So who are the winners and losers of the election. Mostly it is pretty obvious. Here are the winners:

1. Jacinda Ardern. She rescued Labour in 2017 and has delivered them the only majority Government in MMP history. Their victory is 99% Jacinda and 1% the others.
2. Labour. They won not just 64 seats in the House but 14 net electorate seats. Some (not all) of their new MPs are talented and future Ministers.
3. Chloe Swarbrick. Like Sandra Lee in 1993, she won Auckland Central as a third party candidate. An incredible victory which marks her out as a future co-leader.
4. ACT and David Seymour. I put them together as up until now they were the same. Seymour not just expanded his caucus, but delivered the best ever result for ACT – 10 MPs. Over six years he has rebuilt ACT and changed its brand and they are now the third highest polling party.
5. Greens. They not only exceeded 5%, they got 10 MPs. Not their best result, but one of their better ones. They may get to be part of a pure left Government for the first time ever.
6. Rawiri Waititi. Ahead in Wairaiki at this stage and gets the Maori Party back in.

Losers

1. NZ First. They are out of Parliament and the party could well not be around in 2023. Winston will be 78. The SFO case is next year, and Shane Jones was a distant third in Northland.
2. National. They’re still in Parliament but this is a devastating result. Not just for the overall party vote (which was still poor) but the loss of electorates that were not even thought to be at risk. Losing 15 electorates will hurt National a lot and make 2023 a hard challenge. However worth remembering that in 2002 they did even worse and then three years later they almost won in 2005. I’ll do a seperate post on what were the factors in National’s loss.
3. Tamati Coffey. Not a great look to be the only Labour MP to lose their seat, when it is a landslide election for Labour.

Also this sounds cheesy, but is sincere. Democracy is the big winner. We had over 2.5 million people vote with little or no drama. No court cases. No voter suppression. No alleged voter fraud. No massive queues to vote. No chance of a losing party refusing to accept the results.

This is the provisional list of the 120 MPs elected tonight. I expect some change with specials.

At this stage the House is:

• 52% male, 48% female
• 63% European, 19% Maori, 9% Pasifika, 5% Asian
• 24% under 40, 9% over 60

Rather than post updates both here on Twitter, I’m embedding my Twitter feed below, for those interested.

For those interested, this is what I will be looking out for tonight. First it is important to note that different parties will do better at different parts of the count. My expectations based on experience and polling are:

• Advance votes. I expect these to more heavily favour Labour than later votes. Those who were voting on how Jacinda handled Covid-19 didn’t need to wait for the final leader’s debate etc. So I expect the votes that come in before 8.30 pm to be good for Labour
• Early booths. Smaller booths tend to report quicker than larger booths. Smaller booths tend to be in more rural areas which favour National, so after the advance votes are in, you may get some results which are relatively better for National.
• Final booths. The last booths to report tend to be the huge central city booths that favour Labour and Greens. So expect to see them start to do even better later in the night.
• Specials. These will not be counted on the night, but normally the specials favour Labour and the Greens, so you could see one or two extra seats swing on the specials.

Now what to look for for each party.

Labour

Based on pre-election polls there seems little doubt that Labour will form the next Government. The question will be how well do they win. Questions I’ll be looking for are:

• Will they be able to govern alone?
• Will they beat their MMP best result of 41.3% in 2002? (hightly likely)
• Will they beat the best ever MMP result of any party being National’s 47.3% in 2011?
• Will Labour lose Taieri?
• How close will the Māori Party get to them in Waiariki, Te Tai Hauauru and Tamaki Makaurau?

National

• What will their result be comparable to? It will be better than National’s 2002 result of 20.9%. Will it beat Labour’s 2014 result of 25.1%, Labour’s 2011 result of 27.5%, Labour’s 1996 result of 28.2%, National’s 1999 result of 30.5%, Labour’s 2008 result of 34.0%?
• How many electorates will National lose? In the South Island I will follow Invercargill, Nelson and Rangitata. In the North Island I will be watching Hutt South, Wairarapa, Otaki, Whanganui, Tukituki, Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Maungakiekie, Auckland Central and Northcote.
• Will National pick up the new seat of Takanini?
• Who gets in on National’s List

NZ First

• Do they make 5%?
• If not, do they get close (above 4%), as that may determine if they carry on
• Does Shane Jones come 2nd or 3rd in Northland?

