Kiwiblog

There was a glitch in publishing my normal Friday column in the Herald on Friday, but for those interested it is up now. I note:

If National had received around 5,000 fewer party votes, or if National voters in Epsom and Ohariu had failed to vote for the ACT and United Future candidates respectively, then the conflict over treaty clauses in SOEs would be critical. …

Parliament resumes next week, so should have no shortage of things to write about then.

Former Labour Party General Secretary Mike Smith blogs:

Donations over $30,000 from the same source must be declared to the Electoral Commission within 10 working days. National overstepped the mark in declaring a total donation of $86,005 from Gallagher Industries outside the limit. I can sympathise as I missed a connection once when I was Labour’s Secretary. These days  the Electoral Commission doesn’t get involved – the penalty is a fine of up to $40,000 on summary conviction.

That’s a very serious accusation. As Mike Smith says, a late return can result in a $40,000 fine. So let’s see if National were late.

The Electoral Commission says that National received $66,705 on 20 December 2001 from the Gallagher Group Ltd. This was on top of an earlier $19,300 so exceeded the $30,000 threshold for reporting within 10 working days.

It was declared on 10 January 2012, 21 days later.

But the Electoral Act refers to working days, as quoted by Mike Smith. S210C(6) says:

A return must be filed under subsection (1) or (2) within 10 working days of the donation being received by the party secretary

Now what is a working day? Well the Electoral Act specifies that in S3:

working day means any day of the week other than—

• (a) Saturday, Sunday, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Labour Day, the Sovereign’s birthday, and Waitangi Day; and

• (b) a day in the period commencing with 25 December in any year and ending with 15 January in the following year

The 20th of December was a Tuesday. Friday 23rd December was the third working day and Mon Jan 16th the 4th working day. Tuesday 24 January 2012 is in fact the 10th working day after the 20th of December 2011.

So National made the deadline with a fortnight to spare.

Mike may wish to amend his post.

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.

Danya Levy and Andrea Fox at Stuff report:

Prime Minister John Key says proposed changes in the diary industry may result in cheaper milk and will give consumers confidence they are “not getting ripped off” by Fonterra.

Key this morning rejected claims by farmers that plans to force the dairy giant to provide five per cent of its raw milk to independent producers, up from three per cent, was sending profits offshore by assisting largely foreign-owned New Zealand-based exporters which compete with Fonterra.

Labour’s primary industry spokesman Damien O’Connor has voiced similar concerns. …

Key today said proposed provisions to phase out well-established competitors would alleviate concerns about overseas-owned companies profiting at Fonterra’s expense.

It was in Fonterra’s interest to have competition in the market.

“It’s very important that we have transparency because Fonterra find themselves primarily in a monopoly position, they control about 95 per cent of raw milk production in New Zealand,” he told TV3′s Firstline programme. …

Fonterra chairman Sir Henry van der Heyden has said it is valid for Fonterra to assist domestic market suppliers with milk, but requiring Fonterra to supply overseas-owned competitors “defied logic”.

The extra milk obligation would cost Fonterra $200 million over three years alone, he said. …

Dairy farmer James Houghton, a Fonterra supplier and president of Waikato Federated Farmers, said if Fonterra lost money, farmers’ payouts would be affected.

“I believe it is the Government wanting to control an industry it doesn’t need to control,” he said. “The more rules and regulations, the more control it has.

Hmmn, an interesting situation. On one side you have the Government and on the other side you have Fonterra and Federated Farmers, with some opportunistic backing by Labour. So is the Government doing the right thing or not?

Former Green MP Sue Kedgley, who was a member of the parliamentary select committee looking into milk pricing last year, said the proposals were good steps.

Well that solves it for me. The Government must be wrong!

Part III is not that different to Part II – rejuvenation again – but of caucus, not Cabinet.

Labour failed to rejuvenate their caucus in 2005. They did a much better job in 2008, and that strengthened their caucus considerably. They failed in 2011, protecting incumbent MPs with the result being the only new List MP is Andrew Little.

National did not rejuvenate greatly in 2011. There are three new List MPs, and six new electorate MPs, but this is out of a caucus of almost 60.

A caucus needs to have a balance of MPs. Not all MPs are going to be Ministers, and many MPs whom do not become Ministers still provide excellent value to their constituents and to Parliament through work on select committees. However service in Parliament as a backbench MP should not be seen as a life-time work (as it has been for Labour’s Ross Robertson) but something you do for a limited period.

It is essential that for 2014, National clearly indicates to caucus that MPs will not be automatically be given winnable spots, and that new aspiring candidates will be ranked higher than some MPs if their regions back them strongly enough. The Party Board and leadership need to send out unequivocally clear signals in 2013 about the 2014 list, so that MPs can make an informed choice about whether they retire with dignity, or wish to risk putting themselves forward for list ranking, and possibly ending up with an unwinnable ranking.

