Kiwiblog

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.

National released the RMA policy yesterday. The key aspect is a six month deadline for local authorities to consent medium-sized developments. This will be welcome by anyone whose had to waits years to get a yes or no to a development.

The policy will not change the criteria on which local authorities decide. It will just penalise them (by rebating the consent fee) if they do not decide in time. This is a win-win, as if the answer is a no, it is better to find that out earlier, and if it is a yes, then you can proceed.

Already late consents have fallen from 31% of all non-notified consents under Labour to 5% today.

Today’s science announcement is also a good one, in my opinion:

The Government will boost investment in the science sector to transform Industrial Research Limited (IRL) into an advanced technology institute, which will function as the ‘high-tech HQ’ for New Zealand, Prime Minister John Key announced today. …

“Over the next five years, we will effectively double the size and capability of IRL, transforming it into an advanced technology institute with up to 700 staff and with a far greater reach than at present.”

The institute will have a strong business-focused culture, will have a nation-wide remit and will be close to where the country’s high-tech businesses are located. The institute will have facilities in Auckland and Christchurch, and will retain the existing Gracefield facility in Lower Hutt.

There are three documents. The release, the speech and the Q&A. Key points:

• A new jobseeker support benefit to replace the dole, sickness benefit, widows, women alone and DPB (if children over 14)
• part-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 5 years
• full-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 14 years
• Sole Parent Support to replace DPB
• new Supported Living Payment to replace Invalid’s Benefit and DPB care of sick and infirm
• A sole parent who has another child while on a benefit will be exempt for one year, in line with parental leave, before work obligations resume
• Aim is to move 46,000 off welfare
• Cost of $130m over four years
• Estimated savings from welfare reduction – $1b over four years

This is a huge shake up. It is an end to being on the DPB meaning no need to look for work for decades, but the changes go well beyond that.

Currently 1 in 12 people of working age are on welfare. Over half have spent greater than five years on welfare.

The sickness benefit changes are also significant. If you get sick or injured, then you get a temporary exemption from job seeking obligations. But you don’t just get left on the sickness benefit for years as a de facto invalids benefit.

The Invalids Benefit basically does not change, apart from the name (which is a sensible change as the name is demeaning, as the criteria includes those terminally ill etc).

The cost of the policy at $130m is a lot, but a worthwhile investment. This will mainly be costs of helping get people into work with assistance for childcare, training, workplace support etc.

There’s also a nice incentive for those who return to work before they have to (for sole parents). If they do, then they’ll carry on getting the benefit for a number of weeks (declining at $100 a week).

Last night saw the televised opening broadcasts from National, Labour and the Greens.

Here’s my scores on the following attributes

• Style
• Policy Focus
• Creativity
• Team Focus
• Relevance

National

• Style – 1/10 – the technical quality was appalling, both in terms of sound and lighting. May have been a deliberate decision to go for substance over style, in which case they wildly succeeded. There is a difference between no style and not overly flashy though!
• Policy Focus – 8/10. Key talked on the major issues. He talked both about what the Government had done and what it will do if re-elected.
• Creativity – 0/10. Did not inspire.
• Team Focus – 2/10. In that environment had to be Key only, but could have mentioned other Ministers more.
• Relevance – 9/10. It wasn’t about trivial stuff, but stuff that people are interested in and want to hear about. Stayed current
• Positivity – 8/10. Talked about themselves, didn’t knock opponents. Focused on a brighter future.

Labour

• Style – 8/10. Was well done and engaging. Used the visual medium well. You actually wanted to hear the next few minutes of the story.
• Policy Focus – 3/10. Did not hardly mention any of their current policies at all. Solely Basically attacked National’s policies and records – not just the current National either, but those of the last 80 years!
• Creativity – 7/10. Not the usual format. Was a good focus on why their MPs are Labour.
• Team Focus – 6/10. Sensible to use attractive and personable MPs such as O’Connor, Nash, Ardern, Robertson etc. However no mention of Deputy Leader, David Parker. And use of O’Connor was cynical as he is not even on the party list and probably won’t even be an MP.
• Relevance – 2/10. Not only failed to mention a single policy they were promoting, also spent far too long campaigning against Sid Holland and Rob Muldoon.
• Positivity – 3/10. Spent most of the time knocking National, and revisiting past grievances. However balanced that a bit by positive statements from some MPs.

