Kiwiblog

Taken from Sideswipe. Rodeny is The Hood!

For those interested in the Super City debate, I found last night’s Close Up good viewing. They had profiles of John Banks and Len Brown, and their campaign teams, plus an interview with Rodney Hide, which was far less hysterical about CCOs than the Herald has been.

Not often I regard TV as covering an issue better, but thought it was a good segment.

I blogged on Saturday on Alan Gibbs address to the ACT Conference, which I enjoyed.

I missed the speeches by Emma Gibbs and David Seymour – which many said were the conference highlights.

I wasn’t impressed with parts of Muriel Newman’s speech. I can’t remember the exact words Muriel used but to describe the National/Maori Party confidence and supply agreement along the lines of the biggest disaster for race relations in all of history was excessively hyperbolic. One can legitimately criticise the agreement, without going so over the top. Also in response to a question on customary rights, I couldn’t believe the answer was that the Treaty of Waitangi extinguished any customary rights. Apart from being totally wrong, it also contradicted an earlier assertion that the Treaty had no legal effect.

John Armstrong has analysed Heather Roy’s speech, and I agree references to black swans and the like were less than wise.

The conference over all did not feel like the conference of a party in Government after 12 years of opposition. Most people were too focused on how the Government was not implementing all of their policies, rather than talking about the areas they were making a difference.

Rodney’s speech was positive and upbeat, but the real outstanding performance from Rodney was on the Sunday on Q+A. I recommend people watch it to see Rodney be frank about his mistakes, but also talk about the wins ACT has had, and what they will keep pushing for. The only negative mark I give him is talking about Key and English keeping on the policies of Clark and Cullen, rather than the more correct “some of the policies”.

Colin James covers that ACT has managed to have significant influence, beyond their five seats.

I thought Don Brash’s speech on closing the gap with Australia was good, as he made a great case for bolder policies needed – especially over spending. He should have chosen better language than “venal and ignorant” in talking about *some* voters, as it has diverted attention from the point he was making about the failing of the education system and the media on basic economic issues.

Of course for many the real highlight of conference was the after-match party hosted by Cactus Kate for the younger members. Had around 40 people in the penthouse suite at the Bolton, so was a very comfortable feel. Was great to catch up with old friends and make some new ones. An amusing aspect was seeing Chris from Dunedin wind various people up so well, I was sure he was going to get slapped.

Cactus, Jadis and I did some of the shopping for the party. Not sure New World has ever sold so much champagne in one go before!

The party ended a bit after 3 am and as we started a bit before 5 pm, it was a solid ten hour affair. Remarkably, there was almost no damage to the room – even after a couple of people from Young Labour snuck in!

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

Deborah is no fan of Rodney’s, so makes this column more significant:

The “Politician Wally Award” goes not to Rodney Hide but to the Act MPs who tried to dump him as leader. Hello? Heather Roy, Roger Douglas and John Boscawen – Hide’s the only reason you’re in Parliament, plus the only reason Act still exists, despite his stuff-ups and yes, they’re huge. I’m Hide’s least favourite person but the three coup plotters – who should be sacked except Act has no one credible to take their places – seriously underestimate his intelligence, his extraordinary ability to recover from disaster, and his single-minded determination to achieve his goals (think weight loss, going alcohol-free, winning Epsom).

You have a man down, you lift him up and carry him a while, not press his nose into the mud and think you can take his place.

Some good advice from Deborah.

The Herald reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne has given up on his annual list of worst-behaved MPs, saying Speaker Lockwood Smith’s reign has ushered in a new era of dignity and propriety.

To be fair, I think the absence of Winston helps also. But the House has been a far less toxic place this year.

Mr Dunne did honour Labour’s Trevor Mallard with a lifetime achievement award in bad behaviour “for services to melodrama, fisticuffs, and generally aberrant behaviour”.

When Lockwood orders him to apologise, you can actually see the supressed rage in his eyes!!

The Herald does find a few insults though:

Labour’s Moana Mackey apologised for referring to Hekia Parata as “Lady Parata” and “her royal highness”. National’s Paul Quinn was pulled up for calling Labour’s backbench “monkeys”.

I’d rather be called Lady Parata than a monkey I have to say – well if I was a female Parata that is!

Some apologies:

SHANE JONES
For saying of Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee, “the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility”.

