Charter schools have received most attention.

 So obviously will this idea benefit the most disadvantaged children that it is shameful it wasn’t implemented years ago, especially as it can be done under existing legislation.

 The concept is almost left-wing – that all children are different and require a school environment tailored to their needs, not the ideologies of bureaucrats or unionists – and New Zealand already has charter schools of sorts.

Indeed the schools are not new, but the extra flexibility they may have could be.

The Muldoon government first supported Te Kohanga Reo in 1982.  Lockwood Smith followed in 1993, providing the first funding for Kura Kaupapa Maori, Wharekura and Wananga.

Catholic integrated schools and those based on particular pedagogies such as Montessori or Steiner are also effectively charter schools.  Dr Smith’s tenure saw the first state-funded Hare Krishna school.

The idea is to give poor families the same educational choices as rich families, and bring new ideas into the system.

But there will be opposition!

The teacher unions, of course, oppose the idea with extraordinary ferocity.  They know that, if the charter school trial is successful, their vision of a single system, controlled by them, with no ability to compare either students or schools, and therefore no possibility of accountability, will be dashed.  They also know that, without their intervention, the trial is likely to succeed.

Vicious campaigns will be launched against the new schools and the teachers who work in them.

Pickets will try to prevent students from attending them.  The atmosphere the unions engender will encourage attacks on students planning to attend the schools …

Now Matthew may be resorting to a bit of hyperbole here, but if he is correct could we see scenes like the below in New Zealand?

Rugby-netball double international Louisa Wall is sticking up for fellow Labour MP Darien Fenton over her attack on the public “bromance” between the Mad Butcher Sir Peter Leitch and Prime Minister John Key. …

But Ms Wall, who is back in Parliament for a second stint as a list MP, said the comments were misinterpreted, and she shared the disappointment at Sir Peter’s support for Mr Key – despite admiring his work.

 ”We would have assumed Sir Peter was a working-class champion,” Ms Wall said.

Ms Wall, who is contesting the safe Labour seat of Manurewa, said “personal is political”, and Sir Peter could not endorse Mr Key without endorsing his policies.

For Ms Fenton, though, his broadcast utterances were political treason. That any member of the country’s working class could speak well of a “Tory” leader is anathema. Unthinkable. Unforgivable.

The Mad Butcher was shocked by her withering personal rejection and the attempt to denounce him for saying what he thinks. His former butchery business was also stunned by an inference some had taken that a Labour MP was calling for a boycott of the Mad Butcher stores, many of them in rock-solid Labour seats.

The Fenton comments would have been politically dumb and personally reprehensible at any time, given Sir Peter’s record for serving the communities the MP purports to represent.

But her timing, amid Sir Peter’s well-publicised but tentative recovery from cancer and the joy of all league fans at the Warriors’ late season success, was particularly damaging.

As a rumour, it’s surprisingly prevalent.

  Just as he wanted to be a successful businessman, but not necessarily the world’s wealthiest, John Key wanted to be prime minister, but not necessarily the longest-serving.

  After achieving the top job, he would serve a few years before going out on a high.

  According to the theory, Mr Key would hand over to Steven Joyce sometime before the 2014 election.

This gets pushed a lot, mainly I suspect by Labour. There is a degree of truth to it. I don’t think John Key is obsessed with staying Prime Minister for as long as possible, and I think he could well retire before he loses an election.

However I’ve never thought he would not contest the 2014 election, and seek a third term (if he gets a second). Anyway Matthew asked Key the question about 2014:

When I asked Mr Key specifically this week if he intended to serve a full second term and lead National into the 2014 election, he barely bothered with the usual platitudes about “taking one election at a time” or “serving at the pleasure of the party and the public.”

His answer was not arrogant but it was unequivocal: yes, that was exactly his intention.

So that’s one little rumour we can put to bed.

With horror still unfolding, it’s too soon to be arguing over how to finance the rebuilding of Christchurch but already politicians are being forced into positions against the public interest.

