As the result was obvious since election night, I’ve left posting until now. First the results of Part A:

• Keep MMP 57.8%
• Change 42.2%

A very clear decision, and as far as I am concerned MMP is here to stay and any future referendum on our basic electoral system should not occur for several decades. The focus should now go on how to improve MMP, and other electoral and constitutional issues.

Part B saw:

• Informal 33.1%
• FPP 31.2%
• SM 16.1%
• STV 11.2%
• PV 8.3%

The fact that so few were able to vote in Part B suggest strongly that the educational campaign and associated debate was inadequate. This is not a criticism of the Electoral Commission who had a limited budget, but more the media who failed to broadcast any serious debates on the competing systems. The best debate was on Sky News ironically.

There were other factors such as the RWC and the general election also. Plus the general satisfaction with the Government meant MMP was less of an issue as say in 1999 or 2008. I just think it is a pity we never had a decent debate about the merits of MMP vs STV.

Voters in the Maori seats were the biggest supporters of MMP (which is slightly ironic as under FPP there would be 12, not seven, Maori seats) followed by South Auckland. While not a perfect match, the pattern I see is the more left the electorate the more it supported MMP. Wellington was the next strongest area of support for MMP. Overall only 14 out of 70 electorates voted to change from MMP.

Of the four options, the highest and lowest support for each was:

• FPP – 58.1% in Clutha-Southland and Invercargill, 24.5% Wellington Central
• PV – 23.4% Waiariki, 8.4% Selwyn
• STV – 37.9% Wellington Central, 10.25 Clutha-Southland
• SM – 35.9% Epsom, 12.6% Ikaroa-Rawhiti

As a keen student of electoral and constitutional law, there are three major opportunities coming up to engage:

• The review of the 2011 election by the Justice & Electoral Select Committee
• The review of MMP by the Electoral Commission
• The constitutional review by the independent panel established as part of the National and Maori Party agreement in 2008

I’ll blog more on my thoughts re the MMP review next year.

Stuff reports:

Lucasfilm, owner of the Star Wars movies, has prevailed upon online electricity retailer Powershop to drop an advertisement featuring evil movie character Darth Vader.

In the online advert, Vader is pictured as a kind of Maria von Trapp figure from The Sound of Music. He is dancing across a field with mountains in the background and carrying a guitar case.

Lucasfilm’s lawyers said they had been instructed to write to Powershop asking it to cease use immediately of the advert, and undertake not to make further use of the Darth Vader character without the prior consent of Lucasfilm. …

Its chief executive, Ari Sargent, said he responded immediately to the request from Lucasfilm by withdrawing the advert, but was also surprised at having attracted the attention of Lucasfilm “Empire”.

“Powershop is not a member of any rebel alliance. I’m surprised the Empire considers small companies like Powershop to be a threat; perhaps our force is stronger than we thought,” Sargent said.

The advert is part of Powershop’s “Same Power, Different Attitude” campaign which shows dictators and tyrants engaging in unlikely acts of charity and goodwill. 

It can be amazing how thorough those law firms can be in tracking down infringements and sending out nastygrams.

In 2000, when I worked for the National Leaders Office, we set up a website to fight Labour’s proposed employment law changes. We called it Walking with Dinosaurs, and a logo from Jurassic Park was used.

Around two months later the nastygram letter turned up. But instead of sending it to the Leader’s Office, they sent to the then National Party President, who was rather alarmed to be having Universal Studios threaten him with legal action over a site he actually had nothing to do with.

A VERY SPECIAL BACK BENCHES:Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the issues surrounding 2011 and they Rate the MPs!

YEAR IN REVIEW: We take a look back at 2011. What were the highs and lows of the year? How did the Government and the Opposition handle the big issues? Any real stand-outs? We will look back at the election. Any big surprises? Who were you sorry to see go? And the new Parliament will be set—new parties, new leaders, new ministers, etc?

NEWBIES:We take a look at the new intake of MPs. Who has the most promise? Which party has the most interesting new MPs? What about the new Ministers? Who will make the biggest difference?

Join us for a night of pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Tuesday, 13th of December. Our Panel: One News Political JournalistJessica Mutch, Maui Street Blogger Morgan Godfery, Political Science Lecturer Ana Gilling, and Jordan Williams of Franks & Ogilvie and Vote for Change Campaigner.