PHIL HEATLEY
For claiming another “fiddled the books” in ACC and Housing; for wishing the Speaker would use a 90-day eviction order on Trevor Mallard.

Heh.

RODNEY HIDE
For North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams’ “madness”, for calling Trevor Mallard “the angry one”.

Isn’t truth a defence?

JOHN KEY
For claiming Green MP Metiria Turei thought Phil Goff was “racist”. She had said his speech was “the worst kind of politics”.

So worse than racism?

The Herald has a stunning story:

Act founder Sir Roger Douglas, with deputy leader and Consumer Affairs Minister Heather Roy, is understood to have led moves in the party against Mr Hide during the controversy over the international travel costs of his partner.

The Act board was told the caucus had issues over the leadership, and a special caucus meeting was called for November 22.

Some people in ACT must have a suicide wish. While Rodney did make an error of judgement with his trip (which he apologised for), ACT only survive in Parliament because he holds Epsom. If Rodney goes, then in all probability ACT will be booted out of Parliament at the next election.

Mr Key is understood to have learned about the moves against Mr Hide shortly before that – between his return from Apec in Singapore and his trip to Trinidad for the Commonwealth summit.

He told Mrs Roy that if Mr Hide were removed from the leadership, her own ministerial position would be in jeopardy.

It was naive to think a leadership change would have no impact. When National changed leaders in 1997, Winston approached Helen Clark and asked if she would be interested in forming a Government.

And it is believed that at the height of controversies in the two support parties – the Act leadership and the Maori Party’s turmoil over MP Hone Harawira – Mr Key briefly considered a snap election to gain National an outright majority.

Hell, that will send the 2010 election stock on iPredict upwards!

Rodney’s announcements speaks for itself. In full:

I have asked you here today because I want to apologise. I want to apologise to the public. I want to apologise to my colleagues and to my supporters.

But most importantly I want to apologise to the people of Epsom. I promised the people of Epsom I would make them proud of me as their MP. I have let them down.

I have made mistakes.

I have shown poor judgement. For that I am very sorry.

I accept that I have failed to live up to the important principle that I have set, that politicians should always remember that they are spending taxpayers’ money, and therefore must spend it carefully.

I am proud of the work I have done on behalf of taxpayers.

I am proud of the work I am doing in my local government portfolio on behalf of ratepayers.

I am not proud of my casual use of taxpayers’ money to take a holiday in Hawaii with my partner. That was wrong. My decision to repay that money ($10,022.40) was easy when I took the time to reflect on what I had done.

I can well understand why hard-working New Zealand families are appalled that I took such a holiday at their expense during these difficult economic times, even though no rules were broken.

I have also decided to repay the cost of my partner’s airfares for the trip to London, Canada and the United States that she accompanied me on in September. I will be providing Parliamentary Services with a cheque for $11,952.00 in the morning.

I want to publicly apologise to John Key for distracting attention away from the important job his government has in lifting New Zealand’s economic performance and providing the standard of living we all aspire to.

The Prime Minister has entrusted me with a big and important job. He is excellent to work with, and I appreciate his very generous support, especially over the last two weeks.

I have always been conscious that every dollar a government spends is a dollar out of the pocket of a hard working kiwi. But in the challenge, the hard work, and the excitement of my ministerial job I lost sight of that for myself. I fully accept that I can only demand high standards of others if I always meet the same high standards myself.

It’s not about the rules – it’s about doing the right thing.

I want to conclude by making two important commitments to the public, my colleagues and supporters.
- I will never again use taxpayers’ money for any overseas holidays.
- I will continue to work hard to do the very best job I can as a minister and a member of parliament to honour the trust that the people of Epsom have shown in electing me to represent them.

Thank you.

Very pleased to see Rodney do this. I think it is great we have a Minister who wants to keep rates down and slow down the rate of regulation. The events of the last week were threatening to undermine his work, so he has done what is necessary to move on.

I think MPs from all parties should be wary of using the subsidised overseas travel perk that exists for MPs who entered before 1999. It got abolished for more recent MPs for a reason, and any current MP who uses it for personal travel is going to possibly find the cost of using it is more than the “saving”.

There’s an old saying – when it rains, it pours. Rodney Hide will will it has poured all week. The SST sums up the week:

Hide is under assault on all fronts – voters, the media and now his government colleagues – after one of his worst weeks in politics.

