Stuff reports:

Cyber bullies could be jailed for up to two years for sending messages or posting material that causes harm, following recommendations from a parliamentary committee.

Internet providers will also be forced to reveal the identity of an offending anonymous poster, under order from the District Court.

School principals will also be permitted to ask a court to take down malicious or nasty content on behalf of a student.

The Government introduced a bill last year to tackle online abuse. Parliament’s justice and electoral select committee has now reported back with a raft of amendments to toughen up the legislation – which Justice Minister Judith Collins has accepted.

The committee wants the higher maximum penalty for the new offence of “causing harm by posting a digital communication” to be raised from three months in jail, or a $2000 fine, to two years in jail. This would bring the sentence in line with other harassment offences.

I have mixed feelings on the law. It will provide relief to some victims of cyber bullying, and that is a good thing. There is some nasty stuff happening on line.

But I am concerned that the definition of harm, based on 10 principles, is too wide and it may be used to try and stifle free speech and merely robust opinion. Already one NZ First MP on Twitter has been threatening journalists with complaints under the new law.

MPs also believe the author of material subject to a complaint be given 48 hours to respond.

There is one good aspect to the new law, and it is giving a fair degree of protection to content hosts like Kiwiblog. I’ll explain how it will work.

If someone complains that something I have personally written is causing an individual harm, then I’ll consider the complaint and either delete or amend what I have said – or reject the complaint and it may go through to the Approved Agency and then District Court for a decision.

But what if there is a complaint about what a commenter has written? I don’t want to be liable for that. The law as drafted proposed that hosts like myself be immune from liability so long as we remove the comment written by someone else upon receiving a complaint. The trouble with that is it means that I have to make a decision on what might not be a clear cut case, and that I’ll be incentivised to remove comments upon receiving complaints just to be safe.

The revised law allows me to avoid getting dragged in. If a complaint is received, then I need to pass it onto the author (commenter) within 48 hours and they have a further 48 hours to respond. If they wish their comments to remain, and are happy to accept liability for them – then the case will become a dispute between the complainant and the author/commenter – and generally leave me out of it. That is a very good thing – and may also apply to other areas such as defamation.

The 48 hours timeframe is too tight though, and I think it should be say three working days. I’m often out of touch for 48 hours or more.

So some good and some not so good in the bill.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the Green Party list changes over time.

First the 2014 final list compared to the draft list is interesting. Mojo Mathers was rated much higher by the members than the initial ranking group. And James Shaw (sadly) rated lower. She went from 14 to 9 and Shaw from 10 to 13. Also of interest is David Kennedy shot up from 28 to 19.

Comparing 2014 to 2011, the big movers are Genter up five (deserved), Mathers up five, Clendon down three, Roche down three and Browning down five (deserved).

Looking at trends over time, I note:

• Hague is locked in as No 3 and is the obvious next male co-leader (which could be a good thing)
• Hughes continues to rise (deserved)
• Delahunty and Graham have peaked and now starting to slip down

The Greens will need to get 16% to get their top 20 MPs in. I doubt they will do that – but if Labour vote continues to decline, they could get close. At the lower end of the scale, they could dip slightly below 10% as their supporters often do not turn out to vote as much as other parties. At 9% they’d get around 11 MPs – losing Walker, Roche and Browning.

In other news, Metiria Turei again makes a case for both her and Russell to be Deputy PMs:

Dunedin-based Ms Turei, who retained top spot, said there was ”no reason” two MPs could not share the deputy’s role.

This would enable Dr Russel Norman and Ms Turei’s strengths, the environment and inequality/poverty respectively, to achieve equal billing in the next government, she said.

I suspect Winston may have some views on that!

The Dom Post reports:

Prime Minister John Key has hit out at protesters who gathered at his home last night, to protest his position on deadly drone strikes. …

Last night, protesters including Internet Party leader Kim Dotcom and protester John Minto gathered outside Key’s family home in Parnell, for a candlelight vigil.

The group said it was highlighting New Zealand’s “complicity” in drone strikes, by providing information believed to be used in identifying targets.

Today, Key said he was not happy about their presence outside his home.

“My own personal view is that I am actually opposed to protests outside politician’s houses, that includes my own house,” he said.

“My reason for that is there were plenty of opportunities for legitimate people who wanted to protest, to protest me yesterday – I was at the CNI [central North Island] conference for the National Party in Hamilton, there was plenty of opportunity to do that.