The government’s opening position was correct.  It would rule nothing in or out. John Key initially applied that policy to a national earthquake tax but, within days, media pressure had him limiting likely new imposts to increasing the $60 annual Earthquake Commission levy to $180.

Bill English also tried to hold the line, refusing to rule in or out cuts to Working for Families and interest-free student loans but was immediately over-ruled in theDominion Postby “a highly placed government source.” “A highly placed government source” with the credibility to over-rule Mr English surely had to be someone who outranks him.

Needless to say, after another day of media hysteria, Mr Key went public and as good as ruled out any interest on student loans.  He limited discussion of changes to Working for Families to those on higher incomes.

This is the point I was trying to make a couple of days ago. Ideally the Government should not rule anything out or in until we actually have a better idea of the fiscal and economic cost. But no Government can risk days of scare-mongering headlines such as “Govt considering tax hike” or “Govt considering abolishing interest free loans”.

Hooton then puts up his case for change:

It’s unconscionable that fit, healthy 65-year-old chief executives will get superannuation when Christchurch primary schools need rebuilding.

Interest-free student loans mean the taxpayer is paying to cut the real value of the loans of doctors, lawyers and accountants rather than rebuilding Christchurch Hospital. They should at least be adjusted for inflation.

The problem with Working for Families is not primarily that it gives welfare to high income earners (although that’s ludicrous) but that it churns billions of dollars and creates massive effective marginal tax rates.

I’ll happily pay higher taxes to rebuild Christchurch. In return, the government ought now to take these issues seriously.

My view is somewhat different. I also believe that the age of super should increase, that there should be interest on student loans and that WFF should be reformed – not because of the earthquake – but because it is good policy to do so.

According to their own rhetoric, and that of the foreign environmental lobbyists who dictate it, the Green Party believes that the next century, and perhaps even the next decade, will be characterised by severe global turmoil.

Climate change, they say, will cause mass migration unprecedented in human history, as hundreds of millions leave equatorial regions for the north and south.

The seas will rise, creating refugees not just from small island states like the Maldives and Kiribati but causing havoc in China and India, with their vast coastal populations.

According to the UN, Indonesia, with its 80,000km coastline, 17,000 islands and 240 million inhabitants, will be the country worst affected by rising sea levels, threatening regional security.

Everyone will suffer unpredictable and extreme weather.

And worse, it seems:

“Peak food” will be upon us, with Sue Kedgley foreseeing “a new era of tightening food supplies, rising food prices, food scarcity, panic buying, long food queues and political instability.”

Food rationing, she said in 2008, was already underway in US, as was rationing of rice in Auckland.

Now I have to apologise to Matthew Hooton. I can’t believe even Sue Kedgley said such things. So I resorted to Google. And it turns out Matthew was right – read here.

Pressure on other natural resources also risks global catastrophe.  When China runs out of energy resources, it’s likely to march.

In an effort to help, the Greens’ population policy welcomes “climate change refugees” but also demands that any effects on New Zealand’s environment, society and culture be limited.

Their new MP, Kennedy Graham, tells us that, with a population of 4.1 million, New Zealand is already part of the global population problem.  The global population, he says, must be “drastically reduced.”

Now again, surely Matthew is having us on. Did the Green Party really say the global population must be drastically reduced? Well Matthew may be prone to occassional hyperbole, but it seems he employees excellent staff to do his research, as he is in fact quoting their official policy.

If the Green Party really believes all this, then it must surely also believe that New Zealand’s territorial integrity is at risk, not some time later in the century, but imminently.

New Zealand is already capable of producing at least 20 times our own food needs.

Our exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is 15 times our land mass and the world’s fifth largest, while the quota management system means New Zealand can expect to maintain our fisheries stocks long after others have devastated theirs.

Back on land, New Zealand’s coal reserves are greater per capita, in terms of their energy potential, than Saudi Arabia’s oil.

