So 75 hours after John Key announced his resignation, National has effectively selected a new leader and Prime Minister. Hard to imagine a better outcome politically as the longer the leadership of a party (and country) is unsettled, the more disruptive it can be.

It was slightly surreal the way it was resolved. Mainly for my own interest I started counting up the number of MPs who had publicly pledged for English, and it was around a dozen. So I blogged it as a useful resource for others. Then over the morning more and more MPs made public statements on Facebook and Twitter and suddenly it became apparent that English may get a majority of caucus publicly pledged to him in advance of the actual vote on Monday. And I was following this from the women’s ward of Wellington Hospital (nothing serious, just a follow up) where I was holed up for six hours!

This is not how it has been done in the past. In the past few MPs publicly declare whom they are backing, and you find out in caucus whether the private pledges of support eventuate. But in the age of social media, we had a running count occurring here and on Twitter, and within seconds of the 30th MP declaring for English, it was judged to be all over.

As the English count got up into the 20s, I was amused to have a couple of MPs contact me to point out I had overlooked their public declarations, so they got added to the list and it started to look more and more likely English would get there during the afternoon.

Once he hit 30, Collins and then Coleman conceded. I understand Jonathan said something along the lines of he didn’t just go with the count on Kiwiblog, but verified things with a few phone calls – which was sensible :-).

I think the party is the better for having had Jonathan and Judith stand, rather than a coronation. It allowed the backbench MPs to deliver a message that they do want rejuvenation beyond just the leadership, and also that they want greater consultation and input into major decisions. Both are stances I agree with. If there had been no contest, then those desires would have simmered away on the backbench, rather than be clearly communicated.

I think English won because at the end of the day the major foundation of the Government’s success has been as very competent managers or shepherds of the economy. Being good economic managers is not enough to win the support of the country, but it is a pre-condition. Without that, the other stuff won’t get a look in. English had the established successful record in this area and that gave him the advantage.

English now has a tough job – he has to deliver some rejuvenation to the Cabinet, but not so much to destabilise the Government. But it does require more than simply Bill takes John’s job, Steven takes Bill’s job and Steven’s portfolios get farmed out.

Key things to look out for are:

• Who gets elected Deputy Prime Minister
• How many backbenchers get promoted to the ministry
• Which lower ranked Ministers get moved up to the front bench
• If English continues with the “kitchen” Cabinet or strategy group, who makes that up
• Which Minister/s picks up Economic Development and Tertiary Education

Peter Dunne wrote:

I remember being lectured at University that to understand New Zealand politics one had to appreciate that Labour was too hide-bound by its principles and its past, and consequently too often unelectable. National, on the other hand, stood for nothing other than not being Labour, and beat them more often than not at election time as a consequence. Harsh, perhaps, but certainly true.

 

So when I heard the current Labour leader berating the former Labour Mayor of Porirua as not “true Labour” for allegedly contemplating standing for the National Party, I felt I was back in the time warp. “My party, right or wrong” thinking has returned with a vengeance under the current Labour leadership. The focus seems to be more on building a cadre of proper-thinking members, rather than a broad based organisation, capable of accommodating many different voices, but coalescing around some common broad goals to present to the electorate. No, the primary goal now seems to be to ensure the ideological purity of those who represent the Party, which narrows its base considerably. The test for advancement is no longer merit based, but on whether one is “true” Labour or not, however vaguely that is defined. Labour’s leaders used to proclaim it was a “broad church”, but now it has become a “narrow sect”.

 

In my darker moments, I think of the Labour Party I joined and how it has changed over the years. I feel sad, not bitter, that it has moved away from so many people like me, who used to be its advocates, and has written off people of independence and aspiration as not fitting its core values. Yet, we still have a burning social conscience, and still believe there is a place for a major Party of compassion that can balance the accounts, and preserve the environment. Today, National has well and truly outflanked Labour on those scores, and only Labour seems not to realise it.