With electorate MPs it is of course between them and their electorate, if they stand again. The hierarchy get little say in this – especially in the stronger seats. It is worth noting though that incumbent MPs have faced challenges. John Key, Judith Collins and formerly John Carter all became MPs by defeating an incumbent for a nomination.

This might all sound rather negative talking about Ministers and MPs needing to “go” the week after an historic victory. That is deliberate. Winning a third term will be far more challenging than winning a second term.  There should be no complacency that the popularity of the Prime Minister will guarantee a third term. I am pointing out the need for rejuvenation now, so that it is not seemed aimed at any individual Minister or MP. It isn’t. I don’t have a list of whom I think should or should not stay on past 2014. What I’m talking about is the need to recognise early on that winning a third term will require some people to put the overall good of the National Party before their individual desires.

In Part I, I talked about the need for ongoing policy reform, and for the Government not just to aspire to be better administrators than Labour, but also driving a better policy agenda. If you try to compete just on being better administratoes, then eventually people think why not try that other lot.

In Part II I want to talk about Ministerial rejuvenation. After National first got elected in 2008, I pondered what Labour did wrong in their latter years, and what National may need to do to get a third term and maybe even the holy grail of a 4th term.

One of Clark’s mistakes was she left ministerial rejuvenation too late. Halfway through their third term and the Cabinet was still dominated by the same names – Clark, Cullen, Anderton, Goff, Maharey, Mallard, Hodgson, King, Dyson, Dalziel.

I sketched out that with a ministry of around 24 (National) Ministers one should be looking at rejuvenation of around 25% at regular intervals. The first 25% by the beginning of the second term, the second 25% by the end of the second term, and a third 25% around halfway through the third term – and in that third tranche you may even have a leadership succession.

It is important to stress that when one talks about ministerial rejuvenation, this is not saying that incumbent Ministers are performing badly, and their successors will be better than them. In fact new Ministers often do struggle initially compared to more experienced Ministers – one reason why you do rejuvenation gradually. But have no doubt about it – New Zealanders will not generally keep voting for the same line up election after election. The media and your opponents paint you as ired and out of ideas, and labels do stick. Plus it is correct that new Ministers will sometimes bring new ideas and energy to a portfolio.

Now to date, the Key Government is pretty much on schedule, in terms of what I see as the ideal pace of rejuvenation. Seven of the 24 Ministers are new, as in not there at the beginning of the 49th Parliament – they are Hekia Parata, Nathan Guy, Craig Foss, Amy Adams, Chris Tremain, Jo Goodhew and Chester Borrows.

But I do believe to enhance National’s chances of a third term, there will need to be a reshuffle before the 2014 election. Towards the end of 2013 some of those who have been Ministers since 2008 should consider following in the foot stops of Simon Power and Wayne Mapp and getting out while on top. Their party will thank them for it, even though they personally could be quite capable of continuing on. Ideally they should even be prepared to spend their final 12 months in Parliament on the backbenches, so that new Ministers can come in before the election.

It may be tempting to think hey let’s wait until after the election, and then do a reshufffle. The problem is there is no guarantee you will get that third term.

If National can go into the 2014 election with around half its Ministry being new faces (as in not original 2008 Ministers), then its chances of winning are enhanced. Of course you need more than just ministerial rejuvenation, but it is a key component of it.

The reasons I raise the issue early, is because the best rejuvenation is that done voluntarily. The PM needs to be very clear to Ministers that a warrant today does not mean they are automatically going to be Ministers if there is a third term, or even for all of this term.

Five years as a Minister is a lot better than most MPs achieve. Stepping down after five years or so should not be seen as a bad thing, but as Simon Power showed us – getting out on top.

It would be unfair to say that winning a second term was easy for National, because to lift your vote in Government is no easy thing to do. But the history of NZ is most Governments get a second term, coupled with an Opposition Leader who was so associated with the past. So the challenge was not so much to win, but to win with an ability to govern well – which has happened with a narrow 61 majority for National, ACT and United Future.

Winning a third term in 2014 is far harder, and I would regard National as the under dog at this stage. iPredict has Labour winning in 2014 at 53% and National at 47% and that is probably about right.

National needs to lose just 0.2% of the vote and it can only govern with the support of the Maori Party. Who knows what the Maori Party in 2014 might do, but I suggest that David Shearer is not as foolish as Phil Goff, and will not treat them as the enemy. Shearer was never part of that time in Labour that treated them as the last cab off the rank, and chose Winston in preference to them. They could go with Shearer in 2014.