Total mineral reserves may exceed $10 trillion, which we’ve largely decided to leave in the ground.

How splendid that when everyone else has dug up and burned their coal, New Zealand’s reserves will still be in the ground, waiting. …

It’s true that New Zealand is protected by a 2000km-wide moat but that’s unlikely to be sufficient under the Greens’ prognosis.  You’d think they’d argue that New Zealand needs the strongest possible defence forces, up to and including an independent nuclear deterrent.

At the very least, New Zealand surely requires the capability to credibly threaten to sink a fishing or other vessel or to shoot down aircraft.

Surprisingly enough, this is not their defence policy.  The focus is on the UN, as if that organisation would operate effectively in the apocalyptic future they fear.

The Greens argue there should be no Anzac frigates or other warships, no anti-submarine capability and no air strike force.  All equipment not designed for peacekeeping, search and rescue, disaster relief, fisheries and border control tasks should be phased out.

And remember according to iPredict, Labour and Greens at the next election will only have 3% fewer votes than National, and might be able to form a Government. Dr Graham might be Minister of Defence.

Instead, New Zealand should lead the world in finding new ways of looking at and dealing with conflict.

Yep, that’ll do the trick – in a world, we’re told, where hundreds of millions of people are becoming homeless, hundreds of millions more are starving, the equatorial regions are uninhabitable, oil, coal and fish have run out everywhere but New Zealand and we’re all being bombarded with Hurricane Katrinas.

Could it be that, deep down, the Greens don’t really believe their own predictions of imminent environmental armageddon?

Or maybe they just think the UN will save us.

Overseas ownership of New Zealand news media outlets is in the political spotlight, with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters saying it has eroded journalism standards.

A traditional opponent of overseas ownership, Mr Peters told NZPA he was concerned about the profits of domestic media, banking and forestry companies going off shore.

“It has also led to serious erosion of media standards and journalism reporting because people are given no time to do any work properly, instant sound bites have become the name of the game, and that is sliding its way into tabloid journalism,” Mr Peters said.

International companies that owned New Zealand media outlets had failed to support investigative journalism and had “squeezed the professional capacity” out of the industry, he said.

“I’m the last one in the world that should be making a sympathetic argument for the journalists of this country, but I’m telling you that’s exactly what happened.”

Proper investigative journalism was essential for the democracy of a nation, Mr Peters said.

Now normally I ignore what Winston says, but the irony here is too great. I actually agree we need more investigative journalism, but we do have some sterling examples of good investigative journalism by Fairfax and APN journalists. Namely the superb work done by reports Phil Kitchin, David Fisher, Audrey Young and others in exposing the tissue of lies Winston told about the funding of NZ First and himself by various wealthy businesspeople. It was investigative journalism at its finest and exposed Peters as a charlatan whose reality was the direct opposite of what he railed again.

The comments thread on the NBR story has some superb contributions, such as Phil Kitchin:

I am not always so quick to point out great examples of journalism, and I should – as we do still have good stories being broken by good journalists.

The journalist who wins my inaugural Journalist of the Month award is Matt Nippert from NBR. His investigations and reports into South Canterbury Finance have been superb – so good even the SFO seems to have acted on them.

The latest NBR story had me stunned – about how Allan Hubbard signed other people’s name on official documents. Now he had power of attorney for them, but instead of signing his name and stating he was acting for them, he signed their name.

And of course the story about the retired freezing worker who owned the Hilton or Hyatt. So good, you’d almost think it was made up – but it wasn’t.

The Serious Fraud Office served the notice on NBR yesterday, demanding documents and audio tapes relating to the paper’s investigation of South Canterbury Finance’s dealings over Auckland’s Hyatt Regency Hotel. The deadline for delivery was 9am today.

The Serious Fraud Act Section 5 notice requires NBR editor-in-chief Nevil Gibson to hand over all written and audio notes relating to Mr Nippert’s investigation of the Hyatt Regency, specifically the NBR exclusive story of how one-time meatworker Peter Symes came to own the hotel.