Greens

• Style – 7/10. Good use of outdoors scenery. The odd technical hitch with lighting and camera shaking. Nice start talking about richer NZ, then having co-leaders talk.
• Policy Focus – 9/10. Talked relentlessly about their policies, and how they planed to achieve them.
• Creativity – 6/10. A basic concept executed well
• Team Focus – 5/10. Brief mention and profile of rest of the team.
• Relevance – 7/10. They talked well about the issues around their brand. However not necessarily the issues for all NZers. Nice linking of environment and economy.
• Positivity – 9/10. Relentlessly positive about what could be achieved if you voted for them. Highlighted their achievements with National. Even when negative such as state of rivers, talked on turning it around.

How did you find them?

I might rate the other party ones tonight, but not sure I can be bothered watching them all

National have updated their figure for the extra net debt under Labour’s policies and it is now up to $16b over the next four years. They have also launched the www.oweourfuture.co.nz website so people can keep track of the growing debt from their promises.

I suspect we will hear from a lot of unions today. Amazingly not a single union commented on Labour’s superannuation policy yesterday, despite their decades of opposition to compulsory superannuation and raising the age of eligibility.

But National has just released their employment relations policy, and I think the unions will rediscover their voices. The policy takes a number of good steps in the right direction, and is in total contrast to Labour’s desire to return to the 1970s.

First of all there is a partial victory on the issue of the minimum wage for teenagers, which has resulted in such massively high youth unemployment.

There will be a “Starting-Out Wage” set at 80% of the adult minimum wage. At present the current law has this also, but it only applies for the first 200 hours of employment, which can be as little as five weeks. National is extending this to:

1. 16 and 17 year olds for their first six months with an employer
2. 18 and 19 year olds if they have been on a benefit for more than six months prior, for their first six months of employment
3. 16 to 19 year olds doing at least 40 credits of industry training a year (was 60)

This doesn’t go as far as I would go, which would be to simply not have the minimum wage law apply to those aged under 18 (rather than under 16), but it should give young job seekers a better opportunity to get their first job, and gain that all important experience.

National is also making it easier for employees to request flexible working arrangements:

Many workplaces already have flexible working arrangements, either formally or informally. But at the moment, the formal request mechanism applies only to those with caring responsibilities.

National will extend the right to request flexible working hours to all workers, and raise the profile of flexible working arrangements. We want to see more workers and employers benefiting from flexible working arrangements.

And also they wind back some compulsory lite unionism:

Remove the requirement that non-union members are employed under a collective agreement for their first 30-days.

The current law effectively forces you to join the union, and means you can only withdraw and go on an individual contract after 30 days. National allows an employee to decide for themselves from day one whether or not they wish to join a union.

Apply partial pay reductions for partial strikes or situations of low-level industrial action.

Currently, employees can engage in partial strike action, such as refusing to answer email or do any paper work, while continuing to receive full pay.

Partial pay for partial work.

I am really pleased to see some movement on the issue of pay rates for teenagers with no work experience who need a first job. Our youth unemployment rate is far too high.

In my Herald column I ask whether the HMNZS National will be able to get off the reef. The beginning:

I was asked at a speaking engagement a couple of weeks ago whether the election was a foregone conclusion, as there was such a lead in the polls for National. My response was to quote former United Kingdom Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and say “Events, dear boy, events”. This famous quote was Macmillan’s response to the question of what is most likely to blow a Government off course. And the blowing of the Rena off course onto a reef near Tauranga most definitely is an event.

This is so very well done by Danyl and Joe.

Adam Bennett in the NZ Herald reports:

Tamaki MP Allan Peachey is understood to be considering standing aside in November as fresh concerns emerge about his health.

Mr Peachey was elected to the safe National seat in 2005 but was diagnosed with cancer shortly afterwards.

He recovered after a 12cm tumour and his right kidney were removed but had to take a break of several weeks last year after a lung collapsed.

This year he contracted septicaemia which affected his appearance, but more recently appeared in Parliament bald.

Allan has had a tough time health-wise, and if his decision is not to re-stand that will be very understandable.

If he does stand down, National will have to have an expedited selection process to find a new candidate. I imagine some of those who missed out in Botany and Epsom could also seek the Tamaki nomination.

UPDATE: And the news is now out that Allan has indeed decided to retire.

Duncan Garner reports:

We asked voters that if John Key opened the door to a formal coalition deal with the Greens – should the Greens say yes.

• 55 percent said yes
• 30 percent said no

But a breakdown of the votes into a party-by-party basis tells a different story.