“But that’s the place [his home] where my family lives and I don’t think many New Zealanders would think it’s okay to wander round to David Cunliffe’s house and start protesting out there.”

I agree. MPs have children and spouses at home, and they should be able to live in their home without being targeted.

MPs have electorate offices where protests can be targeted. Political parties also have offices. And there are government buildings also. On top of that one can protest politicians when they turn up to events. All fine.

But targeting MPs at their homes is not fine in my opinion.

The Press editorial:

Political opinion polls come so thick and fast during an election year it is tempting to pass over them with indifference.

The results of two announced at the weekend, though, were so contrary to conventional political wisdom that they demanded attention. …

A well-received Budget took the heat off last week, but the consensus was that the first opinion polls taken while those events were still fresh in voters’ minds would punish the Government.

The outcome was quite different – not only were National and the Prime Minister up and Labour, its leader David Cunliffe and most Opposition parties down, National would, if the results were translated into votes at the election, win sufficient seats not to need a support party. 

The well-received Budget may explain part of it. One of the polls found that even two-thirds of those who identified themselves as Labour supporters backed it.

But another part of the explanation for the poll results may be that what transfixes those in the Wellington political bubble can often be less than earth-shattering in the wider world where most voters live.

I think that is right.  I think Labour especially suffers from Wellingtonitis because so few of its MPs come from provincial areas. The test is what the mums are talking about at the school gates or what the chatter is in the smoko rooms. Almost none of them were talking Oravida.

The Herald editorial:

So much for Oravida, Judith Collins, Maurice Williamson. National’s troubles of the past two months have evaporated in two separate public opinion polls taken since the Budget. Colmar Brunton, for TVNZ, and Reid Research for TV3, both find more than half of their sample intending to vote National. This must be devastating for Labour, whose sustained barrage on Ms Collins in Parliament over the past two months does not appear to have moved any votes.

They have moved votes. From Labour to National.

Four months out from the election, Labour is the party in trouble. It ought to be polling well above 30 per cent by this stage to have much hope of success in September. If its result is not 10 or more points higher at the election, it must be doubted it could lead a credible government.

David Cunliffe said his aim is to poll higher than National – at a minimum get into the 40s. 116 days to go.

Labour leader David Cunliffe said of the latest polls, it is “still fairly early days” and they would “bounce right back again”. It is very late in the day. Most voters make up their minds well before the election campaign begins, though it is true that campaigns restore voters’ usual loyalties. Labour is likely to do better than 30 per cent, National will almost certainly fall short of 50 per cent.

But right now the prospects for Labour could hardly look worse. It has fired its best shots in the past two months and the voters are unmoved. The economy is growing, the Prime Minister is popular and so far there is no prevailing mood for change.

But as both editorial say, Labour might make it through a Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana-Dotcom alliance.

Stuff reports:

Prisoner Kerryn Mitchell spends her $2.70 weekly allowance on coffee, fruit and phonecards, so she struggles to understand how she will afford to rent a television.

The Corrections Department wants to introduce the rental scheme in an effort to reduce the amount of contraband smuggled into prisons in inmates’ personal TVs – but Mitchell has brought a High Court case claiming the removal of her own set is a breach of her rights.

Ms Mitchell has also sued in the past for not having a proper mattress, after she had destroyed four in a row.

Also sued for not receiving the Dominion Post and not having her mail delivered to another prisoner.

She seems to be a life long criminal. Even back in 1994 she was suing the Police – in fact the first lawsuit under the Privacy Act. She won $500.

Not sure the full extent of Mitchell’s offending, but she has ten convictions for breaching protections orders.

The scheme removes the right of prisoners to bring their own TVs into prison, replacing them with department-issued clear-framed sets that can be rented for $2 per week.

Prisoners who earn less than $5.40 a week are charged only $1, and in special circumstances the sets can be provided free.

Sounds heartless.

I wonder if many of these lawsuits could be curtailed by a law which explicitly says that prisoners do not have a right to a television, newspaper, Internet etc.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM.

1. TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister of Immigration: What is the Government doing to reduce the inflow of immigrants?
2. Hon KATE WILKINSON to the Minister of Finance: How is Budget 2014, as part of the Government’s wider economic programme, helping New Zealanders to get ahead?
3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
4. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Police: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the harm caused by methamphetamine in New Zealand?
5. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
6. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that a register of foreign ownership “would be a waste of money”?
7. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Health: What investment is the Government making in Budget 2014 to improve cancer services?
8. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister responsible for Novopay: Does he stand by his statement with regards to Novopay, “I want to see within three months a situation where, as much as possible, workloads from administrators are back to where they were before this thing started”; if so, when did he make that statement?
9. Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government lifting the skill levels of New Zealanders to lift productivity and deliver higher economic growth?
10. Dr RAJEN PRASAD to the Associate Minister of Immigration: Is she satisfied with all aspects of her decision on Sanil Kumar?
11. SIMON O’CONNOR to the Minister of Immigration: What steps has the Government taken to encourage better outcomes for migrants?
12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What is his response to comments by former New Zealand climate ambassador, Dr Adrian Macey, that the New Zealand emissions trading scheme has led in the “opposite direction to that of the intended policy, and is most likely to delay New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy”?

Today Labour are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, the creation of a register of foreign ownership, whether Novopay has improved its performance, and the outcome of a particular immigration case. The Greens are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, and the Emissions trading scheme. New Zealand First is asking about immigration.

Patsy question of the day goes to Mike Sabin for Question 4: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the harm caused by methamphetamine in New Zealand?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) – Second Reading

2. Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill -Second Reading

3. Food Bill – Third reading

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is being guided through the house by the Minister for Local Government, Paula Bennett. This bill would implement the Government’s second phase of legislative reform relating to the operation of local government.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This taxation omnibus bill introduces amendments to various Inland Revenue Acts.

The Food Bill is being guided through the house by Nikki Kaye, the Minister for Food Safety. The bill introduces substantial reforms to the regulatory regime for the safety and suitability of food.

Stuff reports:

Mana and the Internet Party have confirmed they will contest this year’s election together in a party to be called Internet-Mana. …

The agreement will see a combined party registered to contest the election although the parties will remain separate outside Parliament.

The Internet-Mana Party will be led by Harawira who will also be number one on the combined party’s list, with the leader of the Internet Party at two. The next two spots will belong to Mana members.

The Internet Party leader will be announced on Thursday.

Here’s a question for online detectives.

The Internet Party major reason for existing is Internet issues (well actually to stop an extradition, but in theory Internet issues). S the first question is how often has the Mana Party or Hone Harawira (as a Mana MP) spoken on Internet issues before the merger was floated? Once or twice? Any policies? Any meetings?

A search of the Mana Party website shows they have only once mentioned the word “Internet” before the merger was floated.

Now likewise the Mana Party is primarily a Maori nationalistic party. So again how often has Kim Dotcom spoken on Maori or Treaty issues before the merger was floated?

The deal would see the Internet Party provide significant financial resources although both men refused to say how much, saying it was still being worked out.

Lots.

So here’s how the voting will work. Assume Hone will win Te Tai Tokerau (which is not a given as his constituents may not be keen on being purchased by a guy who allegedly doesn’t even pay his staff minimum wages). So how it will work

• Below 0.4% – seat is an overhang
• 0.4 – 1.1% – 1 MP – Hone Harawira
• 1.2% – 1.9% – Internet Party leader gets in
• 2.0% to 2.7% – Annette Sykes gets in
• 2.8% – 3.5% – John Minto gets in
• 3.6% + – a second Internet Party MP

UPDATE: Whale reports that Sue Bradford has quit Mana saying:

“Sucking up to German millionaires is not my vision of the future”

Sue has shown she remains a person of principle.

The Dom Post editorial noted:

Home insurance used to mean “total replacement”. If your house got blown over, you’d get a new one, as close as possible to the original, no matter the cost.

In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes, with their mammoth reconstruction bill, insurers have moved to put a cap on how much they will pay out homeowners. That’s defensible – they, and their international reinsurers, have been badly burned by the quakes, and they need a better idea of their liabilities.

But it’s how they’ve handled the change that’s the problem. The onus has fallen on homeowners to determine exactly how much cover they need. Clearly that’s a specialist task that most people can’t manage.

Yet, if they get it wrong, they could be in real trouble, caught hundreds of thousands of dollars short of rebuilding the house they once owned.

To be fair, insurance companies do send out a rough suggestion for a figure. But what’s most alarming is that these “default sums” are consistently too low, at least according to valuers and quantity surveyors.

Putting aside what level the fixed value is, I think that may be the way of the future.

