Kiwiblog

Andrea Vance reports:

Revenue Minister Peter Dunne says he will vote against legislation establishing charter schools.

 

However, the Government still looks to have the numbers, with the Maori Party giving support at the Bill’s second reading. …

Dunne says he’s not convinced by the charter schools model and he is particularly concerned at proposals which will allow charter schools to employ teachers who are not registered or nationally certified.

The United Future leader is also worried the schools will not be compelled to follow the National curriculum.

“The current system already provides for a significant range of schooling opportunities, and I cannot see there is a need to introduce the partnership schools approach to achieve the level of flexibility the proponents of partnership schools are seeking,” he said.

The select committee recommended that charter schools be subject to investigation by the Ombudsman.

The independent schools will receive the same per-child funding from the Government but are less-tied to Education Ministry regulations.

So the likely vote is 63 to 58.

Parliamentary youth reps unanimously back marriage equality

 In an unprecedented joint initiative youth reps from all eight parties in Parliament have combined together to demonstrate the overwhelming support amongst young New Zealanders for same sex couples to be able to marry.

Young Nats Vice President Shaun Wallis said that Young Nats were delighted the majority of National MPs voted in favour of marriage equality at first reading and hope they will continue to do at the second reading this week “Our members overwhelmingly supports marriage equality as we believe in freedom and equal opportunity for all Kiwis.”

Young Labour spokesperson Sam Thompson said that marriage equality and adoption reform are the number one policy priority for Young Labour. “We believe our representatives in Wellington really value equality and a fair go and will continue to support expanding the right to marry to everyone who has a partner they love and want to spend their life with.”

Young Greens spokesperson Izzy Lomax said that the Young Greens were delighted that all 14 Green MPs voted in favour of marriage equality as we believe in a society without discrimination, and look forward to an end to all discrimination against rainbow communities, starting with allowing loving same sex couples to marry”.

“NZ First Youth leader Curwen Rolinson said that NZ First Youth is united in supporting a referendum on this issue. While there is a large and vocal proportion of NZ First Youth who would vote in favour, it is by no means unanimous. We feel that the important thing is for progressive changes in legislation to come with the direct backing and support of the people – not filtered through layers of temporarily empowered politicians and political parties. A referendum is the fairest, most inclusive and democratic method of achieving this. It is our hope that MPs of other parties will realize this and join our call for a referendum.”

Maori Party kaikorero rangatahi Teaonui Mckenzie said that he is proud that all three Maori Party MPs support the right of same sex couples to marry and form a whanau. “This generation will not tolerate any form of discrimination, whether by race, gender or sexual orientation.”

MANA Rangatahi spokesperson Ian Anderson says that “MANA are fully behind the Bill and will work to reduce societal inequality wherever possible, in this case bringing New Zealand law into line to provide the opportunity for same-sex couples to enter marriage.”

Act on Campus President Taylor Warwood said that “Act on Campus have been long-time supporters of marriage equality, and were delighted that ACT MP John Banks voted for Louisa Wall’s bill at its first reading and believe its passage will be entirely consistent with ACT policy of one law for all.”

United Future spokesman Damian Light said that “allowing couples who love each other to marry is just common sense and we’re proud that Hon Peter Dunne, our Party Leader, has been a vocal supporter of this bill. Our support of this bill is consistent with our liberal belief in equality for all.”

“This show of support for marriage equality by every party’s youth wing sends a powerful message. Marriage equality is no longer a question of if, but of when. We can’t wait for Parliament to vote in favour of the Bill.” said Campaign for Marriage Equality Spokesperson Conrad Reyners.

The eight youth reps, representing youth members of parties comprising 120 of the 121 MPs in Parliament believe their combined show of support reflects the over-whelming support for marriage equality amongst younger New Zealanders (76% in favour in Colmar Brunton May 2012 poll).

ENDS

Some on the left have been pushing a message that United Future did not say they will back asset sales before the election, so hence there is no electoral mandate for them. This is, to be frank, absolute crap. I doubt a single voter in Ohariu voted for Peter Dunne thinking he might stop National’s asset sales. If Ohariu voters wanted to stop asset sales, they could have voted for Charles Chauvel. Instead Chauvel lost for the third election in a row.

