Danyl McL blogs on the election result. A few extracts:

• The phone was not off the hook for Labour. Twelve months ago, just after Cunliffe won the leadership of his party Labour were on 37% with the Greens on 12%. There’s a cliche that oppositions don’t win elections, government’s lose them, but Labour lost this election. Cunliffe is probably the worst campaigner in New Zealand political history.
• I think that the best way forward for Labour is for Cunliffe and ‘the old guard’ – Goff, Mallard and King – to resign. They’ve been at war for six years now and they’re tearing their party apart. I doubt this will happen though. The civil war will drag on for another parliamentary term. That party is dying.
• The Greens will be despondent. I’m despondent for them. But – I can finally say this now – their billboards were really fucking weird. Their problem of having their final vote underperform relative to their polling is growing more acute, and their great challenge for 2017 is to determine why this happens and focus their party on addressing that problem.
• If New Zealand First goes into coalition with National then that’s a win for Labour who can concentrate on winning back those left-leaning socially conservative older voters. (Er, Grant Robertson might not be the best choice for this job). If they don’t then that is an (additional) nightmare scenario for Labour.
• The Internet Party will go down as one of the most disastrous failures in modern political history. Their final party list result is only slightly higher than Mana’s was in 2011. $4.5 million dollars and it only bought them a couple of thousand votes. They didn’t even cannibalise support from other left-wing parties.
• What they did do is scare the crap out of middle-New Zealand and frighten them into voting National so that the party filled with screaming, chanting, scary lunatics backed by a malevolent German criminal didn’t get a say in running the country
• I’m sad to see Harawira leave Parliament. I think he’s an important voice. But I’m thrilled that I won’t ever again have to listen to Laila Harre on Morning Report braying about how much integrity she has and how wonderful everything she does is.

Danyl notes:

I’m disappointed by the scale of National’s victory and the poor result for the Greens, but I also think we dodged a bullet last night. I think that Cunliffe would have been a very poor Prime Minister, that his party is unfit to govern, and that any Labour/Greens/NZFirst/Internet/Mana coalition would have been an anarchic, unmanageable disaster for the country.

On that we agree.

Big Winners

• John Key – highest vote for National since 1954 and the first ever majority under MMP
• Kelvin Davis – the most popular person in New Zealand today, for ridding New Zealand politics of Kim Dotcom

Small Winners

• Winston Peters. Got a very good 9% and 11 MPs. Already trying to claim title of Leader of the Opposition. Would be a big winner if he had got to hold the balance of power
• Sue Bradford – the only high profile Mana member with integrity, who quit rather than accept Dotcom’s millions
• David Shearer – may become leader again, and all the talk is how he left Labour 10% higher in the polls than they got on Saturday
• Peter Dunne – kept his seat, will be a Minister again
• David Seymour – not only retained Epsom for ACT, but got a very respectable majority. May become ACT Leader
• Trevor Mallard – despite David Cunliffe’s best efforts, still an MP
• Nicky Wagner, Nikki Kaye and Sam Lotu-Iiga who retained marginal seats
• Stuart Nash, the only Labour candidate to win a seat off National
• Ruth Dyson, Phil Twyford, Iain Lees-Galloway for retaining their seats against strong National candidates
• Peeni Henare and Adrian Rurawhe for returning two more Maori seats to Labour
• James Shaw – the only new MP for the Greens, but a potential future co-leader who can expand their appeal to moderates
• The public pollsters – the average of the public polls was pretty close to the results for National and Labour
• Steven Joyce, Jo de Joux, Greg Hamilton and Cam Cotter – the nucleus of National’s campaign team, who kept the focus and discipline, despite all the distractions

Winners and Losers

• Colin Craig. He didn’t make 5% but got a very respectable result, and well placed for 2017. He is in this for the long game.
• Te Ururoa Flavell. He kept his seat easily, will be a Minister again, and got a List MP in. However the Maori Party may never be able to win back the other six Maori seats and have an uncertain future

Small Losers

• Russel Norman and Metiria Turei. Despite the good polls, they got fewer votes than 2011, and have a sixth term in opposition
• Nicky Hager – wrote a book designed to get National thrown out of Government, and instead helped National get a third term as the media furore over his book pissed off ordinary New Zealanders who got sick of it, and crowded out Labour and the Greens. Only a small loser though, as he probably has made a six figure sum from the book!
• iPredict – were highly accurate in 2011, but were well off the mark this time. Did pretty well on electorate races, but had National too low by 4%, Greens too high by 5% and NZ First too low by 2%

Big Losers

• Kim Dotcom – he threw $4.5 million into his per parties, and destroyed the Mana Party, stillborn the Internet Party and personally helped boost John Key into a majority in Parliament. He has gone from being a figure two years ago who many NZers had sympathy for, to a reviled figure for many many NZers.
• David Cunliffe – the worst result for Labour for generations, 3% lower than their disaster of 2011. Gave a Kevin Rudd like pseudo-victory speech on the night which was tone deaf.
• Hone Harawira and Laila Harre. While their politics were never mine, I (and others) respected them as principled advocates for their beliefs. On a personal level I previously quite liked them. But their decision to take millions of dollars from a former donor to right wing politicians, who was a convicted criminal, under extradition proceedings, and with well publicised allegations of not paying staff and creditors while living a life of luxury – well their reputations are massively tarnished, and may never recover.
• Jamie Whyte – failed to get into Parliament, and ACT’s future is uncertain, as is his leadership

On the provisional results these are the 121 MPs of the 51st New Zealand Parliament