Greens

• Does their vote under-perform the polls as usual?
• How many MPs will they get? Their results from best to worst are 14, 14, 9, 9, 8, 7, 6

ACT

• How many MPs will they get? Their results from best to worst are 9, 9, 8, 5, 2, 1, 1, 1
• Will ACT or the Greens be the third largest party?

It’s now Election Day.

This means no posts or comments on New Zealand politics. You will get suspended if you break this legal requirement.

You can comment on the election in terms of if you voted, the queue at the voting booth etc. But not who you voted for.

You can also comment on US politics or other countries.

At 7 pm normal commenting can resume.

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has moved to try to kill off National’s claims she would bow to the Green Party’s wish for a wealth tax by saying she would not implement a wealth tax as long as she is Prime Minister.

It is a step further than she has gone before – her previous comments on it related to the next term.

Ardern made the comment after the issue was raised yet again following Green Party MP Chloe Swarbrick’s comment that it would be on the table. She was asked if she would resign if she implemented a wealth tax – the promise she had made about raising the age for superannuation.

Ardern said there was no need to make such a promise about “a hypothetical” because it would not happen.

“I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister.

This is a significant movement in Labour’s position. All previous statements deliberately left wriggle room. They ranged from “We will implement our policy” to “not in this term” but none of them were as categorical as what Ardern did with CGT, where she ruled it out so long as she was Prime Minister.

This shows the power of a good campaign to affect public policy. Ardern has now three times had to rule out a new tax permanently. They are:

• No more regional fuel taxes
• No capital gains tax
• No asset or wealth tax

These are significant victories. Labour of course would love to have more tax revenue. They love taxing and spending. And a Labour Prime Minister has ruled out three significant taxes for as long as she is Prime Minister.

Of course, if they win, they will need to find someway to plug the 15+ years of deficits they are projecting. It is near impossible to imagine they will have fiscal discipline and cut low quality spending, so they’ll look at other taxes. What else might left activists now campaign for, having lost on CGT and wealth tax?

Maybe a Financial Transactions Tax or a Land Tax?

Anyway politics is not just about elections, but also about changing the “Overton Window” of what policies are deemed acceptable for serious political discourse. And both CGT and a wealth tax have been knocked out of contention. They’re off the table.

Have just finished my 72nd electorate race profile on Patreon.

Here’s the summary of the Auckland and Northern ones.

• Safe National: Papakura, Botany, Pakuranga, Tamaki, North Shore, Upper Harbour, Kaipara ki Mahurangi, Whangaparāoa, East Coast Bays, Whangarei, Northland
• Leans National: Maungakiekie, Northcote
• Too Close to Call: Takanini
• Leans Labour: Auckland Central, Tamaki Makaurau
• Safe Labour: Manurewa, Panmure Otahuhu, New Lynn, Te Atatu, Kelston, Mt Roskill, Mt Albert, Te Tai Tokerau
• Safe ACT: Epsom

These are the final pre-election polls on the general election and two referendums.

In terms of the general election they all show Labour well ahead of National, NZ First not making it, and Greens and ACT over 5%.

The cannabis referendum is going to end up embarrassing for some pollsters. Colmar Brunton and Reid Research say it is heading to a decisive loss. The Greens internal polling says a narrow victory and Research NZ and UMR and Horizon also a victory.

With euthanasia less variation, where the only real debate is the margin of victory.

Election periods are always busy times for me, but this election has been by far the most crazy I can recall. In the last two months I have (in order of importance):

• Been a parent to a 10 month old and three year old
• Analysed and written up 124 polling reports for 22 different clients. Note not all of these are election or political polling.
• Posted around 250 articles to Kiwiblog
• Done around 80 posts on Patreon
• As a Director of NZTU, helped with guidance on their three campaigns on debt, tax relief and anti-wealth tax
• Done our own crowdfunded campaign over Labour’s total lack of delivery on key promises
• Done around a dozen presentations to business or sector groups on the election and potential outcomes
• Had an emergency appendectomy

Due to all this both my physical and mental health is, not surprisingly, at a low ebb. I’m beyond exhausted.

So next week after the election, I’m heading somewhere secluded for a couple of days to recharge. No laptop. No visitors. Just me and some books, so I can relax and sleep. So please don’t contact me next week, unless urgent.

