What are the challenges ahead for each party?

National

Assuming they get to form a Government, how do you set it up to be Winston proof, ie so he has an incentive to be a constructive player.

Rejuvenation. National needs to bring at least three or four backbenchers into the ministry to keep the rejuvenation going. They also may need to make room for NZ First ministers. So several Ministers may have to step aside. But there are three vacancies, being the positions held by the Maori Party, United Future and ACT (Peters won’t let Seymour be in Government).

Labour

Learn from their mistakes in the campaign. Mend relations with the rural community. Work out how to keep Jacinda positive (which the public like) but also how to be an effective opposition leader in the House. Keep an eye on some of their new backbench MPs as success (13 more MPs) often brings challenges – National found this out in 1990.

NZ First

Work out how not to get wiped out in 2020. They have lost their safety net of an electorate seat so it is essential they stay above the 5% threshold. Instability in Government could see them punished next time.

Also if Winston does want to retire this term, how do you do a succession that keeps them in Parliament? Both Peters and Jones failed in their electorate bids and can Jones keep NZ First over 5%? If they had got 15% in this election (which was very possible pre-Jacinda) then you would be confident Jones could keep them to at least 8% or 9%. But they only got 7.5% so even a 3% drop from Peters to Jones could kill them. So maybe Peters has to stand again in 2020 when he will be 75.

Greens

Stop trying to claim losing half your caucus is a victory. Yes you survived but your brand got trashed by the Metiria fiasco. Need to change the brand from pro welfare fraud to pro-environment.

Key challenge ahead is whom they elect as female co-leader. If it is Julie Anne Genter it signals they will be more green than red. If it is Marama Davidson, then they will remain locked 100% to Labour and of marginal influence. I understand Davidson is favoured at this stage, but the poor result might make them reconsider.

10. I didnt see anyone on English’s campaign greeting him with anything like that. He’s a bad egg. Fuck him. I didnt like him one bit.

— Steve Braunias (@SteveBraunias) September 22, 2017

14. My phone died! Got home and so final midnight tweet is: gee I hope Labour wins and fuck you National. Fingers X’d!

— Steve Braunias (@SteveBraunias) September 22, 2017

These tweets are from Steve Braunias, a staff writer for the NZ Herald.

I should say I think Braunias is an excellent writer and his “secret diaries” columns are often hilarious. Love his Lincoln Road food writings also.

What I object to is that the Herald editorial team assigned Braunias to cover the election. They sent him on the campaign trail to cover both Ardern and English. By his own tweets he hates Bill English and National, and says English is a bad egg. That is not someone who should be covering the campaign for the NZ Herald, let alone sent by the Herald to profile each leader.

To some degree all four major parties are winners from the election.

National got an extraordinary result of 57 MPs and is highly likely to form the first fourth term Government since 1969. At worst they will be an incredibly strong opposition only four MPs away from victory in 2020.

Labour grew their vote by 12%, got 13 new MPs and are finally a credible Opposition with an excellent chance to win in 2020.

NZ First did lose Northland but hold the balance of power and will be able to leverage considerable policy wins and possibly quite a few baubles also.

The Greens survive. They did lose half their caucus, but they were not wiped out – which two weeks ago was very possible.

The Maori Party got wiped out, which is sad for Flavell and Fox and their supporters. Both very decent well motivated people.

ACT retained Epsom but will probably be blocked from Government by Winston, so will have more independence.