National – 61 seats, 41 electorates, 20 list

1. Auckland Central – Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty – Todd Muller
3. Botany – Jami-Lee Ross
4. Christchurch Central – Nicky Wagner
5. Clutha-Southland – Todd Barclay
6. Coromandel – Scott Simpson
7. East Coast – Anne Tolley
8. East Coast Bays – Murray McCully
9. Hamilton East – David Bennett
10. Hamilton West – Tim Macindoe
11. Helensville – John Key
12. Hunua – Andrey Bayly
13. Ilam – Gerry Brownlee
14. Invercargill – Sarah Dowie
15. Kaikoura – Stuart Smith
16. Maungakiekie – Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga
17. Nelson – Nick Smith
18. New Plymouth – Jonathan Young
19. Northcote – Jonathan Coleman
20. Northland – Mike Sabin
21. North Shore – Maggie Barry
22. Otaki – Nathan Guy
23. Pakuranga – Maurice Williamson
24. Papakua – Judith Collins
25. Rangitata – Jo Goodhew
26. Rangitikei – Ian McKelvie
27. Rodney – Mark Mitchell
28. Rotorua – Todd McClay
29. Selwyn – Amy Adams
30. Tamaki – Simon O’Connor
31. Taranaki-King Country – Barbara Kuriger
32. Taupo – Louise Upston
33. Tauranga – Simon Bridges
34. Tukituki – Craig Foss
35. Upper Harbour – Paula Bennett
36. Waikato – Lindsay Tisch
37. Waimakariri – Matthew Doocey
38. Wairarapa – Alastair Scott
39. Waitaki – Jacqui Dean
40. Whangarei – Shane Reti
41. Whanganui – Chester Borrows
42. List 1 – Bill English
43. List 2 – David Carter
44. List 3 – Steven Joyce
45. List 4 – Hekia Parata
46. List 5 – Chris Finlayson
47. List 6 – Tim Groser
48. List 7 – Michael Woodhouse
49. List 8 – Paul Goldsmith
50. List 9 – Melissa Lee
51. List 10 – Kanwal Bakshi
52. List 11 – Jian Yang
53. List 12 – Alfred Ngaro
54. List 13 – Brett Hudson
55. List 14 – Paul Foster-Bell
56. List 15 – Jo Hayes
57. List 16 – Parmjeet Parmar
58. List 17 – Chris Bishop
59. List18 – Nuk Korako
60. List 19 – Jono Naylor
61. List 20 – Maureen Pugh

Labour – 32 seats, 27 electorates, 5 list

1. Christchurch East – Poto Williams
2. Dunedin North – David Clark
3. Dunedin South – Clare Curran
4. Hauraki-Waikato – Nanaia Mahuta
5. Hutt South – Trevor Mallard
6. Ikaroa-Rawhiti – Meka Whaitiri
7. Kelston – Carmel Sepuloni
8. Mana – Kris Faafoi
9. Mangere – Su’a William Sio
10. Manukau East – Jenny Salesa
11. Manurewa – Louisa Wall
12. Mt Albert – David Shearer
13. Mt Roskill – Phil Goff
14. Napier – Stuart Nash
15. New Lynn – David Cunliffe
16. Palmerston North – Iain Lees-Galloway
17. Port Hills – Ruth Dyson
18. Rimutaka – Chris Hipkins
19. Rongotai – Annette King
20. Tamaki Makaurau – Peeni Henare
21. Te Atatu – Phil Twyford
22. Te Tai Hauauru – Adrian Rurawhe
23. Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene
24. Te Tai Tokerau – Kelvin Davis
25. West Coast-Tasman – Damien O’Connor
26. Wellington Central – Grant Robertson
27. Wigram – Megan Woods
28. List 1 – David Parker
29. List 2 – Jacinda Ardern
30. List 3 – Clayton Cosgrove
31. List 4 – Sue Moroney
32. List 5 – Andrew Little

Greens – 13 seats, 13 list

1. List 1 – Metiria Turei
2. List 2 – Russel Norman
3. List 3 – Kevin Hague
4. List 4 – Eugenie Sage
5. List 5 – Gareth Hughes
6. List 6 – Catherine Delahunty
7. List 7 – Kennedy Graham
8. List 8 – Julie Anne Genter
9. List 9 – Mojo Mathers
10. List 10 – Jan Logie
11. List 11 – David Clendon
12. List 12 – James Shaw
13. List 13 – Denise Roche

NZ First – 11 seats, 11 list

1. List 1 – Winston Peters
2. List 2 – Tracey Martin
3. List 3 – Richard Prosser
4. List 4 – Fletcher Tabuteau
5. List 5 – Barbara Stewart
6. List 6 – Clayton Mitchell
7. List 7 – Denis O’Rourke
8. List 8 – Pita Paraone
9. List 9 – Ron Mark
10. List 10 – Darroch Ball
11. List 11 – Mahesh Bindra

Maori Party – 2 seats, 1 electorate, 1 list

1. Waiariki – Te Ururoa Flavell
2. List 1 – Marama Fox

ACT – 1 seat, 1 electorate

1. Epsom – David Seymour

United Future – 1 seat, 1 electorate

1. Ohariu – Peter Dunne

MPs who failed to be re-elected were:

• Brendan Horan (NZIC)
• Steffan Browning (Greens)
• Asenati Lole-Taylor (NZ First)
• Hone Harawira (Mana)
• Maryan Street (Labour)
• Moana Mackey (Labour)
• Raymond Huo (Labour)
• Carol Beaumont (Labour)

Over 2.1 million New Zealanders voted yesterday, and the two weeks prior, and NZ continues its incredibly rare record of being an unbroken democracy. We had 15 parties contest the election, and while we get divided by out personal choices and preferences, we stand united with accepting the will of our collective decision.

