Stats NZ released the latest monthly migration stats today. The charts below use their data. These charts are of New Zealand citizens only. So it is not about people moving here as migrants on work or student visas. It is purely about people who are New Zealand citizens and what they have been choosing to do – live in New Zealand, or live elsewhere.

With developed countries, migration of citizens almost always is strongly from smaller countries (actually cities) to larger ones.  Kiwis move from Auckland to Sydney. Aussies move from Sydney to London. Poms move from London to New York etc.

So how many Kiwis are leaving, and have been leaving?

So under Labour the number of Kiwis leaving increased in their last five years from 40,000 to 60,000. It is now almost half that, at just over 30,000.

Now nothing wrong with Kiwis leaving to do their OE etc. But it is nice to have them back. So have they been returning?

So under Labour the number of Kiwis returning dropped from 28,000 to around 23,000. Since then it has increased to around 33,000. Around 10,000 more Kiwis a year are returning home.

What does this mean for net migration of New Zealand citizens?

In 2004 we were losing a net 10,000 citizens a year and by the end of 2008 it was almost 40,000 citizens a year net loss. That is around 750 week or over 100 a day.

Today the annual net loss is around 1,000 a year or 20 a week or 3 a day.

Again this is just New Zealand citizens.

That is a huge turnaround. And even bigger when you consider the cumulative sums.

In the last three years of Labour, the net loss of New Zealand citizens was 93,630.

In the last three years of National, the net loss of New Zealand citizens was just 9,530.

Stats NZ reports:

Gross domestic product (GDP) rose 0.8 percent in the June 2017 quarter, following a revised 0.6 percent rise in the March quarter, Stats NZ said today.

“Strong export and domestic demand underpinned growth this quarter,” national accounts senior manager Gary Dunnet said. “Demand for exports has resulted in strong production growth in manufacturing and service industries.”

Exports rose 5.2 percent, with exports of goods posting its biggest quarterly increase in nearly 20 years.

Well that will stop under Labour with their $6 billion of extra taxes and tariffs (as in now reduced as they won’t be in TPP) on the rural sectors.

GDP per capita rose 0.3 percent this quarter.

Labour have lost an attack line.

Annual GDP growth for the year ended June 2017 was 2.7 percent while the size of the economy in current prices was $268 billion.

Of interest is that manufacturing went up 1.8% in the quarter. Remember Labour claiming there was a manufacturing crisis.

Those wanting a lighter side of politics might want to check out Flat Race 2017 by Jack Buchanan.

The 1st episode is here.

A reader writes in:

Yesterday on Morning Report ( go to http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201859010/ardern-responds-after-farmers-protest-in-home-town ) when being interviewed by Guyon Espiner,  Jacinda Ardern stated (just after 2 minutes 30 seconds and again at 9 minutes 20 second) that the tax would be ten times that  proposed for  water abstracted for irrigation. That irrigation rate is between 1 and 2 cents per tonne.

So now we know what the bottled water tax will be – between 10 and 20 cents per tonne.

This will raise negligible quantities of tax; so little in fact that it wouldn’t be worth collecting.

Here are the sums:

According to a Coriolis  report for MBIE  go to http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/food-beverage/documents-image-library/folder-2017-investors-guides/investors-guide-to-the-new-zealand-beverages-industry-2017.pdf  the exports of bottled water in 2015 were valued at $7 million and the average price per litre was $0.61, giving a sales volume of 11.47 million litres.

Supermarket sales of bottled water sales over the past year were 37 million litres. I do not have the figures for bottled water sales from other outlets such as dairies, self service dispensers and petrol stations etc, but assuming  that these were half of total domestic sales, that would add another 37 million litres of bottled water sales.

Adding domestic and exported bottled water sales together gives us total sales of 85.47 million litres.

That is 85,470 tonnes of water. At between 10 and 20 cents per tonne total revenue collected would be between $8547 and $17094 per annum.

That would not even cover the cost of superannuation for one retired couple for one year. Even if my assumptions on volumes sold domestically through outlets other than supermarkets were only half actual annual sales,  the revenue collected would still be negligible.

So Labour’s tax on bottled water will bring in enough revenue to pay for one extra couple on superannuation!! In fact it won’t even do that as the extra public servants needed to administer the bottled water tax will cost more than the tax brings in.

Note this is about the bottled water tax only, which is seperate to the irrigation tax.

Just shows Labour is about symbolism only. Pathethic.