Amongst Green voters:

• 60 percent said yes
• 27 percent no

Amongst National voters:

• 63 percent said yes
• 25 percent said no

This shows remarkable support for a formal deal – from both National and Green voters.

Chris Trotter writes at Stuff:

They weren’t the most important events of the past week. In fact, in a world racked by economic crisis and intractable conflict, they weren’t important at all.

But, as is so often the case with small, seemingly trivial events, they were highly instructive. They told us why John Key’s National Party will have to work very hard to lose the forthcoming election, and why – barring a miracle – Labour hasn’t the slightest chance of winning it.

So what is Chris referring to?

The first event involved a visit by the Prime Minister to Canterbury University.  …

Except for the sign that fourth-year mechanical engineering students had stuck to the “Mech Suite” window overlooking the PM’s arrival-point.

“John, mate,” read the sign, “come up for a yarn with your country’s future engineers.”

The Prime Minister spotted the sign and, yep, you guessed it, to the whoops and hollers of the (mostly male) students he came up.

But wait, there’s more. Not only did the PM come up, but he also agreed to match one of his larger and more terrifying DPS bodyguards against the students’ massive arm-wrestling champion, “Mad Dog”. …

What matters is that a) John Key was up for it, and carried it off with considerable aplomb. And b) The whole event is now available to the electorate via the internet. Just three days after it was first posted, more than 13,000 people had watched the YouTube clip.

Which is quite a lot for a 10 minute video.

And the other event?

In a posting headed “Bill English Funds Bryce Edwards”, the Labour caucus’ chief election strategist, Trevor Mallard, launched a vicious attack on the young Otago University academic Dr Bryce Edwards for his, at times, highly critical assessments of the Labour Opposition’s performance. …

It is difficult to know where to begin with this outburst.

That it was made by the caucus’s chief strategist raises a whole host of questions about the nature of the election campaign Labour is intending to run.

Does Phil Goff sanction this stuff? We can only hope that he does not endorse the sort of crude ad hominem arguments featured in Mallard’s posting.

We must hope, too, that Labour’s appeal to the electorate is fuelled by emotions considerably less disreputable than the petty spitefulness and partisan hostility which it displays.

To be fair, it is not all in Labour who act like this. But they sit back and enable it by having Mallard as their “chief strategist”.

And this is how they act in Opposition. It is worse when they are in Government, when they can actually use the powers of office to strike back at those who dare criticise.

Trotter concludes:

All elections have a “tone”: a mode of address to the voting public which (largely unconsciously) “cues” their response to the competing parties.

If we compare and contrast the tone of the YouTube clip of the PM’s visit to the Mech Suite, with the tone of Mallard’s Red Alert posting, picking the election result becomes a cinch. Sometimes, little things generate big consequences.

I recall Chris wearing a red Labour rosette in the lead up to the last election. Now Labour probably dismiss him as a member of the VRWNLLWC.

John Pagani blogs with a photo of a hoarding in Manawatu for the National Party candidate for Rangitikei.

The problem is the under the bylaws of the Manawatu District Council, no hoardings are allowed until two months before the election which is Sunday/Monday.

Now by itself that may not be the biggest issue around, as a few candidates have gone early (which they shouldn’t). But what makes this one very stupid is the National candidate is also the Mayor of the Manawatu District Council.

Someone should be getting their arse kicked for what is a very bad look of hypocrisy.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff writes:

The decision earlier this year to leave the door open a crack to National post- November 26 was a difficult bridge for the minor party to cross, and there has been collateral damage – but it also looks to have been a shrewd move, even if the Greens are picking up votes from Labour, rather than catching the soft National vote, which was the intention.

What the Greens have actually said is that they “could” work with a National- led government, even if on the basis of current National Party policies it is “extremely unlikely”.

It is extremely unlikely, but possibly preferable to a further 6+ years of opposition.

With National’s only reliable allies, ACT, looking decidedly pasty, and the Maori Party under pressure to distance themselves from National, a cuddlier Green Party would, on the surface, look decidedly attractive to National should its vote fall much below 46 per cent on election night.

Here I disagree. If National’s vote is low enough that Labour could form a Government, then the Greens will go with Labour.

However if a Labour-led Government is not a possibility, then you could have some sort of deal between National and the Greens. It will only work if National does not need the Greens to govern, but like with the Maori Party offers a deal anyway.

A formal coalition deal may be a bridge too far for both parties but as MMP has shown, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Greens are unlikely to bring themselves to support National on confidence and supply, but abstaining, as they did after 2002 with Labour, could give them sufficient clout to extract significant policy concessions.