It was a hard night for people who supported parties of the left. I know what it is like to be passionate about your politics and belief, and to not get the result you want. Elections are not just about MPs and candidates, but the tens of thousands of volunteers and activists who give up their time and money to get involved in an election – with no regard for self-interest, but a strong regard for the country’s future. With a few exceptions, we’re all better off for their efforts – regardless of which party they supported.

I would also pay tribute to the many candidates. Most candidates are motivated by a strong desire to serve New Zealand. Candidates for Labour, National, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, ACT, Conservatives and United Future are generally decent people who do want to contribute to a better New Zealand. Many of them take weeks or months off work, and spend thousands of their own dollars on their campaigns.

It was beyond doubt a very good night for supporters of the National Government. Again, my sympathies go out to the many good people who did want a change. The one thing inevitable in politics is change, and it is a matter of when, not if. But 2014 was a resounding result for National and John Key

This election saw a number of election records. They are:

• National first government to increase its vote and seats in three consecutive elections since the Liberal Party did the same in 1902, 1905 and 1908
• Worst result for Labour since 1922 when they got 23.7%
• Best result for National since 1951 when they got 54.0%
• Highest result for any party under MMP (in fact since 1972)
• First ever absolute majority under MMP (may change on specials)
• Best result ever for a third term Government
• The three highest party votes under MMP were National in 2014, 2011 and 2008, then Labour in 2002 (41.3%)

The focus will now go on the impact of special votes. The 120th list quotient is held by Labour, 121st National and 122nd NZ First. There could be a one seat change on the specials, but not two seats. Hard to see National falling below 60 seats.

The other focus will be government arrangements. There will beyond doubt be confidence and supply agreements with ACT, United Future and the Maori parties. Does David Seymour become a minister or is ACT better to try and build its brand (if it can) without being a member of the Executive. No doubt Peter Dunne will remain a Minister, and that Te Ururoa Flavell will become one. I doubt their second MP will though.

Then there is the possibility of co-operation agreements with NZ First and/or the Greens, where National and those parties may agree on some areas they can work together – even if no agreement on confidence and supply.

If the ministry stays at 28 and assuming Dunne and Flavell are Ministers, then there is room for 25 or 26 National Ministers. There are currently 23 so I would expect at least two or three new Ministers – maybe even slightly more.

Won’t be blogging too much tonight as people will be getting their results directly from Election Results. Also I’m on Radio NZ National Radio from 7 pm tonight, and also on TV3’s The Nation from 8 am tomorrow. But will try and do the odd update, as I can. Generally just use the comments to report on what is happening.

I hope everyone voted!

UPDATE: Around a third of the votes counted (mainly advance) and National doing well and Labour badly. National will drop off in the next few hours, but hard at this stage to see how Labour could form a Government. They are very unlikely to even match the 27.3% they got last time, and that was their worst result since WWII.

One can not rule out Winston may hold the balance of power. He is doing very well at present. I think we can rule out the Conservatives making it.

Hone leads by only 96 votes in Te Tai Tokerau. Too early to call, but Kelvin Davis says West Auckland booths yet to report, which favour him. It will be wonderful if the result of accepting $4.5 million from Kim Dotcom, is it destroys their party.

UPDATE2: Kelvin now in the lead!

The Dom Post reports:

The number of us prepared to drink and drive has plummeted in the past five years, but there are still pockets of the country bucking the trend.

Convictions for drink-driving, or refusing to supply a sample, decreased in all but five of the country’s 64 district courts between 2009 and 2013, the latest available Ministry of Justice figures show.

The only courts to enter more convictions last year than in 2009 were Waipukurau, Ruatoria, Thames, Oamaru and Westport.

Waipukurau and Ruatoria saw the biggest increases, of 33 per cent and 54 per cent respectively, and while the other three had marginal increases, they were a long way from the national decrease of 25 per cent, the figures, released to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act, show.

I’m not sure you can conclude on this data that drink driving has plummeted. It may have, but the number of convictions will be dependent on how much time is spent on checking motorists. I presume it has not decreased, but we don’t know.

The better measure would be the detection rate – what proportion of motorists stopped, are found to have excess blood alcohol?

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott this morning confirmed the Daily Telegraph report that intelligence agencies had picked up “chatter” involving a potential random attack on Parliament House, with fears among national security and intelligence agencies that the Prime Minister and other senior government officials were prime targets.

The “chatter” about Parliament House had been intercepted and they now held fears the building had already been “scoped out” for pre-planning of a “Mumbai” style attack involving automatic weapons.

The chatter, intercepted by spy, police and counterterrorism agencies, ­revealing talk about access to Parliament House was confirmed by two senior intelligence officials. It is believed the chatter also involved possible reprisal attacks against ASIO.

In response, senior security sources have identified the most vulnerable entry point to parliament was the entrance to the ministerial wing, which could be infiltrated by “taking out” two unarmed parliamentary security officers who represent the only sentry point to prevent instant access to the PM’s own courtyard.

From there a potential terrorist would have a direct line of sight into the PM’s office, they confirmed.

It is understood several armed AFP officers have been redeployed to Parliament House. Over the next few days their numbers will be dramatically increased to secure the building, which under current arrangements is among the least secure official buildings in the country.