Hide’s horror seven days has been entirely self-inflicted. First he was publicly exposed as a hypocrite for taking advantage of a perk he once campaigned strongly to abolish: taking his girlfriend, Louise Crome, on a round-the-world trip, visiting London, Toronto, Portland and Los Angeles. He defended it on the grounds that he did not spend as much time as he would like with Crome and that he had to work with the system, even though he disagreed with it.

They cover the jibe about Key, the Hawaii trip etc etc.

Rodney will be kicking himself. There can be little doubt there has been damage to both Rodney’s brand and ACT’s brand.

But when you fuck up, there’s only one response. Learn from the fuck up, buckle down, and get back to work.

I think the National-led Government is all the stronger for the inclusion of both ACT and the Maori Party, despite the tensions that arise from varied personalities, policies and priorities.

Neither Rodney or John will be happy with this story:

Prime Minister John Key has done nothing except bring up the idea of a national cycleway, ACT leader Rodney Hide told guests at a party fundraiser in Christchurch. …

Not aware a Press reporter was also at the table, Hide, whose party is a support partner in the National-led Government, said Key “doesn’t do anything” and was highly regarded, while “ACT did everything and we are hated”.

All Key “had done” was the cycleway, Hide said. “It’s amazing.”

I understand the point Rodney was trying to make – the more you do, the more unpopular you can get. But his hyperbole is unfortunate.

To be fair, Rodney also said:

In his speech to yesterday’s function, Hide said “you could not get a better guy to work with” than Key, who had made it clear he wanted all his ministers to have a good relationship with ACT.

“He has been absolutely true to his word,” Hide told guests.

My impression is that the relationship between Rodney and John is very good.  I don’t think John will lose sleep over the comments but Rodney is probably kicking himself for his turn of phrase.

UPDATE: And Rodney has apologised.

The case for and against Rodney Hide over using the international travel subsidy for long serving MPs to have his girlfriend accompany him.

The case for the defence:

• He has already paid for the perk through a lower salary. The Remuneration Authority deducts 100% of the average value of the international travel perk (around $6,900 per MP) from their salary. The Authority also deducts around $4,000 from MPs salary to cover the 45% of spouses domestic travel deemed of personal benefit.
• Up until 2009, it was almost automatic that Ministers would have their partners travel with them. This has only become an issue because John Key has changed the rules.
• It is not hypocritical to oppose something but take benefit from it. Many people think the pension should be means tested, but they don’t turn it down when the reach 65 all the same.
• Most men, if they had a girlfriend like Louise, wouldn’t leave her at home alone while they were overseas in case she changes her mind while you are gone
• Rodney, like most Ministers, works 70+ hour weeks, and gets very little family time as it is. This is why traditionally Ministers get to have partners travel with them, and we should not begrudge it
• Two weeks is a long time to go without sex
• One overseas trip a year, with a partner, for a Minister is hardly troughing
• The trip was approved by the PM, and within the rules.

The case for the prosecution:

• Any other year it would not be such an issue, but this was done during a recession when Ministers are campaigning for spending restraint
• The PM had made it clear he did not think the taxpayer should generally fund partners on overseas trips. It didn’t matter that he approved the trip – that was because he can’t set policy for how MPs use their parliamentary entitlement.
• You used to be known as the perk buster – that means yes you do have to be a martyr.
• The public hate hearing “It was approved and within the rules” when MPs write the rules.
• After the fuss over Roger Douglas, one should have known that the ACT Party Leader, of all people, needed to be like Caesar’s Wife – beyond suspicion.
• No one is saying your partner shouldn’t travel with you – it is a matter of who pays for it.

I think I have covered all the major arguments for and against. I would point out that most of the media have not really mentioned the aspect about the average cost of the international travel perk being deducted from an MPs salary.

There was some suggestion on other blogs, and linked here, that the amount of travel credited to partners may be wrong. I don’t think the Herald did have it wrong, and I’ll explain.

If an MP is a Minister, then Ministerial Services basically pays all his or her travel expenses as an MP. They don’t try and work out are you travelling as a Minister or an MP, because that would be a nightmare administratively.

But Ministers also do show travel expenses from Parliamentary Service. That is not the cost of their parliamentary travel, but generally the costs of their family’s travel and/or any use of the subsidy for long serving MPs on private travel.