Stuff reports:

The youth justice age has been raised to 18, ensuring offenders 17 and under will be dealt with in the youth court, away from more hardened criminals dealt with in District Courts. 

The youth justice system will be extended to include lower risk 17-year-olds, Justice Minister Amy Adams and Social Development Minister Anne Tolley have announced today.

The changes, which will take place by 2019, will ensure that all 17-year-old offenders are dealt with according to which jurisdiction is best suited to the particular case.

The vast majority of 17-year-old offenders are lower risk. They will be dealt with in the Youth Court where the interventions are more targeted and lead to better results.

17-year-olds who are serious, violent offenders who commit a range of offences like murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults, aggravated robbery, arson, or serious assaults will continue to be dealt with by adult courts. 

30 of the 59 National MPs have now publicly declared for Bill English so he is the presumptive Prime Minister.

The Economist reports:

On a long list of yardsticks his country of only 4.7m people—“the last bus stop on the planet”, as Mr Key puts it, has been a striking success. The World Bank recently rated it the easiest place on earth to do business. The Legatum Insitute, a think-tank in London, judged it—by crunching nine different criteria—the world’s most prosperous spot. Transparency International, a Berlin-based anti-corruption monitor, reckons it to be the world’s fourth most honest. A clutch of other league tables puts it in the top ranks—for happiness, healthiness, democracy, freedom, among others. Bloomberg recently reported that a growing band of magnates from the United States, Russia and China (among them Jack Ma of Alibaba, reckoned to be China’s richest man) have bought, or want to buy, hideaway homes in safe and beautiful New Zealand.

The bald figures testify to New Zealand’s perkiness. The city of Christchurch, near the epicentre of a devastating earthquake in 2011, in which 185 people perished, is bouncing back. The national economy has been growing at a steady 3.5% a year; unemployment is under 5%. The employment rate is one of the highest in the world. Wages, says Mr Key, have risen by a quarter in real terms since 2008.

The increase in real wages is a big factor is why so many are happy. That is what makes a difference to families.

Mr Key, a former currency trader in Singapore and London whose own wealth has been reckoned at more than $35m, has applied what he calls a policy of “radical incrementalism”. He has lowered income tax rates (to 33% at the top), brought the national debt down to 25% and partially privatised a batch of state utilities. At the same time he has raised VAT from 12.5% to 15%, reformed health care and increased various benefits (for instance, by making prescriptions and visits to the doctor free for children under 13).

And got the books back into surplus.

Whether or not the National Party retains its ascendancy next year, Mr Key must go down as one of New Zealand’s most successful leaders. And New Zealand, under his stewardship, can claim to be one of the most successful countries in the world.

Not a bad tribute.

Stuff reports:

The Horowhenua District’s deputy mayoralty is up in the air after a meeting descended into farce.

Ross Campbell was voted out by councillors, mayor Michael Feyen moved to reinstate him, councillors voted to appoint Wayne Bishop and then Feyen said he would reappoint Campbell. The council will now seek legal advice. 

“I will, after [the vote] is taken, be exercising my right to choose the deputy mayor that I think I need,” Feyen said, in a controversial and unheralded move on Wednesday.

The Local Government Act seems pretty clear to me, that the Mayor can not just appoint a new Deputy Mayor if his initial choice is removed by the Council.

Section 41A(3)(a) states:

A mayor has the following powers: to appoint the deputy mayor

Which he did. But S41A(4)(a) also states:

However, nothing in subsection (3) limits or prevents a territorial authority from removing, in accordance with clause 18 of Schedule 7, a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor under subsection (3)(a)

Which the Council has done. So what does Clause 18 say?

(1) At a meeting that is in accordance with this clause, a territorial authority or regional council may remove its chairperson, deputy chairperson, or deputy mayor from office.

