David Fisher at HoS reports:

A key aide to a Government minister asked for money in an email that also discussed putting “political pressure” on an issue.

Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples’ electorate manager Martin Cooper wrote to a local property owner that he wanted money, then spoke of contacting a Government minister.

It led to a call for police to become involved after details were passed to Local Government Minister Rodney Hide.

Cooper named Hide as one of the people he planned to write to as part of a campaign of “political pressure”.

“I’ve never seen a more serious situation with anyone employed by Parliamentary Service,” Hide said.

I agree. If Cooper was an MP, he could be facing the sort of issues that Taito Philip Field did. As a parliamentary staffer his actions may not be illegal, but they certainly are grossly unethical. You do not and should not charge money for work you do, unless it is entirely in your own time and your own resources, and has nothing to do with your parliamentary job.

The Parliamentary Service should conduct an inquiry, regardless of the wishes of the MP he works for. They are the employer.

The Herald on Sunday reports:

The freelance cameraman who made the recording, whom the paper has agreed not to name, said the recording had been made accidentally after he was stopped by Key’s security staff from recovering the recording device. It transmitted the recording to the camera operator’s equipment but he did not discover until later.

This story is somewhat implausible. If the cameraman had said “I need to recover my recorder”, I have little doubt he would have been able to do so. I am also somewhat suspicious of the claim that he did not realise it was transmitting.

The recording, which was made unintentionally, according to the man who made it, contains fascinating insights into how Key thinks the next Parliament will shape up after the election.

We have chosen not to publish exact details of the conversation, as it was supposed to be in private, and Key last night refused to waive privacy considerations.

This is the correct decision, as it was obtained illegally. The freelance cameraman broke the law, whether intentionally or not,  and should have destroyed the recording, rather than given it to the HoS.

Right-wing blogger David Farrar also supported release if the recording revealed hypocrisy. “If there is something which is contradicted by what they say publicly, it makes the public interest argument.”

I should out this comment in its full context. I said the recording should not be published unless it revealed massive wrongdoing. I further compared it to being on the same scale as the UK phone tapping (albeit further down the scale). When pressed further on what would constitute massive wrongdoing, I gave the example of hypocrisy. I also said that for it to make the “public interest” argument, that is a different threshold to “the public would be interested”.

The fact the HoS has not published it, suggests it is merely interesting, rather than in the public interest.

The recording, which was made unintentionally, according to the man who made it, contains fascinating insights into how Key thinks the next Parliament will shape up after the election.

Well speculating on election outcomes is not exactly a crime. I suspect every MP has conversations like that several times a day.

Readers will recall Labour’s Electoral Finance Act, and how they rammed it through Parliament despite massive opposition. This shattered decades of rough bipartisan consensus that significant electoral law changes should be decided by either the public, or with support from (at least) both major parties. The Electoral Act is not meant to be the ultimate prize for the winner, where they get to rewrite the rules in their favour.

Hence Simon Power gave Labour a veto over the changes to electoral finance laws. He allowed them to veto reform of the broadcasting restrictions. He went even further than that, and reintroduced third party spending limits, despite the opposition of his own party. He did this with the most noble of motives – to remove electoral law from partisan gerrymandering.

Today Phil Goff shattered that. Radio NZ reports:

“People see a system being rorted, but my advice is that if we vote for MMP, then it will be reviewed.

“If there’s a Labour Government, we’ll take that rort out the system. You’ll have to get five percent to get more seats than simply the electorate seat that you win – that stops the rort.”

Simon Power set up a review of MMP, in case it wins. Phil Goff has just announced that Labour will remove the electorate threshold regardless of what the independent review by the Electoral Commission recommends.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the threshold, and if MMP is retained the independent review is where that debate should occur. But let us not pretend, this is about any high minded principle. Labour want to legislate away their opponents. Their motivation is to change electoral law, so they will get to form Government more often.

By announcing unilaterally what would happen if Labour is in Government, Phil Goff has shattered the hard won agreement Simon Power achieved that significant electoral law changes should have bipartisan support. Goff has shown that if Labour forms Government, they will make partisan changes to the Electoral Act, to help Labour retain power. They have learnt nothing from the Electoral Finance Act.

