National climbing in polls; Jacinda still preferred Prime Minister


The latest poll out could potentially see a National A.C.T. coalition form. This is how Parliament would look if an election were held today using the numbers of Colmar Brunton:

  • NATIONAL: 60 seats
  • LABOUR: 51 seats
  • GREENS: 8 seats
  • A.C.T.: 1 seat
  • N.Z. FIRST: 0 seats

Because New Zealand First has no electorate seats it would be out of Parliament and their vote would be meaningless. This would boost all of the other parties. National would increase to 49.5%, which would give them 60 seats in the house. With A.C.T. that would enable them to form a Government and not need any other support.

The reality I think is a bit different. Whilst Labour is suffering in the polls I do not believe its popularity has slumped that far as polls typically survey 800-1,000 people. Across all electorates that might be about 14 people per electorate.

  • NATIONAL: 58 seats
  • LABOUR: 50 seats
  • A.C.T.: 3 seats
  • GREENS: 9 seats

David Seymour is the politician I most despise in Parliament and if his A.C.T. Party disappeared most Kiwi’s would be pretty happy, but just this once I think that the man from Epsom has done something right. His work around euthanasia and cannabis reform is going to pay dividends that – credit where it is due – he deserves.

I do not see a future for New Zealand First. Too many people key to the party’s success have been driven from it. Too much time has been squandered with internal politics instead of figuring out how to make it a more efficient election campaigning machine. It is no closer to reforming its campaign machinery than it was when I rejoined in 2010 after a four year hiatus. And then there is the Winston question: how long will Winston Peters stay on as leader?

National leader Simon Bridges is trailing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in the preferred Prime Minister stakes for numerous good reasons. She has a commanding lead of 38% as opposed to Mr Bridges who has 9% support and is now comfortably ahead of his National Party colleague Judith “Crusher” Collins on 5%.

  1. His support of Donald Trump policies shows a lack of acknowledgement of the harm that the former is causing America and the world
  2. National spent 9 years denying there was a housing crisis – whilst Phil Twyford should be out of cabinet and some of that surplus should be getting spent on it, Labour have at least tried to ease some of the restrictions in place
  3. Labour have started work on the monumental task of readying the economy for a post-oil New Zealand – keeping a promise
  4. Her compassionate style, whilst fluffy to many is in contrast to the attitude of many in National to things like refugees, mental health and beneficiaries

One thing is for certain, whether Ms Ardern or Mr Bridges like it or not, 2020 is shaping up to be a very lively affair.

 

Sexual abuse scandal risks undoing Labour


For months, senior figures in Labour knew something stunk. A senior apparatchik was sexually harassing junior members at a camp. The Treasurer knew what was happening. At some point the former Party President Nigel Haworth was told. A guy who was working in the Prime Minister’s office was committing abuse. But when they had tried to call him out on it by going to the party leadership, it said #SeeYou.

For months it festered and simmered. The incident happened in February 2018. It was the second of two known incidents involving the complainant who was meant to have met the offender at a public office, but was convinced to go to his home.

Mr Haworth and other senior figures were told at the time. But for a year they sat on it. Even when another round of allegations bubbled up around the Young Labour youth camp, and a lawyer was detailed to deal with the allegations, nothing happened. It was not until 2019 that an investigation was launched. The report from the lawyer was released without input from the complainant despite increasingly panicked messages being sent.

And when they asked to see the report and get legal representation, Mr Haworth said that was not necessary. Imagine that. Shutting down a sexual abuse allegation in the age of #MeToo because ones own career is more important than the well being of a young lady whose life has been turned upside down.

The stark reality is, that a party claiming to be big on a better world for sexual abuse victims, has no honest plan for a festering gash that is becoming infected and will need some solid work done. Labour Party President Nigel Haworth might have gone, but it is obvious that he did not tell Ms Ardern the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or that if he had, someone in her office failed to tell her everything.