Which they did

(2) If a chairperson, deputy chairperson, or deputy mayor is removed from office at that meeting, the territorial authority or regional council may elect a new chairperson, deputy chairperson, or deputy mayor at that meeting.

So fairly clear that the Mayor can not appoint a new Deputy Mayor if his original choice is removed from office.

However note 4(b)

A resolution or requisition must indicate whether or not, if the chairperson, deputy chairperson, or deputy mayor is removed from office, a new chairperson, deputy chairperson, or deputy mayor is to be elected at the meeting if a majority of the total membership of the territorial authority or regional council (excluding vacancies) so resolves.

So the meeting requisition needed to specify that they would elect a new Deputy Mayor, if successful. So long as they did that, the law is pretty clear.

I’ve been tracking public endorsements of MPs on the leadership. So far no National MP has said they are voting for Jonathan Coleman or Judith Collins. That does not mean they have no support – just that their supporters are not publicly saying what they will do.

Bill English has had a number of MPs say they will be voting for him. If he gets to 30 (including himself), then it is basically all over. So who are the public endorsements to date:

1. John Key
2. Bill English
3. Nikki Kaye
4. Michael Woodhouse
5. Nathan Guy
6. Nick Smith
7. Anne Tolley
8. Louise Upston
9. Hekia Parata
10. Murray McCully
11. Simon Bridges
12. Nuk Korako
13. Sarah Dowie
14. Chester Borrows
15. Paul Foster-Bell
16. Paula Bennett
17. Brett Hudson
18. Jacqui Dean
19. Jami-Lee Ross
20. Todd Muller
21. Amy Adams
22. Chris Bishop
23. Jo Hayes
24. Mark Mitchell
25. Chris Finlayson
26. Jonathan Young
27. Todd Barclay
28. Alfred Ngaro
29. Jono Naylor
30. Barbara Kuriger
31. Gerry Brownlee
32. Jian Yang

So English is at 32 confirmed votes.

Note this is based on public statements and media reports only. It is not a predictor of how MPs who have not stated a preference will vote.

I’ll update the list as and if any more MPs state a public preference.

Update: Bill English now has 30 31 32 votes pledged to him in public and is the presumptive Prime Minister.

Audrey Young reports:

Labour MP David Shearer is poised to resign from Parliament to take up the tough job of leading the United Nations’ mission in war-torn South Sudan.

The latest political bombshell will mean a byelection in his Mt Albert electorate early next year, the first electoral challenge for the new Prime Minister.

A recommendation for his appointment has been put before the UN Security Council in New York by outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon.

Once approved this week, Shearer will work alongside the commander of 18,000 peace-keepers, with a budget of about $1 billion.

Any of the Security Council’s 15 members has two days to object, but given Shearer’s previous experience as a senior UN leader in trouble-spots, he is likely to be accepted.

Congrats to David Shearer – he’ll be great in the role.

It has been known for many months that Shearer wanted to exit Parliament, and who could blame him for not wanting to stay in the Labour caucus.

What is interesting is that a very reliable source (from Labour) told me that Shearer was up for an even more prominent UN role in the middle of the year – head of all UN operations in Syria. He had the full backing of the Government for the job. But he got effectively vetoed. Who by? His predecessor at the MP for Mt Albert who thought another NZer getting a top UN job would interfere with her bid for UN Secretary General.

The appointment is a personal one by the UN Secretary-General. It is not one that required a nomination by the Government.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said Shearer, who is Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman, had the strong support of the Government.

“It is a huge deal,” he said.

“[Security Council members have] a couple of days to raise any concerns, so it is not a done deal yet.

“But it is a big feather in his cap.

“This is the toughest peace-keeping assignment on the planet. It is a difficult and dangerous place.”

The three-year civil war in South Sudan has forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

I didn’t realise who big the civil war was there.

Good to see the Government continue the tradition of supporting New Zealanders for top roles, regardless of their political party.