In a rare move The Australian does an endorsement:

New Zealand’s election this Saturday is reminiscent of Australia’s in 2007. A successful, reforming government that has achieved one of the highest growth rates in the world is fighting for survival despite International Monetary Fund projections that New Zealand will outdo all other advanced nations, except oil-rich Norway, in gross domestic product growth by 2025.

And it is economic growth that gives us options.

Kiwis should think long and hard before they dump one of the most successful governments in the Western world and replace the experienced Mr English with Ms Ardern, who in nine years as an MP has neither championed a substantial bill nor served as a minister. For eight years under Mr Key, Mr English was the highly successful finance minister. Unemployment fell and the budget returned to surplus. He was a crucial member of a government that tackled the difficult and unpopular welfare reforms Australia needs but has not been able to achieve. As our experience shows, good economic management cannot be taken for granted. Mr English has shown skill and perseverance in helping New Zealand get to an enviable position.

Australia has drifted for the last nine years or so as it has been unable to gets the books balanced.

Ms Ardern — a staff member for former prime minister Helen Clark and briefly a president of the International Union of Socialist Youth — is promising big spending, including phasing in three years of free tertiary education. She also has shown political nous. Labour’s surge owes much to its hardline stance on immigration, with a promise to cut arrivals by 30,000 a year and ban nonresident foreigners buying homes. Much is at stake in a close race, but Australia’s experience since 2007 should remind Kiwis that seemingly safe changes in government can have lasting and costly impacts.

It was 2007 that saw Kevin Rudd elected!

The Australian Financial Review is also clear:

New Zealand has provided a beacon of sensible government in an increasingly mad world. Yet, in 2008, when National’s John Key became prime minister, New Zealand was headed into recession, burdened by heavy government debt and deficits in perpetuity, and with a collapsed non-bank finance sector. In contrast, Australia had no central government debt, budget surpluses and manna from China-fuelled mining boom. Almost unbelievably, a decade later and after two major earthquakes across the ditch, the positions are reversed.

Just think about that last line.

But New Zealand Labour vows to re-regulate the labour market toward the Australian model through industry-wide union bargaining. Labour is making sceptical noises about free trade deals that give New Zealand business – and workers – a bigger global market to sell into. Ms Ardern’s populist Jeremy Corbyn-style promise to get rid of university fees would likely require higher income taxes, further dulling work incentives. To cover this up, Labour talks of watering down the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s commitment to low inflation and the central bank governor’s control over official interest rates.

It is a bad combination.

Yet National’s fiscal stewardship under Mr English has been impressive enough that even Labour’s shadow finance minister Grant Robertson admits in today’s pages that he has done a good job.

Yet Grant criticised and complained about everything National did when they did it. He opposed every single piece of spending restraint.

It would be sheer folly for New Zealanders not to elect Mr English and the National Party to a fourth term. With all the madness, dysfunction and anti-business law-making emanating from Canberra, New Zealanders have a chance to press home their competitive advantage by re-electing a government that has shown it knows how to properly govern.

I guess if Labour get elected it will reduce housing pressures, as more Kiwis will flee to Australia!

I’ve been sent a spreadsheet that was put together by a senior former Treasury official in consultation with some other senior former Treasury officials. It shows that Labour have not left enough money in their fiscal plan to cover inflation.

Inflation pushes up wages and the costs of goods and services. This benefits the Government’s accounts on the tax revenue side (the more you earn the more tax the Government collects) but it also increases their costs.

Now Budget documents such as the PREFU take account of inflation for tax revenue but they do not allocate inflation costs for expenditure. Instead you have the “operating allowance” which is to cover those inflationary costs, as well as new policies.

Labour have allocated almost all of the operating allowance to their new policies and have covered inflationary costs in health and education. But they have not got enough money to cover inflationary costs in the rest of Government.

So to be clear it is not a hole in the sense that Labour has made a mathematical error. But Labour have left basically no money in their budget for inflation (or population growth), yet their tax revenue is based on them. Quite simply they will not be able to keep within their fiscal plan unless you believe they will massively slash spending in some undefined areas (or not give any public servants outside Health and Education a payrise for three years).

This is a summary prepared by the former senior Treasury official. It is not a hole, but it is a shortfall. They have no capacity to fund any impact of wage and cost inflation and this is just over $10 billion.

They have left themselves $7.5 billion (cumulative) for new policies for the next three years. Even if they didn’t announce a single new policy in their entire term of Government, they’s still have a shortfall because of cost pressures on existing programmes.