This is a pity. We want people to be able to visit Parliaments as bastions of democracy, and not see them as armed fortifications.

The Canberra Times reports:

A Canberra public servant told her boss she needed longer breaks than her colleagues, saying she had to find a café that served organic coffee with soy milk.

When the Australian Taxation Office bureaucrat was warned about her absences from her desk and told she had to adhere to time management requirements, she took her case to the Commonwealth government’s workplace authority.

After the appeal was dismissed, the Executive Level 1 public servant went on stress leave and claimed workers compensation, arguing that her ATO supervisor’s approach left her with “adjustment disorder”.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has dismissed the worker’s appeal against the decision to reject the claim, finding the Taxation Office was reasonable in its dealings with the public servant.

Amazing it got that far.

Also fascinated by the claim that being unable to get organic coffee with soy milk led to an adjustment disorder!

The Guardian reports:

The Kremlin is considering radical plans to unplug Russia from the global internet in the event of a serious military confrontation or big anti-government protests at home, Russian officials hinted on Friday.

President Vladimir Putin will convene a meeting of his security council on Monday. It will discuss what steps Moscow might take to disconnect Russian citizens from the web “in an emergency”, the Vedomosti newspaper reported. The goal would be to strengthen Russia’s sovereignty in cyberspace. The proposals could also bring the domain .ru under state control, it suggested.

Russian TV and most of the country’s newspapers are under the Kremlin’s thumb. But unlike in China, the Russian internet has so far remained a comparatively open place for discussion, albeit one contested by state-sponsored bloggers and Putin fans.

According to Vedomosti, Russia plans to introduce the new measures early next year. The Kremlin has been wrestling for some time with how to reduce Russia’s dependency on American technology and digital infrastructure, amid fears that its communications are vulnerable to US spying. It has mooted building a “national internet”, which would in effect be a domestic intranet. These proposals go further, expanding the government’s control over ordinary Russian internet users and their digital habits.

The most ominous element, he added, was the security council’s apparent proposal to take control over .ru, as well as the domains .su (for Soviet Union) and .рф (Russian Federation in Cyrillic). These domains currently belong to a non-government organisation, the coordination centre of the national domain, rather than to government. Many are currently hosted abroad.

There comes a point at which Russia goes from merely being an authoritarian country to a dictatorship. It’s sad to see Russia continue to slide backwards.

This is a breakdown of the Scottish independence referendum vote by council. It is sorted from largest to smallest.

Only four of the 32 councils voted for independence. They represented 22.1% of the Scottish electorate.

The largest area, Glasgow, did vote for independence. Edinburgh voted more strongly against.

10 of the 32 areas voted No by 60% or more. The highest yes vote was 57.3%.

It will be interesting now to see what extra powers are devolved to Scotland, and whether this leads to an English assembly or parliament. The more that gets devolved to Scotland, the more unacceptable it will be to have Scottish MPs in Westminster voting on laws that affect England only. David Cameron has announced he will propose a change along these lines, but will have to get the agreement of Labour or the Lib Dems.

It’s now election day so no discussion of NZ politics until 7 pm please. This especially includes preferred outcomes, how people should vote or how you voted.

And if you haven’t already voted, make sure you get out there and vote.

While I intellectually was a supporter of yes, I am emotionally pleased the the great United Kingdom remains intact. More importantly it was a decision made be residents of Scotland, for Scotland. A massive turnout – over 90% in some areas.

I’ll do a fuller analysis tomorrow.

At this stage with 31 of 32 councils reporting. yes is at 44.6% and no at 55.4% so not that close. The margin is around 380,000 votes.

Three out of 31 voted yes, with the highest yes being 57.4% in Dundee City.

28 have voted no, with the highest being 67.2% in the Orkney Islands.

The closest result is Inverclyde with 27,243 yes and 27,329 no.

Not a fan of Alex Salmond. His challenge now is to be humble and lead a constructive negotiation for more devolution.

David Cameron will be relieved. He did not want to be the PM who presided over the dissolution of the United Kingdom, and it may have cost him his job if yes had won.

Stats NZ reports:

“New Zealand had its highest-ever net gain of 43,500 migrants in the August 2014 year,” population statistics project manager Susan Hollows said. “The previous high of 42,500 migrants was in the May 2003 year.”

The new net migration record was driven by more arrivals and fewer departures of permanent and long-term migrants.

Migrant arrivals reached a new high of 103,900 in the August 2014 year. The increase in arrivals compared with the August 2013 year was led by more students, particularly from India, and more New Zealand citizens arriving from Australia.

The fall in migrant departures was primarily due to fewer departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia (down 15,100), compared with the August 2013 year. The net loss of 6,500 people to Australia in the August 2014 year was the smallest since the January 1995 year (6,200).

Here’s a graph of it:

It’s great to both see the number of Kiwis leaving to Australia almost halve, but also greater numbers of people coming here from Australia. Let’s keep New Zealand a place people want to move to, and stay in.

Trevor Mallard wrote yesterday:

Key has confirmed Hutt South is close race. I’m lucky that Holly Walker has said she only wants party vote. I’m asking green supporters to vote tactically and support me to stop National winning electorate.

Today Holly Walker responded:

To the lovely voters of Hutt South. Thanks for supporting me these three years. I’m stepping down for now, so even though my name’s on the ballot, I don’t want your candidate vote. It could be close, so make sure a vote for me doesn’t get in the way of your preferred local MP.

This is very different to many other seats when the Green candidate is openly encouraging people to vote for the Labour candidate.