This is not about ACT. This is not about whether or not the one seat threshold is or is not a good idea. This is about Phil Goff pledging to ignore the independent review and to use the Electoral Act to favour Labour electorally.

It was a Labour/Green/NZ First voting bloc that gave the Electoral Finance Act. God knows, what they will do if they get to form Government.

The graph is from Whale. No source, so can’t vouch for 100% accuracy but the major emitters look right to me.

The key thing is the change in the last three years. What it shows is that any international agreement must include China, or it is a farce. There is absolutely no environmental or economic gain from the rest of the world flagellating itself, while China won’t commit to any cap.

This is not to say, we should do nothing at all. We need to be credible to our trading partners. But what we mustn’t do is sign up to another Kyoto where China (and India) have no caps at all.

There is no doubt NZ First has increased its support. It usually does when they get in the news, and ironically as much as Winston loves to pretend there is a media conspiracy against him, they in fact give him and NZ First far more publicity (but not scrutiny) than other parties polling at his level.

So they are up in the polls, but are they on the verge of 5% as Roy Morgan had them? No, or not yet, in my opinion.

Roy Morgan often has had NZ First higher than the other polls. They had them at 4.5% in May 2011, 5% in April 2011, 5.5% in Jan 2011, 4.5% in Sep 2010, 4.5% in Aug 2010, and prior to the last election had them twice at 6.5% in July and Aug 2008.

As always, I recommend looking at the average of the polls. This had them at 2.2% in October and rising to 3.1% in November. So as I said an increase, but still around 50,000 votes short of 5%.

The Herald reports:

While the most eagerly awaited conversation of the election was taking place, a mystery person may have been secretly listening.

A recording device was found on the Newmarket cafe table where National leader John Key showed his endorsement of Act’s Epsom candidate, John Banks, by sitting down to a cup of tea.

When their conversation at Urban Cafe finished, a man claiming to be a freelance reporter for the Herald collected the device, which was in a small, dark bag beside the pair.

The Herald had no freelancers at the meeting. …

It is illegal to record a private conversation without consent.

So all we know at this stage about the person who did it is they are a criminal, and a liar.

It brings back memories of what happened in 2008, with covert taping also. In that case the person responsible had ties to both Labour and Greens.

History has a way of repeating itself.

Tracy Watkins writes:

Remember the American bag man? The H-bomb? Labour has so far tried shock jock policy (raising the retirement age); taking the moral high ground in the policy debate (a capital gains tax), and gone back to tried and true policies with sweeteners in the form of generous welfare payments, union-friendly law changes and a rise in the minimum wage. But with the polls still showing Labour adrift at below 30 per cent, expect the campaign to turn personal in the final two weeks. Phil Goff has already signalled that is the direction Labour is headed by labelling Mr Key a liar over GST, attacking him over his Hawaiian holiday home, capitalising on his perceived weakness – which is to appear smug – and attacking his credibility.

Since Mr Key became National leader, Labour has also sought to get up various stories, including that Mr Key’s blind trust was a sham; questioning whether he made a false declaration in relation to his electoral address; seeking to link the Government’s BMW contract to National Party donations and a Parnell neighbour of Mr Key’s; and accusing him of mis-stating the number of TranzRail shares he owned.

Last, but not least, was the H-bomb in the 2008 campaign – Labour’s attempt to link Mr Key to a 1980s financial scandal, which exploded in its face after it emerged that it had mistaken someone else’s signature for Mr Key’s. So far this campaign, Mr Goff has tried to avoid a full-frontal personal attack, but the closer to the election we get, the more direct we can expect the attacks to be.

The burning question is whether Labour will follow past form and try to drop a bomb in the final week of the campaign. The advantage of doing it that close to the election date, of course, is you don’t have to prove it till after the polls have closed. The disadvantage is that voters punish negative campaigns.

And of course such proof will never eventuate.

