Former Obama advisor David Axelrod writes:

When the shocking news of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing hit Saturday night, my mind raced back to a White House Correspondents Association dinner seven years ago, when we were seated together.

We bantered about my hometown of Chicago, where he had taught law before ascending to the bench. He opined on wine and music and generally lived up to his reputation as a man who told and enjoyed a good story.

And then our conversation took an unexpected turn.

Justice David Souter, Scalia’s longtime colleague on the court, had just announced his retirement, creating a vacancy for President Obama to fill. Scalia figured that as senior adviser to the new president, I might have some influence on the decision — or at least enough to pass along a message.

“I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation,” said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court’s leading and most provocative conservative voice. “But I hope he sends us someone smart.”

Brian Easton writes at Pundit:

Allow that we had to give away something, such as increased copyright extensions, for better access for our exports; the real issue for us in the TPPA is that it reduces ‘sovereignty’. To report my conclusion at the beginning: all trade and all trade deals reduce sovereignty to some extent. This has been going on in New Zealand since its first European economic engagement. The Investor State Dispute System (ISDS) is another step. As far as I can judge, the ISDS provisions in the TPPA do not represent a great loss of sovereignty – but then the TPPA benefits from increased market access are not huge either.

I’d say the biggest sovereignity losses have been the Kyoto and Paris agreements on climate change. We are obliged to make dramatic changes to our industry to meet our global commitment. It is not just all trade agreements that reduce sovereignity to some degree – every international agreement does from the Antarctic Treaty to the Convention against Torture.

Modern trade increasingly requires a formal framework between the participants. To take a simple illustration: transaction costs between traders are reduced by common standards for weights and measures and the like. New Zealand is a signatory to various international agreements It did not have to adopt them but it would be troublesome for our exporters and importers if they had to keep converting local measures into international ones.

Because it is a small country New Zealand has been very keen that there be an international framework based on a rule of law so that, typically, there are enforcement provisions in each agreement to make them work. On occasions they have definitely worked in our favour. For instance, we have had favourable WTO rulings in regard to apple access to Australia and lamb access to the US – in each case a larger power was pushing us around but they had to give up some sovereignty and do what the WTO tribunal decided.

They is a key point – NZ has won cases against other countries using dispute mechanisms. If you are the good guy, you will probably win.

When we are on the wrong end of a decision, we will also have to agree to something we do not want to do too.

As far as I know we have never lost (a case against us) or even had one.

No investor will absolutely trust the state legal processes since the law may be changed, the courts stacked. Thus investors seek a dispute resolution procedure outside the state even though New Zealand probably has a better reputation than most states.

My ideal, would be a world court for investor state dispute resolutions, something like that proposed by the EU. But the US Congress will not countenance such a court system, and its fallback is an arbitration system between the state and investor.

It is not be the first time we have agreed to an ISDS process in a free trade deal; it wont be the last. (Instructively, some who oppose the ISDS provisions in the TPPA are willing to take human rights issues to the international tribunals – even though that represents a potential loss of sovereignty too.)

I like the idea of a world centre or court for investor state disputes. And a good point that those against TPPA are often the same demanding some UN committee force NZ to behave differently.

It is argued by some proponents of the ISDS in the TPP, that they already exist in other FTAs and that New Zealand has never had to a claim under one. I say, ‘thus far’. And it is also a matter of concern that the few cases involving other jurisdictions mean there is not a lot of case law.

One can’t rule out no claims ever but NZ generally behaves in a good way and doesn’t nationalise foreign companies without compensation etc. The lack of case law is both a strength and a weakness – the lack of cases means the threshold is high.

So the ISDS in the TPPA reduces our sovereignty, or rather it reinforces the reduced sovereignty that foreign direct investment is already causing. In my judgement the reduction is not great compared to all the many international concessions New Zealand has already made. But the benefits from improved market access (offset by the copyright extension) are not huge either even though they are there.

