A New Zealand Paradigm

Graham Capill slept last night?

This is terrible.

With 400 residents supposedly in the group it would only take $100 bucks each to pay for a decent lawyer to fight this. That they have their hand out is a bloody outrage. That Marian Hobbs stands by and does nothing about it is just as bad. There is so much wrong with this it defies belief.

Heard on the radio tonight that in this case the first accused gave evidence that he recalled the exact date the alleged rape occurred (January 5 1989) because he was involved in a "significant event" the next day at the Mount.

Now I know the Mt Maunganui Half Ironman is usually the first Saturday every January because I have done it a couple of times. I haven't checked the calendars back to 1989 but I'm picking January 5 was either a Thursday or a Friday. I'm also wondering whether the involvement in the significant event at the Mount might have been something like blocking off roads or similar?

Then I found this.

I am afraid my fears are being realised.

I blogged this last night. The dinner went well. Graham gave a great speech (see below). He really is an absolute powerhouse in the mould of Don Brash but has greater international credentials. He has advised over 50 governments throughout the world in the last 10 years on reform and spending. He will be superb in parliament/government.

Rodney also gave a great speech. He really knows how to perform and make a point. He will be very good during the campaign. All in all a good night. ACT is a very positive party and 7% is on the cards I reckon. Winston will bleed support and when the public realise he has no policies some will go to ACT. I also expect Rodney to win Epsom. We should also pick up some soft Labour votes and some centre right strategic votes. One thing for sure: MMP is a strange animal. It won't be over until it's over.

Off to an ACT dinner tonight at Romfords on Tamaki Drive. Graham Scott is speaking and it will be the first time I've heard him speak. I can't wait really. This is a man who has advised more than 50 governments in the last decade! He is a guru and ACT is fortunate to have him. I should add he is fortunate to have ACT too because I don't believe any other party (well there's really only one) would attract his attention. I'll report on it tomorrow.

Here's his speech:

You might ask why am I standing for ACT New Zealand today?  Why am I joining the crew on what the commentators keep telling us is a sinking ship?

The answer is quite simple: I was inspired by ACT’s philosophical base, its whakapapa, its people and its policies.

But above all, I hope to help to persuade more voters than the polls indicate at present will vote for us that, even if they are not as impressed with these points as I am, the hard arithmetic of MMP should lead them to give ACT their Party Vote.

ACT’s philosophy

I was inspired to become an economist by some remarkable teachers at the University of Canterbury in the 1960s. I am especially grateful to Frank Tay who inspired in me a life long interest in the problems of developing countries.  He and his colleagues gave us grounding in economic thought that emphasised the place of the classical economists of the enlightenment - although we also studied Marx and others.  On balance I preferred the classical approach and its descendents and their emphasis on the role of incentives and markets in explaining economic behaviour.  Throughout my career I have found myself at the liberal end of the spectrum of economic thought with the occasional excursion into other approaches.

I have been influenced by philosophical liberalism beyond just economics.  By this I mean the philosophy whose roots are in the Scottish Enlightenment – Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, Hutcheson and the Englishmen who followed them, and also the Scots and others who influenced the design of the radically new institutions of government in the US after the revolution.  If you want to read one book about these people, read “How the Scots Invented the Modern World” by Arthur Herman

This is what we mean in ACT when we refer to classical liberalism.  But although we stand on the shoulders of these giants it was long ago and the contemporary liberalism we stand for now is for today and for the future.

The liberal vision and its practical approaches to government have contributed to a flowering of democracy and prosperity that has yet to run its course, although it all might have ended in the twentieth century were it not for the soldiers, writers and philosophers who fought off the political and intellectual tyranny.  Karl Popper the great philosopher who once taught at the University of Canterbury, is one among them and a favourite of our party leader Rodney Hide.

Today liberalism is bringing about the greatest reduction in poverty and extension of democratic values around the globe at the most rapid pace that humanity may ever see.  I have been working at its coalface advising the communist government in Viet Nam where progressive liberalisation has brought an astonishing fall in the numbers living in poverty. Most importantly policies that were forged on the anvil of liberalism have contributed importantly to the good economic times New Zealand has been enjoying and they can do more – given the chance.

But real life government is not a contest to try to show that my favourite eighteenth century philosopher is better than yours.  It is a practical business about defining a role for the government that works in terms of advancing national welfare.  Those who believe in a large state take an ambitious view about what can be achieved using the coercive powers of the state.  Liberals on the other hand take a more modest and sceptical view and worry that certain expansions of the realm of the state are as likely to service the special interest as the public interest and that the dead weight of the state can undermine prosperity.

I have spent my life as a public sector guy trying to make government institutions here and abroad work better.  The experience has bred in me scepticism based in hard practical experience about the ability of governments to be able to fix everything that goes wrong. Governments just cannot correct all the market failures that arise.  As another economist once said of government’s attempts to correct all the market failures, “just because a fish cannot fly does not mean a rhinoceros can do better”.  And so I have come for practical reasons to the view that governments should be a bit less ambitious about all the things they can do and a lot more focused on doing what they have to do to a high standard of excellence.  New Zealand is fortunate in having some world class public sector organisations.  But it needs more of them.  We can do much better and we have to find ways to do it for less.

Liberal values and policies are not of course unique to ACT and in fact accord well with the instinctive views and common sense of the majority of New Zealanders.  They emerge to some extent in the philosophies of nearly all our political parties.  Also it is not often obvious in the daily grind of practical policy making and public administration what the implications of a liberal position would be.  Even inside ACT there have been vigorous arguments over how to translate its values into practical policy proposals.

But in other parties liberal values and policies are an optional extra and often ignored.  To ACT they are the touchstone of our policy formulation.  ACT can give them a safe place to call home and a safe place in the political life of New Zealand.