Come watch the action on Tuesday, 13th of December from 8-9pm. The show airs on December 21st between 9-10pm on TVNZ 7.

Kudos to the NZEI for a classy release:

The education sector union NZEI Te Riu Roa is hoping there will be opportunities to forge a strong and constructive working relationship with the new Education Minister. …

“Charter schools, fundamental problems with National Standards, raising Māori student achievement, the government’s failure to commit to 100% qualified early childhood teachers, the future of education in Christchurch, more support for special needs students and recognising the professional work and value of school support staff are all issues which deserve full and open discussion,” says Mr Leckie.

NZEI hopes the new minister will take on these challenges with an inclusive and constructive approach which values the voice of teachers, principals and communities.

It also wishes Anne Tolley well in her newly-appointed roles.

Nice. Now compare that to the PPTA release:

Shakespeare warns John key against duplicity and ambition

“We’ve gifted the prime minister a copy of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, trusting he will reflect on this tale of a popular and respected general’s ambition for power leading to ruin for his country and his own downfall,” says PPTA president Robin Duff. …

“The Bard’s cautionary tale of political morality is the third in our series of literary gifts to Mr Key,” he said.

“The first was a New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as we were concerned that the prime minister was using some words ambiguously. The second book was Niccolo Machiavelli’s influential 16th century treatise on power and politics, The Prince, that serves as a useful resource for discussions about principle and probity in political life.”

Robin Duff said the fourth book will look at what lessons literature provides about the growing gap between rich and poor.

How patronising can you get? The PPTA have obviously decided that constructive engagement is for others.

The Southland Times reports:

A Milton teenager with a habit of spinning his car’s wheels is believed to have made New Zealand legal history in the Balclutha District Court today.

Under legislation aimed at boy racers that came into effect two years ago Karn Clarrie Forrest will have his car crushed after notching up his third conviction in four years for causing a car to undergo sustained loss of traction.

Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said he believed the 18-year-old was the first person in New Zealand to be subject to the legislation which gives power to seize and destroy a vehicle for a third offence in a four year period.

Perfect timing – on the day Judith stands down as Police and Corrections Minister. It’s like a goodbye present 🙂

Martyn Bradbury blogs at Tumeke:

No matter who the Labour Party Coven selects to fight Key in 2014 – Mr Likable or Mr Ready Now, the first act of leadership would be for the new Labour Party leader to turn down the convention that see’s the Opposition stand down an MP to allow the Government to elect it’s Speaker.

They could argue that the controversial legislation that National wish to ram through should be scrutinized to the highest level and only an Opposition Speaker could ensure that level of scrutiny.

If Labour refused to pull out an MP, National would be forced to lose their majority if they selected Lockwood meaning the Maori Party would be kingmaker in any legislation meaning Asset Sales couldn’t pass.

Good God, Martyn is 15 years or so out of date. He’s still operating in an FPP world.

Since at least 1996, Parliament has operated without “pairs” and the Speaker has his or her vote cast by their party through a party vote.

Next Martyn will advise Labour to fight this new fangled decimal currency.

Since 1996 I’ve done an analysis of the election results after each general election. They have a number of aspects to them. The 2011 analysis is embedded below for those interested. It is 46 pages long. It includes:

1. Overall results for NZ for each party and for each “bloc”.
2. The change from 2008 to 2011 for each party and bloc.
3. Results for each party and bloc by region and area.
4. The change from 2008 to 2011 for each party and bloc by region and area.
5. National’s Party Vote, Party Vote %, Electorate Vote, Electorate Vote %, Party Vote Change, Party Vote Relative Change, Electorate Vote Change, Electorate Vote Relative Change, and Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote – for each electorate from best to worst.
6. Electorate Margins (from Nat point of view) and Electorate Majorities for all electorates.
7. Labour’s Party Vote %, Electorate Vote %, Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote, Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote for Lab & Greens, Party Vote Change, Electorate Vote Change.
8. Greens’ Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
9. NZ First Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
10. Conservative Party Vote %
11. Maori Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
12. Mana Party Vote %
13. ACT Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
14. United Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
15. Right, Centre and Left Blocs Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
16. Right vs Left Vote % and Party Vote Change
17. Total Number of Voters per electorate
18. Party Placings for Party and Electorate Vote

I usually update it once the E9 is published with further statistics such as Turnout percentage for each electorate.

