Kiwiblog

Russel Norman blogs on the MOU with National:

The Green Party’s agreement with the Government took a step forward today – a small, practical and principled step.

The latest news is that we’ve agreed with National on a draft proposal for the regulation of natural health products.  Natural health products includes many vitamin and herbal supplements as well as lotions, gels and shampoos.

New Zealanders have a right to know these types of products are safe and it is government’s job to set up and monitor rules to ensure safety.  That’s a fairly straightforward idea, but it got complicated under the previous Labour government that wanted to regulate natural health products jointly with Australia.

Our Sue Kedgley has worked persistently on this issue for many years and now we’re that much closer to rules that are better for local businesses and protect consumer.  Good stuff.

I think it is a sign of maturity for both the Greens and National, that they can agree to disagree on so many areas, yet agree to work together constructively in a few areas where they do agree.

The Herald reports:

The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has welcomed the Government’s decision not to support the reintroduction of youth rates.

So the CTU is happy.

Opposition leader Phil Goff welcomed the decision.

“It’s crazy to suggest that any young person doing the same job exactly as older people should be paid automatically at a lower rate. It didn’t add up,” he told reporters.

As is Phil Goff. This means it must be wrong!

Goff’s own statement shows a total misrepresentation of the situation. Having a lower minimum wage for teenagers is exactly that – a lower floor. How the hell you translate that into “should be paid automatically at a lower rate” I do not know. Once again, for the really stupid people, – this is about a floor – not a ceiling, not an automatic rate that you must apply to teenagers.

In today’s NBR 24/7 column I rip into the Govt’s decision:

It really brings into doubt the seriousness of the Government in terms of job creation, when it persists with a law that has clearly priced many teenagers off the job market. …

Most teenagers are not seeking full-time employment. What they desperately want is to gain some work experience, and to gain some extra money on top of whatever parental or student support they have.

By agreeing to vote down Sir Roger’s bill, the Government is saying we want young people to be unable to gain work, unless an employer thinks they are worth almost $13 an hour. …

Later this year, overall unemployment should start tracking down. If youth unemployment remains persistently high, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves.

There are 45,000 teenagers unemployed. This decision is a very bad one.

The Herald does a lengthy profile of Michael Jones:

Jones’ work has admirers at the highest level. Listening to him speak at last week were Prime Minister John Key, ministers Paula Bennett, Tariana Turia and Georgina Te Heu Heu and National’s sole Pasifika MP, Sam Lotu-Iiga. Key spoke later, in a similar inspirational vein. But it was Jones who spoke from the heart.

Key’s high-powered retinue made it clear he was redoubling the effort he made before the last election to get Jones to stand for Parliament on the National ticket.

Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey, who has watched Jones for 20 years, says he “could go very far” in politics if he chooses to.

He compares the great flanker to former Prime Minister Norman Kirk. “I have always felt their voice is similar, their phraseology, their quiet and forceful delivery,” he says.

“I think he’s an extraordinary New Zealander. I think he’s got another life. I think that life is saving New Zealand and I would just love to see him run.”

Jones is taking Key’s overtures seriously and is consciously stepping up to leadership.

Jones would be a massive addition to National’s ranks, if he chose to stand. Not because he is a former All Black (some say our greatest), but because he is has always been such an inspirational personality.  His record of community service is second to none.

Jones’ Christian moral values have always placed him on the right politically. He opposed Labour’s civil unions law and Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law, and fronted advertisements for Christian Heritage in 2002.

But he also grew up with Maori families in Te Atatu, learnt te reo Maori at university and spoke out against former National leader Don Brash’s attack on “race-based funding” in 2004. He warmed to National when Key took over and asked him to stand in 2008.

“I got to know John Key in that period and I liked what I saw, not only in terms of his leadership style. “I really sensed that his aspiration was to bring all New Zealanders forward, including Pacific people,” he says.

What would be interesting, is not just if Jones stands, but will he contest a seat? The two logical seats he might contest is Te Atatu or New Lynn.

New Lynn had National just 0.1% behind Labour on the party vote, but a larger 12% gap on the electorate vote. However I think it is fair to say Tim Groser was running a party vote campaign, not trying to win the seat personally.

In terms of ethnic profile, New Lynn is 58% European, 23% Asian, Pacific 12% and Maori 9%.

Te Atatu saw National marginally ahead in the party vote, but Chris Carter win the electorate vote by 17%.

However Te Atatu is even more ethnically diverse with 18% Pacific, 16% Maori and 17% Asian.

I think there is a very reasonable chance that Michael Jones could win either seat. Carter’s reputation has been damaged by the focus on his overseas travel, and he may of course retire. Cunliffe will not be retiring, but he has a smaller majority to defend.

Emily Watt and Colin Espiner report:

The Government is planning a shake-up of state services, with mergers expected in Internal Affairs, MAF and the science sector.

It is not clear how many jobs will be lost, but “back office” functions such as human resources, IT, payroll and communications are likely to be cut back to avoid duplication.

The Dominion Post has been told there will be three mergers, which are to be announced on Wednesday and will see departments, ministries and agencies folded into each other.

Sources say space has been booked at the National Library to announce the formation of what they are calling a Ministry of Information, which would roll National Library and National Archives into the Internal Affairs Department. It is understood Land Information New Zealand and Statistics had also been considered in that merger.

Oh I would so love to be Minister of Information. That would just be the best title, next to Minister of Propaganda. Imagine the first class treatment you would get in all the despotic regimes around the world, when your business card declares you are the New Zealand Minister of Information.