A byelection in Mt Albert will be the second for Labour to defend, following last weekend’s success in keeping Mt Roskill. Shearer won Mt Albert in 2014 with a 10,656 majority.

But like Mt Roskill, National polled higher than Labour in the party vote, by 3536 votes.

There could be a lot of people interested in the Mt Albert candidacy, including existing List MPs.

The party vote figure is a bit misleading as the Greens get a lot of party vote there also. Combined they got 18,000 votes to 14,300 for National.

The National Party rules do not dictate how caucus elects the leader. It is left up to caucus to make their own rules. This post is based on what those rules have been in the past. Caucus can change them of course.

1. Resolve to have a leadership election (not necessary in case of vacancy)
2. Each candidate can self nominate. No longer need to have a mover and seconder.
3. Each candidate will make a speech to caucus
4. Whips hand out ballot papers and MPs write in the name of the candidate they wish to be leader
5. The whips count the votes
6. The whips will announce either that a candidate has been elected leader or that no candidate got over 50% (30 votes) of the votes and who the lowest polling candidate is
7. If needed, then a final ballot is held between the two remaining candidates
8. The whips will announce the result. The number of votes received by each candidate is not disclosed

After the leader has been elected, they will elect a Deputy Leader. I understand it is likely to be later that day.

There may also be election for Whips. It used to be automatic that the Whips would resign when the leadership changes. However this is no longer the case. However again if the leader indicates a preference for a change, then an election would occur.

Unlike Labour, the leader is the sole decider of who becomes a Minister (Labour has the caucus elect the Cabinet). The new leader will consult colleagues and then make announcements in due course.

The Herald reports:

The first policy of Gareth Morgan’s new Opportunities Party has been released this morning – repeating a call he made earlier this year for a tax on equity to make the revenue system fairer.

The tax policy, which matches the content of a Morgan Foundation report on tax released in April, proposes deeming a minimum rate of return on all productive assets, including housing and land.

Those that already declare at least that level of income will be unaffected and those that don’t will pay more, the party’s tax policy statement said.

It said about 80 per cent of adults will be either unaffected or pay less tax as a result of the suggested tax reform and 20 per cent would pay more. “But don’t fret, we can afford it,” said the wealthy Morgan. “I will pay considerably more tax, so will John Key.”

It would mean people could be taxed for owning the house they live in or even for an expensive car.

Overall, the fledgling party’s package would be tax neutral, with every additional tax dollar collected given back via income tax cuts, it said.

The full policy is here. Somewhat annoyingly it doesn’t give any details of what rate would apply for this asset tax, and what reductions in income tax would be to compensate. Only then can you assess the impact at an individual level.

But let’s look at the policy from a macro level.

The good

• Designed to be revenue neutral, income tax would be cut to compensate
• Fits well with best practice of broad base, low rate
• Has no exemptions, minimising gaming
• Would reduce tax on income incentivising work

The bad

• Taxing assets, rather than gains on assets, could be very harsh on some. Say your KiwiSaver account has a bad year and loses 10% of its value. To add insult to injury you then get whacked a tax on the account, despite having had losses.
• Very tough on asset rich, income poor households, such as the retired.
• Will discourage assets and savings. Not a problem if was a tax on land only (as supply is fixed)

The ugly

• Every taxpayer will have to prepare a balance sheet as well as a tax return
• Likely huge work for accountants with people trying to devalue their asset worth

The Herald reports:

Transport Minister Simon Bridges has declared his bid for Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon.

He has also endorsed Bill English for Prime Minister.

At a press conference this afternoon, Bridges said English would continue the stability of the John Key-led National Government.

He said that as Deputy Prime Minister, he would provide the “change and rejuvenation part of the equation”.

Bridges said he was confident English would win the leadership race and he had not yet considered being part of another ticket.

The “whole premise” of his bid was an English-Bridges leadership, he said.