While the National Party brings you Don Brash today, who is in many respects, a soul-mate to us, it also brought you Sir Robert who raised the tolls on the Auckland Harbour Bridge to diminish Don’s chances of being elected long ago.  The Nats also brought you ‘Think Big’ and a coalition with New Zealand First that has worked out better for Winston Peters that it worked for National.  Painful as such speculations are for men like me, who of a certain age, who will replace Don in time?  What will this person believe?  Do the core beliefs and culture of the National Party give you any guarantee?

National is made up mostly of worthy and successful citizens who have a conviction that they are the natural party of government.  They are instinctively conservative.  And while they espouse liberal policies at times it is not enough for people of liberal persuasion to rely on a passing personal champion.

Periodically liberals do take influential positions in the National Party but history shows that there is always an immune system reaction leading to rejection in time.  George Gair made only limited headway with his liberal views on transport regulation and other matters in the 1970s.  Derek Quigley who made significant innovations of a liberal kind in housing in the 1970s was dumped for criticising Think Big.  Then there were Sue Wood, Jim McLay and Ruth Richardson to name more.  And note that these people were political heavy weights not lobby fodder.

There are a few liberals in National who want to see ACT in Parliament for the long haul and as a natural coalition partner.  But the conservatives in National want to see ACT off the field of play so they can raid the territories of New Zealand First and Labour’s right wing without the risk that their liberal voters head back to ACT.  History shows that National is not a safe home for liberalism. 

Let’s look at the other side. Labour is also an unsafe home for liberalism especially in the economic realm. In the 1980s it provided New Zealand with a government that must rank with the best ever in terms of its efforts and its achievements in addressing awesome economic problems - in large part by pursing liberal strategies to thaw the ice age into which the National Party had led us.  It should be no comfort that the National Party’s liberals fought a good fight to stop what happened.  The fact is that they lost.

The present PM’s constant references to the failed policies of the past belie the fact that even her Finance Minister acknowledged sotto voce in the 2005 Budget Policy Statement that recent economic performance can be attributed to the structural reforms begun in the mid 1980s.  Sure mistakes were made, especially in implementation of some policies, but the jury is back.  Those liberal reforms made a contribution to our recent economic prosperity. The PM and the Minister of Finance should take more pride in the Labour Party’s past achievements.

One day economic liberalism might flower again within the Labour movement as it has before and ACT could find itself with a choice between a statist National Party and a more liberal Labour Party if history repeats itself.  There is a shift in the wind.  Jim Anderton is in favour of lower company taxes.  But I doubt that liberalism will flower again under this government.  Its statist ideology in economic affairs is too ingrained for it to change and this is where it instinctively turns when it faces a knotty policy problem.

Just a few examples: it does not like giving private providers fair access to public funding for public health services and has allowed some bloat in the administration of the health system; it has seen nationalisation as the solution to air and rail transport problems; it has nationalised the wholesale market in electricity and created a central planning agency – the Electricity Commission – which is malfunctioning in precisely the way I predicted it would in my submission to the select committee on the legislation that established it.  It is pussy-footing with the introduction of private sector involvement in infrastructure.

This government expropriated the rights of certain forest owners to the carbon absorbing properties of trees and then gave some of them to one of its own state enterprises – quite possibly leaving the taxpayers with a contingent liability.  This has undermined the incentives to plant trees and made the Kyoto problem worse.

Prejudice against pricing public services and contracting for them – even with public providers - in ways that make volumes, prices, quality and conditions of access transparent - has lead to the vandalising of the systems that once provided this basic management information.  Getting information from the health authorities on exactly what has happened has been for Heather Roy like pulling teeth.  What we do know suggests that productivity may have been declining under this government.

Labour renationalised the provision of accident insurance.

This has all happened basically because the state wants to administer too many things from the centre rather than build up rational and effective management systems in the public sector to support efficient and decentralised management; or let private markets seek out better solutions in some areas; or even partner with the private sector productively.  Ideology triumphed over common sense in these areas and United Future could not stop it.

Labour in its current guise is more statist than the Labour Party in Britain, where Blair is pushing his party into accepting more private sector involvement in health and other social sectors.  The left wing Mayor of London has put congestion charges into Central London with great success.  Our Labour Government seems timid by comparison.

ACT’s whakapapa and its people

I want to honour the founders of ACT, who came out of the liberal wing of the Labour Party – Sir Roger Douglas and Hon Richard Prebble.

And also from the National Party – Hon Derek Quigley, who I have admired for his work on housing and in resisting ‘think big’ in years gone by.

Also Hon Ruth Richardson – who like Roger before her ended her career keeping her colleagues bent on the task of fiscal restoration and improving the workings of the public sector.  Her Fiscal Responsibility Act was a beacon to the world at the time and has been copied around the globe.

More recently our leader Rodney Hide exposed a cultural problem in the IRD that I believe was driven by ministers who told them to chase every last cent because ministers had run out of push in reforming expenditure and would not raise tax rates.

I’d also like to pay tribute to Hon Ken Shirley, our Tamaki candidate and our host tonight, who worked as a minister in the reforming Labour government, and came to ACT to advance the liberal cause.

Where do I fit?  I would like to be a bridge between those founders – many of whom I was an adviser to – and the current and coming generation of practically minded liberals who want a say in what New Zealand governments do and how they do it now and in the future.  I am 63 – I want to make another contribution to what the ACT whanau has done for this country.  I’ll take my chances, but I want liberalism to be a permanent feature of the NZ public sector scene and to stay relevant, fresh and new - ready to address new problems in a clear-eyed and if necessary reformist way, and building ACT’s capability in the practical business of government rather than firing philosophical paper darts from the grandstand.

I would like ACT’s liberal vision, principles, values and policies to be there always, to resist ambitious politicians with self important pronouncements about their ‘leadership’ and grandiloquent visions of social engineering or nation-building either from the right or the left.  I would like there to be in Parliament a party always to resist the proposition that when we have a problem then the ‘gummint’ must take charge; to resist excessive taxation and the nationalisation of commercial businesses, the exclusion of the private sector from the provision of public services and threats to the security of private property.

