A very good article at Stuff looking at the successful ACT campaign and the demise of NZ First. The two are somewhat linked.

Stuff reports:

A paedophile was moved out of jail into a Wellington home with 62 children in the immediate neighbourhood, a school down the road, and one of his victims nearby.

The situation has left the Parole Board “perplexed” about why Probation – part of the Department of Corrections – did not seek nor provide crucial advice until weeks after Aaron Paul Laurence was released from prison to a house in the Wellington suburb of Newtown.

Laurence, who has now changed his name to Aaron Paul Castle and was previously known around Wellington as Lorry Haka, was recently moved to a new, undisclosed, address in an industrial area, largely due to being near so many children near the Newtown house.

His original Parole Board decision, which led to his September 1 release, said he was deemed at “high risk” of reoffending. He was sentenced in 2013 for 65 offences, including 20 charges of performing an indecent act on a boy under 12.

In one case he videoed himself sexually violating young boys, one aged between 5 and 8, while they slept.

He was sentenced in 2013 to 12 years and nine months jail. The Parole Board let him out after seven years and six months. That is only 58% through his sentence. Bow you could understand that if he was deemed at a very low risk of reoffending. But the advice was he was on the high end of reoffending risk.

But it will be even worse soon. Almost certainly his original offending would have got him a first strike. So if he does reoffend, then he would lose parole eligibility. But Labour is going to change the law so he would remain eligible for parole, so he could get early release again – creating more victims.

I put together this table of presiding officers of Parliament for the MMP era to show the normal mix of parties. The first order of business for the new Parliament will be to elect a Speaker and soon after that a Deputy Speaker and two Assistant Speakers.

The Speaker has always been from the same party as the Prime Minister under MMP. From 1994 to 1996 Labour’s Peter Tapsell was Speaker under a National Government, but that is mainly because back then the party supplying the Speaker lost a vote in the House, and National had a very slim majority.

There is no doubt the Speaker will be from Labour and no real doubt the Speaker will be Trevor Mallard. He’s done enough baby sitting of Neve to guarantee it 🙂

The Deputy Speaker is usually from the Government also, but there has been three exceptions. Anne Tolley was Deputy was 2017 to 2020 and Clem Simich Deputy from 2005 to 2008. Tolley was Deputy as National was the largest party in Parliament, so it was thought appropriate to have a National Deputy Speaker. I think the same rationale may have applied to Simich from 2005 to 2008. The National opposition was only two seats short of Labour.

The one that is a mystery to me is Geoff Braybrooke being Deputy Speaker in 1998 and 1999. Labour only got 28% of the vote in 1996. It might just have been a reflection on him personally that he was well liked and not particularly partisan.

I do not expect the Deputy Speaker to be from National this time. They only will have 33 to 35 MPs out of 120. So I expect Labour to supply the Deputy Speaker. The current Assistant Speaker, Adrian Rurawhe would seem the most logical choice.

Of the two Assistant Speakers, National will supply one. There has never been a situation under MMP where all four presiding officers are from the Government. The other will be Labour. You could have a minor party MP be an Assistant Speaker but generally smaller parties don’t want to lose an MP to be a presiding officer.

So who might be the Assistant Speakers?

Whips often make good presiding officers as they know standing officers. But Michael Wood should become an Minister and Kieran McAnulty may replace him as Senior Whip. Third Whip Kiri Allan has a good chance of being a Minister also.

So a second term MP such as Willow-Jean Prime or Jo Luxton is likely.

On National’s side, I would have though Tim Macindoe would be a good Assistant Speaker but he is sadly gone. Nick Smith certainly has the knowledge to do it, but may not want to.

The Senior Whip for National is Barbara Kuriger and my guess is she might stay there or take a senior portfolio. Junior Whip Matt Doocey is possible, as is Tim van de Molen (third whip).