The NBR story by Nippert may be what led the SFO to focus on SCF. It was an excellent story about how the Hyatt in Auckland was officially owned by a retried freezing worker.

The SFO has incredible powers to demand documents. They were given them to use against the bad guys doing the fraud, not against the good guys who helped expose the alleged fraud.

A polite request to NBR for information would be more productive than a section 5 notice.

So far NBR has decided to risk adverse legal consequences:

The National Business Review is in a standoff with the Serious Fraud Office after the SFO this morning refused an invitation by NBR publisher Barry Colman to attend a meeting with the paper.

The SFO instead warned that NBR had been in breach of its statutory obligations under the Serious Fraud Office Act since 9 am today.

The SFO has demanded editorial files relating to NBR’s investigation into the collapse of the South Canterbury Finance group of companies and yesterday threatened its journalists with jail and fines for non-coperation.

The NBR called for the meeting to seek reassurances that its co-operation with the SFO would not lead to further fishing trips for information that could compromise the paper’s confidential sources.

It does look like the info demanded will eventually be provided:

The SFO’s request related to already published material that the paper has no objection to supplying as no confidential sources were violated.

But NBR is seeking an assurance from the Serious Fraud Office that it will not invoke its draconian powers of document seizure in return for NBR’s co-operation into the SFO’s investigations in the South Canterbury Finance collapse.

Mr Colman said today the initial information sought by the SFO had already been published and its release would not violate the confidentiality of any NBR sources.

So NBR are saying yeah we can give you that info but we don’t want to be seen to assenting to further info which will compromise sources.

Mr Colman said today the SFO’s blatant intimidation was appalling and counterproductive.

“We are not the enemies of the SFO. We want the bad guys investigated as well,” he said.

“However, no news service is going to be able to get crucial information from its sources or whistleblowers if they face public exposure. We have taken legal advice and been told the act is so draconian that it is impossible for us to refuse to co-operate without risking serious penalty.

“We have decided to hand over the material they are asking for today because it doesn’t compromise any of the sources of Matt Nippert, the reporter who carried out the investigation.

Good on NBR for not rolling over without protest. If Barry does end up in jail, I’ll smuggle in an iPad to him!

Yesterday on Radio Live, Mr Carter also mentioned Shane Jones as one of those he believed could be a better leader than Mr Goff. He has previously refused to name them.

By coincidence Matthew Hooton writes in the NBR:

Which brings us to Mr Jones.  Just as Mr Brown was ridiculed after his head-banging incident, Mr Jones suffered public humiliation from his penchant for porn.  But time heals, and Mr Jones is the latest manifestation of the Maori leader who can appeal across racial lines.  He’s the Labour man business thinks it can work with.

Moreover, his ambition is great, having been the golden child of his hapu from the day he was born.

Unpopular with Labour’s rainbow and feminist wings, securing the leadership would require him to produce polling showing him as capable of transforming Labour from a possible to a probable.  Even then, he would face opposition from party president Andrew Little, who needs Labour to lose in 2011 if his own leadership ambitions can be fulfilled.

Nevertheless, having decided to stick with politics despite his porn humiliation, Mr Jones is not there to muck around.

He’s already raising his profile and briefing journalists about his comeback.  The time for him to act is now.

And again, by coincidence, TV3′s Patrick Gower blogs:

Watching the miners in Chile, I can’t help but think of the Labour MPs – stuck down a dark hole, with an incredible effort needed to get them out.

It’s leader Phil Goff’s job to get them out – now he’s finished burying Chris Carter.

And one man who needs a lifeline is Shane Jones.

This call is never going to resonate as much as “Bring Back Buck”. But someone has to say it – Goff should “Bring Back Shane Jones”.

Is Jones Labour’s saviour in waiting?