A very balanced view, and no one could ever accuse Brian Easton as being a neo-liberal economist!

Audrey Young writes:

It has been one of the longest honeymoons in political history but now Prime Minister John Key is preparing to be hissed and booed at every public outing by anti-TPP protesters.

He was shouted down on Sunday when he tried to make a speech at the annual Big Gay Out festival in Coyle Park. And on Waitangi Day, after giving the lower marae at Te Tii a miss, he was booed by a section of the audience at the NRL Nines tournament at Eden Park.

In the December Herald-DigiPoll survey, Mr Key was preferred Prime Minister by 65.2 per cent of voters after seven years in office.

Helen Clark had been similarly popular, too, after six years as Prime Minister, rating nearly 60 per cent, but had slid to 41.6 per cent by the time she lost office in 2008.

Yesterday, Mr Key said he expected to encounter protesters against the Trans-Pacific Partnership for the rest of the year.

But he would not be changing his public appearances to minimise the encounters.

“… I’m not going to back away from it or engaging with other New Zealanders because you get a small group of very noisy protesters.”

Mr Key said a group of militant people he thought were Green and Mana members “hijacked” the Big Gay Out for their own purposes and that deeply frustrated people.

I understand huge numbers of the 10,000 or so people there were deeply upset by those political activists trying to hijack the event, and if anything such behaviour just makes Key more popular with non-committed voters. Ugly protests tend to reflect more on those protesting than their targets.

Stuff reports:

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown was jeered in protests over the Island Bay cycleway at the suburb’s annual festival parade.

Emotions boiled over with boos, hisses and vocal barbs lobbed at the mayor, who was a key player in getting the controversial cycleway built.

The cycleway was completed just before the festival began at the weekend, and has been a big source of agitation in the suburb.

Club member Colin Peacock said there were strong opinions on the green about the cycleway, and about Wade-Brown. 

“We are just so sick of the woman. The cycleway is just a waste of ratepayers’ money.” 

Peacock said the cycleway was dangerous, and was causing massive problems with parking, especially for the elderly. 

Cycleways generally are good things as they improve safety for both cyclists and motorists. The Island Bay cycleway appears to have done the opposite and made it more dangerous for both.

Wade-Brown is an Island Bay resident. For her own suburb to turn on her like this is significant. I can’t imagine she will stand again.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has all but ruled out giving the SAS a role for now in the fight against Islamic State in Iraq.

Key said using the SAS ran counter to New Zealand’s current mission in Iraq, which was focused on equipping Iraqi soldiers to take the fight to IS themselves.

United States defence secretary Ash Carter issued a global call for extra help last December, including elite troops, air strikes, and the provision of ammunition and training.

But Key indicated the SAS was off the table.

We are doing our bit with the trainers, but as that two year deployment comes to an end, the question will be what next? The Islamic State provides a threat well beyond its own borders  The UN Security Council has sanctioned use of force. We should continue to play a role.

Stuff reports:

A law that would force tobacco companies to wrap their cigarettes in plain packaging could be in action by the end of the year. 

Prime Minister John Key has confirmed a bill, on pause partway through the parliamentary process, would be resumed and he expected it to become law “sooner as opposed to later”. 

His comments come off the back of a recent success had by the Australian Government, who have been locked in legal action over its attempts to introduce a plain packaging law. 

Late last year, US tobacco company Philip Morris failed in a legal challenge against the law – brought about under a bilateral free trade agreement Australia has with Hong Kong. 

The New Zealand Government was watching the action, and held up its own bill – currently at the select committee stage – while it awaited the outcome of Australia’s court case. 

“It was waiting, and I think the view I initially took was given Australia was in the middle of this court case it probably didn’t make sense for us to embark on that, and then potentially face exactly the same costs for the taxpayer in defending another legal action.”

Australia has been facing two legal challenges – one under the Hong Kong free trade agreement (which was dismissed) and one under WTO rules which is with a WTO disputes panel. I would have thought you’d wait for both cases to be concluded.

