Newshub reports:

Jones, the self-proclaimed champion of the regions and boy from the north, has put in a bid with his party to run in Northland, the seat his boss Winston Peters – leader of New Zealand First – seized from National in 2015 but lost to them again in 2017.

This has been long expected. So how has Jones gone in the past up North?

• 2005 – stood in Northland for Labour. Got 24% of the vote compared to 30% for Labour. Lost by 9,275
• 2008 – stood in Northland for Labour. Got 29% of the vote compared to 25% for Labour. Lost by 10,054
• 2011 – stood in Tamaki Makarau for Labour. Got 35% of the vote compared to 42% for Labour. Lost by 936
• 2017 – stood in Whangarei for NZ First. Got 19% of the vote compared to 14% for NZ First. Lost by 11,083

An impressive sequence of losses.

Stuff reports:

Independent MP Jami-Lee Ross has denied acting inappropriately with his staff and is alleging a “trial by media,” following a report published by Newsroom about his electorate office staff.

Ross told Stuff that his office involves “high pressure and stress at times”.

I’m sure it does!

Newsroom reported on Wednesday morning that Parliamentary Services was conducting an inquiry into misconduct allegations in Ross’ electorate office. The Newsroom report claimed the complaint involved bullying and had seen three of four staff in his Botany office placed on leave.

It is not unusual for an MP to fall out with an individual staffer. I can’t recall ever hearing of a situation where three out of four staff all had complaints/ that neccisitated them going on leave.

Ross went on to allege that his political adversaries – particularly his former colleagues in the National Party – had a hand in the story emerging in the press.

These are not staff from his time as a National MP. Those ones are all long gone. These are all new staff which he personally hired (or approved).

The NZ Initiative reports:

As part of The New Zealand Initiative’s transport research series, our second report, Pricing Out Congestion, focuses on the international experiences around congestion pricing, i.e. the use of road charges encouraging motorists to avoid traveling at peak times in busy routes. 

More than just a driving nuisance, congestion constitutes a serious global economic problem. By some estimates, congestion costs the world about a trillion dollars every year. In response, cities around the globe are turning to scientific research and empirical support around the use of congestion charges to manage road overuse. 

From the first congestion charging implementation in Singapore in 1975 to London, Stockholm, and Dubai in the 2000s to the expected 2021 New York City launch, a myriad of road pricing schemes are successfully harnessing the power of the markets to fix road overcrowding – and providing valuable lessons along the way. 

In short, congestion charging works. 

I think congestion charging is a no brainer, and am mystified we won’t use it in NZ.

It should appeal to those on the right and left. It is a form of user pays and a market force which appeals to the right. It is good for encouraging greater use of public transport that the left should applaud.

It’s time to make it happen.

Lindsay Mitchell blogs:

Minister Stuart Nash does a weekly session with National MP, Mark Mitchell, on the Mike Hosking NewstalkZB show.
This morning, before Hosking had even asked an opening question Nash waded in:
NASH: “Hey Mike I haven’t heard you comment on the December figures last year when 19,000  handed in their benefit and got back to work. Was that in one of your commentaries?”HOSKING: “It was actually Stuart. You shouldn’t come on this programme and say ‘I haven’t heard you’ because all that indicates is you’re tuned into the wrong radio station. You need to be where the number one radio show is and the audience is Stuart especially now that it’s election year and you need some votes.NASH: “Well when you think there are 19,000 more people in work than were on the benefit in the last quarter that’s pretty good news . That shows a great economy and good economic management I would say. Wouldn’t you Mike?”

Nash claimed there were 19,000 more people in work than on the benefit last quarter. That is absolutely false.

Yes 19,000 went from a benefit to work, but even more went from work onto a benefit. There is always a churn between welfare and work and what counts is the net numbers.