What most struck me in compiling the results is the huge change in party vote in Christchurch. National’s vote went up 7.3% there and Labour’s dropped a massive 10.3%. This is much larger than the +2.4% National went up nationally and the 6.5% Labour dropped nationally. It is a huge endorsement of the work done by the Government, especially Gerry Brownlee. Labour MPs spent months complaining about various issues, setting others up to complain, and even came out with a super-bribe of offering affected home owners more. The fact their vote dropped 10.3% in Christchurch should lead them to reconsider their tactics if there is a future situation like this.

Christchurch used to be called “The People’s Republic of Christchurch” but in 2011 it voted more strongly for National than Auckland did. There is a reason for that.

2011 Final Election Results

Okay, so what are the different bloggers saying on the Labour leadership.

My view was expressed last week where I basically said Cunliffe is the safer option, while Shearer has the greater potential to grow Labour’s vote more. If Labour had got a result in the low 30s, then Cunliffe would make more sense, but with a result in the mid to high 20s only, then Shearer seems the better course.

• Keith Ng backs David Shearer
• Russell Brown appears to lean towards Shearer
• Imperator Fish is undecided after the Auckland meeting
• Chris Trotter endorsed David Shearer
• Brian Edwards now backs David Cunliffe
• Cactus Kate says it should be David Cunliffe. She also reports that some Auckland members are unhappy their MPs are not consulting them on their decision.
• Homepaddock is not giving a preference, but notes that at the Auckland meeting Grant Robertson refused to give an assurance he would not challenge for the leadership before 2014.
• Most of the commenters at The Standard appear to be backing Cunliffe
• Dim-Post is tepidly in the Shearer camp
• Hard to tell Whale Oil’s position – I think he is like Brian Edward’s – was Shearer, and now Cunliffe
• John Pagani backs Shearer
• Mickey Savage is a Cunliffe supporter
• Lew Stoddart supports Shearer
• Phil Quin is in the Shearer camp
• Morgan at Maui Street defends Nanaia Mahuta, saying she was the standout in the Native Affairs debates

Of course only 34 Labour MPs get a vote. Not sure what happens if it is a tie!

Stuff reports:

President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an investigation into allegations of fraud in Russia’s parliamentary election, one day after tens of thousands of protesters demanded it be annulled and rerun.

Medvedev responded on his Facebook site to the protesters’ complaints that the December 4 election was slanted to favour of his and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, but did not mention their calls for an end to Putin’s rule.

“I do not agree with any slogans or statements made at the rallies. Nevertheless, instructions have been given by me to check all information from polling stations regarding compliance with the legislation on elections,” Medvedev said in a post on the social media site.

“Citizens of Russia have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. People have a right to express the position that they did yesterday. It all took place within the framework of the law,” he added.

His statement was a sign that the Russian leadership feels under pressure after the biggest opposition protests since Putin rose to power in 1999. The protesters themselves used social media to organise their rallies.

In a further sign of recognition that the people’s mood has changed after years of tight political control by Putin, city authorities across Russia allowed Saturday’s protests to go ahead and riot police hardly intervened.

State television and other Russian channels also broadcast footage of a huge protest in Moscow, breaking a policy of showing almost no negative coverage of the authorities.

I do not think the protests will stop Putin becoming President again, and the investigation will probably be a whitewash. However the significance of the protests is that they are occurring, and are being reported on. This is healthy.

These protests, plus the Arab spring, shows how vital it is that the Internet remain out of Government control.

The full list is here. I’ve summarised the changes in the table below.

The brand new Cabinet Minister is Amy Adams, the third of the 2008 intake to make it after Joyce and Parata. She is joined by Craig Foss and Nathan Guy who were Ministers outside Cabinet.

Three new Ministers outside Cabinet are Chris Tremain, Jo Goodhew and Chester Borrows. They are all from the class of 2005, and I suspect that is a signal from the PM that all future Ministers will now come from the 2008 and 2011 intakes.

The cabinet rankings are more symbolic than a reflection of actual power. For example last term Joyce and McCully were on the second row, but both are very influential. However the symbolism is important to a degree.

Parata moves up 13 places which is a huge vote of confidence in her, and Joyce moves up 10. Paula Bennett also moves up seven spots and Jonathan Coleman up four.