In this video, Peter Dunne explicitly refers to asset sales and say they are on National’s path but UF will make sure three key assets are never sold – Kiwibank, Radio NZ and “our water”. The reference to our water is to water supply, as made clear on their website here.

UnitedFuture does not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda. New Zealanders would never – or should never – accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.

A few people have tried to say that as power companies own dams, and dams use water, then somehow the reference to water is actually saying they are against the power companies being sold. Well that is like saying you’re against Coke being sold, as that also uses water.

Further their website stated:

 with regard to Asset Sales, UnitedFuture will insist that:

- The New Zealand Government retains majority control (51%)

- Shareholding by private investors be capped at 15%

- New Zealand household investors are given preferential purchase right at time of issue.

This is clear that they will support National’s proposed (part) sales so long as they remain majority owned, a 15% cap and preferential treatment for NZ investors.

Further Peter Dunne attended a dozen or more public meetings in Ohariu, and he was asked about asset sales at basically every meeting. His response was the same at each meeting – they will support the five partial sales proposed so long as 51% Govt owned, 15% cap and preference for NZ investors, and they will not support RNZ, Kiwibank or water supply companies being sold.

No one thought a vote for Peter Dunne was a vote to stop National’s asset sales. I doubt 57% of National party voters would have voted for Peter if they thought that voting for him would be voting against a core National party promise.

It is a lie invented by the left to try and get around the inconvenient fact they actually lost the election. Peter Dunne’s position before the election on asset sales is exactly the same as it is now.

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

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

MPs in

None new

MPs out

None out

Result

4.0/10.

There were doubts over whether Dunne would retain Ohariu. Chauvel ran a very aggressive campaign (which may have backfired) and Shanks was far more visible than Goldsmith was in Epsom. After the 2008 election my prediction was that Labour would win the seat if National and Dunne both stood, as Chauvel would come through the middle.

However Chauvel lost Ohariu for the third election in a row. Dunne’s increased majority was probably a combination of the general collapse in support for Labour, and National voters in the final days realising (correctly) how important United Future and ACT might be in allowing National to govern.

United Future got  12,000 party votes, around half the number needed to gain a second MP. Solid performances by Dunne in the minor leaders debates did not translate into increased support. United Future is unlikely to exist when Dunne retires from Parliament.

Challenges

The immediate challenge is negotiating Ministerial portfolios. Dunne is a very competent Minister, and presumably will be happy to keep his existing portfolios.

Beyond that the challenge for Dunne is probably when to retire, without heading into Opposition. I thought Dunne may retire in 2011 (due to the chance he may lose Ohariu) but he increased his majority instead. He can probably win it in 2014, but will he want to if it looks like there will not be a National-led Government? Labour now hate Dunne and will not deal with him (unless they have to) so if Dunne stands and wins in 2014, but National does not, then he’ll face being a lone Opposition MP.

Incidentially unless I am mistaken, Peter Dunne is now the Father of the House – the longest serving continuous MP. Dunne was elected in 1984, as was Lockwood Smith. But Dunne was sworn in first as it is in surname alphabetical order. Goff and King were first elected in 1981 but lost their seats in 1990, so the clock for them starts from 1993.

United Future have announced their party list:

1 Peter Dunne (Ohariu)
2 Doug Stevens (Nelson)
3 Rob Eaddy (Hutt South)
4 Sultan Eusoff (Palmerston North)
5 Alan Simmons (Taupo)

If United Future gets around 1.2% they get a second MP and at around 2.0% they would get a third MP.

Rob Eaddy, at No 3, is a former Chief of Staff to Jim Bolger, and one of the best political managers around. If United Future did manage to get him into Parliament, he would be an easy pick to become a very competent and successful Minister.

You can read bios on the top five at the link above. I’m not sure if they’ll get any MPs on top of Peter, but its a pretty good calibre of candidates in their top five.

United Future released yesterday their superannuation policy which allows for a retirement age of between 60 and 70, with the amount you get increasing the longer you leave off claiming it. They also propose making KiwiSaver compulsory.

Their policy is designed to be cost neutral.  what it would mean is the choices for a single recepient might be:

• Age 60 – $249/week
• Age 65 – $339/week
• Age 70 – $546/week

I think the policy is a good step in the right direction. However as it is cost neutral I think it also might not be sustainable over time.

