Kiwiblog

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

Chris Trotter writes at Stuff:

At the risk of being branded a “traitor”, I’m declaring my support for the Crafar farms sale. Not because I like seeing productive New Zealand farmland pass into the hands of foreigners, I don’t.

The reason I’m in favour is because I believe New Zealanders should keep their promises and fulfil their undertakings.

In 2008, this country ratified a free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China. It was hailed as the most important foreign policy and trade achievement of the 1999-2008 Helen Clark-led government. Not only was it the first such agreement to be signed between China and a Western-style democracy, but it also offered New Zealand businesses immense economic opportunities. …

It was all the more perplexing, then, to hear Opposition leader David Shearer declaring his and the Labour Party’s opposition to the sale. It’s simply inconceivable that Mr Shearer is unaware of the MFN prohibition against denying China the same right to buy land as the nations that bought upwards of 650,000 hectares of our national patrimony exercised when Helen Clark was Prime Minister, and Mr Shearer’s friend (and former boss) Phil Goff was the Minister of Trade.

To avoid the inevitable charges of rank hypocrisy and populist opportunism, Mr Shearer needed to accompany his statement opposing the sale with an announcement that Labour was committed, immediately on regaining office, to repudiating the New Zealand-China FTA and tightening up the legislation regulating overseas investment.

I’m still waiting for those other shoes to drop. And, frankly, I think I’ll go on waiting. Why? Because I simply don’t believe Labour is about to abandon its long-standing commitment to free trade. Nor am I confident Mr Shearer is any more willing to court the fury and retaliatory trade restrictions of the Chinese government than Mr Key. Both are well aware that this country’s future prosperity is inextricably bound up with China’s.

I actually see the deal as an exciting one. A partnership between Shanghai Pengxin and Landcorp has huge potential opportunities. The combination of their market contacts and capital, and our land and expertise could be golden.

An interesting look at the election results of National and Labour since the first election they both contested.

Up until the 1990s, the gap between the parties was never that huge. A 10% gap was around as big as it got. Then in 1990 one had the first gap of well over 10% – almost 13%.

Then of course in 2002, there was the blowout to Labour who beat National by 20%, much the same as National beat Labour by in 2011.

There was also an interesting trend of declining support for both parties from the 1950s to 1984. We then saw both increase in support as Social Credit died, and then the volatility of MMP.

National’s growth over the last three elections under Brash and Key is quite remarkable.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the various third parties.

APNZ report at NZ Herald:

A reporter from the website Scoop will resign from Parliament’s press gallery after being caught photographing documents in Labour leader David Shearer’s office.

Lyndon Hood was among a number of journalists waiting in the office for an interview with Mr Shearer yesterday afternoon, and was spotted taking photos of documents on the leader’s desk by a Labour Party press secretary.

That is a real shame – both for Lyndon whose better judgement deserted him, but also for media/politican relations generally.

Just as MPs should be able to have a conversation without worrying if someone has a concealed recorder at their table, MPs should be able to have media come into their office and not worry about if they may photograph any documents on their desk.

I understand Labour have recently removed access for journalists to enter their corridors in Parliament. If this is correct, you can’t criticise them for that.

Radio NZ reports:

The Labour Party says it might come as a revelation to some that not all Maori are opposed to mining and oil drilling.

Maori Economic Development spokesperson Shane Jones says there is a fossilised view that Maori aren’t interested or capable of making pragmatic decisions.

While he acknowledges there are been pockets of resistance, Mr Jones says there’s a variety of views – not a monolithic one.

He says oil is the country’s most costly import – a resource within Aotearoa.

What refreshing views from a Labour spokesperson. It would be great to see Labour come out with a policy supporting more use of our natural resources.

Imperator Fish blogs:

The Labour Party has admitted receiving a donation to its coffers from the National Party.

National Party President Peter Goodfellow confirmed the donation yesterday. He said it was a contribution towards the costs of running Labour’s blogsite Red Alert.

“They are doing great work, and we want that to continue,” said Mr Goodfellow.

Heh.

Mr Mallard said he was looking forward to getting heavily into blogging this year.

“We’ve all had some time off and are refreshed, and we’re ready to take the battle to David Farrar.

“We want to focus on the issues that are important to ordinary New Zealanders. Jobs, the economy, and David Farrar.”

I’ve never been an issue before! I have to say I did almost piss myself laughing at it. The irony is that by falsely claiming I was one of those trying to “censor” Red Alert, the end result has been more fuel for those who claim it should be shut down.

Claire Trevett in the NZ Herald reports:

WHAT THEY GAVE
(2008 donation in brackets)
* Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union: $40,000 (2008: $60,000)
* Dairy Workers’ Union: $25,000 (2008: $12,000)
* Maritime Union: $18,500 (2008: none disclosed)
* Meat Workers’ Union: $18,000 (2008: $25,500)
* Service and Food Workers’ Union: $15,000 (2008: $20,000)
* FIRST Union (not affiliated): $4000 (2008: nil)

Donations of over $30,000 must be disclosed within 10 days of being made, but those over $15,000 but no greater than $30,000 do not have to be disclosed until the party does its annual return by 30 April 2012.