Newshub reports:

On Monday morning, Ross announced Te Kahika Jr had decided to step away from Advance NZ, telling Newshub his former co-leader “wants to do his own thing” and that the decision had been swift.

In a statement sent to media on Monday afternoon, the NZPP confirmed the decision.

It said it would now be “getting back to doing what we do best”, which it says is “researching topics that the Government is not transparent about”.

What they do best is lying, conning people out of money, and spreading conspiracy theories.

In an outlandish video posted to social media after the election, Te Kahika Jr claimed the election was “rigged”, and that Advance NZ’s tiny share of the preliminary votes showed it had been “diddled”.

“I’m all okay with not going into Parliament and not winning enough votes – but not [okay] with 1 percent. I’ve been saying all week that if they turn around and say we’ve only got 1 percent then we’ve been diddled,” he said.

“People are waking up very, very quickly to the idea that this Government and this whole system is corrupt – it’s not real.”

It’s a pity there are no consequences for lying like this.

Stats NZ has released the latest population estimates. The estimated growth in each region over the last two years, in descending order is:

1. Bay of Plenty 5.1%
2. Northland 4.7%
3. Tasman 4.4%
4. Waikato 4.4%
5. Otago 4.4%
6. Auckland 3.8%
7. Canterbury 3.7%
8. Nelson 3.6%
9. Hawke’s Bay 3.6%
10. Marlborough 3.1%
11. Wellington 3.1%
12. Taranaki 2.8%
13. Manawatu-Whanganui 2.7%
14. Gisborne 2.4%
15. Southland 2.1%
16. West Coast 0.0%

By TLA, the top five growing are:

1. Queenstown-Lakes 11.5%
2. Chatham Islands 10.1%
3. Selwyn 10.1%
4. Central Otago 7.7%
5. Tauranga 6.5%

So 184,000 more people living in NZ than two years ago. 80% approx from migration and 20% through natural increases (births).

Now updated for the next three year term. They may have dumped their target, but that won’t stop us reminding people of it.

At August 2020 there were 602 Kiwibuild houses. They’d promised over 7,500 by then. By June 2023, 40,000 were promised so they have under three years to do another 39,400!

News.com.au reports:

Victorians have lashed out at the Premier Daniel Andrews after he announced today Melbourne would see no easing of restrictions despite reaching its virus target.

Victorians took to Twitter to call the Premier’s decision to withhold the announcements a “huge kick in the guts” and “beyond a joke”.

Metropolitan Melbourne had been hopeful of further easing of restrictions on hospitality and retail, after the city’s rolling 14-day average number of virus cases fell to below five today.

But today the Premier dashed those hopes of easing restrictions, saying the government would delay any announcements, pending more test results related to an outbreak in the northern suburbs.

He said further rollbacks will not be announced until Tuesday at the earliest.

“No changes to metro restrictions. This is a huge kick in the guts after constant talk of significant announcements on Sunday. This bloody never-ending year,” 10 News reporter Emma O’Sullivan said on Twitter.

“This is beyond a joke,” 7 News journalist Joel Crean wrote on Twitter.

“On Sunday we were told 2 Nov. Wednesday we were told that would be brought forward, announced Sunday. Today the carrot is dangled again. WE ARE DONE @DanielAndrewsMP … ENOUGH!”

Fewer than five cases yet the lockdown continues.

Stuff reports:

James Randi, the internationally acclaimed magician and escape artist, both praised and cursed for devoting much of his career to debunking all things paranormal – from spoon bending and water dowsing to spirit channelling and faith healing – has died. He was 92.

His educational foundation announced the death but did not provide additional details. In recent years, he had been treated for cancer and heart ailments.

An inveterate sceptic and bristly contrarian in his profession, Randi insisted that magic is based solely on earthly sleight of hand and visual trickery.

He scorned fellow magicians who allowed or encouraged audiences to believe their work was rooted in extrasensory or paranormal powers.