The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry is also due for a shake-up with the Food Safety Authority, with an annual budget of $99.6m, expected to be brought back under its roof.

The science sector will also come under the scalpel, with the Foundation of Research, Science & Technology and Research, Science & Technology Ministry being merged.

I’m delighted to see even this minor reform as it heads in the right direction. We do not need 200+ state sector CEOs, and 200+ IT systems, 200+ HR systems etc. In my ideal would you would have all agencies grouped within a dozen super-ministries.

Mr Robertson said it appeared Mr Key had broken his pre-election promise not to radically reorganise the public service.

Oh Grant. This is not radical. Three small mergers is a welcome but cautious step. It is such a shame to see Labour oppose every measure to reduce bureaucratic duplication and costs in the state sector. Their sole state sector policy seems to be to borrow and spend more money.

Labour should welcome these changes, as they continue a trend started under Labour to bring smaller agencies together. National went the other way in the 1990s and in hindsight got it wrong. Again it is a pity to see Labour oppose something they should support.

The Public Service Association has not been briefed on the plans, but said it was supportive of the Government “sticking things back together” after several decades of splitting departments up.

Indeed. On this one, I agree with the PSA.

NZPA report:

A Green Party attempt to initiate a debate about having an elected head of state in New Zealand isn’t going to get very far.

MP Keith Locke drafted the member’s bill, which is on Parliament’s agenda for a first reading.

He had hoped it would get through the first reading so it could be sent to a select committee for public discussions, but Prime Minister John Key today ruled that out.

“We’re opposed” was his brief response when he was asked about the bill on TV One’s Breakfast programme.

Unless the Government supports members’ bills, they have no chance of getting through a first reading.

It can get through, if the Maori Party and ACT vote in favour of letting the public have a say, even though National doesn’t want people to have a say.

I’m incredibly disappointed that National won’t even vote in favour of the bill going to select committee, let alone allow MPs a conscience vote on the issue.

Regardless of whether or not you think we should stay with the monarchy, or become a republic, you probably agree with me that any decision is one that should rest with the people, not with Parliament.

Locke’s bill, would have been the first ever time that member of the public could submit to a select committee on what they think the process should be for New Zealander to eventually make a decision. Even if the bill did not proceed past select committee, just allowing submissions would in itself enable the public to have a say on how they think NZ should eventually make this decision.

If the Government is unwilling to let the bill go to select committee, then the Government should tell us what their process is for allowing New Zealanders to progress this issue. I don’t regard it as acceptable to just vote the bill down, and not outline any alternate approach to such an important issue.

I also hope that National MPs are allowed a conscience vote on this issue. There is no reason this needs to be party whipped. In both National and Labour, there are republicans and monarchists.

Many supporter of National are also Republicans. It will be unfortunate if the message the Government gives them is that the only way to have your say on this issue, is to change the Government.

Trans-Tasman makes an interesting observation in their newsletter today:

Readers of Trans Tasman, an educated lot, will know the Aesop Fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The two were in a race and the hare got so far in front he took a nap. The tortoise plodded on past him.

National looks like trying to transform NZ’s economic reform
progress – in the past we’ve been a bunch of hares – doing sudden bursts of reform and then taking a nap. This time, National is planning on being a tortoise. This was implicit in its initial response to the economic crisis it found on its desk in November 2008. Previous Govts, faced with similar crises, have tended to panic and push every policy button available.

They have usually been shortlived Govts, and they have tended to put NZers off the whole idea of systematic economic reform until it is forced upon them.

We got more tortoise-like behaviour last week, with John Key’s opening statement to the House. A series of headings, it initially looked underwelming, and the more superficial commentators pronounced it as excessively timid.

The implications of some of those headings, on tax as well as on things like education reform and resource development, are now sinking in. Now people have taken the time to think about them, they look more progressive than they looked at the time.

I agree with the sentiments here. Pushing through reform that merely results in a new Government at the next election that reverses that reform, is dumb.

Australia has been a pretty good example of continuous reform, rather than just in the odd spurt of activity. And the PMs statement did have a significant amount of good stuff in it.

My concern though is that pre-election commitments to not touch WFF, Student Loans etc, crown assets, Superannuation, will block significant reform. Now I don’t advocate a change to these policies in this term of Government, but I do hope for the 2011 election National will have a less restrictive manifesto.

Just got back from the funeral in Kilbirnie of Jack McFaull. Normally when a funeral service takes more than an hour I get restless, but this service went on for two hours with no restlessness from me as there were so many great stories about Jack.

Jack was 87 years old, so one did not have the sadness you have at funerals of younger people, but until his cancer he was so active, that there was sorrow he didn’t manage to make the Rugby World Cup next year.

My relationship with Jack goes back to the early 1990s when we were both volunteers at National Party HQ. Now National is made up of volunteers and exists on the. But the average volunteer puts in just a couple of hours a week into the party. Jack worked 30 to 40 hours a week as a volunteer.

Jack was effectively a full-time unpaid staff member. After he retired from the work force, he spent the best part of a decade working at National HQ as, well a massive data cruncher. He was the resident boundaries expert and served on the Boundaries Commission.Several MPs owe their seats to Jack!

We heard a lot from Jack’s family – he had four daughters and many grand-children. The youngest, aged 10, delivered a lovely tribute without speech notes. Almost all of them told stories of how even at the age of 86 Jack would be found high up his trees, trimming them himself. They all expected his likely cause of death would be falling from a tree.