The unions here have disclosed early in response to inquiries by the Herald, which is commendable.

In total they gave $110,500 of donations above the disclosure threshold in 2011. In 2008 it was $117,500 so not a lot of change.

National’s donations over $30,000 have already been disclosed and commented upon. It will be interesting to see in early May who else donated above $15,000.

Also of interest is a new requirement (proposed by me, amongst others) that for the first time parties have to reveal the number of donations they received below the individual disclosure limit – in bands. This will give us a more holistic look at how parties are funded, and will also be out in May.

The Herald reports:

Despite the considerable union influence within his party and calls for him to offer support to Maritime Union members, new Labour leader David Shearer has kept quiet on the matter.

Yesterday Labour industrial relations spokeswoman Darien Fenton, who has been spotted on the picket line at the port, said her party was not taking sides in the dispute.

“We’ve been hoping that the parties will settle this, that they’ll find a way through this.”

You’ve been on the picket line, and now you’re saying you’re not taking sides? I think someone has squashed Darien.

Ms Fenton said Mr Shearer had been in regular touch with both sides, “and he’s in contact with me and we’re all discussing it regularly”.

“Our strong view at this point is it’s not helpful for politicians to get involved.”

Apart from being on the picket line?

I suspect that strong view is Mr Shearer’s.

Chris Trotter did an open letter to Shearer yesterday urging him to wade in:

Ultimately, isn’t it about answering the question: “Who is strong enough to stop the stone-throwers?” The men and women who formed the Labour Party in 1916 decided that the answer to that question was the State. If the State could be made to stop working for those who already exercised power, and began instead to work for those who were powerless, then a political party seeking to put an end to poverty, war and injustice would have a fighting chance.

Labour was formed to create a State that wasn’t neutral; a state that never stood on the side-lines when working people were being threatened and abused. Labour was about intervention: constant, massive, intelligent and creative intervention on behalf of the weak and against the strong.

It’s time to bid farewell to the white sands and the Pohutukawa blossoms, Mr Shearer, and come on down to the Auckland wharves. It’s time to cast aside the gathered cloaks of a spurious and culpable “neutrality” and place yourself and your party between the stone-throwers and their victims. It’s time to end the silence.

Even funner than Plunket in Metro, was the column by David Slack. Again well worth buying a copy to read the full thing, but let me share some extracts from Slack’s Captain Log for David Shearer:

Day One: I have had the privilege of meeting some truly fascinating people in my life. Energetic people. Inspiring people. Imaginative people. People whose work fills you with hope. I look around the caucus room again. I miss those people.

LOL.

Day Two: Quietly kicking myself. I’ve dealt with Somali warlords who got along better than this.

He then decides to take the Labour caucus on a bonding retreat to Somalia.

Day 68: Trevor asking awkward questions about the funding for the trip. Quietly kicking myself for taking up Hooton’s offer. Still can’t believe how fast he and his mates came up with the money …

Walk up and down the plane. They all have their gripes. Parker’s complaining he didn’t get his special meal. Street wants a window seat. King wants the same one. Ross Robertson gets sniffy when I don’t recognise him and ask him for ID.

Heh.

Clare Curran wants to show me what she’s read on a blog about “chemtrails“. Sit down next to her and use up three hours pointing out the window, drawing diagrams, explaining sunlight, temperature, wind shear, humidity levels, aeronautics and conspiracy nutbars. Think we’ve got it all squared away but then she says “Bout of course that’s what Fox News wants people to think isn’t it?”

ROTFLMAO.

Then over in Somalia the bus break downs.

Day 71. Arrive back with replacement bus. Shambles. Laundry hanging out of windows. Trevor has a card school going. Do a head count. One missing.

“Where’s Charles?” I ask. Without looking up from his hand, Trevor says: “Flogged down a Mercedes and pissed off back to Mogadishu to look for a four seasons.”

And the wonderful ending:

Just then there’s a toot of a horn and a cheery “Hi-de-hi” from outsid. Look out the window to see what’s going on. Great. Chris Carter.

I’m going to have to read Metro more often!

Brian Edwards blogs on the Josie Pagani (and interestingly notes she used to be his producer) op ed on Labour, and comes up with his own list of why Labour did so poorly. I agree with some of what Brian has said, but not all so will go through them in turn.

The extreme improbability of any political party in New Zealand being voted out after just one term in office

That is a factor in why National got re-elected but less so about why Labour dropped 7%. I would also note that under MMP getting a second term is not so easy – at the end of the day we avoided a hung Parliament by just one seat.

The nation’s love affair with John Key, without doubt the greatest exponent of the photo opportunity and ‘skinetics’ in the history of New Zealand politics;

Yes John Key is popular, and this was definitely a factor. But the implication that it is all about photo opportunities falls into the trap so many on the left make of under-estimating Key, and thinking he is just “smile and wave”. I’m not saying Dr Edwards does as he has written in more detail on Key previously, but just in this post the reasons Key are so popular are not explored much – especially the fact he ran a very moderate and centrist first term programme (second term is less centrist), that he was hugely reassuring on the economy (ask anyone who has been to a business breakfast where he talks about the issues), that he has opened up the books on MPs and Ministers spending, that he will back down on some (but not all) issues etc etc.

