Some are saying that the outcome is undemocratic in the US as the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college and hence the presidency.

Putting aside that it is unwise to insist that any non-proportional system is undemocratic, this misses a key element.

Candidates campaign based on the rules of the electoral system. If the US system was the winner of the popular vote becomes President, then the candidates may have campaigned quite differently and Trump may have won the popular vote because he would have spent more time in New York and California. Instead he spent most of his time on the Rust Belt states and this paid off.

The same goes in New Zealand in 1978 and 1981 when Labour got more votes than National. This was FPP so parties went for marginal seats. If it had been MMP then the popular vote may have been different as parties would have campaigned differently and campaigns do matter.

The Electoral College is an anachronism, but it is the system the elections are fought under, and can be changed if a constitutional amendment passes. But it was designed on purpose to make the US a federation of states, rather than a singular country with no states. It protects smaller states so that their interests are not lost to the larger more populous states. Now I’m not saying that is reason to retain it, but that is why it exists.

Liam Hehir writes at Stuff:

Gareth Morgan is founding his own political party, but before we get down to making fun of it, we really should give him credit for putting his money where his mouth is.

A brave thing to do, given the size of the mouth.

Morgan is a successful businessman. However, he first began infringing the public consciousness as the father of Trade Me founder Sam Morgan.

But while he may have started out as a kind of celebrity dad, he has managed to cling to the spotlight by becoming the nation’s most notorious know-it-all. 

According to tradition, an oracle stated the philosopher Socrates was the wisest man on Earth. Socrates had a hard time believing this, because he did not consider himself to be wise.

When he then tried and failed to find someone wiser, however, was forced to conclude: “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” 

One imagines that the profundity of this paradox would be lost of Gareth Morgan. If his public pronouncements are anything to go by, he would be more likely to say: “I am the wisest man alive, because I am the cleverest.”

Where Socrates was a gadfly because he asked questions, Morgan is a gadfly because he has all the answers.

Some of the intractable issues that could apparently be solved if we just acknowledged Morgan’s superior sense of logic include race relations, native bird numbers, the welfare state, the healthcare system, climate change, global fish stocks, North Korea and the performance of New Zealand soccer.

It seems there are few problems that could not be solved by his doing a bit of thinking and then declaring some grand scheme as the obvious solution. All that is required is for the rest of us to surrender our own experience, philosophy and values so that we can bask in the irresistible glow of Morgan’s rationality.

It is apparent that Morgan intends to bring this heroic self-belief to his political endeavours. You see, the reason he’s decided to get his hands dirty is that the solutions to our problems are “easy”. It’s just that our current politicians don’t have the guts to “disturb” voters by implementing them. 

While a bit harsh, I think it does resonate a but because Morgan does have the habit of pronouncing his policy prescription as the solution.

I actually reserve judgment on Morgan personally because a mutual friend has assures me that he is a good and decent man. There is also no doubt that he had forged a successful career in business quite apart from his son’s achievements.

Morgan has a very successful business career and I think it is great he cares enough about New Zealand that he will fund and offer policy solutions. I even agree with some of them, and disagree of course with  others.

But I still have trouble with his trip to North Korea where his praise of their farming and “magnificent” economic achievements came across as naive as best.

What he is likely to discover is that there is a world of difference between being a critic and being what Theodore Roosevelt called “The Man in the Arena”.

I might slag off Beauden Barrett’s goal kicking the morning after a test, but that doesn’t mean I could foot it in the black jersey. The same thing goes for the difference between politics and punditry.

Morgan may need to learn this the hard way. In some of his first public comments after announcing his new party, Morgan actually volunteered a statement likening himself to Donald Trump.

Then, obviously thinking better of the comparison, he said that he was nothing like Donald Trump. Then he reversed himself again by saying that maybe he was a bit like Donald Trump. 

This was all in the course of the same interview.

“Gareth Morgan launches new political party: Compares himself to Trump” announced the New Zealand Herald. “Philanthropist Gareth Morgan launches political party, compares himself to Donald Trump” said Stuff. Is it gotcha journalism when the victim sets his own trap and then repeatedly walks into it?

I suspect the media will run to Gareth for an interview whenever they are bored and need a good headline.