One of his son in laws who lives in the US spoke about how Jack got him into playing Virtual NPC rugby online, and that he even managed to put perform Jack most years, because Jack could never bring himself to predict that Otago or Wellington would lose!

We also heard about his decades old car, that he drove about everywhere, and how he took someone trying to pass him as a mortal insult, so the passengers often needed a whiskey after he dropped them off.

Jack served in WWII as an ambulance driver in Egypt and Italy, and we heard how a few years ago he navigated his way to a hotel in Rome using his old WWII map.

In his professional career, Jack was a highly respected economist. He held senior positions with then old Wool Board and then served the Dairy Board as its Secretary before he was seconded to be one of the inaugural staff members of the new Prime Ministers Advisory Group (now DPMC) to PM Muldoon.

Jack was the PM’s primary advisor on primary production issues. His colleague John Wood spoke on Jack’s time there, and how Jack’s impish humour even extended to Muldoon. Everyone else was terrified of Muldoon, but Jack would actually be as irreverent to the PM, as he was to everyone else.

Len Bayliss and Mary Hedges spoke about Jack’s contributions to economics.

Chris Finlayson spoke about Jack’s contribution to National, and how he even in the 2008 election, Jack was out delivering pamphlets, including (the rather steep) Severn Street in Island Bay.

Hugh Templeton, and many others spoke also. On top of the ten listed speakers, around half a dozen more spoke up so they could pay tribute. And I think almost everyone listening was thinking the same – that if I could have tributes like this made at my funeral, I would have lived a very good and worthwhile life.

The Herald reports:

The budget will be delivered on May 20 but New Zealanders may get a better idea about the Government’s plans for the tax system next week, Finance Minister Bill English said today.

He said his second budget would focus on improving the economy, getting the Government’s books back in shape and could also address changes to the tax system.

Mr English said Prime Minister John Key would outline the Government’s thinking on tax reform when he opened the parliamentary year on Tuesday. …

“The prime minister will give some indications of direction next week… You do not get too many opportunities to reshape the tax system and right now with the economic challenges we face, tax is a potentially important lever to get our economy focused on earning more than we spend.”

Mr Key also said his opening speech to Parliament would be a quite detailed “shopping list of the economic agenda.”

Mr English today expressed concern that by the end of the decade the average income would be at the top tax rate.

It is pleasing to see a strong focus on economic issues, and the indications are that the Government is not going to settle for the status quo with the tax system.

National MPs have set up a blog, joining Labour with Red Alert and the Greens with Frog Blog.

As I understand it, the blog is not focused on politics so much as MPs experiences. So you’ve got Eric Roy talking about water for Southland, Hekia Parata on Armistice Day and Simon Bridges gets to talk about “Hot Milk” Lingerie!

Claire Browning at Pundit has what appears to be an exclusive scoop:

Last month, here on Pundit, I speculated that all was not well between the Greens and the government. Former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons did not wish to comment then, but now she’s speaking out. The Greens have concluded that the energy efficiency and conservation part of the relationship is unsustainable, she and Gerry Brownlee cannot work together, and energy efficiency and conservation should, therefore, be deleted from the National-Greens memorandum of understanding (MOU).

I’m not sure who to blame (Browning points strongly to process failures within National but yet to hear if they have a different view on it) but regard it as unfortunate that the formalised co-operation won’t continue in this area. I thought the MOU was a well intentioned initiative, saying we disagree on most things but will work together on some areas we do agree.

As far as I can tell Claire’s exclusive has yet to be reported in the traditional media, so people are seeing it online first.

Further to my blog earlier this morning, the kind people at Marae have sent me a breakdown of some of their poll results, by roll. This allows an easier comparison to election results.

You can view the episode on their website, including a discussion between host Shane Taurima and John Key.

First the party vote results for the 700 respondents on the Maori roll (compared to actual election results):

1. Maori Party 62% (+33%)
2. Labour 23% (-27%)
3. National 11% (+3%)
4. Greens 2% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-5%)

That is a decimation for Labour. Their party vote has more than halved amongst Maori on the Maori roll. Some of that will be losing Clark.

Then the party vote results for the 300 Maori respondents on the General roll:

1. National 42%
2. Labour 33%
3. Maori Party 16%
4. Greens 6%
5. NZ First 3%

Now this is unprecedented as far as I know – National to be outpolling Labour amongst Maori voters on the general roll.

The 2008 data has not yet been published but the NZ election study in 2005 had Maori on the general roll supporting Labour at 54%, and National at 17%.

So from the 2005 election, Labour has gone from 37% ahead of National amongst Maori on the general roll, to 9% behind.

And then if we take the overall sample of all Maori (both rolls) we have:

1. Maori Party 48% (+27% from 2005)
2. Labour 26% (-28%)
3. National 20% (+11%)
4. Greens 3% (-2%)
5. NZ First 2% (-7%)

Again I can’t compare to 2008 as there is no public poll data about how Maori on the general roll voted.  But the combined effect is clear – Labour at half the level they were in 2005, and both National and Maori Party at around double where they were.

Also interesting to see the breakdown by roll for John Key. He gets 26% Preferred PM amongst Maori roll respondents and 39% amongst Maori on the general roll. Goff is at 4% on Maori roll and 5% General roll.

In terms of approval of Key’s performance as PM, there is little variation. Maori on the Maori roll give him a net approval (yes over no) of 17% and Maori on the General roll a net approval of 24%.

