Stats NZ and the Police released the latest crime stats today.

Here’s the change in various crime rates (per 10,000 people) since 2008:

• Homicide rate down 39%
• Violent offence rate down 11%
• Robbery rate down 26%
• Burglary rate down 17%
• Theft rate down 18%
• Sexual offending rate up 30%

So all but sexual offending rates are down, and that may be more due to increased reporting than a change in the incident rate – very hard to know.

Also the change over the last 18 months, since 2012:

• Homicide rate down 6%
• Violent offence rate down 5%
• Robbery rate down 1%
• Burglary rate down 3%
• Theft rate up 1%
• Sexual offending rate up 8%

NBR reports:

Taxpayers have forked out over $228,000 to lobby group Federated Farmers since 2009, much to the surprise of its president William Rolleston.

Dr Rolleston has also refused to say whether corporate donations are part of the $7.45 million the federation has received in unspecified “other revenue” since 2008.

When NBR ONLINE informed Dr Rolleston that the Ministry for Primary Industries and its predecessors have paid about $228,000 to the federation over the past five years he replied, “Gosh, really? What have they paid it for?”

A very good question. I’m against taxpayer funding of lobby groups – including the ones I often agree with.

The Taxpayers Union has said:

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Federated Farmers to make a firm commitment to reject any future Government funding, after it was revealed that the lobby group had received over $200,000 of payments in recent years.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says:
“Federated Farmers need to be weaned off taxpayer funding .”

“Government agencies should not be handing over taxpayers’ money to lobby groups and pet causes. Here a group that speaks for one of our largest industries is on the take from the Government’s ‘Sustainable Farming Fund’.”

“How can a lobby group such as Fed Farmers remain credible and independent, when it’s receiving taxpayer funded top ups?”

You can’t argue for smaller Government, when you put your hand out for taxpayer funding.

Stuff reports:

Making phonecalls and sending text messages on planes could soon be commonplace after international aviation authorities deemed cellphone “flight mode” unnecessary.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) issued guidelines over the weekend permitting European airlines to allow passengers to use electronic transmitting devices, such as cellphones and tablets, at all times – including take-off and landing.

A similar change on New Zealand flights would need to be given the green light by the Civil Aviation Authority.

It’s been obvious for years there is no measurable risk.

Personally I would not allow phone calls on flights as they are disruptive to other passengers (unless maybe airlines offer a section you can book where calls are okay). But if passengers can get a signal, they should be able to text and access the Internet.

Kiwiblog has been accepted as a member of the Online Media Standards Authority.

The other members are TVNZ, Mediaworks, Maori TV, Sky TV, The Radio Network and Radio New Zealand. Kiwiblog is the first blog to apply for and be accepted as a member.

There has been some redrafting and simplification of policies. These are all in the sidebar, under Pages.

The key policies are:

• Editorial Policy
• Comments Policy
• Complaints Policy

Onwards and upwards!

Stuff reports:

A group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men delayed a flight and then caused an “11-hour nightmare” because they refused to sit next to women.

The men were travelling on an El Al flight from New York to Tel Aviv, Israel, last Wednesday to celebrate Jewish new year in the Holy Land.

But when they boarded the plane they realised they would be sitting next to women, so they asked people to swap and offered cash to those who refused, news.com.au reported. 

The ultra-Orthodox follow a strict policy of gender segregation.

In Israel, they have insisted women ride at the back of buses.

When the men were unable to get the women to move, and after a considerable delay, they sat down for takeoff but stood and prayed for the remainder of the flight.

One female passenger described her trip as “an 11-hour-long nightmare.”

Another passenger, identified only as Galit, told YNetnews the ultra-Orthodox passengers suggested she and her spouse split up to better accommodate their desired seating arrangements.

“Why should I agree to switch places?” she said.

After she refused, the man seated next to her conceded, but it was only temporary. “I ended up sitting next to a man who jumped out of his seat the moment we had finished taking off and proceeded to stand in the aisle.”

A large portion of the ultra-Orthodox travellers took to the aisle to pray throughout the flight which crowded the aisle and caused the flight to be unbearable.

They should have kicked them off the flight.

A flight is not the place for a prayer session. It is rude and inconsiderate.

If your beliefs are so screwed up that you think it is unholy to sit next to a woman, then don’t fly on a public airline. Charter a private plane.

Stuff reports:

Former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard is urging the Labour Party to pursue purpose to recover from its worst election defeat in 92 years.

