Stuff reports:

Newly minted Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Minister Ron Mark threw the script out the window when he essentially promised the RSA government funding.

The NZ First deputy leader spoke to the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA) at the opening of its 101st National Council, following a speech by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

At the end of his speech, Mark said he was confident the Government would be able to provide funding to the RSA.

Mark said he reminded the Prime Minister in 2007, following a discussion between Winston Peters and RSA executives at the time in a Koru Lounge, the NZ First-Labour Government of the time agreed to appropriate funds to the RSA.

“I understand now from my briefings, that appropriation was terminated. I did remind the Prime Minister of that, and I’m pretty confident that there will be discussions a little bit later on, which you might like the outcome of.”

Mark made the comments following a literal stage whisper to the PM, during the RSA president’s speech, where Mark reminded Ardern of the former Labour-led Government’s promises that were never seen through.

So this is how Government now works. NZ First Ministers promise funding to organisations off the cuff during speeches, forcing Labour to them do it.

The announcement by Bill English is here.

I have to say I find it a bit underwhelming. Most former Ministers have kept their portfolios. Sure this means they can be up to speed straight away in opposition but there are missed opportunities.

I hope this is not seen as too long-term and that midway through 2018 there is a more substantive shake up.

I think law and order is going to be a huge area next year with Labour’s plan to repeal three strikes. I would have moved Simon Bridges into a law and order portfolio, considering his background as a former crown prosecutor.

A global survey in 77 countries was done on issues around same sex relationships. One question was on whether same sex relationships should be criminalised (as in NZ pre 1986). The net agreement by region was:

1. Central Asia +11%
2. Sub-Saharan Africa +9%
3. North Africa +8%
4. South Asia +3%
5. Middle East -7%
6. South-East Asia -11%
7. Caribbean -25%
8. East Asia -25%
9. Eastern Europe -30%
10. South America -39%
11. Western Europe -39%
12. Central America -40%
13. North America -44%
14. Oceania -48%

Rather proud Oceania is the area least likely to think adults should be made criminals for consensual sexual activity.

The NZ specific data in the survey was:

• Support equal rights for people attracted to same sex 59% agree, 15% disagree
• if neighbour is a lesbian, 77% accept or affirm, 8% try to change her
• if neighbour is gay, 78% accept of affirm, 7% try to change him
• 54% know a gay/lesbian person, 30% say they do not
• 15% think same sex relationships should be criminalised, 59% disagree
• 55% comfortable socialising with gay/lesbian people, 16% uncomfortable
• 38% know someone who is trans-gender

The Herald reports:

New Education Minister Chris Hipkins, in an interview with the Herald, says Primary schools will still have to report to parents on individual children’s progress against the eight levels of the curriculum, which most children cover during their 13 years at primary and secondary schools.

But National Standards, which set out levels of literacy and numeracy for Years 1 to 8, will be abolished and schools will be free to choose their own ways of assessing children’s progress.

So back to the days of school reports that don;’t actually tell you objectively how your kids are doing.

School Trustees Association Auckland chair Ebony-Rose Andrews said she unsure how she would know how well her two primary school-age daughters were doing without the standards.

“For me, National Standards have always been a good thing because we understand where our kids are tracking,” she said.

It is more important to Labour that schools are not judged by parents, rather than that parents know how their kids are doing.

Axing national standards may be unpopular with parents. A Herald poll when the standards were introduced in 2010 found that 73 per cent of parents with school-age children supported them.

Would be even more than that now.

Gwynn Compton has done this graph showing the turnout by age for 2014 and 2017. There was no big youthquake. Some increase with 25 to 29 year olds but also 70+ year olds.

The overall turnout was 79.0% which was a significant increase from 76.8% in 2014.  The lowest turnout group was 25 to 29 year olds at 67.6% and highest 65 to 69 year olds at 88.2%.

The turnout for those of Maori descent was 71.1% and 80.4% for everyone else.

But turnout stats only give part of the picture as not everyone enrols. We only have an estimate for the eligible population for each age group but this allows us to estimate the number of people who voted in each age group as a percentage of adults who could vote if they enrolled. The percentages are:

• All: 73.1%
• 18-24: 50.0%
• 25-29: 54.2%
• 30-34: 63.9%
• 45-39: 72.5%
• 40-44: 75.3%
• 45-49: 78.4%
• 50-54: 80.3%
• 55-59: 83.9%
• 60-64: 85.4%
• 65-69: 87.0%
• 70+: 85.2%

Politik reports:

What is thought to be a massive gas find — as big as the Maui field – off the east coast of the South Island is likely to test the pragmatism, of the new Government and the relationship between the Greens and Labour.