For those who are good with numbers, I’ve attached the spreadsheet below that I was sent. It is detailed and comprehensive. Again the spreadsheet was put together by a senior former Treasury official in consultation with a group of other senior former Treasury officials.

Excel – Labour’s budget – the cost escalation problem

So for Labour’s fiscal plan to be credible you have to believe that they will either announce no new policies in their first term of Government (if elected) or that there will be no pay rises for any public servants (outside health and education) and that there will be no increase in the costs of good and services the Government purchases.

I look forward to Labour explaining to the unions how it is not going to have any wage rises in the public sector (outside Health and Education) for three years!

Mike Joy wrote at The Spinoff:

After two decades of fighting to halt the degradation of freshwater in New Zealand, you would think I’d be celebrating the fact that water is taking centre stage in this election. Briefly, I was. Yet after raising issues about our disastrous water quality for so long, I find myself now being used as a political football. This has been especially galling after my experiences with dirty politics from the National Party in the past.

Three days ago I made a ‘friends only’ post on my personal Facebook page saying I believe we should be voting on ideas and policies not personalities and tribal affiliations this election. It also said I like some TOP policy. I had no idea what was coming.

My Facebook post was immediately picked up by TOP. They issued a press release based on my ‘endorsement’. At the time of writing, their Facebook post about it has been shared 511 times. They didn’t seek my permission in any way. This use by TOP of my personal Facebook post, and the resulting attacks from people disappointed by my ‘betrayal’, saddened me so much I decided to close my private and public Facebook pages. The very point of the post was about keeping personalities out of this crucial election.

But Sean Plunket on behalf of TOP responded with a copy of this e-mail:

So Mike Joy actually e-mailed TOP a statement they could use, and then he writes a post complaining they used his Facebook status without authorisation.

He now says that he “forgot” he sent the e-mail.

He’s done a pretty good job of destroying his own credibility.

NZ Superannuation is linked to after tax average income. This means that the tax cuts passed by Parliament will see a retired couple on NZ Superannuation get $640 more a year starting the 1st of April.

Labour will repeal those tax cuts which means those retired couples will not get the extra $640 a year.

Important that all retired persons are aware of this. If Labour get elected they will change the law so that they get $640 less a year.

A huge shift in the One News Colmar Brunton poll with National up 6% and Labour down 7%. This brings it into line with Reid Research last week.

The party vote is:

• National 46%
• Labour 37%
• Green 8%
• NZ First 4.9%
• TOP 2.3%
• Maori 0.5%
• ACT 0.3%

Seats based on status quo (except Ohariu)

• National 58
• Labour 46
• Green 9
• NZ First 6
• TOP 0
• Maori 1
• ACT 1

But if Winston loses Northland it would be:

• National 60
• Labour 50
• Green 10
• NZ First 0
• TOP 0
• Maori 1
• ACT 1

Newshub has their final Reid Research poll out tomorrow.

South Auckland suffering from severe housing stress, mental health services at a breaking point.

We are prepared to cap interest rates to protect consumers.

“Voters have a clear choice” etc etc “economic experience” etc etc.

If Labour want to repeal the already legislated for tax bracket shifts, they are effectively raising income taxes.

Our swimability targets will be half the E.Coli levels of National, and we’ll do it by 2030, not 2040.

Minor parties are struggling in this Ardern/English focused campaign.

We are also struggling as a result of the Ardern/English show – so we dropped off $1 billion of Seymour cash to NZEI to highlight our teacher’s policy.

“Jesus, [Labour voters] cannot be this thick.” (Desperation?)

Yes, we still exist. We think list MPs who don’t form part of the Government shouldn’t be in Parliament.

Colmar Brunton due tonight 6pm.

Attention still heavily on the fuel crisis … Tonight’s final leaders debate may change this.

Latest update as of 9am Monday:

National Party $8.3b; Labour Party $23.0b; Green Party $14.9b; NZ First $27.5b; Maori Party $12.2b; ACT -$2.4b; TOP $13.7b. Full details here.

A common discussion topic is what will Winston do if he does hold the balance of power after the election. I don’t know what he will decide if he does, but here is what I think are the six factors in order from least influential to most influential.