I have not yet viewed the episode myself, but I think John Key will be very proud of such historic results, despite being a “white motherfucker”

Sunday News reports:

INGA Tuigamala used to smash opponents on the footy field – now he wants to smash some Pacific Islanders dependence on the dole and DPB.

And the former rugby and league star has confirmed he would consider running for Parliament in 2011 if offered a spot on the National Party list.

I think it is great that Inga wants to make a difference. And for National there would obviously be a huge political advantage in having him stand.

However for Inga’s sake, I would suggest he chats to a couple of new MPs about what life is really like in Parliament.  Your ability to (for example) change welfare policy is relatively limited initially. Backbench MPs have to spend a lot of time serving on select committees, asking patsy questions in the House, and helping constituents. The policy side (which is what motivates many), takes a while to influence.

I think Inga as an MP would be an awesome role model for many Pacific Islanders. But I would hate him to end up in a job he doesn’t find satisfying.

This weekend it is the Herald’s turn to do a big feature on the Government’s first year in office. Multiple article to quote.

John Armstrong starts with what I think is the most important aspect:

The first Herald-DigiPoll survey since last year’s election shows close to 80 per cent of respondents rated the Government’s performance in dealing with the effect of the global recession on New Zealand as good, very good or excellent.

Barely 20 per cent rated the Government’s response to the recession as not good or poor.

And this is the major issue voters have focused on. Not use of urgency, not the Super City, not RWC broadcasting, not any of the numerous beltway issues. Not to say handling of those issues is not worthy of focus, but they are not critical to the average voter.

In another article, Armstrong reviews Key himself:

Key’s sheer ordinariness has fooled opponents into making first impression assumptions that there is little substance behind the confident, smiley face he presents to the world.

Key would not claim to be an intellectual. But he is very bright. Those who have worked closely with him speak of a capacity to absorb mountains of information and a laser-like capacity to focus on what needs to be done.

I would almost call Key a data sponge. He loves soaking up information from numerous sources, and reflecting on it. He is constantly thinking, and analysing.

He is anything but ordinary. The chief executive of New Zealand Incorporated is nothing short of a political phenomenon.

As one Beehive operative of long experience puts it, Key is rewriting the rules of New Zealand politics. That is a sweeping statement. But it goes some way to explaining why public support for National – confirmed in today’s Herald-DigiPoll survey – has climbed to unprecedented highs for a ruling party in its first year of government and, just as crucially, continues to remain at that level.

The challenge for the Government is to build its own brand to complement Key’s strong brand.

Key cites his Government’s fulfillment of manifesto commitments and steering the country through and (he hopes) out of economic recession as crucial in consolidating support for his party. Cabinet ministers readily acknowledge, however, that National’s post-election dream run is overwhelmingly down to Key’s strong rapport with voters – especially females who shunned National in the past.

It is rare for a centre-right party to do well with female voters.

Labour Party insiders grudgingly agree, but with a subtle twist in the language: National’s popularity rests on Key’s popularity. When the latter starts to fade, the former will quickly evaporate.

As I said above, I agree with them that the popularity is largely Key. But that may change over time, as other Ministers become better known. Also the other Ministers have generally been doing quite well in their portfolios – what is lacking is more a coherent all of Government brand.

Or so Labour prays. Labour, however, has made a bad habit of underestimating Key.

And they still are.

One of the principal ways he is seen to be rewriting the rules is by applying a “will it work” test to policy proposals rather than first asking whether they sit comfortably with National Party ideology. Key’s willingness to search for ideas outside conventional boundaries is in tune with an electorate less hung-up about ideology than in the 1980s and 1990s.

Key has centre-right values and instincts, but he sees them as a guide not a straitjacket.

This may irk some colleagues who see the vast gap between National and Labour in the polls as a rare chance for National to adopt a more radical and right-leaning prescription. …

Key seems to have no difficulty with either proposition. However, he is extremely wary of breaching National’s 2008 manifesto. He believes it is vital that voters feel confident they can trust National in government.

I’m one of those who want to see the Government be more bold, and indeed use that vast poll gap while we have it. But it isn’t about being more “right”, it is about fighting battles that are important to our future such as tax reform, the union stranglehold in education, state sector reform etc. But I agree any reform has to be consistent with the election manifesto. But there are plenty of areas where initiatives were not ruled in or out.

Dunne also noted that “references to what happened in the 1990s, let alone what side one was on during the Springbok Tour or, heaven forbid, the Vietnam War are utterly irrelevant to the values of this new generation, as Helen Clark found out dramatically last year, and Phil Goff is continuing to find out”.

The battles of yesterday.

Though Goff is an effective communicator, Key operates on another level. Unlike some politicians, he never talks down to people. He instead likes to disarm his audiences – no matter how big or small – by kicking off proceedings with a witty anecdote. More often than not, the joke is at his own expense. And deliberately so. The self-deprecation helps to break the ice.

A typical example was a recent meeting with youngsters at a riding school. Praising their ambition to represent New Zealand in show-jumping at the 2016 Olympics. Key turned to their proud parents, telling them “and you’ll be able to watch it all on Maori television”.

Heh. More seriously I recommend anyone who has not seen Key do a Q&A, should attend one of his meetings. He really engages with the audience, and as John A says, never talking down.

Yet, a year on from the election, it is still difficult to discern the direction in which the Government is going. Presumably it knows, because it is a very busy Government. It would be useful if it told the rest of us.

If Key has a major flaw, it is in not drawing the big picture often enough.