And it’s not clear there’s a market for another party. Despite attempts to hitch domestic politics to the narrative of discontent that prevails overseas, the last public poll showed that just 29 per cent of respondents think this country is on the wrong track. In a comparable survey, 56 per cent of Britons, 58 per cent of Australians, 64 per cent of Americans, 71 per cent of Germans, 83 per cent of Italians and 88 per cent of Frenchmen answered the same way when asked about their own country.

That’s an astonishing statistic and one people should reflect on.

Stuff reports:

A 110kmh speed limit looks likely to be introduced on some New Zealand roads.

Associate Transport Minister Craig Foss said a proposed new speed management guide, released on Thursday, would “modernise New Zealand’s approach to managing speed” and enable a limit of 110kmh on some roads.

“To be eligible for a 110kmh limit, a road will have to meet very strict conditions, including having a median barrier, at least two lanes in each direction and no direct access to neighbouring properties,” he said.

Excellent. As our road quality improved, the speed limit should reflect safer roads.

Others likely to become eligible include the soon-to-be completed Kapiti Expressway, the northern section of Christchurch Motorway, and the Transmission Gully motorway north of Wellington when it is finished in 2020.

Yay.

There are seven confirmed candidates for Mt Roskill. They are:

• Richard Goode, NAP
• Andrew Leitch, Democrats for Social Credit
• Roshan Nauhria, NZ People’s Party
• Parmjeet Parmar, National
• Tua Schuster, Independent
• Brandon Strange, Cannabis Party
• Michael Wood, Labour

This is fascinating, showing the change (according to exit polls) from 2012 to 2016. So effectively how Trump did compared to Romney.

He massively picked up votes of non-college whites. But he also increased the vote with Asians, Hispanics and Blacks. Overall the white vote for him only up slightly.  A 5% increase with men.

He lost support with women (but not much), over 65s, Jewish voters, gay voters and white college voters.

The big divide change is the white vote polarising between college and non college so much more.

Stuff reports:

Protest action has taken place outside Westpac in Invercargill on Friday after the bank’s financial offer to the victims of an alleged cheque fraud was deemed inadequate.

More than $55,000 was allegedly stolen from a meatworkers union “shed fund” expense account at the Blue Sky Meats processing plant over a seven year period.

The shed fund committee team has been seeking reparation from Westpac for the lost funds.

Why not seek it from the person who stole the money?

I presume he is or was a union official.

Money was paid into the shed fund account by union members at the meatworks plant and it was meant to be spent on expenses incurred by onsite union officials in the course of their union duties.

However, allegations surfaced that cheques were drawn for personal use on at least 500 occasions between 2007 and 2015.

Eddie Wood, who works at Blue Sky Meats and has been chairman of its unionised shed fund committee since 2015, says the bank’s offer to settle the dispute was too low.

He believes the bank should have had procedures in place to detect the “unsophististicated” fraud.

Westpac had accepted more than 500 cheques totalling more than $55,000 which he claims were either forged or only had one signature on them instead of the required two signatures, he said.

Banks basically never check signatures on checks unless over a certain level. If the cheques were an average $100 each then no way they would get checked.

If the union had detected the offending early on, then I suspect the bank would compensate. But if you don’t detect the fraud for seven years, can’t really expect the bank to be liable. The union should have accounts and an auditor which would pick this up.

Stuff reports on views of Wellingtonians in the annual WCC residents surveys. Indicators reported are:

• Residents who recycle 96% (+35%)
• Perception that Wellington is a great place to live 95% (-1%)
• Satisfaction with artificial sports fields 94% (+5%)
• Attendee satisfaction with council-supported arts and cultural festivals 85% (+1%)
• Perception that public transport services are convenient 69% (-1%)
• Perception that Wellington is a great place to work 66% (+3%)
• Residents who rate the city’s roads as good or very good 66% (nc)
• Residents’ satisfaction with their involvement in council decision-making 59% (-15%)
• Residents who think parking enforcement is fair 48% (-2%)
• Residents who think public transport services are affordable 46% (+8%)
• Residents who think peak traffic volumes are acceptable 43% (-4%)
• Satisfaction with grass sports fields 42% (-36%)
• Residents who agree council decisions are being made in the best interests of the city 34% (-2%)
• Residents who understand how the council makes decisions 33% (-2%)

Annoyingly I can’t see the full survey results on the WCC website.

