Stuff reports:

The biggest block to a Labour-NZ First coalition could be removed, with Winston Peters hinting at a backdown on a Māori seat referendum.

In an interview with Australia’s Sky News on Wednesday, NZ First’s Winston Peters said the Māori Party had been “smashed” in the election.

Asked by Sky News whether Labour’s non-negotiable stance on a referendum could affect his promise, Peters said he initially wanted the people to decide. 

“It was written up as Peters’ opposed – he’s going to abolish the Māori seats – that’s not true. I said let’s have a referendum and let the people decide, and apparently some people don’t like democracy,” he said.

“The Māori Party itself are a race-based, origin of race party who got smashed in this election and it’s gone. 

“So some of the elements on which the promise was made have just changed, that’s all I can say.”

Hobson’s Choice endorsed Winston due to his non negotiable stance of a Maori seats referendum. Didn’t even survive a week after the election!

Here’s what he said in July:

“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”

Opponents of a deal between National and Greens say that the Greens membership would never countenance such a deal.

I say why not put that assumption to the test.

Imagine what would happen if the Greens sat down with both NZ First and National and negotiated the best deal they could get.

Then they could take both deals out to their wider membership and ask them to vote on which deal they prefer. They don’t even have to recommend one over the other – just let the members decide.

So what would happen? Well for a start NZ First would have to actually agree to give the Greens some substantive concessions to match National. At the moment they see the Greens as irrelevant and powerless as they have pledged to support Labour no matter how bad the deal. So NZ First won’t even meet or negotiate with the Greens.

If the Greens announced they will also negotiate with National (ie do the same as NZ First), and let their members decide it would absolutely change the dynamic of the negotiations. And there would be no backlash from members as they would get to decide.

The worst case scenario is they get a much enhanced deal with NZ First.

But as unlikely as it is that the members would prefer a deal with National, if the policy and ministerial concessions were so superior to what was on offer from NZ First – well they might.

James Shaw and a few others are trying to claim that 2017 was a vote for change as opposition parties got more votes than government parties.

This shows an ignorance of MMP, and regardless any new coalition is a change anyway.

Take the 2005 elections. From 2002 to 2005 the Government was Labour and Progressive and United Future supported by Greens. In 2005 those four parties got 60 seats and the opposition parties of National, NZ First, ACT and Maori got 61 seats.

Clark of course did a deal with Winston Peters despite the fact he had been campaigning against her Government for the previous three years.

So those who claim 2017 was a vote for change should argue that 2005 was also a vote for change and that the right outcome was for a National, NZ First, ACT and Maori Party Government as they were the four opposition parties that “won” the election.

Whale Oil has a copy of the paper that Auckland Council is considering with regards to establishing a Maori ward.

This is not a decision the Council should take by itself. It should put the matter to a vote with the next local body elections.

If they wanted to win the vote, what they should propose is that the Independent Maori Statutory Board is replaced with a Maori ward. The latter is at least democratic. The former is not.

UPDATE: The Council has voted not to consult the public on the matter as they are worried the public would make the “wrong” decision. They voted in favour of establishing a Maori Ward, but only if the Government changes the law so they don’t lose one existing seat. Typical – more worried about keeping their own seats.

I can’t see any chance of National changing the law to increase the size of the Auckland Council.

I’ve had a look through the Greens policies. Here’s what I reckon they could get National to agree to in exchange for merely abstaining on supply and confidence.

1. $1 billion over ten years for cycleways
2. A levy on nitrate pollution
3. A South Taranaki Whale Sanctuary
4. A levy on plastic bags
5. Accelerated timetable for rail to Auckland Airport
6. Doubling the funding for DOC
7. $65 million a year more for predator-free NZ
8. Stricter water quality standards to increase the number of water bodies rated excellent from 42% to 70%.
9. A commitment to double the reduction of children in poverty from 50,000 to 100,000
10. Double the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from 11% to 22%

A smart Green Party could probably get all that out of National in return for a simple abstain on supply and confidence. It would be more than they have achieved in the last 18 years. But of course they’d rather deal with NZ First than National despite the fact they have no negotiating leverage with them.

NBR reports:

Stuff reports:

Wayne Doyle is considered by many to be a pillar of his community – a former bad boy who’s trying to turn lives around through his boxing gym.

To police, Doyle is the boss of a feared organisation that is making millions from drug dealing and other crime.