Peter McCaffrey writes:

Tomorrow I will cast an absentee vote for ACT from Canada because I thinkJamie Whyte would contribute significantly to New Zealand’s Parliament, and of all the various party’s list candidates who are on the margin of getting elected, he is by far the best.

Having said that, ACT’s campaign has been woeful.

David Seymour and Jamie Whyte were the fresh faces the party needed, and have done well in their various media appearances, but for some unknown (and ultimately devastating) reason they decided to leave the campaign strategy and organisation to the same people who have failed the party miserably since about 2009. 

As most will know, I served on the ACT board for several years.

ACT never has been able to decide whether it is a libertarian or conservative party because despite almost all of the membership being libertarian (or at least liberal), for several elections ACT relied on many conservative voters come election time.

However, since Colin Craig set up the Conservatives, ACT has lost its few remaining conservative members, and almost all of its conservative voters.

This reality presented the party with a fantastic opportunity to finally become properly liberal, to campaign on some new policies (drug reform, civil liberties, etc) and look to slowly and steadily grow the party.

In short, the party was too risk averse, too worried about the few votes they might lose, and never considering the votes they might win – a disappointing ignorance of Bastiat’s principles of the seen and the unseen, for a supposedly economically literate party.

Rather, the senior party strategists believed they could win back conservative voters from Colin Craig, which was clearly never going to happen. …

David Seymour will win Epsom, and will be fantastic in Parliament.

If he is ACT’s sole MP, he will have some hard decisions to make about the future of the party. …

In short, you still probably should give your party vote to ACT, in hopes of getting Jamie elected.

Once the election is over, the caucus run the party again, not the campaign strategists.

But I don’t blame you if you can’t bring yourself to do it.

I would like to see Jamie Whyte in Parliament, and see ACT operating as a clearly classical liberal party.

Got sent this e-mail by a reader. I have not fact checked it myself, but it seems to be accurate, and is a useful counter to the hysteria over water quality.

Are the Greens telling you the Truth?

1. A recent OECD survey measured the cleanliness of all major rivers that flow through farmland in OECD countries. Of the three New Zealand rivers measured, where did the Clutha, Waitaki and Waikato, respectively, place?

a)    87th, 89th and 90th

b)    42nd, 58th and 76th

c)    1st, 2nd and 4th

Answer:  Of all major rivers in the developed world that flow through farmland, the OECD found Clutha rated 1^st, the Waitaki 2^nd and the Waikato 4^th for cleanliness.

 

2. Compared with other developed countries’ major rivers, the OECD study found New Zealand’s three longest rivers contained what levels of nitrates and total phosphorous, respectively?

a)    very high and relatively high

b)    relatively high and high

c)    very low and relatively low

Answer:  Our three longest rivers were found to have very low levels of nitrates, and relatively low levels of total phosphorus.

 

3. The latest Commission for the Environment report said what percentage of New Zealand rivers are getting cleaner?

a)    20%

b)    50%

c)    90%

Answer:  90% of our rivers are getting cleaner. There are river care and land care groups on all main and many small rivers across New Zealand. They’re spending millions of dollars to improve water quality. They include farmers, Fonterra, Dairy NZ, NZ Beef and Lamb, Landcare NZ, Federated Farmers, Iwi, fertilizer companies, universities, and regional councils.

4. How did the Greens interpret the Commissioner for the Environment’s report?

a)    They told the truth and congratulated farmers on the 90%.

b)    The lied and said only 50% of rivers were getting cleaner.

c)    They lied and said water quality was getting worse.

Answer:  Russel Norman lied and said water quality was getting worse, when the Commissioner for the Environment said 90% of rivers were getting cleaner overall.
5. How many of New Zealand’s 1000 rivers did the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment classify very poor for cleanliness?

a)    326

b)    17

c)    2

Answer: Only 17 of our 1000 rivers are still rated very poor for cleanliness. But the Commissioner for the Environment reports that each one is getting cleaner.

6. Compared with the OECD average of 11%, what percentage of available fresh water does New Zealand use?

a)    43%

b)    11.2%

c)    1.2%

Answer:  We use only 1.2% of our available fresh water. That’s nearly the lowest in the OECD. South Korea uses 43%. (North Korea’s not saying.) 

7. How many kilometres of rivers and streams have farmers so far fenced off?

a)    20,000 km

b)    30,000 km

c)    45,000 km

Answer: Farmers have so far fenced off 45,000 km of rivers and streams (note: the 20,000 km being quoted by National is Fonterra farmers only), as well as doing a great deal of planting alongside waterways.

8. What percentage of New Zealand dairy-farm rivers have farmers so far fenced off?

a)    30%

b)    60%

c)    90%

Answer:  Farmers have so far fenced off 90% of New Zealand rivers that run through farmland.

9. What has made farmers fence off so many rivers at their own expense?

a)    Government regulation

b)    Local and regional council regulation

c)    Their concern as practical environmentalists

Answer: As dairy farm income has risen, farmers have been able to afford to help clean up our rivers, and are doing more fencing and planting all the time.

 10. How do the Greens plan to reward farmers for their voluntary efforts?

a)    Tax them less

b)    Tax them the same

c)    Tax them more

Answer: The Green want to tax farmers more, making it harder for them to continue their fencing and planting.

11. How much are farming-related groups spending per year to solve the leaching problem?

a)    $2.5 million

b)    $12.5 million

c)    $25 million

Answer: Over $25 million per year is going into research to solve the leaching problem. The effort is constrained only by the number of available scientists.