So what are the net numbers:

• there were 55,341 main benefit grants in the Dec 2019 quarter – the highest number since Dec 2015
•  in December 2017 – just after Labour took over – 9.8% of the working age population was on a benefit. By December 2019 it had grown to 10.5%. 
• In respect of the Jobseeker benefit the number grew from 4.2% to 4.9%

News.com.au reports:

The National Party has decided to stick with its leader Michael McCormack, with members rejecting a leadership bid from Barnaby Joyce.

Just after 9.30am, Mr McCormack emerged from the meeting of the 21-member party and said it was a privilege to continue to serve as the leader.

A good result for The Nationals.

Joyce will always be remembered for getting a press secretary pregnant and abandoning his family for her, while of course campaigning as a moral conservative against abortion, same sex marriage etc.

Radio NZ reports:

The mysterious foundation bankrolling the New Zealand First Party has been receiving donations from entities connected with some of the country’s wealthiest business people in amounts just under the threshold at which the donors’ names would normally be made public.

Last year companies owned by New Zealand’s richest man donated nearly $30,000 to the Foundation in two amounts that each fell $5.01 short of the $15,000.01 level at which political donations are publicly disclosed.

Church Bay Farm, which is 100 percent owned by Graeme Hart, donated $14,995 to the New Zealand First Foundation on 29 March, 2019, according to documents seen by RNZ.

On the same day Walter & Wild, which owns the Hubbards, Hansells and Gregg’s food brands, also donated $14,995 to the Foundation. Walter and Wild is two-thirds owned by Graeme Hart with the remaining third owned by his son Harry Hart.

Graeme Hart, a businessman and philanthropist, who recently funded a $10 million initiative to provide low cost dental care in South Auckland, has a wealth estimated at $10 billion by Forbes magazine.

The irony is that Winston used to pretend he was battling for the little guy against big business!

There is no real doubt electoral donation laws have been broken. Under both alternatives, the laws have been broken.

The Foundation is part of NZ First

If the Foundation is deemed to be part of NZ First (which would be the ethically correct thing to do – National treats its Foundation as part of the party and reports donations to it, as donations to the party) then the NZ First donation returns have not disclosed the 29 donations of between $5,000 and $15,000 made to the Foundation (s210(6A)(d)).

The Foundation is independent from NZ First

If the Foundation is independent of NZ First, then the Foundation itself should have been named as a donor in 2017 and other years. It has paid expenses on behalf of NZ First, which means that should be recorded as a donation in kind (s207(2)).

So either way the law has not been complied with.

The other legal issue is around splitting a donation between associated companies to stay under the $15,000 disclosure limit. S207LA states:

A person is guilty of a corrupt practice who directs or procures, or is actively involved in directing or procuring, 2 or more bodies corporate to split between the bodies corporate a party donation in order to conceal the total amount of the donation and avoid the donation’s inclusion by the party secretary in the return of party donations under section 210(1)(a).

This only applies if the donation is regarded as a party donation. But a number of donors have said their belief is they were donating to the party, so the interesting question would be who told them to split the donation up between associated companies? Was it their idea, or did someone from NZ First suggest it?

Frankly I can’t see any way the Electoral Commission can’t conclude there has been a breach of the donation laws. The only issue is which specific laws. I’ll be amazed if there is no referral to the Police or SFO.

The incompetence of the Democratic Party in Iowa has been on display. It is almost beyond belief that the day after the caucuses met, there isn’t a single official result. Not one.

The reason Iowa is significant is because of the bump you get from being declared the winner on the night, and get all the positive newspaper front pages the next day. The actual delegate contribution is only 1%, so it is the bump that matters.

But no-one knows who won and the eventual result will be treated with suspicion. Also it is likely to now come out around either the time of the State of the Union or the impeachment vote so will be drowned out.

Huge own goal by the Democrats and the happiest person tonight is Donald Trump who will campaign on how can you trust them to run the country when they can’t even run a caucus.

The BBC reports:

Chat about football or cricket in the workplace should be curtailed, a management body has warned.

Chartered Management Institute head Ann Francke said sports banter can exclude women and lead to laddish behaviour such as chat about sexual conquests.