We’ve seen with Christchurch that total replacement is a recipe for years of delays, arguments and dissatisfaction.

The benefit of fixed value is if your place gets totalled, then bang you just get a cheque for the value insured, and all sorted in hopefully a few weeks.

The insurance companies needed to put more work into this – less television advertising and more accurate calculations to help people set their cap right. Most people aren’t inclined to pay for a professional valuation, but they will still be devastated if they can only rebuild themselves half a house.

Some industry figures suggest that people, especially older people in large houses, might deliberately under-insure themselves, and accept a smaller house if disaster strikes.

Or a house in a different suburb.

Came second in a pig-hunting comp in Northland over the weekend – my prize-pack included a 'Mana' party flag made in China.

— Duncan Garner (@Garner_Live) May 26, 2014

Mana is becoming a truly foreign party. Their merchandise is made in China, and around now we’re going to find out they’ve effectively sold out some places on their party list in exchange for a huge amount of money from our favourite German fraudster.

James Caygill has tried to stand for Labour, is a long-time activist, and a former ministerial staffer. He tweeted:

I will never vote for any party that campaigns on an anti-immigration platform.

— James Caygill (@torshin) May 26, 2014

And in case there is any doubt about whom he is referring to:

@BradGibbons @ProgressReport nope. He’s borrowed Fonzie’s. He’s jumped the shark.

— James Caygill (@torshin) May 26, 2014

Ouch. A former staffer and aspiring candidate says the leader has jumped the shark and compares him to Don Brash. Worse, he says he will not even vote Labour now – and I suspect James has voted Labour all his life.

I can’t wait for Labour to clarify if it only wants to reduce the number of skilled migrants that can come to NZ, or if it also wishes to reduce the number of refugees and those coming under special quotas such as the Pacific Islands.

A Labour Party leader campaigning on NZ should have fewer migrants is like Tony Abbott deciding that we need to increase tax rates on the higher income earners. Both go against their core values.

Ben Uffindel from The Civilian Party was on both The Nation and Q+A at the weekend.

Have a look at the comments on the TV3 story. Some extracts:

Why is TV3 spending money on this arrogant and deluded young man? Frightening and not even good entertainment. I doubt that Colin Craig would be interested in a friendship lest a coalition.

Its all good when its a bit of a laugh, but when the foreign media that are non English speaking get a hold of this sort of thing they completely run wild with it telling the world that there is a nut job politician that wants to hand out icecream and llamas in NZ.

That would be hilarious if they reported the llamas plan!

The lack of humour isn’t only there. Over on The Daily Blog, Frank Macskasy complains:

The one word that came to mind as I watched the episode was: revulsion. Not revulsion at the fact that our once proud egalitarian nation is now one of the most unequal on the face of this planet – but revulsion at the injection of humour in interviews; panel discussion, and levity between the hosts, Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower. …

I am not even referring to Patrick Gower “interviewing” Ben Uffindell, editor of the satirical blogsite, The Citizen. Though one certainly has to question why this segment was deemed worthy of insertion? What was the point of suggesting that children living in poverty – many of whom go to school without food (or  are given “food” that is of dubious nutritional value); no shoes; no rain coats; or lacking other items which Middle Class families take for granted – would find it funny to be given ice cream or a South American animal? 

Oh I so love the humourless ones.

The segment on Q+A yesterday was hilarious. My highlight was how they had resolved to overturn their previous decision not to let Don Brash join the party – but only if he pledged not to launch a coup within 24 hours of joining.

Yesterday the UKIP wins the UK European elections, and maybe it is no coincidence that David Cunliffe is on TV that night saying that migrants are responsible for our increasing house prices.

3 News reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.

It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say immigration should be restricted.

“It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year’s migrants – and National is doing nothing,” says Mr Cunliffe.

This is the politics of blame and xenophobia. The facts do not back up what Cunliffe is trying to get people to accept.

I blogged the data for the last 10 years here. I repeat the key point:

So net migration is 24,000 higher than five years ago. But look at what makes up that 24,000. 15,300 are fewer people leaving. 5,700 are Kiwis returning or Aussies migrating. Only 3,400 are other migrants.

Migration does have an impact on house prices. But the level of migrants coming here has not changed greatly in recent years. In fact residency visas are down on 2008.

Will Labour just dog whistle on this one, or will they come out with a specific policy they propose? Do they propose to scrap work visas for that has been the area of most growth. For if they do, well then it means houses in Christchurch will not get built as quickly – because hey it is those damn migrant workers helping build them.