At least election campaigns are only once every three years!

The Australian’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan writes:

No international halo is so shabby, or so fraudulent, as that worn by New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Politically she resembles Dan Andrews. They excel in woke gesture and progressive symbolism. Their achieve­ments in real policy terms are thin or negative.

This is a judgment against the dominant narrative concerning Ardern, so let’s first acknowledge her strengths. Our Kiwi cousins go to the polls on Saturday and Ardern will likely win a second term, perhaps in coalition with the Green Party. The chief restraint of her first term, the mercurial Winston Peters’s New Zealand First Party, probably won’t make it back to parliament. Ardern has done three positive things. She has just about eradicated COVID-19. She has navigated the politics of the virus so well she stands on the brink of electoral triumph. And she responded with moral clarity and decency to the Christchurch massacre. However, she has still been a poor Prime Minister, elected almost by accident under the Byzantine protocols of her country’s eccentric electoral system, though she won far fewer votes than the National government she replaced.

This is the point I have been promoting. On almost every major issue they campaign on, they have acheieved nothing or worse.

The more total your shutdown, the more you can eradicate COVID-19. It’s then a matter of keeping your borders shut. This, incidentally, is medieval plague policy — keep everyone out and keep everyone isolated until the plague runs its course.

New Zealanders embraced this policy for the sake of getting rid of the virus. But this is not remotely comparable to the achievements of nations such as Taiwan, South Korea and to some extent Singapore, which have kept the virus under control or out altogether while also keeping their society and economy going.

A lockdown and shutdown will eliminate the virus, but also a lot of jobs. Taiwan has shown how to do it without a shutdown.

Before COVID-19, Ardern was trailing in the polls. Her list of undelivered election promises is staggering: 100,000 affordable homes promised, 600 built; homelessness to be eradicated, it increased; zero carbon emissions by 2050, emissions went up; reduce child poverty, it went up; regional public service emphasis, more public servants based in Wellington than before; light rail from Auckland airport to CBD, abandoned.

I wonder if he’s been reading Kiwiblog!

Validated by a swooning international media, unchallenged by a tepid and under-resourced local media, she has sold the narrative that her government has saved NZ. With Peters gone, and the Greens more influential, she will move left in her second term, presaging a lost decade for our beloved cousins across the ditch. One consolation: the best of them will come here.

You’re never left wondering what an Australian journalist really thinks.

The final One News Colmar Brunton poll is:

• Labour 46% (-1%)
• National 31% (-1%)
• Greens 8% (+2%)
• ACT 8% (nc)
• NZ First 3% (+1%)

I do wish they would give us a more precise number for NZ First. This could be anywhere from 2.5% to 3.4%.

The possibilities are:

• 2.5% has 1.0% MOE so support from 1.5% to 3.5%
• 3.4% has 1.1% MOE so support from 2.3% to 4.5%

Also NZ First normally do 0.8% better than the ONCB poll so there is a small but not impossible chance NZ First could make 5% if ONCB has its normal error with NZ First. Will be one to watch on election night.

The MOE on 8% is 1.7% so both Greens and ACT looks good on that poll. But again ONCB tends to have Greens 0.8% higher than they actually get and ACT 0.4% lower so ACT may end up with slightly more MPs.

Matt Shand at Stuff reports:

NZ First leader Winston Peters and high-ranking MPs were briefed about the NZ First Foundation’s expenses and activities one year before it first made headlines, Stuff can reveal, contradicting Peters’ consistent claims the foundation had nothing to do with his political party.

Stuff has seen an internal party report that, according to a source familiar with the matter, was presented to Peters in November 2018.

The report, dated 21 November 23, 2018 [sic], was written by former party president Lester Gray. It is understood that it was hand-delivered to Peters’ home mailbox in Auckland on Sunday, November 25, ahead of a meeting about the matter.

The report referenced money in NZ First Party’s Kiwibank account as well as money in the Foundation’s ASB bank account. It totalled expenses incurred by the ASB account and classed them as party costs.

This is no surprise, to put it mildly.

Invoices addressed to Winston Peters or his office were paid by the NZ First Foundation. Now this doesn’t happy by magic.

Someone in Winston’s office has to give the invoice to the Foundation and ask them to pay the bill. And it is hard to imagine that Winston’s staff were doing this behind his back!