She would not comment on whether David Cunliffe should stand aside from the coming leadership battle. However, her new autobiography highlights her belief that disappearing completely after she was ousted by Kevin Rudd last year was the only option for the good of the party.

In the book My Story, the former Labor prime minister warns of the dangers of former party leaders sticking around: “It is almost impossible for someone who has been the leader of a political party to accept and thrive in any other role.”

There are exceptions such as Bill English.

Here’s an idea. Why not make Julia Gillard the NZ Labour Leader? Get Trevor Mallard to resign, so she can enter in Hutt South, and Labour gets a leader that can unite caucus and the wider party.

Stuff reports:

The distraught wife of Labour leadership contender David Cunliffe is behind a Twitter account that anonymously took aim at his rivals and critics.

Karen Price, a high-flying environmental lawyer, is understood to have started the @TarnBabe67 account on Saturday, the day Cunliffe indicated he would resign as Labour leader.

The account first attacked a newspaper for running candid pictures of the New Lynn MP, and went on to criticise others in the media. But the worst barbs were saved for those said to be in the “Anyone But Cunliffe” leadership faction, naming his rival Grant Robertson and MPs Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove.

It said Hutt South MP Mallard and list MP Cosgrove were “long past their use-by date”. “The jealousy of Cosgrove and Mallard knows no bounds.”

And it suggested MPs who did not back Cunliffe should be expelled from the party.

An anonymous Twitter account attacking Labour MPs, that is really run by the spouse of a senior MP. If it was the wife of a National MP, Nicky Hager would write a book about it, and call it Dirty Politics.

We’ve now had a supporter of Robertson demand Cunliffe leaves politics if he loses.  And Cunliffe’s wife demanding MPs who do not back Cunliffe be expelled from the party. Does it matter who wins now, as it is becoming obvious the party can not be unified.

My answer up until the election result was no.

I had even mentally drafted a blog post intended for the day after the election, in case of a National victory, in which somewhat somberly I would have stated that while it is great National got a third term, MPs should realise that this is probably their last term in Government. The post would have been about how they need to secure the policy gains of the last six years, so as many of them as possible can’t be reversed, and also how if they can go into opposition with a relatively solid vote, then maybe there will be just two terms in opposition.

The nature of the election result has changed that. A fourth, or even a fifth term, is now a very credible possibility. I’m not saying a probability, but definitely a credible possibility. Here’s why:

1. National’s 48% is the sort of result you get in your first term, not your last term
2. The left vote totaled just 36%, and they need to grow this by 12% if they want to be able to govern, without being dependent on what Winston may decide
3. The Conservatives could well make 5% in 2017, giving National an extra buffer
4. John Key is now very likely to contest the 2017 election. Previously I would have said it was 60/40 at best.
5. Labour’s leadership battle is turning off the public, and may leave the party divided and wrecked

Media have already started to say it is hard to see how Labour can be competitive in 2017. Tracy Watkins writes:

Whoever wins the battle over the Labour leadership may already have lost the war.

David Cunliffe’s extraordinary attack on his caucus and his rivals for the leadership over the past 24 hours seems to leave no way back from a bloody and divisive three-year battle for control of the caucus.

Down that path leads to defeat again in 2017; the party will be so focused on its internal battles it will have lost sight of the real war, which is to reach past the sectional interests in Labour and reconnect with the voters who will decide the next Government.

Also Charlie Gates at Stuff writes:

Labour could be out of power until 2020, based on analysis of average voting patterns over nearly 100 years.

Analysis of voting figures from 1919 to 2014 reveals the trends behind the power struggle between National and Labour.

If those trends continue, it could mean Labour will be in opposition until 2020, although political trends can easily be disrupted by scandals and unexpected developments.

With the leadership again up for grabs, the figures show that when Labour appoints a leader while in opposition it takes the party an average of 4.6 years to regain power. That would put its recovery beyond the 2017 election and closer to 2020.

Watkins also earlier said:

Divided. Chaotic. At war. There is even glum talk in Labour about a six-year project to rebuild from last Saturday’s defeat.

Six years would deliver National a fourth term. Possibly even a fifth. If Labour MPs think they know the meaning of despair now, try a 12- or 15-year stint in Opposition.

Here’s where it gets grim for Labour. Their 2011 result was meant to be like National’s 2002 result – their worst result in 90 years etc. Now National won six years later, but that was after they got to within 2% of Labour of 2005, and with the Brash phenomena which saw the vote increase 17%. And that was followed by the Key phenomena.