As I have said many times, I would like to see plain packing trialed in a scientifically controlled experiment, so we can actually measure whether or not it is effective in reducing smoking rates. Only with a regional trial could we see if any change is due to plain packaging as opposed to other initiatives such as tax changes.

Plain packaging supporters should be fans of this. It would be absolutely solid proof of the effectiveness of plain packaging, which would probably lead to global take up of it. The fact they are all hostile to a regional trial makes me suspicious that they are unsure whether it will have any impact – but as it harms tobacco companies they support it.

I’d actually like to see regional trials for most public health initiatives. The regional use of fluoride, for example, has allowed us to see the difference in tooth decay cases in regions with and without fluoride added to the water supply.

The ability for different areas to have different local alcohol policies should allow us in a few years to measure if stopping supermarkets selling wine after 9 pm has any impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse.

Chris Wiggins writes at Farmers Weekly:

Over the last few years I have stood in front of many, commentating rural sports in many rural communities in three different countries and feel it’s time to put some perspective into the emotive protests for and against rural activities.

We have just witnessed the SAFE campaign against the dairy industry and through the summer the anti-rodeo campaign gaining media coverage.

The Washington Post reports:

Congress is considering a freeze on the airline industry’s shrinking coach seats, an unprecedented move that could lead to a more comfortable and humane flying experience. A proposed amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Bill would direct the federal government to set minimum seat-size standards for the first time, over the airline industry’s objections.

The average distance between rows of economy-class seats has dropped from 35 inches before airline deregulation in the 1970s to about 31 inches today. The average width of an airline seat has also shriveled from 18 inches to about 16 ¹/₂ inches.

This is stupid. So long as there is adequate competition, then people can choose airlines on seat size if that is what is important to them. I hate small seats and that is a factor in deciding which airline to fly with. But you don;t need the Federal Government deciding for everyone what size is acceptable.

Why stop there? A law for seat size in movie theatres?

The Herald reports:

Act Party leader David Seymour says a pattern is emerging in which judges are choosing not to give the harshest penalty for murderers under the three strikes legislation.

On Thursday, Hamilton man Turei Rawiri Kingi, 26, was sentenced to a minimum of 13 years’ jail for bludgeoning an elderly man to death with a single strike of a bottle in August.

The murder was Kingi’s second “strike”, or serious violence offence.

Under a provision in the three strikes legislation, Kingi faced a life sentence without parole — unless the judge considered this punishment “manifestly unjust”.

Justice Edwin Wylie ruled that the sentence would be manifestly unjust because of Kingi’s mental health problems and a number of other factors.

It is the third time in three cases that judges have used this clause to avoid the harshest penalty.

He killed within months of getting his first strike. I’m not optimistic that when he is released from prison, he won’t carry on offending.

Mr Seymour said he respected the judges’ decisions.

But he said that the drafters of the three strikes law would probably be surprised that the “manifestly unjust” clause had been used in 100 per cent of the relevant cases.

He said the safety valve clause was designed to prevent injustices in the most extraordinary, “out-of-the-box” homicide cases in which a life sentence without parole would clearly be wrong.

“It is interesting just from a policy point of view to note that so far this … scenario has played out three times, once in Auckland, once in Wellington and once in Hamilton, and each time the judge has said that this is one of these … extraordinary cases,” Mr Seymour said.

What will be interesting is when someone is up for a third strike for a non-murder case, so it is not life without parole but the maximum sentence (say 20 years for rape) without parole. Will the judge then impose the penalty specified under the three strikes law, or will judges continue to find reasons for a stronger penalty to be manifestly unjust?

Willie Jackson has written:

The Chairman of the Maori Radio Network Te Whakaruruhau, Willie Jackson, called for an inquiry into the embarrassing level of Maori content on Radio NZ.