Mr Goff’s policy would slash the price of American pomegranates, now selling at over $30/kg, New Zealand cranberries, selling at $25.30/kg, and Philippine figs selling at $2 each but would leave the price of low-fat milk, wholemeal bread and natural muesli untouched.

The ultimate in excess, fresh Alban truffles, currently selling for $6000/kg in Auckland, would fall by $800/kg under Mr Goff’s policy.  Good luck selling that one in West Auckland.

The residents of Epsom whose like French cusine, will be thanking Mr Goff for knocking $800/kg off the cost of their truffles.

But before they celebrate, I have to take issue with one aspect of Matthew’s claim. You see a truffle is a fungus, and is a fungus a vegetable?

I don’t know the answer for sure. But what I can guarantee is that when the answer is worth $800/kg, the court case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

And think if the Supreme Court rules that a truffle is not a vegetable, for GST purposes. Then presumably mushrooms will also be deemed not to be vegetables. And so all the supermarkets will have to remove mushrooms from their fruit and vegetables sections.

We may end up with our own version of the 1893 Nix v Heddon when the US Supreme Court had to rule on whether a tomato was a fruit or a vegetable (it is a vegetable – well at least in the US).

I can see Labour’s GST policy attracting lots of votes from lawyers.

Hats off to the Labour Party leader, Phil Goff. In suggesting that New Zealanders should start talking about our country becoming a republic, he has gone where influential sitting politicians have feared to tread.

Most, including the current Prime Minister, talk about the inevitability of a republic but are unwilling to do anything to create it.

Others, such as former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen, wait until they have retired from politics to voice similar sentiments. Such passivity has dampened the prospect of debate.

I agree.  It has been frustrating that previous Leaders such as Helen Clark refused to openly engage on the merits of becoming a republic. Instead she did republicanism by stealth – changing individual aspects (such as the Privy Council) one by one, without actually engaging the public in a debate on republicanism.

I don’t want a republic by stealth. I want a republic that New Zealanders vote for, as a better way forward. For that debate to happen, senior political leaders like Phil Goff need to engage on the issue.

Yet this is an issue that, given the absence of stridency on both sides, will have to be galvanised by political leaders.

Mr Goff has acknowledged as much in stating emphatically that a republic would be the “making of New Zealand as a country”. If he has his way, that notion will have seeped into the national consciousness by the end of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign.

But we should not wait until then.

Matthew Hooton also writes in the NBR today on a republic:

One day, though, Queen Elizabeth II’s reign will come to an end, the Prince of Wales will immediately become King Charles III of New Zealand, and we’ll panic and rush reform and get it wrong.

(That’s if he calls himself “King Charles III”.  Apparently he’s keen on being “King George VII”.  Go figure.)

The Queen has carried out her duties with impeccable integrity, never once having been known to interfere in New Zealand’s affairs, even privately, and in effect making us a de facto republic throughout her reign.

In contrast, King Charles (or is it George?), is an eco-extremist, advocate for neo-Roman architecture and devotee of quack medicine and cannot be so relied upon to operate as a responsible constitutional monarch.

Plus he talks to plants.

Heh, Matthew does not hold back.

We’re in the bizarre situation where all important New Zealand leaders, once out of office, apparently become advocates for constitutional reform but no one dares put a hand up when they could actually do something as an incumbent.

Exactly. And Phil Goff has an opportunity to say that if he becomes PM, he will push for having a public debate and vote on constitutional reform.

The National Business Review unreservedly apologises for the confusion surrounding our 40th birthday competition. It was never our intention to cause confusion about the voting for the Win Your Weight in Veuve promotion but people have expressed frustration and we have listened to their concerns.

The official winner (as chosen by the judges from the top 10 voted entries) will be announced, on schedule, in NBR print tomorrow.

In addition, the publisher will personally provide Busted Blonde’s weight in Veuve Clicquot to her to demonstrate that NBR will not allow its integrity, transparency or honesty in its dealings with its readers to be compromised in any way. She received the most online votes in the competition and NBR happily salutes that success.