Based on election night results the 120 MPs of the 52nd New Zealand Parliament are:

National

1. Auckland Central: Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty: Todd Muller
3. Botany: Jami-Lee Ross
4. Clutha Southland: Hamish Walker
5. Coromandel: Scott Simpson
6. East Coast: Anne Tolley
7. East Coast Bays: Erica Stanford
8. Hamilton East: David Bennett
9. Hamilton West: Tim Macindoe
10. Helensville: Chris Penk
11. Hunua: Andrew Bayly
12. Hutt South: Chris Bishop
13. Ilam: Gerry Brownlee
14. Invercargill: Sarah Dowie
15. Kaikoura: Stuart Smith
16. Maungakiekie: Denise Lee
17. Nelson: Nick Smith
18. New Plymouth: Jonathan Young
19. North Shore: Maggie Barry
20. Northcote: Jonathan Coleman
21. Northland: Matt King
22. Otaki: Nathan Guy
23. Pakuranga: Simeon Brown
24. Papakura: Judith Collins
25. Rangitata: Andrew Falloon
26. Rangitikei: Ian McKelvie
27. Rodney: Mark Mitchell
28. Rotorua: Todd McClay
29. Selwyn: Amy Adams
30. Tamaki: Simon O’Connor
31. Taranaki-King Country: Barbara Kuriger
32. Taupo: Louise Upston
33. Tauranga: Simon Bridges
34. Tukituki : Lawrence Yule
35. Waikato: Tim van de Molen
36. Waimakariri: Matthew Doocey
37. Wairarapa: Alastair Scott
38. Upper Harbour: Paula Bennett
39. Waitaki: Jacqui Dean
40. Whanganui: Harete Hipango
41. Whangarei: Shane Reti
42. Bill English
43. David Carter
44. Steven Joyce
45. Chris  Finlayson
46. Michael Woodhouse
47. Paul Goldsmith
48. Nicky Wagner
49. Alfred Ngaro
50. Brett Hudson
51. Melissa Lee
52. Kanwal JK Bakshi
53. Jian Yang
54. Paramjit Parmar
55. Jo Hayes
56. Nuk Korako
57. Maureen Pugh
58. Nicola Willis

Labour

1. Christchurch Central: Duncan Webb
2. Christchurch East: Poto Williams
3. Dunedin North: David Clark
4. Dunedin South: Clare Curran
5. Hauraki-Waikato: Nanaia Mahuta
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti: Meka Whaitiri
7. Kelston: Carmel Sepuloni
8. Mana: Kris Faafoi
9. Mangere: Su’a William Sio
10. Manukau East: Jenny Salesa
11. Manurewa: Louisa Wall
12. Mt Albert: Jacinda Ardern
13. Mt Roskill: Michael Wood
14. Napier: Stuart Nash
15. New Lynn: Deborah Russell
16. Ohariu: Greg O’Connor
17. Palmerston North: Iain Lees-Galloway
18. Port Hills: Ruth Dyson
19. Rimutaka: Chris Hipkins
20. Rongotai: Paul Eagle
21. Tamaki Makaurau: Peene Henare
22. Te Atatu: Phil Twyford
23. Te Tai Hauauru: Adrian Rurawhe
24. Te Tai Tokerau: Kelvin Davis
25. Te Tai Tonga: Rino Tirakatene
26. Waiariki: Tamati Coffey
27. Wellington Central: Grant Robertson
28. West Coast Tasman: Damien O’Connor
29. Wigram : Megan Woods
30. Andrew Little
31. David Parker
32. Priyanca Radhakrishan
33. Raymond Huo
34. Jan Tinetti
35. Willow-Jean Prime
36. Kiri Allan
37. Willie Jackson
38. Virginia Andersen
39. Jo Luxton
40. Liz Craig
41. Marja Lubeck
42. Trevor Mallard
43. Jamie Strange
44. Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki
45. Kieran McAnulty

Greens

1. James Shaw
2. Marama Davidson
3. Julie Anne Genter
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Gareth Hughes
6. Jan Logie
7. Chloe Swarbrick

NZ First

1. Winston Peters
2. Ron Mark
3. Tracey Martin
4. Fletcher Tabuteau
5. Darroch Ball
6. Clayton Mitchell
7. Mark Patterson
8. Shane Jones
9. Jenny Marcroft

ACT

1. Epsom: David Seymour

Voting has closed, results are due and comments are now allowed! Will try and update this post with major news.

1922 – 8% counted has it Nat 45.7%, Lab 36.9%, NZF 7.3%, Greens 6%.Early days though.