The relative lack of voter enthusiasm for Phil Goff

This was one of the larger factors. And it generally wasn’t anything Goff could change. Putting up someone who entered Parliament 30 years ago as the face for the future was always going to be hugely difficult. Add to that his mishandling of the Richard Worth allegations, the Darren Hughes allegations and even the SIS briefing, and his ratings stayed massively low until the campaign period itself.

Earthquakes, mining and shipping disasters which, in media terms, disadvantage those not in power and unable to influence events;

Yes, but only with a caveat – so long as the Government in power responds competently to them. Hurricane Katrina didn’t exactly help the Bush Administration. And the hysteria around the Rena in the early days wasn’t great either.

The Rugby World Cup, a convenient distraction for National shortly before the election;

The more major impact is that it shortened the campaign period during which people started to tune into Labour. But having said that, Labour then dropped away during the same campaign period.

The general euphoria that winning the Cup produced;

Must thank Helen and Trevor for bidding to host it in an election year.

Widespread voter disengagement from politics, particularly on the Left.

But why? The Greens did well.

The self-fulfilling nature of three  years of polls branding Key and National  sure-fire winners and Goff and Labour sure-fire losers.

That definitely does have an impact.

Labour’s courage in advancing policies that made long-term economic sense, but were highly unattractive to voters in the short term: a capital gains tax and raising the age of eligibility for the pension.  

I’m not sure the CGT or superannuation policy (both which I supported to some degree) turned off many voters. Maybe the superannuation one delivered a few to Winston.

I think the pledging an extra $70 a week to beneficiaries with children and only $10 a week to working parents with children went down like cold sick.

I also think Goff fumbling the numbers, combined with policies requiring more borrowing in the next seven years (even by Labour’s numbers) were a significant factor.

Nor was Goff helped by the idiotic decision of Labour’s campaign team not to have a Party launch and not to feature the Party Leader on any of their election billboards. The only possible interpretation that could be placed on this hare-brained scheme was that Labour was embarrassed by Goff and wanted him kept in the background. And that is precisely the interpretation that the media, political commentators and, I suspect, voters placed on it.

Yep, a very stupid decision. And the question that hasn’t been answered is who made that decision? Is he now the Deputy Leader?

Finally, Phil was probably not helped by Helen’s dramatic departure from the scene or by her ordination of him as Labour’s new leader. Having served a parliamentary apprenticeship only three years short of hers, he might just have appreciated another three or six months to get his bearings and turn to her for advice.

I agree this was unhelpful. Not just for the advice, but the fact he gained no profile when he took over, as all the focus was on Key. Labour did it much smarter this time around.

There’s other factors also. The front-bench was all Clark era Ministers. The ongoing series of social media own goals. The smear brochures which people don’t like, the relative strength of the Greens, the u-turns on policy, the three years of attacking every single spending cut and then claiming they will adopt National’s fiscal parameters except in one or two areas. I could go on.

28 Auckland Council Local Board Members have called on Ports of Auckland to surrender to the demands of the Maritime Union, and rule out any contracting out as that will have few work-life balance protections.

I guess having to work more than 28 hours a week to have remuneration of $91,000 would upset the work-life balance.

The majority of the 28 board members are well known Labour activists. Useful of them to provide a hadny list of whom not to vote for.

Worth  noting that the total number of local board members is 148, so 120 have not signed the Labour Party missive.

Today’s Herald editorial:

The Labour Party could bounce back quickly from its heavy election defeat if it heeds the testimony of one of its candidates in a contributed column we published on Friday. Josie Pagani wrote: “We didn’t sound aspirational, we sounded miserable. We were turning up on people’s doorsteps telling them their lives were gloomy …

“The hardest week to door- knock,” she said, “was when we were telling people who had just come home from a day’s work earning the minimum wage, that it was a great idea to extend their Working for Families tax credit to beneficiaries.” She could see them thinking, ‘so what’s the point of working my guts out all week while someone sitting at home on the dole gets the same tax credit as me?’

In a long line of bad policies (and a few good ones), this one was arguably the worst.

Labour’s new leadership will be listening to the likes of Ms Pagani. It has some highly aspirational young candidates who could have expected to come into Parliament if the party had not polled so low in November.

And if their list ranking had not protected incumbents.

If Labour can go to the next election with well-developed ideas for helping people who aspire to work hard, make sound choices, raise happy and healthy children, maybe start a business and invest their savings, it will strike a strong chord. If it can tell people only that they are poor, deprived, under-valued, and obese, it will not give the Government a run for our money.

Wouldn’t it be amazing to have Labour go into an election not vowing to punish the well off and raise taxes on them?

Labour activist Patrick Leyland blogged on Labour’s front bench and how it has only two women, comparing it to previous front benches. His conclusion was the number of women is much the same as it was in the past.

However the Women’s Vice-President of Labour, Kate Sutton, commented:

This is meaningless Patrick. Why don’t you have a look at the last time we didn’t have a woman at number 1 or 2? People can explain their way out of any stats but this front bench is worse for women full stop.