One of my spies has just informed me that the United Future President, Denise Krum, resigned a short time ago off the United Future Board, and has joined the National Party. Her replacement is Deputy Leader Judy Turner.

I also understand that two other board members resigned last week. This adds to the speculation that United Future will not be around after the next election. In some ways it is a pity – they have a proven track record of being a moderate and reasonable coalition partner, but I guess the centre has just got too crowded.

Denise is what I regard as a good catch for National. I blogged in September:

Denise is UFNZ Party President and seems quite an able sort. She did quite well appearing for UFNZ for the broadcasting allocations.

Denise was ranked No 3 on the United Future list in 2008.

Can you name all the parties that have been merged into United Future New Zealand? I’m not 100% sure I even have all the names, but between everyone we should be able to identify them all.

NZ First never paid back the $140,000 + GST it owed the taxpayer.  We know this.

But a reader has reminded me that United Future also still owed some money. In the 2006/07 year they paid back only $31,000 o fthe $64,000 they owed (morally) the Parliamentary Service.

As far as I can tell from their annual report, no repayments were made in 2007/08 but there is a $3,000 other revenue line which might be a repayment.

So how much of the debt has been paid, and when will it be paid in full?

The National – United Future agreement is online here.

• Peter Dunne to be Minister of Revenue and Associate Health

Good. He can keep pushing for flatter taxes from there.

• Maintain Families Commission

I just knew that would be there!

• Reduce elective surgery waiting lists by greater utilisation of private hospital capacity, in a planned way where this cannot be met by the public hospital system

Excellent – no arguments at all.

• Progressing the long-term medicines strategy for quality use of pharmaceuticals in the health sector
• Support Public Private Partnerships for major roading infrastructure developments such as the Transmission Gully highway

I’ll celebrate the day the first car drives along it, but not before!

• The government notes that United Future has been committed to income splitting as a key part of their tax policy and agrees to support appropriate legislation to First Reading in Parliament.

Where parties can’t agree on something, an agreement to support to select committee is quite sensible, as it allows the public and other parties to consider their positions and submit on it.

• Establish a Big Game Hunting Council as part of a national wild game management strategy

I guess that came from the Oudoor Recreation Party they gobbled up a few years ago.

I did note one section in the agreement:

Cabinet Manual

The Leader of United Future agrees to be bound by the Cabinet Manual in the exercise of his Ministerial responsibilities, and in particular agrees to be bound by the provisions in the Cabinet Manual on the conduct, public duty, and personal interests of Ministers.

This is what you would call the Winston clause. Helen allowed Winston to trample all over the Cabinet Manual – he didn’t get permission for travel, he ddn’t declare gifts, he didn’t get the PM’s permission to keep gifts etc. John Key is signalling he will expect a higher standard of integrity from his Ministers than Helen Clark did.

So how are things looking for the parties. Let’s take things in reverse order:

Progressives

Did better than expected on 0.9% – enough to avoid overhang but well off getting a second MP. The party is effectively over and doesn’t really serve any useful purpose now they are in Opposition (in Government they did have a somewhat different brand to Labour). I will not be surprised to see Anderton rejoin Labour during this term and Progressives windup. Anderton presumably will retire next election.

United Future

Like Progressive, United Future is basically over. Enough votes to avoid overhang but well off a second MP. Peter will have got a bit of a nasty shock that his majority has been slashed to under 2,000 and this is probably his final term as I expect both National and Labour will aim to win the seat next time.

Maori Party

Not that good an election for them. It could have been worse – they did win Te Tai Tonga but they are quite gutted not to win Ikaroa-Rawhiti especially. Their party vote barely lifted and they don’t hold the balance of power. However if they are sensible they will negotiate an abstain on supply and confidence with National in exchange for some policy wins. Their big challenge will be differentiating from Labour’s Maori MPs to give people a reason to keep supporting them. There is a remote chance they will take up Ministerial positions outside Cabinet – they will be worried doing so will risk Labour winning seats back off them. However they can make the case that National could have governed without them, and by accepting the roles they got to deliver some wins to Maoridom.

New Zealand First

It is all over. Winston won’t stand again in Tauranga and unless National did something monumentally stupid like cut super, NZ First won’t stand anywhere.

I suspect Ron Mark will become Leader and maybe give Rimutaka another try, but it is doubtful they’ll make 1% without an incumbent MP and/or Winston.