New Zealand Oil and Gas wants to start drilling in the Braque, field, 60 km off Oamaru, by April next year.

In an economic impact study released yesterday, the company claimed the field had the potential to generate $15 billion in GDP and $32 billion in royalties and taxes over its life and could  create up to 5,700 jobs annually during the construction phase.

The Greens will say that we must never drill anywhere for anything. NZ First will be keen to drill. So what will Labour do? Do you say no to that many jobs?

Stuff reports:

Abortion law reform advocates are keen on the new prime minister to act on her call to take abortion out of the Crimes Act as soon as possible.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern publicly stated that she didn’t believe abortion should be in the Crimes Act, as it is currently. But the issue doesn’t feature in Labour’s 100 day plan or official Health Policy.

Abortion is currently a crime if not approved of by two specifically certified medical consultants, who have to have to believe that carrying the child to term would endanger the physical or mental health of the mother, or the child is the result of incest, or the mother is “severely subnormal”, or the child is at risk of being “seriously handicapped”.

It will be interesting to see if she lives up to her rhetoric and moves on this.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said in a statement that any moves to legalise or decriminalise abortion would be met with “fierce opposition.”

“She wrongly believes that the killing of our unborn children should not be a crime and that this killing should be a core health service. The proposed legislation will encourage further exploitation, coercion and abandonment of women, disguised all in the name of choice.”

He also criticised Ardern for living with a man who was not her husband.

LOL. This is so funny. Back to the 1950s we go.

Daniel Latter writes:

The numbers reported by recent studies are pretty bleak:

– 82 percent of articles published in the humanities are not even cited once.

– Of those articles that are cited, only 20 percent have actually been read.

– Half of academic papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors.

So how much money goes on research that is never read, let alone cited!

So what’s the reason for this madness? Why does the world continue to be subjected to just under 2 million academic journal articles each year?

Well, the main reason is money and job-security. The goal of all professors is to get tenure, and right now, tenure continues to be awarded tenure based in part on how many peer-reviewed publications they have. Tenure committees treat these publications as evidence that the professor is able to conduct mature research.

This is global or US research. It would be interesting to analyse NZ produced research and see how much is and is not ever read or cited.

Stats NZ reports:

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent in the September 2017 quarter, down from 4.8 percent in the June 2017 quarter, Stats NZ said today. 

There’s a huge amount of good data in the HLFS. It includes:

• 56,000 more jobs in the quarter which is 4,300 net jobs created per week or 860 more jobs per working day or 108 net jobs created per working hour
• 104,000 more jobs than a year ago – 89,000 FT and 15,000 PT
• Unemployment down 0.3% from a year ago
• Labour force participation rate up from 70.1% to 71.1%
• Manufacturing jobs up 9,000 over the year
• Total hours worked up 4.5% (a key indicator for the economy)
• Our employment rate of 77.4% in 3rd highest in OECD.

So Labour, Greens and NZ First have been gifted this (as opposed to National in 2008 who were gifted a recession and the GFC). I can’t imagine their policies are going to lead to an economy where employers are creating 100,000 new net jobs a year.

Also on wages:

• Average FT earnings increase to $61,249 – up 2.5%
• Average hourly earnings increase to $30.51 – up 2.2%
• Average female earnings are 88% of male earnings, up from 87% a year ago

Newshub reports:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark’s top advisor, Heather Simpson, has returned to advise the new Labour Government.

Ms Simpson has a three-decade working relationship with Ms Clark, working as chief of staff to the Labour Party before spending eight years advising Ms Clark at the UN.

Ms Simpson was given the moniker ‘H2’ to signify her proximity to H1 – Ms Clark.

Her return is seen as a sign of Labour’s move to strengthen its management team behind the scenes.

She is assisting with the staffing of minister’s offices and ‘reviewing the review’ of the campaign.

All the senior former Clark staffers are returning, to work for Jacinda and Grant (who used to work for them). It’s like the band is getting back together.

NewstalkZB reports:

The three strikes law is itself to be struck out.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said it has had no impact on making the country any safer.