Labour though did not increase in 2014. They went backwards. Their 2014 result was not National’s 2005, but a repeat of 2002. So to win, Labour probably needs six years, plus a leader either capable of galvanising public support as Brash was, or appealing to middle NZ as Key was.  As Labour has neither of those, this is why Labour winning even in 2020 can not be assured. National has a chance to be a very long-term Government.

But having said all that, a fourth term is still difficult. It has not happened since 1969 – 45 years ago. Voters do tire of Governments, and the biggest challenge to National is likely to be itself. So what does National need to do to win in 2014. Here’s my list.

1. Continue to rejuvenate. What National did in its second term with significant ministerial renewal and massive caucus renewal needs to continue. The reshuffle in the next few days should be more than tinkering. The future leadership of the party needs to be given opportunities to prove they can handle more demanding portfolios, so they can ascend to the front bench eventually. That must of course be balanced with having confidence they can handle more politically demanding portfolios.
2. A fresh team in 2017. I do not believe National will win a fourth term with a Government front bench that looks near identical to the one elected in 2008. In early 2017 there should be a quite profound number of retirements of senior Ministers, to allow a new front bench to contest the 2017 election. Of course John Key must remain (sorry Bronagh – Italy will have to wait a bit longer), but others should look at retiring while on top.
3. Fresh ideas are needed. The public will not give you a fourth term just for being good managers. a Government can not look like it has run out of ideas and steam. Every Minister should be asked to identify at least three significant policy reforms in their area which can be implemented over the next three years.
4. Don’t get arrogant. It is very tempting to get arrogant about 2017 while Labour is going through a civil war. The danger is not Labour, it is National. Don’t put the boot into Labour too much. The public may see it as the 18 year old picking on the six year old. Yes of course there will be some mocking in general debate, but don’t get arrogant in question time, or generally with the public. Stay focused on what matters – the economy, jobs, wages, schools and hospitals – not Labour’s infighting. Leave that to the bloggers 🙂
5. Keep connected with your communities. MPs all need a decent holiday, and should take them. But next year is when National MPs should start door knocking again. Don’t leave it until election year, when it looks like all you want is their vote. You have an advantage that most of the public don’t want to hear from Labour at the moment, but they do want to hear from National. Both electorate and list MPs should be door knocking in every electortate in NZ next year – including Ministers. Also don’t get third termitis and as Ministers start refusing to meet with sector groups because you think  you know what they will say. Reputations for inaccessibility can damage a Government.
6. Start work on candidate selections next year also. Identify good candidates, and work with them to plan their best way into Parliament. We need more female candidates especially.
7. Start thinking leadership succession. National is lucky they will keep John Key for this term, and if they get a fourth term, most of that term. But he will retire at some point, or National will lose in 2017. National will need a credible replacement Prime Minister or Opposition Leader. Preferably a number of options. The public need to know them well, and have confidence  in them, when succession does happen.
8. Look to build a relationship with NZ First MPs you can work with. Don’t treat them as the Opposition, even though they will oppose much of what the Government does. They have 11 MPs, and may hold the balance of power in 2017. I doubt many of them will want to go near Labour, so there is an opportunity there for National. Winston is very problematic, as always, but he may not be there for ever.
9. Deliver tax cuts aimed at low and middle income New Zealand. It’s the best way to boost incomes for all New Zealanders, and provides a great contrast to Labour who regard tax cuts as a necessary evil, rather than a good.
10. Start a conversation about what the relationship between the Crown and Maori will be like, as the final few historical grievances are settled. Ignoring the issue is not wise.

National on 48% is better positioned than one could have hoped to get a fourth term. And Labour has very serious issues. But a fourth term is not easy. In fact it ha snot happened for 45 years. It will be damn hard work to make it happen, but it is now possible. It is up to National, not Labour, if the public decide they should get a fourth term.  It will need more than steady as it goes. It needs further renewal, fresh policy ideas, humility and lots of hard work to stay connected with the community.

The Herald has compiled 13 rather bizarre statements from David Cunliffe – and all from the last 24 hours! A few include:

“I’ll tell you plenty of politicians who we now revere who were in not dissimilar circumstances. Norman Kirk in 1966 lost 2.3 per cent of the vote (which is) exactly the same.” – Campbell Live last night.