The big question is where will NZ First voters go? National? Labour? There is in fact an opportunity for a new party to hoover up the NZ First, Kiwi Party and Family Party that got 5.1% between them. They all have social conservatism in common. If United Future disappears also, then you may have up to 6% looking for a home.

Greens

In some ways the Greens are the big losers from this election, despite getting two more MPs. But they had polls showing them getting up to 11.5% and they only got 6.4%. Labour lost bigtime also, but at least they got to spend nine years in Government. The Greens have spent their first nine years locked out of Government and now face say another six years in Opposition where they will struggle to compete with Labour who will agree with them on most issues now. And when Labour do come back in, the Maori Party will have a stronger negotiating position than the Greens.

On the positive side they did get two more MPs and maybe could get a third. Delahunty is seen as an exremists, but Hague is a solid performer and Kennedy Graham could add to theri voter appeal.

ACT

The result is a total vindication for Rodney Hide. If ACT has not grown their number of MPs, they would have become like the Progressive Party – doomed to die with the Leader. But they have grown ACT so that it is a credible force for the future. This is great not just for ACT but the centre-right. Without ACT long-term there would be just four parties – Labour, Greens, Maori and National. Under that scenario centre-right Govts will be rare. With ACT in the picture it is more balanced.

The challenge for ACT is to get some policy wins from National. With 5 MPs they need to be able to show they delivered to their supporters. But they need to balance that with not forcing John Key into doing anything that could be seem to betray those who voted for him and his leadership.

ACT should also push for two Ministers – Rodney and Heather. They make up 1/12th of the Government so they should get 1/12th of the Executive which is two Ministerial roles. Heather would be a very competent Minister I am sure.

Labour

Clark and Cullen have resigned. It is a mark of their political judgement that they have decided to step down immediately. Staying on for even six months would just have meant a period of destabilising headlines.

Phil Goff will be the new Leader I predict. If the ballot has been delayed even a year, then maybe not. But I suspect he may be elected unoppossed.

The interesting thing will be Deputy. It has to be a female or a Maori to keep factions happy. I somehow can’t see Goff happy with Maryan Street as his Deputy (and I see she has ruled herself out) so suspect Annette King could take the job. However they are both from the right-leaning part of Caucus so there may be opposition to that. King is widely regarded by all her MPs though. Jones is a possible for Deputy but making him Deputy would lead to speculation as to when he will roll Goff.

Goff will get one chance only, like Mike Moore. If he does not win in 2011, then others will be ready by then. There is even a chance he would get rolled before 2011 if they do not perform in the polls.

Goff is a very capable politician, but his big problem is he entered Parliament under Muldoon. It will be hard to brand him as the fresh face for the future when he has been an MP for 30 years by the time of the next election.

If Labour are smart they will make Cunliffe Shadow Finance Minister.

National

Key has a number of challenges and opportunities.

He needs to do a deal with ACT that works for both of them. Gives ACT some wins, but doesn’t undermine his centrist brand. However having said that, people have to realise the public did not vote for a National Government – they did elect a National-ACT Government (plus United Future).

His other challenge is the Maori Party – it would be a coup to bring them on board as Ministers. This is ironic as most PMs would rather keep all portfolios for their own party, but long-term having Sharples and Turia as Ministers would send a message about working with the Maori Party. It would also allow National to do some stuff in welfare, that they could not do by themselves.

Putting together the Cabinet is the next challenge. To put it bluntly there are too many contenders and some will be disappointed. Key will need some of the 1990s Ministers for their experience and stability, but signal to those MPs that they should not expect a six to nine year term in Cabinet this time around – more likely 2 – 3 years max, so that going into 2011 the majority of Ministers are from the 2002, 2005 and even 2008 intakes.

A fourth challenge is a large Caucus of 59. But unlike 1990, there is no long tail of Gilbert Myles types to manage. One or two may present some challenges but generally the new intake is talented and ambitious. That may be the longer term challenge – keeping them happy as Government backbenchers whose main job is to move “That the motion now be put” in committee of the whole debates

The 2005 intake will also need some managing. A few of them will make Cabinet but most won’t – yet. They will probably be the Select Committee Chairs as Ministers in waiting, and these appointments will also have to be negotiated with other parties.