That’s absolutely not true. Justice stats show that fewer people who get a first strike are committing second strikes, compared to before the three strikes law.

Little plans to start the three strikes repeal by the middle of next year.

I predict huge opposition to this.  If NZ First vote to repeal this, they’ll suffer for it.

Stuff reports:

The Government will end foreign buying of existing houses by classifying them all as “sensitive” under the Overseas Investment Act, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

This “clean solution” would effectively ban foreign speculators without affecting the TPP or most free trade agreements, Ardern said.

Anyone who was not either a citizen or resident of New Zealand would not be allowed to purchase existing homes.

It’s not quite as simple as that, but if this allows Labour to do a u-turn and support TPP, I’m in favour. They also could have used stamp duty to achieve their goals. I don’t care too much what mechanism they use, if it means we don’t walk away from TPP. I suspect Jane Kelsey is furious though.

Foreigners would still be able to buy land and develop housing on it for on-sale. Australians would have a special carve-out to still be able to buy homes – as Kiwis do in Australia.

So it doesn’t affect some foreigners, and foreigners can still buy up land – they just can’t buy an existing house. A bit daft as land is what is in short supply.

So don’t think this will impact house prices. The best estimate is only 3% of sales were to foreign taxpayers.

National’s finance spokesman Steven Joyce said the amendment wasn’t actually a ban and raised many questions.

“The first and strangest thing about Labour’s announcement is that it isn’t an actual ban. Putting houses through a sensitive land purchase criteria is definitely bureaucratic but does not constitute a ban on such sales,” Joyce said.

The current criteria for sensitive land sales requires the buyer be a resident, citizen, or get a special ministerial signoff.

“There are also all sorts of definitional questions. Is an apartment on the fourth floor of a building ‘sensitive land’? Is a two hectare property with two houses on it that’s being sold for development able to be sold to an international investor?” Joyce said.

The devil is in the detail. As I said I don’t think it will achieve anything much, but if it allows Labour to do a u-turn on TPP that is well and good.

It seems very clear that the truth is not being told over the funding of Labour’s intern scheme. Newsroom has more details:

Newly released documents have shed light on a troubled intern scheme linked to the Labour Party, with the party’s secretary telling electoral officials the scheme’s organiser “had not been forthcoming” in disclosing how it was funded. …

In response to a letter from the Electoral Commission, Labour Party general secretary Andrew Kirton asked for a meeting to discuss the “unusual and complex situation”, accompanied by Kensington Swan lawyer Hayden Wilson.

When you turn up with a lawyer, you know there are real issues!

The Electoral Commission’s notes of the July 5 meeting record Kirton as saying McCarten’s vision “appears to have been to create an independent entity supported by unions etc”.

The scheme was run by Labour Party staff and used the Labour Party name and logo. It was about as independent as the media in Belarus.

Kirton estimated McCarten had spent $104,000 on the intern scheme, with the funding believed to come from “a private funder who he has not disclosed.”

“Andrew believes that Mr McCarten would not have funded any of the costs himself. Andre [sic] and Hayden indicated that Mr McCarten has not been forthcoming…

So the General Secretary of the Labour Party is saying he does not believe Matt McCarten when McCarten says he paid for it all himself. This is staggering, especially as McCarten is the former Chief of Staff to two leaders.

“Andrew and Hayden’s view is that the costs incurred were by Matt. They have stepped in to honour the bills, but at law they have no obligation because Matt was responsible [and] had unilaterally entered into these agreements and had no authority to incur costs on behalf of the party.”

Two Labour Party staffers were working on the scheme. Advertisements appeared overseas promoting it all with the Labour name and logo.

The Electoral Commission then wrote to McCarten on July 10, asking him to provide information on who provided the funding for the campaign and the extent of Labour’s involvement.

After he did not respond to a July 17 deadline, the commission wrote to him again on July 19 saying it was considering whether to refer the issue to the police “given the amount of money involved and the seriousness of [the] allegation”.

Only the Police have the power to investigate fully. They can access bank accounts and determine who actually paid for what.

He told the Electoral Commission the campaign had been set up by “a few mates of mine” after Labour decided not to run an official internship programme, and he had agreed to personally cover or raise the costs for the scheme.

A few mates? Who? The four people involved with it were two Labour Party staffers, a member of their National Council and McCarten. Were there others?