1. Views of his caucus and board – zero influence. Despite what they may think this will not be a collective decision. Winston will decide.
2. Which minor parties does he dislike the most. I’d say the Maori Party and the Greens. He will try and lock them both out of ministerial roles if possible.
3. Which party leader does he dislike the most? It would have been John Key by far if Key was still leader. I’m not sure he dislikes English or Ardern particularly. He does hate David Seymour a lot though.
4. Policy compatability. This strongly favours Labour.
5. Can he govern with just one other party. Winston gets much more power in a two party coalition than a three party coalition. If one of the major parties can govern just with NZ First and the other needs a third player, then more likely to go with the two party option.
6. Will they make him Prime Minister? This is no longer a viable option so off the table. But he did have dreams of this happening when Labour were polling in the low 20s. A result of Labour 20%, NZ First 16% and Greens 12% could have allowed him to push this option. But Jacinda becoming Labour Leader has thankfully saved us from this fate.

So overall I think Winston will go with Labour, so long as they can make 61 seats between them. If they can’t make 61 seats then he might go with National. I’d rather he didn’t go with National. Personally I think opposition would be preferable to being part of the inevitable chaos that comes with Winston in Government. But at least it would be fun times for journalists and commentators.

Audrey Young looks at possible Ministers in a Labour-led Government.

Her top 10 for Labour are:

Jacinda Ardern

– Prime Minister, National Security

Kelvin Davis

– Deputy Prime Minister, Corrections, Maori Development

Grant Robertson

– Finance

Phil Twyford

– Housing, Building and Construction, Transport, Defence

Megan Woods

– Climate Change, Communications, Science and Innovation

Chris Hipkins

– Education

Andrew Little

– Justice, Treaty Negotiations, Trade

Carmel Sepuloni

– Social Development

David Clark

– Health

David Parker

– Attorney General, Economic Development, Environment

I’d expect the strong performers, if they form Government, to be Twyford, Woods, Little, Clark and Parker.

The biggest risk is Davis.

This shows NCEA Level 2 achievement rates for various demographics comparing 2016 to 2008.

The biggest changes have been Maori and Pasifika students and those in the lowest decile schools.

If you don’t leave school with at least NCEA Level 2, then your options are very limited. The best way to solve inequality isn’t through tax and spend but by lifting educational standards of the most disadvantaged groups.

Germany is also voting this weekend, on Sunday. As you can see in the above chart, the SPD almost were at parity with Merkel’s CDU but they are again 15% behind.

So there is little doubt Merkel will remain Chancellor but who will make up her Government. The parties likely to make the Bundestag are:

• CDU/CSU (Conservatives) 36.6%
• SPD (Socialist) 22.6%
• Left (commies) 9.6%
• Greens 7.7%
• FDP (liberal centrist) 9.0%
• AfD (nationalist) 10.1%

So the 598 seats might be:

• CDU/CSU (Conservatives) 229
• SPD (Socialist) 142
• Left (commies) 60
• Greens 48
• FDP (liberal centrist) 57
• AfD (nationalist) 62

No-one wants to be in coalition with the AfD. In fact they are even squabbling over who will have to sit next to them in Parliament.

A CDU/FDP coalition only has 286 seats and they need 300 to govern so what is quite possible is a CDU/FDP/Green coalition. The German Greens are far more moderate and sensible than the NZ Greens and aren’t just socialists with a green tinge.

You could get another CDU/SPD grand coalition but this is less likely.

SPD/Left/Greens only total 259 seats so would need FDP support (unlikely) to be able to govern.

Personally I’ll be quite relieved if Merkel remains Chancellor. She is a beacon of stability. I think she mishandled the refugee crisis, but has been good in most other areas.

NewstalkZB reports:

Jim Bolger is warning voters off making their vote based on personality.

The former Prime Minister said people shouldn’t be looking for the most exciting candidate as they cast their vote this week.

He told Rachel Smalley voters need to look at policies, and the big picture.

“Personality doesn’t feed your children or keep the rivers clean, personality doesn’t make the country safe, it requires sound leadership strong intellect and the right policies.”

Bolger believes urban politicians need to stop blaming farmers for all the world’s woes.

Hundreds of farmers gathered in Labour leader Jacinda Ardern’s home town of Morrinsville yesterday over the party’s proposed tax on water.

Many of the protesters claim urban politicians are out of touch with rural communities.

Bolger told Rachel Smalley he’s worried about the growing urban-rural divide.

“If we think the rivers are not clean enough, we blame the farmers, if the sky is not clean, blame the farmers, I mean I think we’ve got to have a much more mature approach.”

Labour’s water tax only targets rural and provincial NZ, and is a nasty peice of scapegoating.

When Labour repeat their lies about National having cut health funding, it is worth reflecting on the significant increase in doctors and nurses employed by DHBs.