If people want a change of Government on Saturday, there are only three parties you should vote for. Any other vote may help bring about a Labour/Progressive/NZ First/Green/Maori Party coalition that would be the most left wing Government in 70 years.

The three parties that will lead to a change of Government are National, ACT and United Future. I invoted all three party leaders to send me something on why people should consider vote for them. First is Peter Dunne:

If the polls over the past year, talkback radio, comments on the campaign trail and my own political experience are to be relied upon, then the New Zealand electorate is in the mood for a political change.

This means that on Saturday, the voters will deliver a right-leaning Parliament and National will hold the majority of seats.

Having made that fundamental decision, voters will face the second choice: what flavour of right-leaning, National-led government do they want?

The parties that provide that flavour are UnitedFuture, ACT, the Greens, the Maori party and the Progressives (assuming this is New Zealand First’s final campaign).

The other small parties like the Kiwi party, the Family party, the Legalise Aotearoa party and all the other single issue parties are focussed on single issues like hitting children or getting stoned and can be dismissed as wasteful depositories for your party vote.

The Greens and the Progressives are locked into Labour, so a vote for them is not a vote for change.

That leaves us and ACT committed to working with National, with the Maori party dodging about in the middle.

By elimination therefore, the strategic choice is between UnitedFuture and ACT.

ACT is claiming it will put backbone into National, but it looks more like an ideological straitjacket from where I stand.

Roger Douglas’s 20-point plan that ACT is offering dates from 1987 and represents yesterday’s solutions to yesterday’s problems.

By contrast, UnitedFuture promotes ideas, not ideologies and is focussed on policies that promote jobs and the welfare of families – the cornerstone of our society.

Instead of looking backwards and yearning for yesteryear, we look forward to a simpler, fairer tax system; a health system that uses all its public and private resources so all New Zealanders get first-class healthcare; a tertiary education system that loads up our graduates with knowledge, not debt; a business environment that encourages innovation and growth; and a physical environment that’s clean and healthy for New Zealanders to revel in.

The conclusion is straightforward: party vote UnitedFuture for a change in government, a change you can trust will lead New Zealand forward.

Next up will be ACT.

It is significant that Peter Dunne has not just indicated a preference for National, but ruled out supporting a Labour-led Government after the election. There are probably a variety of reasons for this:

1. Genuine horror at what a very left Government with up to 15 Green MPs would be like. He realised there would be no shift towards the centre if Labour gets re-elected but a big big shift to the left.
2. A realisation that he may have trouble attracting support from voters wanting to change the Government unless they knew for sure a vote for United Future would be a vote for change. Now one can say that a vote for National, ACT or United Future are all votes to change the Government.
3. An assumption that in a Government made up of Labour, Progressive, Greens, NZ First and the Maori Party there would be no room for him in a role of any significance.

I welcome United Future’s decision. There are some people who won’t be able to vote National, but would feel able to vote United Future, and now they can do so knowing it is a vote to change the Government.

Also Peter Dunne is a highly experienced and capable Minister, and Governments need those. Dunne’s tax policy of three rates – 10%, 20% and 30% is a very good policy, and I would be happy to have him push that along in Governmeent.

Michelle Sullivan continues her rating of the parties and their websites. In her earlier article she gave National an A and Labour a C+ for their web strategies.

• NZ First – same design since 2002 – a D
• ACT - website okay but needs tweaking, not enough use of social networking and You Tube – a C
• Maori Party – simple website, little content – a C
• Family Party – a shiny website, too American, but will be popular with many. No grade given
• Green Party – expected big things but underwhelmed. Suggest more video on front page. Overall good and gets a B grade.
• United Future – nice three column setup. Blgo is integrated into site. Also like minipolls. A solid B.
• Progressive – unusual design – some will like it. Little content – C-.

So the overall rankings would be:

1. National A+
2. Greens B
3. United Future B
4. Labour C+
5. ACT C
6. Maori C
7. Progressive C-
8. NZ First D

That is pretty close to the rankings I gave out earlier this year in various presentations I did on the issue. I had Greens and National the top two but Greens higher. I also had Progressive and NZ First as the bottom two.  I did have ACT over Labour though but still around the middle.