As a responsible host, the publisher would, however, appeal to Busted Blonde to urge her guests to wear life jackets if celebrating their win on Wellington Harbour.

Let the festivities begin.

I’m so pleased that NBR have done this. As I blogged – it was not about the prize, but about integrity and transparency. This is important for any media outlet, but especially NBR which provides a unique role with its pro-business focus. Their decision reinforces that this is important to them – which I salute.

I understand that Busted Blonde will use the winnings for an event which will raise money for a worthy charity, so the outcome is a real win-win.

Readers will have seen my links to their 40th birthday competition. People had the chance to win their weight in Veuve Clicquot and the competition was promoted on the basis of popular vote. Many bloggers got in behind Busted Blonde’s entry and she won the popular vote.

After the published deadline had passed, NBR announced that the popular vote winner would not win the competition (which was strongly implied), but that the top ten most popular would go into a pool, and judges would then select their favourite of the top ten.

NBR has the legal right to change the terms and conditions. This is not a debate about legality. They said the winner would be announced within seven hours of the vote closing. They changed this in the final hours to announcing it a week later, allowing judges to decide on someone other than the popular vote winner.

I deplore what NBR has done. They have acted unethically. If they had made clear at the very beginning that the popular vote winner would not count for anything, and all you had to do was be in the top ten – then I (and others) would have acted very differently. They basically conned bloggers and other social media users into promoting their contest for them under false pretences.

Quite a few people are upset about this. I’ll link to some of these in a second. Some are calling for boycotts of NBR, cancelled subscriptions etc. I’m not going to go down that path. I doubt NBR cares too much about losing my potential subscription (especially as they kindly provide me with a complimentary copy anyway).

My message to the National Business Review is that you have lost something infinitely more valuable than my subscription. You have lost both my respect and my trust. That is hard to do, and even harder to undo.

Both NBR and Veuve Clicquot  are suffering brand damage from this. Already blog posts are climbing up the ladder in Google page ranks. And it has spread over Twitter, with one of the world’s most famous wine critics contacting Busted Blonde wanting details of what has happened.

Posts on this saga are:

• Cactus Kate on The Great Veuve Clicquot Robbery
• Whale Oil on NBR losing its Veuve
• Keeping Stock declares it a fail for Veuve Clicquot and NBR
• Gonzo declares he will never ever drink Veuve Clicquot again
• Brunette at Roarprawn is sad
• Whale blogs an MP’s facebook comment saying he despises the NBR for their jack up competition
• Cline Heine, one of the most right wing people I know, declares you can not trust the National Business Review.
• And there is already a Facebook group of people declaring they will never drink Veuve Clicquot again.

As I said, I am angry. Not about the fact Busted Blonde did not win. I am angry that I was effectively conned into promoting their competition under false pretences. Now people may say, it is your own fault. They never stated explicitly that the popular vote winner would win – it was only strongly implied. And you are right – it is partly my own fault. I trusted National Business Review to act honourably. I was wrong, and have learnt a lesson.

UPDATE: I note that on Google NZ, a search for “Veuve Clicquot” already has this post higher ranked that the actual NBR competition.

Go to NBR and vote for her (click on thumbs up sign next to her entry), so BB wins her weight in Veuve Clicquot. This is the final day of voting.

If Busted Blonde wins, I have been told I will be allowed to bring a couple of blog readers along to the party, where the 100+ kgs of champagne will be consumed.

So if you are a fan of Veuve Clicquot, make your case in the comments section, for why you should be my guest at the party, if Busted Blonde wins. Busted and Cactus will help me select the winners.

My mate Busted Blonde is in equal first place. Most of the VRWC are backing Busted as Busted winning means more Veuve than anyone else winning

We also like her idea of a picnic on Frank Kitts Lagoon, as what she would do with it, if she wins.