Those who prey on the gullible should be scorned. It annoys me no end TVNZ actually pars fraudsters to appear on TV to try and con people they are psychics.

News.com.au reports:

US President Donald Trump has announced that Sudan will normalise relations with Israel – the third such deal his administration has brokered in recent months.

Mr Trump invited reporters inside the Oval Office today as he officially sealed the agreement on a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

“The state of Israel and the Republic of Sudan have agreed to make peace,” Mr Trump said.

Sudan’s commitment to normalise relations follows similar agreements involving Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were also reached with help from the US.

But this one is arguably more significant. Unlike those nations, Sudan was technically still at war with Israel, making this a genuine peace deal.

Another excellent peace deal.

The Herald reports:

Donations disclosed in the last weeks of the campaign reveals Labour went ahead with its usual art auction fundraiser, despite questions about how it was disclosing the donations.

They also reveal that New Zealand First leader Winston Peters appears to have loaned his own party $60,000.

In early October, Labour declared donations of artwork from artists Karl Maughan and John Reynolds totalling $35,760 and $32,000 respectively.

Those “donations” represent how much a number of separate pieces of art sold for at auctions – that money is counted as a donation by Labour.

But Electoral Commission records don’t show who bought the artwork.

Labour has a long tradition of holding art auction fundraisers and has always treated them as donations from the artists, rather than disclosing the people who purchase the artworks.

It’s a loophole to hide donors.

Those paying $35,000 for an artwork are doing it to help Labour. They’re not doing it to buy a piece of art.

Otago University electoral law specialist Andrew Geddis said this is an area where the law should be tightened up to require disclosure of those who purchase the artworks, sometimes for much more than their value.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is investigating a matter relating to donations to the Labour Party in 2017 but has not revealed any details of what it is investigating.

Speaking to the Herald, Geddis said this could be one of the areas that the SFO was looking into.

He said the issue with Labour’s practise of raising money through selling art is the buyer could be deliberately be paying more than a piece is worth as they know it’s raising money for a political party they support.

The market value of a painting is highly subjective. It is not like a car. Of course people are paying more than they normally would, as a way to donate.

In the weeks leading up to the election, we heard from Jacinda Ardern time and time again that she was seeking a strong mandate from voters. But a mandate for what exactly? And just what is a mandate anyway?

Labour has secured the right to govern alone. The implementation of its policy agenda does not rely on the Greens and the handbrake in the form of New Zealand First no longer exists. This means Labour can enact the policies they campaigned on without having to make concessions to another party.

This brings us to Labour’s campaign platform. It’s difficult to identify exactly what key policies on which the party stood for re-election this year. This was not the case in 2017 where free tertiary education, KiwiBuild, light rail to Auckland Airport, reducing child poverty and homelessness, and cleaning our waterways all featured.

This year, Labour broadly campaigned on stable government and a plan for the economy post-Covid. There was also a promise to tweak the tax rate for the highest income earners and for RMA reform. Beyond that, it’s fair to say there was nothing radical or transformational in Labour’s 2020 election platform.

In fact, we heard more about what they weren’t going to do (and that’s implement a wealth tax).

With that in mind, what is Labour’s mandate?

The political concept of a “mandate” is contested. There is limited agreement as to how a mandate is defined or the extent to which it has binding moral force.

For the party who has won power, however, saying it has a mandate gives democratic legitimacy to its program. It has gone to the country, put X, Y and Z before the voters, been given their vote and, as a result, has a mandate from the people to do those things. Most people agree that this falls squarely within the meaning of a mandate.

In Labour’s case, the question is whether, in this sense of the word, it has the moral authority to implement an agenda it didn’t campaign on. And if not, then what?

Jacinda Ardern’s claims her party has won a “mandate to accelerate.” If the Prime Minister is referring to policies such as light rail, which failed to progress in the previous term, a legitimate argument could be made for the existence of a mandate to accelerate it. It has always remained Labour Party policy, and it won’t be hindered by the handbrake this term.