It is of huge significance that the Maori, Greens and United Future parties all voted not just to recommend Peters be censured, but to state they believe he lied to the Privileges Committee. This leaves Labour isolated with NZ First, and puts paid to Winston’s hysterical cries about “echoes of Zimbabwe” as if he is some sort of victim.

There is an echo of Zimbabwe all right – a politican who thinks he is above the law, who is unaccountable and untouchable, and is protected by the ruling party.

All five parties in the majority deserve congratulation for not shying away from their duty, each for a somewhat different reason.

1. ACT for having the guts to pursue Peters in the face of explicit threats from Peters, and laying the complaint with  the Speaker.
2. National for putting aside potential Government by ruling out Peters and NZ First, and saying that even if doing a deal with Peters could put them into Government, they would rather stay in Opposition.
3. Peter Dunne and United Future for being willing to condemn the behaviour of a fellow Minister of the Crown.
4. Russel Norman and the Greens for putting what’s right ahead of what is best for the centre-left. If only Labour could ever do the same.
5. Te Ururoa Flavell for also doing what’s right, despite potential solidarity with Peters personally as Peters is of Ngati Wai descent. It would have been very easy to use this as an excuse to abstain.

Now assuming their recommendations are accepted by the House 63-58, then the question arises as to whether those minor parties could support a Government that includes Peters in it. I mean, if you have just voted to (politely) condemn the man as a cheat and a liar, then how credible would it be to support a Government which has him as a Minister?

So it would be interesting to ask Jeanette or Russel if there are any circumstances now in which they would support a Government that had Peters in it. Likewise for United Future and the Maori Party.

It is obvious that Labour can not be easily shaken from their position that they will keep Peters on, no matter what. But the minor parties can remove that choice from them by maing it an either/or (which is what Peters did to the Greens last election ironically).

Politically it would be better for National if Labour were not forced to rule Peters out. Winston as a Minister will be a good tool to bash them with. And imagine the fun we can have at Meet the Candidates meetings asking Labour candidates to defend Peters.

To quote Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn:

Typically, Winston is unrepentant to the end. And sadly, Labour is backing him all the way. Which is a good reason to be contemptuous of them as well. Some things are more important than politics, and political transparency is one of them. Sadly, Labour seems to have forgotten that. And they deserve everything they get from the public as a result.

But there is a greater good here. Keeping Peters out of power is more important than getting a National-led Government. One just can not have a Minister of the Crown who gives false evidence to the Privileges Committee, let alone one who receives personal $40,000 gifts from people in an indsutry he uses his portfolio to pour money into.

So even though it will remove a stick that one can bash Labour with, it is important for the integrity of our democracry that Labour rules Peters out. And if they won’t do it willingly, then let us hope the honest minor parties will force them to do it.

The Dim-Posy has done a party profile of United Future. Hopefully this will be of a series, and Danyl will cover all eight parliamentary parties plus the Family, Kiwi and Taito parties.

Some extracts from his excellent profile:

Founded In: 2000 AD as the scriptures foretold

Policy Achievements: Creation of Families Commission, nationwide marketing campaign for Families Commission, improved car-parking and creche facilities for Families Commission Staff. Proven history of improving business card design for Families Commission management.

Party Leader: Hon. Peter Patrick Caiaphas Dunne

Early Life: Born and raised in Pohatu Marine Reserve, attended Canturbury and Massey University, was voted audience favourite at Napier Marineland 1974-77.

Strengths: Can kill a grown man with a single stroke of his mighty flippers.

Weaknesses: Can easily become entangled in discarded plastics.

Campaign Strategy: Speak on behalf of the great silent majority of New Zealanders who have never heard of him and will vote for somebody else.

Very good. I can’t wait to see National’s.

Idiot/Savant has the full United Future list, along with how it has changed from last time. The top ten are:

1. Peter Dunne
2. Judy Turner
3. Denise Krum
4. Graeme Reeves
5. Selio Solomon
6. Murray Smith
7. Neville Wilson
8. Frank Owen
9. Janet Tuck
10. Karuna Muthu

I don’t know Selio Solomon, but can comment on Denise Krum and Graeme Reeves. Denise is UFNZ Party President and seems quite an able sort. She did quite well appearing for UFNZ for the broadcasting allocations.