Stuff has also seen a separate memo written by the party’s then acting treasurer, John Thorn, to the “board of directors”, dated May 5, 2017. It reveals that the foundation was originally proposed to be a “capital-protected fund”, meaning contributions would never be spent, only profits from the fund’s investments. It was originally meant to be operated “at arm’s length” from the board.

The memo states the foundation would be modelled on the National Party’s National Foundation, which is a capital-protected fund. It states: “there can be little doubt that the model is legally sound and is operated in a manner that meets all legal and ethical obligations”.

However, previous Stuff stories have revealed the New Zealand First Foundation actually operated as a party slush fund. The capital was spent on all manner of party expenses, including campaign headquarters, office furniture, wages and other campaign costs. Some donors who thought they were donating to the party were actually donating to the foundation.

My theory is that this was a con job on the board.

The board were sold the Foundation as a capital fund, like National’s. That is why they agreed to it. But then once established it turned into a slush fund receiving money and paying bills on behalf of the party, but hidden from the party’s board.

And recall the former President and Treasurer resigned over this issue – they they weren’t being given the financial information they wanted.

A guest post by Owen Jennings:

I am had it with the promises.  Parties of all persuasions trying to outbid each other with my money.  Bah humbug.

The country’s economy is in a mess.  It was in a mess before Covid.  All that Covid has done is hasten the day of reckoning and helped highlight the burgeoning debt.  But the rot was in long before that.  Bill English made a half hearted attempt to pull things together after the growing shambles left by Clark and Cullen.  But there was shambles even before Labour.

We are trying to live a five star lifestyle on a two star income.   We spend like a fat cat and earn like an alley cat.  We want the cake with all the trimmings but we can barely afford the flour and sugar.

How about hearing some honesty and realism from a politician on the hustings.  How about a pretender who stands up and admits to the real problems and offers the country a gutsy, sensible solution?  No more bribes.  No more handouts.  How about the truth?  How about a reform package that deals to the enormous problems that we keep kicking down the road?  Probity before power.  Courage and conviction before comfort and cloying.

Any takers?  No?  ACT maybe?  Or have they resorted to populist vote buying too?

Thereby lies part of the problem.  Any party or politician who promised reform of the magnitude and type required would “be gone by lunchtime”.  The MSM would crucify and then ignore.  We are so conditioned to being promised the moon we think we own it.  There is almost zero understanding of the perilous position we are in.  When you are sucking the tit you don’t want to hear the udder is dry.

What would a party with balls offer?

They would face the debt mountain and the agony that health care and superannuation are rapidly becoming unaffordable.  The change in demographics – short hand for we are getting too many oldies and not enough wealth generators – coupled with demands for more and more fancy healthcare options, has the country heading for a precipice. 

And, no, growth in GDP won’t fix it.  Our real GDP/capita is stuffed.  We don’t know how to work smart, how to achieve higher productivity, how to attract high performers as immigrants, how to figure out shifting investment from low return housing to high tech, how to create an attractive new business investment climate, how to improve the quality of our exports rather than the quantity.

How many politicians are focusing on any of the above?  Instead they are clambering over one another to build a bikeway over a vulnerable harbour bridge.  We want to give ourselves more holidays, more sick days, more guaranteed paypackets – all “nice to have” items but they are an unaffordable distraction.

We are fighting over how to get more low skilled workers into the country when we need high skilled people with capital to invest.

Poverty, homelessness, truancy, crime, drug taking and most of our social ills are dealt to by throwing a seemingly endless amount of money at them. Haven’t we learnt yet?  More money gets you more of what you already have, not less. Good physicians treat causes, not symptoms.

We are becoming a nation of low performing advisors.  Politicians from central Government to community boards cannot make decisions any more.  They don’t have the gumption or the training and they don’t have the guts to deliver. They hide behind faceless consultants and toothless committees.  Costs go up and productivity goes down.

Our once envied and proud Public Service is a shadow of what it once was.  We have gone for quantity not quality.  Can a population of 5 million people (a medium sized city in many places) really justify 150 departments, 26 Cabinet Ministers and Under Secretaries, 80 local authorities, endless numbers of states agencies, 8 universities, all expensive fiefdoms with grossly overpaid staff.  There are populations of 5 million with one governing authority, one hospital, one bureaucracy.