The Press reports:

Waimakariri Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove faces a crushing defeat as a new poll shows his National rival, Kate Wilkinson, has opened up a huge lead in the seat.

A Fairfax Media-Research International snap poll in the seat put Wilkinson on 53.9 per cent of decided voters against 36 per cent for Cosgrove. The only consolation for Cosgrove is that the poll of 250 voters had a margin of error of 6.2 per cent and a high proportion of undecided voters – 23.5 per cent.

The poll also showed a huge lead for National of 71.9 per cent to Labour’s 17.4 per cent.

That compares with 2008 when National won the party vote in the seat by 49.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent for Labour.

Paul Epplett of Research International said his best explanation for the huge shift in support was related to the earthquake and polling on that had been positive for National.

This will worry Labour greatly, to be 18% behind in a seat they currently hold. Having said that, the party vote figures look a bit extreme to me, so I wouldn’t take the exact margin as gospel.

But what will be worrying Labour, is if one seat they hold now has them 18% behind, what about the others? Their next most marginal seats are Rimutaka, Christchurch Central, Palmerston North, Wellington Central, New Lynn, Hutt South and Te Atatu.

UPDATE: Whale has a post pointing out that the woman in the advertisements Cosgrove is running who says “Why I’m voting for Clayton Cosgrove” is not even registered to vote in Waimakariri – she is on the Te Tai Tonga roll. He couldn’t even find someone from his electorate to endorse him so he got a union official

The Dom Post reports:

The Fairfax Media-Research International mini poll shows the UnitedFuture leader, who has held the north Wellington seat for the past 27 years, could be ousted by Labour’s Charles Chauvel.

It put Mr Dunne on 37.4 per cent, less than two points ahead of Labour’s Charles Chauvel on 35.6.

National’s Katrina Shanks is a distant third on 19 per cent and the Greens candidate Gareth Hughes registered just 1.4 per cent.

A massive 34.6 per cent of voters were undecided.

The poll, conducted on Wednesday night, surveyed 163 voters and has a margin of error of 7 per cent.

Research International spokesman Paul Epplett said that means the race for Ohariu is too close to call.

Definitely too close too call. The probability that Dunne is in fact ahead of Chauvel is only 61%. Add onto that the 35% undecided, and either Dunne or Chauvel can win.

What will be interesting to see is if the 19% voting Shanks, now vote tactically.

Final lineup:
1. Bill English on the economic crisis and poverty in NZ.
2. Narelle Suisted reports on John Key’s photo opportunities — the campaign the Nats want you to see and then there’s the Ministers they prefer keep a much lower profile. We track them down with mixed results.
3. Gerry Brownlee and Clayton Cosgrove on Christchurch and the campaign.
4. Bill Ralston and Brian Edwards on the week non the campaign trail.

UPCOMING SATURDAY 12/11/11 1030 – SUNDAY EDITION 13/11/11 0800 – TV3

Buried in their health policy is confirmation that Labour will bring in minimum pricing for alcohol. Lianne Dalziel has twice said in Parliament that it should be at least $2 a standard drink. These posters hence reflect the minimum alcohol will cost under Labour – it might be even more than that.

If you decide to stick these posters up anywhere, make sure you stick an authorisation statement on them, as they would then be an election advertisement. While they are on my blog, they represent my personal political view online and are exempt.

They would look very good on university and polytechnic campuses, and in supermarkets and bottle stories I reckon!

If people thought Labour’s 1958 “black budget” was bad, wait until their 2012 budget if they win. The black budget only doubled the tax on alcohol which put prices up around 30%. Labour’s policy would see the price of many forms of alcohol actually double in price!!

In my Herald column, I look at what the Herald Digipoll suggests could be an alternative to a National-led Government – a Labour/Green/NZ First/Maori/Mana Government.

It is hard to imagine Hone Harawira would settle for anything less than Maori Affairs. He would not trust any Department headed up and/or staffed by Pakeha mofos.

Andrew Williams would put his hand up to be Minister of Local Government, bringing all his diplomatic skills to the job. That anguished scream you hear is Len Brown jumping out his Auckland Town Hall office window.