12. Where are New Zealand’s worst affected stretches of rivers:

a)    downstream from farms

b)    downstream from towns

c)    downstream from Green Party offices.

Answer:  Our worst-affected stretches of river are downstream from urban, not rural, areas.

13. What is the Greens’ solution to improving river water quality?

a)    Recognise that farmers are practical environmentalists, and encourage them to finish their fencing and planting.

b)    Provide state assistance to help speed up the process

c)    Ban all new dairy farm conversions

Answer:  The Greens have said they want to cap dairy farming at its current level.

14. What will be the result of the Greens stopping new dairy farming?

a)    More export income

b)    Better schools, better hospitals – and a cleaner environment

c)    The loss of precious new export income that would allow us to afford better hospitals, better schools, and a cleaner environment

Answer:  The loss of precious new export income that would allow us to afford better hospitals, better schools – and a cleaner environment.

15. With their very public “dirty dairying” campaign, the Greens have:-

a)   helpfully improved New Zealand’s international reputation

b)    made no difference to New Zealand’s international reputation

c)    deliberately sabotaged New Zealand’s international reputation

Answer:  By loudly exaggerating problems with our clean, green image, the Greens have deliberately sabotaged New Zealand’s international reputation.

. 
THE GREENS DON’T CARE ABOUT SABOTAGING NEW ZEALAND.

To say that farmers pull their weight for New Zealand is a massive understatement. Together these 60,000 hardworking and innovative men and women earn 52% of our export income.

And frankly, they’re hurting at the torrent of unjustified criticism from the Greens that they don’t care about our rivers.

They want you to know the facts.

There are river care and land care groups on all main and many small rivers across New Zealand. They’re spending millions of dollars to improve water quality.

These groups include farmers, Fonterra, Dairy NZ, NZ Beef and Lamb, Landcare NZ, Federated Farmers, iwi, fertilizer companies, universities, and regional councils.

The Greens’ unfair “dirty dairying” campaign has done much to sabotage New Zealand’s international reputation. You have to wonder whether these people are New Zealanders first, or more committed to the Socialist International goal of bringing down capitalism.

The fact is, thousands of New Zealand farmers are heavily committed financially and ethically to making our rivers cleaner.  (A commitment which started long before the “dirty dairying” campaign.)

THE DOWNSIDE OF A HUGE UPSIDE

So why do we have this problem with our rivers? It goes back to the early days of our farming and industry. The upside of those pioneering efforts was that farmers gave New Zealanders the highest standard of living in the world.The downside was that, with no practical alternatives, they had to use the rivers as a means of disposal. Everyone accepted that. There was little or no dissent.

Then in the 1960s, attitudes changed. And work began on cleaning up.

We’re happy to acknowledge that the Green movement was a part of that attitude shift. We respect the Greens as environmental watchdogs. But their solution to every problem is more state control. Their latest list of policies reveals them to be more concerned with socialist redistribution than about the environment.

FARMERS MADE US A RICH COUNTRY, NOT THE STATE.

We remind you who built the farming industry on which New Zealanders still depend for their high standard of living. It wasn’t the state. That’s why we say innovative, commonsense farmers have a better record of fixing environmental problems related to farming than heavy-handed bureaucrats from Wellington.

These are just a very few of the many waterways that have community groups working hard to clean them up:

Ngongotaha Stream, Bay of Plenty. This stream is benefitting from restoration work that began decades ago. A whole-of-catchment plan led to 90% of the river’s banks being fenced and replanted. Result: much less sediment entering the stream, less particulate nitrogen and phosphorous – and less E coli.

Watercress Creek, Tasman. A Fonterra-financed farm river plan is reaping big benefits. The creek is now fully fenced and the Fonterra factory’s waste no longer overflows into it. Council, schools, communities and farmers are all beavering away replanting.

Rai River, Marlborough. At one time, during the dairy season there were three million cow crossings a day in this catchment. After 20 years of huge expenditure on bridges and culverts, the number of cows in the water at any one time is close to zero. Result: E coli levels are way down.

Shag River, Otago. Various farmer organizations and the regional council shared with farmers information about best practice. Farmers then invested heavily in reticulated water, fencing and new practices. Result: an impressive drop in E coli levels.

Please don’t misunderstand us. We applaud the Greens for alerting us to problems. We just have a big problem with their heavy-handed state solutions.

MORE FACTS ABOUT HOW WE’RE IMPROVING OUR WATER QUALITY

There are three sources of pollution in waterways: pathogens (faeces), sediment (erosion) and nutrients (mainly phosphates and nitrogen).

Every year the pathogens and sediment problems have got better. And we’re now seeing a reduction in phosphates thanks to the efforts of farmers, the government,  regional councils and other groups.

Only nitrogen now needs to be beaten and we’re on track to knock it out too as millions are poured into research and development.

Something you should know when you hear the word nitrogen. Nitrogen occurs naturally in waterways – if it didn’t we’d have a much bigger problem.  Life in the water would die.

Rivers can handle quite heavy loads of nitrogen.  There’s no real problem until blooms appear. That’s a rare occurrence in New Zealand’s 1000 rivers.

NIWA’s Dr Davies-Colley had this to say about our improving water quality:

• “The fact that some heavily polluted rivers – mostly in dairying areas – have turned the corner in recent years gives us cause for optimism for the future.”

“A relatively few urban- and mine-affected rivers in New Zealand probably have the worst water quality because of mobilisation of toxic contaminants such as heavy metals as well as severe habitat modification.”

TO STOP THE GREENS,
YOU MUST STOP LABOUR.