So I’m backing Busted Blonde, and urge readers to follow the link and vote for her.

What is interesting is the person who is in equal first place with her. He has a lovely story:

Verve is my partners favourite drop of bubbles so since I have gone 18 years and not actually married her (make her and honest woman etc) I think I would call up Stu and Sem at The Wharf over on Aucklands North Shore and have a quiet family wedding

However Detective Whale has been at work.

First he discovers that the contestant quoted above has his status on Facebook as married. Whoops.

And then in another post, he details how the venue he mentioned is one of his clients which is a wee bit astro-turfing.

Whale even has discovered his weight, and reckons voting Busted will mean NBR forks over an extra dozen bottles or so

I have told the worst offenders – Chris Carter, Shane Jones and Mita Ririnui – that they have no place in my Labour Party. I told them they will be demoted to the very back of Parliament, with no portfolio, and they will not be members of any cabinet I lead. Mr Carter said that, if I did this, he would resign. I told him that was a good idea. He has since resigned and there will be a by-election in Te Atatu.

National begins that campaign as frontrunner. They won the party vote in 2008. But we will fight hard, because Labour always fights hard for the people we represent.

As leader, I have invited the local Labour Party to find the best candidate – male or female, Maori or Pakeha, gay or straight – but I want a genuine Westie. I want someone who grew up in the tough streets, who knows what it’s like not having enough money to pay the bills, who started a small business, pays their workers well, has become a leader in the community, who coaches kids’ sport in the weekend. I want real Labour.

I like his ending also:

There will be room for Peter Dunne in my government to continue as minister of revenue.  I want the Greens involved in conservation and the environment.  And it is time for Labour and the Maori Party to put our differences behind us.  I apologise for Labour’s disgraceful behaviour over the foreshore and seabed.  We were wrong.  Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples were right.

A new era is being born out of the disgraces of the past.  The Helen Clark era is over.  The Phil Goff era has begun.

The full column is only in the NBR print edition.

If Labour do not mend bridges with the Maori Party, they probably won’t be able to form a Government. Without the Maori Party, Labour and the Greens need to win 62 seats to govern.

The state manages an SOE portfolio with total assets of $47 billion, more than the market capitalisation of the NZX 50.

Nothing about the portfolio is rational, consisting simply of the leftovers from the large trade-sales of the 1980s and 1990s. Alongside overinvestment in sunset industries, like regional rail and post, sit electricity companies and odds and bobs including a mining company, a manufacturer of pest management products, 371,000 hectares of corporate farms and an educational materials publishing house.

And it is ridicolous to say that this must be frozen in stone for all time.

Mr Mallard hoped that some growth could be funded off SOEs’ own balance sheets but he was also keen for them to partner with the private sector to develop new subsidiaries, which would be listed on the NZX. This, he argued, would provide depth to our capital markets and improve the transparency of the SOEs.
Mr Mallard was clear he was not interested in the type of wholesale privatisations that occurred when Labour had last been in power in the 1980s, but stressed that sell-downs or sell-offs of discrete new SOE investments should be allowed.

This is the challenge. Some SOEs are doing well, and want to expand – often into riskier overseas ventures. They should be able to do so, but the capital for such expansion need not come just from the taxpayer.

Foreign ownership is the big political bogey. If the taxpayer retaining an overwhelming majority stake is not enough, it may even be possible to develop an equity product restricted to the proverbial Kiwi mums and dads. It wouldn’t be as valuable as if it could be on-sold to anyone but that would be something the initial subscribers would know in advance.

Such a policy would not in fact be contrary to WTO rules, as claimed by the CTU.

However it is the qualities of the Prime Minister I want to explore. Why is he so popular, despite New Zealand having gone through a serious recession?

To put John Key’s popularity into context, I have looked both at historic polls within NZ, and ratings for other current national leaders.