Now that is a damning comment from a party vice-president on their front bench.

Another activist notes:

This is a sad situation, that’s why many Labour women are so unhappy about this recently leadership selection process. It is important for the current leadership team to recognize this issue and reconcile with the general Labour Party membership.

Sounds wide-spread.

One commenter effectively suggested that Jacinda Ardern should be moved from No 4 to No 3, ranking her ahead of Finance Spokesperson David Parker.

A contrary view is given by Meryn:

This is very interesting Patrick. As a woman I am more interested in the content of someone’s beliefs and their ability to sell, then deliver a progressive set of policies to the electorate rather than whether they have a penis or a vagina.

Indeed. I think diversity is useful, but must be secondary to beliefs and ability.

Suri says:

I think you’d be interested to know that many women in the party have directed their disappointment to the caucus. Not one has received a reply back yet.

This has obviously brought to the surface considerable underlying tensions.

Whale has this photo sent in by a reader. MUNZ receives $285,000 rent for space in their building.It is unknown how much comes from the electorate office rental.

MUNZ only has 2,580 members today. Doing pretty well to own their own building. Of course it helps if you have Labour MPs having the taxpayer pay rent on their behalf.

I’m generally against electorate offices being rented from political parties, or people or groups affiliated to a political party. A total ban is difficult as some MPs have purchased an electorate office so that they can secure the location, and in fact rent them back at well below market rentals.

However despite their good intentions, I think it is time to put in place a ban, so that unions and parties do not get this backdoor funding. The latest review of parliamentary spending recommended:

That MPs entering Parliament from the next general election not be able to receive public funding for out-of-Parliament offices owned by an MP or an interested party. The funding for premises owned directly or indirectly by current MPs should be grand-parented while the MP continues in Parliament.

MUNZ is affiliated to the Labour Party and should be seen as an interested party.

Another alternative to a ban, is my suggestion to have the rent set at say 66% or 75% of the market rate, so that the party or union or MP is not seen to be benefiting from the arrangement.

Denis Welch blogs:

The Labour Party’s silence on the Ports of Auckland dispute is getting louder. Robert Winter has drawn attention to this in an excellent post: he says the dispute has become, potentially, the first defining moment for Labour under the new leadership of David Shearer, and they have to ‘step up and come out swinging on this issue.’

We wish. What is already remarkable about the dispute is how depoliticized it is, with not just Labour but all political parties keeping well clear of it. It’s a far cry from the days when ministers personally intervened in industrial action and Labour politicians sided with striking workers, even joining them on the picket line.

Oh I would love to see Labour MPs out on the wharfie picket line. That would be the best Xmas present ever.

But unless David Shearer is a moron, he will not be getting involved in this industrial dispute – especially as public support for the wharfies is confined to the UNITE union and the hard left.

When Denis Welch and Robert Winter urge David Shearer to get involved as a test of his leadership, they are not advocating in the best interests of the Labour Party – they are advocating for their views (nothing wrong with that) which are far to the left of Labour.

I don’t know if anyone has approached Shearer for comment or asked, um, wait a minute, who is Labour’s spokesperson on labour issues? I just looked it up: it’s Darien Fenton. Who knew? She may well be intensely credible on industrial relations but I don’t believe we’ve heard from her yet on the ports dispute.

I presume they have sedated Darien to stop her joining the picket line

The only Labourish public figure to even put a fingertip over the trenches so far is Auckland mayor Len Brown, and he has come down on the woolly side of woofterish by declaring resoundingly that he supports both sides.

There is an unhappy echo there of Walter Nash’s infamous response to the 1951 waterfront dispute when he was Labour’s leader: asked whether he supported the watersiders he said he was neither for nor against them. I have a horrible feeling that Shearer, if he ever does comment, will say much the same thing.

Shearer should choose his words more carefully than Brown, but he absolutely should not come out swinging for the Maritime Union. It would just pigeon hole him as captive to the unions which fund the Labour Party (MUNZ is one of them). Only 25% of NZers voted for Labour. I suspect not even a majority of those 25% have sympathy for militant industrial action from a union representing what must be the most highly paid unskilled jobs in New Zealand.

At the most you might get Shearer saying that he is against contracting out (as this is existing Labour policy), and wants both sides to reach a settlement. But he should resist all efforts to get him involved. He is the leader of the parliamentary labour party and of the opposition – he is not a union spokesman. Clark would have never got involved, and Shearer shouldn’t either.

Talking of MPs with a view though, a good column from Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross. He notes:

Every Aucklander has a stake in the Ports of Auckland. It is not a privately owned company. Nor is it listed on any stock exchange. Each and every share in the company is owned by the Auckland Council on behalf of 1.4 million Auckland residents and ratepayers. The destruction in value in one of our city’s largest public assets is alarming and has to be of concern to us all. …

But numbers aside, it is obvious that losing the trade of New Zealand’s largest company, only a month after losing the business of one of the worlds largest shipping lines, has to be a wakeup call. Yet sadly for the Maritime Union, it isn’t. Sadly for port workers and Aucklanders alike, the Maritime Union continues to be unphased.