That dichotomy will be at the heart of a civil case in the High Court at Auckland, where Doyle – president of the Head Hunters east chapter – will essentially have to prove that $6m or so of cash and assets restrained by police under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was lawfully obtained. …

Police brought the action after a two-year joint operation involving the Serious Fraud Office, Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development – the latter because Doyle is a beneficiary.

Taxpayers are paying a benefit to a man who has six million dollars of assets. Disgusting.

Winston did a 20+ minute press conference which had one item of substance (he is waiting for special votes) and 20 minutes of attacking the media.

Get ready for three years of this!

I blogged yesterday on how Fairfax had a story on Lynlie Beazley.  It trumpeted her as the “face of poverty” in New Zealand. It ran a story entirely sympathetic to her claiming she had to survive on just $22 a week for food, and portraying this as all the fault of the Government.

My original blog was critical of Fairfax for not providing any information on her claimed income and expenses so it could be scrutinised. But this is the least of their failings.

It then transpires that Beazley had 32 convictions including aggravated robbery. This changes entirely the picture the original article was portraying which was 100% sympathetic to her.

But it gets even worse than that for Fairfax. They failed to spend even 60 seconds searching her name with the Tenancy Tribunal. If they had they would have found:

• 3 Oct 2016 – tenancy terminated for non-payment of rent
• 22 Feb 2017 – tenancy terminated for non-payment of rent and cleaning costs of over $1,000

Now both tenancies were with Vision West Community Trust. It exists to end homelessness, and so would only be evicting someone if no other resort.

Now note how generous the Government is. Despite her trashing her house with Vision West Community Trust, she was put into a Housing NZ home. She gets a huge subsidy from the taxpayer so her rent is only 25% of her benefit or $59 a week. Yes only $59 a week yet she claims this is so high she can’t afford more than $22 a week on food.

Decisions have consequences. If you trash your home, you get evicted, If you commit aggravated robbery you find it hard to get a job.  Despite all this we’re providing a house for her to live in for just $59 a week.

The Herald reports:

The man who’s often been referred to as the most powerful non-elected politician in the country is quitting.

Wayne Eagleson has been Sir John Key and Bill English’s chief of staff for 12 years, but says it’s time to look at other options.

Mr Eagleson will stay around until the new Government is formed, which is expected to be around mid-October.

Eagleson formally told Bill English last week he planned to resign after the election but insiders say it has been known by the Ninth Floor for several months that he planned to go, no matter what the election result.

He will stay on for the next few week to assist with coalition talks planned between National and New Zealand First.

Eagleson was a former deputy chief of staff to Jim Bolger, and after some experience in public relations in the private sector returned to Parliament to become chief of staff to Don Brash in Opposition.

He stayed on to become Key’s chief of staff in Opposition and then in Government.

Most people in New Zealand (outside the beltway) have never heard of Wayne Eagleson, and that is a sign of his success. We have seen Chiefs of Staff who have become household names such as Peta Credlin in Australia and Heather Simpson in New Zealand. When you become the story you are less effective.

It’s a hugely challenging role. You need a relationship so strong with the Prime Minister that if you speak to someone, they will understand you are speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister. If that relationship is not strong, then people will work around the Chief of Staff. No one ever worked around Wayne.

But being a pitbull guardian of the PM doesn’t work either. Credlin was that. Ministers resented her for that. No Minister resented Wayne. In fact I don’t know anyone in politics with a bad word to say about him.  He had that rare mix of authority and approachability.

Wayne will be a big loss to the Government. But it is no surprise after 12 years he is keen for a more normal job.

Stuff reports:

The last time there was fresh produce on the table was more than two years ago.

After covering her basic expenses, Lynlie Beazley survives on just $22 per week and sometimes she sleeps on an empty stomach. 

The west Auckland resident described herself as the “face of poverty” in the country. 

“I don’t know how I live each day.”

Beazley said she would not be able to survive without food parcels from The Salvation Army.

She is one of a growing number of people knocking on the charity’s door for help. 

Her weekly benefit was about $236, but she only had $22 after rent, expenses, and hire purchase payments.    

Beazley, a Housing NZ tenant, said this was enough for two bottles of milk, three loaves of bread and a tray of eggs.

It is frustrating that media continue to do pimping poverty stories yet fail to provide information that allows readers to form any independent conclusions.

Ms Beazley appears to be on a Jobseeker benefit. We are not given any information on how long she has been on it, and has she tried to gain work. It is possible she has a disability or sickness and can’t work but again we don’t know. And a Supported Living benefit would be higher than that.