I agree. I don’t think it has mattered much this year, for it has been a crisis year – fighting the recession. But as that fades as an issue, people are going to want to hear more about closing (or at least slowing) the gao with Australia.

Key’s power is at its zenith. But how does he intend to use it? What legacy does he want to leave? The next 12 months will be true measure of his prime ministership, judged on what is done to get his promised “step change”in New Zealand’s economic growth.

I think the 2010 budget is very important, even more so that the 2011 budget.

Claire Trevett reports 78% of NZers back the series of cycleways.

Patrick Gower talks to Rodney Hide about working with John Key.

John Armstrong also reviews Bill English.

Claire Trevett talks to Tariana Turia:

Do you still have that level of trust in National?

Yes. What I’ve enjoyed the most is our ability to be upfront with one another and be straightforward on issues. I have never found that they’ve said one thing to me in a meeting and done another.

I recall what John Tamihere said about how Cullen used to treat coalition partners!

Have there been difficult choices?

When you can see value in what is being proposed but there’s always downsides to it. We’ve had to think really carefully about ACC, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and adult education courses.

For example with the ETS, it’s been difficult to try to balance the interests of iwi – whose major focus is forestry, fishing and farming – when on the other hand we’ve got really poor communities who are going to have to pay and they’re not the ones causing the problems.

There are very few policies that don’t involve balancing the trade-offs.

Jon Johannsson talks leadership:

I believe we are watching an unusual prime ministership take shape. Key’s skillset is vastly different from what we’ve seen before. We’d possibly have to go all the way back to the entrepreneurial Julius Vogel in the 1870s to find an apt comparison. Vogel put in vital and much-needed infrastructure to connect New Zealanders with each other and then with the rest of the world. Vogel’s legacy is a hugely significant one in our politics. If Key could affect a 21st century equivalent – meaning nothing short of major structural transformation to better position New Zealand during its transition to an information-age economy – his future legacy would be assured.

And Key has pushed hard on infrastructure. But the structural transformation is not there – however stuff like the fibre to the home initiative may be part of that.

Key has also grasped that our politics is going through a non-ideological phase, which explains why much of the criticism of his Government’s performance has come from ideologues on either side of the spectrum. His acceptance of much of Labour’s policy inheritance reinforces this judgment. Keeping its promises, which National has largely done, thereby establishing long-term trust with the electorate, has given Key the prerequisite platform needed for greater freedom of action in the future.

Absolutely. You have to earn trust, to then have greater freedom of action.

But to return to where I began, Key’s larger context; his political vision has been quite parsimonious in my view. There is no overarching narrative that tells us where Key intends taking us or what policy mix will best maximise our future progress and choices.

Transforming education (surely the best incubator for our future economic prosperity), leading our democracy (think: the electoral referendum, the Treaty, republicanism), and how to best protect water, our most valuable strategic resource, are being managed, not led, in an entirely ad-hoc fashion.

I think this is fair criticism.

Finally John Roughan:

The most impressive member of the Cabinet is a complete newcomer, Steven Joyce.

He is doing the infrastructure projects, notably the duplicate broadband network, as well as those in his primary portfolio, transport.

He’s done the little things, like the car cellphone ban on which the previous government dithered for years, and the big things like the Waterview connection, which I thought was wrong but he put me right.

I remarked to the Dominion Post for their review that I thought John Key’s best decision was probably appointing Steven Joyce to such critical portfolios. The fibre rollout was Key’s signature initiative, and speeding up infrastructure investment also a iconic issue for Key. And Steven indeed is no ditherer.

Of course I still think he is wrong on the cellphone ban!

As I blogged yesterday, National is at 60% in the latest poll. The four parties in Government would have 82 seats on that poll.

Now there is no way this will last forever. A party does not stay 15% up on their election night result when they are in Government.

So my question is, why not use the 60% rating while you can. Rev it up, and take it out for a spin. Do some bold stuff, even if takes you to 55% or 52% – because you’ll eventually end up there anyway.

I don’t mean do stuff you said you would not do. Keeping faith with the electorate is very important. But at the moment the opposition is misfiring and somewhat impotent. The public are not listening to them.

The long-term goal is lifting our economic growth. Despite the rhetoric we will never close the income gap with Australia, but we might be able to stop the gap getting any bigger. Hell, I’ll even settle for the gap not growing so fast as before. Some of what we need to do to lift that growth may need boldness. And at 60% in the polls is the time when you can afford to be bold. You may never get the chance again.

Reuters reports:

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to sell off 3 billion pounds (NZ$6.47bn) worth of government assets.

The asset sales will be carried out over the next two years, and include betting company the Tote, the cross-channel rail link between Britain and France, a portfolio of student loans and the government’s stake in uranium-processing firm Urenco.

The bridge and tunnel crossing over the River Thames at Dartford is also up for sale, and local authorities are expected to raise a further 13 billion pounds (NZ$28bn) through asset sales on top of 30 billion pounds (NZ$65bn) already identified in a 2007 report …

What a shame that the British Labour Party will sensibly sell some assets that are better in private hands, and the NZ National Party will not do the same.

The Labour and National consensus to rule out all assets sales, no matter how logical, is the most extreme in the western world.

I do not advocate National breaking its promise not to have asset sales during this term, but they’d better have a more rational policy going into the 2011 election. If Gordon Brown can do it, so can we.

Labour MP Darien Fenton blogs on the fringe programme at Labour’s conference:

An innovation that has appeared at Labour conferences in the last couple of years are the fringe meetings. Fringe topics this year included – Is New Zealand ready to become Republic?”; Young Labour and their campaigning in Mt Albert; A discussion on Open Source; Animal Welfare regulations in New Zealand; UnionAid and workers helping Burmese workers; and Union campaigns.