A significant reshuffle in terms of portfolios. Brownlee is freed up to keep working on Christchurch, but gets Transport.

Joyce’s role with Economic Development and Science and Innovation will be at the heart of National’s second term agenda.

Collins gets Justice, so expect to see further reforms.

Tony Ryall gets to be the Minister who sells off minority stakes in SOEs as he did such a good job of it last time. He keeps Health of course.

The move of Parata to Education is inspired – Hekia will champion measures to improve the lot of the 20% who are failing – many of whom are Maori.

Tolley gets Police and Corrections. Her experiences with the NZEI and NZPF will stand her in good stead for these portfolios!

Coleman gets Defence, which is handy as he has Devonport Naval Base in his electorate.

Amy Adams gets Comms/ICT, which will fit in quite well with having Internal Affairs also.

Tremain and Goodhew become Ministers as expected, and they are joined by Chester Borrows who should make a good Courts Minister as a former cop and former lawyer – knows both sides!

Worth noting that 10 portfolios have been disestablished or incorporated into other portfolios.

The Herald reports:

Wellington Police investigating a serious assault in Boulcott Street early yesterday morning have upgraded it to a homicide investigation.

The 43 year old male victim, believed to be Phillip Alexander Cottrell from Radio New Zealand, died in Wellington Hospital a short time ago.

Detective Senior Sergeant Scott Miller of the Wellington CIB says the victim suffered the fatal injuries between 5:30am and 6:15am yesterday morning, as he walked home from work on The Terrace.

“As the victim got halfway down Boulcott Street outside the Baptist Church it appears an altercation has taken place and as a result the victim received fatal injuries.”

I used to work on Boulcott Street, and it is not an area I would have ever thought would have a homicide occur.

My thoughts go out to his colleagues at Radio NZ, and family and friends.

From the sound of it this was not pre-meditated, but a situational killing. Those sort of killings strike fear in many of us – it could happen to anyone. I hope the Police find his killer.

The Law Commission has publicly released today its report on legal and other issues around new media such as blogs. I was one of those interviewed by them in initial consultation phase in formulating this issues paper. It is open for public comment until 12 March 2012.

I think the report is an excellent one, and I am enthusiastically supportive of their proposed model of media regulation in the digital age. There are some risks around the model proposed, but these can be mitigated. Balanced against those risks are considerable opportunities for “new media”.

News media have special protections under the law. The Law Commission recommends “news media” be defined as a publisher in any medium who

1. has a significant proportion of their publishing activities being the generation and/or aggregation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. disseminates this information to a public audience
3. regularly publishes
4. is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process

Kiwiblog (not that this is my main concern) would clearly qualify under points 1 to 3, so would need the accountability and complaints process to qualify. Whether or not this is worthwhile, will depend on the details.

A key point made by the Law Commission is:

It is important to note this definition is not intended to exclude others from reporting or commenting on the news. It simply proposes a set of statutory criteria to resolve the current uncertainty as to which groups and individuals qualify for the legal privileges and exemptions assigned to the media.

This is quite crucial, and one of the risk areas of a new definition. At present bloggers are allowed to report on court proceedings, attend Treasury lockups etc. This should continue to occur, even if a blogger does not qualify under the proposed definition. The definition is for qualifying for legal privileges, and should not be used to block genuine access for online publishers.

The key aspect of the Law Commission paper is an independent regulator for all news media regardless of format or delivery platform. This would replace the Govt appointed BSA for broadcasters and the Press Council for print media. There are significant anomalies in the current system, with an example being:

• A video broadcast by a broadcaster is subject to the BSA
• A video placed on a broadcaster’s website is not subject to any regulation
• A video placed on a newspaper’s website is subject to the Press Council

The Commission proposes the following features for a new regulator

1. Independent of both government and the news industry
2. Appointments to the regulator would be by an independent panel
3. Regulator would work with industry on different codes, so bloggers might have their own code (for example accuracy required, but possibly not fairness)
4. Recognised by statute and part-funded by industry and subsidised by the state

I think the independence from Government is crucial. Without that it becomes a path through which the Government could censor the media and I would be against. The details in these areas will be vital.