And now mistruths in this Radio NZ report:

Mr Cunliffe told Morning Report the party has always backed the skills and diversity migrants bring with them, but it must be sustainable.

He said a gross inward flow of about 70,000 migrants is forecast over the coming year, while a figure of about 15,000 has been a rule of thumb in the past.

That’s totally wrong. The current figure (PLT arrivals of non NZ citizens) for the year to April 2014 is 71,070. Here’s what it was when Labour was in.

• 2008 – 64,320
• 2007 – 59,670
• 2006 – 58,640
• 2005 – 54,710
• 2004 – 54,670
• 2003 – 64,310
• 2002 – 71,040
• 2001 – 58,170

15,000 has never been close to the rule of thumb. David Cunliffe was Immigration Minister for two of those years.

UPDATE: Radio NZ has altered their story so it now reads:

Mr Cunliffe cites predictions of net immigration of 40,000 people over the coming year, whereas he says a figure of 15,000 has been the rough rule of thumb in the past.

Why has the story changed. Did David Cunliffe say what the original story quotes him as saying, or did Radio NZ get it wrong. If the latter, then once again we have media altering stories with no transparency. If the former, then why did the web story change?

UPDATE2: Have now listened to Morning Report and the error is Radio NZ, but also Cunliffe tried to fudge figures.

Cunliffe did say gross migration was around 72,000. He said it should be lower and Espiner challenged him to name a figure he thought was acceptable. Cunliffe in response said that 15,000 is the normal level of net migration. So Cunliffe did not say gross migration is normally 15,000.  But he was being tricky by talking about gross migration in slating the Government, and then talking net migration for the level under Labour.

I can understand how a Radio NZ reporter got confused and conflated them. Doesn’t change the fact though that their original story was wrong and they should note at the bottom of a story when they have changed it from a previous story.

The Herald reported:

The Auckland Council has money for the Parnell cathedral and Lopdell House in Titirangi but no money to upgrade marae, says Independent Maori Statutory Board member John Tamihere.

I’ve got an idea.

How about ratepayers don’t fund either, and instead the Anglican Church funds the Holy Trinity Cathedral and Ngati Whatua fund local marae?

Mr Tamihere criticised the “tyranny of the majority around the council table” for funding projects like Parnell cathedral while ignoring spending on marae.

Fair enough. So do neither.

Prime TV announces:

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

ASIAN INVASION?:  A survey from the Asian NZ Foundation highlights the growing resentment from Maori towards Asian immigrants. Competition is at the heart of the matter-competition for jobs and cultural funding but also to blame, the survey says, is a lack of understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi. Is this a fair observation or a skewed perception of reality? Are Maori more important than other kiwis? While some political parties are looking to restrict immigration and immigrants from buying NZ houses-there is a call for NZ to become more multi-cultural & multi-lingual. Do these policies mesh well?

YUP-WE’RE STILL REALLY FAT: New Zealand is STILL the 3rd fattest nation (behind Mexico & USA) in the OECD. That is 1.2 million fat kiwis. So, what are we to do about it? National announced $40million in the budget for anti-obesity initiatives. But how will that money be spent? Is it about teaching communities how to eat better? Or get more exercise? Is it just a drop in the bucket considering we spend $700m on obesity through diabetes and heart disease? Is it now a bigger health concern than smoking?

GENERATION “Y I DON’T VOTE”:  Our under 30s are as likely to vote in the next election as they are to win the lotto. An exaggeration, perhaps, but more than 800,000 kiwis didn’t vote in 2011 and that is expected to be worse come the 20th of September. How do the political parties get the youth of today to get involved? Many say their vote won’t matter but with just under a million non-voters that is a very influential group, after all.

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 28th of May at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Green Party Co-Leader Metiria Turei, Labour MP Grant Robertson, National MP Tim Macindoe.

A co-leader, an aspiring leader and a whip!

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters is calling for an inquiry into finances at a $30 million-a-year South Auckland Maori disability support services trust, claiming evidence of hundreds of thousands of dollars in “irregular payments” that have “crippled” the organisation.

Te Roopu Taurima O Manukau Trust has income of $30.6 million a year, 500 staff and provides services to 243 people.