The UK party conferences also have fringe programmes, and they have almost become more important and enjoyable than the main conference. Over five days there can be as many as 100 fringe events with numerous lobby and interest groups doing talks and discussions on the things that interest them. Your main challenge is to get to all the ones you want as there are so many good ones.

It would be great if National looked at having a fringe element to their annual conference – maybe on the Friday, with the main conference being on Saturday and Sunday. And don’t set the agenda centrally – let people propose their own fringe events.

I’ve found the National conferences over the years have become rather sterile and overly stage managed. Remits have almost been killed off, and too much time is spent hearing from MPs, than engaging with them.

Bryce Edwards has blogged summaries of party’s 2008 campaigns he wrote for a book on the 2008 election. They really are required reading for political junkies, and I really enjoy accompanying graphics.

So far we have:

• Green’s 2008 campaign
• Labour’s 2008 campaign
• National’s 2008 campaign

As widely expected, NZPA reports National will vote for Heather Roy’s VSM Bill (now in the name of Sir Roger Douglas) at its first reading:

National has made its first public show of support for a bill to dismantle compulsory student unions.

National would support ACT’s Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill at its first reading this month, associate education minister Wayne Mapp said yesterday.

The bill, originally sponsored by Dr Mapp’s fellow associate education minister Heather Roy of ACT, would require student unions to hold annual membership drives to receive their levies.

Under the current law, unions with compulsory membership can collect levies automatically as part of students’ enrolment fees.

National’s own membership bill in 1998 saw a series of binding referenda on campuses: while around half the polytechnic unions turned voluntary, Auckland and Waikato were the only university unions who opted to do so.

This is not quite correct. National’s VSM bill in the mid to late 1990s was very similar to this bill. However New Zealand First refused to support it beyond select committee, so a compromise was done which was the 1998 law of referenda.

National would listen to the views of submitters before deciding whether to support the bill further, he said.

“Students remain the only group in society forced to join a union,” he said.

“Students should be able to make their own decision about joining a student association — this ensures that their freedom of association is upheld.”

Compulsory membership of student associations means executives have little or no incentives to manage their associations well or responsibly. When your members have the ability to decide not to renew their membership, it encourages the association to focus much more closely on issues their members want them to be involved with rather than the pet issues of a few dozen activists.

Plus of course one should n0ot have to fund political representation you disagree with. The notion of a student association speaking for all students is as absurd as a residents association speaking for all residents.

It is excellent to see National living up to its principles of freedom of association.

John Armstrong touches on a number of issues:

No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling. …

The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones. …

Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.

There is a huge disconnect between the so called liberal elite and the rest of NZ on this issue. Armstrong is right – people knew exactly what they were voting for. This is an issue that has had two years plus of public debate.

Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.

Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.

That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.

While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.

I remain unconvinced that this will be enough. I think it will remain an issue until the law is amended.

And I don’t think one should include “socially progressive” in the same sentence as “nanny state”. Certainly some people are against both, but I see de-criminalising prostitution (or more correctly solicitation) as the exact opposite of nanny state.

In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.

That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.

But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.

I am pleased that National is showing signs that the status quo will not deliver the economy we need.

If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.

How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.

The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.

I joked to a Christian lobbyist after the bill was drawn, that perhaps this does show that God is indeed on their side

National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.

Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.

While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog.

Most in National would like ACT to be close to 5% than 1%. And again to be fair to Rodney he did not publicise his stance on resigning over the Maori Seats. Whomever leaked the Tau Henare e-mail did that.

National ultimately holds the whip hand. Act’s survival as a parliamentary party rests on Hide holding his Epsom seat. National has no qualms about reminding him that it retains the right to select a quality candidate and make a proper fight of it in the electorate.

Hide’s threat to resign his portfolios is akin to the Black Knight’s sword fight with King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Arthur hacks off the Black Knight’s limbs one-by-one, the latter insists his wounds are nothing more than a scratch and suggests the pair call it a draw.

Again I think it is fair to stress Rodney did not want this made public. But having been made public, is is true that there is limited room to take such a firm stance again without a degree of backlash.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Byzantine nature of MMP politics, it is not to view an argument over something like the non-establishment of Maori seats in isolation. The Maori Party has been the loser in that instance, it should be the winner elsewhere, thereby reinforcing its current inclination to stick with National.

The review of the foreshore and seabed law will see it emerge the winner when it comes to concessions.

I have blogged previously that by 2011 the Maori Party will probably have a fairly impressive list of achievements or wins. And what will be more remarkable is all of them were gained voluntarily – National could have governed without them.

When you see the Weekend Herald proclaim “Nats’ chief helps in fraud probe” you automatically think he may be in some way involved with an alleged fraud, and/or criminal wrong-doing.

In reality it transpires he is an indirect victim having lent $100,000 to a friend who invested with a man who seemingly is being investigated by the SFO.

It would have been nice if the headline reflected this, assuming that what has been reported is al there is to the story. To be honest seems a non-story to me.

In another Herald story, they profile Goodfellow’s baptism of fire. An interesting tidbit:

It is a rare glimpse: his now 92-year-old father, Douglas Goodfellow, has never given a public interview.

The family have managed to keep their low profile despite wealth and philanthropy on a massive scale – a Listener article from 1996 detailed how Douglas Goodfellow gave away $285 million to various unknown charities, the largest gift in New Zealand history at the time.