1931 – seems clear at this stage that National will be the largest party but not get a majority so NZ First likely to hold balance of power. Both NZ First and Greens look safe to clear 5%.

2027 – National still 10% ahead. Maori Party looks like it may get wiped out.

2112 – National now gaining more ground but may be smaller rural booths. Seat projection now Nat 59, Lab 44, NZF 9, Green 7, ACT 1

Do not comment on the election until 7 pm. This includes who you voted for, who you think people should vote form, who you want to win etc etc. You can comment on turnout and queues.

There will be a dedicated results thread at 7 pm.

As advance voting ends today and the official election day is now just hours away, it is worth reflecting on how lucky we are with the choices we have in New Zealand.

Our choice of Prime Minister is Bill English or Jacinda Ardern. They’re both good people, and both have extraordinary talent (in different ways). Jacinda has revitalised Labour and taken it from the low 20s to the high 30s or even low 40s. An amazing impact. As I predicted in 2012, she will be Prime Minister of New Zealand one day – it is a matter of whether it is in a few weeks (once Winston decides) or a few years.

Bill English has had an extraordinary campaign. It has invigorated him and he has been commanding. The party is every bit as united behind him as it was under John Key. He looks very likely to lead National to a result in the mid 40s in their 4th election. No other party in MMP has got more than 41% in their 1st, 2nd or 3rd term, let alone a potential 4th. Labour in 2008 dropped to 34% and National in 1999 to 30%. Regardless of what Winston decides (if the decision is his), National is strong.

As I said both Jacinda and Bill are good people who care deeply for the country and improving outcomes for New Zealanders. We can forget that in the heat of a campaign. But it is a positive choice to have compared to many other countries. Recent choices have been:

• US – Trump or Clinton. Aaargh. Shoot me now.
• UK – Corbyn the commie or the Maybot!
• Australia – Turnbull or Shorten whom are both massively unpopular

Here’s the net approval ratings of the 10 heads of governments and oppositions in the Anglosphere:

1. Jacinda Ardern +40%
2. Bill English +39%
3. Justin Trudeau +11%
4. Michael Scheer +3%
5. Jeremy Corby -1%
6. Donald Trump -16%
7. Malcolm Turnbull -20%
8. Bill Shorten -20%
9. Nancy Pelosi -20%
10. Theresa May -25%

Again we are lucky to have such a good choice to make. Most other countries would love to have this choice.

So congratulations to both Bill and Jacinda, and good luck to whichever one of them is Prime Minister.

Some other kudos I want to hand out:

• Sir John Key – immaculate timing bowing out on top. He left National in a strong position and it is polling well despite his departure. He’s delighted with how well Bill has done, and there’s no one suggesting National would have fared better if he had stayed on. In fact if John had stayed on to attempt a 4th term, I think the vitriol would have been immense as the number of people with Key Derangement Syndrome is so high. It would have all been about stopping Key.
• Steven Joyce and Jo de Joux. This is their 5th campaign together. I doubt anyone who has not run a campaign understands the pressures of being a campaign manager. They never lost their nerve and kept National strong despite the media hype over Jacindamania. National got 45% when elected in 2008 and they are polling around that level in 2017. Simply amazing.
• Andrew Kirton – Labour looks to have finally got a focused and effective general manager who is trusted by all factions. Is secure in his role.
• James Shaw – has recovered from a horrendous month which would have crushed many as he looked like a political prisoner being forced to read out North Korean propoganda. He had to back his co-leader 110%, and see the party drop almost 10% in the polls. He’s stayed sane and thanks mainly to him looks like the Greens will survive.
• Gareth Morgan and Sean Plunket – thanks for constantly outraging the perputally outraged on Twitter. You’ve made life much more fun.
• Nicola Willis – a fantastic campaign in Wellington Central. I’ve never seen so many blue hoardings in this seat, and you’ve been everywhere. You’ll be a great MP and presence for National in Wellington if you make it in on the List.
• Matthew Hooton for being attacked online even more than Mike Hosking
• Jordan and the team at the Taxpayers Union for their great work in reminding people about who funds all the spending promises
• Metiria Turei for fighting to the last on what she believes. I strongly disagree with her, but one can seperate the person from the politician. Those who know and have worked for Metiria say she is a great boss and great fun person. Even though it is self inflicted, has been a hard campaign for her personally and I hope she does well outside politics.
• Patrick Gower for his extraordinary use of language in the call of duty. Patrick can make a milkshake sounds exciting and devastating
• Andrew Little for doing the right thing and putting his party ahead of personal ambition. Not many of his predecessors would have done the same.