“A lot of women, in particular, feel left out,” she told the BBC’s Today programme.

“They don’t follow those sports and they don’t like either being forced to talk about them or not being included.”

“I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans – that’s great,” she said.

“But the issue is many people aren’t cricket fans,” she added, arguing bosses should crack down on sports banter.

Ms Francke is concerned that discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.

What a load of sexist drivel. She assumes women are not interested in sport and then claims because of this, it creates a hostile workplace if you chat about the weekend sports results in the office.

A reader writes in on an interview the PM did:

I have listened again to the interview Hosking did with Ardern, I concluded this

She is framing this that the land now has heritage status and so Fletchers are stuck and it is her job to help them out.

This needs to be challenged on a number of fronts

First she is ill informed. I do not believe the Council can slap this on a title and prevent already consented development or designation

Or she is lying and spinning this

Or the Council can do this and if that is the case every private land owner in NZ needs to know they have no security over their consented property use.

Her wording is a bit unclear but the two parts of the interview that are relevant are these.

“Fletchers currently the private land owner. This land has now been declared heritage land. What do we do for them? Now what do we do in that scenario? And that is the situation we are in, including the issues that have been raised by mana whenua”

So she is making out the mana whenua issue is a side issue and it is all about the heritage status.

Later on in interview

“ But there is a heritage overlay on this now, so Fletchers are stuck, what do you do?”

“Auckland Council place that heritage status on the unitary plan then that means a difference to whether the land can be developed”

Not sure what she is saying here, it sounds like she is saying that if they place the heritage status on the unitary plan it can’t be developed but they have not done so yet. Her wording is unclear but she previously implied strongly that the land can not be developed because of the heritage status but possibly saying now it is only if Council puts it on.

I don’t think she has a clue David and she speaks in a way that is unclear. She says Fletchers are stuck which clearly indicates that in her view they can not develop this land, but I believe she is mistaken or lying. If she shells out taxpayer money based on her incorrect view that is a problem.

Media should be following this up. Has the Auckland Council secretly changed the status of the land to heritage land? Can they do so legally? Or is the PM just making things up?

The Daily Mail reports:

Embattled Commonwealth chief Baroness Scotland’s hopes of keeping her job suffered a blow yesterday after a snub by a member country.

New Zealand has pulled the plug on its annual £2.5million funding for the Commonwealth Secretariat because of ‘significant weaknesses in its approach to managing procurement’, a spokesman for its foreign ministry said last night.

The rebuff emerged after £160,000-a-year Commonwealth Secretary General Baroness Scotland was strongly criticised by internal auditors for granting a lucrative consultancy contract to a firm run by a Labour Party friend.

The organisation’s audit committee accused her of ‘circumventing’ usual competitive tendering rules by awarding a £250,000 commission to KYA Global. 

The firm is owned by fellow Labour peer Lord Patel of Bradford, who served alongside Baroness Scotland as a minister in Gordon Brown’s government.

Lord Patel’s company was contracted to carry out a review of the secretariat. But the audit committee said the firm was ‘apparently insolvent’ at the time with debts of nearly £50,000.

New Zealand, one of the secretariat’s biggest contributors, made the decision to block funding last month. 

I’m surprised this hasn’t had more publicity in NZ.

Anyway good to see the NZ Government pulling the plug due to wasteful spending.

Hopefully funding will be restored once there is a new Secretary General.

Consumer released:

The Consumer NZ Board is delighted to announce the appointment of Jon Duffy, Assistant Privacy Commissioner, as the new Chief Executive of Consumer NZ.

Jon has had a long association with Consumer NZ, most recently as its chair. Today he said: “I am relishing the chance to lead Consumer NZ and represent consumers as we continue to fight for better information and protection, and a fair deal for all New Zealanders. I see the big consumer issues of our time as sustainability, privacy and inequity.”