Colmar Brunton for One News have been asking Preferred Prime Minister questions since 1984. Lange never made 40%, Palmer, Moore and Shipley gravitated between 20% and 30%. Jim Bolger fluctuated from 10% to 30%. Clark spent most of her nine years at between 30% and 40%, and dipped over 50% just once in June 2002.

Key has averaged 50.6% in his first 18 months of office.

But even more interesting is the approve vs disapprove ratings:

His approval rating is even higher. The latest TV3 poll has 69% of voters saying he is doing a good job, and only 16% (less than one in six) saying he is doing a poor job. Compare this to other national leaders:

• John Key – 69% approve v 16% disapprove = +53% net approval
• Angela Merkel – 55% approve v 44% disapprove = +11% net approval
• Kevin Rudd – 50% approve v 41% disapprove = +9% net approval
• Barack Obama – 48% approve v 46% disapprove = +2% net approval
• Stephen Harper – 33% approve v 52% disapprove = -19% net disapproval
• Gordon Brown – 33% approve v 61% disapprove = -28 net disapproval
• Nicolas Sarkozy – 32% approve v 65% disapprove = -33 net disapproval
• Brian Cowen – 27% approve v 69% disapprove = -42% net disapproval
• Yukio Hatoyama – 21% approve v 64% disapprove -43% net disapproval

Key’s popularity soars above other national leaders – both long serving ones, and also those relatively new to office. His disapproval rating is between one third and one quarter of all the other leaders.

It was only in writing the column that I searched for the approval ratings for the leaders of Germany, Australia, US, Canada, UK, France, Ireland and Japan. I was surprised by the huge gap (especially in disapprovals) between Key and his counterparts.

As for why I think Key is so popular – well I explain that in full at NBR. However here’s one thing I don’t think it is about:

This is not some fluke or coincidence. There is a reason, or reasons for it.

Some point to policy reasons – the fact he has run a reasonably moderate policy regime. I am sure this has helped, but being moderate in itself does not make you popular. It is more a pre-condition (except in times of crisis) than a cause.

My thanks to NBR for the platform for the last two to three years.

The anti-alcohol industry (and it is an industry – mainly taxpayer funded) will be delighted by the Law Commission’s report when it is released on Tuesday. They have succeeded in convincing the Law Commission that alcohol should be treated in the same way as tobacco – an evil to be heavily discouraged, if not prevented.

I focus on how the role of the Law Commission has changed from quiet diligent updating of laws to:

Sir Geoffrey Palmer has morphed back into his former role of a crusading politician, and has spent months talking about the evils of alcohol. He even went out to Courtenay Place with a Police escort, and said he saw scenes that “no civilized society can relish”.

I end up at Courtenay Place around once a month on average. Often until well past 2 am. Sometimes there to dance and party with friends, but often just to carry on chatting politics and life over a few drinks. I’ve never seen these scenes “no civilised society can relish”.

The crusading was not restricted to New Zealand. Sir Geoffrey even went to Australia, and spoke at an Australian Drug Foundation conference. Not the Minister., ot the Director-General of Health, but the Law Commission President. The 68 year old Sir Geoffrey decried the fact that people put photos from parties up on Facebook. He wants an end to people getting drunk – an endeavour that would be as likely to succeed as prohibition succeeded in the 1930s.

I await the proposal to ban photos from Facebook which show alcohol.

The full article is subscriber content at NBR.

Documents released under the Official Information Act this week reveal that both the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Service Commission have approved a law change to amend the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, to prevent a repeat of electioneering materials such as Labour’s 2005 pledge card being funded by the taxpayer.

This will be welcome by many, especially when you realise the current law.

The current law still allows Parliament to fund blatant electioneering material so long as it does not explicitly solicit votes. A parliamentary party could spend half a million dollars on billboards and newspaper ads promoting their election promises in the week before the election, and send the taxpayer the bill – even though Parliament had been dissolved a month earlier.

I expect we will see a bill implementing the change in the next few weeks.

Full details of the proposed change are at NBR.