Democracy shouldn’t be a privilege, but it effectively is for many people. If you haven’t already voted, make sure you do so tomorrow. The people are never wrong, even when they are!

Wayne Mapp writes at Pundit:

Why has the swing back happened?

In my view there are three reasons. First, Labour announced way too many taxes in the first week of the campaign. Second, National raised real questions about the robustness of Labour’s proposed three year budget. Third, Jacinda Ardern has backtracked on too many things, raising questions about whether she is yet ready for the top job. 

Taking them in turn:

In the first week Labour announced: a tax on water at an undetermined level; a tax on petrol, at least in Auckland; a higher cost ETS; and potential for an ill-defined capital gains tax; along with a possibility of land taxes and wealth taxes. While each have their own justifications, the welter of them raised the traditional spectre of Labour being the “tax and spend” party. It also played into a subtext of voter suspicion. That Labour thinks economic growth is on auto-pilot, and nothing they do will affect it. Many voters, especially those who have voted National in the past, know that is probably not true.

Yeah I don’t think Labour accept that the more you tax an economy, the bigger the impact it has on economic growth.

The second issue has been fraught with controversy. Steven Joyce, strongly supported by Bill English, has said there is a $11 billion hole in Labour’s budget. That it was not believable that Labour could have no new spending in 2019 and 2020, except in health and education. The $11 billion is National’s assessment of what Labour would actually spend. Basically it is $3.5 billion per year. How does that make $11 billion?

Because the $3.5 billion spent in 2019 is base-lined into the 2020 budget and then the 2020 budget gets another $3.5 billion.  So it is $3.5 billion in 2019, and $7 billion in 2020 representing the $3.5 billion base-lined from 2019 plus $3.5 billion new spending in 2020.

This analysis was very credible to me, having been involved in many budget debates. National’s strategy has been to talk directly to the voters on this issue and to ignore the views of the pundits and media commentators. The strategy is built on the implicit understanding that many voters naturally see Labour as a tax and spend party.

The media made the mistake of taking this as a binary issue of right vs wrong and proclaiming one side the “winner”. The truth is more nuanced that the media portrayed it.

The third issue has been very difficult for Jacinda Ardern. It seems perfectly plausible to listen to voter feedback and respond accordingly. So deferring a CGT, among other things, would have seemed a very reasonable thing to do. But it also has a risk. Do voters actually want their leaders to reverse strongly held stances (captain’s calls) so readily? It seems to me voters also expect their leaders to be certain on things, to ride through adverse feedback. That part of leadership is providing a sure and steady course, especially on issues central to the philosophy of a political party.

There is an art to it. John Key got a lot of support by reversing mining in National Parks. But he also knew what he should not back down on. At no time did he listen to the criticism on asset sales, a central issue for National during the 2011 election campaign. Surely CGT is as least as important for Labour?

The problem is the decision was a unilateral Captain’s Call by her, and so the backdown was associated with her also.

Irrigation NZ writes:

Dear Jacinda

We note you were in the Waikato yesterday, trying to reassure farmers that Labour is not anti-farming. However during your media briefing you demonstrated how poorly informed Labour’s farming policies are.

