes at a time when Labour have got some momentum from the budget, and National needs to be error free.

I said a few weeks ago that I no longer think Labour can win the election, but that National can still lose it. That still holds true in my opinion. Now this episode by itself is not an election loser, but timing is everything in politics. If the TV stations are polling this week (and they probably are based on their normal cycles) then it may not National back a wee bit, and then you get stories about how the race is back on, and that continues to give Labour the momentum they badly need.

One can only feel some sympathy for Kate Wilkinson, even if tempered with some annoyance. Some MPs are known to be prone to speaking before thinking, but Kate isn’t one of them. It was an uncharacteristic mistake, but it really shows the importance of being very very guarded with speculation on policy – especially when Trevor Mallard is in the room! Trevor hasn’t looked this happy since he biffed Tau

The somewhat ironic thing is that it is a no brainer that eventually National would announce it would keep compulsory employer contributions to KiwiSaver. regardless of whether one approves of the policy, you can’t change it once 600,000 people have made investment decisions based on it. If you were going to not keep the contributions, you would have to have said so almost immediately so that people signing up would be aware that a change in Government would lead to no compulsory employer contribution.

National could have come out and said this at an earlier stage. But it presumably is looking at having some minor differences, and wanted to release a full policy on a timetable of its making. There are in fact two related but different issues with regards to the employer contribution. The first is whether it will be compulsory, and at what rate. The second is what subsidy the Government will pay employers as partial compensation.

John Armstrong makes a fair point:

The more obvious it appears that National is heading into Government and the longer it holds out on clarifying its stance on major policy matters, the more not-so-experienced MPs like Wilkinson are going to come under pressure at such meetings to spell out what the party would do differently.

Vernon Small also makes a similiar point:

But in “clarifying” her blunder National has announced what amounted to a $2 billion spending commitment over four years to a policy which is proving very popular – with 600,000 already signed up – and rather than doing it at a time of their choosing they have been forced to scramble out an announcement as a political save.

I guess that’s what happens in a policy vacuum;  there are just too many things you can’t say and too many things you might say.

To be fair, the budget was only a couple of working days ago, and there is a lot of work to be done on having a balanced alternative budget. So I suspect we will see a focus on policies with relatively minor costs (policy rather than spending) in the immediate future, and then some more of the bigger costing items once the sums are done.