This isn’t a story of a greedy corporate hammering the little guy. This isn’t a story of a David versus Goliath battle where workers are being ripped off or paid a pittance. Few could call poverty on an average annual wage for a wharfie understood to be north of $90,000, with a proposed 10 percent hourly rate increase and performance bonuses of up to 20 percent, sitting on the table. To the average person on the street, the latest Ports of Auckland offer to the Union would almost seem generous.

It would be most interesting if the Herald (or someone) did a poll to ascertain the public’s views on the stand off.

The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.

Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.

Unions do get many major legislative advantages. These should be reviewed. Take just one – why should employers act as unpaid fee collection agents for unions?

I say unions should be like any other incorporated society – let them invoice their members directly for their membership fees.

UPDATE: It seems Labour Whip Darien Fenton has been spotted on the picket line. No surprise, but will we see other Labour MPs join her?

The Dom Post editorial:

As new Labour leader David Shearer embarks on the daunting task of reconnecting his party with the people who used to vote for it, he could do worse than take note of recent developments in Britain.

There, Liam Byrne, the British Labour Party’s spokesman on work and pensions, has written an extraordinary article calling for a radical rethink of the welfare policy his party first introduced almost seven decades ago. …

Byrne lauds him for his vision, but says he would be worried by the way his system has “skewed social behaviour” by creating long-term dependency. “For him ‘idleness’ was an evil every bit as insidious as disease or squalor,” writes Byrne. “He wanted a responsible government taking determined action to create work, but a responsible workforce too.”

Michael Joseph Savage, the architect of New Zealand’s welfare state, believed everybody, as a right of citizenship, was entitled to “a reasonable standard of living in the days when they are unable to look after themselves, whether it be because of old age or physical infirmity”. However, he also believed in the dignity of the working man.

It is inconceivable that Savage and his colleagues ever viewed welfare as a valid alternative to work, as some of their successors appear to do.

Labour campaigned at the last election that working poor with children will get an extra $10/week and those not working with children will get an extra $70/week. What an awful incentive and message they were sending out.

In New Zealand, as in Britain, the challenge for Labour is to reconnect the party with the working man, and woman.

A good start would be for David Shearer to announce the scrapping of their 2011 policy to pay beneficiaries $70/week more to not be in employment.

Jordan Carter blogs:

Here’s my short list for starters, of a few problems we really need to face.

• a record low vote, lowest since the 1920s
• low and static membership in the past three years
• over centralisation of control over policy and strategy, with too little power for members
• an inward focused ‘divide the pie’ approach by too many party units
• a cultural acceptance of low to no organisation in too many places, and a related culture of federalism divided between electorates rather than a sense of a nation-wide, cooperating organisation
• too much belief that our connections with a wide range of Kiwis are strong, when they are weak
• a sense that we ‘own’ the voters that went to the greens and nzf, and that they are bound to return to us
• a perception among some parts of the electorate that we are out of touch with their hopes and dreams
• a structure that incentivises our inward focus

It’s a long list to which I am sure you can add things, friend or foe.

The main thing I would add is killing off the culture of the ends justify the means. Some will say there is no such culture, but it has been shown time after time again. There is the belief that they are inherently good, and that those from the centre-right are inherently bad, so hence anything which helps deliver Labour to victory is culturally acceptable.

Danyl at Dim Post has his own key thing to change:

I’d narrow almost all of this down to the problem of candidate selection. The primary goal of a candidate is to win votes for themselves and the party, but Labour doesn’t seem to value this quality in any of their candidates or MPs. They’re chosen for attributes that seem mysterious to the rest of the country, usually from a small pool of parliamentary staffers, unionists and activists and then farmed out to electorates to which they pretend some spurious connection (‘whanau in the region’).

I’ve just been doing an analysis of which Labour candidates did best at getting people who party vote National to vote for them – ie those who can attract support from across the spectrum.  The three best are Ross Robertson, Lianne Dalziel and Clayton Cosgrove who attracted 27%, 24% and 21% of National voters respectively.

The three worse were Jeremy Greenbrook-Held (he was against John Key) who got 0.3%, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle who got 0.4% and the Taupo candidates whose name I can’t even recall who got 0.5% – ie less than 1 in 200 National party voters gave their candidate vote to the candidate from the second largest party. The average was 5.4%, or around 1 in 20.

Take Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, a Labour communications advisor who was given a high list position (although not high enough) and ran as a candidate in Tauranga, explaining that she grew up ‘further along State Highway One’ (SH1 does not run through, or near Tauranga). With Mahuta Coyle as a candidate Labour’s party vote in Tauranga was one of the worst in the entire country, declining by 33% (Labour’s nationwide decline was 20%).

And as I mentioned failed to attract even 1 in 200 of those who did vote National on the party vote. This is not to say that Mahuta-Coyle would not be a very good MP, but different qualities can be needed to also be a good candidate who can attract both party and electorate votes.

Nationals’ backbench electorate MPs drive the party’s Wellington based political staffers crazy, because they’re always running off to the Prime Minister and complaining about ‘some trivial little rural issue that no one in Wellington cares about’. Labour’s MPs are, increasingly, former political staffers who share the same elite background and Wellington-centric focus.

