0 Another blow for Labour

Labour's "War Room" will not be a happy place this morning. And breakfast this morning will be hard to digest as Labour's strategists take in a second disastrous poll result in less than 24 hours.

As if the Roy Morgan poll wasn't bad enough, the latest Fairfax-Ipsos poll is out. David Cunliffe described the last Ipsos poll as "rogue", but it isn't; check out the carnage here:

National appears to be tightening its grip on the election, with our latest poll cementing its massive lead.
Today's stuff.co.nz/Ipsos Political poll has National on 54.8 per cent support - a staggering 30-point lead over Labour, but down 1.7 points from our last poll.
John Key is also preferred prime minister among most voters, at 53.7 per cent support to David Cunliffe's 12.8. 

Here's what that looks like in graphical form:

And like the Roy Morgan Confidence Rating, those surveyed by Ipsos are optimistic for the future:

Today's poll, which follows Labour's recent election-year congress and a series of targeted announcements on education policy, shows more decided voters, with Labour clearly benefiting from the change.
But 15.3 per cent of voters still don't know who they will vote for.
That will bring little cheer to Labour, however, as it prepares for its election campaign launch, now just weeks away.
Booming confidence in the economy appears to be buoying National's support, with 64 per cent of those surveyed believing the country was on the right track, the highest in our survey since 2012. Satisfaction with the Government's performance has also held up, suggesting Labour is running out of time to articulate a convincing argument for change.

As we noted in our post last night on the Morgan poll, governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. With similar numbers of people expressing confidence in New Zealand's direction over two polls, there is clearly little mood for change. 

We used to joke about Labour's number at the next poll having a 2 in front of it. Now Labour seems to be embedded in the mid-to-low-20's, and even though there has been a very minor correction in this poll compared to the last Fairfax-Ipsos poll, this poll will be a huge dent to Labour's optimism.

The faces in the War Room will be grim. It's hard to remain positive under the pressure of these kinds of numbers, and at least one high-profile Labour staffer was engaging in abusive social media comment last night; a sure sign of pressure. Labour has not only run out of rabbits to pull from hats; it's run out of hats as well!

Conversely John Key will return from his Hawaiian holiday tanned, rested and refreshed, and ready to hit the campaign trail. The 50th Parliament has just two weeks to go, and the election is just over nine weeks away.

The clock is ticking, but for Labour and David Cunliffe, it must sound like a time bomb ticking down. They'll be hunkering down in the War Room today.


 

0 It's not OK; even if you're blue

We blogged in May about National Party List MP Claudette Hauiti making an unacceptable cock-up. Unfortunately, she's in the news again for another lapse of judgment as the Herald reports:

National Party MP Claudette Hauiti has given up her parliamentary charge card after she used it to pay for a personal trip to Australia.
"I went to Australia. It was travel only and way outside Parliamentary Service guidelines," she told Fairfax Media.
She said the trip over Christmas last year and other questionable spending, including refreshments for a hui on a marae, had cost about $200, which she has since repaid.
"Of course it's absolutely no excuse for not knowing the Speaker's rulings. It is my responsibility and I didn't do it."
Parliamentary Service refused to provide a total of unauthorised spending, or comment on the matter.
"A new release of parliamentary information protocol has just been presented for debate in the House, and it would appear that this information is covered under it.

The Service cannot make any comment. Any requests for information should be made to the member," a spokeswoman said.

That's two strikes for Claudette Hauiti. We don't care that she is a National Party MP; she has let herself fall into the trap of questionable use of taxpayer funds, and that is, in our book, a big no-no.

Ms Hauiti was ranked at #63 on the National Party list in 2011, but entered Parliament with the resignation of Aaron "Don't you know who I am" Gilmore. We don't know if the 2014 National Party list has yet been set in stone, but Ms Hauiti his quite possibly cost herself any chance of promotion.

MP's of all stripes need to remember it's not their money they're spending. It comes from those of us who pay taxes, and we deserve better.