But the Maori Party may not hold the balance of power. If National drops 3% in total, then NZ First would hold the balance of power. That is likely (but not certain) to see a Labour-led Government.Of course NZ First may implode again, as Peters is showing no sign of having changed his ways of bluster and bullshit – even over whether or not he had a fall.

So National are the under-dogs. It means that they will have to work incredibly hard to win a third term, and New Zealanders will have to be convinced they deserve it. This means the Government and Ministers must do far more than be competent administrators – they must push and drive reforms which clearly benefit New Zealanders. The welfare reforms are central to that. But so is trialling charter schools and bedding in national standards.

The economy will be front and centre. Sadly there will be very few votes in just doing what is necessary and getting the books back into surplus. At best National just won’t be punished for not achieving that. National will need to confront some of the harder issues such as housing affordability, and will have to make calls on do we leave mineral wealth in the ground or not. As I am typing this up from South Africa, I suspect locals here would be amused that we even have a debate in New Zealand about whether to mine or not.

National’s first term was about infrastructure. The second term is looking to focus on science and innovation. What will be the focus on a third term, if there is one – that voters will vote for? It has to be something that they feel couldn’t be done until the building blocks of the first two terms were in place.

Finally the left in the second term will talk a lot about poverty and income inequality as if they are the same thing. They are not. To take one example – China arguably has far greater income inequality than 20 years ago. But they also have 300 million less citizens in absolute poverty. National needs to own poverty reduction as an issue, and disentangle it from the socialistic goal of income equality which has failed in pretty much every state which has tried to legislate for it.

David Lange once famously called for a cup of tea for his Government. John Key needs to do the opposite. The pace of reform must increase, not slow. Voters want to see a Government confronting tough issues, and making decisions. They don’t want to just see a Government whose job it is to manage rather than lead.

I like this photo (from Stuff) of the Ministers being sworn in. I like the fact that a third of the front bench are woman (and two are Maori women) and indisputably all there on merit – not on the basis of quota or factional appeasement.

I also likes this response from John Key to David Shearer’s call to be on the Ministerial committee on poverty:

Mr Key wished new Labour leader David Shearer all the best in what was a “thankless” job as leader of the Opposition.

Mr Shearer had been “quite quiet” as an MP so it was difficult to tell how he might perform.

However, he rejected Mr Shearer’s call to widen a ministerial group on poverty to all MPs.

“I’m more than happy for David Shearer to be a part of the ministerial committee if he’s happy to give the Government confidence and supply.”

Heh.

On the serious substantive issue, both John Key and David Shearer would sincerely like to see less poverty in New Zealand. They agree on the aim, but the reality is National and Labour disagree strongly on the solutions. This is not always a bad thing – it means NZers get to choose whose policies etc they prefer.

For example National believes a key way to reduce poverty is to reduce the numbers on welfare. Labour however believes that you reduce poverty by paying those on welfare more.

One could argue shouldn’t we do both. Well, yes you can but the policies are not that compatible. The more you pay people on welfare, the harder it generally is to reduce the numbers on welfare.

Ultimately it is of course a bit of a balancing act. Few advocate abolishing the welfare state and having a Singapore system where families must support those not in work, rather than the state. And likewise few support having a welfare state where work is voluntary and you can just go on a benefit whenever you feel like it.

The full list is here. I’ve summarised the changes in the table below.

The brand new Cabinet Minister is Amy Adams, the third of the 2008 intake to make it after Joyce and Parata. She is joined by Craig Foss and Nathan Guy who were Ministers outside Cabinet.

Three new Ministers outside Cabinet are Chris Tremain, Jo Goodhew and Chester Borrows. They are all from the class of 2005, and I suspect that is a signal from the PM that all future Ministers will now come from the 2008 and 2011 intakes.

The cabinet rankings are more symbolic than a reflection of actual power. For example last term Joyce and McCully were on the second row, but both are very influential. However the symbolism is important to a degree.

Parata moves up 13 places which is a huge vote of confidence in her, and Joyce moves up 10. Paula Bennett also moves up seven spots and Jonathan Coleman up four.

A significant reshuffle in terms of portfolios. Brownlee is freed up to keep working on Christchurch, but gets Transport.

Joyce’s role with Economic Development and Science and Innovation will be at the heart of National’s second term agenda.

Collins gets Justice, so expect to see further reforms.

Tony Ryall gets to be the Minister who sells off minority stakes in SOEs as he did such a good job of it last time. He keeps Health of course.

The move of Parata to Education is inspired – Hekia will champion measures to improve the lot of the 20% who are failing – many of whom are Maori.

Tolley gets Police and Corrections. Her experiences with the NZEI and NZPF will stand her in good stead for these portfolios!

Coleman gets Defence, which is handy as he has Devonport Naval Base in his electorate.

Amy Adams gets Comms/ICT, which will fit in quite well with having Internal Affairs also.