If you party vote Labour and the Left wins, in a couple of weeks 30% of the Cunliffe cabinet will be Green. Russel Norman and Metiria Turei will be Joint Deputy Prime Ministers. Ex-communist Norman is going to be driving a hard bargain to get his hands on the Finance portfolio. We’ll have up to seven Green ministers.

Is that what you want?

If not, there’s only one thing you can do about it. Don’t vote Labour because Labour means 30% Greens.

 Authorised by: John Third for The Opinion, 61 Ironside Road, Johnsonville.

I don’t agree with all the rhetoric in the e-mail, but I do absolutely agree with the salient points about how the Greens are misleading over the issue, and that their policy to cap the number of cows in New Zealand is the wrong one.

The Herald reports:

John Key’s day got off to a tense start at Rotorua’s Central Mall as his walkabout was hijacked by angry Mana protestors.

Mr Key, Minister Steven Joyce and local MP Todd McClay had been taking photographs with locals for around half an hour before the group turned up, waving flags and becoming increasingly vocal.

Mr Key continued smiling as the black and red-clad Mana crowd surrounded the National Party entourage, but he ended up cutting the visit short as the atmosphere became increasingly unsettled.

He scuttled out of the mall with support from police, mall security and Diplomatic Protection Services.

Much of the protestors’ anger appeared to stem from the Tuhoe raids, which took place within the electorate.

“You’re on stolen land,” one woman yelled repeatedly.

Such idiots.

For the records the raids took place under Helen Clark’s Government. It was the John Key Government that negotiated a historic settlement with Tuhoe which has seen some of their lands returned.

UPDATE:

This is disgraceful. The same protesters are now in front of an advance polling place.

Also someone has pointed out to me that the land they were protesting on is in fact owned by the local Ngati Whakaue, so their geography is as crap as their history.

A Gallup poll has found:

• Only 40% of Americans trust the mass media, a new low
• 54% of Democrats trust the mass media, 38% of Independents and 27% of Republicans
• 44% say media too liberal, 34% about right and 19% too conservative
• Among Independents, 42% say media too liberal and 21% too conservative
• Even with Democrats 20% say too liberal and 24% too conservative

This is a projection of who may be in Parliament based on the average of the polls, and using the seat projections of iPredict (I don’t actually agree with all of them, but they are the only complete source of public predictions so I use them).

Those in bold are not current MPs.

National – 58 seats, 40 electorates, 18 list

1. Auckland Central – Nikki Kaye
2. Bay of Plenty – Todd Muller
3. Botany – Jami-Lee Ross
4. Clutha-Southland – Todd Barclay
5. Coromandel – Scott Simpson
6. East Coast – Anne Tolley
7. East Coast Bays – Murray McCully
8. Hamilton East – David Bennett
9. Hamilton West – Tim Macindoe
10. Helensville – John Key
11. Hunua – Andrey Bayly
12. Ilam – Gerry Brownlee
13. Invercargill – Sarah Dowie
14. Kaikoura – Stuart Smith
15. Maungakiekie – Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga
16. Nelson – Nick Smith
17. New Plymouth – Jonathan Young
18. Northcote – Jonathan Coleman
19. Northland – Mike Sabin
20. North Shore – Maggie Barry
21. Otaki – Nathan Guy
22. Pakuranga – Maurice Williamson
23. Papakua – Judith Collins
24. Rangitata – Jo Goodhew
25. Rangitikei – Ian McKelvie
26. Rodney – Mark Mitchell
27. Rotorua – Todd McClay
28. Selwyn – Amy Adams
29. Tamaki – Simon O’Connor
30. Taranaki-King Country – Barbara Kuriger
31. Taupo – Louise Upston
32. Tauranga – Simon Bridges
33. Tukituki – Craig Foss
34. Upper Harbour – Paula Bennett
35. Waikato – Lindsay Tisch
36. Waimakariri – Matthew Doocey
37. Wairarapa – Alastair Scott
38. Waitaki – Jacqui Dean
39. Whangarei – Shane Reti
40. Whanganui – Chester Borrows
41. List 1 – Bill English
42. List 2 – David Carter
43. List 3 – Steven Joyce
44. List 4 – Hekia Parata
45. List 5 – Chris Finlayson
46. List 6 – Tim Groser
47. List 7 – Michael Woodhouse
48. List 8 – Nicky Wagner
49. List 9 – Paul Goldsmith
50. List 10 – Melissa Lee
51. List 11 – Kanwal Bakshi
52. List 12 – Jian Yang
53. List 13 – Alfred Ngaro
54. List 14 – Brett Hudson
55. List 15 – Paul Foster-Bell
56. List 16 – Jo Hayes
57. List 17 – Parmjeet Parmar
58. List 18 – Chris Bishop

Labour – 32 seats, 27 electorates, 5 list

1. Christchurch Central – Tony Milne
2. Christchurch East – Poto Williams
3. Dunedin North – David Clark
4. Dunedin South – Clare Curran
5. Hauraki-Waikato – Nanaia Mahuta
6. Hutt South – Trevor Mallard
7. Ikaroa-Rawhiti – Meka Whaitiri
8. Kelston – Carmel Sepuloni
9. Mana – Kris Faafoi
10. Mangere – Su’a William Sio
11. Manukau East – Jenny Salesa
12. Manurewa – Louisa Wall
13. Mt Albert – David Shearer
14. Mt Roskill – Phil Goff
15. Napier – Stuart Nash
16. New Lynn – David Cunliffe
17. Palmerston North – Iain Lees-Galloway
18. Port Hills – Ruth Dyson
19. Rimutaka – Chris Hipkins
20. Rongotai – Annette King
21. Tamaki Makaurau – Peeni Henare
22. Te Atatu – Phil Twyford
23. Te Tai Hauauru – Adrian Rurawhe
24. Te Tai Tonga – Rino Tirikatene
25. West Coast-Tasman – Damien O’Connor
26. Wellington Central – Grant Robertson
27. Wigram – Megan Woods
28. List 1 – David Parker
29. List 2 – Jacinda Ardern
30. List 3 – Clayton Cosgrove
31. List 4 – Sue Moroney
32. List 5 – Andrew Little