The subsidy is also a necessary evil. Bloggers are generally non-commercial and you can’t charge a blogger $10,000 a year to come under such a regulator. Likewise, I can’t see APN and Fairfax wanting to pay on behalf of bloggers. The Commission says:

It is in the public interest that as many news publishers, including small startups, belong to such a standards body and a lack of financial resources should not be an impediment to joining. The state and wider public have a strong interest in a robust and ethical news media and we see no reason why this body should not receive state support, provided there are no strings attached to the appropriation.

One of the issues in the paper would be whether membership of the regulator would be entirely voluntary for everyone, or whether commercial media should be required to join.

I believe it should be voluntary for everyone. The incentive to gain the legal protections of being news media should be enough. A key issue will also be what are the powers of the regulator. If they have the power to (for example) suspend a newspaper, then newspapers would not want to join. If the power is to require publication of a finding, and low level fines, then perhaps less of an issue. The print media are the ones who potentially lose a wee bit of freedom in this model, while broadcasters would end up with greater freedom. In a converged world, all media should be on the same level, and so long as the regulator is not Govt controlled I think that is a good model.

The Commission notes:

The large majority of New Zealanders publishing on the internet would not come within the ambit of the new regulatory system we propose. In essence they will be able to exercise complete freedom of speech. They can, without fear of any regulator, be inaccurate in their facts, unbalanced in their coverage and extreme in their opinions. The public can rely on them, or not, as they see fit. They would not be recognised as “news media” for the purposes of the statutory privileges.

They also note that such publishers are still liable to the laws of defamation, copyright, contempt of court etc.

There are other interesting issues the Commission looks at in its paper

• consider introducing a new offence of maliciously impersonating another person
• amend the Harassment Act 1997 to explicitly include cyber-bullying

But rather than have these go to court, which would be over-kill, they float a model of a Communications Tribunal “which could administer speedy, efficient and relatively cheap justice to those who have been significantly damaged by unlawful communications”

I think this aspect is more problematic, while well-intentioned. They do say:

The Tribunal would only deal with cases which it judges would have met the threshold of a breach of the law. It should not be a port of call for those with insubstantial complaints.

My suspicion is it would become exactly that. For such a model to work, it will need considerable safeguards against malicious and trivial complaints designed to (ironically) harass the person complained about.

The Tribunal would not have the ability to impose any criminal sanction they say:

Sanctions and remedies available to the Tribunal would include the ability to award monetary compensation up to a prescribed level; to order publication of an apology or correction; to order that a right of reply be granted; to order that the defendant cease the conduct in question (a type of injunction); and to make takedown orders against either the perpetrator or an innocent avenue of communication such as an ISP. It might also make a declaration that statements made about the victim are untrue. Failure to comply with an order would be an offence.

I do like the notion of the Tribunal being able to make a declaration that statements about a victim are untrue. Defamation is rarely viable for those who have false things said about them online. And victims of lies and slander often just want the truth affirmed, not damages. I do see considerable merit in the concept of the Tribunal. My concerns are around the small number of nutters out there would would try to use it as a form of harassment in itself.

Two safeguards against this might simply be requiring complainants to use their real names to complain. Those who post under an alias can not claim they have been harmed by speech against them when no one knows who they are. A further safeguard would be a requirement to pay a filing fee. This is the most effective way to stop serial complainers.

An alternate option they put forward is a Communications Commissioner as part of the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think this would be a good fit for the HRC, and in fact could distract them from their primary focus.

The paper is (as expected) very well researched, and shows great understanding of the online environment. I encourage people to read it, or at least the summary paper, and give your feedback. It is my understanding that there are likely to be some sort of forums organised where people can attend and discuss and debate the issues and proposals. I’ll blog details of these as they are known.

Finally it is worth noting this is an issues paper, not a final paper recommending action to the Government. That means this is the best time to influence it.

Computerworld reports:

A common sense approach has put the New Zealand government’s social media policy in high regard with IT research company, Gartner.

On a blog post on Gartner’s website, vice president Andrea Di Maio commends the policy for its principles based on an individual’s role, which he says are down-to-earth and provide actionable decision frameworks.

Di Maio is particularly impressed by the policy’s passive-active-engaged approach, which asks social media users in government to first listen to their community, understand what it is they are voicing, and then engage if it is appropriate.

There have been relatively few SMOGs (Social Media Own Goals) by government agencies. Most have been by politicians and corporates.