Bridges is the only declared contender for Deputy PM at the moment. His public endorsement of English brings his total to 10 – Key, Tolley, Parata, Bridges, Upston, Woodhouse, Guy, N Smith, Kaye and Korako. There are 59 MPs, so taking aside the three candidates that is 46 yet to declare. Some may never publicly declare their preferences of course.

UPDATE: Paula Bennett has now declared she will also seek the Deputy Leadership and has endorsed Bill English for leader.

So if English wins, the two contenders (so far) for Deputy are Bennett and Bridges. Both from West Auckland and both are Maori.

After a huge backlash from local members in Labour Nelson, I am told Labour’s Council has backed down and decided it will stand a candidate in Nelson after all.

This has left the Greens fuming because once again they are getting screwed in the MOU. Greens are standing down in seats to help Labour, but Labour is not giving them anything back.

And even if there is a change of Government, Winston will block the Greens from holding anything more senior than a Select Committee Deputy Chair.

Rob Hosking writes:

Mr Key has already been an exceptionally successful leader for the National Party, and his unexpected decision to stand down after 10 years cements his place in history not just as a successful winner of a record number of elections but also turns the focus on what he has actually done.

For all the hopes and fears of his political opponents, that Mr Key would turn out to be some sort of political equivalent of Jenny Shipley or Ruth Richardson holding a beer, his government has not been noted for a particularly right-wing direction.

That is one of the things which has vexed the Labour and Green parties, whose members have repeatedly hoped Mr Key would do something ideologically rigorous and politically foolish. Mr Key, whose watchword has been flexibility rather than rigour, was not going to be so silly, and it is a mark of how badly his opponents have misread both the man and politics that they have continually hoped and expected him to do so. 

So many years of trying to portray him as something he isn’t.

But his government has done some things that should, theoretically have been politically suicidal.

Selling shares in government assets was one: Putting up GST in the middle of a recession was another.

Holding government operating spending year on year for several years was a third.

Yet Mr Key and his loyal deputy and finance minister – and, it seems, preferred successor if he wants the job – Bill English, managed to pull that trick off.

And his government also stepped up Treaty settlements and, as Mr Key loves to remind people, also put up benefits in real terms for the first time since 1972.

Most importantly overall, Mr Key’s government steered New Zealand through the aftermath of the global financial crisis without doing what its predecessors in almost every economic crisis since World War II have done, and that was to go on a panic-stricken, politically unsustainable and socially ruinous slash and burn exercise.

Plus the welfare reforms, better public services and the investment approach – which may prove the most beneficial in the long term.

That success and his popularity were unusual for a party leader in New Zealand. Mr Key has had a personal popularity, above and beyond that of his party, and his followers have held him in the kind of affection not seen since … Well, there isn’t really a parallel in New Zealand history.

Mr Key hasn’t reached the quasi-sainthood of a Michael Joseph Savage, and neither would he or his party ever have aspired to hold such a near-religious status. He comes close though as a kind of secular symbol of a laid-back blokey brand of New Zealander.

I recall one year at OUSA (Otago Uni Students’ Assn) there was a backlash against a move to set up some new position for the minority of the week. So a group several hundred partially drunk students turned up to the next SRC and successfully passed the creation of a new position called “The Decent Kiwi Joker Officer”.

Maybe that is Key’s secular symbol – the decent Kiwi joker.

Mr Key’s departure gives National a chance to rejuvenate itself for the 2017 election at ministerial and other levels.

It is an administration that very much needs rejuvenation.  It is a long way from reaching the kind of static sclerosis of previous long-serving governments but it was heading that way and a minor reshuffle in the New Year, followed by what was being seen increasingly as an inevitable election win, would see that sclerosis take hold.

It is time, as Mr Key said, for a refresh.