Greens – 16 seats, 16 list

1. List 1 – Metiria Turei
2. List 2 – Russel Norman
3. List 3 – Kevin Hague
4. List 4 – Eugenie Sage
5. List 5 – Gareth Hughes
6. List 6 – Catherine Delahunty
7. List 7 – Kennedy Graham
8. List 8 – Julie Anne Genter
9. List 9 – Mojo Mathers
10. List 10 – Jan Logie
11. List 11 – David Clendon
12. List 12 – James Shaw
13. List 13 – Denise Roche
14. List 14 – Steffan Browning
15. List 15 – Marama Davidson
16. List 16 – Barry Coates

NZ First – 10 seats, 10 list

1. List 1 – Winston Peters
2. List 2 – Tracey Martin
3. List 3 – Richard Prosser
4. List 4 – Fletcher Tabuteau
5. List 5 – Barbara Stewart
6. List 6 – Clayton Mitchell
7. List 7 – Denis O’Rourke
8. List 8 – Pita Paraone
9. List 9 – Ron Mark
10. List 10 – Darroch Ball

Internet Mana – 2 seats, 1 electorate, 1 list

1. Te Tai Tokerau – Hone Harawira
2. List 1 – Laila Harre

Maori Party – 2 seats, 1 electorate, 1 list

1. Waiariki – Te Ururoa Flavell
2. List 1 – Marama Fox

ACT – 1 seat, 1 electorate

1. Epsom – David Seymour

United Future – 1 seat, 1 electorate

1. Ohariu – Peter Dunne

This table shows the last five polls from the five public pollsters. The average is shown, as is the weighted average (which takes into account recency and size).

National is projected to get between 44.5% and 48.2%, which is a a range within the margin of error. Note though these polls only partially include polling since the “Moment of Truth” on Monday night.

Labour is projected to get between 24.0% and 26.1%.

Greens are projected to get between 11.0% and 14.4%.

NZ First are projected to get between 6.6% and 8.4%.

Conservatives are projected to get between 3.3% and 4.9%

Internet Mana are projected to get between 0.9% and 2.0%

These seat projections take the party vote figures from each poll, but a standard assumption for electorate seats of the status quo.

National is projected to get between 56 and 61 seats.

Labour is projected to get between 30 and 33 seats.

Greens are projected to get between 14 and 18 seats.

NZ First are projected to get between 8 and 11 seats.

Internet Mana are projected to get between 1 and 3 seats.

In terms of coalitions, the findings are:

• No polls predict National can govern alone
• Two out of five say National could form a CR Government with ACT and United Future (if they win their electorate seats)
• Four out of five say National could form a CR Government with ACT, United Future and Maori Party, if the Maori Party hold their seats and decide to go with National
• No polls show that Labour, Greens and NZ First could form a Government
• One poll says that Labour, Greens, NZ First and Internet Mana could form a Government
• The average of the polls predicts National could govern either with NZ First alone or with ACT, United Future and the Maori Party (status quo)
• The average of the polls predicts Labour could govern, but only with the agreement of Greens, NZ First, Internet Mana and the Maori Party

These options are very finely balanced. A change in the party vote of just 1% would make a difference to what sort of government can be formed. If the Maori Party win less than their current three electorate seats, or if ACT, Mana, or United Future do not hold their electorates – that will have a significant impact on the possible shape of a Government.

Labour’s decision to rule out any ministerial roles for the Maori Party may turn out to be an incredibly stupid move for them, as it makes them far more reliant on support from Internet Mana. A Labour-Green-NZ First combination (Cunliffe’s stated option) is between three and six seats short of a majority in the polls. On average they are four seats short. This means that they realistically can not govern or pass laws (if they form a Government) without the agreement of Internet Mana. Internet Mana would of course support them to be Government (even if not Ministers) but they would have a effective veto on every law.

These polls show every vote could count. A change of just 1% could mean that NZ First hold the balance of power. If you have not voted, bote today or vote tomorrow.

The Herald reports:

Political parties bound for the opposition benches and those who failed to make the Fiji Parliament want the vote count suspended.

As of last night, Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama’s Fiji First Party had taken a commanding lead – securing more than 60 per cent of valid votes – and will almost certainly form the next Government. Its closest rival, Sodelpa, was just under 27 per cent, and would not be in a position to beat Fiji First with about 400,000 of the 520,000 votes counted.

But Sodelpa, One Fiji, National Federation Party, People’s Democratic Parties and the Fiji Labour Party said they would not accept the results and alleged vote rigging.

“We will not accept the outcome based on the evidence available which points to a co-ordinated and systematic effort to defraud the citizens of Fiji of a free and fair election,” the parties said.

This is nonsense, coming from the losers. The international observers have said it was a fair and free election. The opposition parties should focus on being an effective opposition that can hold the Government to account – rather than disputing the election result, which is clear cut.