Deputy Chair Kate Tokeley said the Board had been through a robust recruitment process, using independent consultants to guide its thinking. “We were extremely fortunate to have an outstanding field of candidates against whom Jon stood out as having the skills, experience, expertise and passion for consumer issues that most closely matched our requirements.

I’m a member of Consumer and use their website often when deciding on purchases. A great organisation.

Jon Duffy has a great background, and I am sure will be a very good CEO.

I’m interested in the fact that he is the current Chair, and became CEO. That means the Board had to have a process to deal with the conflict of interest and have a fair process.

It is possible to do so. I’ve three times been on a board where the Chair has applied for the CEO job. Twice were unsuccessful applications, and once was successful. They are very challenging situations, but you can manage it with integrity.

One challenge is what if the Chair is unsuccessful? Then the new CEO is reporting to them as Board Chair, which could be difficult.

And if they are successful, do other candidates feel they had a fair chance?

I think in the case of Jon Duffy, his suitability is very obvious, that he obviously got the job on merit. But it must have been challenging for the board in working through the issues.

I blogged on the dodgy graph the PM was using to try and fool people into thinking Labour was spending way more on infrastructure than National. It included stuff such as contributions to the Super Fund to purchase foreign shares, which is not what most people would regard as infrastructure,

The 2017 Budget had a proper graph on infrastructure spending. Here it is.

So National in 2017 passed a Budget that was forecasting (which means Ministers have agreed to it) over $40 billion of infrastructure spending.

So when Labour claims their $12 billion package (over many years) is the biggest ever, well again so much for the claim they will run a truthful campaign.

The Herald reports:

As the anniversary of the March 15 terror attacks in Christchurch approaches, there has been a call to change the way we sing the national anthem, God Defend New Zealand. And the Prime Minister has acknowledged that many people may back that call.

Hobsonville woman Fiona Downes wrote to Jacinda Ardern last year saying the anthem has outdated language.

“I feel the language in the first English verse is arcane,” she wrote, “and that words like ‘triple star’, ‘shafts of war’ and ‘entreat’ are meaningless to many migrants with limited English, as well as most NZers under the age of 30.”

Yes we should base our National Anthem on how those with limited English perceive it.

Ardern agreed. She told Downes the “language is certainly a product of its time”, and advised that change “could evolve if enough people supported it”.

Translation: Once we get rid of Winston.

Downes also said she believed more people would be able to relate to “the simple and direct words of the second verse”.

The second verse has a strongly inclusive theme. It reads:

Men of every creed and race,
Gather here before Thy face,
Asking Thee to bless this place,
God defend our free land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our state,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

The sixth line is very pertinent with the Provincial Growth Fund!

Newsroom reports:

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Spark NZ and Vodafone have signalled their approval of new legislation that the Government will introduce in March in order to modernise New Zealand’s censorship regime. Newsroom exclusively reported on Thursday that new measures will ban livestreaming of objectionable content; permit Government agencies to issue takedown orders and fine non-compliant websites; and create a regulatory framework for internet filtering.

That latter proposal has non-profit civil society group InternetNZ concerned, with chief executive Jordan Carter telling Newsroom, “filtering is not an effective technical solution, so it cannot solve the problem of violent extremism online”.

Filters are a terrible idea. They always start small and expand. In the first year it will only filter terrorism content. Then in year two they’ll add in hate speech. Then in year 3 they’ll add in anti-social behaviour etc etc.

Steve Elers writes in Stuff:

Parts of last year’s speech at Waitangi by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern sounded like we were in 1840, not 2019, especially when she said: “We will keep building the foundations to bring our two houses together and that ultimately will be the foundation for which Te Arawhiti will be formed. The bridge between our two houses.”

I suppose, based on my whakapapa, physical appearance and self-identity, that puts me in the Māori house. But what about Māori who have more Pākehā ancestry than Māori whakapapa?

Someone with a dark complexion like myself was my fourth-great-grandfather Wiremu Tamihana (1805-1866), chief of Ngāti Hauā of the Tainui confederation. Yes, I know everyone has 64 fourth-great-grandparents, but let’s not ruin a good story and let’s not downplay my chiefly heritage.