Here’s what we do know:

• Benefit $236
• Rent $59
• Food $22
• Other expenses $155

She does not have a car and walks so the other expenses are not transport. There is reference to hire purchase and a $1,000 loan but repayments on that would be just $20 a week or so to pay back over a year.

Again we don’t have enough information to reach any independent conclusions. To me it seems out of whack to spend $155 on other expenses and $22 on food. Electricity would not be that high. Now there could well be a very good reason why her non food expenses are so high but again the reporter has not told us enough.

UPDATE: It turns out Ms Beazley has 32 criminal convictions – information the original story failed to include. Even more of a fail for the media.

Julian Lee at Stuff writes:

This year’s election spelled the lowest representation for minor parties in Parliament since MMP was introduced in 1996. The Māori and United Future parties were eliminated and New Zealand’s typically most prominent third party, the Greens, barely crossed the 5 per cent threshold.

Three minor parties have made it to Parliament this year – the lowest number yet. There have been five or six minor parties in Parliament since MMP began in 1996.

This year’s election saw 17 minor party MPs in Parliament – the same number as 1996, when the public was still unsure how the system worked.

Compare that to the 2002 election, when six minor parties took out 41 seats in Parliament, a third of the total number of seats.

Actually there were more than 17 in 1996. The number of MPs from “minor” parties has been:

• 1996 – 39
• 1999 – 32
• 2002 – 41
• 2005 – 23
• 2008 – 21
• 2011 – 28
• 2014 – 29
• 2017 – 17

As for the two remaining minor parties, there is no guarantee the Greens will survive the next election given this year’s result, nor is there any guarantee NZ First’s Winston Peters will contest the next election at age 75.

This leaves the potential for a 2020 election without minor parties. A 2020 Parliament of National and Labour.

If NZ First does decide to install a Labour – NZ First Government supported by the Greens, then there has to be a decent chance both NZ First and the Greens could get wiped out in 2020.

Look at what happened to the Alliance after one term in Government. The pressures of having to actually compromise in order to govern tore the party apart.

And as previously blogged 19 of the top 20 seats for NZ First are National held seats and there would be a considerable backlash against them for putting Labour and Greens into power.

So a real upside of NZ First deciding to go with Labour and the Greens, is that both NZ First and Greens could end up being wiped out in 2020.

The Herald reports:

Former Rotorua doctor Dr Lance O’Sullivan has announced he will stand for the Maori Party in the 2020 election – a move which has both surprised and excited co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell.

The 2014 New Zealander of the Year made the announcement during a hui in Rotorua on Sunday afternoon, receiving applause and cheers of support.

He told the crowd he had resisted moving into the political arena but could not resist any longer.

His plans were also relayed in Tauranga when the travelling hui was held at the Te Puna Rugby Club later in the day, with the same support. He was part of a group, which included Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell and Mana Party leader Hone Harawira, discussing the future of Maori politics.

 “I made a commitment to stand for the Maori Party in 2020,” Dr O’Sullivan said in Tauranga.

It was not yet confirmed whether Dr O’Sullivan would stand in an electorate or stand as a list member.

This suggests the Maori Party is dead but not buried. Dr O’Sullivan would be a very popular candidate for them.

Liam Hehir produced this table which is quite fascinating. It shows that the 2017 results are not a long way removed from the 2008 results, despite nine year of National-led Government.

The changes are:

• National up 0.6%
• Labour up 2%
• Greens down 0.5%
• NZ First up 3.3%
• ACT down 3.2%

Now compare this to the difference after nine years of Labour-led Government, or 1999 to 2008.

• Labour down 4.7%
• Alliance down 6.8%
• Greens up 1.5%
• National up 14.4%
• ACT down 3.3%
• NZ First down 0.2%

National’s vote went up 14% from 1999 to 2008. Labour in 2017 have basically got to just past where they were in 2008.

The polls were pretty accurate for the German elections. The results for votes were:

• CDU/CSU (National) 33.0% (-8.5%)
• SPD (Labour) 20.5% (-5.2%)
• AfD (NZ First) 13.0% (+7.9%)
• FDP (ACT) 10.7% (+5.9%)
• DIE LINKE (Alliance) 9.2% (+0.6%)
• GRUNE (Greens) 8.9% (+0.5%)

Seats are:

• CDU/CSU (National) 246 (-65)
• SPD (Labour) 153 (-40)
• AfD (NZ First) 94 (+94)
• FDP (ACT) 80 (+80)
• DIE LINKE (Alliance) 69 (+5)
• GRUNE (Greens) 67 (+4)

Almost inevitably the Government will be CDU and FDP and GRUNE, or their equivalent of a National, ACT and Greens Government. They will have 393 seats out of 709.