Labour wonder why they are known as the nasty party and their vote dropped. Look at Carmel Sepuloni’s response to winning Waitakere:

‘‘I don’t think Paula Bennett has been good for Waitakere,” she said.

”At the end of the day, the voters have spoken. And despite the fact it is close, it just goes to show that there are 11 more people that think she wasn’t [good].

This reminds me of how Labour MP Kris Faafoi after his narrow victory in the Mana by-election, labeled Hekia Parata a two time loser. So classy.

Has Kate Wilkinson got up and said nasty things about Clayton Cosgrove whom she beat? Has Nicky Wagner put the boot into Brendon Burns? Did Nikki Kaye’s team put the boot into Jacinda Ardern when she conceded, or did they give her a round of applause?

The only thing worse than sore losers is ungracious winners. Perhaps Carmel could have said things about what an honour and privilege it is, and how she will work her hardest for all her constituents – rather than put the boot into her opponent.

I hope the new Labour leader can help engender a culture change within Labour.

On a related note Phil Quin notes:

Don’t get me wrong, Carmel Sepuloni pipping Paula Bennett at the post is a pleasing outcome, but I was surprised to read a statement this afternoon from Labour’s President Moira Coatsworth and General Secretary Chris Flatt that described the 11-vote win as a “momentous” and “a great victory for Labour.”

By this measure, the Christchurch Central result must be a “shocking blow” and a “grave defeat”; Raymond Huo’s departure from Parliament must be “a tragic loss”; and my  lacklustre 40 minute cardio workout at the gym this morning must surely qualify as “an athletic triumph”.

Tone-deaf.

Waitakere is a seat which normally goes Labour. It is of course a blow to National and to Paula to lose it, but it was held by Labour from 1946 to 1981 continuously by Labour, and since being re-formed in 1993 has lost some of its bluer areas to Helensville so was always going to be tough to hold (even though I personally did think Paula would hold on).

Losing a seat like Christchurch Central which you have held for 60+ years is a far bigger event.

National and the Maori Party have just announced their confidence and supply agreement, which means the Government can now win such votes 64 – 57. It might not even be that close as Peters suggested he might initially back the largest party on confidence and supply or at least abstain. Personally I think that commitment holds about as much value as a peso, but the initial votes could be 64 – 49 or even 72 – 49.

The key aspects of the agreement are:

• Maori Party will vote for confidence and supply
• Maori Party do not have to vote for the legislation outlined in National’s Post-Election Action Plan (unlike ACT and United Future)
• Whanua Ora to be given a specific appropriation and a stand-alone commissioning agency to be established
• A Ministerial Committee on Poverty to focus on alleviation of poverty. Chaired by Bill English with Turia as Deputy Chair.
• Double funding for rheumatic fever prevention to $24m
• Target 20,000 low income homes for home insulation
• All state houses to be insulated, where possible
• Aim to lift Maori educational and employment outcomes
• Agree to offset pre-1990 forests
• Continue with constitutional review to report by Sep 2013, and status of Maori seats remains unchanged for now (no abolition or entrenchment)
• Refocus TPK on improving outcomes for Maori in education, housing and employment
• Conclude decision making on spectrum by May 2012
• National to support to select committee members bills to reduce gambling harm and a Maori cultural heritage bill
• Partial asset sales legislation not to be part of a confidence or supply motion
• Sharples Minister of Maori Affairs, Associate Education and Corrections
• Turia Minister for Whanua Ora and Disability Issues, Associate Health, Housing, Social Development

Doesn’t appear to be anything there with a huge price tag, which is good as the top priority has to be reducing the deficit, not increasing it. But there is plenty there to keep Ministers busy, and the constitutional review especially could be huge.

Kennedy Graham blogs:

In Durban, the Kyoto Protocol is kept on life support.

Kyoto is, of course, the only binding climate instrument with specific emission targets. It compels the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. But it has always been inadequate in itself – a first step to greater things. And it terminates within 12 months.

Kyoto does not compel the world’s worst emitters to reduce emissions. It compels only 37 countries to reduce emissions. Now let us look at the top 10 emitters in 2005″

1. China 16.4%
2. US 15.8%
3. EU 12.1%
4. Brazil 6.5%
5. Indonesia 4.6%
6. Russia 4.6%
7. India 4.3%
8. Japan 3.1%
9. Canada 1.8%
10. Mexico 1.6%

Those countries bolded are not required under Kyoto to reduce or even hold emissions.