This I agree with, and maybe one could even include a portfolio or two in such an agreement. You might have it that the two Ministers have to vote for confidence and supply (as they are in Government) and the rest of the caucus abstains.

National’s 2011 party list is above. The first column is their list ranking. The third column is what I call the effective list, which takes into account which candidates are likely to win their electorate seats. The assumption is that National will hold all 41 existing seats. In reality of course it is possible it may win some additional seats, or lose a seat. In the absence of public polling data, I go with the status quo.

The fourth column is their rank in 2008, and the fifth column is the change from 2008. These are interesting but you can read too much into them. For example Maurice Williamson has dropped 11, but that is simply because the Ministers are ranked in ministerial order, while in 2008 they were not.

The sixth column is my calculation as to what party vote National needs for that candidate to be elected on the list. It assumes a 4% wasted vote, and is approximate only.

So who are the big moves. The three biggest promotions are:

1. Paula Bennett +27
2. Amy Adams+24
3. Nikki Kaye +24

A big vote of confidence in all three.

The two board only nominees (on top of Joyce and Lockwood) are Alfred Ngaro and Dr Jian Yang. Alfred stood for the Auckland Council last year, chairs the Pacific Health Committee of the Auckland District Health Board and in 2009 was awarded a Sir Peter Blake Emerging Leader Award.

Dr Yang is the associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and director of the China Studies Centre for the New Zealand Asia Institute at Auckland University. He is also chair of the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.

If National wins 48% of the party vote, all current List MPs would be returned to Parliament. If they got 50%, then they would also get Paul Foster-Bell and Claudette Hauiti. At 53% every electorate candidate would get into Parliament – either via their seat or the list.

In terms of caucus diversity, and assuming a 48% party vote, National would have 15 female MPs out of 60, or 25%. A lot better than the old days when you could count the number on one hand, but not as high as it could be. The percentage women would increase to 28% if National gets 52%.

However several women have moved up the list significantly – Paula, Amy and Nikki have all had huge promotions as has Junior Whip Jo Goodhew (and all on merit in my opinion).

In terms of ethnicity, at 48% National would have seven MPs of Maori decent which would be 12% of Caucus. This is equal to the adult Maori population, which is 12% of the country. There would also be two Pacific MPs and three Asian MPs.

In terms of age distribution, 49% of the caucus would be in their 40s or younger and 51% in their 50s or 60s.

The list does not bring in much new blood. There is new blood coming in on the electorate side also, but also not a lot. This is not unusual for the first term in Government. Not many retire after one term. National’s real challenge will be in 2014. To enhance their chance of winning a third term (if they get a second term), they will need to have a significant amount of rejuvenation in both caucus and cabinet.

The Labour Party have found the issue that New Zealanders are most interested in – the fact that press releases announcing new National candidates three months ago used a common template.

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

Do National Party candidates have an uncanny knack for having precisely the same thoughts? Or is it a case of words being put in to their mouths?

Since the party started picking new candidates in February, at least eight have issued press statements with exactly the same quotes throughout.

Even veteran broadcaster Maggie Barry and former press secretary Paul Goldsmith have been among those parroting identical party lines.

Labour’s campaign chair Trevor Mallard said any ”fill in the blanks” type press statements were ”subject to ridicule”.

”It’s a sign of both laziness and also disrespects the electorate on the part of the candidate,” Mallard said. 

Oh my God, National uses a template press release to announce a new candidate. Shock, horror.

One should understand the context of these press releases. National holds a democratic selection meeting with a secret ballot determining the winner. Hence, unlike Labour, Head Office does not know the winner in advance.

Once a winner is known, around an hour later the party generally sends out a press release. Now of course this is pre-written by a staffer. The winning candidate’s name is stuck in, and they are asked to approve it. They amend and/or approve it and it goes out – sometimes within half an hour of the decision being known.

Having the candidate write their own release from scratch at 10 pm is a rather unrealistic proposition, especially as most successful candidates at that time are off to a place with alcohol to celebrate them winning the nomination.

But I congratulate Labour on discovering the use of press release templates.

Lloyd Burr at 3News reports:

The National Party has recruited a lesbian, Maori, former-Grassroots Labour supporter who is expected to take a top list spot and seat in Parliament.

Claudette Hauiti, who is in a civil union and raising a child with her partner, admits she “ticks all the boxes” on National’s representation scale.