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

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

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

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

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

In another article, Armstrong reviews Key himself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they still are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The battles of yesterday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Armstrong also reviews Bill English.

Claire Trevett talks to Tariana Turia:

Do you still have that level of trust in National?

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

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

Have there been difficult choices?

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

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

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

Jon Johannsson talks leadership:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is fair criticism.

Finally John Roughan:

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

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

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

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

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

John Armstrong touches on a number of issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NZPA make it clear that amongst the insults Tau Henare used to describe Rodney Hide, he called him a cunt.

Now I am no prude, but that is shocking language for an MP to use, especially about another MP. And to say it in front of media on the record is incredibly bad judgement.

I like Tau. He a passionate guy who stands up for what he believes. And his ability to wind up New Zealand First last term was priceless. But his use of the cunt word is pretty inexcusable. Never mind it was about a Minister in the National-led Government.

It’s one thing for a non MP like Matthew Hooton to use the term to refer to Helen Clark’s former Foreign Minister, but Matthew isn’t an MP.

Now Busted Blonde at Roar Prawn reports that Tau has done humble pie on Facebook, which is appropriate.

I was interviewed by Radio New Zealand about ACT’s stance on the Maori Seats. The interview was here.

There were in fact two interviews. The first I was not at all critical of what had happened. As I have said on this blog, I think it is quite appropriate that Rodney says he could not carry on as Local Government Minister if it means introducing a bill he does not agree with.

They then rang me back half an hour later and said that Rodney was now saying he would quit all his portfolios if the Government went with Maori seats. This appears to not be a correct interpretation of what Rodney actually said – I understand he said it would be up to the PM if he kept his other portfolios. On the basis of what Radio NZ told me, I said that a threat to resign all portfolios would be a significant upping of the stakes and unhelpful.

In a later part of the piece, they quote me saying that while ACT supporters may be pleased with Rodney’s strong stand, the way he has gone about it is somewhat disappointing. I want to make clear that was in relation to the reported comments to resign all portfolios, not the decision (made back in June) to relinquish Local Government if there were Maori Seats.

I am also quoted as saying “It is generally preferable that negotiations happen behind closed doors and without ultimatiums about resigning portfolios”. This gives the perception I am blaming Rodney for this issue going public. I am not.

As I wrote for NBR on Friday:

Act also suffers from the publicizing of the leaked e-mail. …

I think that is unfair on Rodney as he was not the one who leaked the National Caucus e-mail – I doubt he is that happy this has been made public.

I in no way think Rodney was responsible for taking this issue public. I have specifically pointed out they have suffered from it being made public.

I don’t know who leaked the e-mail, but as it was sent by a National MP to his colleagues, the logicial conclusion is it was a National MP or staffer. I doubt Rodney has hired Nicky hager to intercept the Nats e-mails

So in summary my position is:

1. I think it is entirely appropriate that Rodney has said he would not continue as Local Government Minister if he seriosuly disagrees with a Local Government bill or law proposed or passed by the Government
2. I think it was someone in National who leaked the Henare e-mail
3. I do think it would be a bad thing, if Rodney was threatening to resign all portfolios, rather than just Local Government, in relation to this issue. However it is not at all clear he has done so.

How nice to see disagreeing parties acting maturely on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council.

ACT are firmly against Maori seats and Rodney Hide has said:

Mr Hide said he told Mr Key: “Just to be absolutely clear, you have got our support for supply and confidence but as a minister, as the Act leader, I couldn’t be responsible for introducing to the House a bill that would have reserve seats in it.”

And that is fair enough that you can’t expect a Minister to introduce a bill if they are opposed to a major section of it. But there is no NZ First type talk of walking away from Government if they do not get their way.

And the Maori Party are being equally mature:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said last night that she was disappointed at Mr Hide’s position but her party’s support for the Government would not change. “We always knew when we went into this arrangement with National that there would be issues that would take us right to the wire and this is one of them.

“But we have no intentions of withdrawing support for the Government and we have no intention of withdrawing our ministerial roles. That’s not what we went into the relationship for.”

It is inevitable that the Maori Party and ACT are not going to agree on everything, and that whatever National decides will disappoint one of them on this issue.