Who knows what bauble Winston Peters would take. He’s already had so many – Deputy PM, Treasurer, Foreign Minister. As he is a lawyer, perhaps he would become the nation’s Attorney-General?

The Greens would be very fortunate. On their current polling Phil Goff would have to make their entire current caucus Ministers of the Crown. Catherine Delahunty would be a shoo-in to be Treaty Negotiations Minister. Has any Ngati Pakeha ever been more supportive of Maori aspiration than Catherine?

This is what people may wake up to on the 27th of November. I do see the bright side though:

As a blogger and political commentator, such a Government would be wonderful. Every day would be wonderfully exciting as Phil Goff (who struggles to have discipline even over his own caucus) tries to get Winston and Hone to agree on what laws he is allowed to pass. With a one vote majority, every single MP and party would have a veto over all Government decisions. This would mean that no one can predict in advance what the Government will do. The biggest beneficiary of such an election result would be the iPredict predictions market.

It would be a blogger’s dream!

At Stuff I blog on who would be in and out of Parliament based on the average of the polls this week:

If National gains 65 seats, they will gain many new MPs. Highly placed candidates Jian Yang, Paul Goldsmith and Alfred Ngaro were always going to make it in, as were electorate candidates Simon O’Connor, Maggie Barry, Ian McKelvie, Mark Mitchell, Mark Sabin and Scott Simpson. Joining them would be candidates Paul Foster-Bell, Claudette Hauiti, Jo Hayes and Leonie Hapeta.

This would give National its most ethnically diverse caucus ever. They would have 11 Maori MPs, three Asian MPs and two Pacific MPs. They would also have a record 18 female MPs (but their proportion of the caucus would be unchanged).

What people may find amusing is I made a typo in the original, and it read “give National its most ethically diverse caucus” 🙂

By John Stringer, Answers tomorrow at 7 am

I’ve blogged details of the latest One News Colmar Brunton poll at curiablog.

Labour have dropped to 28%. There are 16 days to go. I expect this will increase their Key Derangement Syndrome and they will try and blame him for the Pike River deaths, as one left wing blog tried to do today.

Yesterday Labour launched their health policy. I don’t think I have ever come across such a waffly policy full of principles, reviews, develop systems, strengthen, align. It’s 28 pages of waffle. Almost the only specific is, well I let John Pagani reveal it:

National has flatly rejected Labour’s proposals to once again ban junk food in schools.

John comments:

That sort of policy is asking for trouble.

So good old nanny state Labour are back to their worst. No pie is safe. The food police return.

And what has Labour been up to today:

Labour’s thinly-veiled attacks on Prime Minister John Key have continued today with leader Phil Goff bringing up the subject of Hawaiian holidays.  …

“People at the top have got a lot of money and they take their holidays in Hawaii,” Goff said.

The politics of hate and envy. Because John Key has not spent the last 30 years as an MP, and actually went into business, he is one of those despicable rich pricks.

It is sad to see Phil Goff succumb to Key Derangement Syndrome. Goff generally is a decent man, but he is trashing his own reputation as he continues down this line.

Meanwhile what has National announced today? Also a health policy, on waiting times:

Ensure all patients booked for elective surgery receive it within no more than four months by the end of 2014.

Compare that to Labour’s waffle. A specific commitment, that matters to New Zealanders.

And National has a good record here. Since 2008:

• 60,000 more patients got elective surgery than the previous three years
• An extra 27,000 patients a year getting elective surgery – an increase of 22% since 2008
• 91% of patients getting elective surgery within 6 months of being on the waiting list

So Labour is focused on banning pies and where John Key’s family choose to holiday, and National is announcing it will boost elective surgery by a further 4,000 operations a year and cut waiting times by a further two months.

It shows who is focused on the issues that really matter to New Zealanders. It shows why hopefully Labour is dropping in the polls and hopefully will be crushed on November 26.