To the camera you stated, ‘there are only 12,000 farms in NZ and the vast majority won’t be affected – we’ll only be impacting upon 2,000.’ https://www.tvnz.co.nz/…/jacinda-ardern-in-waikato-soothe-f…

Unfortunately there’s almost 5 times more farms in NZ than this (58,000) and over 10,500 of these have a consent to take water for irrigation… so you may need to reassess the impacts of your water tax?

Only out by an order of 5!

The water tax will cost the average irrigated family farm (220 ha) between $24,000 and $29,000 per year ($110 – $130 per ha). This will impact greatly on farm viability, particularly for sheep and beef, arable and vegetable farmers (43% of the irrigated area).

Dairy farmers will be okay as they have reasonable profit margins (for now) but beef and sheep farmers are already struggling.

Canterbury and Otago account for over 72% of water allocated for irrigation, Hawke’s Bay, Marlborough and the Wairarapa account for 14% and all other regions combined make-up the remaining 14%. However, these 5 regions have the most swimmable rivers (> 92% in each region). The least swimmable rivers are in Auckland – 62% graded as poor, Northland and Waikato (over 40% graded poor). 

Blaming poor water quality on irrigation is just nasty scapegoating. Making irrigators in rural New Zealand pay for the problems of urban pollution in Auckland is grossly unfair.

The two largest irrigation regions have water quality and abstraction limits in place. Canterbury has the Land and Water Regional Plan which requires all irrigating farmers to gain a land use consent to farm – this is in addition to their water take consent. Otago has Plan Change 6A, an effects based plan that requires any water leaving a property to meet strict water quality limits – again in addition to their water take consent.

So the water tax will do nothing for water quality but simply punish farmers for using water, regardless of the water quality in their area.

1. National – no surprise there.
2. ACT – again little surprise. They have some great policies and David Seymour has been an excellent MP.
3. TOP. Wait, don’t you disagree with a lot of their policies? Yes I do, but there are some I agree with. More importantly I like their focus on policies over personality. And if they were in Parliament I think they would be a constructive party working with the Government of the Day to get better policy outcomes.
4. Maori Party. Again there is a lot I disagree with, but they have a good track record of working constructively in Government and Parliament. And it is not a bad thing to have a party there dedicated to advocating for Maori New Zealanders, while they have such under performance in education and health etc.
5. Labour. Last election I would have rated them below the Greens. They have their best leader since David Shearer and they’re no longer campaigning to increase income tax rates. Also their pledge to keep spending to under 30% of GDP was good.
6. Greens. They almost beat Winston for bottom spot but he has that permanently reserved. If they were a true environmental party they’d be No 3, but they became the party of welfare fraud and still to this day won’t unequivocally say it is wrong.
7. Winston of course.

How would you rank the seven parties?

The Curia average of the public polls has the parties as:

• National 43.3%, 54 seats
• Labour 39.7%, 49 seats
• Greens 6.6%, 8 seats
• NZ First 6.5%, 8 seats
• TOP 1.6%, 0 seats
• Maori Party 1.0%, 2 seats (one overhang)
• ACT 0.4%, 1 seat (one overhang)
• United Future 0.1%, 0 seats

Now this average includes all the polls done by the main public pollsters during an election but time and size weights them. This means it includes the earlier One News Colmar Brunton polls that showed Labour leading.  The two final TV polls have 100% weighting, the ones from the week prior have 87% and 84%, the two before that 65% weighting and the two from the start of the campaign around 45% each. I’m not saying this weighted average will be accurate. It has been pretty accurate in the past, but the huge variability in the One News Colmar Brunton poll has impacted the average and has National lower than the final two TV polls this week.

So anyway who will be a Member of Parliament under this poll? First we need to decide on electorate seats. The only public polls showing a change are Ohariu going to Greg O’Connor and Te Tai Hauauru going to Howie Tamati from the Maori Party. I believe there will be mroe changes than that, but as I’ve done polling in a number of seats for a number of clients, I can’t be explicit about what they are. So the electorate seat assumptions are based on the public polls, and are not my private predictions.