I believe the solution is easy, and has always been there. Parliament should not decide for Aucklanders whether or not to have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The Local Government and Electoral Acts allows local voters to decide this by way of referendum. If Aucklanders wants Maori seats on the Auckland Council, they should petition for them (only needs 5%) and gain a majority in the referendum. Having Wellington impose Maori seats on Auckland is a very different issues to having Auckland decide for itself whether or not it wants Maori seats.

What if everything you knew about politics came from the internet?  What if people based their vote on which politician was the most popular on Facebook or Bebo?  It’s unlikely and a bit of a nightmare scenario really but on-line sources of information are becoming increasingly important for voters. 

To test my vague theory in New Zealand politics, I searched on Facebook for each party leader and examined the groups supporting and, in some cases opposing, them.  Here are the results:

John Key (National) – 14,388 supporters.  Interestingly the “I HEART John Key” and “Scientologists for John Key” groups have exactly the same number of members.  I’m presuming they are the same people.

Helen Clark (United Nations) – 5, 408 supporters.

Phil Goff (Labour) – 1,112 members of a group wanting him to be Prime Minister in 2011 and 3 in a quite different group who think he is a DILF.  Look up what it means at your peril.

Rodney Hide (Act) – 719 supporters.

Russel Norman (Green) – 567 supporters.  His on-line presence grew significantly when I spelled his first name correctly in the search field.

Metiria Turei (Green) – 339 supporters.

Winston Peters (Retired) – 236 supporters for Prime Minister, 11 supporters for next year’s Dancing with the Stars.  Both quite terrifying prospects really.

Jim Anderton (Progressive) – 17 supporters, much higher than expected.

Pita Sharples (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting him but a couple which are worryingly opposed (and in apparent breach of Facebook policies).

Tariana Turia (Maori Party) – No Facebook groups supporting or opposing her.  There is one offering to be a support group for Mrs Turia going back to school but the tag is “just for fun – outlandish statements.”

Peter Dunne (United Future) – Mr Dunne does not have an official supporters group.  The group “I lost my phone drinking in London – numbers please!!! (Peter Dunne)” is almost certainly not him.  Peter Dunne does not strike me as the kind of man who, under any circumstances, would use three exclamation points.

Rodney Hide has announced:

The Minister of Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, said the 2025 Taskforce was charged with recommending ways to improve productivity in order to close the income gap with Australia by 2025.

“The establishment of the taskforce was a key component in the ACT-National confidence and supply agreement, reflecting the importance we place on working to close the income gap with Australia,” Mr Hide said. “That income gap is one of the reasons we lose so many talented, hard-working New Zealanders every year.”

The Taskforce will provide an initial report in October 2009. Mr Hide said that report will identify the policy settings and changes that will deliver the productivity growth necessary for a stronger, more prosperous economy. Further progress reports will then be provided in 2010 and 2011.

The five-member 2025 Taskforce will be chaired by Dr Don Brash.

“Dr Brash is ideally suited to this role, with his wide experience of economic policy,” Mr Hide said. He was Governor of the Reserve Bank for 14 years, and an important motivation for his entering politics in 2002 was the widening income gap with Australia.”

The other four members are yet to be selected. Mr Hide said ministers are considering potential candidates with strong expertise on the New Zealand economy and public policy.

I have no doubt Don will identify measures that will increase productivity growth. And I have no doubt that because it is Don, Labour and the Greens will oppose it automatically. Their wails have already begun.

The big question, is will the Government act on the recommendations of the Taskforce? Closing the gap with Australia was a major major plank for National at the last election. I think voters will understand that dealing with the effects of the global recession has been the immediate challenge, but certainly will want to see a firm work programme by the time of the next election. The gap won’t reduce by itself.

For those in or near Epsom,Rodney Hide is having a public forum at 5.30 pm on Friday 24 July. The guest speaker is Bob McCoskrie on why you should vote No in the referendum.

It is at the Mecca Cafe, corner of Nuffield Street and Remuera Road, Newmarket. A cash bar will operate.

According to the Sunday Star-Times, Cabinet tomorrow will throw out Labour’s decision to introduce mandatory addition of folic acid to bread:

THE BUN-FIGHT is over. Bakers will not be forced by law to add folic acid to our bread, bagels, crumpets and English muffins. The Key government will announce this week that it is throwing out the former government’s policy.

Cabinet is expected to formalise the government’s position when it meets tomorrow, effectively putting the controversial issue on the back burner for three years and, crucially, beyond the next election.

