John Armstrong in this morning’s Herald has given his verdict on the Maori seats imbroglio. Essentially he says this was not a dispute that was going to develop into a crisis but it is an example of slack coalition management. I disagree with John’s analysis of the gravity of the situation, but I found one comment he made particularly interesting
But the National Cabinet was never going to reverse its April decision ruling out Maori seats and suddenly endorse the idea.
Really? Why then was John Key negotiating with the Maori Party over a possible deal? I am quite convinced from everything I have heard from Pita Sharples, Hone Harawira and others that they thought they were negotiating in good faith with Key about a deal. Further, that would seem to be the reason that Key went to see Hide in June.
Managing coalition arrangements is tough stuff. I played a minor part in managing theses relationships in my time as an Advisor in Helen Clark’s office. It takes enormous energy and time, a fair degree of flexibility, but above all bucket loads of goodwill and good faith. If John Armstrong is correct and National really did never have any intention of changing its position then this episode will have done far more damage to the long term stability of this government than he thinks.
Posted in ACT, Maori Party and Auckland. |
Today, I briefly thought we might get an answer to the question I posed last week about who actually leaked Tau Henare’s email . This was the question that was put by media to Tau Henare, but his only response was to describe Rodney Hide as a ‘buffoon’ and a ‘jerk-off’. Oh dear.
The tail truly is wagging the dog here. From Rodney Hide and Pita Sharples answers in the House today we learn that the reason John Key went to see Hide in early June was to see how he would feel about a possible deal Key was doing with the Maori Party on Maori seats. Hide told him that he would have to resign as Minister if that happened, and lo and behold no deal is done. Key has acknowledged that Hide’s threat was ‘ a factor’ in the Cabinet decision. I think this reflects poorly on Key’s leadership, and Hide must be delighted that he can play the PM in this way with 3% of the vote behind him.
Meanwhile the Select Committee process on this issue seems to be utterly irrelevant. I actually feel really sorry for John Carter who in my observation has done a great job with the Committee, and the other members who put in so much time. Above all I think the submitters and the Committee were owed the courtesy of the Select Committee finalising its report before announcements were made. Alas no, somewhere between Rodney tossing his toys, Tau losing the plot and John doing a flip-flop, the Parliamentary process went out the window.
Posted in Henare, Hide, Auckland and Democracy. |
The latest Research NZ Business Confidence Survey is out, and the good news is that many businesses are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel (which is not an on-coming train!). 50% of respondents are expecting better conditions in six months and 75% better conditions within a year. This has to be good in terms of investment and planning, and in turn to improving employment.
The government response to the recession takes a bit of a hammering in the survey. In particular the much trumpeted job summit gets the thumbs up from 1% of respondents only, with 50% saying it would have no impact at all. That is damning for what was meant to be the centrepiece of the government’s response to the recession. I am detecting a tendency in this government to set things up with a blaze of publicity, but let things fall away with the follow - through. See last week with Tony Ryall and the much vaunted state sector redeployment scheme.
The business ‘wish list’ at the bottom of today’s article also makes interesting reading. One of the big things I have heard from businesses is their disappointment that the government has not done more to support training and skill development in the recession. This is the place where government can have a big impact, supporting people to gain the new skills that will drive us forward as we get out of the recession. This has been a major focus in Australia and UK, but sadly, not here.
Posted in Jobs, Business, Employment and Education. |
The referendum results are in, and predictably the No Vote campaign had a big win. Wellington Central came through with the highest Yes Vote (35.9%). It also had the highest number of informal votes (1.96%). Perhaps most interestingly for Wellington Central the turnout in the referendum was low (43%), both in real terms and relative to the rest of the country (the third lowest of the general electorates). This is particularly noteworthy when you consider that traditionally Wellington Central is one of the highest polling electorates (2nd in 2008 with more than 80%). I think this is reflective of the fact that many people in Wellington Central simply could not be bothered with such a ludicrously worded referendum. As I moved around the electorate I found strong support for the Deborah Morris led Yes Vote, but also a large number of people for whom the whole exercise was not worth putting time into.
For the record, I, like John Key and Phil Goff, did not vote. I simply could not vote for or against such a poorly worded question. It was pure political rhetoric, and answering it either yes or no did not sit well for me. I strongly supported the repeal of Section 59, and I believe the new law is working. It should be given more time before it is effectiveness is assessed. Good parents are not being criminalised. Awareness of other forms of discipline or correction are increasing all the time, and I am confident in years to come we will look back on the repeal of Section 59 and wonder what all the trouble was about.
I do accept that as the repeal bill went through many parents gained the impression that they were being judged and regarded as bad parents because they may have at some time smacked their children, and I think this is what has driven the negativity towards the law. Sadly this impression continues, regardless of what the law actually says. This is a large failure of communications on behalf of those of us who supported the Bill. We do need to listen to parents genuine concerns and think hard about how to improve confidence in the law.
I will await with interest what John Key comes up with, but I am wary of moving too far when there is a legislated review just around the corner.
Posted in Democracy. |
“The demise of night classes is bad for schools, for communities and for thousands of people who use them to learn something new.”
That is Bill English in 2006 talking about the possible demise of night classes. It did not happen, but he is doing his best to make sure it does now. This quote was used by a couple of participants at tonight’s meeting organised by Wellington High School to oppose the night class cuts. As with the others around the country there was a good turnout with around 150 people. Many people there had great stories of how school based night classes had made a major difference in their lives. One woman talked about how it had given her the confidence to go from being someone who had not finished school and was on a benefit through to a degree and a job. But more than that she felt it had given her children an understanding of the importance and value of education.
Alongside the short-sightedness of the cuts from an educational, economic and social point of view, the other thing that hit home tonight is the impact on the tutors and coordinators. If as is likely many school pull out of provision, they will be out of a job. One person came to me tonight who is the sole breadwinner in her household, and her full income ($25,000) is from her tutoring job. There are thousands more in her position. From a government that says its number one priority is jobs it is just one more contradiction.
Judging from tonight and the other meetings there is plenty of fight in this campaign. The saddest note of the evening was the refusal of the Minister or any other National MP to show up. As Trevor bravely showed in School Review process a few years ago, Ministers have an obligation to defend spending decisions. Anne Tolley or someone should have been there.
Posted in ACE and Tolley. |