I would like a party to be there to acknowledge the vital place in our democracy of our community organisations in the ‘third sector’ and not patronise them as servants of the state; to build a secure safety net that meets the requirements of those in need or who are oppressed - but not a hammock for people to lounge in; to help everyone to get a good start in life but to encourage personal and community responsibility; to treat people as citizens not the fortunate recipients of public money that should never have been taken from them in the first place.

I would like there to be in the Parliament a party to stand against racism whenever it raises its ugly head; to welcome migrants as fellow Kiwis and to keep the instruments of government open, simple, transparent, available to all regardless of their connections and free from bias.  I would like there to be in the Parliament a party always to respect the diversity of all New Zealanders as our faces change.

Of course there is much in this list of my wishes that some other parties hold dear also, as they mix and match their policies with diverse ideological preferences and pragmatic objectives.  But with ACT what you see and hear from us will be what you’ll get.  We only have one brand.

The policies

ACT has done the hard work of developing its policies in 2002 and is currently updating them.  If we were the government we would implement them because we have the experience to do so in our ranks and in our networks.

We have the policies to address:

 

·         Transport problems

·         Tax reform

·         Better public services with better value for money

·         Sorting out waste in the health sector and improving services

·         Sorting out the muddle in the electricity sector

·         Sorting out the muddle about climate change and the Kyoto Protocol

·         Law and order

·         Education

Why people should give us their party vote?

It is simple really - MMP arithmetic.

National cannot get elected to government on its own.  NZ First has taken too big a bite out of its constituency that outweighs the inroads that Don Brash has made into ours.

NZ First will insist on the increases in expenditure it is promising its constituents on top of National’s promises to preserve social spending while having big tax cuts.

National needs ACT as its coalition partner to deliver on its programme.

At the risk of immodesty, the fact is that I know more about controlling government expenditure than the National front bench.  They are talking as though it will be easy to cut enough fat from the state to pay for tax cuts – it won’t be.  Believe me I’ve been there and I have done that.  The combination of the State Enterprises Act, the Public Finance Act and the State Sector Act, which I helped to design and implement, brought remarkable improvements in the effectiveness of public organisations and lower costs.  I wrote a textbook about it.  But those systems have not been used vigorously for a while and some slack has got into the system.  We can get better value for money but it has to be done with a scalpel not an axe.

They say they are going to cut waste out of the health sector but also preserve front line jobs.  Fine, who could object to that, but if they try to do this in a way that interferes deeply into the prerogatives of the DHB Boards and management there will trouble.  As the former Chair of the Health Funding Authority I have the experience to know what works and what doesn’t in quest for better value for the health dollar.

Designing tax cuts is child’s play.  It is on the expenditure side where all the problems are and where skill and experience are needed.  ACT offers New Zealand a better chance of actually getting what it looks like they are going to vote for – tax cuts and better public services. 

ACT is not going to form the next government, but we do want to be in a position to hold who ever it is to account from the liberal perspective.

Further, if the result on the night leads National to approach us as its coalition partner, then Don Brash will get what he wants done and get it done better.  He cannot do either without us.  We need to get 5% for either of these to be even a possibility and 7% for the depth of experience in our team to be active in the Parliament.

ACT stands as a beacon for those who want a government that does the right stuff – a government that works better– a government that costs less.

So in election 2005:

A Party Vote for ACT is a vote to ensure we really get what Don Brash is promising and that it will be done well – not a watered-down version or one obstructed by a coalition agreement.

Only a Party Vote for ACT will bring into Parliament the skills, experience and commitment that are needed to achieve positive change for New Zealand.

And not only for now, but for elections in the years to come, a Party Vote for ACT is a vote to ensure a safe home for the spirit of liberalism and its promise of freedom from bossy governments and for prosperity for all New Zealanders.

Dr Graham Scott

Two more influences I've noticed.

A huge one page advertisement in today's SST by the PPTA with subliminal messages about Labour's educashin policees.

And, I heard Ross Wilson (the bovver boy of the union movement when that Little guy isn't spouting off) on the wireless spouting off about employment benefits. He said things like "when you go to vote this year think about who introduced paid parental leave". Actually Hairy Laila did Ross, but you can claim it was Labour's idea if you like.

Keep your eyes and ears out for these 'independent' ads. To even things up I expect the employers associations to come out and 'back' alternative policies to what we have now?

Do you think there is a link between this and this? (read the first few paragraphs of the second one only).

Two things happened tonight that made me wonder whether Labour has started to 'secretly' campaign. These two are on top of this story revealed on both Sir David and Jordan's blog today.

The two things are these.

First, we get a huge story on Close Up @ 7 about the increase in warmth of the oceans and how it could affect global weather patterns in the immediate future. They showed some film called 'The Day After Tomorrow' which was about a catastrophe caused by the a rise in ocean levels. The story was basically a huge plug for global warming and its offshoot - The Kyoto Protocol. This, of course, comes on top of the recently announced billion dollar bungle by the government, a bungle they knew about in April. I realise stories on Close Up take a while to put together and don't expect Helen's TV channel could have put it together within the last week, but I'm picking April would have been a good time to get it going.

Second thing was this headline in my local rag - the North Shore Times Advertiser.

"OFF DOLE, INTO WORK"

The story was basically about how long term unemployment numbers on the Shore have fallen from 359 in March 2004 to 209 in March this year. This is apparently a drop of 42%. Ann Hartley was quoted very early on trumpeting the numbers. Now of course there was no mention of this, but then again what did you expect?

I wondered when reading the article where the reporter (Ben Watson) got his story from. Of course, he got the figures from Work and Income but who asked him to push the story and who gave it the misleading headline? And why is Ann Hartley mentioned very early on when the other two Shore MP's, Nationals Wayne Mapp & Murray McCully, are never quoted or mentioned. I accept Hartley is a government MP but surely effective opposition members might have contributed to this too? Or is it that Hartley phoned the NSTA, offered them the story and asked to be quoted?