The government is not convinced that making folic acid a compulsory ingredient in all bread is necessary, and wants more time to assess the evidence. Folic acid has been shown to reduce the risk of babies being born with defects such as spina bifida, but bakers say women would need to eat at least 11 slices of bread a day to make a difference to the health of their unborn child.

The Key government favours a voluntary regime. It has been looking for a way to wriggle out of the trans-Tasman agreement, struck by the former Labour government, and due to take effect on September 1.

Community pressure mounted as the deadline approached. Radio talkback shows were last week inundated with indignant callers.

The Star-Times understands that Food Minister Kate Wilkinson on Thursday reached an agreement with the Australian parliamentary secretary for health, Mark Butler, that exempts New Zealand from the new standard.

That is a nice exclusive for the SST, by their political editor Grahame Armstrong.

And the agreement with Australia is much better than unilaterally pulling out. As I have said before, Australian politicians will understand how something can become a major issue.

Under the trans-Tasman agreement, folic acid was to be mandatory in all wheat flour products, including sweet breads and rolls, bagels, foccacia, English muffins and flat breads that contain yeast.

Crumpets, scones, pancakes, pikelets, crepes, yeast donuts, pizza bases and crumbed products were also to be fortified with folic acid.

It was going to be in pizzas also?

Katherine Rich, chief executive of the Food and Grocery Council, said many New Zealanders would breathe a sigh of relief because they did not like the idea of the government tampering with their bread.

There were genuine concerns about the health effects and the prime minister was right to delay any decision until all the facts were known, she said. It was also an issue about freedom of choice.

“It’s quite a scary intervention to dose an entire country,” Rich, a former National MP, said.

“A trip to the baker should not be a trip to the chemist.”

Heh – nice line.

The Herald on Sunday also reveals that Rodney Hide has warned and lobbied fellow Ministers about the issue three months ago.

A very good NZ Herald article:

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is looking into law changes that could divide council spending between core services, which councils could automatically spend money on, and “extras” – cultural, environmental and social spending and business investments that could require approval from ratepayers.

I like the concept. It empowers ratepayers, while allowing Councils to perform core services without the possibility of inadequate funding.

Mr Hide has not listed all the services he considers core council responsibilities. But he said it would be a wide definition encompassing running libraries, transport and water services and rubbish collection.

Yesterday he listed Hamilton City Council’s investment in the Novotel hotel, Invercargill City Council’s investment in a Lotto franchise and South Taranaki District Council buying the Hawera movie theatre as examples of councils going beyond core functions.

Absolutely. And what Rodney is saying is not that Councils would be banned from doing this, but they have to get ratepayer approval.

Mr Hide said he would like voters to be able to indicate at local body elections how much they would be willing to pay in rate increases over the next three years.

Also a good idea.

Local Government New Zealand governance manager Mike Reid said many councils would not bother with innovative projects if they had to hold a referendum first.

“Invercargill could have held a referendum [on the Lotto shop] but the people on the local community board probably felt they knew what people wanted because they saw them every day in the supermarket,” he said.

If the community board members thinks it is an innovative project based on their supermarket conversations, then they can invest their own money into it – but their role is not to forcibly take money from ratepayers to spend on commercial competitive businesses.

“Any council that exposes itself to too much [financial] risk can be expected to be removed at the next election.”

Mr Reid cited Auckland City as an example of a council that had been changed several times because ratepayers were not happy with spending.

Yes, but by then the spending has occured and is generally not reversible.

Taking decision-making powers away from councillors would stop energetic and entrepreneurial people standing for local bodies, he said.

Councils are not meant to be entreprenuers. You want entrepreneurs when it is their own money they are risking – not everyone else’s. If Council has commercial subsidiaries then entrepreneurs can be appointed to those, but it is ridicolous to think that people get elected to territorial local authorities on the basis of their entrepreneurial activities.

“If it was such a great idea [requiring ratepayer approval] central government might like to apply it to itself, because we’re talking about quite small amounts of money.”

Also not a bad idea. Central Government should not be buying or establishing businesses in competitive sectors.

Gerard Langford, of South Taranaki District Council, said his council bought the Hawera cinema building for $1 million two years ago because the private owners were about to close it.

The community supported keeping the movie theatre, which was run by a trust using money from ticket sales and advertising, he said.