This is basically true, and it is important to have this tension. I’ve been a Wellington based staffer and certain MPs did drive you batty over issues you just knew were of no importance to the press gallery, the leadership etc. However those backbench MPs would go on to win massive majorities as they were in touch with their communities and helping stop their party from getting too out of touch with life outside Wellington. Parties need those backbench electorate MPs to keep raising those local issues.

Jordan endorses getting in touch with the voters, and Shearer’s said the same thing. Great. But Phil Goff spent a year ‘getting in touch with voters’ after the loss in 2008. The Labour team drove around the country in a bus singing songs and meeting with ‘real New Zealanders’ like, uh, Darren Hughes’ uncle. Goff then went back to Wellington and cheerfully went about promoting his own office staffers as electorate candidates, including Mahuta-Coyle.

The number of former political staff in the Labour caucus is large – Shearer himself, Robertson, Ardern, Hipkins for a start – three of the top four plus the Chief Whip. Then you also have Cosgrove, Faafoi, Mallard and David Clark. That’s almost a quarter of the caucus.

If Labour decided to operate selections on a one member one vote basis, it would solve Danyl’s problem, but also help solve Jordan’s problem of low and static membership, over-centralisation, low to no organisation in some places.

National’s electorate selection process is incredibly democratic. So democratic there are regular occasions when I groan at whom the locals have voted for, and I wish myself and a few mates could decide all the selections. But the reality is I would never want to give up a system where the grass-roots members decide whom their local candidate is – the benefits of having them do so are significant.

One person, one vote, is a pretty good basis for voting personally. Labour should try it some time.

Some extracts from the speech:

The Maori Party is right to force poverty into the Government’s line of sight.

And today I repeat my invitation to the Government: Make that committee a committee of this House.

The Prime Minister should know this is not an issue to play politics over.

It sounds very nice to say let’s all work together to fight poverty, just as it sounds very nice to say let’s all work together to reform the tax system. But the reality is that the parties have massive policy differences on these issues. Yes they tend to agree on the desired outcome, but just two weeks ago Labour’s policy of giving beneficiaries an extra $70 a week to be on a benefit got rejected by the electorate, and National’s welfare reform policies for effectively endorsed.

If David Shearer is saying there is a realistic possibility that Labour will support the outlined welfare reforms, support the starter wage to get young people into work, and will drop its $70/week pledge – then there might be some merit in a multi-party approach.

This Labour Party will put growing the pie for all New Zealanders at the front of our agenda.

We cannot be content dividing an ever shrinking pie. It means growing the nation’s wealth.

Labour will grasp the mantle of economic leadership. We will look to expand opportunity for all New Zealanders, wherever they are born or whoever they are born to.

Excellent. A Labour Party which talks about growing the pie is a good thing.

We must build an economy that produces good jobs and decent incomes.

Yes, but for an un-skilled 16 year old seeking some part-time work after school, $12 per hour is a good job and a decent income. It may not be for a skilled 35 year old in full-time work who is the primary income earner, but let’s be careful in our desire to lift wages for the latter category, we don’t destroy jobs for the former. Decent incomes come from increases in productivity – not via legislative fiat.

We need a school system that gives our children the confidence and skills to be leaders in a new economy.

It’s too easy for a school leaver to drift out of school, and they’re lost.

I agree. I look forward to Labour supporting national standards as a first step to identifying those who need assistance before they become lost.

I’m never going to agree with most of Labour’s policies. However there are some glimmers of hope there that there will be at least some things I agree with. The focus on growing the cake, not just dividing it up, is especially welcome.

I’m liking Shane Jones on the front bench of Labour.

First he says:

Labour MP Shane Jones says his party has to realise that National has the numbers to push through state asset sales, and he will not criticise iwi which wish to invest in them.

Yesterday Mr Jones said that although Labour opposed state asset sales they were now inevitable and iwi wanting to invest in them for commercial reasons should not be pilloried.

He indicated a more pragmatic stance on the issue was ahead as Labour sought to re-build its links with business and enterprises.

I suspect Labour may make the mistake of trying to refight the 2011 election in 2014. I doubt asset sales will be an issue in 2014. They will have occurred, and the sky will not have fallen in. Prices would not have gone up beyond normal, and the only difference is we’ll have less debt, lower dividends plus lower interest payments on the reduced debt and 100,000+ new shareholders in them. I doubt National will promise any further part-sales in 2014, and most people will wonder what the fuss was about.

Anyway today Shane has also said:

Labour’s Shane Jones is back on the front bench and signalling his intention to shake things up by championing mining for job-starved regions.

Jones was one of the winners in Labour’s refresh yesterday, returning to the front bench after a fall from grace over revelations he charged blue movies to his ministerial credit card while a minister in the Helen Clark government.

His return signals his rehabilitation is complete and he is being lined up by new leader David Shearer to take on NZ First leader Winston Peters, who will square off with Labour from the Opposition front benches.

Jones picked up the regional development, associate finance and Maori economic development portfolios and he said yesterday unemployment in provincial New Zealand, responsible for other social ills, would be his big focus.