Apart from comparing himself to Norman Kirk, I’d point out that Kirk lost again in 1969. So Cunliffe is saying he may win in 2020!

Also Kirk in 1966 was just 2.2% behind National – not 23% or so!

“This is the third election in a row the Labour party vote has gone down. Fortunately it hasn’t gone down as much this time as the two previous ones, you could argue that we’re starting to turn that around.” – Campbell Live.

So in 2017 we’ll only drop 1% more, and then in 2020 we may get back to 25% and in 2023 27% and het by 2026 we may crack 30%!

“John [Key’s] a bit of a phenomenon, to be honest. He’s got a bit of a brand there which there really isn’t a parallel in recent political history for. Plus he had the benefit of a 4 per cent growth rate. It’s pretty hard to get governments out in two terms.” – The Paul Henry Show.

It may be hard to get a Government out in two terms (not actually that hard under MMP), but it is hard to have the incumbent Government increase its vote in its third term and get a majority under MMP.

“Isn’t it interesting that John Key is singling me out as the leader he doesn’t want to be up against in 2017. I hope Labour people take notice of that.” – Campbell Live.

I hope Labour people are taking note indeed.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters is at odds with one of his new MPs Waitangi National Trust chairman Pita Paraone over the trust’s move to charge kiwis to visit the treaty grounds in the Bay of Islands.

As of Saturday New Zealanders will pay $15 to visit the grounds with children up to 18 free if accompanied by parents or caregivers. The charge for overseas visitors will remain at $25 with children free.

Labour’s new Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvis Davis has hit out at the decision saying if there was one place in the country that should be free to New Zealanders, it was the birthplace of the nation.

Mr Peters today said Mr Davis was “120 per cent correct” to say New Zealanders shouldn’t be charged.

“It sends all the wrong signals. You’re charging people to see your history either international or domestic it just doesn’t make any sense from a historical point of view, it really is a very unfortunate development, it should never have happened and should never have got to that state of affairs.”

Speaking from Thailand today Mr Paraone said as chairman of the trust he was “very supportive” of the decision to charge New Zealanders, “although saddened to have to make it”.

“The reality is that we have a responsibility to care for that estate and if you consider the state it has been kept in over the years I think the trust has done an excellent job but with the declining overseas visitor rates, this is follow on effect of that lack of income from that source.”

The Waitangi National Trust is in charge. If they want to charge for entry, it is their call. The land was donated by Lord Bledisloe.

Prime Minister John Key said charging New Zealanders for entry was “a step in the wrong direction”.

“It’s a very special place for such a long list of reasons and I think conceptually I think it would be much better to keep as free entry for New Zealanders.”

Both Mr Peters and Mr Davis said the Government should give the trust more funding to allow it keep free entry for New Zealanders but Mr Key said that wasn’t going to happen.

At a minimum I’d want to see the accounts of the Trust before deciding that they need external funding.

Audrey Young writes:

Tariana Turia arrived in Parliament with a fearsome reputation after leading the occupation of Pakaitore (Moutou Gardens) in Wanganui. She leaves to the sorts of accolades reserved for few.

The transformation of Tariana Turia from scary Maori radical occupying public land to a distinguished and respected Minister has been remarkable.

Attorney General General Chris Finlayson has described her as his favourite politician – “utterly principled and a very decent woman.”

“The Foreshore and Seabed Act is Helen Clark’s legacy to New Zealand; its repeal is Tariana Turia’s and I have to say that Mrs Turia is by far the greater politician.”

I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say the Foreshore and Seabed Act was a hysterical own goal from Labour. They should have merely appealed the court ruling, rather than legislated over it.

Having worked with Naitonal for six years, Mrs Turia developed her favourites.

“I’ve really like Bill English. I have admired his capacity to understand and to think about things. I think he has quite a strong social justice attitude about things. Chester Borrows is another one. Quite strong social justice leaning. And I’ve always like Nikki Kaye. She’s got a mind of her own and at cabinet committee, she basically gives expression to it and I like that and she’s young.”

I think it has been a good thing, having Ministers working with the Maori Party.

Mrs Turia’s patience was tested by Mana leader Hone Harawira when he was part of the Maori Party and began criticizing the relationship with National.

She said he had always wanted to go with National when given the chance.

He pointed to things up in the north that happened under a National Government. He knew that all the health and social services, kura, kohanga reo, waananga, all grew out of National Government and he wanted to go with them.