The NSTA is a good paper. It covers local events well. It rarely enters the central govenment fray, but it did in spectacular fashion today with a big, bold headline. I don't know how many have moved off the long term unemployment queue and onto sickness and invalid benefits on the North Shore. But I do know one thing, Ben Watson doesn't know either. At least, he's not telling if he does.

Tonight is my night off (keeping a promise with you know who). No posts tonight. So much to write about too. Never mind. Another time.

Update on this.

Heard on the radio tonight that the girl was handcuffed by the accused before being pack raped. Disgusting. But it adds to my theory.

This case is wierd.

Virtually everything is suppressed. Why would the accused past employment details be suppressed? Their current employment details too? Details of the offences etc.

Now I know nothing about this case at all. Nothing. Not a boo peep. But when I heard on the radio this afternoon that the female involved was seconded to 'the Mount' in December of 1988 for six weeks, for work, I immediately became suspicious.

Who would go to the Mount for work for six weeks over Christmas? Is it linked to why their prior occupations are suppressed? I think I know the answers.

I'm not sure whether I should be speculating but they can't suppress ideas can they?

Well, well, well. No sooner had I predicted the Maori Party to be the surprise package at the election came this. Admittedly Adolf Fiinkensein has been saying the same things for a while, so kudos to him.

MMP has surprises. It produced Winston in '96, and the Peter Dunne party in 2002. If the Maori Party can win all 7 seats and ACT get 7-8 the centre left are goneburger. That is not remote at all.

I have stayed up all night to watch the US formula 1 grand prix, and instead am sitting here watching 2 ferraris 2 Jordans and 2 minardis stroll around the track as all the other teams have retired because of safety concerns with their tires, This is just stupid, the FIA didn't even try to make it possible for these teams to race so every single one of them has retired after the warm-up lap and didn't form up on the Grid...This is absolutely stupid. Formula 1 is starting to screw itself over.....as the fans are starting to get even more pissed off already, and F1 is now going to lose a hell of a lot of fans.

Like Richard, I've been thinking.

The polls are all showing a close election. The MSM is all saying Winnie will be the kingmaker. Very predictable with no real alternatives put forward, until now.

The Maori Party, Tariana Turia & Pita Sharples will the queen/king makers. Here's why.

It is no secret that Tariana believes Labour has sold Maori out. After all she left the party amongst such dissatisfaction. Pita Sharples was on Jesse (Willie) Jackson yesterday morning saying exactly the same thing. I don't believe they will support Labour post election if given half a chance.

Then we must consider their likely votes.

The could very easily win all 7 Maori seats. If they only pick up 2-3% of the party vote they will cause an overhang because of this. Yet, that is still 7 seats.

If National win 50 odd seats (as current polls predict), and ACT get 6-7 seats (and I think they will get these) and the Peter Dunne party picks up 1 or 2 seats then it's all over for the centre left immediately. ACT could quite easily vote for the government yet not be part of the coalition as they have done before.

Let's not kid ourselves, the Maori Party is not a centre left party. Jordan confirmed this as below:

How does Turia's party fit into this dynamic?

It seems to me that the Maori Party's ambition is to work back towards an illusory golden past of Maoridom, where individuality is subsumed under collective whanau, hapu and iwi identities. This is highlighted by the constant references to whanau, hapu and iwi in their speeches; by their hostility to the inevitable effects of modernity and the Enlightenment on Maori society; by their desire to see social services dominated by a Maori "Aristocracy" (also known as iwi-based service agencies) rather than the universal services provided by the welfare state.

A more conservative - in fact reactionary - approach to politics is hard to imagine. If a pakeha-based party was out campaigning for the restoration of the great landed estates as there were in England; supporting the putting of economic and social power back in the hands of the elites; undermining the national institutions of common citizenship that bind us together - that party would be laughed out of political existence within minutes.

So when you hear stories of Pita Sharples saying the welfare system is bullshit and should be abolished because it "keeps people in dependency" please don't think he's joking. When you hear Tariana Turia saying she believes the State is illegitimate and that the only valid collective identities are those of kinship and blood, don't believe she is joking. Neither of them are.

That party stands for the antithesis of left wing politics, and of liberal politics. It seeks to turn around Maori society and take it back to some non-existent glorious past, and in so doing create a new privileged elite that can exert the kind of social control of the past. These are not its policies - the policies are more middle of the road than this analysis allows; I am talking about the values and the direction they want to go.

It has nothing to do with the challenges that truly face Maori society in the 21st century. It has no answers to poverty or disadvantage or structural racism or the fight for social and economic equality. It has nothing to do with the left. On that basis, the miracle of Turia's time in the Labour Party is that it lasted so long; not that she left. The stunning ineptitude of most of our media means that the party has been pained as Labour friendly, when it is the opposite.

Now, I may get pilloried for this post on the basis that I am not Maori and that I shouldn't be commenting on such issues.

Crap.

I am not Maori but I am a social democrat, and I understand the currents of political thought that came out of the Enlightenment. I see how hostile the Maori Party's ideology is to that progressive tradition. As a New Zealander, I have no time for a group which actively seeks to take my country backwards.

I know some wet urban liberals who are thinking of voting for the Maori Party. I just hope they realise that if they do, they are voting for a party of the conservative right, which would be much more comfortable in coalition with parties that shared its hostility to the State and to national collective institutions - National and ACT - than it would be dealing with the progressive elements in National and with the bulk of the Labour Party.

Sadly the realities of politics may mean that my party has to deal with these people post election, just as it may mean we have to deal with NZ First, but even NZ First is not as bad (from my point of view) as the Maori Party. At least they fall within a recognisably relevant set of issues - fear of cultural change, populism, economic and social nationalism and so on.

As the top weights and favourites head down the home straight with half a furlong to go, with ACT and the Greens hanging out down the inside rail, watch out for the lightweight down the outside.

Somehow I think Destiny NZ will be sheepish at this. LOL.

I saw the news article ordaining Bishop Brian. Out of curiosity I went to the website to see their policies. Richard Lewis said they are a centre-right party. Probably are. Have a look at this if you're interested.