From a party that campaigned heavily on a fairer, more just place for women in the world, whose leader stood before the United Nations and talked about #MeToo the difference in the message received in New Zealand was stark. Somehow the talk about #MeToo becoming #WeToo did not get to the highest elections of the external Labour leadership, but it seems that #SeeYou – basically telling the complainants to get lost – did. Youngsters who had every reason in the world to believe that camp that they were at would be a great one, good campaigning from old hands would be taught and everyone would have a great time, found out that Labour is not the cuddly bear it is made out to be.

This is a scandal that could sink Labour at the next election if the Prime Minister does not come clean on what happened and why and demand immediate 100% transparency. This is a scandal that could make this Labour Government the first 1-term wonder since the 1-term wonder that was Norman Kirk/Bill Rowling. National and Simon Bridges would love that prospect, but I am not sure that the rest of New Zealand would.

 

National swings to the right


Was it Donald Trump? Was it Simon Bridges or was it Boris Johnson?

At least one of these leaders today featured significantly in the economic policy outlined by National leader Simon Bridges. United States President Donald Trump can take the credit for an idea adopted by Mr Bridges as he seeks to swing National towards the 2020 election and the prospect of a one-term Labour led Government.

It is classic blue ribbon politics from National, seeking to woo businesses that might feel like they have been short changed by the Labour-led Government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Mr Bridges clearly not being of the same centrist cloth that saw Prime Minister John Key survive nearly three terms, has issued what to the conservative wing of New Zealand must seem like a call to arms.

In his outline Mr Bridges has made a number of pledges that point to an embracing of “free market” economics. Commentators have noted a swing towards Trumpian deregulation – an attack on “red tape” simply because they are regulations, and not necessarily because those regulations are bad. Mr Bridges has made a promise identical to one Mr Trump made after taking office whereby he would repeal two laws for every law introduced with the result being a 40% drop in new laws being made.

This willy approach raises as many questions as it does answer. National will claim that they are red tape, but if the past is the key to the future, it will most probably be attacks on occupational safety and health regulations, the Resource Management Act, banking and social laws designed to help the marginalized.

In a more ominous move that is likely to mobilise the Labour and Green Party base membership, Mr Bridges has also announced moves that will be seen as a clear and deliberate attack on the unions. By announcing a plan to stop unions getting Government preference in negotiations, Mr Bridges has attempted to undermine one of the key reasons for joining one in the first place.

National has gone one step further. At the risk of galvanizing the divided New Zealand First membership, they have chosen to raise the age of superannuation eligibility to 67. As a result in the next few days I expect to hear sermons from Winston Peters about the folly of doing so, and in the weeks and months to come as we start to look forward to the 2020 general election there will be clips of Mr Peters addressing his Grey Power constituents.

Instead of growing the economic pie as I have suggested by investing in research/science/technology and diversifying the export sector, they have decided to take an old, used and thus far not very successful knife out of the drawer. They have made it shiny and attempted to sharpen it in the hope that once again New Zealanders might be dazzled by the imagined allure of market economics.

Make what one will of these announcements, but I think we can be sure that the Government reaction will be substantial. It might not elicit new policy, but I expect to see a doubling down on existing policy and warnings to potential voters of what they might be playing with by voting for National. Maybe Mr Bridges is hoping that Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First will have forgotten by 2020 that these policies were announced. Maybe he is hoping to gain better traction and get the party moving again as a cohesive unit.

The 2020 election campaign might not officially start for several months, but the unofficial one is already revving its engine.

National Party reshuffle leaves its climate policy in neutral


Over the weekend, the weekend just gone, the National Party had their annual conference in Christchurch. It was – among other things – a chance for the rural and urban wings of the party to meet as one and see how they are (not)reconciling their differences over climate change.

Until now National Party M.P. Todd Muller (M.P. for Bay of Plenty) had been held the climate change portfolio. Mr Muller, who until today had been No. 31 on the party list, has had a promotion following the resignation of Nathan Guy (M.P. for Otaki), who is standing down at the 2020 election. As a result, but also partially out of dissatisfaction with the efforts to negotiate a deal with the Government on agricultural emissions, Mr Muller has lost the Climate Change portfolio.