Radio Waatea, the National Maori language current affairs and news provider conducted a 12 week audit of National Radio which revealed that out of 1440 hours of content Monday to Friday, RNZ played a mere 99 minutes of Maori content (0.1%) between November 2015 and January 2016.

The audit came about after Jackson challenged the Head of Content for Radio NZ Carol Hirschfeld over the cancellation of their Maori dedicated news Manu Korihi in October of 2015. Ms Hirschfield said there would be even more Maori news after the cancellation of the news show, but the 12 week audit of daily news posted on their very own website reveals something that is substantially different to what she promised.

Willie Jackson says that Carol Hirschfeld’s response was to predictably rubbish the audit. She said Maori are also mentioned on their national, political and regional web pages.

He says “sadly, Carol has fallen into the trap that others have in the past, who think that just because Maori are mentioned that this constitutes a Maori story, a little bit like the time when it was said that when Maori were on Police Ten 7 that constituted a Maori story. Maori being mentioned as part of other stories cannot be used in RNZ’s calculations of Maori stories.”

“We looked at Maori-specific news over the 12 weeks and used the facts that they provided on their website Monday to Friday, but even if we were to include the stories that Carol’s talking about, the percentage would still be less than 2%.”

0.1% seems extraordinarily low. Radio NZ gets $35 million a year specifically to be non-commercial and reflect New Zealand. I’d say Willie Jackson has a point.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand is placed second in a list of the most charitable countries around the globe, with the United States taking the top spot.

A report released on Sunday from the Charities Aid Foundation showed that individual Kiwis giving to charity made up 0.79 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

In comparison, the United States ranked in first with 1.44 per cent, and Canada wasn’t far behind New Zealand in third place with 0.77 per cent.

The top 10 are:

1. US 1.44%
2. NZ 0.79%
3. Canada 0.77%
4. UK 0.54%
5. South Korea 0.50%
6. Singapore 0.39%
7. India 0.37%
8. Russia 0.34%
9. Italy 0.30%
10. Netherlands 0.30%

Good to see us so generous.

The Guardian reports:

Only when Joaquín García, a Spanish civil servant, was due to collect an award for two decades of loyal and dedicated service did anyone realise that he had not, in fact, shown up to work for at least six years – and possibly as many as 14.

García, a 69-year-old engineer, began working for the local authority in the south-western city of Cádiz in 1990, according to el Mundo, and in 1996 was posted to the municipal water board, Agua de Cadiz, where his job was to supervise a waste water treatment plant.

In 2010, when García – who has now retired – was due to collect his long-service medal, the man who had hired him, deputy mayor Jorge Blas Fernández, wondered where he was: “He was still on the payroll,” he told the paper. “I thought, where is this man? Is he still there? Has he retired? Has he died?”

After the former manager of the water board, who had the office opposite Garcia’s, told Fernández he had not seen his employee for several years, the deputy mayor called the engineer in. “I asked him: what are you doing?” Fernández said. “What did you do yesterday? And the previous month? He could not answer.”

The real story is that when it is someone else’s money (ratepayers) you don’t worry about stuff like procedures to check if someone on the payroll is actually doing work.

A court this week fined Garcia €27,000 (£21,000), the equivalent after tax of one year of his annual salary, having earlier found that the engineer did not appear to have occupied his office for “at least six years” and had done “absolutely no work” between 2007 and 2010, the year before he retired.

García told the court that he had turned up to the office, although he admitted he may not have kept regular business hours. He said he was the victim of workplace bullying because of his family’s socialist politics and had been deliberately sidelined at the water board.

Of course he is a socialist – a belief in income without work.

The order paper is here.