But Mr Peters said he’d received information alleging the trust was insolvent and had “problems related to improper processes, questionable payments, doctored invoices and the employment of a former Customs officer earlier jailed for smuggling methamphetamine”.

He said about $250,000 had been paid to two consultancy firms for financial and human resources advice “but neither firm appears to have obvious qualifications in these areas”.

“It is clear there are serious financial irregularities, like a bakery company being paid $2000 to rewire a clothesline and a payment to another company for security systems that did not exist.”

Now as the allegations are from Winston there’s a 50/50 chance they are made up, or that they have substance. They’ll come out in time.

On the wider issue, the Taxpayers’ Union has said:

“Unlike government agencies, these groups are not required to comply with the Official Information Act. This means that too often taxpayer money disappears into a void.”

“Too often there is little transparency and accountability when taxpayer money and trusts come together. The only opportunity to see even a fraction of what really goes on is when someone leaks documents, as appears to be the case here.”

“We are only going to see these kinds of accusations, time and time again. We call on the Government to commit to reform of the Official Information Act so that it covers these sorts of groups.” 

Not surprisingly, I support this.

There are scores of NGOs out there that are almost entirely Government funded, yet they do not have the same transparency obligations as crown agencies. This allows millions of dollars to be spent with limited transparency.

What I would propose is a law that any organisation that is (say) over 90% funded by taxpayers should come under the Official Information Act.

This would actually improve those organisations, as knowing that their expenditure could be OIA’s, would incentivise them to spend taxpayer money more responsibly.

The monthly trade stats out again. Some extracts:

• Exports at $50.6 billion 9.5% higher than a year ago
• Balance of trade surplus of $1.2 billion. In 2008 it was a $4.6 billion deficit
• Exports to China up 52% from a year ago, UK 11%, Singapore 14% and Taiwan 15%

We recently signed an FTA with Taiwan. FTAs are good. We are a small trading nation. Two parties in Parliament have a history of consistently opposing almost all trade agreements that improve access for NZ exporters.

The Herald reports:

Mr Cunliffe, who has struggled to match the modest poll showings by his predecessor David Shearer, said it was “still fairly early days” and “this is going to bounce right back again”. “The only poll that counts is the one on election day,” he said.

There are 117 days until the election. David Cunliffe became leader 253 days ago. Not sure how you call that early days.

Patrick Gower blogs:

David Cunliffe needs to walk into Labour’s “war-room” right now and re-name it “the panic station”.

Labour’s big fear right now will be its vote collapsing completely.

Labour will be worried that voters decide it can’t win – and instead vote for New Zealand First, the Greens or just stay at home.

Last night’s 3 News/Reid Research poll has National on 50.3 percent and Labour on 29.5 percent.

John Key was on 43.2 percent and Cunliffe 9.8 percent as preferred Prime Minister

Scorelines of 50-29 and 43-9 – on the rugby pitch, that’s what you call a thrashing.

In our first poll of the year, Cunliffe could have been Prime Minister. Now he is polling worse than David Shearer is when Labour threw him out.

Labour is suddenly in serious strife.

Let’s look at how things were in 2002, 2005 and 2008, four months before an election.

In 2008 National was 18% ahead of Labour four months out, and John Key was at 38% for Preferred Prime Minister.

In 2005 National was at 39%, just 5% behind Labour four months out. Don Brash was at 20% for Preferred Prime Minister

Interesting in 2002, National was at 32% four months out from the 2002 election. Bill English was at 14% for Preferred Prime Minister.

There is the potential for the Greens and/or NZ First to do very well this election.

The Guardian reports:

Nigel Farage unleashed his much promised political earthquake across British politics as Ukip easily topped the poll in the European elections, marking the first time in modern history that neither Labour nor theConservatives have won a British national election.

The Liberal Democrats have suffered a near total wipeout and are course to lose all but one of their 11 MEPs, placing serious pressure on Nick Clegg to justify his leadership of his party.

In a stunning warning to the established political parties, which lined up over the weekend to say they took the Ukip threat seriously, Farage’s party was expected to win about 28% of the national poll. This was a near doubling of the 16.5% it secured in the last European elections in 2009 when it came second to the Tories and took 13 seats. Just 20 years ago, in its first European parliamentary election, Ukip managed just 1% of the vote.

Labour predicted that, when all the final results were assembled, they would have polled 25.7%, with the Tories on 24.5 % and the Green partyin fourth place.