The rural wing of the party, it would appear does not believe in climate change and does not want anything done on the issue. This will no doubt concern National Party leader Simon Bridges, who despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s tumble in the polls, is still a long way behind her. The need to keep the blue-green wing of the party on board at a time when the Government is trying to make significant inroads into the issue is critical in order to avoid National conceding seats at the 2020 election.

Scott Simpson (M.P. for Coromandel), takes his place as Climate Change spokesperson. Mr Simpson is not known to have the contacts Mr Muller did in the rural community. In 2017 he was appointed National’s spokesperson for the environment. In that capacity he has been critical of Minister for Environment Eugenie Sage, following revelations that 55 micron L.D.P.E. bags would only work 20 times or so instead of the recommended 55 times to pass the multi-use test.

Mr Simpson will need to move quickly on Climate Change whether he wants to or not. The Zero Carbon Bill, which addresses how the Government should try to reach our 2050 goal of being carbon neutral, closed for submissions on 16 July. National will need to achieve some sort of reconciliation soon between its rural and urban wings over climate change, lest New Zealand First whose membership has a significant rural component undermine their vote.

He will be further motivated by the fact that the Government, whilst on one hand is definitely forging ahead with climate policy, on the other is very definitely lacking ideas or a willingness to try anything radical. There are a number of steps that they could be taking fairly rapidly such as compulsorily recycling all aluminium, which is very energy intensive to manufacture at a smelter. There are also a number of longer term initiatives such as developing biofuel from the waste stream to power vehicles, using waste to energy plants to generate electricity and provide hot water to communities.

Can Mr Simpson be the successful bridge between the blue-greens and the rural wing of the National Party, or will he let the work started by Mr Muller slide in favour of other priorities?

 

Assessment of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon)Bill


As a response to the growing concern about the impact of climate change on New Zealand, and in order to give effect to our commitments under the Paris agreement of 2015, the Government has drafted the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon)Bill. This article attempts to assess the C.C.R. Bill.

The Bill of Parliament is broken into the following parts:

  • Part 1A focuses on the establishment of the Climate Change Commission, its powers/functions/duties, composition and so forth
  • Part 1B focuses on the establishment of the emission reduction targets, the emission budgets and the processes for establishing these budgets, as well as the role of the Commission and the monitoring of the targets
  • Part 1C focuses on adaptation to climate change
  • Part 2 examines consequential amendments

There are good parts in this Bill of Parliament. They include provision for:

  • A Climate Change Commission that will include a range of figures from scientists to people in the business community, as well as those familiar with local government and planning processes
  • Reducing emissions that are not biogenic methane to net zero by 2050; reduce biogenic methane by 24-47% by 2050 and by 10% or more by 2030
  • A sequence of emissions budgets that act as stepping stones towards the above targets
  • Require the Government to develop policies for adaptation and mitigation

There is however significant room for improvement. There does not appear to be any mention of providing for more immediate as well as intermediate steps that do not need substantial policy development and which are already known to work. The lack of urgency around these has been a cause of concern among environmentalists and the Green Party, but are also potentially likely to have useful social outcomes such as improved energy budgets. I have covered all of these concerns in previous articles.

This will need a comprehensive roll out so that all agencies are aware of their obligations, but also the tools and resources at their disposal. One of the biggest problems across policy making in New Zealand and probably true of the world is the number of agencies that do not communicate and whose awareness of where they fit into the larger framework of policy is not new. For policy to be effectively given effect to, this must improve.

I expect that this Bill of Parliament will run into significant resistance when it returns following the closure of submissions. A.C.T. will oppose it point blank. National will want business concessions and be concerned about the impact on the economy and tax payers, some of which might be granted, but not all. New Zealand First as a coalition partner will likely support it, but have significant concerns about the impact on rural communities. Labour and the Greens will support, but will differ over the extent to which they should move, which might cause tensions inside the coalition.

Businesses will have concerns, and some of them will be quite valid. Others will be more about protecting sectors that are considered to be sunset industries, because in a world adapting to climate change they will probably be phased out. As adaptation is the name of the game, technological and procedural innovation are likely to feature strongly in any attempt at staying relevant.