“The issue for Hone is that Hone is not a team player. He has to be the leader. At that time, that was the problem.

This is a point often overlooked. Hone did not leave the Maori Party over direction and policy. He left because he wanted to become leader.

James Macbeth Dann was Labour’s candidate for Ilam in 2011. He writes at Public Address:

We delivered tens of thousands of pieces of paper with your face on it. But the reality, the hard truth, is that people in the electorate just didn’t connect with you. I lost count of the number of times I door knocked someone who told me they had voted Labour all their life, but wouldn’t vote for us as long as you were leader. People who would have a Labour sign – but not one with your face on it.

Ouch.

The Labour Party isn’t a vehicle for you to indulge your fantasy of being Prime Minister. While you might think that it’s your destiny to be the visionary leader of this country, the country has a very different vision – and it doesn’t involve you.

Double ouch.

I think I did a good job in a very difficult electorate, and would like to build on it at the next election.

However, I won’t be part of a party that you lead. Not because I don’t like you, but because I simply don’t want to lose again. That’s the reality David. The people of New Zealand don’t want you to be their leader. The comparisons that you and your supporters have thrown up don’t hold water – you aren’t Norm Kirk and you aren’t Helen Clark. You’re David Cunliffe and you led the Labour Party to it’s most devastating result in modern history.

Triple ouch.

If you win, I’ll step aside from the party, to let you and your supporters mould it into the party you want. But in return I ask this: if you lose this primary, you resign from parliament. In your time in opposition, we’ve had you on the front bench, where you let down your leader at the most critical point of the 2011 campaign. You ran for leader and lost, then destabilised the elected leader. Then when you got your chance as leader, you led Labour a party that was polling in the mid-30’s to one that sits firmly in the mid-20’s. There is no place for you in this party anymore.

And the quadruple ouch.

I won’t be entirely surprised if at some stage Cunliffe withdraws from the leadership race, as I suspect Mr Dann will not be the last candidate, MP or activist to make such a declaration.

The former (and maybe future) Labour leader has said a number of pretty silly things in the last 24 hours. Let’s start with my favourite, reported by NBR:

JC: Hold on a sec. You are a leader, and you are a bright man. Why didn’t they vote for you?

DC: I think at the end of the day, people wanted stability. They wanted prosperity.

Indeed they did want prosperity and stability. As a former National staffer I’d like to thank David Cunliffe for making the job of National research staff much easier for the first question time of the new Parliament. They now have their work done for them.

Next favourite is this:

But the worst moment came when Cunliffe claimed he was the leadership candidate National most feared facing in 2017.

Yes he said that John Key was scared of facing off against him again. Truly.

Stuff reports:

Today, Cunliffe said he “always intended to step down” but there were several routes. That’s in contrast to his comments this time last week, when he repeatedly told media it was not his intention to stand down.

He always intended to step down, yet last week said explicitly he would not step down. And Labour wonders why it got 24%.

“I am seeking a new mandate from the membership, the affiliate and the caucus,” he said today, “because I believe there is value to the party not only in having a contest but having the kind of battle-hardened leadership that you need to take this fight to John Key.”

If that is the test, they should make Trevor Mallard leader.

Voters had shown that his level of preferred PM ratings were around about the same as Helen Clark in 1996, he said. “And on many measures a little better than Phil Goff in 2011.” 

Really?

Helen Clark just before the 1996 election was 17% Preferred PM (ONCB). But worth noting she was effectively competing with other opposition leaders as Peters had 15% and Anderton 11%. Also Bolger himself was at just 23% Preferred PM, so Clark was only 6% behind Bolger.

Just before the 2011 election, Goff was 15% Preferred PM. And of course he resigned for such a bad result.

The final ONCB poll before the 2014 election had Cunliffe at 12% Preferred PM. Behind Goff and Clark. And 31% behind Key.

But these pols were pre-election. What I’d love to see is a media poll now on Preferred PM. I suspect David Cunliffe is now well below the 12% he was on 17 September.

Stuff reports:

The New Zealand dollar has slumped US1 cent after the Reserve Bank revealed a currency intervention of more than half a billion dollars during August.

But the Prime Minister says the currency remains far above ‘‘Goldilocks’’ fair value level of about US65 cents.

The kiwi dropped from US78.3c to US77.3c late this afternoon after new figures were released showing the Reserve Bank sold $521m of its New Zealand dollar holdings in August, a massive jump from July when it sold only $2m.