There is a simple way to test if someone talking climate change is seriously concerned about the environmental impact, or they are just a politician or pseudo-politician wanting to score points.

The test is do they mention China (and preferably India). Any agreement that exempts China is a disaster for the environment, based on climate change science. Only a moron would promote an agreement where China can continue to increase emissions at 10% per annum.  Because if China is not part of the agreement, then by 2020 their emissions will be greater than the rest of the world in 2005. So even if every other country went carbon neutral at a cost of trillions of dollars, it would be of not benefit to the planet as China’s increase in emissions will be greater than everyone else’s reductions.

Dr Graham in his entire blog post doesn’t mention China once. That is conclusive proof that his concern is the politics, not the environment.

We have 51 List MPs, 44 of whom also contested an electorate. I’ve compiled a quick table of how many people actually voted for them, given the opportunity to do so, on the electorate vote.

The MPs who had the most electorate votes by party were:

1. Clayton Cosgrove, Labour  – 16,145
2. Hekia Parata, National – 14,093
3. Russel Norman, Green – 7,262
4. Brendan Horan, NZF – 4,611

The MPs who had the least electorate votes by party were:

1. Richard Prosser, NZF – 588
2. Julie Anne Genter, Greens – 1,258
3. David Parker, Labour – 3,751
4. Kanwaljit Bakshi Singh – 3,561

In total:

• 14 List MPs got over 10,000 votes
• 11 List MPs got from 5,000 to 10,000 votes
• 9 List MPs got from 2,500 to 5,000 votes
• 10 List MPs got under 2,500 votes
• 7 List MPs did not stand in an electorate

Dave at Big News blogs:

Kevin Campbell is the campaign manager for the Conservative Party. Prior to the election he was very happy in using Facebook to promote the party and most comments were of a political nature. But after the election he appears to have closed ranks after something he posted that many found offensive. Incidentally I was told by a Conservative Party candidate that they were not to use social media during the campaign.

Campbell questioned whether new Green MP Mojo Mathers, who is the world’s fifth profoundly deaf MP, should even be an MP as she didn’t have all her “faculties” – and only people who have all their faculties should be MPs. In other words, because she is deaf, she is unsuitable as an MP. Mathers became an MP after special votes were counted and I think she is perfectly suitable to be an effective MP.

I don’t support her politics, but I certainly also think Mathers is perfectly suitable to be an effective MP. We should celebrate people who overcome adversity and disability, not denigrate them.

Incidentally one of my favourite actresses is Marlee Matlin who played pollster Joey Lucas on West Wing. She’s currently on the Celebrity Apprentice and doing well.

As for Mr Campbell, I presume it is the same Mr Campbell who used to refer to the Prime Minister as “John the Jew”. Need more be said.

The final results have just gone live.We now have a confirmed National-led Government

There are three changes:

Party Vote

National loses one list seat to the Greens, as often happens with special votes. Commiserations to Aaron Gilmore (who only made it by around 32 votes last time) who drops out, and congratulations to new Green MP Mojo Mathers, NZ’s first deaf MP.

If National has any vacancies during the term, those in waiting on the list are Aaron Gilmore, Paul Quinn and Paul Foster-Bell. Whether any would take up a list vacancy is likely to depend on when it occurs and what they are doing at the time.

This also allows National to go ahead and announce a Ministry, and be sworn in. If they had lost two list seats on specials, then the Maori Party would hold the balance of power. But National can pass laws 61-60 with support from ACT and united Future only. This means the Maori Party has a choice between opposition or getting some gains and influence through a confidence and supply agreement. As National only wants them, not needs them, their negotiating power is somewhat reduced. However worth remembering that Labour never gave the Maori Party anything beyond being last cab off the rank, choosing in 2005 to go with NZ First and United Future in preference to Maori and Greens.

Waitakere

Carmel Sepuloni has beaten Paula Bennett by 11 votes. That is probably close enough for a judicial recount, but based on this count congratulations go to Carmel who would have been out of Parliament otherwise. Commiserations to Paula who will of course remain an MP and Minister, but will miss her beloved seat.

The bigger loser is Raymond Huo, who loses his list place, as Sepuloni makes it back. While not a huge contributor to Labour within Parliament, I understand he is a relatively large fund-raiser for Labour.