Graeme Reeves was National MP for Miramar from 1990 to 1993. He was a good MP then, and would be again today. Plus I always have a soft spot for Graeme as he took the lead in Caucus in the early 1990s in expelling a certain W Peters from the Caucus.

So if the election saw United Future get up to four MPs, I’d have no problem with that – so long as they don’t take votes from the centre-right only.

NZPA reports on United Future’s tax policy released at their conference today. It is:

• Income up to $12,000 taxed at 10 percent;
• Income between $12,001 and $38,000 taxed at 20 percent; and
• Income above $38,000 taxed at 30 percent.

They also advocate income splitting but that won’t be happening and has been analysed before. Let us first look at the cost of what United Future is proposing:

1. Move bottom threshold from $9,500 to $12,000 is $135 million
2. Move lowest 15% rate from 15% to 10% is $1,125 million
3. Move 21% rate to 20% is $405 million
4. Move 33% rate to 30% is $420 million
5. Move 39% rate to 30% is $1,485 million

That is a total annual cost of $3.57 billion according to the Treasury ready reckoner. The NZIER calculator has it as $3.8 billion so that is close enough.

What will it mean for different people. Well let us look at a low income earner on $30,000, an average earner on $50,000 a higher income earner on $70,000 and a rich prick on $100,000.

1. On $30,000 your tax drops from $5,730 to $4,800 – a $930 or 16.2% reduction
2. On $50,000 your tax drops from $11,370 to $10,000 – a $1,370 or 12.0% reduction
3. On $70,000 your tax drops from $18,570 to $16,000 – a $2,570 or 13.8% reduction
4. On $100,000 your tax drops from $30,270 to $25,000 – a $5,270 or 17.4% reduction

I quite like the simplicity of just three rates of 10%, 20% and 30%. Not so sure about the levels they cut in at.

The Herald reports on the increasing signs by Peter Dunne that he wants to work with an expected National Government after the election. This is no surprise – Peter has been a Minister in a National-led Government before.

It will be interesting to see what United Future announces as its policy for post-election negotiations. In 2005 both UF and NZF said they would give first preference for forming a Government (subject to negotiating an acceptable agreement) to the party with the most votes. NZ First have confirmed that is their policy again, but I am not sure if United Future have.

1. Why has Steve Maharey not resigned as MP for Palmerston North, now he can do so without triggering a by-election? Does anyone think you can be Vice-Chancellor and an MP?
2. Has NZ First paid back its $158,000 yet?
3. Have United Future finished paying back the money it owes to Parliamentary Service?
4. Why have NZ First and ACT not yet filed their 2007 donations return, 16 days after the deadline?
5. Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) with less than 30 house sitting days before the election? Is this not just an outrageous rort to allow Russel to use taxpayer funds to travel around the country for the campaign?
6. Why would Labour’s website not list a single candidate who has been selected of the election? Is it because that is the only way they can get the taxpayer to fund 100% of it. Should Labour pay me for listing their candidates for them?
7. If Winston is back in NZ now, why hasn’t any journalist asked him why they have broken the law by refusing to file their donations return, and why does it need the party leader to file a donations return?
8. Has the Crown Law Office yet decided whether a balloon is an election advertisement?
9. How big a mistake was it for Dr Cullen to cancel in last year’s budget the tax cuts he promised in 2005?
10. How much damage did that conference song on John Key do to Labour? Was it more or less than the global economic slowdown?

UPDATE: For (4) The Electoral Commission has now received and published the ACT and NZ First returns.

Peter Dunne makes a useful contribution to the political debate on broadband:

“Everyone agrees that’s a good idea, but all we’ve heard so far is the Minister of Communications carping that National is being opportunistic and handing too much monopoly power to Telecom; New Zealand First is similarly outraged that Telecom is getting too much money; and ACT has delivered the standard libertarian rant that hates the Government collecting or spending any money at all.

“Surely the point is that widespread, superfast broadband is a good thing for the New Zealand economy and the only question is: how do we get there?

“It’d be excellent if politicians spent more time working out the answer to that question and not simply whacking each other over the head and feeling they’ve accomplished something.

“If direct government investment like Mr Key proposes is not the answer, then I’d like to hear two things from the critics – first, what is the alternative, and second, why has it not happened to date,” said Mr Dunne.

A useful challenge.

NZPA reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne today said a cross-party conference was needed to sort out problems with the Electoral Finance Act.