Economists said the central bank had put its money where its mouth was. The Reserve Bank was ‘‘shorting’’ the dollar when it was high and when it was expected to fall and would be happy with the latest fall, economists said. The scale of the intervention was seen as ‘‘material’’ and involved the most selling of the New Zealand dollar since 2007.

However, while the currency has fallen heavily this month, down more than US6c, it only dropped about US2c during August when the central bank was actually selling.

The kiwi had already fallen earlier today after Prime Minister John Key, a former currency trader, said the dollar was too high and the “Goldilocks” level (not too high or too low) would be about US65c.

“I happen to actually support the view that the Governor has that the exchange rate is over valued, so if they have intervened, it would be a matter for them, but it would seem fairly logical,” Key told reporters this afternoon.

I don’t think the PM should comment (even if in support) on decisions of the Reserve Bank Governor. I tweeted:

I would prefer if the Prime Minister did not think aloud about what the Reserve Bank should do.

Matt Nolan at TVHE blogs:

Given their standing and thereby ability to seemingly signal intervention in markets, the prime minister and finance minister really need to keep quiet about policy where there is an independent body involved – as it both creates volatility and indicates that such things are a more political issue.  I was pissed off when Cullen did this, pissed off when Key has done it in the past, and I’m pissed off hearing it now.  I don’t care if someone asked the frikken question, part of central bank independence is having fiscal authorities show a bit of discipline with their comments.

It is a bad precedent. We are lucky we have had strong Governors who can stand up to the Executive (as happened with LVRs), but we may not always have such people in the future.

The NZ Herald headline:

Key: SAS could join Isis fight on ground

The substance:

As far as sending SAS personnel, Mr Key said: “I can’t rule that absolutely out, but what I can say is that I’ll get advice and we’ll see how that goes, but it would be my least preferred option.”

When it comes to any military deployment, no Prime Minister can really rule out a response before a request has been made. But when a PM calls it their least preferred option, it is pretty obvious it will not happen.

Any commitment of personnel “would be a step I think we should take very cautiously and with our eyes open because history tells you that going into places like Iraq is fraught with difficulty and danger and as we know with Afghanistan, it was a very long-term commitment”.

I don’t think we should send troops. If we had air strike capability, that would be a possibility. But we don’t.

The Herald reports:

Outgoing Labour leader David Cunliffe has offered leadership rival Grant Robertson the job of deputy leader.

“If Grant is not successful, I would like to hold out my hand to him as my deputy so we can bring both sides of the team together and we can go forward together,” Mr Cunliffe said on TV3’s Campbell Live tonight.

He also said he had approached Mr Robertson last week with a peace-making deal.

“That’s why I reached out to Grant last week and I said ‘mate, is there any way we can do this thing to bring people together?’ – and that’s why I’ll tell you now that I’d be very happy to have Grant as my deputy if I am elected by the broader party and caucus to lead this thing for another three years.”

When asked to comment tonight, Mr Robertson said: “I’m running for leader. I have not made a decision about a deputy yet.”

Grant is not that stupid as to accept.

Mr Cunliffe indicated on Campbell Live he had lost the support of his deputy and finance spokesman, David Parker, who is expected to become acting leader after tomorrow’s Labour Party caucus meeting.

Doesn’t that say something?

A short time after appearing on TV3, Mr Cunliffe appeared on Maori Television’sNative Affairs and then TV3’s Paul Henry show. On Native Affairs, he raised the prospect of Labour having co-deputy leaders, one of whom would be a Maori MP.

“We need to see more Maori MPs in senior levels,” he said “and one of the ideas that is floating around – that is a party matter because it would require a constitutional change – is to examine the possibility of having co-deputy positions where one may be Maori.

This is an attempt to get the Maori caucus on side. He is basically offering them a permanent co-deputy leadership position.

But why stop there. Surely there must also be a female co-deputy leader also?

Mr Cunliffe said the culture of the party had to change and that playing “musical chairs” with the leadership was not the answer.

From the man who undermined the last two leaders.

He also implied that the party had become too focused on special interests at the cost of appealing to middle New Zealand.

“We’ve got to get the alchemy right between being true and faithful to our base, our Maori and Pacific and our affiliates and reaching out to middle New Zealand,” he said.

“We can’t be seen as a party of special interests. We have to be inclusive. We have to stand for aspiration.”