Christchurch Central

Nicky Wagner has emerged with a 45 vote majority. As Brendon Burns is not high up enough on the list, he is out of Parliament entirely. Hence he may consider a judicial recount. Note a judicial recount is relatively quick and inexpensive compared to an electoral petition which costs so much you need to have someone like Owen Glenn pay for it 🙂

If Burns had won, then Labour would have also lost Rajen Prasad. I think Labour were hoping Brendon would win.

It is no small thing that National now holds Auckland Central and Christchurch Central. Neither are swing seats. They are heartland Labour. Auckland Central has been held by Labour (and Alliance for one term) since Labour’s 1st election outing in 1919. That 89 year run ended in 2008.

Christchurch Central has been much the same. It was created in 1946 and for 65 years has only been held by Labour. That loss will hurt.

Demographics

The demographics for the 50th Parliament are now the following:

• Gender – 67% male, 33% female (this is just one fewer woman MP than in 2008 as the two new MPs are both women)
• Ethnicity – European 74%, Maori 17%, Pacific 6%, Asian 3%
• Age – 39% 50s, 31% 40s, 16% 60s, 12% 30s, 2% 20s, 1% 70s
• Area – 35% Auckland, 24% rural/town, 18% provincial city, 13% Wellington, 11% Christchurch
• Island – 75% North, 25% South

I’ve also looked at how many MPs entered in each Parliament

• 39th (1978) – 1
• 40th (1981) – 1
• 41st (1984) – 4
• 42nd (1987) – 3
• 43rd (1990) – 4
• 44th (1993) – 5
• 45th (1996) – 4
• 46th (1999) – 7
• 47th (2002) – 6
• 48th (2005) – 24
• 49th (2008) – 35
• 50th (2011) – 27

So 86 of the 121 MPs entered in 2005 or later. Note those who enter part-way through a term are included in each Parliament’s total. Only 22 of 121 MPs entered before 1999.

OTHERS

Pleased to see Nikki Kaye increase her majority to 717. That’s a huge endorsement of her work in that seat considering in 2008 she was against Judith Tizard and in 2011 against Jacinda Ardern, who is already being talked about as a future Labour deputy leader.

Also congrats to Kate Wilkinson whose win in Waimakariri against Clayton Cosgrove has been confirmed.

The Herald has an article with short pieces from supporters of David Shearer and David Cunliffe, which I found interesting. The supporters are:

David Shearer

• List MP Jacinda Ardern
• Former Goff staffer John Pagani
• Blogger Lew Stoddart

David Cunliffe

• Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta
• Labour Auckland-Northland Regional Chair Greg Presland
• Former parliamentary staffer David Hawkins

Most generally make their case well for their candidate, and that is not surprising as both candidates are very credible. However David Hawkins was rather aggressive with this statement:

This battle for Labour’s leadership is a choice between obsolete zero-sum politics and a progressive aspirational social democracy.

David Shearer’s a nice paper tiger. He’s just being exploited by a group that don’t respect New Zealand’s verdict. They actually don’t know what normal Kiwis think because they don’t understand modern direct engagement methods.

The Labour Party’s Red Alert website is symptomatic of the problem.

That is a theme I’ve heard quite a few push. Will Shearer be independent enough from the old guard who are supporting him? If he wins, I guess we will see when it comes to his shadow cabinet.

Stuff reports:

A protest against corporate greed has morphed into a group of homeless people and activists more intent on conflict than change, an ex-occupier says.  …

Occupy Auckland spokesman Chris Glen confirmed the homeless were among the protesters in Auckland.

”Of course there’s homeless people. We’re providing them with a home.”

The admission comes as an activist who quit the movement, Andrew Hendrie, spoke out about the changing nature of the movement.

Hendrie wrote to Auckland Council to warn of an increasing number of homeless people joining the anti-capitalist protest.

”I witnessed a consistent erosion in the number of genuine campaigners at the site, a consistent increase in the number of homeless residents joining, [and] a lack of suitable controls around new members joining and their behaviour.”

Group meetings were hijacked by interest groups and protesters rejected ”reasonable” Council requests, he said.

”Those who are leading this leaderless movement are more intent on conflict with authority, rather than positive change.”

And this comes from one of the former occupiers. Can’t say I am surprised.