0 "A bad but wealthy man"

There's yet another revelation about Kim Dotcom in the Herald this morning. And former Immigration Minister Jonathon Coleman must be wishing he'd never heard of the Large German Gentleman.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (what a wonderful gift that would be for politicians!), we reckon Dr Coleman now wishes that he had instructed his Immigration New Zealand officials to treat Dotcom's residence application strictly according to Hoyle. But he cannot turn back the clock, and New Zealand is stuck with Dotcom until the US application to extradite him is heard.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the Herald story however is Laila Harre's reaction to her boss. The Herald reports:

Last night the leader of the Dotcom-funded Internet Party, Laila Harre, said she "wouldn't have been comfortable" granting the tycoon residency if she had been the Minister of Immigration.

We wonder if Ms Harre is also uncomfortable receiving her weekly pay-cheque from Dotcom, now that she has been made aware of all the background information. Will she reconsider leading the Internet Party, given what she now knows about her boss?

Neither National nor Labour has a good record with regard to rich immigrants. Labour is dogged by two men named Liu, and National has Dotcom to not boast about. Whilst the investment that wealthy immigrants bring is welcome, perhaps it's time for cross-party consensus that it is not so welcome that essential elements of immigration policy can be waived.

0 Sea-change in South Auckland

John Key addressed an audience of more than 500 in Auckland yesterday, and was given a rousing and enthusiastic welcome.

Now there's nothing especially noteworthy about that; you'd expect an audience of his rich mates to turn out in force and give the Prime Minister a rousing reception. Except for one thing, as 3News reports:

The Pacific vote is traditionally Labour's, but socially liberal policies like same-sex marriage, driven by Labour, have created a drift.

The Prime Minister is pouncing and believes National is set to secure more Pacific and south Auckland votes in this election than in the past.

Many turned out to see John Key in Mangere, offering hugs, kisses and photos. They even managed to roll out a gold carpet, but there was no red there.

"I can't think of a time where I have been a leader of the National Party where we would have so many people in Mangere turn up for a National Party meeting," says Mr Key. "If you close your eyes you'd be forgiven for thinking you were at a Labour Party meeting, over 500 people in there."

The traditionally Labour Pacific vote is changing, as staunch red voters are now turning blue.

"The vote is turning in south Auckland from Labour to National, that is what is happening," says Mangere community leader Teleiai Edwin Puni. "I can tell you that; I am voting National."

Not since the late Sir Robert Muldoon addressed a crowd of thousands in a Wiri wool store in October 1975 has there been a meeting with this significance. Labour has long seen the Pasifika vote as its by right, but there are signs that is changing as you can see in the image below:

In Peseta Sam Lotu I'iga (Samoan) and Alfred Ngaro (Cook Islands Maori) National already has two MP's of Pasifika heritage. Both men have back-stories of immigrant parents who worked hard, insisted their children got educated, and set high standards for them. Sam Lotu-I'iga and Alfred Ngaro have proved that there is no bar to getting ahead, and are fantastic role models for young Pasifika people to emulate.

And in Mangere itself, National has chosen an excellent candidate with strong community links. Misa Fia Turner was born and raised in Samoa, and has lived in Mangere for nearly twenty years. She is the co-founder and Clinical Manager of ‘Malu I Uo Faatuatua Family Relationship Services, providing counselling, family therapy, clinical and cultural supervision, facilitation and mediation, training and mentoring. She is also Clinical Practice Manager for Genesis Youth Trust, a Police Youth Development Programme working with youth at risk and families with a focus on reducing youth crime and re-offending.
And significantly, she has not always been a National Party supporter. She told 3News she and her family had always been Labour supporters, but this year she is standing for National.

Misa Fia Turner may not unseat Su'a William Sio in Mangere. But we are sure that she will take a sizeable chunk out of his majority, and will ensure that National's share of the party vote increases significantly. In a close election, even a small shift away from Labour to National in electorates with a high concentration of Pasifika voters could be crucial, especially if there is continued unease about Labour's commitment to Pacific migration.

The days of National being pale, male and stale are a thing of the past. There growing reach into Pasifika New Zealand is evidence of that.