In a follow-up letter on August 1, McCarten said Farrar and media had made “a series of assumptions that then lead to inaccurate conclusions”, and the scale of the project was far smaller than had been suggested.

There were no assumptions. It was all based on the actual documents McCarten drew up saying what it would cost.

He had spent $65,094 on the scheme “paid directly out of my personal bank accounts”, including nearly $37,000 on accommodation and food as well as over $10,000 on rental cars and vans.

I’m sorry but I am as skeptical as Andrew Kirton on this. Who happens to have a spare $65,000 sitting in their bank account to fund such a scheme. I know how much parliamentary staff are paid, and this is highly implausible.

McCarten said he was not working for Labour when he set the campaign up, and believed the interns would not have seen themselves as being part of the party’s national campaign.

This is also wrong. He started work on this back in March when he was employed by the Leader’s Office. And the interns absolutely saw themselves as part of Labour’s campaign – they cited Labour on their fundraising pages.

However, McCarten did not meet an August 17 deadline to hand over the information, with a follow-up email from the Electoral Commission on October 3 – nearly two months later – asking him to provide a timeframe for a response.

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman confirmed McCarten had still not provided it with the final donation figures, but there were no “legal obligations” yet.

“The next step is for candidates to file their return of election expenses and donations, and these are due on 23 January. The reason the Commission asked Mr McCarten to come back to us was to make sure the final figures were communicated to us and the candidates for their returns.”

It is not just the figures needed, but who the contributors were. The Electoral Commission needs to satisfy itself that McCarten did indeed fund this all himself, and no-one else contributed.

Asked why he had said he secured a private funder for the scheme, McCarten replied:

“Because I just felt like it really, to be honest – it was really kind of tongue-in-cheek between myself and [the reporter]…I meant it more as a joke, but of course there’s no jokes in these matters.”

This is why this must be investigated by someone who can get to the bottom of it. McCarten has made contradictory statements on who funded this. It would be naive to not try to establish the facts.

Stuff reports:

While the biggest news of the day is the indictments Robert Mueller has handed down against former President Donald Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, he also released a plea bargain with a heretofore minor figure in the Russia scandal by the name of George Papadopoulos. And that could actually be the day’s biggest news.

That’s because while Manafort and Gates sure look like they’re going to jail, as of yet they aren’t cooperating with Mueller’s investigation. Papadopoulos is, which means that he likely has information that will lead Mueller closer to the heart of the case.

The Manafort indictment is no surprise. He has been dodgy for a long time and is a well known lobbyist for Russian interests. In fact one wag suggested he was in line to be Chief of Staff to Winston Peters considering Winston’s strange insistence that we pursue an FTA with Russia and Belarus.

Papadopoulos has agreed to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. Specifically, he falsely claimed that they had occurred before he joined the campaign in March 2016. He had communication with a professor who had contacts in the Russian government; this professor told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails”. The professor introduced him to a female Russian national who was supposedly Vladimir Putin’s niece (it turned out she wasn’t), and to someone who supposedly had connections in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Based on those conversations, Papadopoulos pressed the campaign to set up meetings with the Russians, a suggestion that never came to fruition.

So Russia was offering the e-mails. The question is whether anyone on the Trump campaign responded to them.

So what does this have to do with the larger case? I spoke this morning with Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan law school who is a former US Attorney and has worked extensively in criminal and national security cases. I asked: If Papadopoulos was just some low-level nobody tossing around ideas that were rejected by the campaign’s higher-ups, why would Mueller offer him a plea deal that is contingent on his cooperation? Doesn’t that suggest that he has information that can be used to build a case against someone more important than him?

“I think it’s a fair conclusion to think that he has information that is valuable in the prosecution of others,” McQuade says. “You would only offer that cooperation if you’ve sat down with him and learned that he has information that is of value.”

Going to get interesting. Sacking the FBI Director will turn out to be the stupidest thing Trump ever did, as this led to the Independent Counsel.

The Herald reports:

Political science lecturer and commentator Jon Johansson is the new chief of staff for New Zealand First.

Johansson is a key appointment following New Zealand First’s decision to sign a coalition agreement with Labour.

He replaces David Broome, who previously worked for Federated Farmers.

Winston Peters announced Johansson’s appointment as the party’s chief of staff at Parliament today.

 Johansson is a senior lecturer in comparative politics at the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science & International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington. His specialties include New Zealand and American politics, and political leadership.