So projected MPs (new ones in bold) are:

National

1. Auckland Central: Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty: Todd Muller
3. Botany: Jami-Lee Ross
4. Christchurch Central: Nicky Wagner
5. Clutha Southland: Hamish Walker
6. Coromandel: Scott Simpson
7. East Coast: Anne Tolley
8. East Coast Bays: Erica Stanford
9. Hamilton East: David Bennett
10. Hamilton West: Tim Macindoe
11. Helensville: Chris Penk
12. Hunua: Andrew Bayly
13. Ilam: Gerry Brownlee
14. Invercargill: Sarah Dowie
15. Kaikoura: Stuart Smith
16. Maungakiekie: Denise Lee
17. Nelson: Nick Smith
18. New Plymouth: Jonathan Young
19. North Shore: Maggie Barry
20. Northcote: Jonathan Coleman
21. Otaki: Nathan Guy
22. Pakuranga: Simeon Brown
23. Papakura: Judith Collins
24. Rangitata: Andrew Falloon
25. Rangitikei: Ian McKelvie
26. Rodney: Mark Mitchell
27. Rotorua: Todd McClay
28. Selwyn: Amy Adams
29. Tamaki: Simon O’Connor
30. Taranaki-King Country: Barbara Kuriger
31. Taupo: Louise Upston
32. Tauranga: Simon Bridges
33. Tukituki : Lawrence Yule
34. Waikato: Tim van de Molen
35. Waimakariri: Matthew Doocey
36. Wairarapa: Alastair Scott
37. Upper Harbour: Paula Bennett
38. Waitaki: Jacqui Dean
39. Whanganui: Harete Hipango
40. Whangarei: Shane Reti
41. Bill English
42. David Carter
43. Steven Joyce
44. Chris  Finlayson
45. Michael Woodhouse
46. Paul Goldsmith
47. Alfred Ngaro
48. Brett Hudson
49. Melissa Lee
50. Kanwal JK Bakshi
51. Jian Yang
52. Paramjit Parmar
53. Jo Hayes
54. Chris Bishop

Labour

1. Christchurch East: Poto Williams
2. Dunedin North: David Clark
3. Dunedin South: Clare Curran
4. Hauraki-Waikato: Nanaia Mahuta
5. Hutt South: Virgina Andersen
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti: Meka Whaitiri
7. Kelston: Carmel Sepuloni
8. Mana: Kris Faafoi
9. Mangere: Su’a William Sio
10. Manukau East: Jenny Salesa
11. Manurewa: Louisa Wall
12. Mt Albert: Jacinda Ardern
13. Mt Roskill: Michael Wood
14. Napier: Stuart Nash
15. New Lynn: Deborah Russell
16. Ohariu: Greg O’Connor
17. Palmerston North: Iain Lees-Galloway
18. Port Hills: Ruth Dyson
19. Rimutaka: Chris Hipkins
20. Rongotai: Paul Eagle
21. Tamaki Makaurau: Peene Henare
22. Te Atatu: Phil Twyford
23. Te Tai Tokerau: Kelvin Davis
24. Te Tai Tonga: Rino Tirakatene
25. Wellington Central: Grant Robertson
26. West Coast Tasman: Damien O’Connor
27. Wigram : Megan Woods
28. Andrew Little
29. David Parker
30. Priyanca Radhakrishan
31. Raymond Huo
32. Jan Tinetti
33. Willow-Jean Prime
34. Kiri Allan
35. Willie Jackson
36. Jo Luxton
37. Liz Craig
38. Marja Lubeck
39. Trevor Mallard
40. Tamati Coffey
41. Jamie Strange
42. Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki
43. Kieran McAnulty
44. Angie Warren-Clark
45. Helen White
46. Steph Lewis
47. Duncan Webb
48. Sosene Lemauga Lydia
49. Janette Walker

Greens

1. James Shaw
2. Marama Davidson
3. Julie Anne Genter
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Gareth Hughes
6. Jan Logie
7. Chloe Swarbrick
8. Golriz Ghahraman

NZ First

1. Northland: Winston Peters
2. Ron Mark
3. Tracey Martin
4. Fletcher Tabuteau
5. Darrioch Ball
6. Clayton Mitchell
7. Mark Patterson
8. Shane Jones

Maori Party

1. Waiariki: Te Ururoa Flavell
2. Te Tai Hauauru: Howie Tamati

ACT

1. Epsom: David Seymour

I expect the final result to be a bit different to this, but on this projection there would be 35 new MPs in Parliament and one recycled one (Shane Jones).