0 Boom!

The Donghua Liu donations saga seemed to have disappeared from our consciousness. But just as Labour MP's head to Wellington for the party's congress, the Herald has lobbed a bomb in Labour's direction; check this out:

A former Labour Minister intervened three times in the immigration bid of Donghua Liu including waiving the English language requirement for the millionaire businessman.
Damien O'Connor, in his role as the associate Immigration Minister, wrote three letters to Liu's advisor Warren Kyd - the former National Party MP - before deciding to grant residency against the advice of officials the day before the 2005 election.

The Herald goes on to detail Damien O'Connor's interventions, based on letters obtained under the Official Information Act:

The West Coast MP has said he cannot remember why he granted residency to the businessman whose links to both National and Labour have created political waves this year.
But letters released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show Mr O'Connor was being lobbied by Mr Kyd on behalf of Liu in the lead up to the tightly fought election.
The first, dated June 1 2005, stated Mr O'Connor would not intervene on Liu's behalf in regards to an "amended photograph" submitted as part of the immigration application.

"As my previous intervention on Mr Liu's behalf shows, I think Mr Liu has to date had a positive impact in New Zealand, and to this end, I would encourage him to lodge another application for residence.
"Mr Liu should be advised that I have instructed the Immigration Service to receive any such application without prejudice which may have been caused by his previous application."
There is no explanation of the "previous intervention" of Mr O'Connor, who accepted Mr Kyd's explanation that a third party was responsible for the "amended photograph" on the file.
A second letter to Mr Kyd, dated August 9 2005, reveals Mr O'Connor said "it is not my normal practice to intervene in the established immigration application process, however, I have decided to make an exception in this case.
"I have directed the Department of Labour Immigration Service to waive the English language requirements for Donghua Liu for any forthcoming residence application."
Mr O'Connor suggested Liu should enclose a copy of the letter with application, to be lodged within two years.

Somewhere along the line though, Mr O'Connor's position changed; the very day before the 2005 General Election, which was at that point anybody's race; read on:

A third letter to Mr Kyd, dated September 16, 2005 - the day before the election - stated Mr O'Connor had considered the case carefully and "decided to intervene".
"I am therefore instructing the Department of Labour Immigration Service to gran residence to Mr Liu as an exception to policy. The grant of residence will be subject to Mr Liu completing an application form, paying an application fee and meeting health and character requirements".
The residency was granted under the terms of the Investor Category at the time.

You can view the letters from Damien O'Connor here.

This bombshell from Jared Savage at the Herald raises some huge questions. What changed between 1 June 2005 and 16 September 2005 to cause Mr O'Connor to have a significant change in his approach to the Liu case? Was pressure brought on the MP, and if so, from whom. Did pressure come from people within the Labour Party? Why can Damien O'Connor not remember a case in which he had several interventions? And if it was "not my normal practice to intervene" in immigration applications, why did he intervene, not once but thrice in the Liu case?

And why the urgency to decide Donghua Liu's residence application as an exception to policy on the eve of a General Election in which Labour had a very real chance of being voted out? There are possible answers to that question that cut to the heart of the integrity of politics in New Zealand.

David Cunliffe will be seething. Not only has the Herald taken the focus off Labour's election-year congress, but he is now going to be bombarded with questions as to Damian O'Connor's conduct. Those questions will have added validity after the way that Labour attacked National and Maurice Williamson over the latter's phone call to the the police after Liu's arrest on domestic violence charges.

And Damien O'Connor needs to recover his memory, and quickly. He has some very significant questions to answer about Donghua Liu, and the circumstances in which Mr Liu was given New Zealand residence.

0 The latest poll cycle

The most recent poll cycle ended last night with the One News/Colmar Brunton poll. And for the first time for a while, there are either no rogue polls, or there are five of them. 

Colmar Brunton, Roy Morgan, Reid Research, Ipsos and DigiPoll are all saying the same thing; John Key is set to win a third term as prime Minister based on the results in the back half of June. And to make matters even worse for Labour, only the Herald-DigiPoll has Labour ranking in the 30's, and even that's within the margin of error at 30.5%. The other four polls all have Labour with a 2 in front of its number.

Here's the One News-Colmar Brunton result, via TVNZ:

A ONE News poll/Colmar Brunton has found Labour has dropped below 30% support for the first time in two years.
The poll results come after supposed donations from Donghua Liu have dogged Labour leader David Cunliffe this week and taken a toll on the party.
The poll found 29% of respondents supported Labour - the party's lowest polling result since the aftermath of the its disastrous election campaign in March 2012.
"We've had a sustained smear campaign against us for the last couple of weeks. The poll has hardly moved and we're not that concerned about it," says Mr Cunliffe.
The poll also found National dropped one point to 50% popularity and could govern alone with 64 seats.
New Zealand First also dropped one point to 3.8% - below the 5% threshold.
The big winner was Internet-Mana Party on 2.8%.
Internet leader Laila Harre would be likely to return to Parliament on Hone Harawira's coat tails according to the poll.
"We've formed the alliance with Mana that's giving people the confidence to know that their party votes will count and so I think a result over 5% is certainly attainable," says Ms Harre.
The poll also found 10% of respondents choose Mr Cunliffe as their preferred Prime Minister while John Key won 47% of the vote.

David Cunliffe is blaming this result on a "sustained smear campaign" from National. He should not be so quick off the mark, and we'll see who was smearing whom when Donghua Liu gets his financial records from China and passes them to Paul Davidson QC. 

Labour has attacked Mr Liu's credibility, causing him to lose face. The Chinese businessman has every motivation to save face, and prove his allegations now, and David Cunliffe will have only himself to blame for throwing down the gauntlet to him.

The National Party conference at the weekend was a positive affair, with the only negatives being repeated warnings about complacency. With party membership in great heart, we are sure that National will succeed in mobilising its vote on September 20th, and Labour may just find that it does not have a mortgage on the so-called "missing million" on which it seems to be basing its chances.

Now attention shifts to the Labour Party "congress" next weekend, although we will hear little from that because the media has been excluded.

The June polls have been truly dreadful for Labour with less than three months remaining until the General Election. There must be some very nervous backbenchers at the moment, watching their jobs and taxpayer-funded salaries wafting away in the winds of public opinion. 

0 Hide on Labour's risky strategy

Rodney Hide reckons that Labour is walking a tightrope with the Donghua Liu donations saga. In his Herald on Sunday piece, and under the headline Risky response to donor row Hide opines:

Deny, deny, deny. Attack, attack, attack. That's been Labour's response to businessman Donghua Liu claiming he donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Party.
Labour's strategy is risky. It is challenging Liu's honesty and integrity. He's no doubt feeling aggrieved. The danger for Labour is that Liu produces documents, witnesses and photographs confirming his substantial donations.
That's what did it for Winston Peters in 2008. Sir Owen Glenn was able to prove the donations that Peters denied.
Labour also risks drying up its donations. Attacking a donor is hardly encouraging to others. I doubt there will too many Chinese charity auctions for Labour this election.
It's a risky response but Labour's entire attack strategy has been risky. Attacking John Banks for declaring Dotcom's donations as anonymous ran the risk that its own house wasn't in order. Likewise in attacking Maurice Williamson for ringing the police on Liu's behalf.

Cunliffe's letter 11 years ago for Liu wouldn't have mattered except for the hellfire and brimstone he visited on National for similar advocacy. It's true Cunliffe wasn't ringing the police. It's true Liu wasn't facing charges. But such difference matters constitutionally. It doesn't matter politically.
As far as headlines and soundbites go, Cunliffe has been caught doing exactly what he railed against.

Hide is dead right; perception is everything in politics,and the perception is that David Cunliffe has been a hypocrite. He and his MP's attacked National with relish, and made all sorts of accusations towards National MP's.

Had they restricted themselves to simply attacking National MP's, this may have passed without comment. But the likes of Trevor Mallard, aided and abetted by Winston Peters who relishes any opportunity to attack Chinese, made a series of allegation against National's apparent mate. One of those accusations was that he was downright corrupt, offering cash for changes to immigration policy. Like most of the accusations Mr Mallard makes, always under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he has yet to substantiate it.

But Labour took things one step too far, impugning Donghua Liu's reputation. That's when he started talking about his links to the Labour Party, at a time when David Cunliffe was a senior Minister. The rest, as they say, is (or will be) history.

Hide continues:

So where are we now? Confused. Liu said he gave substantial money to the Labour Party. The Labour Party says it has no record of it, and hasn't reported any donations from Liu.
But it's quite possible that everyone is telling the truth. The money could have been stolen. That would mean Liu gave the money but Labour never received it. Charity auctions and the like are often chaotic and it is too easy to have no one properly in charge of recording and receipting all payments and donations. This is especially so in political events. Volunteers are enthusiastic but not necessarily experienced and politicians are anxious to stay well away from money changing hands.
Indeed, a big part of Cunliffe's problem - and Banks' and Williamson's - is that politicians shy away from fundraising details precisely to avoid the perception that cash influences decision-making.

It is indeed possible that no one in Labour actually saw any of the money donated by Liu; possible, but highly improbable, we would say. We base that on information that we have heard in the last week; information which may or may not have got as far as Jared Savage from the NZ Herald. If even some of it is correct, Labour had better hope that no one has broken ranks. 

And Donghua Liu lawyering up, and giving documents to Paul Davidson QC whilst seeking financial records from his homeland ought to be worrying to Labour. What is in the financial records that Mr Liu is so anxious to share with his lawyer?

Hide closes, with a message that might send shivers up David Cunliffe's spine:

The safer course of action for the Labour Party would be to say it was treating the matter seriously. That would mean thanking Liu for coming forward with his information and inviting the police to investigate. The police could try to trace the money, letting Cunliffe off the hook. He would have done everything by the book. He would be open and upfront. It would also kill the story. He couldn't comment while police were investigating.
But Labour didn't do that. It denied and attacked.
There's a reason politicians do the things they do. Cunliffe couldn't be sure what the police would find. Calling in the police runs the risk of finding out more than Cunliffe wants to know.

David Cunliffe ought to remember that a "deny, deny, deny; attack, attack, attack" strategy is akin to poking a stick into a wasp's nest. As leader of the party, David Cunliffe is the one most likely to be stung if the wasps decide to fight back, and he is forced to defend, defend, defend.

There's an old saying in politics; never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That would appear to be a strategic mistake on the part of Mr Cunliffe, and those who advise him, or who blog on Labour's behalf. It is going to be fascinating to see where this story goes, but a tweet yesterday from Herald editor Tim Murphy provides a clue:

We'd say the Donghua Liu saga still has some surprise twists and turns, and the exhortations to "move on" from the likes of Greg Presland towards the end of the week just gone may have been more in hope than anything else.  

0 National targets Mallard

We were tempted to make some reference to duck hunting as the title for this post, but resisted. But Trevor Mallard is definitely in National's sights, as Tracy Watkins reports in the Dom-Post:

John Key is turning into a familiar sight on the streets of Petone. Twice in the last week, the prime minister has been out pressing the flesh in the Hutt satellite suburb alongside National’s candidate, Chris Bishop. 
Locals are used to being off National’s beaten track in what has long been considered a safe Labour seat. But boundary changes and gentrification have given National the whiff of an upset.
‘‘Hutt South is definitely in play, no question about that,’’ Key said yesterday after visiting the local Weltec campus.
Some of the bravado may be justified. Labour’s Trevor Mallard may have won the seat with a comfortable majority in 2011 but National won the party vote. 
In his favour, Mallard has the benefit of incumbency – and Key acknowledges that makes it ‘‘challenging’’.
‘‘But there have been some boundary changes that make the seat more vulnerable.’’ 
A string of ministers are pencilled in for visits to the electorate over coming weeks, bolstering the impression that National thinks the seat is winnable.
But National may also be playing electoral mind games. Winning the seat might be a moral victory, but won’t change the outcome of the election as it might have once under First Past The Post – a point acknowledged by Key. And while boundary changes could slash 3000 votes off Mallard’s 4800 majority, there would still have to be a big swing against the incumbent to unseat him. 

Trevor Mallard announced on Monday that he was not seeking a place on Labour's list. He rattled off some convoluted story about wanting to ensure Kelvin Davis got a good list position, but we don't buy that for a moment. We believe it's far more likely that Mr Mallard wasn't happy with the draft ranking given to him by Labour's moderators.