Goodness, that is a huge amount of charity, and done very quietly it seems.

The family are 16th on the NBR rich list with an estimated wealth of $550 million from interests ranging across fishing, finance and agricultural chemicals. The mild-mannered Mr Goodfellow – often compared to Ned Flanders from The Simpsons because of his moustache – told the Weekend Herald that recent weeks had been “difficult”.

I hadn’t heard the Ned Flanders nickname before, but sadly for Peter can see it catching on

Asked if the factional politics of the National Party in Auckland are “vicious” given the early pressure on his presidency, Mr Goodfellow prefers the word “robust”.

Ha, that is a euphemism!

He became the family’s first activist with the Young Nationals in the 1970s.

He recalled Tamaki MP and Prime Minister Rob Muldoon collecting him early one morning for an Anzac Day dawn service.

Good God. That could have been very traumatic!

We received  around 600 votes in this third unscientific blog poll on how readers perceive the front bench Ministers to be doing. The results are shown below in two ways.

Net Approval Ratings

This is the sum of those who said Very Good or Good less the sum of those who said Poor or Very Poor. The change from May 2009 ago is shown in brackets

1. Judith Collins +51% (+14%)
2. Chris Finlayson +47% (-5%)
3. John Key +43% (-14%)
4. Tony Ryall +43% (-4%)
5. Simon Power +31% (-10%)
6. Bill English +31% (-13%)
7. Gerry Brownlee +12% (+6%)
8. Anne Tolley +3% (-10%)
9. Nick Smith -15% (-7%)

Collins and Brownlee have had their net approval improve from May. All others have dropped. Remember it is not necessarily the same people voting each time – this is not scientific. Nick’s rating I suspect partly reflects his holding of the climate change portfolio.

Overall six of the nine frontbench Ministers continue to have very strong approval ratings from readers.

Weighted Average

The other measure is a weighted average which takes account of if people said they were very good or just good etc. Basically it assigns a value of 100% for a VG, 75% for a G, 50% for an average, 25% for a P and 0% for a VP. The overall weighted averages are:

1. Judith Collins 73% (+7%)
2. Chris Finlayson 68% (-3%)
3. John Key 68% (-8%)
4. Tony Ryall 67% (-3%)
5. Simon Power 61% (-5%)
6. Bill English 60% (-6%)
7. Gerry Brownlee 53% (+3%)
8. Anne Tolley 49% (-4%)
9. Nick Smith 43% (-1%)

Now again these are not scientific, and only reflect the particular preferences of Kiwiblog readers who participated.

I expect to do the fourth blog poll around November 2009.

I have had confirmed that the bill drawn from the ballot is John Boscawen’s bill to amend Section 59 in line with the Borrows amendment.

I would hope that both Labour and National would vote for this bill to go to select committee. The public have shown they are not happy with the current law, and the Boscawen/Borrows bill/amendment is a pragmatic option that would rule out the problems of the old law, but remove the rather silly differentiation between “correction” and “good parenting” and “preventing disruptive behaviour”.

The Government did not want this as an issue while it concentrates on the recession and economic issues, but private members bills are not subject to Government timetable, and the House has just two options at first reading- to vote it down despite the referendum result, or to vote for it to go to select committee and let the select committee consider how well the current law is working, and whether the Boscawen bill would be an improvement.

ACT are having a run of good luck with the VSM Bill and now this Bill. Good on them.

As I said, I hope Labour will back the bill to select committee also. That would not be turning their backs on the law they voted for. It is not about going back to the old law. It is about whether the amendments in the Boscawen bill are worth considering – and they are.

A copy of the Bill is here in word format.

UPDATE: To my surprise National will not even be supporting the bill at first reading. I thing this is a pretty huge mistake, and one they may regret over time.

The Dom Post report:

National Party president Peter Goodfellow has fronted up at Parliament with Prime Minister John Key and declared that he has the full confidence of the party and its board.

Mr Goodfellow, who has been under pressure over suggestions that some board members wanted him removed, said today that the end of his marriage was probably what lay behind the speculation. He wanted people to respect his personal life.

Many people involved in politics has messy splits.

“My personal life is my personal life and I don’t think there is anything in my personal life that affects my ability to be president.”

That is how it should be, but in politics the perception is often more important than the reality. Stories about one’s personal life can undermine effectiveness in a role.

Mr Goodfellow said Mr Key had been aware of matters concerning his personal life because he told him after he was elected party president.

It is easier to say this with hindsight, but it may have been prudent to have that discussion before the election for President. Even if you have done nothing wrong, the fact one is going through an acrimonious split that may result in bad publicity is a relevant factor.

Mr Key said Mr Goodfellow, who was at Parliament for National’s weekly caucus meeting, had the confidence of the board.

“Most people are guilty of making the odd mistake in their personal life. Most people are accepting of that. Peter has my full confidence… there is nothing I’ve ever seen or [been] aware of that would preclude him from being president of the National Party or an office holder of the National Party.”

Indeed, let he is without sin cast the first stone is the old saying. Few people act blamelessly in a relationship.

I’m old enough to have attended the last victory (won Government) conference for National. It was in 1991 and was also in Christchurch. Both saw a new Government nine months or so into office, and both coping with a nasty recession.

However in 1991, the conference was not just attended by the party faithful, but there were around 8,000 protesters, close to 1,000 Police (they cancelled leave for every police officer in the entire South Island), and bomb squad sniffer dogs. While the 2009 National Conference did not attract even a sole protester despite National now being in Government. I can’t ever recall a conference by National in Government that didn’t attract protests before.