He says they can not be a part of special interests at the same time as mooting that there be a co deputy position reserved for a Maori MP.

John Key writes in the NZ Herald:

An election is when people vote for a particular party; however the elected Government should work in the interests of every New Zealander and it is my intention to do so.

There will be times when people will disagree with decisions we make, but that is true of core supporters as well.

Over the past six years we have been transparent and straightforward about our decisions and the direction we have taken.

Although we are likely to have an outright majority in Parliament, that won’t change. We’ll continue to do what we said we would do, and will not embark on any agenda we have not campaigned on. We have been, and will remain, a centre-right Government.

In other words National will implement the policies it campaigned on.

Now we are reaching out to other political parties to form a bigger buffer than the one-seat majority from election night. This will give the Government depth and breadth.

John Key is pretty much the only Prime Minister who has ever offered confidence and supply agreements to parties, when they are not needed to govern.

Once we successfully negotiate the Confidence and Supply agreements, I will look at forming a new Cabinet. There are two vacant spots in the existing Cabinet, which gives us room to bring in new talent, and in some cases it makes sense to change portfolios around.

Although the core economic team of Bill English in Finance and Steven Joyce in Economic Development won’t change, there are options for Ministers looking for new challenges.

I hope there are some substantive changes. Renewal is a good thing.

Welfare reform will continue to be a priority, as will health. One of our first targets will be to see hospice funding increased to 70 per cent, and we will also speed up the cancer treatment process so 90 per cent of sufferers receive treatment within 62 days of their first referral.

What an awful uncaring government.

One of the messages we picked up on the campaign trail was that New Zealanders want us to do more for the most vulnerable children in our society. We will continue to try to move people from welfare-based homes to work-based homes, however we acknowledge there is potentially more we can do and we will be looking at ways to do that.

Almost every social indicator we know of says kids raised in families where at least one parent is working do better.

We want to finalise our tax-cut programme and implement modest cuts for low and middle income New Zealanders from 2017.

Good. 2016 would be even better than 2017.

The Herald reports:

Parliament now has more Maori MPs than ever before, prompting one commentator to question whether Maori seats were still needed.

Nineteen Maori MPs have been elected in general electorates and on party lists. Once the seven Maori seats are included, the total number of MPs who identify as Maori is 26 – up from 21 in 2011.

This means one in five MPs in the new Parliament were Maori, compared to one in seven in the general population.

The National Party’s caucus is 15 per cent Maori, including two MPs likely to be given high-ranking portfolios – Paula Bennett and Hekia Parata.

The growing proportion of Maori in Parliament was met with mixed responses from Maori leaders.

Former Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels said increased Maori representation was a step forward, especially because many were elected in mainstream parties.

But former Alliance MP and Maori commentator Willie Jackson said it meant little unless those Maori MPs fought for Maori interests.

“It’s only a victory if they take a pro-Maori position with their work. You could have 50 Maoris in there but if they don’t act like Maori and don’t work along kaupapa Maori lines and advance Maori position it’s absolutely meaningless.”

The election of 26 Maori MPs was likely to fuel the argument over Maori seats, established to ensure Maori had a minimum representation in the House.

Mr Samuels said Maori needed to have an “informed debate” about whether the Maori electorates were needed.

I don’t think it would be helpful for the Maori seats to be abolished without the agreement of Maori. It would generate hostility and division.

However I think retaining them is divisive also. I do not like having separate seats on the basis of race.

I thought the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System proposed a worthy alternative to the Maori seats – and that was to have a lower (or no) threshold for Maori parties (in recognition of the fact they were competing within a smaller population base).

The one thing no Parliament has ever done, is allow Maori a say on whether they want to retain the Maori seats. I think it is time we do that.

What I propose is a referendum held among those on the electoral roll of Maori descent. It should ask Maori to choose between:

a) retaining the Maori seats
b) The proposal by the Royal Commission to abolish the seats but have no threshold (effectively 0.4% then) for Maori parties

I favour the Royal Commission’s proposal because it would better recognise the diversity of opinion in Maoridom. The Maori seats mean that in each electorate only one view is represented – the winning party. Under the Royal Commission’s proposal, you may have four or five different Maori parties in Parliament – a right wing Maori party, a socialist Maori party, an environmental Maori party, a religious Maori party etc etc. Maoridom would do better with multiple choices – rather than the winner takes all of the Maori seats.