Tamihana was known as the “kingmaker” because of his role in establishing the Māori King movement. The photograph accompanying was taken by Elizabeth Pulman (1836-1900), who was New Zealand’s first female professional photographer.

My daughters, Anahera and Māia, are direct descendants of both Wiremu Tamihana, through my mother’s whakapapa, and Pulman, through my wife’s father’s ancestry. As far as I know, my daughters are the only descendants of both.

When they’re older, Anahera and Māia can look at that image knowing they are descendants of the Māori chief in it and the English-born photographer who took it. However, I hope they will recognise the multifaceted aspects of their whakapapa and understand they are first and foremost themselves – individuals who have the freedom to determine their own paths in life without being constrained by historical events that occurred before they were born.

A good aspiration.

So, this Waitangi Day, instead of our prime minister giving a speech about “building the foundations to bring our two houses together” like she did last year, perhaps she can tell us how she is going to build actual houses, like the 100,000 she promised in the last election campaign. That’s more useful to Māori and Pākehā than meaningless rhetoric about bringing “our two houses together”.

They’re making progress. After two years they’re at 0.31% of their election promise.

The Iowa caucuses will be starting in the next 24 hours and the results of the caucuses will probably have a significant impact on the contest to win the Democratic nomination. There tend to be three impacts from the Iowa results:

1. If you win, you get a big bump in the polls in the next states, and nationally
2. If you don’t win, but do better than expected you get a bump and momentum
3. If you do significantly worse than expected, your support may dry up and you may pull out.

The most accurate poll in Iowa is done by Ann Selzer and has correctly predicted the Democratic winner in Iowa since 1988. But due to a staffer expanding the font size and leaving out the name of a candidate, they have not released the poll. This means there is no clarity about how the candidates are placed, and expected to do.

The Five Thirty Eight average has Sanders at 28%, Biden 27%, Buttigieg 18%, Warren 15% and Klobuchar at 8%.

They say the chance of each candidate winning Iowa is Sanders 40%, Biden 35%, Buttigieg 14%, Warren 9% and Klobuchar 2%.

Iowa is not representative of the country or the overall Democratic voting base. It is 91% white. And the Democrats tend to be very liberal and the Republicans very conservative. But despite that winning here does help you later as you get momentum.

Many senior Democrats will be hoping Sanders doesn’t win. Why? Look at this Gallup poll of which demographics people say they wouldn’t vote for.

Only 4% say they wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, 5% a Catholic candidate, 5% a Hispanic candidate and 6% a woman candidate. So what are the traits which are most off putting to overall voters?

53% say they wouldn’t vote for a socialist, 40% wouldn’t vote for an atheist and 37% wouldn’t vote for someone over the age of 70.

So having your candidate be a 79 year old atheist socialist would seem to be a really good way to get Trump re-elected. It is hard to think of a more toxic combination.

Stuff reports:

There is a telling line from Mike Moore in the RNZ series The 9th Floor. When talking about getting credit for the transformation of New Zealand during the fourth Labour government, he says, “I go to Aussie to feel comfortable. Well, I used to, I’ve got some good mates there”

This, he said, is because the “Australians are different. Whitlam was honoured, Hawkie was honoured because they did what they could for their country”  

Moore was a gregarious leader with a salty sense of humour, who enjoyed a beer and was never short a word. In a way, this made him a better cultural fit into Australian politics than he was here at home.

At different times, he was close to Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, a similarly working-class self educated Australian Labor Treasurer and Prime Minister. Both men opened up the Australian economy from 1983 onwards.

Moore was the last working class leader of the Labour Party. He may be the last one ever, considering more working class voters support National than Labour now.

He was an excellent trade minister in the 4th Labour Government. His support of freeing up trade was done with conviction, not grudging acceptance. A former labourer and unionist, he knew that trade is good for jobs.