That meant weighing up job opportunities in “the extractive industries”, including mining, against the party’s environmental message.

Excellent. This is looking to be a far less ideological front bench – and that is a good thing.

The details are here.

I’m somewhat amazed that Jacinda has been put ahead of David Cunliffe into Spot No 4. Good God, if she had actually won back Auckland Central, I can only imagine they would have made her Governor-General.

Don’t let anyone think I don’t rate Jacinda’s abilities. From before she entered Parliament I was sure she would be front bench some day, and maybe deputy leader or higher. I’m just not sure what has been achieved in her first term, that would have you at No 4. When you compare what National’s No 4 Steven Joyce has achieved both outside and inside Parliament, it seems a mismatch.

Nevertheless it is a huge opportunity for Jacinda. If she performs well, she will be a strong contender for Deputy Leader, when Grant becomes Leader.

It is interesting that while the lineup is fresh in terms of MP experience, three of the most senior members are all former Prime Ministerial staffers for Helen Clark – the deputy leader, the No 4 and the chief whip.

Cunliffe against Joyce in Economic Development is a good choice. Should be some spirited jousts.

Cosgrove gets SOEs and Trade. Will be nice to have a Trade Spokesperson who sounds like they think it is a good thing.

The addition of Jones into the front bench is smart, but as usual his portfolios are lightweight. Will we see more than a press release a month from him?

Mahuta in Education is interesting as she will be up against Parata.

Interesting reversal of fortune for Sue Moroney. She had been given the heavyweight education portfolio and was the third highest ranked (effective) list candidate. But now she is out of the shadow cabinet entirely.

The biggest winners:

1. Jacinda Ardern +15
2. Nanaia Mahuta +12
3. Chris Hipkins +8
4. Shane Jones +7
5. Phil Twyford +6
6. William Sio +6
7. Clare Curran +5
8. Darien Fenton +4

The biggest losers:

• Ruth Dyson from 7 to unranked
• Parekura Horomia from 11 to unranked
• Sue Moroney from 13 to unranked
• Moana Mackey from 18 to unranked

Labour’s Shadow Cabinet vs National’s Cabinet is:

• 13 elect mps and 7 list mps vs 14 elect mps and 6 list mps
• 13 men and 7 women vs 14 men and 6 women
• 16 European, 2 Maori, 0 Asian, 2 Pacific vs 18 European and 2 Maori
• 2 in 30s, 6 in 40s, 11 in 50s, 1 in 60s vs 9 in 40s, 10 in 50s, 1 in 60s
• 70% North Island vs 70% North Island
• entered Prlt on average 10.8 years ago vs 10.3 years ago

Not a huge difference between the demographics of the Shadow Cabinet and Cabinet. For the front benches:

• 4 elect mps and 4 list mps vs 5 elect mps and 4 list mps
• 6 men and 2 women vs 6 men and 3 women
• 6 European, 2 Maori vs 7 European and 2 Maori
• 1 in 30s, 4 in 40s, 3 in 50s, 1 in 60s vs 3 in 40s, 6 in 50s
• 75% North Island vs 78% North Island
• entered Prlt on average 7.8 years ago vs 10 years ago

Also fairly similar in terms of demographics. This is quite a change from the last Parliament where Labour were much older and been around much longer, plus had many more women in their top ranks.

The Dom Post reports:

An embittered David Cunliffe is refusing to rule out quitting Parliament altogether as leader David Shearer moves to finalise his front bench.

It is understood Mr Cunliffe has been offered a front bench seat and a senior portfolio but has balked at his proposed ranking.

Offering Cunliffe anything less than his current rating or portfolios, always runs the risk of a refusal.

Labour has been allocated eight front bench seats in the new Parliament and it is likely Mr Cunliffe has been offered either the sixth, seventh or eighth slot.

The top places are likely to be taken by Mr Shearer, deputy Grant Robertson, Jacinda Ardern, finance spokesman David Parker, Shane Jones and Clayton Cosgrove with the remaining two slots open to Mr Cunliffe and his running mate, Nanaia Mahuta, or possibly Ruth Dyson or Maryan Street.

So lets look at this from Cunliffe’s point of view. You’ll accept Shearer, Robertson and Parker all being ranked higher than you. But if the story is correct it is proposed that two other MPs would be higher ranked than Cunliffe, such as Jacinda Ardern or Ruth Dyson. Cunliffe would have a fair point to ask why any of those named deserve a higher ranking than him.

Now of course it is at the discretion of the leader, what ranking to give out – but it is also at the discretion of the MP whether or not to accept.

Meanwhile, former list MP Stuart Nash, who is close to Mr Shearer, has been offered the role of chief of staff.

He said he wanted to discuss it with his partner first, and would give Mr Shearer his answer by Sunday.

“It’s a really exciting opportunity, because I believe David Shearer can take us to victory in 2014.”

That’s a smart move. Labour really are on their way to rebuilding.