Tremain and Goodhew become Ministers as expected, and they are joined by Chester Borrows who should make a good Courts Minister as a former cop and former lawyer – knows both sides!

Worth noting that 10 portfolios have been disestablished or incorporated into other portfolios.

National and the Maori Party have just announced their confidence and supply agreement, which means the Government can now win such votes 64 – 57. It might not even be that close as Peters suggested he might initially back the largest party on confidence and supply or at least abstain. Personally I think that commitment holds about as much value as a peso, but the initial votes could be 64 – 49 or even 72 – 49.

The key aspects of the agreement are:

• Maori Party will vote for confidence and supply
• Maori Party do not have to vote for the legislation outlined in National’s Post-Election Action Plan (unlike ACT and United Future)
• Whanua Ora to be given a specific appropriation and a stand-alone commissioning agency to be established
• A Ministerial Committee on Poverty to focus on alleviation of poverty. Chaired by Bill English with Turia as Deputy Chair.
• Double funding for rheumatic fever prevention to $24m
• Target 20,000 low income homes for home insulation
• All state houses to be insulated, where possible
• Aim to lift Maori educational and employment outcomes
• Agree to offset pre-1990 forests
• Continue with constitutional review to report by Sep 2013, and status of Maori seats remains unchanged for now (no abolition or entrenchment)
• Refocus TPK on improving outcomes for Maori in education, housing and employment
• Conclude decision making on spectrum by May 2012
• National to support to select committee members bills to reduce gambling harm and a Maori cultural heritage bill
• Partial asset sales legislation not to be part of a confidence or supply motion
• Sharples Minister of Maori Affairs, Associate Education and Corrections
• Turia Minister for Whanua Ora and Disability Issues, Associate Health, Housing, Social Development

Doesn’t appear to be anything there with a huge price tag, which is good as the top priority has to be reducing the deficit, not increasing it. But there is plenty there to keep Ministers busy, and the constitutional review especially could be huge.

In my column at the NZ Herald I write on how National’s second term looks to have plenty of reform:

Many National supporters were frustrated at the lack of reform in National’s first term.

They saw National cancels its planned income tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, rather than cut interest free student loans and Working for Families. They saw a soaring deficit, and the Government’s response was to slow the rate of spending increase only. They saw a ban on asset sales, despite this being common amongst centre-right and centre-left Governments around the world.

National’s second term is looking to be far more pleasing to those who want to see a reform agenda. This doesn’t just mean a more right wing agenda. The Hawke/Keating Governments in Australia were good reformers, as was Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. Even Julia Gillard is undertaking some quite good reforms.

So what are the areas of reform for John Key’s second term?

Industrial Relations

The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through strikes and lockouts. Many people are staggered that an unskilled job can pay an average of over $90,000 a year and still have people on strike over it.

I also cover asset part-sales, welfare reform, education and spending.

NZ Herald reports:

Chinese New Zealand businesses, including one formerly owned by the businessman spearheading Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar dairy farms, have boosted the National Party’s coffers by more than $100,000 in recent days.

Recent filings to the Electoral Commission show National received $50,000 on November 22 from Citi Financial Group, a Queen St foreign exchange and financial planning firm owned by Yan Yang and Qiang Wei.

The same day, the party got a $1600 donation from Oravida NZ, which also gave $55,000 on November 30.

Oravida’s directors are Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu and wealthy but reclusive businessman Deyi Shi.

In September last year when it was called Kiwi Dairy, Oravida was bought from Terry Lee, a businessman associated with Shanghai Pengxin, which has applied for Overseas Investment Office approval to buy the Crafar farms.

It is good the disclosure regime is working. Transparency is important and media should report large donations

Turning to the Oravida donation, the key word is former owner. Terry Lee has not owned the company for 14 months, and the new owners have nothing to do with the Crafar farms bid as far as I know. Some people get very excited about former owners, assuming it means they are still in a position of influence with their former company, and/or wanting to advantage them. The prime example of this is how some go on about Steven Joyce being a former owner of the radio stations now owned by Mediaworks. What many do not realise is it was a hostile takeover, and shall we say no love lost there between the former and current owner.

So as far as I know there is no actual link to the Crafar farm bid. Ironically if someone associated with the bid for the Crafar farms did donate a large amount to National, my belief is that it would actually harm their chances as even if the OIO recommended approval, Ministers would be very wary of making a decision that could be perceived as influenced by the donation.

Incidentally what is a Chinese New Zealand business? Both businesses are New Zealand businesses. Oravida has three directors – two of whom live in NZ and one in New York. The ultimate shareholders all appear to be based in New Zealand also. CFG director and shareholders all appear to be New Zealanders also.