There will of course be some very significant changes now – a new PM, Deputy PM and Finance Minister in all probability. This may ironically remove the pressure for a shake up further down the ranks. But some portfolios will have to be reallocated. Who will take Tourism? If Joyce gets Finance who takes Economic Development, Science and Innovation and Tertiary Education? Will Hekia Parata keep Education until she retires or will that form part of a reshuffle?

Also if the Deputy PM is not the Finance Minister, what senior portfolios will they take?

NewstalkZB reports:

Colin Craig’s copyright suit has been thrown out by a judge who said the case was “vexatious” and a “waste of the court’s time”.

Before Craig was found to have defamed Jordan Williams, the former leader of the Conservative Party filed legal papers suing him and Whale Oil blog founder Cameron Slater for publishing one of his poems.

The piece of writing in question, dubbed the “love poem”, was well documented during the four-week defamation jury trial which concluded with a $1.27 million verdict against the politician.

Craig argued his poem was private and the publication of it by Williams when he showed a copy to Slater and then Slater when he put it on his blog was a breach of copyright.

And because Whale Oil earns revenue through paid content and advertising, Craig argued he should be awarded damages in the sum of $3000 per month it was on the site plus GST.

He also wanted $3000 for the “flagrant” infringement of copyright, an injunction preventing the continued publication of the poem and a written apology.

The total invoice came to $15,000.

But at a civil hearing at the Auckland District Court today, Judge Mary Elizabeth Sharp heard submissions from Craig, Williams’ lawyer Ali Romanos and Slater’s counsel Brian Henry.

The judge granted Slater’s and Williams’ strike out applications, meaning the proceedings won’t continue.

Judge Sharp said she’d seen no evidence either defendant had received any monetary gains from publishing the poem, although she didn’t rule on whether there were fair dealings.

She said allowing the proceedings to continue would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people” given Craig’s “real argument” was breach of confidence and his reputation.

“This is a vexatious proceeding.

It has been brought for a collateral purpose.”

Judge Sharp said she didn’t believe the process of court was being “fairly or honestly” used by the proceedings and it was being brought for an “ulterior and improper purpose”.

“It is manifestly groundless and without foundation. It serves no useful purpose, even if there has been a technical infringement by the defendants.”

That is a damning judgment from Judge Sharp.

From my perspective as someone who takes a keen interest in copyright law, Judge Sharp is correct. While the publication of a love poem without permission is a technical breach of copyright, trying to claim a commercial loss of $15,000 from it is farcical.

The Herald reports:

National MP Nikki Kaye has returned to Parliament for the first time since she was diagnosed with breast cancer to participate in her party’s leadership contest.

“I’m back, briefly,” she told reporters. “I want to be here to participate in the process.

“I’m still getting some treatment but my plan is to be back early next year to resume full duties.” …

Kaye also confirmed she would stand again in Auckland Central in next year’s election. She has held the seat since 2008 and reclaimed it in 2014 with the smallest winning margin in the country – 600 votes.

The 36 year-old National MP stood down from her ministerial portfolios in September to get treatment for breast cancer.

She spoke today about the support Prime Minister John Key had given her during her leave from Parliament.

Holding back tears, she said Key had given her “every bit of support”.

“I don’t want to cry, but he has been an incredible rock during this period.

“So has the Deputy Prime Minister and the caucus.

“To all of those people who get cancer, and particularly breast cancer sufferers out there, I just want to acknowledge the courage that they have and to say that I could not have more support from my caucus during that period.”

Kaye also thanked media for giving her the space to recover.

Nikki is one of my closest friends, so obviously I am very pleased that her treatment has progressed to a point where she can return to work. The diagnosis came as such a shock, but Nikki has approached this particular battle with the same determination she brings to everything else in life.

There are now three declared candidates for the National Party Leadership and hence to become the 39th Prime Minister of New Zealand. They are:

• Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bill English
• Health and Sports Minister Jonathan Coleman
• Corrections and Police Minister Judith Collins

Bill English entered Parliament in 1990 and is aged 54.

