Kiwiblog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: Economy, National, trans-Tasman

I am a keen recipient of the trans-tasman newsletter. You often read material in there not reported elsewhere. A great example of this is quoted in this week’s newsletter:

Excitement in the media about the Govt undertaking a review of NZ’s intelligence services scaled considerable heights this week. A Treasury official dropped a notebook in the street near Parliament, which contained some details about the review being carried out by former MFAT chief Simon Murdoch. The notebook was retrieved by a Radio NZ political journalist, and initial news reports sent competing media into a frenzy. However John Key deflated the excitement when he told journalists the review had been twice reported earlier in Trans-Tasman. The first, inthe July 2 issue, said a review was being planned of the agencies, and the second on July 16 indicated Murdoch would carry out the review.

So while still highly embarrassing for the Treasury staffer who lost the notebook, there was not actual revealing of anything not already in the public domain.

The newsletter also notes:

We have noted before Labour’s viscerally venomous attitude towards National Ministers Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley. This goes way beyond the normal tensions of political conflict. Labour MPs – especially their women MPs – appear to find the very existence of Bennett and Education Minister Tolley infuriating. You can almost see the wall of red mist descending over Labour’s front bench every time those two Ministers get up to speak. …

The attitude is actually an odd kind of snobbery. There is an unspoken “how DARE you?!” from Labour’s front bench towards Bennett and Tolley. It is a rage these women, who in Labour’s eyes should be, firstly, on a benefit themselves somewhere and, secondly, loyally supporting Labour as a consequence.

I recommend people tune into question time to see what the newsletter describes.

Tags: GCSB, Labour, SIS, trans-Tasman

Trans-Tasman has some good advice for the Government in discussing the ACC funding issue:

Which may be why the Nats have gone coy on making Michael Cullen the Chairman of Mighty River Power’s Board.

They also recall John Tamihere’s famous comment about Cullen’s ability to “cut a deal on a piece of legislation, he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other bastards [coalition partners] knowing about it, and it melts down everything they wanted.”

If it happens with coalition partners, imagine Cullen running an SOE under a National Govt.

That is a good reason, plus the angry horde of National Party members who would encircle the Beehive and try to burn it down if they appointed Cullen as an SOE Chair this year.

Tags: Michael Cullen, SOEs, trans-Tasman

Transtasman rates the campaigns:

Campaign Winners And Losers

Winston Peters: Harder to kill than Rasputin, but his number looks up. Often truculently silly (eg the helicopter business). So no win, or No, Win.

The Maori Party: Looks like hanging onto its four seats but may not add any more. They’ve done OK, but not as well as they were expected to.

The Greens: The billboard campaign “vote for us” was outstanding. They will pick up a lot of disaffected Labour voters. Light bulbs, water pressurre and how to bring up your kids also featured. A couple of extra MPs at least look likely.

Peter Dunne? A good Minister of Revenue: his strength and his weakness. Such types seldom build lasting political forces. Will be able to hold Caucus meetings in front of his mirror as he does his spectacular hair.

ACT? Toned down the flakiness we’ve seen over recent years, but still ran an erratic campaign. May peel some votes off the right of National on the back of law and order issues. Three seats, max.

Labour/Helen Clark: Can’t see a belt without hitting below it. Too much rhetoric about what happened 15, 20, 25 years ago. A nasty, negative campaign unworthy of the party’s better side.

National/John Key: Did two winning things: after a shaky start he shed the smart-alecky 6th former demeanour he often adopts, and he refused to get into the gutter with Clark. Best line: Rich is when you can payyour credit cards and your power bill.

A nasty, negative campaign indeed.

Tags: Election 2008, trans-Tasman

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.

Media	Mean	Median	Mode	Minimum	Maximum	Range
NZ Press Assn	6.1	6	6	4	9	5
Newsroom	5.8	6	5	1	10	9
Trans-Tasman	5.5	6	6	0	8	8
NZ Herald	5.3	6	6	0	8	8
Scoop	5.2	5	5	0	10	10
Newstalk ZB	5.1	6	7	1	8	7
Listener	5.0	5	3	1	8	7
NBR	4.9	4	4	1	8	7
Radio NZ	4.8	6	3	1	9	8
Radio Live	4.4	5	1	1	8	7
Sky/Prime News	4.3	5	5	0	7	7
The Press	4.2	5	1	1	7	6
TV Three	4.1	5	6	0	8	8
Dominion Post	4.1	4.5	1	1	7	6
TV One	3.9	5	5	0	6	6
Maori TV	3.7	4	5	0	6	6
Herald on Sunday	3.5	3.5	7	0	7	7
Sunday Star-Times	2.7	3	3	0	5	5

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

Media	All Mean	Nats Mean	Others Mean	Difference
TV One	3.9	6.3	2.2	4.2
TV Three	4.1	6.2	2.6	3.6
Maori TV	3.7	5.2	2.5	2.7
Sky/Prime News	4.3	5.5	3.3	2.2
Sunday Star-Times	2.7	3.5	2.1	1.4
Radio Live	4.4	4.8	4.2	0.6
Radio NZ	4.8	5.0	4.6	0.4
Dominion Post	4.1	4.2	4.0	0.2
Herald on Sunday	3.5	3.5	3.5	0.0
Newstalk ZB	5.1	4.8	5.4	-0.6
The Press	4.2	3.8	4.6	-0.8
NZ Herald	5.3	4.2	6.1	-1.9
NBR	4.9	3.3	6.1	-2.8
Listener	5.0	3.3	6.3	-3.0
NZ Press Assn	6.1	4.3	7.4	-3.1
Trans-Tasman	5.5	3.3	7.1	-3.8
Scoop	5.2	2.8	7.0	-4.2
Newsroom	5.8	3.0	8.0	-5.0