I think they will add some colour? to the election. Actually I have noticed that an old associate/friend of mine is standing in my electorate! I knew him from sport, not christianity (I'm not religiously inclined and I didn't know he was). Can't wait to see him on the hustings.

Well I don't read too much into them myself, a lot of current polls have come out showing very little difference between National and Labour. As well as the other parties, with the exception of NZ First, appearing to drop off the radar. My first point will be anyone who discounts these minor parties will be either shocked or bitten on the bum come election night. The main thing I wonder about though is what will happen after the election, the polls are showing that for a majority government both sides will need Winston, thats one thing I don't wanna see and I know a lot of people who do not wanna see the same as 1996 all over again. So what government is going to result this year, well forget the polls we will have to wait til after the election.

This blog carnival is a good idea. I'll try to take part. So should y'all.

David Farrar has posted some of National's policies. I was interested to see this under their welfare policy:

"Personal responsibility is a core National Party principle. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their children.

The National Party believes that, while the community should always be there as a backstop to help those who need it, for most people that help should be a temporary hand-up and not a permanent handout".

Sound familiar? ACT founded these principles and the hand-up not hand-out slogan. Very happy to see ACT policies and beliefs being introduced AGAIN. This is precisely why ACT should be reelected. It has the ideas and principles that every party is now adopting.

UPDATE: Their Treaty policy:

Complete historical Treaty of Waitangi grievance settlements by 2010.
"The Treaty deals with government, property rights, and citizenship, and where there has been a clear breach of property rights – where land has been stolen, for example – it is right that attempts to make amends should be made. National is committed to completing the settlement of historical grievances. We will ensure that the process is accelerated and brought to a conclusion. Claims must be lodged by the end of 2006, with grievances settled by 2010. We must put this behind us if all of us – and Maori in particular – are to stop looking backward and start moving forward."

Again, it was ACT who introduced "Full, Fair and Final Treaty settlements" in 1999 and we were called racist. It is now core thinking. Another reason to give ACT your party vote.

Some relevant quotes/quips from last night (blogged live):

Oh, KH let her talk an awful long time on the Meningoccocal vaccinations a few times!

AK calls her 'Kim' quite often. The start is very gentle, a few interruptions, but AK does get to give her message quite easily.

Kim cracks a joke, they both laugh. It is all so easy for AK. And another very long time talking 'selling' the vaccine stuff ups. My initial impression so far is that KH is very easy on her. AK gets to talk far more than Rodney or Winnie ever did! There is no ferocity there at all!!!!!

Waiting lists now.

AK says acute/urgent op's happening straight away. KH attackes her (finally) on a 2002 quote about waiting lists. But it's all very genial and AK still gets to talk a very long time with no or little interruption.

AK calls 180,000 waiting as rubbish. She says 60,000 are booked and waiting. The wait has come down each year especially the wait of longer than six months. Oh Shit, KH tried to interrupt her and AK said just wait a minute and KH did!

AK raves on about priorities and certainties. She gets an awful long time to push the Labour spin/bollocks. Heaps of money blah blah blah. No interruption there!

Question on private health insurance. AK says it's up to NZers whether they want it.

KH: Why can't they use the private system?
AK: We do. Every capacity we have we use. There is no problem with that.

KH: But shortages still of beds, doctors etc.
AK: Invest in them blah blah blah.

KH saying people don't believe you are making a difference in health! Go Kim go.

AK says no cuts to health. We can do better. Allowed the time to say we will do it better after this election. Says only .4% increase in bureaucrats.

Finito. KH very soft on AK. Like a big, wet feather. I blow my nose at her.

Absolutely loved this letter to the editor of my local rag (North Shore Times Advertiser). I have copied it verbatim.

Hidden Costs

I would like to respond to MP Ann Hartley's comment (NSTA, June 3) that the Working For Families (WFF) policy is "putting real money into the pocket of the Shore's most vulnerable families".

As a beneficiaries' advocacy group we are a little disappointed that Ms Hartley didn't bother to seek the opinion of community services like ours, which deal daily with low income people at ground level.

We are not seeing the "Shore's most vulnerable" getting the real increases to the family income that Ms Hartley is suggesting. Yes, family support payments have been increased, but then this increase is taken out of other areas of people's benefit entitlements.

When people talk about the WFF package they fail to mention from April 1, family support payments to beneficiaries are treated as income for special benefit purposes.

With a high number of beneficiaries on the Shore entitled to receive the supplementary allowance special benefit, because of high accommodation and basic living costs, having this assistance now reduced because of the payment of family support, is a falsely reported financial increase. It is again, give with one hand and take with another.

Prior to April 1, family support was not regarded as income for the purposes of calculating someone's entitlement to a special benefit. Are benefeciaries really better off we ask?

PAM APERA
Benefeciaries Advocacy and Information Service

I am willing to take any bet for tonights game on this bet, I bet that the Lions will win tonight, please post your comments :P

Jordan on his blog raised some facts for the economic debate. He pretty much pulled them from a Michael Cullen speech.

As a matter of fairness I respond here.

Rodney gave this recent speech. Notable things are:

- For someone on the average wage of $41,300 a year, these tax cuts mean an extra $2,000 a year, almost $40 a week. This is the same as getting a 7% pay rise under the current tax scale.

- Flattening and reducing the income tax scale were the main recommendations of the McLeod Tax Review the Labour Government commissioned in 2001. Cullen paid a million dollars for the review, which confirmed the wisdom of a lower, flatter tax structure, but he threw the report in the bin.

- The fiscal cost of the package is $5.7 billion a year. That’s $1.7 billion less than the forecast surplus.

- Cullen has introduced over 30 taxes and/or levies since taking office.

- The Labour Government is getting richer. Its net worth under Cullen is forecast to increase from $35.5 billion to $63.1 billion over the next five years. That’s a yearly increase of 12.2 per cent, $5.5 billion a year.