The table above shows the final polls for the six companies that published during the campaign period. The simple average of them has National and Labour tied. If you average the three who do regular political polling them National is 6% ahead of Labour.

UMR also do polling which is a mixture of public and private. They normally publish their results towards the end of the year. Jacinda Ardern said this morning that UMR has Labour just 1% behind National.

The Curia average of the public polls (which is not the same as Curia’s private polling) has National 4% ahead of Labour. That includes all eight polls from the three main companies during the campaign, with a size and time weighting. As the ONCB poll fluctated so much, that is why this average has it tighter – because it doesn’t just take the last poll from each company.

It will be fascinating to see which poll is closest to the result, and how close any of them are. I’m confident the Newsroom/SSI poll won’t be the closest!

The Herald reports:

National and Labour are planning a post-election shake up of the $50 billion apartment sector, dogged by disputes, power struggles, lax governance, lack of pre-purchase disclosure, poor maintenance and management plans and financial issues.

Whoever wins on Saturday, the rules governing where around 100,000 Aucklanders live will change significantly.

Nick Smith, Building and Construction Minister, and Phil Twyford, Labour housing spokesman, this week vowed to amend the Unit Titles Act, following Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye’s big push on the issue in the summer of 2016.

This is a good example of someone being a good local MP. It can be very challening to champion an issue as a local MP when you are also a Minister as it cuts across the portfolios of your colleagues. You need to be able to advocate for a solution that benefits your constituents, but do so in a way which doesn’t undermine the Minister.

Smith said the reform was an area where detail mattered a great deal. Key policy changes would overhaul pre-purchase disclosure so people knew what they were buying, clarify rules of body corporate managers, provide greater rigor around the building maintenance plans with a differential for larger complexes and improve the dispute resolution system, Smith said.

The Tenancy Tribunal would have its jurisdiction extended into the unit titles’ sector and the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation’s powers to investigate would also be extended, he said.

Kaye said this week: “I am pleased that we have committed to progress legislation by the end of the year. I think it really important for people to have confidence in issues like disclosure and capital maintenance plans for apartments and units.

“It’s another important step in ensuring we have a diverse range of affordable housing options for Aucklanders. As MP for Auckland Central I have worked hard to ensure we have change on these issues.”

Not everything is about party politics. You often get MPs who are incredibly hard working and effective advocates for their electorates. Annette King is a great example in Rongotai as Nikki Kaye is in Auckland Central. Despite being Minister of Education, she is relentlessly active in the electorate.

The Herald reports:

Self-service ordering kiosks are being rolled out at Wendy’s, McDonalds and other restaurants and fast food chains over the next few years. So I guess it’s just a matter of time until automation takes over the kitchen.

Actually . . . that time has come.

According to a report this week in TechCrunch, a fast-casual restaurant chain headquartered in Southern California, US, called Caliburger is installing robotic hamburger-flipping chefs in its Pasadena location and then plans to roll them out to its other 49 outlets around the world over the next few years.

Caliburger’s Pasadena location is conveniently located in the same town as Miso Robotics, a start-up that’s developed its hamburger flipping, “robotic kitchen assistant” called – not unsurprisingly -Flippy.

Flippy loves the living wage movement. The higher activists push minimum wage rates, the more jobs there are for Flippy.

Flippy is a robot, or more specifically a very specialized industrial 6-axis robotic arm that is bolted to the kitchen floor in front of a grill or fryer and has a “spinning spatula” that cooks the food. The unit receives data from thermal and 3D sensors as well as cameras and takes its orders through a digital ticketing system.