There is a difference between a business owned by Chinese living in China and Chinese living in New Zealand. Chinese living in China are foreigners. Chinese living (permanently) in New Zealand are Kiwis.

No one big item, such as ACT had, but lots of assorted issues in their agreement.

• Pass the Game Animal Council legislation (this is for the outdoor recreation lobby)
• Investigate a free annual health check for over 65s, as fiscal conditions allow
• Introduce a law restricting any asset sold to a maximum 49% sale
• Maintain current budget funding tracks for TVNZ and Radio NZ
• Reform Families Commission so it has only one Commissioner and redirect savings to parenting programmes etc
• A Govt discussion document to be developed on UF’s superannuation policy which allows people to choose any age from 60 to 70 to start receiving superannuation, but the longer you leave it the more you get
• Greater use of private hospitals to reduce elective surgery waiting lists

Based on the National/ACT confidence and supply agreement, John Banks is a more effective ACT Caucus than all the caucuses before him.

• A Regulatory Standards Bill to be enacted into law within 12 months, based on Option 5 in this paper.
• A spending limit law to be introduced within 24 months so that expenditure (excluding benefits, disasters, interest) can not increase by more than the annual rate of population growth and inflation. This is a huge win.
• RMA reform so there is only one unitary plan per district
• Trial charter schools in South Auckland so private and community groups (including Iwi) can establish schools that compete with existing schools, and receive funding on a per child basis

These are very significant policy wins for ACT. The spending limit and trialing of charter schools have the potential to have a major impact into the future – and for the better.

If these can be successfully implemented in the next three years, then I could see ACT gaining many of its former supporters back.

National’s second term is looking to have a lot of really positive and significant reform.

Today will be a series of posts on each party, looking at what happened, how they did, and their challenges ahead.

MPs in

Scott Simpson (Coromandel), Maggie Barry (North Shore), Mike Sabin (Northland), Ian McKelvie (Rangitikei), Mark Mitchell (Rodney), Jian Yang (List), Alfred Ngaro (List).

MPs out

Paul Quinn. Aaron Gilmore is in for now but will be the MP National lose, if they lose a spot on specials.

Result

8/10. National hits its target of 48% and got a clear centre-right majority. To do so despite the economic troubles is a spectacular result. Would have got 9/10 if they could govern alone and 10/10 if they managed to get an MP for every electorate (ie 63 MPs).

Challenges

What portfolios do you give Banks? He was an extremely popular and successful Police Minister, but that may be a bit too much back to the future. He has a strong commercial background, and is thought to be interested in Associate Finance. That could help ACT’s brand (which now will be economic liberalism rather than economic and social liberalism), if he has an economic role. Other possibilities are Customs and/or Corrections.

What policy gains do you give the Maori Party? They will want more than just a repeat of what they got last time. However any further policy concessions could play badly with National’s support base, and be fuel for Winston.

Ministerial portfolios. There is room for three or four new Ministers with the retirements of Mapp, Power and te Heuheu plus ACT having one fewer Minister. Any members of the Class of 2005 who do not make it this time will take it (accurately) as a sign they will never be a Minister, and this can lead to grumpiness. Likely at least one member of the Class of 2008 will be promoted (to join Joyce and Parata already there), maybe two of them.

Select Committee Chairs. National will not have a majority on all select committees and four of its five support partner MPs will be Ministers, so select committees will be important. Normally the Opposition gets to chair two of them. Will Key be generous and offer a chairmanship each to Labour, Greens and NZ First?

NZ First. Key rightfully ruled out a coalition or confidence and supply deal with Peters on the grounds of an inability to trust him as stable. However now he is back in Parliament, there is a need to have a working relationship with NZ First. Not an agreement, but they will be lobbied on bills they might support, will sit on the business committee etc. If Winston manages to avoid getting caught up in scandals, then the position on ruling him out may be different come 2014. Too early to speculate, but it will be interesting to observe.

2014: How the hell do you win in 2014? At this stage, I’d have to say the odds are not great for National, but there are three years to go. Labour also in a weak position. the reality is at this stage most likely 2014 outcome is Winston holds balance of power. But again if a week is a long time in politics, three years is an eternity.

Policies have not had a huge amount of coverage during the campaign, so here’s my list of good policies from National. I’ll do separate posts on the good and bad policies of Labour later today or tomorrow.