Wellington Mayor Justin Lester said he was generally quite pleased with the results of the latest monitoring survey, which showed the council hit 65 per cent of its performance measure targets.

But there was always more work to be done, and while he knew the council had always made decisions in the best interests of the city, he would aim to improve public perception in that area through greater community planning.

The results are pretty good, but I’m not sure I’d be satisfied with achieving 65% of performance measure targets. I’d be aiming for over 80%.

This is from the exit polls.

So Trump had overwhelming support from white non-college voters, rural/small city voters and protestants.

Moderate support from men, married voters, older voters, Catholics, suburban dwellers and white college educated voters.

Clinton had moderate support from younger voters, women, single voters.

Clinton had strong support from city voters, Hispanics, non religious voters, Jewish voters, gay voters and Blacks.

Guide Fawkes covers the spending row over Baroness Scotland, the Commonwealth Secretary General:

Baroness Scotland has surfaced on the Today programme where she insisted “there has been no extravagance at all” in her spending since she became Commonwealth Secretary General.

Scotland said it is “untrue” she demanded £4,000 for a mirror-lined cupboard. Hereis the cost plan showing her demand for a £4,000 mirror-lined cupboard.

She said there is “no chandelier”. Read the emails where her staff complain about her demands over an “extremely expensive chandelier” here.

She said the total cost would be the original budget “plus the fees plus things that would come up”. Read her staff complaining about how expensive those “things that would come up” are here.

Scotland said she followed all procurement rules to hire her friend Lord Patel on £30,000-a-month. Here is a memo showing procurement practices were waived.

NZ taxpayers help fund the Commonwealth. Should our Government be asking questions?

UN Watch reports:

UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights high commissioner Zeid Hussein are being called upon to investigate how their officials allowed Venezuela to commit “fraud on a massive scale” to influence today’s UN review of the country’s human rights record by using hundreds of “front groups” to submit comments favorable to the regime, a watchdog group reported.

While “an astronomical amount of 519 supposedly non-governmental organizations” submitted comments for Venezuela’s review, only 54 commented on Uganda, 26 on Syria,  23 for South Sudan, and 20 on Zimbabwe, according to a new report published by UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights monitoring group.

Although “critiques by genuine NGOs do appear, they are overwhelmed by an unprecedented amount of submissions by fraudulent ‘NGOs’ that, if  they do exist, are either controlled by the government of Venezuela, or by its allies Cuba and Bolivia,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch and an international lawyer.

“This is fraud committed on a massive scale,” said Neuer, as Venezuela’s foreign minister appeared before the UN Human Rights Council this morning in Geneva, Switzerland, to present her government’s case. The UNHRC audits each nation every five years for its Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

“Venezuela used hundreds of front groups to hijack the United Nations database and compilation summary of NGO submissions, and turn it into a propaganda sheet for the regime of President Nicolas Maduro,” said Neuer.

The UPR is not binding on anyone “but does have an impact because it’s a megaphone, a podium, which does shape the way people think and it’s a source of legitimacy,” said Neuer.

“Among the 500 groups absurdly praising Venezuela’s alleged human rights accomplishments include the Bolivian Baseball Association, the Cuban Federation of Canine Sports, and the ‘Association for Obvious Things,’ a group in Slovenia that hailed Venezuela’s record on combating hunger,” said the UN Watch report.

“The result is that the review today of Venezuela’s human rights record is being conducted based on a massive amount of manifestly false information,” concludes the report.

Under UN rules, the world body is only supposed to gather submissions that provide “credible and reliable information.” The report calls on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Hussein to investigate “how and why their officials failed to screen out submissions that clearly do not meet this standard.”

“Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner Zeid should declared Venezuela guity of conempt for the Human Rights Council on which it sits,” said Neuer.

Venezuela is on the Human Rights Council, of course!

Good to know the UN will accept submissions from the Bolivian Baseball Association on human rights in Venezuela. Very credible.

The Herald reports:

Nearly three-quarters of Kiwi fast-food consumers would trim their intake if the Government imposed a fat tax, a survey suggests.

Fourteen per cent said they would quit fast food under a fat tax, according to the Perceptive Research survey of 1004 people done in September for Diabetes NZ.