Stuff reports:

Hong Kong police have fired volleys of tear gas to disperse pro-democracy protests and baton-charged a crowd blocking a key road in the government district in defiance of official warnings against illegal demonstrations.

Chaos had engulfed the city’s Admiralty district as chanting protesters converged on police barricades surrounding other demonstrators, who had earlier launched a “new era” of civil disobedience to pressure Beijing into granting full democracy.

Student and pro-democracy leaders late on Sunday urged supporters to retreat due to safety concerns amid speculation police could fire rubber bullets as tensions escalated.

Some supporters peeled away although thousands remained. Chan Kin-man, one of the co-founders of the Occupy Central movement, said its leaders would remain until they got arrested.

Police, in lines five deep in places and wearing helmets and gas masks, used pepper spray against activists and shot tear gas into the air. The crowds fled several hundred yards, scattering their umbrellas and hurling abuse at police “cowards”.

The demonstrators regrouped and returned however, and by early evening tens of thousands of protesters were thronging streets, including outside the prominent Pacific Place shopping mall that leads towards the Central financial district.

“If today I don’t stand out, I will hate myself in future,” said taxi driver Edward Yeung, 55, as he swore at police on the frontline. “Even if I get a criminal record it will be a glorious one.”

A former British colony, Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997 under a formula known as “one country, two systems” that guaranteed a high degree of autonomy and freedoms not enjoyed in mainland China. Universal suffrage was set as an eventual goal.

But Beijing last month rejected demands for people to freely choose the city’s next leader, prompting threats from activists to shut down Central in what is being seen as the most tenacious civil disobedience action since Britain pulled out. China wants to limit elections to a handful of candidates loyal to Beijing.

I hope the protesters win, and China backs down. Of course such a back down has to be in a way they can save face,

But if they crack down, instead of back down, I think Hong Kong will suffer from it – many will decide that it is just becoming part of China, rather than having some autonomy, and they could migrate to Taiwain, Singapore and other places.

A Stuff article on how Stuart Nash was the only Labour MP to win a seat off National in 2011. How did he do it?

Here’s my summary of what worked for him:

• He campaigned relentlessly for over two years. He didn’t just turn up for the last six months
• He got himself appointed the local Labour spokesperson so he could maintain a media profile
• He identified a couple of hot local issues, and got on the popular side of them
• He had a high profile gimmick such as his red fire truck
• He had good advisors

It also helped Stuart that the incumbent MP retired. that creates opportunities, and is often the best time to win a seat off the other party.

Even though National will be seeking a fourth term in 2017, it is not at all impossible that they could pick up some electorate seats off Labour. National now has new high energy List MPs in Hutt South, Port Hills and West Coast – Tasman. The incumbent electorate MPs are probably going to retire in 2017 (or sooner if Cunliffe gets re-elected Leader), and if the new National MPs of Bishop, Korako and Pugh work hard to be great local MPs, they could win those seats in 2017.

National has announced two confidence and supply agreements – with United Future and ACT.

The United Future one is basically:

• Agree to work on  the next iteration of the National Medicines Strategy, improving water quality, giving recreational fishers more opportunities. re-affirming the use of public private partnerships for major roading projects and other United Future policies
• Peter Dunne appointed  Minister of Internal Affairs, Associate Minister of Health and Associate Minister of Conservation. Sits on  Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee, Cabinet Social Policy Committee, and the Cabinet Committee on State Sector Reform and Expenditure Control.
• National will give Dunne some of their question slots and speaking slots

The ACT one is:

• National and ACT to continue with partnership schools, regulatory reform and RMA reform
• David Seymour appointed  Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Minister of Education and Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Sits on Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee and Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Select Committee
• National will give Seymour some of their question slots and speaking slots

I think making David Seymour an Under Secretary rather than an Associate Minister is a smart move. It allows ACT to be involved in the implementation of policy in areas of importance to them – charter schools and regulatory reform, but doesn’t see a new MP made a Minister straight away. It is quite possible that if Seymour does well, he may become a Minister at some stage.

I imagine they will soon announce an agreement with the Maori Party, but that may be delayed due to the Maori Party’s need to do consultative hui. And then we should get the appointment of the National Ministers.

Matthew Beveridge blogs an an extraordinary series of tweets between Labour MP Clare Curran and former Labour candidate Tat Loo. Basically Curran claims Loo has no standing in Labour and that his branch is not constitutionally recognised. That may or may not be the case, but having ths dispute in public on Twitter dismayed many Labour supporters.