Ms Hauiti says “I’m not made up of one particular thing, I’m made up of many things….my iwitanga…I’m also an urban Maori, I’m also a business woman…I’m also a mother and all those things help build a very strong character for the National Party”.

But as Claudette said, being on Grassroots Labour does not mean you are a Labour Party member. I even have a page on Grassroots Labour.

John Pagani blogs:

Give me a break.

“Interesting to be in a party where the leadership decide selections,” David Farrar says of David Parker’s decision to stand in Epsom, as if National’s selection of Paul Goldsmith wasn’t one of the worst leadership stitch-ups in the entirety of MMP.

I mean, he’s just shameless. I blogged when Goldsmith was selected that it made sense. But to then take the mickey and claim it was a local decision is bizarre. Goldsmith has been selected by party command  to throw the seat to former National MP John Banks, whose biography Goldsmith wrote. The locals wanted Bhatnagar.

John’s experience of political parties is limited. In the Alliance Jim Anderton decided everything. On the one occassion the rest of the party wanted a say, Jim stormed off in a huff and killed the party. Then in the Progressives Jim even named the party after him so he had full control.

In Labour, the head office had three votes on a seven person panel, and combined with the unions can decide most selections.

This is why John thinks that in National, the head office decided the Epsom selection. He can’t imagine a party where this is not possible.

In seats with membership under 900, the Regional Chair can have influence as they select some of the 60 delegates. But in a strong seat like Epsom, the 60+ local delegates are selected purely by the members in their branch meetings, and those delegates get 100% of the votes (the Regional Chair has a casting vote but not a deliberative vote).

Party members take their duties seriously as delegates. Unlike Labour where a union can bus in scores of “members” who have never attended a Labour Party meeting in their life, and have never even met the candidates, National has eligibility criteria. You must have been an individual member for at least a year, and more importantly you must have attended a Meet the Candidates meeting to be able to vote at the selection meeting.

On top of the formal MTC meetings, candidates generally will meet every delegate one on one in their house. To win a selection you need to spend weeks getting around all the delegates – some you may even meet two or three times as they question you on your beliefs, your experience, your ambitions.

I accept this is all alien to John, but it is how it works in the seats where National has membership of 900 or more.

Meanwhile NewstalkZB report:

Labour Party frontbencher David Parker’s to take a tilt at Epsom.

The list MP has confirmed he will be taking on National’s Paul Goldsmith and Act’s John Banks at the general election.

Now I am told nominations are still open. Yet the story treats Parker as if he is the confirmed candidate. That is because they know in Labour if the hierarchy support you, you will almost always win – their rules are written that way.

What is more interesting is that Parker is moving from Dunedin to Auckland. His relationship is part of it no doubt, but look at the politics.

If Goff loses, him and Annette will go. Parker and Street could well be the replacements. But Labour could not have a Leader from Dunedin and a Deputy from Nelson. Auckland is their stronghold, and where elections are won.

By moving to Auckland, Parker makes himself a far stronger contender for the leadership.

Also I should note that the blogs were first to say Parker would seek Epsom.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

National and Act are working on a deal under which Act would not stand candidates in marginal seats, including New Plymouth and Waimakariri, to increase National’s chances of winning them.

This is sensible and not unusual. Off memory most elections there have been some seats where ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote. One of the nice things about MMP is that you can still contest the party vote, without needing to stand in an electorate.

Act’s new candidate in Epsom – John Banks – said while he was not privy to such discussions, “Waimakariri would have been held by a National Party member of Parliament today if it wasn’t for the Act Party candidate last election”.

“I don’t make those decisions. I’m not on the campaign committee and I’m not on the Act board so I can’t speak with any authority but would it make sense, for instance, to lose the seat of New Plymouth to Andrew Little, a future leader of the Labour party, likely to be the leader of the Labour Party post the election, to lose that seat held by Jonathan Young because we put up an Act candidate?”

Mr Banks indicated Act would consider a more general policy of not standing in marginal seats. “I would not want to dislodge any high-quality National Party MPs from their marginal seats by way of putting up an Act candidate.”

Very sensible stuff from Banskie.

Talking of electorates a source within Labour informs me that nominations for Epsom have not closed yet, but will next week. If someone stands against Parker it will go to a selection meeting. I suspect Epsom Labour Party has few members and few union affiliates in the seat, so my guess is the Head Office wishes would prevail easily. Of course yet to have it confirmed Parker is seeking Epsom.

In a final ballot run-off, Paul Goldsmith pipped Aaron Bhatnagar. Congrats to Paul, and commiserations to Aaron and the other candidates.