Beyond that, does the newly elected Government have a mandate to implement radical and transformation change? Or has the electorate actually voted in favour of the status quo? My guess is that it probably doesn’t matter.

Some will want Labour to use its mandate to shift hard to the left. But Ardern, like John Key before her, probably knows that it is in her interests to hold the centre – in particular, those National voters who have jumped ship. So, regardless of the extent to which Labour has a legitimate mandate to effect significant change, it’s difficult to see her risking the political capital she has won to use it. However disappointing that may be.

Readers will see a regular (approx weekly) guest post from Monique Poirier, starting today.

Stuff reports:

Labour’s Peeni Henare is not keeping his interest in being the next health minister a secret.

It’s a bold departure from the usual ‘wait and see’ approach adopted from other MPs lined up for the new Government.

Sharing a photo of himself at the gym on Instagram this week, Henare wrote: “I have been asked by plenty of the new MPs for advice about working in Parliament and the advice to all of them is the same. Look after your well-being! For me, I like to go to the gym. It allows me to clear my head while also the added benefits of exercise.”

During his 15 months as an associate health minister, he “truly appreciated the challenge for our whānau and also the opportunities to fix them”, he said.

“That is why I put my hand up for the top job. We can turn many statistics around with positive change, system reform and investment. 

This is an excellent idea. Labour should absolutely replace Chris Hipkins with Peeni Henare as Health Minister.

In the lead up to the election, he told media he’d like to be health minister, and reform the system to better suit Māori.

In a post-election interview with Māori Television, Labour Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta said she backed Henare for the ministerial position. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern needed to be bold and appoint a Māori MP to be health minister, she said.

So if Ardern says no to Henare she will be stamping on the mana of the Maori caucus.

The final debate occurred. Trump was much better than in the first debate, but no knock out blows. So how do things look:

• Polling Average: 538 Biden +9.9% RCP +7.9%
• Probability Forecast: 538 Trump 12%
• Trump approval: 538: -11.3% RCP: -9.4%
• Electoral College: 538: Biden 347 Trump 191 RCP: Biden 357 Trump 181
• Favourability: RCP: Biden +6.2%, Trump -11.5%
• Country DIrection: RCP: -30%
• Betting Markets: RCP: Biden 65.6% Trump 35%

Stuff reports:

It was a crime that gripped the nation and more than 25 years later, the circumstances of what really happened at the Bain family home on Dunedin’s Every Street remains a mystery.

On June 20, 1994, parents Margaret and Robin Bain, along with three of their children – Arawa, Laniet and Stephen – were fatally shot. Eldest son David Bain was found guilty of the murders at a trial in 1995, but was later acquitted at a new trial in 2009.

Inspired by the Stuff podcast Black Hands, a new TVNZ 1 drama turns the focus on the Bain family.

But Joel Tobeck (The Luminaries, The Doctor Blake Mysteries, One Lane Bridge), who stars as patriarch Robin Bain, says this ireading s not a ‘whodunit’. Instead, Black Hands tells the story of the family in the 16 months preceding the murders.

I don’t think we will ever know who killed them. David Bain has been found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. An independent review has said on the balance of probabilities it was more likely David than Robin. We will never know.

Hence I am glad the drama is not trying to claim who killed the Bains, but bring the victims alive. Whether they were killed by their father or brother, they deserved so much better.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the demographics of Parliament to the overall adult population, as so many in the media focus on this. The data for the NZ adult population comes from the 2018 census for gender, ethnicity and age and from the 2018 General Social Survey.

This Parliament is the most diverse one in history, and it is a good thing when Parliament looks like the people it represents.

So in terms of gender women are slightly under-represented. They are 48% of Parliament and 51% of the adult population. But 48% is a higher proportion than any other country in the OECD. Sweden is at 47%. We were at 41%.