“No one, whether they were for the Act or against it, could have imagined the extent to which it is now intruding into every aspect of political life and the uncertainty it is causing for election officials, political parties, MPs and candidates.

On the contrary not only did I imagine this, I wrote extensively about it. I submitted to the Select Committee about it. And also amendments which would have helped make it better were voted down by Labour, Greens, NZ First and oh yes United Future.

“We cannot carry on with so much uncertainty and the flaws in the legislation need to be sorted out immediately in the interests of a fair election process this year.”

The easiest thing would to be change the regulated period back to 90 days.  Having it for all of election year has indeed played havoc with parties and others. Even asking people to renew a lapsed membership gets caught up. A party talking to supporters in February who have asked to hear from that party gets caught up.

He said the problems should be sorted out by MPs rather than the courts.

Why? The MPs are the ones who stuffed it up in the first place, and have a huge self interest.  Certainly it would be good to have a law with less uncertainty around it, but remember Annette King told us all how this was a good law and the law of common sense would sort it all out.

He said it should be made clear that taxpayer-funded party literature that did not solicit votes, money or membership was not attributable election expenditure.

No, no, no. The law has never ever exempted taxpayer-funded literature in the past. Giving MPs free rein to loot the taxpayer for their campaigns is not the answer. But moving the regulated period back to a more sensible time frame would mean that MPs could do their normals comms for most of the year, and then stop using taxpayer’s money for the last 12 weeks of the campaign.

Changes should also be made so the home address of a party’s financial agent was not required on advertising authorisations. 

There we are agreed. But Bill English’s bill to fix this is not going to be debated in time unless leave is granted for it to move up the order paper.

NZPA reports on the minor parties debate held on TVNZ’s Channel 7 yesterday. Winston refused to take part as he thinks he isn’t a minor party. Well Winnie, you got 1.1% in the latest poll – can’t get much more minor than that.

The positions of the minor parties on post-election support is interesting:

• Maori Party says they will consult with members after the election, but said could not support National if retained policy of abolishing Maori seats.  My reading of this, is that they would require that policy to be dumped as one of the prices of support after the election, not that having that policy pre-election is fatal in itself (esp as the Maori Party entered negotiations after 2005 with National despite similar policy)
• Greens will declare before the election who they support, based on policies. This will be Labour. What will be interesting is if they rule out say abstaining on supply and confidence for National in return for suitable policy concessions
• United Future says it will negotiate first with the largest party
• NZ First a couple of weeks agao also said it will negotiate first with the largest party
• ACT indicated it would back National, but a bottom line would be removal of the 39c tax rate. That is a very cunning demand, which I may blog on  separately at some stage
• Progressives say they will back Labour

So what you effectively have is Greens and Progressive backing Labour, ACT backing National, NZ First and United Future giving preference to the largest party, and the Maori Party genuinely swinging.

The decisions (which are unchanged from 2005) for United Future and NZ First to give first preference to the largest party, makes things very hard for Labour. You see while it is quite plausible that National’s gap over Labour may drop to say 7%or 8%, making it plus the Greens approx equal to National, it is highly highly unlikely that Labour will actually get more seats than National. And NZF and UFNZ have said they will give preference t the largest party not the largest bloc.

So in reality Labour (including Progressive) only have the Greens and maybe the Maori Party to make it over 60 seats.

Ironically their best chance of making it, is for NZ First not to be there. If NZ First get knocked out, then their vote is effectively redistributed proportionally to the parties which do qualify. If NZ First do make it, then it is very very hard for Labour  to get to 61 seats with just the Greens and Maori Party (who are far from certain anyway).

The other irony is that it is arguably in National’s interest for NZ First to stay in Parliament.

It is now two and a half years since parliamentary parties illegally spent taxpayer money on their election campaigns. Labour, National, ACT and the Greens have paid the money back in full.

United Future still owe around $50,000. They have paid back over $100,000 so far.

NZ First are still to pay back a cent. Their actions scream contempt for taxpayers as they delay, delay and delay.

Audrey Young blogged at the beginning of the month that the pressure needs to go on NZ First.

I agree. And on United Future to finish their payments. It has been nine months without even a further part payment.

Candidates for NZ First and United Future will have a very rough time at public meetings if they do not pay it back.