It would have been interesting if he had become leader after David Lange, instead of Geoffrey Palmer. I think Labour would have still lost in 1990, but less badly. Making him leader and PM 59 days before the election was too late.

The last poll under Palmer had National at 63% and Labour 28%. They were facing total annihilation. The election result was National 48% and Labour 35% so he saved them.

After the 1990 election, the assumption was Labour had been so decimated they would have no chance of winning in 1993 or 1996. Moore almost pulled off the impossible and reduce National’s majority to 1 seat. This required a Labour MP to become Speaker so National could govern.

For his efforts in both 1990 and 1993, he was axed and replaced by Helen Clark. There were rumours they would have rolled him, even if he had won in 1993. He understandably remained bitter about his treatment by Labour for decades. In fact National treated him far better by supporting him to become WTO Director-General and later Ambassador to the US.

I recall CTU head Ken Douglas telling a Young Nats conference in the early 1990s that Mike Moore had a brilliant idea almost every day. The challenge was that he would have 100 ideas a day, and working out the one brilliant one from the 99 nutty ones was the challenge.

That seemed to sum him up well. A man of immense ideas and energy.

The US Senate has voted not to hear from any witnesses, despite John Bolton having first hand knowledge of what the President said and ordered.

This is best summed up by this satire.

So there is no doubt Trump will be “acquitted”. This has significance into the future. I think that the actions of the Republican majority have meant that impeachment is now dead as a remedy for any future President. Nixon resigned from office because there were Republicans willing to remove him from office for his abuses of office. But it impossible to imagine any future President ever having two thirds of the Senate remove them from office, no matter what they do.

I think the partisan divide will have further ramifications also. The next time the same party holds the Presidency, House and Senate I predict the Senate will quickly remove the requirement to get 60 votes to pass legislation. The minority will lose their power, and it will become winner takes all. That will please the party in power, but not be so nice when you’re the party in opposition.

I also suspect we will see other conventions die. Again if one party holds Congress and the Presidency, expect a law change to allow them to appoint more members of the Supreme Court, so they gain a majority.

Stuff reports:

National leader Simon Bridges has ruled out working with NZ First after this year’s election, telling voters he can’t trust the party.

Bridges’ move, announced at a caucus retreat in Havelock North, sets the stage for a no-holds barred election campaign between the three parties that make up the Government and National.

It echoes a move made by then-oppositon leader John Key ahead of the 2008 election, when he too ruled out working with NZ First.

Bridges said Kiwi voters deserved to have a clear choice between National and the coalition – and that a vote for NZ First was a vote for Labour and the Greens.

“Our decisions will be about what’s best for New Zealanders, not what’s best for NZ First,” Bridges said.

“I don’t believe we can work with NZ Fist and have a constructive trusting relationship.”

Bridges pointed to decision of NZ First leader Winston Peters to sue several National Party ministers during coalition negotiations as a factor in the bad blood between the parties.

National would have been idiots to think that Winston would go with them in 2020, after his decision and behaviour in 2017. He lodged a secret lawsuit against senior National MPs the day before the election, and then pretended to negotiate with them. What he did with his lawsuit was such an act of bad faith, that you could never have a working relationship with him.

So in reality Winston has ruled himself out, rather than National.

If National had left the door open to Winston, it would only have benefited Winston, Labour and the Greens.

I guarantee you Winston will try and claim that he isn’t really ruled out, and National will still negotiate with him if he holds the balance of power. But this is not true. If Winston holds the so called balance of power, there will be a Labour–Green-NZ First Government again. A vote for Winston will be a vote to continue with Labour and the Greens.

Bravo to Simon Bridges and the National caucus for making the right decision. Normally you don’t rule parties out, because MMP is about coalitions and you don’t want to reduce your options. But they have correctly concluded that Winston would never ever go with them in 2020, so why allow him to deceive the public and pretend he might?

The public now have a clear choice.

Former Prime Minister Mike Moore has died aged 71.

Condolences to his family and friends.