The support group has declared November to be “diabetes action month”, to help people cope with the disease and to draw attention to what it says is New Zealand’s fastest-growing health crisis.

It says forty people a day are diagnosed with diabetes.

“More than 260,000 people in New Zealand have diabetes; the prevalence has doubled in the past 10 years.”

Obesity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and New Zealand’s rate of obesity, at 31 per cent, more than triple what it was in the 1970s, continues to grow.

The survey also asked about views on a tax on fizzy sugar drinks. It found 39 per cent said they would change their fizzy drinking habits with a tax.

Nineteen per cent said they might buy the drinks less often with a 20 per cent tax. A further 20 per cent might alter their buying habits with a 25 per cent tax.

These questions mean little. It is asking people what they think they will do, which is very different to what they actually do.

An example is this poll on free range eggs. 53% claim that ethics is more important to price when they buy eggs. However free-range eggs make up only 12% of the market so 41% have said they will buy free range eggs for ethical reasons, but never actually do.

Taxing something will generally reduce consumption of it, but each item will have its own elasticity of demand. Also heavy consumers can respond differently to moderate consumers.

The other issue is substitution. If people, for example, substitute orange juice for fizzy drinks, they may end up more obese.

Here’s the unemployment rates for significant OECD countries:

1. Germany 4.3%
2. New Zealand 4.9%
3. UK 4.9%
4. US 5.0%
5. Australia 5.7%
6. OECD 6.3%
7. Canada 7.0%
8. Ireland 8.4%
9. EU 8.6%
10. France 10.0%
11. Euro area 10.1%
12. Italy 11.5%
13. Spain 20.1%
14. Greece 23.5%

Donald Trump’s victory is the biggest upset in modern politics. It dwarfs everything that came before it.

It was not just a polling upset in that the polls were wrong (and they were) like in Dewey vs Truman.

It was also a data upset in that all the models based on early voter turnout were wrong. The stories of massive Latino turnout early on being good for Clinton were a red herring.

Trump’s campaign did nothing that professional campaigns are meant to do.

• No get out the vote machine
• No voter segmentation and targeting
• A relatively small ad buy

Yet he not only won the election but he smashed through Clinton’s blue firewall and won midwest states he wasn’t even meant to be competitive in.

You have to give credit to Trump. He had a belief that he was speaking to mid west America and would motivate them to turn our and vote like they never had before – and they did.

Despite the fact only one living Republican presidential candidate (Dole) was voting for him and scores of top Reublicans were not, he won the presidency plus the Republicans retained the Senate and had few losses in the House.

What does this all mean? How did he win? Well I may be as wrong on this as I have been on almost everything Trump, but my take is:

• People wanted change, and he offered it. As flawed as he was and as uncertain as to whether the change he offers would be good change, the prospect of change won out over the certainty of the status quo
• The big divide was not just race but education. Trump actually got 29% of the Hispanic vote up 8% from Romney. With women he in fact only got 1% less than Romney. But with non college whites he beat Clinton 39% and while with college whites only 4%
• One good analysis pointed out that minority groups often vote overwhelmingly one way, making their impact powerful. So in NZ Pacific Islanders overwhelmingly vote Labour and in the US African Americans over-whelmingly vote Democratic. Well non-college whites over-whelmingly voted Trump as a minority, but they are a large minority – 40% of the country
• Trump picked up massive support from poorer Americians. He did 16% better than Romney with those earning under $30,000
• Clinton was a very flawed candidate who can to embody the status quo that so many were unhappy with

I have huge reservations about Trump, and especially his narcissistic personality and thin skinned nature. He could be a disastrous President, but he has won and deserves the chance to show he can be a better President.

There is something amazing about watching an election night as the results come in, and everyone is equal in terms of information. Barack Obama is learning the results at the same time as everyone else is. At the end of the day 100 million Americans got to decide the future of their country, and they voted for dramatic change.

So what are the results?