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

Journalist	Mean	Median	Mode	Minimum	Maximum	Range
John Armstrong (NZH)	6.4	7	2	2	10	8
Peter Wilson (NZPA)	5.8	5	5	3	8	5
Audrey Young (NZH)	5.7	6.5	7	0	10	10
Ian Templeton (TT)	5.6	7	7	0	9	9
Jane Clifton (Listener)	5.6	6	6	2	9	7
Barry Soper (Sky & ZB)	4.9	5.5	7	1	9	8
Ian Llewellyn (NZPA)	4.9	5	5	1	8	7
Vernon Small (DP)	4.6	5	6	1	8	7
Colin Espiner (Press)	4.5	5	6	0	8	8
Guyon Espiner (TV1)	4.4	5.5	7	0	7	7
Tim Donoghue (DP)	4.1	4.5	2	1	9	8
Brent Edwards (RNZ)	4.1	4	4	0	7	7
Tracy Watkins (DP)	3.8	4.5	6	0	7	7
Duncan Garner (TV3)	3.7	3.5	3	0	8	8
Gordon Campbell (Scoop)	3.6	5	5	0	7	7
Ruth Laugeson (SST)	2.7	2.5	2	0	6	6

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Journalist	All Mean	Nats Mean	Others Mean	Difference
Laugeson	2.7	4.2	1.6	2.6
Clifton	5.6	7.0	4.5	2.5
Soper	4.9	6.2	4.0	2.2
Campbell	3.6	4.8	2.8	2.0
Edwards	4.1	4.8	3.5	1.3
Llewellyn	4.9	5.2	4.7	0.5
Young	5.7	6.0	5.5	0.5
Garner	3.7	3.5	3.9	-0.4
Espiner G	4.4	4.2	4.6	-0.4
Wilson	5.8	5.5	6.0	-0.5
Armstrong	6.4	6.0	6.8	-0.8
Watkins	3.8	3.0	4.4	-1.4
Donoghue	4.1	3.2	4.9	-1.7
Small	4.6	3.2	5.6	-2.4
Espiner C	4.5	2.8	5.8	-3.0
Templeton	5.6	1.8	8.5	-6.7

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

Tags: Audrey Young, Barry Soper, Brent Edwards, Colin Espiner, Duncan Garner, Gordon Campbell, Guyon Espiner, Herald on Sunday, Ian Llewellyn, Ian Templeton, Jane Clifton, John Armstrong, Maori TV, Media, NBR, Newsroom, NewstalkZB, NZ Herald, NZPA, Parliament, Peter Wilson, Prime TV, Radio Live, Radio NZ, Ruth Laugeson, Scoop, Sky TV, SST, The Listener, The Press, Tim Donoghue, Tracy Watkins, trans-Tasman, TV3, Vernon Small

The excellent weekly newsletter, trans-Tasman, has some reviews of issues around Government agencies which I found interesting. You have to pay to subscribe, but here are some extracts so you can see the sort of stuff they have:

Ministry For The Environment

Govts which have been in power for a long time have a nasty tendency to view the public service as an extension of themselves. It is not a good thing, and when Govt’s change it can take a while for things to adjust, But what is worse is when the public service itself starts to make the same assumption. It has started to look a bit like this with the Ministry for the Environment.

More than a bit!

Department Of Conservation

After several years of fiscal malnourishment, “Doc” got a lot more money after the Cave Creek tragedy in 1995. Labour has continued this run of fiscal largesse. The department runs the country’s growing number of National Parks and Conservation Parks. The expansion has been such even a recent edition of one of the country’s tramping and outdoor magazines queried whether the expansion has been too far and too fast. The past four years has seen an additional 400,000 hectares of new Department of Conservation land in the South Island.

Energy Efficiency And Conservation Authority

The Authority’s main focus is getting people to use more energy efficient methods for heating and the like. One of the main planks of this is the solar water heating imitative, which was launched with great fanfare in late 2006, backed by a budget of $15.5m over three years. The aim was 15,000-20,000 installations in the first three years but this now looks a bit ambitious. In fact, the year after the strategy was launched the number of new installations dropped to the lowest level since 2000 – when the Authority began recording such installations. There is also a grant scheme offering $500 loans for installations, but in the 2006/07 year no grants were issued.

Not a single grant. Is there any other term for this except total failure. A great example of how good intentions are not enough.

Transit NZ/Land Transport NZ

At the moment, the budget allocation is for $7.5bn for each of the first three years. This is part of what Finance Minister Michael Cullen dubbed, in last year’s Budget, the biggest road building campaign for a generation.

The Greens must hate that level of spending being mainly on roads!

Ministry Of Transport

With Auckland being the key electoral battleground, and with transport hold-ups being such an issue in there, this will be even more so for this year. The Ministry has also increased its staff numbers, partly due to reorganisation of the sector and partly because it has a group of new policy people dealing with environmental issues and Climate Change.

Department Of Building And Housing

New Minister Shane Jones – one of the Govt’s high fliers, and tipped as a possible Labour leader – is also investigating changes to property law to allow investors to put up a “shell” property and allow low income people to buy a long term occupancy right and invest some of their own money. A model is the retirement village arrangement. Jones argues the change to more long-term renters creates a niche for this sort of property right. Less well noticed has been the change in profile of landlords. The popularity of investment properties means, according to a survey at the time the Department was formed, nearly a quarter of all landlords had been in the business for less than a year.

Housing New Zealand

On the one hand one of the major delivery agencies for social services, it is also the country’s largest property developer. So much so the Corporation, under after taking advice from its tax advisers, set up a separate property development company several years ago. The reason for this was to minimise the amount of tax the Corporation would have to pay for its property development activities.

So even Housing NZ avoids tax. Hilarious.

Tags: trans-Tasman