Oral Questions 2.00 pm – 3.00 pm

1. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2016 support further growth in jobs and wages, while maintaining the Government’s fiscal management?
2. JAMES SHAW to the Minister of Finance: Has he read recent economic reports from ASB and Westpac and is he planning on doing anything differently as a result?
3. ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding Labour’s fees-free post-school study policy that “the question will simply be that if it is completely free, will there be any control on the quality”?
4. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Is she aware that a prisoner escaped from Middlemore Hospital in December 2015; if so, when was she made aware of the incident?
5. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Communications: What recent announcements has she made on the progress of Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?
6. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement last week on Canterbury District Health Board that “I was down there in November announcing the extra $13 million, and that is more than ample to cover the $4 million that Canterbury said was necessary to cover mental health demands”?
7. NUK KORAKO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What reports has he received on the issues of rock falls, liquefaction, and building performance arising from Sunday’s earthquake in Christchurch, and what implications do these have for the ongoing rebuild work for the city?
8. RON MARK to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with Police numbers in New Zealand?
9. KELVIN DAVIS to the Minister of Corrections: Why was the Law and Order Committee not told at the Corrections Estimates hearing last year about either the 2009 or 2014 investigations into organised prison violence at Mount Eden Corrections Facility?
10. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s policies?
11. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in beef exports to Taiwan?
12. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Who will own the abattoir at the Al Khalaf Agri-hub in the Saudi Arabian desert and how much taxpayer money has been spent on it since further spending was suspended in August 2015?

National: Four questions on the Budget, broadband, Christchurch earthquake and beef exports.

Labour: Four questions on tertiary fees, Canterbury DHB, Mt Eden Prison and the Saudi farm

Greens: Two questions on the economy and standing by policies

NZ First: Two questions on Police numbers and a prison escape

Debate on PM’s Statement 3 pm to 6.00 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.00 pm

Of the 13 hour debate there are five hours 47 minutes remaining, or 35 speeches.

Government Bills

It is likely the Government will adjourn the PM’s Statement debate at some stage and progress some bills.

Social Housing Reform (Transaction Mandate Bill) – second reading continued

This bill amends the Housing Corporation Act 1974 to provide designated Ministers with the authority to transfer Housing New Zealand Corporation properties.

• Introduced July 2015
• 1st reading: August 2015, passed 63 to 58 with Labour, Greens and NZ First opposed
• SC report: December 2015, supported with amendments unanimously

The second reading consist of 12 speeches of up to 10 minutes each, for a maximum debate of two hours. There are eight speeces remaining.

Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill – committee stage

This Bill implements a settlement between the Crown, District Health Boards, providers of home and community-based care and support services, and certain unions on behalf of home and community-based care and support employees.

• Introduced September 2015
• 1st reading: October 2015, passed unanimously
• SC report: December 2015, supported with amendments without dissent
• 2nd reading: February 2016, passed unanimously

There is no time limit for the committee stage but it is estimated to be a four hour debate as the bill has three parts and preliminary provisions to debate.

The Guardian reports:

A man in his 30s who is in the advanced stages of Huntington’s disease and repeatedly pulls out a feeding tube attached to his stomach should be allowed to die, a judge has ruled.

The man had removed the tube about 120 times, Mr Justice Hayden was told during the hearing at the court of protection in London. The man’s mother and an aunt told the judge they believed he “wants to go”.

A consultant neurologist said it would not be right – and futile – for medics to force the feeding tube on the man.

Hayden concluded that the tube should not be reinserted, even though this would hasten the man’s death.

How sad that they had to go to court and the man involved had to rip out the tube 120 times, for his wishes to be allowed.

The law should allow for people who have Huntington’s to give directives in advance that they don’t want to be treated, and/or that they wish to be assisted to die.

Huntington’s disease is a hereditary disorder of the central nervous system. The condition becomes progressively worse over time and can affect movement, cognition and behaviour. There is no cure and its progress cannot be reversed or slowed.

Symptoms of Huntington’s were first seen when the man was in his teens, the judge heard.

A nurse closely involved in the man’s care told the court the quality of his life had deteriorated rapidly in recent years. The man no longer got out of bed, had lost the ability to speak and could not eat normally.

It is an awful disease and you can lose both your body and your mind.

The Telegraph reports:

The Monty Python star revealed that he has been advised not to perform to students as the fear of offending has expanded so far that any kind of criticism is now seen as “cruel”.