Herald reports:

The Department of Labour has laid charges against three parties in relation to alleged health and safety failures at the Pike River coal mine, where 29 miners died after an explosion almost a year ago.

25 charges were laid at the Greymouth District Court this morning, but the charges have not been specified because they could lead to the identification of the parties involved.

“They either have existing name suppression orders in their favour, or have the right to apply for name suppression,” the Department said in a press release issued this afternoon.

Each charge carries a maximum penalty of $250,000.

This is no surprise to those who have been following the Royal Commission. The prosecutions will not bring the men back of course, but may provide some accountability for the tragic loss of life. Of course the charges must be proven in court, and assuming guilty pleas are not entered, we’ll have a trial at some stage.

A humourous summary of the election campaign from Trans-Tasman:

National: “Ackschully, we’d love to have a second term, to do all sorts of good things. What good things? We’ll work out the details later. Hey, is Phil Goff a loser or what?”

Labour: “We’re not getting into personal attacks, but John Key is a lying scumbag, and anyone who likes him is a moron.”

ACT: “Catching Australia…whiirr BZZTT…2025 Task Force whirr BZZT…..Lower taxes whirr BZZT…Resource Management Act reform whirr BZZTT…Waitangi gravy train wshirr BZZT…. legalise cannabis whirr BZZTTT [EXPLOSION].”

Green Party: “The Apocalypse is Nigh!! The World is Ending! Won’t somebody please think of the children?? Please vote for us and we’ll
get a better deal on house insulation. Oh, and whatever Labour promises to spend or tax – we’ll spend and tax more.”

Mana Party: “We’re staunch. Feed our kids. White mo-fos can go home, unless they’re John Minto or Sue Bradford.”

Maori Party: “We have a seat at the Cabinet table. Well, a kind of wobbly stool, near the door.”

United Future: “Sensible, moderate, responsible….Hello? Anyone there? Hello……”

Heh.

Jo Moir at the NP Daily News reports:

Andrew Little says rumours in the blogosphere that his heart lies in Wellington are nothing more than “conspiracy theories”.

The New Plymouth Labour candidate said he has no plans for the Wellington-based Rongotai seat, currently held by Labour MP Annette King, and is putting his heart and soul into winning the New Plymouth seat.

Over the past few months right- wing blogger and political activist David Farrar hinted Labour’s 15th ranked candidate has been non- committal in his approach to living in New Plymouth because he plans to stand in the Rongotai electorate in 2014.

Actually I think I said he plans to stand in the 2012 Rongotai by-election.

Look Andrew would like to win New Plymouth, but he hasn’t gone about convincing people he is commited to the seat. Take this quote later on:

At a New Plymouth candidate debate on Monday night Mr Little said he would not live in New Plymouth if he lost the election then got into Parliament as a List MP.

He said the cost to the taxpayer in travel expenses ruled out that possibility.

Oh what nonsense. The expense of not being based in Wellington is a trivial amount of overall parliamentary expenditure.

If Andrew wanted to convince people he is commited to New Plymouth, he should have done the following:

1. Given up his two full-time jobs in the first half of the year. He stayed on far too long as Labour President and EPMU National Secretary
2. Not stayed on the staff of the EPMU, and campaigned fulltime instead of part-time
3. Not be seen protesting with Young Labour on a weekday on Lampton Quay
4. Moved the family up to New Plymouth, and rented out the Wellington house. Instead he commuted to the electorate to campaign up until recently. That does not indicate commitment.
5. Pledged to live in New Plymouth, if he is a List MP

Note that Andrew has not in any way ruled out standing for Rongotai if he does not win New Plymouth. All he has said is he is elected the Electorate MP for New Plymouth, he will stand again for New Plymouth – well doh that is hardly a surprise. In the last 30 years only one electorate MP has ever ditched their seat, to stand for another seat while an MP for their original seat.

If you want to win a seat off an opponent, you have to throw everything at it. Some candidates give up theri jobs nine months before the election, and then campaign seven days a week for nine months. They don’t keep their Wellington based jobs and commute into the electorate to campaign, and announce that if they lose they’re out of there never to return.