1. After having an unprecedented no extra spending budget in an election year, will maintain fiscal discipline to get NZ back into surplus by 2014/15 – four years earlier than projected in the 2008 PREFU under Labour.
2. Welfare reform. 52% of those on the DPB went onto it as teenagers and have stayed there ever since. Work testing will stop the DPB being an income source for life
3. Health. Tony Ryall has done such a great job in health that it hasn’t even featured in any of the debates. Elective surgery waiting lists to be reduced from six months to four months
4. Education. $1b to double the capital budget for schools, and retention of national standards so parents know in plain English how their kids are doing, but as importantly so the Government can identify the schools that are less effective and deliver more resource to them.
5. Science. As massive increase in investment in Science, including transforming IRL into an Advanced Technology Institute.
6. RMA Reform. A six month deadline for consenting medium sized developments
7. Ultra-fast Broadband. National will continue rolling this out without delay. 100 MB/s will be available to 75% of NZ.
8. Law & Order. Tighter bail laws and increased penalties for breaches of protection orders
9. Industrial Relations. New employees will no longer be initially forced to join a union if there is a collective, and can decide for themselves on day one whether to join a union or not.
10. Youth Unemployment. National’s Starter Wage will mean not so many young people are priced out of the labour market.

Phil Goff claimed in the debate that a “reliable source” told him

Radio NZ reveals the true story:

Labour Party leader Phil Goff says senior police have been told recruitment for next year has been deferred and the January intake of recruits has been cancelled.

Mr Goff made the claim in TVNZ’s leaders’ debate on Wednesday night and told Morning Report on Thursday that the reason given for the deferral was the need to make savings in the police budget.

He says his source is reliable and well informed.

However, National’s law and order spokesperson Judith Collins says there are so few people leaving the police at the moment that the January intake of recruits is not needed.

She says the first intake next year will be in March instead.

Ms Collins says there will be no reduction in frontline police numbers under a National Government.

If Goff thought there really was a freeze, he would have done a press release stating so, rather than alleging something in a debate where he knows the PM would not know if it was correct or not (as an operational matter).

Here’s what Goff actually said:

Just been advised that you’re deferring all recruiting next year, but that this announcement must not be made until after the election”

Goff lied. There will be recruiting in March 2012. Labour’s campaign has been based on a series of lies and half-truths – on asset sales, on state houses, on welfare and now on the Police.

The attrition rate for the Police under National has been just 3.2% and under Labour was over 6%. So this is in fact a very good thing, as it is far better to retain experienced police officers than recruit as many new ones.

I wonder what other lies Labour will try in the final two days?

Labour has just said:

Why no answer on Crafar farms before election?

National is concealing its intention to sell off our farmland to foreign buyers well under the radar before the election, says Labour’s Economic Development and Associate Finance spokesperson David Parker.

“National is not just about selling our power companies, inevitably into foreign ownership,” David Parker said.

“It’s about selling productive farmland overseas as well.”

More hypocrisy in the hope that the media will not do any fact checking. Some facts:

1. Labour approved sales of more than 650,000 hectares of land to foreign owners when in Government. Yes 650,000 hectares – that is the equivalent of 75 Crafar farms. That work out to the Crafar farms every month. Yes, every month.
2. For the first 20 months of National (seeking latest data), the total amount of land sales to foreigners was 31,000 hectares. That is 1/4 the rate Labour approved sales at. Under 25%.
3. The National-led Government has already turned down one offer from foreign interests for the farms
4. The OIO office is independent from the Executive and Ministers can not direct them to delay a recommendation.

So just remember these facts. The last Labour Government (and every member of the current Labour front bench was a Minister in it) approved the sale of the equivalent of the Crafar Farms every single month for nine years. Under National the rate of approvals has fallen to under 25% that of Labour.

National has announced:

Under National, there will also be a stronger, more proactive stance against those who abuse and defraud the welfare system. Jobseekers whose recreational drug use affects their ability to apply for or secure a job will also be sanctioned, and through the investment approach those with drug addictions will be supported to overcome their illness. In addition, benefit recipients on the run from the Police will have their benefit cancelled.

I think many will be surprised that this wasn’t already the case in terms of those running from the Police.

And a vast proportion of people on the sickness benefit are drug addicts. The welfare state should not be there to allow someone to remain a non work capable drug addict for years or decades. They should be treated and if they won’t take treatment, be sanctioned.

“This year alone, Work and Income’s data matching found around six to 12 per cent of people were receiving benefit payments they weren’t entitled to.

That’s a huge percentage. Of course not all of this may be due to fraud. Some may be accidental, but I would hope everyone would agree that figure should be around 1% or less.

And from the policy:

There are 25,000 people currently receiving a benefit who have committed benefit fraud in the past, or who have received substantial overpayments they were not entitled to, after abusing the welfare system.

I bet you Labour say it is a miniscule problem, not worth worrying about.

Yesterday Labour launched their health policy. I don’t think I have ever come across such a waffly policy full of principles, reviews, develop systems, strengthen, align. It’s 28 pages of waffle. Almost the only specific is, well I let John Pagani reveal it:

National has flatly rejected Labour’s proposals to once again ban junk food in schools.

John comments:

That sort of policy is asking for trouble.