Peter Dunne writes:

I agree with the Labour Party on the TPP.

Well, some of what it is saying anyway. Actually, to be more accurate, some of what Andrew Little is saying, because everyone else in his Caucus seems to be trying to cover all sides of the argument, all of the time.

My favourite trick at the moment is to ask people if they can explain to me what the Labour Party position on TPP actually is. So far out of 25 people (including MPs, media and activists) no one has been able to.

No, I agree with Andrew Little when he says it would be crazy for New Zealand to pull out of the TPP once it takes effect. He is absolutely right.

So Little is for parts of TPP, against parts of TPP, will vote against it, but won’t pull out of it, and says NZ should just ignore parts of it we don’t like but will be outraged if any other country did the same.

Over the summer period, I took the opportunity to listen quietly to what real New Zealanders, not the vocal protestors, were saying. Their message is mixed. They hear the government’s story about the trade opportunities arising from the TPP, and while, on balance, they are a little sceptical, they tend to see that as positive. They do worry about sovereignty issues, but note that every agreement we have signed up to, including membership of the United Nations under Peter Fraser and the World Health Organisation, has involved sovereignty issues, and there has never been a problem.

I look forward to Labour explaining how the Kyoto Protocol wasn’t a huge breach of our sovereignty.

Others have wanted to know how come it was acceptable for New Zealand to take Australia to the World Trade Organisation over its restrictions on our apple exports, but not acceptable for similar provisions to apply here.

NZ is more likely to benefit from provisions that allow disputes to be arbitrated, as we generally are in the right.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Goff has promised to make light rail a priority if he wins the Auckland mayoralty.

He said a line from the Wynyard Quarter, up Queen Street, Symonds Street and down Dominion Road is a priority.

Speaking to the Committee for Auckland today, he said the city already suffered from bus congestion and light rail will dramatically increase public transport capacity, adding it was electric and would reduce pollution.

Mr Goff pushed some form of road charging – a petrol tax, tolls or congestion charges – to raise revenue for transport and encourage a change of travel modes.

The Mayor of Auckland and the Council have no power to impose a petrol tax or congestion charging. So the only way Goff can pay for light rail is to massively increase rates even more than the last 9.9% increase.

Auckland Mayoral candidate Mark Thomas rubbished Mr Goff’s “enthusiasm for an untested and unfunded light rail system serving central Auckland”.

“Throwing support behind undeveloped and unfunded ideas has been a hallmark of Len Brown’s mayoralty,” Mr Thomas said.

“Aucklanders are still waiting for rail to Albany and rail to the airport the Mayor promised in his first election campaign. Labour’s candidate is falling into the same trap.”

Goff is looking to be Len Brown Mark II.

“Taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who labors. If those taxes are excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, tax-sold farms and in hordes of hungry people, tramping the streets and seeking jobs in vain.”

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

The quote of the week is brought to you by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. To support the Union’s campaign for lower taxes and less government waste, click here.

This is screamingly hilarious – especially the flag scene including Peter Jackson. Also the choir was well done.

Stuff writes:

There is no real mystery about much of Key’s popularity – he’s likeable and even his gaffes make him seem more approachable (National’s support went up after the infamous “soap” gag that sparked howls of outrage about its rape allusions, for instance), and when he makes a call like abandoning Waitangi, he is unfailingly in tune with public sentiment (helped along by National’s nightly polling, no doubt).

But his style of government is often also cited. When Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull rolled Tony Abbott, he banked a huge amount of early political capital, in part by blatantly stealing from the Key playbook, by promising to run a more consensual government. He even spelt out that plan in his first speech as leader: “My firm belief is that to be a successful leader in 2015, perhaps at any time, you have to be able to bring people with you by respecting their intelligence in the manner you explain things … John Key for example, has been able to achieve very significant economic reforms in New Zealand by doing just that,” Turnbull told Australians.