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff, I suggest a rejuvenated front bench for Labour, which would reduce the average time since they entered Parliament from 15 years to just 6.5 years. My picks are:

• David Shearer
• Grant Robertson
• David Cunliffe
• David Parker
• Andrew Little
• Phil Twyford
• Carmel Sepuloni
• Damien O’Connor
• Shane Jones

John Armstrong writes:

Shearer will bring change by making the party less hostage to the political correctness that still plagues its image. He is interested in things that work, rather than whether they fit the party’s doctrine. Shearer will not fight old battles merely to make the party feel good about itself.

He will make the party’s various groups – union affiliates, Labour women, Labour youth, Maori, Pasifika, gays and so on – start working for the party rather than feeding off it.

He will promote on merit, not quotas. He intends to transform a seriously flabby political institution into a slick political machine.

It sounds great if he can achieve it. Less politically correct, less doctrinaire, and less identity politics with a focus on merit.

Bryce Edwards has an interesting piece on the Herald online.   Bryce suggests it is a bold move to elect Shearer in the hopes he can go head-to-head with Key.  Bold to the degree that Bryce suggests Shearer needs to perform within the next two years or he is gone; rolled by Robertson. I give Shearer eighteen months.

My learned Labour contacts suggested to me before the vote even took place that it didn’t really matter all that much who was elected Leader of Labour.  Their view was that the victor would never be the next Labour Prime Minister.  We are seeing Labour lurch from Phil ‘fill-in’ Goff to another fill-in guy.  Shearer’s going to find it tough.  He’s backed more by Labour’s old guard but without the real depth of relationships (or indeed institutional knowledge of the Party) while needing to reach out to the more progressive members of the Party.  Shearer has a timeline worse than English ever had.  Shearer may not even see an election.

And, despite the lauding of his CV and comparisons to Key, Shearer is no Key.  Key had the opportunity to develop from the more helpful part of the electoral cycle, and proved himself head-to-head with Cullen first.  Shearer has been rather clumsy in his debates to date, and that was against Cunliffe.

Let’s also take a look at Grant’s stellar record.  Well, does he really have one?  This is a guy that everyone likes.  I do too.  BUT has he really performed.  He’s held two very substantial portfolios in the last term, Tertiary Education and also Health.  He didn’t make any real public inroads into either portfolio area and certainly didn’t execute any great hits on Ministers, particularly Ryall in Health.  Indeed, Health is usually relished by opposition parties because constituents come to opposition MPs with stories of hardship and difficulty within the health system.  Usually, opposition MPs can pummel the Government with these stories of poor performance, waiting lists and more.  Where was Grant on those stories?  Biding his time, flying below the radar awaiting that moment where the “nice guy” can take over.

I suspect Grant will be a competent Deputy.  He is good at organising people, taking on a role very much like a deputy Principal while Shearer shines in the public sphere.  But why choose a guy like Grant to be your Deputy?  He’s a likely contender to your own leadership who as the Deputy can stoke the fires at home (in the Leader’s corridor and in the House) while you take a nice road trip around the countryside letting the voting public get to know you.

And then there is Cunliffe.  He can wait, watch and receive.  Wait for it to turn to custard.  Watch the Shearer lack of political experience while Robertson undermines. And, receive the “we should have chosen you” and “come to my office for a chat” conversations that will inevitably occur.

Labour wonder why they are known as the nasty party and their vote dropped. Look at Carmel Sepuloni’s response to winning Waitakere:

‘‘I don’t think Paula Bennett has been good for Waitakere,” she said.

”At the end of the day, the voters have spoken. And despite the fact it is close, it just goes to show that there are 11 more people that think she wasn’t [good].

This reminds me of how Labour MP Kris Faafoi after his narrow victory in the Mana by-election, labeled Hekia Parata a two time loser. So classy.

Has Kate Wilkinson got up and said nasty things about Clayton Cosgrove whom she beat? Has Nicky Wagner put the boot into Brendon Burns? Did Nikki Kaye’s team put the boot into Jacinda Ardern when she conceded, or did they give her a round of applause?

The only thing worse than sore losers is ungracious winners. Perhaps Carmel could have said things about what an honour and privilege it is, and how she will work her hardest for all her constituents – rather than put the boot into her opponent.

I hope the new Labour leader can help engender a culture change within Labour.

On a related note Phil Quin notes:

Don’t get me wrong, Carmel Sepuloni pipping Paula Bennett at the post is a pleasing outcome, but I was surprised to read a statement this afternoon from Labour’s President Moira Coatsworth and General Secretary Chris Flatt that described the 11-vote win as a “momentous” and “a great victory for Labour.”

By this measure, the Christchurch Central result must be a “shocking blow” and a “grave defeat”; Raymond Huo’s departure from Parliament must be “a tragic loss”; and my  lacklustre 40 minute cardio workout at the gym this morning must surely qualify as “an athletic triumph”.

Tone-deaf.

Waitakere is a seat which normally goes Labour. It is of course a blow to National and to Paula to lose it, but it was held by Labour from 1946 to 1981 continuously by Labour, and since being re-formed in 1993 has lost some of its bluer areas to Helensville so was always going to be tough to hold (even though I personally did think Paula would hold on).

Losing a seat like Christchurch Central which you have held for 60+ years is a far bigger event.