Farage said the result justified the description of an earthquake because “never before in the history of British politics has a party seen to be an insurgent party ever topped the polls in a national election”.

This makes the 2015 UK election very difficult to predict. UKIP take a lot of votes away from the Conservatives and this hurts them as they have FPP. But if they manage some sort of arrangement, then their combined vote will be higher than Labour, Greens and Lib Dems.

Ironically the UKIP may end up defeating the main thing they want – a referendum on Europe. If there is a change of Government, then there won’t be one.

Meanwhile in France:

France’s Front National won the election there with a projected 25% of the vote, while the governing socialists of President François Hollande collapsed to 14%, according to exit polls.

It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

The Salvation Army has published a report on the state of Pasifika people in New Zealand. Some of the positive changes:

• ECE enrolment rates up from 24% in 2008 to 28.8% today
• Suspension rate down from 7.1% in 2008 to 4.4% today – now lower than the NZ average
• NCEA Level 1 achievement rates up from 48% in 2008 to 63% today
• NCEA Level 2 achievement rates up from 54% in 2008 to 69% today
• NCEA Level 3 achievement rates up from 32% in 2008 to 43% today
• Drinks with hazardous drinking behaviours down from 23.4% to 17.8%
• Pasifika on benefits down from 24,914 in 2013 to 23,239 in 2014
• Median income in real terms up from $744 in 2008 to $767 today
• Pasifika offending rate down 27% over last five years
• Pasifika youth offending rate below NZ youth offending rate

Not all the stats are positive, such as home ownership rates. But considering most of the stats cover the period of the global financial crisis, I’d say that the changes overall are quite commendable. The educational improvements are, to me, the most important as they will have flow on effects with jobs, incomes and crime.

I was in a taxi in Wellington this morning and the taxi driver asks me if my kids are grown up.

I tell her that I don;t have any kids, trying not to panic at the the thought that if I did have kids they could possibly be adults.

She asks if my wife didn’t want any. I reply that I don’t have a wife or partner – that I’m single.

She asks why not, and I reply that I’ve yet to meet the right woman.

She then tells me that I need to pray to God and God will deliver the right woman to me.

While I could take this in a negative light, as suggesting my dating life needs divine intervention, I prefer to see it as a suggestion that my next girlfriend will be an angel 🙂

Duncan Garner writes:

Poor Winston, what’s going on? It looks like you’re really struggling to land any decent hits in Parliament these days. It all looks a bit limp and sad.

You’ve been there since 1978, save for three years in the wilderness before this term. If you ever had the answers then you’ve had ample time to share them.

Instead, what did we see this week? You abusing your privilege of free speech by spewing vicious bile at an MP who is in Parliament only because you wanted him there. Brendan Horan is hardly the first NZ First MP selected for loyalty rather than ability.

Calling Horan the “Jimmy Savile of New Zealand politics” was evil and cowardly – and you know it. If anyone makes any sort of claim against you, you’re quick to threaten legal action and demand retractions and apologies. But when you’re the one dishing it out those rules don’t apply: you can waltz into Parliament and get all the protection you need.

It is the double standard. Winston threatens Radio NZ with defamation for merely reporting an allegation that he has hired a certain campaign manager, and then a couple of days later he cowers behind parliamentary privilege to effectively slander his former colleague as a paedophile.

I can’t help but point out the irony of it all to you. I remember covering a speech you made in Kawerau in 2008 and you had Horan along as your little sycophantic sidekick.

Horan was in awe of you, banging on to the journos about how you were an honest and loyal man who only wanted what was right for New Zealand. He told us you never took money from Owen Glenn and everyone was wrong to be questioning your integrity and honesty. Horan was really fired up that afternoon.

Brendan was a true believer.

David Cunliffe has flung the door open to you by shunning the Greens’ offer to campaign as a Labour-Greens government.

That suits you – we know you don’t like the Greens. It’s why you couldn’t go with Labour in 1996 – you didn’t want to share power with the Alliance in a three-party coalition.

This is why I think Peters will go with Labour. He’ll block the Greens from ministerial roles and claim he saved the Government from the Greens.

Wave In Motion, Bay of Islands, New Zealand

Driving towards Bland Bay in the Bay of Islands I came across this delightful little beach just upon dusk. The fairly even and consistent waves allowed me to set up a long exposure capturing the movement and creating a dramatic composition.

I have always loved the surrealness of this photograph.

Click on the image for a larger view of this photograph.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey