Election blog, Sep 12-16

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
7.00pm 16.09.05

The polls have always concerned me as one does not know how the question has been posed nor where - there could be entirely a different response in Mangere to Remuera.

It's entirely possible that ambitious odds-making or even a personal agenda by pollsters could decide the outcome of Saturday's election if the public is as poll driven as one is supposed to believe.

I can't recall when I've ever seen an election with so many contradictory polls over such a short time. The real danger is that polls often become self-fulfilling prophecies, where less than decided voters follow the trend of the latest poll so that that they can be on the predicted winning side.

People often mistakenly assume that the poll is accurate; or that people more knowledgeable than themselves are responding to the poll; or even just want to be on this 'winning' side so that they can say to their mates - I voted for them.

I doubt that this applies to the elderly who still have very fixed political affiliations but well-organised polls can be both interesting and of value, but the daily snap-polls of less than 400 people that somehow supposedly represent the changing national mood is insultingly ridiculous.

So too, are recording professional odds-makers, whose findings are largely based on punters polling pollsters.

Further cluttering the issues are the large media conglomerates, each with their own polls which make for good copy, but I suspect there may be a purpose other than being merely informative. I would prefer seeing the occasional reliable national poll looking a people's attitudes on issues instead of personalities.

Notwithstanding the effect that polls may have, it is important that everyone exercises their right to choose our government and I urge voters to use their Party Vote to get the best result in a coalition government.

This election, Grey Power has lobbied for regulation of energy costs, a raise in the superannuation rate, and reduced hospital waiting lists with really little support from either of the main parties "

* * *

Fiona Peat (journalism student)
3.00pm 16.09.05

Yesterday the University of Auckland quad was filled to the brim with the Labour cabinet, Labour supporters and five lonely and lost National fans. According to one ex-Auckland Uni student now at AUT, it was the biggest political crowd she had ever seen at AU.

Not only was there a heaving mass of students out to see Helen, they were also there to sing (or shout) her praises. Not only is this show of hospitality a far cry from the southland welcome Helen received, it is also very different to how she was welcomed at AUT - because she never visited.

Perhaps it is because, as a new university, AUT has yet to establish a strong political voice within the student body. However, with a matter of 200 metres between the two quads you would think that Helen would want to spread the interest-free gospel to as many students as possible. I understand that in the week before her big night she is very busy, but I would have thought that dividing her time between the two campuses would be considered a smart move – preaching to double her target audience.

Or perhaps if Helen didn't want to cross the road to get to AUT they could have advertised the rally at AUT so that students had the choice to go, and not have to find out about it second hand after the event.

It may seem that I am making a big deal about this very small event during a very big week. However, there have been many weeks since the election date was announced when Helen and co could have lowered themselves to coming to AUT.

True there have been political debates with representatives from all the parties, but having the PM herself waving interest-free in front of our noses would be something else!

The same could be said of Dr Don, who also hasn't been seen around campus.

However, it's too late for any of that now. I have reached voting nirvana and will step into the polls, pen poised and ready to elect the people who I think are best for the job. I hope you are (nearly?) ready do the same.

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
12.10pm 16.09.05

One of the first things the Government will do after the election is review the minimum wage.

Since 1999 the adult minimum wage has increased from $7 to $9.50 an hour, 18 and 19 year olds are now treated as adults and the rate for 16 and 17 year olds has increased from $4.20 to $7.60 an hour.

Contrary to Treasury, National Party and Business Roundtable predictions, these increases are now known to have had no negative effect on employment, despite their size.

The Greens, Maori Party and NZ First are all promoting a $12 an hour minimum. National is silent on the issue, and Brash is on record as opposing the existence of a minimum wage at all.

$2.50 an hour on the minimum wage will do more to promote productivity and lift after tax incomes than Don/Key's borrow and cut giveaways. If the minimum wage is frozen at $9.50, even with a National tax cut a full timer would take home only $300 a week. With an increase to $12 and no tax cut, that full timer would take home $386 a week.

Issues like minimum wage losses, handing over our compulsory ACC levies to insurance industry bosses, and the repeal of Health and Safety Act amendments that have helped halve workplace deaths in the last two years are the real reward the right wing want from this election campaign.

$92 a week to an executive on two or three hundred thousand is a pittance. But if $20 for a middle income earner can buy access to health, education, and accident compensation for the private sector and rid multinational fast food businesses, cinemas, hotels and casinos of their minimum wage burden then what do they care about the $15 a week it will add to the average mortgage?

Let's vote for New Zealand tomorrow – and save our risk taking for the lotto shop.

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
8.50am 16.09.05

Along with global warming and asteroid activity, no New Zealand government will be able to control the so-called war on terror. But while there is not much we can do at the macro level, you can bet your left whatsit that no matter who successfully bribes the electorate on Saturday, "terror" will be used to curtail your micro-rights.

The Labour government's record on human rights is by no means impressive. Our Terrorism Suppression Act, which came into law in 2002, was closely modelled on the UK's Terrorism Act, a piece of legislation singled out by Amnesty International for its obnoxiousness. The way this administration has handled the Zaoui case is disgraceful. The "trust us" approach to imprisoning someone for no apparent good reason is unacceptable in a democracy.

Would a National government have behaved any better? Not likely. On the contrary, those guys would probably have offered Whenuapai Airbase as one of those cute places the US ships prisoners off to so they fall outside normal US legal rules and regulations.

And it will probably get worse, regardless of who is elected. The head of MI5, the UK spook agency, has warned that "civil liberties across the world may have to be sacrificed to prevent future terrorist attacks". Can you imagine a government anywhere not using this as an excuse to curtail your right to free speech and freedom of assembly, or pop you in the clink because you look different or are just a bloody nuisance? I can't, either. In fact governments in countries as diverse as China and Kenya have clamped down on political opponents in the name of fighting terror.

So watch out for your civil liberties over the next couple of years. Of course, suppressing civil liberties will not prevent terror, or make the world safer. And just in case you are persuaded that it will, consider this: What if it is your son or daughter who is detained without the right to a lawyer? Your sister or brother who was arrested on suspicion of terrorism when all they were doing was walking home half-tanked and abused a policeman? How would you feel then? And what if the burden of proof was reversed?

We cannot control world events, but we can control what happens to us here in New Zealand. Although discussion of these issues has been sidelined in favour of mostly tabloid-style journalism, they are the ones that will decide whether or not you get to read blogs like this, for instance. Your right to read and disagree is worth protecting, as is your right to write your own blog, or stage a protest march. Guard them as jealously as you would a tax cut.

* * *

Alan Cocker (Lecturer in Communications, AUT)
2.30pm 15.09.05

Living on a rural delivery post run I thought for a few weeks that the political parties and their acolytes had passed me by in their publicity drives. But then over the past week I have got the message from almost everyone. Don Brash sent me a nice postcard with no postmark so perhaps it was from somewhere sunny and naughty like Ibiza or more likely Tauranga. The front of the card featured Helen Clark beneath the word "Tax" while on the other side a smiling Don had the word "Cut" above his head. I took the obvious message, National was trying to bribe me with a free vasectomy.

The next to arrive featured a nice New Zealand bush scene but under a beautiful green ponga was the single word "Beware!" Oh no thought I, having joined the battle to control the possum, the Mexican strangling tree weed and the lascivious Lithuanian lung beetle, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and the Auckland Regional Council had found another threat lurking in my little piece of bush.

But the pamphlet was to warn me that the only thing creeping out of the forest were Socialists and Communists disguised as Green candidates. Now I have not seen a Socialist since the early 1980s so I was pretty keen that the pamphlet had a picture of one of the critters so I could set the right bait trap. Apparently they are wily but can be identified as they offer financial assistance to cannabis growers, roam all over private property and teach criminals "art". I'll keep my eye out.

Next came a nice letter from Gerry Eckhoff who is apparently the Act Rural Affairs Spokesman (Spokesperson I think, Gerry). Rather than blow his own trumpet Gerry included quotes on what others thought of him. For example: "Gerry Eckhoff has done more for farming than any other MP in the past five years" - Gerry Eckhoff's Mum.

Anyway Gerry had some good news for farmers, he says that the polls show that Act Leader Rodney Hide will win the seat of Epsom. Therefore every party vote for Act will go to electing more talented Act MPs. This is news I hope someone tells Rodney and everyone else who thinks we might be watching this party's final Act.

Then of course there was the Labour Party. An airbrushed Helen introduced me to an airbrushed future where we will all journey into the sunlit highlands of prosperity and happiness. It reminded me of Judy Garland tripping down the Yellow Brick Road but one watched anxiously in case Winston Peters sprang out of the cornfield.

For the most part it was junkmail and received the same treatment. I was more concerned that this election has seen too many "bribes", claims and contentions that our media have not properly examined. Where was the economic analysis of National's tax cuts and why did we have to wait for the Treasury's costings of Labour's interest free student loans?

Surely our media can spare some staff to spend a few days on this, ask some economists and other analysts. Other countries have pursued similar strategies so what happened in those cases and after the orgy of promises from all parties how great might be our collective headache no matter who wins on Saturday?

Meanwhile I'll await the last of the leaflets. They are wasting their money as I'm going to be out of my electorate on polling day and I voted last Saturday. I will set those traps however, the last thing we need is communists teaching criminals art.

* * *

Murray Jack (Chief Executive, Deloittes)
2.30pm 15.09.05

So, the race enters its final lap. Will there be any more last minute give-aways? Will there be any more gaffs? If there are, will any of this matter?

Almost the only certainty seems to be that Act will not be playing a part. This will be music to the ears of the Left which finds Act's brand of economic rationalism hard to swallow. National will also not mourn its passing. It now has the prospect of consolidating the right without the discomfort of Act exposing its inherent popularism. But New Zealand politics will be the weaker without Act. It has some very talented and hard-working MPs, and more importantly it provides much needed diversity of opinion and debate.

As we all contemplate where we will place our ticks this weekend, and whether we will be swayed by the bargains on offer, here are some big questions, some of which have had little or no attention in the past few weeks.

* The economy is slowing and the risks of a hard landing are higher than they were a few months ago. Which parties' and their policies are likely to better deal with a slowing economy?

* Who will we blame when parts of the country suffer electricity black-outs in the next few years?

* Many global commentators suggest the next great conflicts will be over water. What are we doing about water rights? What are we doing to nurture this most precious of resources?

* Our population is aging (albeit more slowly than some others). What are we doing to encourage fit older people to stay in the workforce? In the face of an adverse demographic trend why are we so ambivalent about immigration?

* As we rush to redistribute wealth amongst the middle class what are we doing about child poverty?

* Have we properly evaluated the potential risks and impacts of Kyoto on our economy? What happens and who pays if the cost greatly exceeds the already blown-out cost estimates?

* And are we happy at the burden that the current generation of taxpayers is bearing for future generations?

This last point is interesting. All the focus so far has been on income redistribution amongst current taxpayers. But think about this. Current policy settings see current taxpayers bearing very large costs that will benefit future generations that are likely to be much better off than they are.

Current taxpayers are paying for today's superannuitants and the pre-funding of future ones; investments out of current taxation in infrastructure from new hospitals to roads that will have economic lives of 40 years or more; student loan subsidies that future taxpayers will benefit from; and fiscal surpluses that reduce borrowings that future generations will benefit from. Little wonder that National's pragmatic mixture of borrowing for investment that benefits future generations and tax cuts has struck such a chord.

It is unclear National's resurgence will be enough to enable it to form a government but it could easily poll more votes than Labour. If Labour forms a government what kind of mandate does it think it will have? Would anyone like tax cuts?

Elections can bring out the worst in politicians, driven as they are by the hunger for power or the desperate clinging to it. But, that said, New Zealand is a lucky country as far as the quality of our politicians and bureaucracy is concerned. The sooner we get this side-show out of the way and get on with the real work of growing our economy to improve living standards for all, the better.

* * *

Fiona Peat (journalism student)
8.05am 15.09.05

While I have been desperately trying to pick who will be blessed with my party vote, I have let my electorate vote slip by the wayside.

Lucky there is Paul Adams to remind me. I have seen his minions out in force before, but driving through the Albany Megacentre it seemed that the smiling, waving, placard clone machine had been working over time. I'm not sure of the Oxford dictionary definition of "overkill", but six placard-bearing supporters in the space of 200m may fit the description. It could also be found under the term "driving hazard".

Is a two-lane roundabout the best place to be waving at people in cars? Despite this he makes a good point on his website (www.pauladams.co.nz) – "he is not attached to a party so can lobby for the best deals for East Coast Bays." I think this is a very interesting point because what do MPs really do? I know that they are the ones to go to if you have a problem, but are electorate seats about representing the community or getting more seats in parliament for the party?

However, this is unlikely to change and I still have an electorate vote. Unfortunately Paul Adams will not be receiving it.

One party that is tickling my fancy is the Greens. And as a Monday to Friday user of public transport the Greens Auckland transport plan is one election plan that will directly affect me and is a issue that desperately needs addressing but has been losing out to the glamour of more motorways.

Something that National finance spokesperson John Key finds difficult to comprehend, possibly because he obviously doesn't use public transport, or at least not buses.

Key was quoted in the Herald yesterday saying: "I don't know if she knows what buses travel on, but the good news is that they are roads."

I don't know if he knows what buses travel on, but the good news is buses drive in bus lanes. Or they do when bus lanes have been built. This is supposed to make them faster then sitting in traffic, which is what is supposed to make them more attractive to commuters. Which would in turn reduce the need for parking and petrol - which would reduce pollution. Which could be summed up as quite a nice thing.

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
8.05am 15.09.05

The next three years will be interesting, no matter who buys the Treasury benches on Saturday. We at the Fairburn Heights Peoples Committee suggest some items to watch for.

But first the bad news - the rest of the world barely knows we exist. We clearly think we are the centre of the universe, but about six billion others don't agree. We need to watch the rest of the world much more than it needs to watch us.

Let's begin with debt. A couple of weeks ago our trade deficit figures came out. They were appalling. We are simply not paying our way in the world. A quick look at our current account deficit figures shows that our economic boom, including the speculative housing bubble the Reserve Bank has failed to throttle, has been financed by borrowing.

Our current account deficit as a proportion of GDP has been steadily climbing since late 2001, and presently stands at a whopping 7 per cent - well past the point at which investors often panic and initiate a currency collapse.

Dr Cullen's surpluses might have looked mean, but the fact that the government was saving has allowed the rest of us to continue to borrow and spend. Add into this a high dollar (kept high by high interest rates designed to stop us borrowing) slowly strangling the export sector, and it's not a pretty sight.

Of course, New Zealanders aren't the only spendthrifts on the planet. The US is also hugely indebted, and is looking increasingly less likely to survive Katrina unscathed, politically or economically.

Sadly for them, they have not had Dr Cullen jealously guarding the public purse. They have had Bush II exporting democracy around the world, and borrowing heavily to do so. Combined with the end of cheap oil and a weakening dollar, look out for a major downturn.

We are listening hopefully for a quiet hissing sound, because a bang will take all of us with it. Either way, no New Zealand politician will be able to do much except mitigate the misery. Gasp in amazement as said misery is presented as an opportunity for you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Our advice? If you owe a bunch of money, start thinking about paying it off. If you don't, you are probably very rich or very poor, and any economic corrections will probably not affect your condition much anyway. Lucky dogs."

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
10.25am 14.09.05

Viv D'or struck a blow for women everywhere with her assured performance on Close Up at 7 last night. This was a woman who has refused to let the allegedly sleazy behaviour of a man with too much money set her back.

Her willingness to stand up for her own good name despite Susan Wood's sadly predictable allegations that she was digging into the political mire was admirable.

Where once people would have looked for a chastened victim we instead were treated to a confident, happy and frank explanation of why she was in the limelight defending her reputation directly and not hiding behind lawsuits or media indemnities.

Like her I couldn't give a toss which tosser takes Tauranga, I just wish she was standing in my electorate so I could give her a tick. I see my electorate vote as a largely symbolic exercise (I live in a safe Labour seat).

The party vote is another matter altogether though. The key aim for the centre-left on Saturday has to be ensure that the Greens cross the 5 per cent threshold – and comfortably.

They have cleared the threshold in all recent polls but remember that immediately before the last election the Greens were rating a few per cent ahead of where they ended up.

So to be safe a few more Labour voters need to switch to Green – 5 per cent plus for the Greens is 5 per cent plus for a Labour-led Government. 4.9 per cent for the Greens would almost certainly guarantee a Labour defeat.

* * *

Raymond Miller (Deputy Head of Political Studies, University of Auckland)
10.25am 14.09.05

Reading the tea leaves can be an easier pastime than trying to figure out what Winston Peters is likely to do post-election. His trademark protestations and disclaimers notwithstanding, the New Zealand First leader has turned obfuscation into a political art form.

In his "Who will we go with?" speech last Wednesday, Peters pledged that the party with the most seats will get the first shot at forming a government. "We will support this constitutional convention in the first instance", he said. Apart from the strange reference to constitutional convention, the New Zealand First leader's intentions sounded pretty straightforward. But wait, more was to follow.

In the same speech, Peters went on to promise that he would not permit "any potential minority government to be blackmailed or held to ransom by an extreme party of the far Left or the far Right. Or even from within." As you might have guessed, the "extreme" parties in question are Act and the Greens.

Peters' words are eerily reminiscent of the promise made by the party's former deputy leader. Before the 1996 election, Tau Henare pledged never to serve in a cabinet in which Jim Bolger was Prime Minister, Bill Birch was Minister of Finance, and Jenny Shipley held a social policy portfolio. We know what happened after that election.

This time around, New Zealand First has pledged to keep right out of government, a promise it has kindly extended to both ACT and the Greens. According to Peters, "Rod Donald will not become Energy Minister, nor Jeanette Fitzsimons Transport Minister, or Nandor Tanczos Minister of Police. Rodney Hide will not be Minister of Finance".

Just when I thought I had it figured out, I came across the party's latest advertisement, which states that New Zealand First "will work constructively with whoever forms the next government". But wasn't there a caveat?

Surely NOT if that government includes either Act or the Greens? And what if the most popular party's negotiating team so much as exhanges glances with the leaders of Act (if it gets back in) or the Greens? In those circumstances, will the constitutional convention be upheld, or will Peters immediately turn his attention to the other major party, the one with fewer seats? With Winston, nothing is quite as straightforward as it initially sounds.

* * *

Fiona Peat (journalism student)
10.15am 14.09.05

Yesterday I received two important pieces of voting information in my letterbox. One was the Herald supplement which I contemplated over my Weetbix. I had planned to use this comprehensive guide as my own personal wise man.

However, after flicking through I experienced an overwhelming urge to throw my arms in the air and cry "educating myself on the finer points of the election is far too hard and time consuming! What's wrong with enie, meany, miney mo?".

But I will not crumble under the pressure. I will join the intellectual, well-informed voting ranks! I will move beyond the 100 per cent interest free chocolate bribes and explore the other options available in the bountiful world of MMP! My plan is to tape the centre spread overview of all the parties on the back of the toilet door where I can't run away.

This wasn't the end of it though. When I returned home from uni I found a personally addressed plain envelope. Inside was a personal letter from my electorate Labour MP Hamish McCraken commiserating with me about the ordeal of bearing a student loan.

Along with the sympathetic letter was a mock exam pamphlet - MATH101 FINAL EXAM claiming that the person had achieved 100 per cent by answering the questions in Section 4 – Loans. Using the interest free loan equation of course.

I nearly lost my resolve to shop around the parties, such was the draw of the attractively large amounts of dollars I could save. However, I have remained clinging to the election education bandwagon.

It was a close call though and I have created a new strategy to make sure I don't stray blindly into the advertising headlights.

From here in it is just me and my centre spread, no more personal letters, waving to the Paul Adams supporters at the traffic lights, or trying to hear what speech the Helen Clark emblazoned car is broadcasting. (Although in the week leading up to election avoiding propaganda is as likely as universal student allowances, fixing the Auckland traffic, not seeing the petrol light on in my car...)

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
2.10pm 13.09.05

Tax cuts and petrol prices. While we're all getting distracted by the alarming spectacle of our two major parties buying votes, other policies that are going to have a far more profound effect on how we get to share in the national wealth in the future are being quietly posted on websites without so much as a byline.

One such issue is industrial relations. It came as a surprise to me last week when, upon attending a meeting in a decile one suburb, I discovered that industrial relations concerns are not only alive and well, but at the forefront of many people's minds. People who will not benefit from tax cuts or Working for Families are, instead, thinking about working conditions such as lunch breaks.

Meal breaks are not a minimum work condition under New Zealand law. They have to be negotiated as part of an employment contract, and it transpires there are plenty of people who do not have the skills, understanding, or economic muscle to do so. In response, Labour is looking to legislate to impose minimum standards such as meal breaks for all workers.

The need for this has been contested by Business New Zealand, but it does rather seem that employers have brought this on themselves. By the way, how many of you work in an office where the canteen has quietly disappeared at some stage?

National, predictably, has other plans. Not happy that some workplace conditions are merely third world, they want to drag industrial relations kicking and screaming back to the 19th century. The shop dressing for Nationals' policy is achieving productivity gains and boosting incomes.

So how are they going to do this? By trying to creating a "flexible" labour market. Among a raft of other retrograde steps, National has committed to repealing the legislation that says "employers cannot object to negotiation, simply because they do not agree with collective bargaining".

What this will mean in practice is that an employer will have the right to not deal with a union, and to put everyone on individual contracts if they choose to do so. For those of you relying on the negotiating power of your union to improve your pay and conditions, you better rethink your strategy. A flexible workforce is one that employers can deal with on their own terms, it seems.

Rolling back pay and conditions will not give New Zealand workers higher incomes, or raise our productivity growth. Rather, it will put us even further down the road to a Latin American-style economy than we already are. And if you're reading this during your lunch hour because your canteen's vanished, start thinking about how to protect your remaining rights now.

* * *

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
13.09.05 7.50am

We enter the last week wondering what the future will hold. One thing is that the often heard cry of the "greedy oldies" from those that don't like the elderly, although it is hard to imagine that they don't have parents and some compassion for them.

However, that aside, what has this election brought forth for the elderly - from the minor parties a great deal of promises but with the possible strength of the main political parties most of these will be unlikely to be implemented.

From the main parties much less. National has calculated that the tax cuts will give an additional $320 next April but we wonder about that as the increase in the average wage has fallen behind the CPI adjustment every year for 5 years which says something about our low wage economy.

Labour has told us of all the things they have done for us - increase in super in 1999 , more orthopaedic procedures in 2004 budget and cataract procedures in 2005 budget but nothing for the future.

Well at least having missed out on any promises of substance we may get rid of the greedy tag but we do applaud the tax cuts for the workers but doubt whether the highly paid need cuts, the extra income for families, the extra money for the carer industry and the arrangements for the student loans.

The result will be interesting but will have little effect on the elderly and makes us ponder on the fact that so many elderly move to Australia where they are treated with respect by the community an attitude so badly lacking here in godzone.

* * *

Fiona Peat (journalism student)
7.45am 13.09.05

One more week to go before I, and everyone else, have to tick those two boxes. But at this point of time I am still in that limbo group of undecided voters.

On one side I have been sucked into the great marketing ploy that is Labour's interest free student loan policy. This wasn't helped by visiting National's tax cut website. According to the very general calculations I would save more money with Labour… I assume that wasn't the message National was trying to push.

But just when they had slipped below my voting radar out comes the mother of all election bribes – the 5c discount on petrol.

I don't think that I will be alone in feeling like a vote whore. It seems this election has been based on the two main parties trying to out tempt the vote from our pens for the most sparkly bribe bauble. And it hasn't helped me to choose who is going to be the winning punter.

There is also the Green party