- At the same time, Cullen is increasing total government spending from $53 billion in 2004 to $73 billion by 2009. That’s a $4 billion a year increase.

- In the last four years, government spending has increased by a third and it’s forecast to increase another 38 per cent during the next five years.

It is quite obvious that Cullen’s government is rich, yet middle income NZ is poor. The gaps aren't closing even if some poverty indicators may be looking a little better. This goes to show that the average family is no better off now than when Labour came to power. Their income is up. But all the gains have been taken in tax and higher prices (petrol as a recent example).

Cullen’s other excuse for not cutting taxes is that tax cuts would push up interest rates. It’s actually the tax hikes that have put up interest rates through greater government spending. The OECD recently confirmed that.

Yes Jordan you are right. We do get to chose this election. It's a shame kiwis don't get to choose with their own money.

As I predicted here a short while ago, the Lions are in for a torrid time here I feel. They won the scrums on Saturday but that was it. Lennox Lewis said to David Tua that he had to come to a title fight with 'more than just a left hook and a bad haircut'. I'm trying to think of a suitable Lions analogy. Any ideas?

My workload could be high in the next few months as things kick in. Of course I don't have the luxury of living politics every day as politicians do. I have to go to work during the day and read up on stuff at night to ensure my policy knowledge is right up there. Then there are the candidate meetings/nights (tomorrow night for starters). Along with policy to read up on, there is mountains of material to put to the enemy which has to be recalled at a moment's notice. In short, I can see that preparation is imperative. And all that is just the start! My wife and daughter also have expectations and rightly so.

I will try to blog daily to let you all in on what is happening and to humour you if I can. After all, laughter is the best medicine :)

Tomorrow I am attending a candidate night where we have to pick a policy out of a hat and speak to it for 3 minutes in front of board members, fellow candidates and MP's. We are then asked questions on it. Should be interesting and fun!

I spent the weekend in Pauanui at my best friend's holiday home with him and another mate. We just hung out, played golf and watched Sky. I don't have Rich Mans TV so it was good to watch the history channel, CNN and some sport.

Anyhow, on the way home we raced round a bend and were flagged down by a woman and screached to a halt. There was a car on its roof just a few metres ahead of us. We were about the 5th car to arrive. I'd say the accident occurred about 1 minute prior.

The three of us jumped out and helped flip the car back over. Two passengers had already managed to scramble out of the smashed windows. They had minor injuries.

The driver was not good. There was blood everywhere and I got some on me trying to flip the car over and tend to the driver. After about 10 minutes the driver came to and started to groan. We asked him to open his eyes and he did so that was good.

By this stage there were plenty of people helping. Ambulance, Fire & Police were on the way so we decided to leave.

Before we did I noted skid/tyre marks on the wrong side of the road. A guy told us how he saw the smash. The car was flying at about 150km/h down a long hill before the corner it rolled on. It lost control; went onto the wrong side of the road; swerved back to the correct side of the road; over corrected and hit a bank and rolled 2-3 times. The car's tyres were bald; a fork was in the ignition; there were beer bottles all over the car and the road; and all three were aged about 18.

It was a horrific sight. What does it take to get through to people?

I belatedly decided a few weeks ago to put my name forward for ACT this year. I thought about it last election but had too much on then (not like now is any different!).

Anyhow, I have done it and went to the all day selection process a few weekends ago.

ACT has put all new candidates at 31 on the list, so there I am at 31 with all the other 'newbies'. Suffice to say my current job is not under threat. I am really looking forward to hitting the hustings in any event. The centre right can certainly win this election and I think they will. ACT will be there. It's just a matter of how many of them. I can't answer this question except to say there won't be 31.

This morning on Breakfast there was a discussion about the coming election, the people who were present were Deborah Coddington, Wyatt Creech, Willie Jackson and Laile Harre. I thought this was interesting, ACT were represented by an actual MP, National by an Ex-MP who we haven't heard anything from in ages, Labour by an Ex-MP who is now part of the media, and then we had another Ex-MP who is now part of the Union movement. I don't know whether this was just because this was who was asked or if it was who was sent along. I would like to know if Breakfast asked for other MPs to come along and were denied by the MPs or parties as I think that if Deborah Coddington was there then chances are that they asked other MPs along and they didn't show up...

I think this shows disrespect to the New Zealand public, I don't wanna see 3 Ex-MPs discussing the coming election, just like I don't like the ex-Players as commentators in Rugby and Cricket. They may have played the game, but their analysis is useless.

From Aaron Bhatnagar and is repeated verbatim because it's so good. Thanks Aaron.

On TV3 news tonight (no links yet) is the news of Labour's counter offensive to National's billboard campaign. Problem is, they are using taxpayer money to put their ads up on bus shelters and the like - the ads run the Labour Party logo and the Parliamentary crest side-by-side, and give Parliament Buildings as their address. There is no actual parliamentary/government benefit or service being advocate - just a slogan which I suspect will probably, by great coincidence, be identical or close to the actual campaign slogan used on official Labour Party political propaganda.

Even the likely Labour Party coalition partners in the Green Party think that they have crossed the line.

Personally, I can't believe how contemptuous of taxpayer dollars Labour has become. The slogan "You are better off with Labour" does nothing in terms of advocating a Parliamentary service to taxpayers - it is pure electioneering - plain and simple. This follows on top of the dubious "Working for families" spendup that Labour have been running on TV to sell last years budget package.

This is not the first time that political parties have abused the Parliamentary crest for promotion - I would suggest that all parties have been guilty of this in the past, but never on such a blatant scale. There really ought to be a complete ban on any Parliamentary crested propaganda, (billboards, mail, pamphlets) within 3-6 months of the election date, unless it is actually promoting a function of the bureaucracy that is legitimate, such as letting people know where their nearest IRD office is, letting them know about upcoming school trust board elections or similar, or an MP confirming his or her office hours for appointments for constituents. All other communications should be paid for by private donations.