No party wants to govern with the AfD. They don’t even want to sit with them. Same goes for Die Linke.

If the CDU and SDP did another coalition then AfD would become the official opposition party. So SDP has to become the main opposition party and hence FDP and Greens need to join the Government.

In New Zealand the Greens would rather work with NZ First than National! They are very different to German Greens.

The Herald reports:

An Auckland family has fallen victim to a vicious political attack after their house was vandalised with election hate speech.

On Sunday morning Grey Lynn resident Zoe Tietze was getting ready to take her dog for a walk when she stepped outside and saw her home had been tagged.

“We noticed it all over the street and on our house,” she told the Herald.

“We originally had a small hoarding on our house supporting the National Party. The vandals had clearly seen that. It was taken down on Friday afternoon but they still remembered our house and decided they wanted to tag us. “

The attackers, who vandalised the property on Saturday night after the election, wrote “Blood on your hands” on Tietze’s front porch.

The tagging spilled over on to the road where messages “3 more years of poverty and misery” and “National government kills” were spray-painted outside Tietze’s home.

The attack has left the family and nearby residents frightened.

Grumpolie has prepared this chart. Basically it shows the two TV polls were very accurate. The polls of polls and associated forecasts were less accurate. The Curia poll of polls (seperate to any internal polling I do) included the earlier Colmar Brunton polls showing Labour leading so I expected it to be out.

The Listener poll, Horizon poll, Roy Morgan poll and Newsroom polls were massively out. Newsroom was in a different universe. To be fair to them their polls were done earlier in the campaign, but to be blunt Labour were never 15% ahead of National and any poll saying they were had serious problems.

I’ll do an update on this after final results.

Simon Louisson writes at The Standard:

Labour didn’t deserve to win on Saturday because, firstly, because it failed to bring a fully-fleshed tax policy to voters, and, secondly, it never attempted to win the ideological battle over tax.

Missteps over the Capital Gains tax apart, Jacinda Ardern ran an energetic and near flawless campaign and yet Labour still lost heavily.

It is as certain as death, that tax will be front and centre of the next election and voters will be easily scaremongered again, if Labour fails to address tax.

How a major party can spend nine years in opposition and still not have detailed its tax policy, bewilders me. It raises serious questions about the competence of Finance Spokesman Grant Robertson and other senior members of the leadership team.

I understand it was Grant’s bright idea to campaign on seeking a blank cheque for tax policy and Jacinda just went along with it.

National was easily able to scare various sectors of the electorate by raising the prospect of a capital gains tax, inheritance tax, land tax, gift duties, or new higher income tax brackets.

Each of these taxes is perfectly worthy of consideration. But, assuming NZ First supports National to form a government, if Labour wants to stop an action-replay of this election, it must set up its own tax working group early next year and have its position nailed down by the end of 2018. (You can place your bet now that any government dependent on Winston Peter is not going to last until 2020).

Most importantly, whatever, the tax working group decides, Labour must put a categoric cap on how much tax, as a percentage of GDP, it intends to raise, to pre-empt tax-and-spend attacks.

If the working group recommends a CGT, as it most likely will and should, then Labour must give assurance it will maintain the cap irrespective of how much the CGT raises. So if CGT pulls in $500m of revenue by 2025, then income taxes, or the rate of GST, will be commensurately reduced.

This is an excellent idea, and in fact what the Taxpayers’ Union asked Jacinda to commit to. Grant has said this is “quite likely”.

I support broadening the tax base, but not if it increases the total amount of tax being collected by households and businesses. Make it fiscally neutral and you’d have far far far less opposition.

And Labour has already committed to keeping spending to under 30% of GDP. So just commit to keeping taxation to say 32% of GDP and you leave room for debt repayment and contributing to the NZ Super Fund.

Using the commitment not to go beyond the set ratio will allow Labour to allay attacks that it will tax anything that moves.

Yep.

Far more important, however, is the need for Labour to win the ideological debate – that taxes help to build societies. This debate has to be tackled front-on and from the day parliament reconvenes. It cannot be left to an election campaign, where there are inevitable distractions.

Until Labour wins hearts and minds that taxes are the mechanism for creating a fairer, caring and better working society, it will always be on the back foot.

Few people object to paying some tax. We all see the benefits of it. But that is not the same as wanting to pay more and more tax over time. We prefer extra tax revenue to be generated due to a growing economy – not by increasing taxes on those growing it.

Stuff reports:

National may have had a shot at getting Winston Peters onside before the election – but blew it.