With all of that low productivity army we cannot fix a housing problem, we are lost in a jungle of low quality, inadequate roading, uneconomic rail, battles over ports, broken sewerage and water infrastructure.   Our kids are leaving school poorly educated, often unable to read or write and feeling the world owes them everything.  Our health system is managed by waiting lists and trying to supply ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.  Welfare is about entitlement not need.

Problems are not fixed till they are recognised and fully understood.  Once the focus is clear then its large reform steps, clear explanations, emergency powers and a well constructed plan.  Make labour productivity, less regulation, an investment attractive climate, smaller government, improved incentives and living within our means the cornerstones.

The longer we leave the day of reckoning the harder it will be.  I fear for my grandchildren having to live through the reforms because it won’t be pretty.  It will be as tumultuous as it will be inevitable.

Mention gutsy reformers like Douglas and Richardson and hear the howls of outrage.  The fiddlers fiddle and Rome burns.  Is there a politician who cares?  Do any understand?  Is there a steely spine among them?  I doubt it.  But happen, it will.  Call it necessity.

Stuff reports a Q+A with Jacinda Ardern:

What’s next on poverty?

On the raw numbers we started from a situation where things were getting worse, but we have flipped those indicators and they’re heading in the right direction. 

This is wrong, and she should know it is wrong.

Here are the latest official stats. Let’s look at all nine measures of child poverty, in raw numbers.

• Under 50% median income before housing costs. Dropped from 177,200 in 2015 to 156,300 in 2017. Now at 168,500
• Under 50% median income after housing costs. Dropped from 295,600 in 2015 to 247,500 in 2017. Now at 235,400
• In material hardship. Dropped from 190,400 in 2015 to 139,600 in 2017. Now at 151,700
• Under 60% median income before housing costs. Dropped from 267,900 in 2015 to 243,300 in 2017. Now at 263,400
• Under 60% median income after housing costs. Dropped from 331,200 in 2015 to 313,600 in 2017. Now at 328,200
• Under 50% median income after housing costs. Dropped from 258,500 in 2015 to 235,500 in 2017. Now at 241,600
• Under 40% median income after housing costs. Increased from 168,200 in 2015 to 178,000 in 2017. Now at 167,600
• Severe material hardship. Dropped from 93,000 in 2015 to 73,600 in 2017. Now at 66,100
• Under 60% median income after housing costs and material hardship. Dropped from 110,900 in 2015 to 86,200 in 2017. Now at 92,300

Now the years do not correlate exactly with Governments as they ask people about the previous year, and get surveyed over 12 months. But it is very clear that the trend up until 2017 was declining child poverty, not increasing. And many of the indicators today are worse off than in 2017.

Here’s the summary of the percentage changes from June 2015 to June 2017 and June 2017 to June 2019.

The only correct part of the PM’s statement is they flipped the indicators – but not in the direction she claims!

A new website at 2020nz.co.nz allows you to look at what the NZ electoral map looks like under different scenarios.

The Guardian reports:

China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are expected to be elected to the board of the UN human rights council on Tuesday, leaving human rights campaigners in the countries aghast and pleading with EU states to commit to withholding their support.

The Geneva-based monitoring NGO UN Watch described the situation as the equivalent of allowing five convicted arsonists to join the fire brigade.

This is why we should withdraw from funding the UN Human Rights Council. It has become a sick joke, beyond redemption.

UPDATE: Saudi Arabia didn’t get elected. Just leaves China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Libya, Venezuela, Eritrea, Philippines there upholding the highest standards of human rights!

As we know in 2016 the national polls in the US were only around 2% out, but some of the state polls had greater errors.

I thought it would be useful to look at the five states Trump is trailing in and see if the gap is within the margin of error. One can calculate the probability that one candidate is actually ahead of the other candidate and if it is under 95% then it is within a normal margin of error.

Ohio – Biden 49.6%, Trump 49.4%

A 53% chance Biden is ahead so not statistically significant.

North Carolina – Biden 50.8%, Trump 48.4%

A 78% chance Biden is ahead so not statistically significant.

Arizona – Biden 50.8%, Trump 47.9%

An 82% chance Biden is ahead so not statistically significant.

Florida – Biden 51.6%, Trump 47.7%

A 89% chance Biden is ahead so not statistically significant.

Pennsylvania – Biden 52.9%, Trump 46.4%

A 98% chance Biden is ahead so statistically significant.