And if the ratepayers gave their approval, they still could.

There was a good crowd at the Backbencher last night for the unveilign of the new puppets. John and Bill were cast as the Blue Baron and Snoopy. Was very disturbing as John kept ticking Bill’s stomach (the puppet that is).

Also had Pita Sharples in a waka, and Roger Douglas as Rodney Hide’s puppet master.

John Key joked that he could have done with the machine gun in the plane at around 8 am yesterday. Bill joked about wanting to know about which National MPs had been seen in the Backbencher after Boycie revealed this is where Clark, Wilson and co plotted against Mike Moore.

And as the Dom Post reports, Rodney said:

“The great thing about having Roger Douglas in our caucus is that you get plenty of advice,” Mr Hide said last night.

“The advice is never contradictory because it hasn’t changed in 20 years.”

Afterwards around 60 of us went upstairs to hear about Obama’s first 100 days from a visiting US expert. Thanks to the US Embassy and State Department for helping make it happen. People seemed to enjoy it, and we had a good turnout of MPs.

After that we had Backbenches which was fun also. A good Wednesday night.

Rodney Hide has named the five members of the Auckland Transition Agency. They are:

1. Mark Ford, Executive Chair. CEO of Watercare Services Ltd since 1994 and Chairman of ARTA since 2007.  Previous roles have included CEO of Auckland Regional Services Trust and CEO of NZ Forestry Corporation.
2. Miriam Dean, Extensive legal experience, appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2004.  An experienced mediator and arbitrator with strong governance experience.
3. John Waller, Chartered accountant with change management expertise.  Chairman of the Bank of New Zealand and adviser on many successful restructurings.
4. John Law, Extensive Auckland region local government experience, including seven years as Mayor of Rodney District Council (2001-07).
5. Wayne Walden, Experienced company director and manager, with extensive governance experience. Former Chair of Maori Television (2003-08).  Affiliated to Ngati Kahu and Tai Tokerau.

They have a huge job ahead of them, merging eight Councils together, 6,000 staff and $28 billion of assets.

I could not believe what I read on Stuff:

Bay of Plenty ratepayers face “very extensive costs” with Whakatane District Council continuing legal action to prevent the regional council relocating headquarters to Tauranga, Environment Bay of Plenty chairman John Cronin says.

The Whakatane council has said it would appeal last month’s High Court judicial review finding that Environment Bay of Plenty followed correct procedure in deciding to shift from Whakatane to Tauranga.

This is insane. You have Whakatane ratepayers funding court action agaunst the Regional Council, funded by all BOP ratepayers.

The Regional Council is going to have its HQ where it sees fit. Even if the process had been wrong (and the court said it wasn’t), they will eventually be able to move. The only winner will be the lawyers.

Rodney Hide should tell the Whakatane District Council to drop its lawsuit, or face replacing with a Commissioner. The purpose of TLAs is not to sue employers who decide to move to other towns.

The Herald on Sunday editorial says:

The plan announced on Monday sensibly ditched the commission’s recommendation for six local councils – a recipe for more of the same paralysis – and provided for between 20 and 30 local boards, with between 125 and 150 members, to ensure that community voices are heard.

Apart from the Mayors losing their jobs, almost everyone seems to be saying that decision was the right one.

The HoS is concerned about lack of powers for the local boards. I think the ability to propose an additional rate for additional local facilities or services will turn out to be quite powerful.

What is more worrying is the composition of the council itself. It is a blizzard of confusing numbers but the proposal is for 20 councillors elected from 12 wards (which, for no good reason, will coincide with neither the community boards’ bailiwicks, nor Parliamentary electorates) and eight councillors elected at large. The mayor, too, would be elected by the voters of the region.

Again there seems to be a consensus that all the Councillors should be from wards. Hopefully the Select Committee will be able to make recommendations on this issue.

Talking of super city issues, one has to giggle at this story:

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams accused Rodney Hide of lying about having met local Mayors – claiming he met John Banks only. Rodney’s response:

But Mr Hide said he spoke to other Mayors the day the Royal Commission released its report, a day when Williams was in the South Island.

“Andrew Williams wasn’t there when the Royal Commission released their report, and I don’t know why, so we did our best,” he told NZPA.

Williams seems exceptionally skilled at making himself look foolish.