So good old nanny state Labour are back to their worst. No pie is safe. The food police return.

And what has Labour been up to today:

Labour’s thinly-veiled attacks on Prime Minister John Key have continued today with leader Phil Goff bringing up the subject of Hawaiian holidays.  …

“People at the top have got a lot of money and they take their holidays in Hawaii,” Goff said.

The politics of hate and envy. Because John Key has not spent the last 30 years as an MP, and actually went into business, he is one of those despicable rich pricks.

It is sad to see Phil Goff succumb to Key Derangement Syndrome. Goff generally is a decent man, but he is trashing his own reputation as he continues down this line.

Meanwhile what has National announced today? Also a health policy, on waiting times:

Ensure all patients booked for elective surgery receive it within no more than four months by the end of 2014.

Compare that to Labour’s waffle. A specific commitment, that matters to New Zealanders.

And National has a good record here. Since 2008:

• 60,000 more patients got elective surgery than the previous three years
• An extra 27,000 patients a year getting elective surgery – an increase of 22% since 2008
• 91% of patients getting elective surgery within 6 months of being on the waiting list

So Labour is focused on banning pies and where John Key’s family choose to holiday, and National is announcing it will boost elective surgery by a further 4,000 operations a year and cut waiting times by a further two months.

It shows who is focused on the issues that really matter to New Zealanders. It shows why hopefully Labour is dropping in the polls and hopefully will be crushed on November 26.

National has released its policy on climate change and the environment. The policy has a long list of achievements, but I want to focus on the ETS changes:

The 2011 ETS Review Panel recommended moving to full obligation in three equal steps between I January 2013 and 1 January 2015. It is National’s intention to implement this recommendation.

This is nothing major, and seems sensible to phase in the full obligations.

National believes it is important to maintain land-use flexibility for pre-1990 forest land. We will introduce offsetting on 1 January 2013 regardless of the lack of international agreement.

This is very sensible. It basically says you can offset new forests against cutting down existing ones. Allows a landowner to use the land most suited to forestry for forestry and the land most suited to (say) dairy for dairy.

The agriculture sector is liable to surrender units for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from 1 January 2015.
National will review this in 2014. We will not impose a liability unless there are practical technologies to reduce emissions, and our trading partners have made further progress with their climate change policies to reduce emissions.

I actually disagree with National on this one. The ETS review panel chaired by David Caygill did a very good job I thought, and made the case that the industry has shown the ability to reduce emissions. Sure, there is no silver bullet, but I don’t think delaying the start date endlessly is a good idea. The industry moves into the ETS at a very slow rate, and a preferable strategy would have been to have it come in, and maybe then cap the level it moves to if technology has not found ways to reduce emissions.

Advocate for an international agreement that requires all major emitters to reduce their emission levels over time.

National sees no point in any future international agreement that does not include a commitment from major emitting countries to reduce their business-as-usual emissions levels. We’ve made our 2020 target conditional on this.

This is vital. If China is not part of any agreement to at a minimum hold, if not reduce, emissions then the efforts of the rest of the world will count for nothing.

Gordon Campbell (a former Green press secretary) has an extremely insightful column at Scoop on the Greens:

Let’s assume for instance, that once the election dust settles Prime Minister John Key will offer – in the name of broad church, representative politics and a desire to split the centre left vote in order to ensure his thirdterm – a couple of ministerial posts outside Cabinet to the Greens.

No strings attached. Something ministerial for Russel Norman say, in the Conservation/Environment era, and an associate Health post for his colleague Metiria Turei, where she could work alongside Tariana Turia. What would the Greens do if such an offer is made? What should they do?

I think there would be some strings attached. At a minimum it would be that those who are Ministers abstain on supply and confidence. A Minister can not vote against confidence in an Executive they are part of.

The Greens have been out of real power for 12 years. Helen Clark spurned the Greens after the 2005 election, and chose to go with Peters instead. As a junior player on the centre left, the Greens traditional role is to wait in the parlour until Labour brings home the election bacon. Yet Labour can only govern when Labour is in the ascendancy on the centre left, which usually means the Greens will have been reduced to hovering just above the 5% threshold. Perversely, in years (such as 2011) when the centre left vote goes to the Greens in large numbers, it is in a context where the Greens can’t be in government, not in any significant way.

That’s the Greens dilemma, in a nutshell. It may say that it is centrist – and it has been saying so for some time – but relatively few voters see it as such. And thus it remains in its current bind – strong when there is little chance of it governing, and able to join a centre left government only when it is in a position of relative weakness vis-a-vis Labour. And regrettably, Labour tends to treat the Greens like an abused spouse in those circumstances.