This advertisement has appeared as a full page advert in the five largest newspapers around donations, funded 100% by members and supporters of the Taxpayers Union.

You can help it appear to more and more people online, by donating here. Not only will ever dollar you donate go 100% towards buying more impressions for the advertisement, a generous donor has agreed to match every donation dollar for dollar (up to $15,000).So if you donate $50 we can spend $100 more on advertising it. So far over $7,000 already pledged.

On average a $50 donation will see the bribe-o-meter page visited by a further 1,400 people. A real way to make a difference and remind voters that all these promised political parties are making, have to be funded by taxpayers.

Government in full swing to free up the movement of fuel to where it is needed, and minimise disruption to Kiwis and visitors.

Final election ad released.

Auckland fuel crisis exposes frailties of overseas investment.

According to our budget released today, we will pay down debt faster than Labour. (just don’t mention the extra $9.6 billion of budgeted taxes on kiwi households and businesses over the next three years.

National’s report card on health: Three more years of National would bring the same as the past nine – underfunded health services that are cracking under the strain.

Taxpayers’ Union figures show ACT is the only party that would cut government spending – all other parties are guilty of election bribing.

Reid Research Tāmaki Makaurau – Labour Party’s Peeni Henare (46%), Maori Party’s Shane Taurima (32.6%), Green Party’s Marama Davidson (21.4%).

Auckland fuel – who is to blame? 

Latest update as of 9am yesterday:

National Party $8.3b; Labour Party $23.0b; Green Party $14.9b; NZ First $27.5b; Maori Party $12.2b; ACT -$2.4b; TOP $13.7b. Full details here.

A full-page spread of the cost of potential coalitions featured in newspapers across the country. See here. 

CNN reports:

But in an interview Monday with NPR’s Terry Gross, Clinton raised that critique up a notch — not only questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency but refusing to rule out the possibility of contesting the results if Russian collusion is proven by special counsel Bob Mueller.

Here’s the full text of the back-and-forth, courtesy of CNN’s Dan Merica:

Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?

Clinton: No. I would not. I would say —

Richard Harman writes:

What has been revealing this election campaign has been how much English is now starting to look like his own man. 

He has spent nine years in the shadows behind John Key and since his own previous failed term as Leader he has tended to portray himself through a sort of awe shucks modesty.

That is going.

He’s proud of the way he has performed on the campaign, and he has surprised many of his own colleagues and supporters.

Nearly five weeks ago, at the start of the campaign, he was in Christchurch announcing Government funding for a new AMI stadium.

A number of Cabinet and party luminaries attended the announcement. His next stop was to be the Riccarton Mall, an idea that didn’t meet with much approval from the luminaries.

It was, said one, full of whingers who would give English a hard time.

They needn’t have worried. He dived into the mall, had endless selfies taken and engaged with children. He looked to be enjoying himself.

And over the weekend at a Rotorua amusement venue packed with families and children, we saw the same boyish enthusiasm which he seemed to get an equally enthusiastic response to.

I think Bill has been a great campaigner.  He has been energised by it, and hasn’t put a foot wrong.

One thing that is interesting is that he has been comfortable going to lots of places where few people will be National supporters, such as the Riccarton Mall. He’s gone to union dominated workplaces, to Labour strongholds such as Wainuiomata etc. He knows he will get challenged by some voters there, but he is happy to take real engagement.

This has been a contrast to the Labour campaign which seems to be mainly about Labour organised events or campus visits. Haven’t seen a lot of them in small towns or rural areas where there is a risk of challenge.

Newshub reports:

The Greens say they can meet all their policy promises and still run budget surpluses.

They’ve put all their election policies together in a single document and it’s been checked out by Infometrics, an independent economic consultant.

“Infometrics has found that the Green Party will run surpluses over the next three years, slightly smaller than those outlined in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU),” the party’s fiscal plan, released on Monday, says.

I’ve had a look through their fiscal plan. Yes it balance the books – by imposing around $9.6 billion of extra taxation on New Zealand households and businesses over the next three years.

As you can see most of the world is not back in surplus. They failed to get spending under control and their debt keeps growing. Some of them will never be able to balance their books again unless they print money.

New Zealand didn’t get back into surplus by luck. It was because we had a Government that had good judgement and guts. They managed to keep funding our valued public services, but keeping tight enough fiscal discipline overall to make it back into surplus.

Almost every single time National showed spending restraint, Labour attacked them for it.

Elections are about choices. I choose to trust a party that has shown an ability to make hard decisions for the greater good.