President

• Electoral College looks to be 305 Trump and 233 Clinton. Trump got more EC votes than Bush 43 did in 2000 and 2004.
• Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Iowa (and Maine’s and Nebrasks’s 2nd Districts)
• Clinton is ahead in the popular vote by around 0.2%

Senate

• Republicans look to have kept 52 seats and the majority. New Hampshire too close to call.
• They lost Illinois but kept Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Florida
• The win in Indiana was huge – almost 10%. The Democrats brought back former Senator Evan Bayh who at first looked to win in a landslide. But as it emerged he no longer even lived in the state and couldn’t correctly name the address of the property he owned there, anger grew against him

House

• Forecast Republicans 239 and Democrats 196
• A net pick up for the Democrats of just eight seats – below what most were predicting

Governors

• Republicans looked to have picked up two Governors

The Future

• The Democrats are decimated. The Clinton control of the party is finished as are they. Obama is out of politics. Sanders, Biden and Warren are old. Who will be their 2020 Presidential candidate?
• The next Senate election in 2018 is awful for Democrats – they have to defend 25 seats to eight for the Republicans. Realistically Republicans likely to control the Senate until at least 2020 and the House also.
• TPP is dead. Jane Kelsey can celebrate
• Will Trump really pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Change Agreement?
• What will replace Obamacare?
• Who will serve in a Trump administration?
• There will be no Justice Garland. Who will Trump nominate to replace Scalia?
• Will Justices Bader-Ginsburg (83) and Kennedy (80) and Breyer (78) see out Trump’s term? If any of them die or retire the Supreme Court may get a clear conservative majority for a generation
• Will Trump keep any or many of his promises?

Use this thread to comment on the results as they come in.  Will try and do updates of significant states as they occur.

UPDATE: looking good for Clinton. Well ahead in North Carolina with half the votes counted

UPDATE 1527: Trump doing better than before in some states. NY Times has dropped Clinton’s probability to win from 80% to 60%!

UPDATE 1619: NY Times now has Trump at 78% to win and the Dow Jones has dropped more than it did on 9/11. If Trump wins this is biggest upset in history. Thrilling.

UPDATE 1704: NYT now has Trump as over 95% likely to win the electoral college (but lose popular vote). Unless their model is crap this is looking massive.  He is leading in Michigan and Wisconsin which were not even thought in play.

Republicans also looking likely to win the Senate so you may have them in control of Executive and Congress.

UPDATE 1911: I’m calling it for Trump.  He is leading in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which gives him the presidency comfortably. The biggest upset of modern history.

Something amazing about seeing the votes come in and determine a Government. It shows that voting does matter

The Herald reports:

Staff working on TV3’s Story have been told the programme will be dropped by the network at the end of the year.

The show, which replaced Campbell Live last year, is hosted by Duncan Garner and Heather du Plessis-Allan and has met with mediocre ratings success.

It’s understood TV3 will launch a new entertainment-focussed show, similar to Australia’s The Project, in its place – with comedian Guy Williams tipped to be involved.

Oh dear. Less news and more entertainment. Inevitable I guess.

And the replacement will probably be three left wing comedians.

Phil Twyford has been joined by Andrew Little in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They had a moderately successful conference with a big policy release.

One media outlet pointed out that their costing of it at $60 million did not add up, and they them revealed that they were assuming beneficiaries would only spend four months in paid work, despite the policy saying six months.

Now if they had just accepted that they did not make their communications material at all clear, then the story would have been a one day wonder.

Instead Twyford and Little have successfully managed to have the narrative all about their attack on the journalist concerned, and the fact their policy wasn’t up front on the assumptions for the entire week. There’s been multiple stories in all the major news outlets and it has knocked out any positive coverage of the conference.

So a totally self inflicted blow.

The latest story in the Herald reports:

Little said Labour’s concerns with 1 News’ report were “being dealt with formally” but would not confirm if an official complaint had been lodged.

Twyford said they were lodging an official complaint. But presumably they realised it would have no chance of being upheld by TVNZ or the BSA so decided to settle for the Trump tactic of declaring you will take action, but not actually doing it.

John Gillespie, 1 News head of news and current affairs, said the network “absolutely stands by the journalism and the journalist.”

“We are more than happy for Labour to follow the standard process and submit a formal complaint which will be assessed against relevant Broadcasting Standards.”

So if Labour really think that a story pointing out that their costings were based on four not six months is “unprofessional” and “biased” then why haven’t they complained?

Anyway the issue isn’t so much the story, but Labour turning one minor bad story into a week of bad stories. Why did they think having a senior MP attacking a press gallery journalist on Twitter would be a good idea, and then have the leader follow up?