And in spring of 1901, National was at 22% in the polls – 20% behind Labour. As we head into spring 2009, National is at 56% – 25% ahead of Labour. A remarkable contrast.

So the conference was obviously a buoyant one, with delegates and MPs in good heart. It was at the Christchurch Convention Centre, and here is the view from the Crowne Plaza next door.

The PM’s speech was of course the highlight, and it was very good planning he used it to announce a timely and major initiative. In Government, people like a speech of substance, not just bashing the other side. In fact John did not mention the Opposition once during his speech.

Bill English gave a very sober and insightful speech on the realities of the economy and the challenges ahead. And I thought Simon Power’s speech on all the justice initiatives was first class. Also was good to see the Young Nats President Alex Mitchell use his speech not just to fellate the party, as Young Nats sometimes do, but demand action on voluntary membership of student associations and warn against any moves to increase the alcohol purchase age from 18 to 20.

What didn’t work so well was the Ministerial forums. Maybe I’m just getting old and cynical, but hearing five minute brag sessions from Ministers about what they are doing turns me off. I’d rather have less Ministers with more time to talk policy in detail, than giving each Minister five minutes and time for only a couple of questions. I did enjoy joking that anyone who wanted to ask Paula Bennett a question should be obliged to first state their IRD number

Even more than that, what I personally would have preferred is a Ministerial Q&A session – say for 90 minutes. I know this was meant to be the victory conference, so maybe they may do it next year. But I think giving delegates the chance to ask questions of any and all Ministers is a good look, and gives delegates more of a chance for interaction.

Then we had the Board and Presidential elections. I’ve known the five people elected to the Board for pretty much a decade or more. They are all good people, who will do a diligent job on the Board. There are not any of them that I would not want on the Board as they bring a good mixture of skills, experience and geography.

But having said that, I am disappointed Wira Gardiner did not get on. As I had a role in the vote count, I thought it was inappropriate to “take sides” before the vote, but I do not share any of the reservations that Whale Oil had towards Wira. I’ve known Wira since his first wife was a candidate and he has been involved for at least two decades, including service as a Vice-President of the Party.

His record of achievement speaks for itself, in that he is now formally Sir Wira. Both Labour and National Governments have used him as a trouble shooter to sort out dysfunctional agencies. Someone with that governance experience would have been well placed to contribute to the Party’s Board. Plus there were also some obvious advantages in terms of relationships with the Maori Party – but that is a secondary consideration to me. Merit is what I value.

So why did Wira not get elected? Well there was a variety of reasons. Hekia, his wife, being an MP was one of them – but not really the major factor in my opinion. The main reason is that Wira was touted as a potential President, despite not being a current Board member. And it seemed there was a reasonable chance of Wira becoming President if he did get elected. By no means certain, but a reasonable chance.

What this meant, is those who did not want Wira to be President, followed Whale Oil’s advice and ranked him lowly to keep him off the Board. I have no doubt he would have been elected if he ruled out standing for President. Now I was not a delegate myself, so didn’t have to think about who I would leave off the Board if Wira got on. As I said, they are all good people – but there were only five vacancies.

Peter’s election as President was not a surprise. One press gallery journalist had quite a laugh on Sunday morning when they saw on my laptop I already had written a story announcing Peter’s election as President, and was just waiting for the official announcement to click the publish button.

I believe the number one objective for the President is to raise the money the party needs to function, and win elections. Peter’s business background should do him well in that regard and again respectivelly disagreeing with Whale, I expect Peter will remain President through until the 2011 election at least. Of course it will be up to delegates at the 2010 conference to make that decision on re-election to the Board.

Also have to mention the well deserved awarding of the Sir George Chapman trophy for service to the party went to our own blogging Homepaddock – Ele Ludemann. I won’t even mention how she was alseep in her room when they awarded her the prize

This is a hazy photo of the screen, but had to share this photo of Tauranga MP Simon Bridges forming part of the conference dinner entertainment, Simon took it all in good humour as the entertainers put him into a number of poses.

The conference saw Judy Kirk retire as President also after just under seven years in the job. This makes her the third equal longest serving President. Sir Alex McKenzie did 11 years, Sir George Chapman nine years and Sir Wilfred Sim and Ned Holt both also did seven years. I was counting votes during the farewell to Judy, but understand it was warmly given and received.

The number of people attending must be a record for a non election year. Around 700 people attended and there were 574 voting delegates. I saw many people there who hadn’t been to a conference for quite a few years.

It will be interesting to see what the mood is like in twelve months time at the 2010 conference.

John Key has announced a $152 million package to fund almost 17,000 youth opportunities. Some of these are:

• 4,000 6-month job placements for low-skilled young people with a $5,000 wage subsidy for employers
• 3,000 placements for youth to work on community programmes for 30 hours a week, paid at minimum wage
• 4,000 places in polytechs etc for 16 and 17 year olds not in schools, with no fees. This can be for stuff like literacy credits.
• 2,500 places in Limited Service Volunteers courses on military-style 6-week training programmes
• 1,600 summer scholarships for university students

The $152 million includes $32 million of 2009 Budget funding and $120 million from the 2009 – 2011 between budgets contingencies. This means no additional Government debt is incurred.

There are a lot of things I think the Government should not fund. But the economic (and human) return on this package could be significant if they increase the skills and employability of all those youth who are currently dropping out of school early, so I think it is a great wee package.