Labour should cease this campaign immediately and pay back the dollars - I am sure Owen Glen would be happy to help Labour campaign ethically. This blatant and shameless advertising binge on taxpayer dollars is indefensible, and I challenge Labour bloggers to speak up in favour of it.

I'm going to blog this live tonight - stay tuned, it should be hilarious! My typing is not that fast so bear with me.

Ok, here we go.

Kim Hill opens up saying Winnie is the possible kingmaker.

What is this flying squad?

It's like every other civil nation.... (interruption)..need to treat these matters with urgency etc...cannot have 20,000 overstayers and not treat it as serious.

Been 20,000 for years?

No, has worsened dramatically.

We got statistics todays saying no, anyway flying squad outside the immigration service?

We need a new group of men (interruption) well men that can do the job, former investigators etc...

It doesn't sound specific?

It's very specific...let me ask you this it started last week in queen street, they've taken my policy...

Donald says you are the ugly face of nz politics...?

He's hardly someone I'll waste my time with tonight...i've had green members writing to me saying good on ya.....

Let's get back to the squad!

Give me a chance to answer the questions. Ewen-Street said the greens have lost their way. (some rant about streams and rivers)

What will the flying squad do?

Go thru documentation etc.

How will they do that?

It's not hard, every country has done it.

It's in immigration service isn't it?

Maybe, but you need to deal with it now.

Just because they (the Iraqis) work for Saddam doesn't mean they support the regime? Do you accept you may have made a mistake about (some guy I missed name)

Show some patience.

Why don't you reveal your information?

(Blames the media! Mentions Jim Peron and how he gave information outside the house there).

Do you resile your statement about the (missed name) Iraqi.

No.

You didn't have the information when you made the statement (keeps going with question).

No logic with what you are saying, stay patient. These questions are baseless and meaningless.

Do you accept your information is wrong?

Just wait...maybe you'll apologise in due course.

(more on the specific iraqi and why do it in parliament)

Winnie says to be patient again and to try to be more professional!

Why did you need privilege to make the allegation?

Because you won't publish it unless you have protection! ('tis the media's fault).

Immigration & elderley are your specialist subjects?

Yes.

You stress these in an election year?

No, you're wrong. I pushed immigration in 2002, 2003 etc.

Have u costed your elderly policies?

Yes. It's less than Cullen said.

You costed at what?

Under $700 million (argument about preciseness). We put a liberal figure on it - $700 million.

Kim - here is another figure, Maori to be outnumbered by Asians, yet stats NZ say no?

(Debate on what is a Maori).

So how many Maori will there be in 2021?

It is artificially inflated.

So how many by your criteria?

(No answer. Kim gets shitty - Winnie says you don't understand the subject, I'm a Maori etc blah blah blah. Winnie getting angry).

How many overstayers now?

20,000 give or take 5%.

Kim produces quote and asks if he said it about being a soft country. Winnie reads it and bumbles his way through it, has to admit he said it. NOT GOOD!

Kim says 31,000 immigrants turned down, that's not being soft.

Winnie says this is a pathetic question. Winnie turns defence into attack, very bumbly though.

Do you want to be PM?

It will be a 3 horse race. I want u to get it clear in your mind that we keep the country honest...workable policies etc. We are not going to be obsessed with kingmaker talk...cabinet ministers etc.

Kim mentions 1996.

Winnie says NZ 1st has recovered then blames National for 1996. They reneged on sale of assets and attacked sick and young...

Did your supporters feel betrayed in 1996?

You journalists can accuse me of things all the way to the election. I represent a democratic party...they deseve to be consulted...that is why we are strong and vibrant.

People don't know where you will go when they vote?

The public must speak 1st...what do Helen and Don say?

You have an obligation to say which way you'll go.

We will do far better...we will shock you on election night.

But you will still have to be in coalition?

You think of power. I DON'T THINK THAT WAY!...rant on how the country has gone to the dogs during last 20 yrs...

Ends. Phew!

Hope you like it.

We're not like Aussies at all. I think we're far more refined. This proves it. Disgraceful.

This guy is one of my favourite sportsmen.

Believe me, the distances involved in the Ironman triathon are scary. Brown does them religiously every year, year in, year out. He never complains, unlike some patsy All Blacks. He loves his sport and his life. He is a true professional and I truly hope he wins Kona this year. He deserves it.

He has worked really hard with Mark Bone (I think) on his swimming and also with Brendan Cameron (Sarah Ulmer's boyfriend & coach) on his cycling. He always was an outstanding runner. The results are bearing fruit.

This is a very prestigious event. He has beaten a world class field. He doesn't have long left if he is to win Kona, and I predict, barring injury or bad luck, he could well be in top 3 again this year and could even win. If so, it will be vastly under-reported here, but I for one will acknowledge it.

Don Brash has come out and supported the Greens on Peter's flying squads.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows the 'flying squads' are a terrible idea. They may have worked 30 years ago, but in these times, with Bills of Rights etc their practice would border on illegal. They may have been able to get the wrong people back in Muldoon's days, but it wouldn't work today, and I suspect Peters knows it. He campaigns on the right and would certainly govern in the centre, no doubt about that.

Paul Tito has decided he would rather play for Taranaki vs the Lions than take them on as a member of the NZ Maori team this is a bit of a suprise, why would a player choose provincial Rugby over National representation. The choice has been made and he wants to be there as part of Taranaki and the NZRFU has not stood in his way, I say good on him for making his own choice

Well The All Black team to play Fiji has been named, but I would like to see a few changes for the Lions game.

Firstly keep Byron playing, marshall needs to learn a lesson, he is not bigger than the team.
Richie McCaw should not be playing at all, he has a problem with concussions and I for one don't wanna see him die in a tackle. Marty Holah into Openside
Then I wanna see Dan Carter at 1st Five, and a midfield Howlett isn't in there and then you have at the back, a harder decision, I don't like Muliana, so I think maybe Brent Ward.
other than that the other loosies should be Collins and Rodney. So thats the changes I want for the rest of the Lions tour
So we'll see what Henry thinks

A news item on Susan Wood tonight concerned the MCC looking at separate Maori seats in the city to ensure Maori representation on the Council. Advocating that position was the deputy mayor Anne Candy. Against the view was young councillor Jamie Lee Ross. Aaron profiled Jamie Lee on his blog a couple of months ago. He 'outed' himself tonight as a young nat.