Its aggressive campaign to unseat Peters in Northland is causing some in NZ First to agitate for an Epsom style deal on the table in its negotiations with Labour and National.

That is seen as the best chance of preserving the party’s future if Peters, 72, steps down at the next election.

An electoral accommodation would mean National or Labour endorsing a NZ First candidate in a seat seen as winnable by the minor party. It is not clear which seat, or the extent to which Peters is backing such a deal.

But there would be good reason for Peters’ wider caucus to seek a deal like that in negotiations with either National or Labour because they know the party has little chance otherwise of surviving without Peters.

Losing Northland has been a blow to Peters, and if he does want to retire an electorate safety net is useful. If NZ First had got 15% then you’d be confident Shane Jones would keep them over 5%. But at 7.5% (may drop on specials) they have a small comfort margin.

But what seats could NZ First win if a major party did not stand and endorsed him? Presumably one where their party vote is higher. So what general seats did NZ First do best in, and which party holds them?

1. Whangarei 14.5%, N
2. Northland 13.6%, N
3. Coromandel 12.4%, N
4. Tauranga 11.8%, N
5. Bay of Plenty 11.2%, N
6. Rangitikei 10.5%, N
7. Wairarapa 10.5%, N
8. Waikato 10.3%, N
9. Whanganui 10.2%, N
10. Rotorua 10.2%, N
11. East Coast 10.1%, N
12. West Coast-Tasman 9.6%, L

So all 11 seats where NZ First got over 10% are National held seats.

In fact 22 of the best 23 seats for NZ First are National held seats.

This will also make it very interesting for them if they decide to support a Labour-led Government. I’m not sure all those provincial and rural voters that voted NZ First will be keen on the inevitable political correctness and anti-agriculture policies that will eventuate from such a Government. I’d say there would be a huge backlash.

This is why I’m quite keen to have Winston go with Labour and Greens. It will be sad for the country, but good for National in the long term as they’d ride a wave of discontent in 2020 and only need to pick up two more seats to govern.

The decision NZ First has to make is not just between National and Labour/Greens but also what type of arrangement to have. Here’s some of the possibilities.

1. Minority Government. No formal agreement with NZ First. They abstain or vote in favour of supply and confidence at first, but may pull the plug at any stage if they think the Government is doing a bad job. The Government would need to negotiate with them on every vote. We basically had this between 1993 and 1996.
2. Supply and confidence. Government agrees to a number of NZ First policies in exchange for an agreement NZ First will vote in favour of the Government on confidence and supply motions. Had this from 2002 to 2005.
3. Supply and confidence with benefits. Government agrees to a number of NZ First policies and one of more NZ First MPs become Ministers outside Cabinet in exchange for an agreement NZ First will vote in favour of the Government on confidence and supply motions. Had this from 2005 to 2008.
4. Coalition. NZ First get several seats inside Cabinet and the coalition partners agree to a joint set of policies they will implement. Had this from 1996 to 1998.

Minority Government is unlikely as it means no stability for the Government. But having said that parties can walk away from agreements anyway, so the difference may not be huge. Only National could form a minority Government if NZ First abstained.

A supply and confidence agreement could be done with National or Labour. If NZ First doesn’t take up Ministerial positions, hard to see they would let the Greens do so. So it would be be a National Government with or a Labour Government. Labour would also need a supply and confidence agreement with the Greens which would have to be compatible with the NZ First one.

A supply and confidence agreement with benefits could be done with both NZ First and Greens with Labour. So Labour get 20 Ministers inside Cabinet and NZ First and the Greens each get three Ministers outside. Or Peters could shut the Greens out so they only do confidence and supply and no Ministers. On the National side it would be a simple National Ministers inside Cabinet and one or more NZ First Ministers outside Cabinet.

Finally the full coalition. You’d expect based on their vote share NZ First could take 3 or 4 Cabinet seats and maybe even 1 or 2 outside. So Peters, Jones, Mark and Martin could be inside Cabinet. A full coalition on the left could include the Greens who would also get say three Ministers inside Cabinet. So Labour might only get 13 or 14 slots inside Cabinet.

You could get a combination. Labour could do a full coalition with NZ First and a confidence and supply with benefits with the Greens. So NZ First Ministers inside Cabinet and Green Ministers outside Cabinet. Or Winston could lock Greens out entirely so Greens just get some policy wins and no portfolios. They have little leverage.

So it is not just about which side Winston goes for, but what sort of Government does he want. And if he goes with Labour, what role for the Greens?