So in four of the five stats Trump needs, his gap in the polls is within the normal margin of error for 1,000 person poll.

The challenge for Trump is Pennsylvania. The 6.5% lead there is beyond a normal polling error. It is also the tipping point state, so that will be the one to watch out for on US election night.

Despite my best efforts we’ve only spent online a fraction of the over $25,000 donated by 300 to 400 readers on the Promise Tracker ads. It has been extremely frustrating.

The first complication was my emergency appendectomy the Monday before last, just as I was hoping to start the campaign. Also this week I had a brief post-op infection.

But the bigger issue is Facebook makes it very hard to advertise! Certainly for a new customer. As it is a political ad, you need your identity verified by passport which took two attempts and 48 hours. Then you need to set up a special account registered just in NZ. Again took time. ThAnyway eventually got through all the bureaucracy and programmed in $15,000 of advertising. Except my credit card company declined the transaction as suspicious (I had transferred funds to cover it) so had to wait and redo the authorisation.

Anyway finally all go, but Facebook is barely spending $100 a day. It seems when you are a new customer, they won’t let you spend much. I guess they’re worried I’m a Russian bot or something.

As it became obvious Facebook wouldn’t spend the money in time, I set up an ad on Google to advertise to NZers. Again took quite some time to get approved as you need specific size ads, and again a credit card that gets approved.

But finally got Google Ads going and authorised to spend $8,000 a day. But so far it has spent zero. Don’t know why, and I haven’t got time or expertise to work it out in time. In hindsight, if I’d had the idea earlier, I would have hired a marketing company to do this.

Anyway where we are at is most of the $25,000 is unspent. We have two main options ahead.

Print advertising

For around $14,000 + GST I can run the Promise Tracker ad as a full page advertisement in the NZ Herald, Waikato Times, The Press and Dominion Post on Friday. Four full pages for $14,000 is pretty decent and a full page ad will grab’s people attention and hopefully have them look at some of the details.

Of course it is the day before the election, and over half of people have already voted. But personally I’m not too obsessed by that. To me this has always been more about making more people aware of how bad Labour’s failures has been, than thinking this will have a huge impact on the election. Also those who have already voted tend to be the committed voters. Undecided voters tend to wait until election day.

Print ads will probably also trigger some rage from those on the left. It is one thing to have your failures highlighted in small ads online. It is another thing to have them in your face as you read the morning newspaper.

Refund and/or War Chest

The other option is not to run the print advertising. If this is the case them after the election I’ll offer those who have donated two choices:

1 A full refund
2 Use the money donated for future ads

These will not be mutually exclusive. If we don’t do print ads, then someone people could opt for refunds and some for using the money in future.

The one thing that will not happen, is I keep the money and don’t spend it. This is not a money making exercise for me. To the contrary I have spent a score or so hours unpaid on trying to make these happen.

The idea for future ads is that if Labour is re-elected we update the advertisement every six or 12 months and run it as a regular feature. Basically to keep up the pressure on them and remind people (unless they improve) that they are basically incompetent at delivery.

Anyway I need to decide before 5 pm today about whether or not to do the print ads. If you donated money, feel free to comment below about what your preference is in terms of going ahead with the print ads or not.

UPDATE: Thanks for feedback. Clear overall support for doing the print adverts so have booked space in Herald, Waikato Times and The Press.

There will be a surplus, so after the election can decide what to do with that.

A guest post by Alwyn Poole:

Under Minister of Education Hipkins – the Ministry of Education’s mission statement – on all of their official correspondence states:

“We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent outcomes.”

Even though they never ask the sector to review their work we can judge them by that statement. The evidence below makes a nonsense of it – the absolute opposite is the case – and this bureaucracy, that costs the taxpayer $3 billion per annum, with 3,000 employees, and a CEO on $528,000 is New Zealand’s biggest swamp and should be massively defunded. They are not effective or accountable and the annual and funds should be redistributed to where they would actually be of use. The first three years of Hipkins in this role (along with his three other major portfolios/roles) is a disaster – especially for Labour’s long-term core constituents – the poor, Maori, Pasifika.

Statistics and information – on equitable and excellent.

In 2017 the Level 1 NCEA pass rate was 75%. In 2019 it was 70.6% and Radio NZ is already stating that reported NCEA credits are 20% down on the same stage last year.