In terms of ethnicity, Asians are most under-represented with 5% of MPs for 15% of the adult population. Next are Europeans who are 65% of MPs and 67% of adults. Most over-represented are Pasifika who have 10% of MPs for 6% of adult pop and Maori who have 20% of MPs for 12% of adult population.

By sexual orientation, bisexuals are most under-represented with 0.8% of Parliament for 1.9% of population. Straights are next most under-represented with 89% of MPs for 96.5% of adult pop. Gay and Lesbians both massively over-represented with 5.0% each for under 1% of the population. Overall 11% of Parliament are “rainbow” for 3.5% of the adult population. It should be noted though the GSS may undercount rainbow population as it is a face to face survey. However NZ Health Survey has similar numbers.

In terms of age under 30s are least represented with 3% of Parliament for 24% of adult population followed by over 60s who have only 8% of Parliament for 22% of adult population. Most over-represented are those in their 40% who have 38% of MPs for 18% of adult population.

Of course I don’t think anyone expects the age of MPs to exactly mirror the adult population, otherwise we would have lots of MPs in their 80s or even 90s!

People often assume that minority groups are automatically under-represented in Parliament. But in fact in New Zealand it is often the other way around.

Politik reports:

Meanwhile, Parliament’s Speaker, Trevor Mallard, will consider a proposal from the Prime Minister that peters be allowed a special valedictory. That would require a unanimous vote from all MPs if it were to go ahead. Whether ACT and National would support such a motion could be an obstacle.

That’s a terrible idea. If you want a valedictory you retire or resign. They are not for people who failed to get re-elected.

And just before the House rose, Peters used parliamentary privilege to smear and defame me and several others in a weird conspiracy theory about how his superannuation details got leaked.

Why would you reward that behaviour with a special valedictory?

Worth checking out wheretheystand.nz, modeled on a UK version. Brings together voting data on conscience issues, pecuniary interests etc.

No Right Turn blogs:

With an absolute majority, Labour can govern in its own right, and doesn’t need partners. But while unnecessary, they’re a nice-to-have, both as backup and for PR reasons. Ardern has talked about “consensus”, and there are obvious benefits for her of having government policy endorsed by as many parties as possible. At the same time, that’s not hugely valuable, and nowhere near as valuable as votes to get something over the line, so the price Labour would be willing to pay is probably rather low. So should the Greens be rushing to sign up?

I’m doubtful, for two reasons. Firstly, as we saw last term, being in government has a cost. Being a good team player means not criticising your political partners, and in particular, not spending the next three years reminding Labour’s supporters and voters generally of what the government could or should be doing. Which is fine, if you’re actually getting real policy out of it. But its not something you give away for nothing, or next-to-nothing (which is what the Greens arguably got last term). Secondly, as noted above, I think the price Labour is willing to pay will be low. They don’t need the Greens, and while they could be used as rhetorical cover for increasing the ambition of their lowballed centrist policy promises, the numbers simply make such excuses laughable. So the net result of the Greens in government would be Green Ministers implementing and overseeing Labour policy. And as someone who thinks that status quo Labour policy is the problem, I don’t think that’s worth shit, and certainly not worth surrendering the rhetorical power of opposition for. I’m not interested in a Green Party which gags itself for other people’s benefit. So I’d favour a loose arrangement of (un-needed) confidence and supply in exchange for consultation on key issues and a few select-committee chairs, at best – friends, not partners.

I agree with this argument. If the Greens have their top MPs as Ministers, they will spend most of their time implementing Labour policy and administering their departments. They will have near zero policy leverage.

If they really want to shift Labour to the left, they would be better to remain outside Government so they can criticise the Government for its woeful lack of progress on reducing child poverty and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. National attacking Labour on child poverty and climate change doesn’t make Labour particularly uncomfortable. But having the Greens constantly pointing out their total lack of progress would cut through to the media, Labour activists and the caucus.