It is capable of grabbing and unwrapping food, keeping track of cooking time and temperature and then plating the food so that a human chef can add garnishes.

Flippy sounds like he has a great work ethic.

Kirk Hope from Business NZ writes:

As a result it looks as if Labour might get through to the election without having to explain its policy.

Yet it would appear to herald the biggest industrial relations change in a generation.

This is what we can glean about it, based on the information released so far.

The policy is called ‘fair pay agreements’.  These would be large collective agreements covering all workers in the same occupation, and their employers.

Supermarket, hospitality and childcare workers, cleaners, support workers and similar occupations would be likely targets for this policy.

It would mean everyone in that occupation being awarded the same minimum pay, and being able to bargain – and strike – for extra pay on top of that.

Unions would start bargaining with the employers concerned, and employers would be required by law to take part in the bargaining, even if they didn’t want to.

Then, once bargaining had started, employers would be required by law to come to an agreement with the unions concerned, even if they didn’t want to.

The result could be an occupational wage round where wages are forced up without the voluntary agreement of employers.  

This is the critical part. For the last 25 years or so wages and salaries are set through agreement between the employer and employees (or their union). An employer has to agree to the wages they are obliged to pay. They can be pressured through strike action, but they have to agree.

What Labour is proposing is that the Government will set wages for an entire industry. Individual employers will have no ability to opt out. Their agreement will not be needed. So employers will lose control of their biggest cost centre – staff.

It is concerning that Labour says it will take a year to work out the details of this policy.

That is not good enough. Voters need to know the detail – just as with Labour’s tax policy.

On the sketchy details available, this policy seems very like the national awards of the 1970s and ’80s.

Yet to hear how it is different in any way.

It would be very helpful if Labour could let us know what differences there are – if any – between national awards and fair pay agreements.

We need to know this, because national awards and second-tier bargaining gave us the worst ever period of strikes in New Zealand’s history.

Back to the 70s when New Zealand had one industry after another out on strike.

This column has been updated with Hope’s expanded definition of second-tier bargaining. Labour disagrees with Hope’s view but did not identify any factual errors and declined an offer to submit a right of reply opinion column.

So Labour said Hope was wrong but could not actually say how.

They didn’t do a right of reply because the last thing they want is to have voters realise what their policy will entail. This is their huge huge payoff to their union funders. If they can get to implement this policy, then the unions will gain millions in revenue and be able to pass more of that through to Labour.

The final pre-election poll from Newshub is at Curia. It has National 7.5% ahead of Labour. However NZ First projected to hold the balance of power.

Voters this week have a clear choice between Labour’s optimism and honesty, or rewarding National’s campaign of relentless lies.

National’s failure to acknowledge and fix the housing crisis will be their legacy. Labour will tackle the housing crisis head-on.

Today’s GDP figures reflect an economy that the National Government has allowed to drift along on the basis of growing population rather than improving productivity and adding value.

The average Kiwi worker will be $1060 worse off a year if Labour is elected to government

We are going to give Aucklanders their waterfront back [No need for a tank farm under NZ First! – Ed].

ACT will insist the next government declare a Housing State of Emergency in Auckland to allow the building of new homes within the first 100 days, leader David Seymour said today.

We have achieved a hell of a lot since launching The Opportunities Party just ten months ago, and with election day looming, we know we have convinced tens of thousands of New Zealanders that non-tribal evidence based policies will provide solutions to the country’s problems. [Evidence-based policy, or policy-based evidence? – Ed]

Vote Conservative Party if you really want progress on basic issues like housing.

Last night’s leader’s debate was a fizzer, but latest poll points to National.

Last night’s Colmar Brunton: National 46% (up 6); Labour 37% (down 7); Greens 8% (up 1); NZ First 4.9% (down 1); Maori 1%; TOP 2% 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
• Total Parliament: 121

Conducted from September 16 to September 19.

Three News Reid Research out at 6pm.

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.

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.