Judith Collins entered Parliament in 2002 and is aged 57.

Jonathan Coleman entered Parliament in 2005 and is aged 50.

No word yet on any candidates for Deputy.

Exciting to have a contested race, and good to see enough talent in the caucus so there are good choices available.

Stuff reports:

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is taking her bid for a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s Nov. 8 presidential election to federal court.

After announcing Stein and recount supporters were dropping their case in state court, lawyer Jonathan Abady said they will seek an emergency federal court order Monday.

“Make no mistake – the Stein campaign will continue to fight for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania,” Abady said in a statement Saturday night.

He said barriers to a recount in Pennsylvania are pervasive and the state court system is ill-equipped to address the problem.

Stein has spearheaded a recount effort in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, three states with a history of backing Democrats for president that were narrowly and unexpectedly won by Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Stein has framed the campaign as an effort to explore whether voting machines and systems had been hacked and the election result manipulated. Stein’s lawyers, however, have offered no evidence of hacking in Pennsylvania’s election, and the state Republican Party and Trump had asked the court to dismiss the state court case.

This is conspiracy nutty behaviour on a large scale. There is no proof of any misconduct in the poll at all. No suspicious patterns. Just a refusal to accept the result.

The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, a Democrat, has said there was no evidence of any cyberattacks or irregularities in the election. And any recount would change few votes, Cortes predicted.

Just a huge scam to raise money for the US Greens

Alana Christensen in the SMH writes:

New Zealand has been the home to Australian expats for years, and now Kiwis are muscling in on the startup world as low living costs and talented entrepreneurs continue to build the country’s reputation for innovation.

The country, which was ranked No.1 in the world for ease of doing business by the World Bank, is increasingly becoming the dark horse in the Asia-Pacific startup world, attracting entrepreneurs from across the globe.

Andrew Lamb is one of those expats building the New Zealand economy. Having moved from Melbourne to Wellington in search of a cooler summer, Lamb and his company, Camshaft, have thrived with the relocation.

“We could run the company just as well in Wellington as we could in Melbourne, but Wellington has in our opinion nicer weather, it was too hot in Melbourne,” he said.

But the attractive lifestyle choice extends far past the weather, to an inclusive and collaborative tech startup community.

“In Wellington, there is a really tight-knit tech startup community where everyone knows everyone else, everyone is willing to give everyone a hand with whatever they’re working with,” Mr Lamb said.

“You can’t help but know everyone, and whenever a new company forms it’s a bunch of people who’ve worked at other companies together previously.”

The ecosystem that Lamb and Camshaft enjoy and Creative HQ sits in is much different to that of a decade ago. With support from the federal government, which has fostered the ecosystem, startups and startup incubators are growing and there’s greater opportunity in New Zealand. 

Creative HQ’s Lightning Lab is the biggest incubator program in the country and has benefited from a more structured and organised approach to innovation.

“When we started 12 to 15 years ago, the scene was very disorganised and very ad hoc, there were no angel investors and very limited talent. So it was pretty much random and sheer luck that any of us got off the ground,” Mr Korn said.

“Over the past four years we’ve worked very hard to structure it … as a result we’re seeing, especially in the past three or so years, dramatically increased levels of innovation coming from the startups, and increasingly so corporates and governments working together to drive innovation.”

We do have many amazing startups in Wellington. Good to see this being recognised.

Key says cutting taxes at lower incomes is “inefficient” – lots of cost for little $ per person… yeah, cause there’s lot of poor people

— Clint Smith (@ClintVSmith) November 28, 2016

Clint doesn’t seem to know how tax brackets work.

The bottom tax rate of 10.5c on the first $14,000 is not paid by just those who earn under $14,000. It is paid by every single income earner. So if you cut the 10.5c tax rate it impacts all 3.3 million taxpayers, not just the 400,000 or so who earn below that.

This is how every New Zealand Prime Minister (since Seddon) has left office.