This is exactly the problem. The Greens get their votes from Labour when Labour are weak, hence a Labour-led Government will not generally occur when the Greens are strong.  And then when the Greens are weaker, Labour pisses all over them, and chooses Winston Peters and Peter Dunne over them.

That’s the basic argument for making a dramatic break away from the centre left and heading into unknown territory. Arguably, it is only by reaching some meaningful form of co-existence with National (beyond home insulation) that the Greens can break the mould, and put itself in a position where it could hope to poach votes from National in large numbers ( and not just from despondent Labour voters) to add to its core support.

If the Greens want to be able to grab significant numbers from National, they need to show they can work with National, beyond the current arrangement.

If the Greens did try to break out of their current ghetto would that pose a substantial risk to the brand? Absolutely. Political virginity is a valuable commodity, and one reason for the Greens’ longevity is that it has stayed away – or has been kept away – from the boiler room of executive power. The party strategists have also noticed the fate of others before them. Notably, the Maori Party has tried to make gains for a far more defined constituency than the one served by the Greens. If it is that hard for the Maori Party, how hard could it be for the Greens? Very hard indeed.

It is definitely a risk. One way to mitigate the risk (and I recommend this to all minor parties) is do not have your leader or all your leaders become Ministers. You need a leader to remain outside the Ministry so they can provide the political leadership to their party. If they are spending all their time signing off departmental papers, they are not making the constant case for support.

So if I was the Greens I’d push for an economic role for Norman and a health role for Hague, and keep Turei to fly the flag outside the Ministry.

So… even as Labour flounders and the Greens pick up the flotsam and jetsam from the good ship SS Goff, a lot of hard decisions lie in wait further down the track. The Greens’ current place on the political spectrum simply doesn’t allow them to harvest a big enough vote on the centre left to enable an escape from their current dependency on Labour which – on past performance – will treat them like deckhands once Labour is back on the quarterdeck again. Whatever the risks, it strikes me as unlikely that Russel Norman will be willing to tolerate subservience, in perpetuity.

As I said, Gordon Campbell has done a very nice job looking at the pros and cons.

Labour’s law and order policy is to repeal the three strikes law so repeat violent and sexual offenders get out of jail far quicker. National has just announced five new proposed law changes, on top of the 18 passed to date:

1. Make it harder for those accused of serious offences to get bail where there is a pattern of offending while on bail.
2. Make assaults on police and corrections officers an aggravating factor for sentencing.
3. Random drug and alcohol testing of those on bail or home detention, where this is a condition of their sentence or bail.
4. Only hold annual parole hearings for those offenders who are addressing their offending and/or completed parts of their offender plan. In other words, no hearing if it is obvious they will not get parole.
5. Introduce civil detention orders for the very small (5 – 12 a year) number of high-risk offenders who are clinically assessed as being near certain to re-offend when released. Such orders can be sought by the Parole Board from the High Court.

I suspect the civil detention orders are intended for cases like the Beast of Blenheim.

A former girlfriend of the man known as the Beast of Blenheim said she is devastated he will be released next year, and he should never be allowed out of prison.

Stewart Wilson was convicted in 1996 on a raft of sex offences involving 16 females over a 23 year period and is due for release next September.

Asked if he would comply with a condition that he not have any contact with a child under the age of 16, Wilson was reported to have said “I don’t give a stuff about it”.

There are not many offenders, like Wilson. But when he makes it clear he will not comply with any release conditions, and it is almost inevitable he will rape again, there is nothing the current law can do, except wait for him to offend, and then after there is a new victim, do something.

Stuff reports:

Law breaking tenants would be locked out of a state house for up to a year under National Party policy released today.

Excellent idea. The criminals in state houses often terrorise their neighbours.

As for where they will live, well there are thousands of other landlords around. They’ll have to convince a private sector landlord that they will be good tenants. That in turn may gave an incentive to stop the crime.

Key said National would insulate all state houses built before 1987 by the end of 2013.

An existing insulation programme would be expanded to cover a further 4600 state houses, he said.

The Greens will be pleased.

Stuff reports:

National has announced it will double the penalties for breaching protection orders and fund security improvements for the homes of family violence victims, Prime Minister and National Party Leader John Key  announced on the campaign trail today.

The policy is here.

In 2010, 976 people were convicted of breaching a protection order and, of these, 185 received a prison sentence.
National will double the maximum penalty for a single breach of a protection order to two years in prison or a fine of $10,000.

Any subsequent breaches, regardless of the period in which they occur, will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment, rather than by the current maximum of two years in prison for two or more breaches in the space of three years.

I suspect few things are more terrifying than having someone who is the subject of a protection order breach it, and turn up on your doorstep etc. Far far too many people are killed or seriously wounded in domestic violence attacks. Hopefully this policy will prevent some offenders from so blithely ignoring a protection order – or if they do, then lock them up for longer.