As a mark of his admiration, Turnbull even reversed the normal order of things in trans-Tasman relations by flying across the ditch to meet Key as one of his first international engagements, rather than expecting Key to make the first move.

But it might be that Key just makes it look easy.

I think whoever is PM after Key will struggle to some degree. Key does make it look easy. It isn’t.

And that’s the other piece of advice Key would probably give Turnbull. The public really don’t sweat the small stuff in the same way that us Wellington insiders do. As long as they think the Government is moving in the right direction and they respect their overall management of the big stuff – the economy, health and education, roads and all the other things that touch on their daily lives – they’ll have faith that the Government is getting the other stuff right.

You need to listen to a wider audience than your colleagues, staff and angry people on social media. What galvanises Wellington is very different to what is of interest to people in Hamilton, Auckland and Timaru.

There are other factors at play as well of course – a souring economy will quickly stoke a mood for change. But international volatility aside, the election looks likely to be held against the backdrop of a largely benign economy, with things like low petrol prices, record low interest rates and an ongoing construction boom ($6 billion in the Auckland CBD alone over the next few years) likely contributing to a general mood of well-being, though the rural sector will still be hurting.

If the wheels start to fall off any of those things, that may be the day the wheels also start to fall off National. Because if there’s one downside of being such a popular government for so long, it’s that National’s bulging back benches are filled with MPs who have no understanding of what it’s like to be A) unpopular and B) facing the prospect of defeat.

Even Key barely knows that feeling. Only a few veterans like Bill English, Nick Smith and Murray McCully remain from those years when the electorate was well and truly out of love with National and that experience helped shaped the Government we see today. And as they would know, the real giant killer in politics is disunity.

That was clearly a lesson well learned, given that it is the area where National has been most disciplined for the last seven years.

While Labour once again is showing real divisions over the TPP, and wider.

Stuff reports:

The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust has failed to get the proposed sale of Shelly Bay across the line.

In December the trust announced it wanted to sell the land to The Wellington Company, which is headed by property developer Ian Cassels.

The proposal included additional financial incentives for the trust, such as a share of profits and first right of purchase of all residential and commercial property.

But the trust did not get the 75 per cent mandate it needed from members of the Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika to enable the sale of its land.

Electionz.com results show about 26 per cent of members voted, and of those, 51 per cent voted in favour of the sale.

Members were understood to be unhappy about a lack of transparency around the deal.

Chief executive Jason Fox said an ongoing criminal investigation and court case was the key reason for lack of support. “We were hamstrung and had no room for full disclosure.”

Chairman Neville Baker said the court case had meant it had been “extremely difficult to demonstrate with complete transparency the need for the sale of Shelly Bay”.

He expected to be able to better inform members at the end of April.

It would be good if they do eventually manage to get member approval.

Shelly Bay is currently a run down eye sore with the exception of the Chocolate Fish Cafe.

It could be transformed into the best area in the city. The potential is huge with the views it has from there.

Stuff reports:

A senior United States official has confirmed President Barack Obama will try to visit New Zealand this year.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Matt Matthews said the President would visit “schedule permitting”. Obama would be only the third US President to visit if he makes it.

A New Zealand visit has been on the President’s radar since Prime Minister John Key’s last visit to the White House in 2014 when Obama told media: “We are going to be working with my schedule to see what I can come up with – if not this year then certainly before the end of my presidency.”

Matthews said Key and Obama had a “very close relationship, real friendship in fact”.

One possible date for a presidential visit is June when the annual New Zealand-US strategic dialogue is held.

Matthews said there would be other high level US officials visiting during that period to keep the “momentum” going in the New Zealand-US relationship.

Another milestone in the New Zealand-US relationship could be reached this year if the US accepts an invitation to take part in our navy’s 75th birthday celebrations.

A presidential visit is a rare thing. It is obviously beneficial for our relationship with the US, but also is good for tourism as images of NZ get beamed around the world.