I’ve compiled the projections from the four main “poll of polls” sites in the US. They are Five Thirty Eight, Huffington Post, Real Clear Politics and the New York Times.

The only states they disagree on is Nevada and North Carolina.

If they are accurate then Clinton wins 322 to 216. Or with RCP, it is 301 to 237.

Of course they may be wrong. It is all about turnout. But in the 2012 presidential election 538 projected all 50 states correctly and others generally had 49 out of 50 correct.

On the 538 forecast if Trump does 1% better than expected then he picks up Florida, Nevada and North Carolina which gives him 266 electoral votes. That is why 538 still have him at 28% to win.

After that he needs New Hampshire which he is 2.9% behind on.

So Clinton the clear favourite and non polling data such as turnout suggests Latino voters are voting early which helps her. So I expect Clinton to win but Trump’s chances are not insignificant, and in fact amazingly high considering all he has said and done.

Later today I’ll do an open thread on the results and find out what how 100 million Americans have voted.

The DIA e-mailed me this week to say that they are releasing the data below, sought by Nicky Hagar since February 2015, showing calls and texts from Jason Ede to me between January to August 2011 when Jason worked for Ministerial Services.

So eliminating the one minute ones which would be no answer/voicemails, this shows 13 phone calls over eight months, which is around one phone call every 19 days. Note that over that time period I’ll generally write 200 or more blog posts. A huge conspiracy I am sure. For stats fans, the average length of the phone calls was six minutes and 32 seconds.

Considering most days I get 20+ phone calls, it shows that in fact Jason was one of my more infrequent callers. I talk to quite a few people in Labour more often than once every 19 days!

Oh yeah there were also six text messages over eight months. This will of course be breathlessly reported by Hager as proof of, well something, and repeated uncritically by some in the media.

There is a more serious issue in The Ombudsman directing DIA to release this info. It means there is now a precedent. So hey someone should ask DIA for the details of all phone calls and text messages from say Helen Clark to journalists from 2000 to 2008. Imagine the fun we could have looking at her call logs and what stories were published by the journalists within the next 24 hours?

I am sure Peter Doone would love to be able to OIA details of all texts and phone calls between Clark and her staff and media around the time of his ouster.

At some stage Labour will be in Government again, and this means we can OIA every one of their press secretaries every month demanding a detailed list of every phone call they have made, how long it lasted and to whom.  Will be great fun.

I don’t mind the data on phone calls to me being released.  It’s laughable showing six texts and 13 phone calls over eight months. About as exciting as watching paint dry. But there is a bigger issue with this precedent.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First will not stand a candidate in Auckland’s Mt Roskill by-election, narrowing the field further after the Greens and ACT also opted not to stand.

Leader Winston Peters said a “serious number” of candidates had come forward, but the party decided to focus its resources on the 2017 election.

So it may only be Labour, National and the new migrant party.

Politik reports:

Michael Cullen, by whose name the New Zealand Super Fund is better known and who until yesterday was the Chair of NZ Post thinks the fund should own all SOEs.

But only on Sunday, Labour’s former Finance Minister and (until yesterday) Chair of NZ Post, the owners of Kiwibank, Sir Michael Cullen, floated the idea of putting all the SOEs into Super Fund ownership and also having them pay their dividends directly into the fund.

“I’ve got a personal hobby horse about transferring what little is left of actual valuable commercial enterprises the Government owns and putting the shares into the super fund,” he told a Fabian forum in Auckland.

“That would help protect the shareholding as well as actually assist in paying New Zealand super in the long term.”

Sitting alongside Sir Michael at the Forum was Labour’s State-owned enterprise’s spokesperson, David Parker, who appeared to agree with the former Finance Minister.

I think the Government should sell most SOEs, especially ones like TVNZ and NZ Post which are at risk of becoming worthless due to technological challenges.

But if they are to remain Government owned, there are advantages to doing in through the NZ Super Fund.

The first is it reduces the ability of Ministers to interfere in decisions of SOEs by having chat to directors (whom they appoint).

The second is that NZSF has many staff who are commercial experts in assessing performance of a company, and would be better positioned to monitor how an SOE is doing and whether or not there is a case for more capital.

The third is the NZSF would then appoint the directors, rather than Ministers.

So I’m in favour.