It is rare for a political scientist/academic to take up a staff role in politics. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Newshub reports:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will head to Australia this weekend to meet with Malcolm Turnbull.

The Prime Minister said she will not be meeting with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

Asked whether she expected the dual citizenship controversy to be raised, and whether she would apologise on behalf of Labour’s Chris Hipkins, she said: “We were not responsible for that and therefore there is nothing to apologise for.”

Ms Bishop previously threatened that she would find it “very difficult to build trust with Labour” if the party formed a Government, after Mr Hipkins asked questions in the New Zealand Parliament about dual citizenship. 

She’s not responsible for what Chris Hipkins did?

One of the big trans-tasman issues is Australia’s decision to triple tertiary fees for NZers studying there. Normally the key Minister to negotiate with Australia on this issue would be our Tertiary Education Minister, Chris Hipkins.

But Hipkins is toxic to the Australian Government, so somehow NZ will have to negotiate this issue without having our Minister involved in the negotiations.

Stuff reports:

Former National Party MP Todd Barclay will not be prosecuted by police after he once again refused to speak to them.

Police reopened an investigation into allegations Barclay, the former MP for Clutha-Southland, illegally recorded a staff-member after it emerged in June that former prime minister Bill English had been a key witness in the case.

Barclay was accused of secretly recording the conversations of his staffer Glenys Dickson. It is illegal to record a conversation you are not a part of in New Zealand.

Police have now closed the case as they have insufficient evidence. No warrants were executed and Barclay again refused to be interviewed. 

This is no surprise at all.

Stuff reports:

Companies will get a slice of their research and development spending back under the new Government. 

Science, Research and Innovation Minister Megan Woods confirmed the Labour, NZ First and Green Government would be reintroducing research and development tax credits. …

One week before the election, the former Science and Innovation Minister Paul Goldsmith said tax credits were not in National’s plans because they were difficult to budget for.

“The problem with tax rebates is that it does complicate the whole tax system and it is very difficult to find out exactly what it is costing you.”

Goldsmith said accountants could easily write-off business spending as R&D when it was not, meaning companies would get away with paying less tax.

“Accountants are usually pretty innovative themselves … What you see is a reduction in the company tax over time and that grows and grows.”

The Government says it wants less corporate tax avoidance but this policy will see far more companies avoid tax. As Paul Goldsmith said, a lot of expenditure can be classified as research and development once you learn you effectively get given money by the Government if you do so.

I missed this announcement on 18 October:

On 18 October 2017, the Electoral Commission referred Television New Zealand to Police in response to complaints about the rebroadcasting of the Te Karere programme on Election Day.  In the Electoral Commission’s view, the programme contained statements likely to influence any elector as to the party or candidate for whom the elector should or should not vote and rebroadcasting the programme on 23 September 2017 before 7pm breached section 197(1)(g)(i) of the Electoral Act 1993.

This is potentially quite serious.

Radio NZ reports:

Ms Ardern also said the government would try to find a solution on foreign home buyers before she left for the APEC meetings next week.

She said if the government was able to find the right mechanism, it could legislate against purchases of existing properties by non-residents before the TPP trade deal is ratified.

Ms Ardern told Morning Report that would remove one of the government’s main stumbling blocks to signing the TPP, and that would then allow the government to focus on dispute settlement provisions in the trade deal.

The TPP allows countries to impose stamp duty on foreign buyers of property. A 100% stamp duty on foreign purchases would be an effective ban. So Labour already have a mechanism to achieve their policy goal.

Radio NZ reports:

New Zealand First campaigned in 2014 on holding a referendum to repeal the law, saying it was passed in 2007 despite overwhelming public opposition.

Ms Martin told Checkpoint with John Campbell that the law had had a chilling effect on parents, including herself.

She said she used to smack her children sometimes if they simply refused to listen.

“A smack on the hand, a smack on the leg, I absolutely did yes.

“Normally it was when one of my children would decide they weren’t going to listen to me, they weren’t going to follow my instructions, and so it was a stand-off between myself and a child and I’d got to the stage where I’d explained myself for a number of minutes and now we were in a situation where I was saying ‘you need to do as you are told’.

“And if the answer was still ‘no’ then it was a smack on your leg and go to your room and then we’ll talk about it later once you figure out that I’m the parent and you are the child.”

The Minister for Children presumably speaks on behalf of the Government on children issues, so this is going to cause some huge tensions with Labour and Greens.