Ms Candy mentioned how Maori seats were required because the Treaty said it did. I have taken university papers that study the treaty. I must have missed the lecture that guaranteed council seats back in 1840.

Ms Candy was seen on the footage hugging and kissing Helen Clark at some outdoor function.

Mr Ross spread the argument that it wasn't equality to push one race at the expense of others. Ms Candy replied that Maori were special by virtue of the treaty and we were visitors in their home land so it was up to us to cater for them accordingly.

The Council votes for the first time on this issue in a few months. At this stage I offer no opinion. I want yours.

Just a quicky.

They Lions fail to get my imaginaiton. I am not really a fan of Rugby (although I'll watch it if it's on the idiotbox). They struggled to beat a BOP team which hasn't played together for 9 months. I see a torrid time for them in NZ.

Rodney has posted these health figures compiled by the super Heather Roy. It is a must read!

UPDATE: Go here for the real story.

The Poms have been quizzing over this for years. They have recently 'penalised' drivers coming into central London with their cars during peak cars by making them pay electronically. This is the next step and it's the future whether you like it or not.

HAT TIP: DPF

Some reasons you can't vote Winston First:

1. 1996.

2. Tu, Tuku, Tuariki, Tau, et al.

3. Edwin Perry.

4. The Sunday Star Times editorial today.

5. Immigration & Super - you can't have heaps of superannuation without young rich, immigrants paying for it. DUH!

From Aaron Bhatnagar's blog.

This is the questionnaire from Vanity Fair - one of America's most popular magazines. I invite the NZ blogosphere to take it and publish it on their own piece of cyberspace.

What is your idea of perfect happiness

Cuddled up to my wife and daughter on a summer's night with a nice bottle of wine and some Cuban Jazz, after a day of decent swimming, biking and running and some gardening, with the daily paper not too far away!

Which living person do you most admire

My mother and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?

Oh my god I agree with Aaron, - impetuousness, but also my stubborness.

What is your greatest extravagance?

I'm not in the least extravagant.

On what occasion do you lie?

I try not to lie. I hope I never have to hide one.

What do you most dislike about your appearance?

My hair, it's thick & curly.

Which words or phrases do you most overuse?

'Yes mate'. 'Well actually'

What is your greatest regret?

Aaron and I agree again! That I never learned a musical instrument or learned to sing when younger.

What or who is the greatest love of your life?

My partner Anne and daughter Amber (5ish) no doubt.

Which talent would you most like to have?

Me too Aaron! Jeez. To be able to sing like Frank Sinatra and act like him. And to be able to sing like Tom Jones; and to be able to draw, paint and be good at DIY!

If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

To have straight hair.

What do your consider your greatest achievement.

Two - finishing the 1999 Ironman and completing my law degree.

If you were to die and come back as a person or thing, what would it be?

A world class radio talkback host/broadcaster. The media has so much influence.

If you could choose to come back as a person or thing, what would it be?

As above.

What is the quality you most like in a man?

Honour, belief and soul. Without belief and soul you won't achieve anything.

What is the quality you most admire in a woman?

Loyalty and a GSOH.

What do you most admire in your friends?

Their hardworking attitude and their loyalty toward me.

Who are your favourite writers?

??????? Pass.

Who is your favourite hero of fiction?

Robin Hood.

Who are your heroes in real life?

The Arsenal Football team, all our RSA vets including those who died for our country.

What are your favourite names?

Amber.

What is your motto?

"All good things come to those who wait", "Don't burn your bridges".

Of course we on the centre-right will say yes. Jordan Carter is not so sure. This from his blog:

"Labour and National simply debate how better to administer capitalism, and even within that debate the differences are not vast. We have different ideological bases but neither party proposes to fundamentally change the role of the state. Accepting that fact can be hard for ideologues on either side, but it's the truth".

I suspect he is probably right. Maybe Labour is a soft capitalist party. If so, why does Young Labour write this when promoting their last summer school?

That's the thing about cold wet nights inside in front of the fire. You get to surf stuff you probably never would.

This is really, really, really bad law. I have a virtual chocolate fish for the anyone who can tell me how they could have stopped this law in one word. I know the word. Any guesses? All will be revealed on Sunday night.

UPDATE

One entry - false sorry.

Privatisation is the word. Privatise the prison service and the state wouldn't have to pay out anything. The bloody Labour idealogues had the chance with the ACRP but didn't renew the contract for no reason other than ideology. Having been to Mt Eden many times, the ACRP it is a far nicer place and run just as well as any state prison.

THIS IS NOT MINE, BUT WORTH REPEATING

Here is the real story to enlighten the Budget discussion! You've heard the cry: "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", which is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean? The following explanation may help.....


Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner.The bill for all 10 comes to $100.They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this:

The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing. The fifth paid $1. The sixth $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.

All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:

The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).
The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!" "That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.

This guy was head boy at my high school. He speaks much common sense.

The Dominion Post has a story this morning stating that Byron Kelleher has bought land in Christchurch. This of course leads to the rumor that he will be heading to the Crusaders and Cantebury next season as his contract with Waikato ends this year, and of course they will be looking for a high quality halfback after the loss of Justin Marshall. I think this could be possible, but I think that this constant flow of players to certain areas just because they are winning at the time is very bad for New Zealand Rugby. I think that something really needs to be done to fix this problem, the Salary cap on Premier Division may help this, but of course there is still the fact that players can always head to a smaller province within the area and play for the Super 12 team. I think Byron should stay with the Chiefs, I don't want to see him in a Red and Black jersey and I'm sure there are a lot of people who would agree.