Ethnicity

University Entrance, our highest and key school qualification has 2019 Year 13 pass rates of 59.3% for Asians, 55.1% for Europeans, 29.9% for Maori and 30.3% for Pasifika. Although this is incredibly poor it is also a misleading statistic in that it only includes those that have survived to Year 13 and a higher proportion of Maori and Pasifika leave earlier.

So – the school leaver 2019 statistic for UE are Asian 63.8%, European 43.8%, Pasifika 22.8%, Maori 18.6%.

Even looking at a qualitative measure such as the percentage of Level 1 Excellence endorsements; 32% of Asian students earn them, 21.3% of European students, 9.6% of Maori and 6.7% of Pasifika.

Socio-Economics

For University Entrance; students in Decile 8 – 10 schools – 65.4%, students in Decile 4 – 7 schools 46.6%, students in Decile 1 – 3 schools 29.8%.

For L1 Excellence endorsements by Decile band. Deciles 8 – 10 – 28.3%, Decile 4 – 7 – 16.4%, Decile 1 – 3 – 8.9%.

From 2017 to 2018 L2 NCEA results declined for every decile band but the Decile 1 – 3 families were rewarded for their Labour loyalty by the biggest decline.

Gender

In 2019 L1 NCEA results girls were ahead of boys by 8.4%. In L1 Excellence endorsements. 25.6% of girls earned these but only 13.7% of boys.

In 2019 girls outscored boys in UE attainment by 13.6%.

Learning Needs

It is estimated that 30 – 50% of NZ students at the tail end of poor literacy and numeracy are dyslexic. Very little has changed for them. Hipkins and Ardern promised Designated Character Schools to help and have failed to deliver. This government has spent $12 million on the Green School, $10 million on a re-build for a school with four students, $50 million to de-carbon heating systems, at least $50 million randomly thrown at laptops and modems in lockdowns, watched a $3 million gym in perfect condition in Christchurch be vandalized into oblivion. Each is a metonym for their complete pet project mentality while high needs students are ignored.

These are massive failures that should have Hipkins, and people like the Labour Maori candidate campaign manager Willie Jackson, simply hanging their heads.

Not only do the Ministry not preside over an “equitable and excellent system”. They feather their own pockets and have contractual clauses completely denied to schools – especially lower deciles ones.

– the Ministry is allowed to pay its bureaucrats 10% above scale for either attraction or retention.

– for officials “on call” they receive $360 per week extra.

– if officials are “called out” (and the task is often done from home) they are paid a minimum of 3 hours at 1.5 times their normal rate – even if the task takes 5 minutes.

– they define their work-day as 8am to 5pm. Any work beyond this is paid overtime.

Their agreement does say: “employees are rewarded fairly for their contribution towards the Ministry’s objectives”. Judging by the above statistics and information on the NZ system there are a lot of salary cuts coming.

If Labour are returned Hipkins should by no means have Education.

Defund the Ministry of Education – for the good of NZ’s children.

Damien Grant writes:

The deputy prime minister’s career is ending but it isn’t a failure. He hasn’t achieved anything but there isn’t any evidence that he wanted to achieve anything. His career has been about attention, adulation and, when required, elections.

Winston has issues he campaigns on, but never does anything about them when he gets into Government.

Yet after four decades, what legacy is he leaving behind?

The tragedy of Peters’ career is that it has been politics for politics’ sake. He retains some Muldoonist instincts but instincts are all it seems to be.

Peters can credibly claim to be indifferent between supporting the starkly different political agendas of Bill English and Jacinda Ardern or between Jim Bolger and Helen Clark because the NZ First leader has no driving political agenda of his own.

It is fitting then to reflect on Peters’ maiden speech. At the end he embarks on a curious attack on an unidentified class of critic: “…the critic I am talking about does not see the improvement of society or of the individual as the objective beyond the admonition; rather his criticism is a goal in itself… The critic I am speaking about has no such goals. He sets out to exploit every tremor and spasm in our society, the economy, or race relations, seeking to use every such event as a vehicle to project his own public personally.”

Winston Peters has become that critic. He has lingered so long on our national stage that he has become the very villain that he warned us about four long decades past.

It is time for the nation to enjoy his retirement.

There will be no legacy. At best a minor footnote in the history books.