And even Mallard himself concedes that Hutt South is by no means a given for him:

But National may also be playing electoral mind games. Winning the seat might be a moral victory, but won’t change the outcome of the election as it might have once under First Past The Post – a point acknowledged by Key. And while boundary changes could slash 3000 votes off Mallard’s 4800 majority, there would still have to be a big swing against the incumbent to unseat him.
But Labour MPs have been rattled by their party’s low polls. The lower party support sinks, the more their survival hinges on holding on to their seats. And the instinct to maximise their electorate vote runs counter to MMP, under which the party vote is the major decider of which party will govern. National plunged to its worst defeat in 2002 for precisely that reason, after MPs retreated to their electorates and scrapped to hold on to their seats in Parliament.
Mallard does not dispute Key’s assessment, however, that the seat is in play for National.
‘‘There’s no doubt that [my] majority is significantly lower than it was ... .I accept that the seat is not a safe seat, not that I’ve ever treated it that way.’’  

Trevor Mallard has no MMP lifeline, so he must win Hutt South to stay keep his job; just the way MP's had to in those days before the first MMP election in 1996. But National and Chris Bishop are going to make Mr Mallard fight his damndest.

And Chris Bishop had some high-level support yesterday; check out these tweets:

 

 
Taking Hutt South off Trevor Mallard would be a hugely significant achievement both for Chris Bishop and for National. With National having won the party vote in 2011 by a significant margin, and with boundary changes that are helpful to National, this will be a contest to watch on the night of 20th September, and in the twelve weeks until the election.

0 The Herald gets defiant

The NZ Herald has faced accusations of political bias many times before. Labour List MP Jill Pettis, voted out by the good folk of Whanganui in 2005, described Granny Herald in 2007 as "a Tory rag". Others complain at the paper's left-wing leanings.

This week, it is Labour and its supporters crying "foul". And that has prompted the Herald to tell its side of the story. In ad editorial headed Cries of bias will not stop reporting the Herald's response begins thus:

It is common in election years for political parties under pressure to attempt to shoot the messenger. In 2005, the Herald was stridently criticised and accused of bias by National supporters for our reportage of Dr Don Brash and the Exclusive Brethren. In 2008 it was the turn of Winston Peters and his New Zealand First people to call for resignations of the editor and political editor for the inconvenient revelation of funding from millionaire Owen Glenn, despite his "No" sign. Last election it was National partisans again, livid at the Herald on Sunday and Herald for John Key and John Banks talking openly before a microphone accidentally left on their "cup of tea" table in a cafe.
This year it is the turn of Labour and its leader, David Cunliffe, incensed at reporting on the donations to the party and its MPs by the controversial Chinese migrant Donghua Liu -- and that party's connections to him.

Mr Cunliffe is considering unspecified legal options against the Herald. Party supporters have weighed in with accusations of political bias and complicated right-wing conspiracies.
The noise obscures the validity of the Herald's reporting. Investigations editor Jared Savage began his reports in March on Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his being granted citizenship. The focus then was on Liu's donations to National after his citizenship was approved by a National minister against official advice. Savage then revealed Liu had been charged with domestic violence, followed by the revelation that National's Maurice Williamson intervened in Liu's case by contacting the police -- which led to Williamson's resignation as minister and criticism from some in National of the Herald's story.
Savage then learned Liu had made donations to Labour as well in 2007, the party claiming no record of such funding. Next we revealed Mr Cunliffe, a day after denying any advocacy for Liu during his residency application, had, in fact, sent a letter to the Immigration Service outlining Liu's investment intentions and giving them a hurry-up in making a decision.
This was all very inconvenient for National and then Labour but pertinent to the public interest in an election year.

Maurice Williamson is probably wishing these days he had never heard of Donghua Liu. But so is former Labour Party Minister Rick Barker. Interesting, Mr Barker seems to be recovering his memory with regard to the Chinese businessman; we'll have more on that later today.

But the Herald is right; the public interest is of more importance than the reputation of MP's who may or may not have acted according to Hoyle.

The leader writer concludes:

At the weekend, the Herald on Sunday reported from a signed statement by Liu in which he appeared to claim he spent $100,000 on wine at a Labour fundraiser and $50,000-$60,000 hosting former Labour MP Rick Barker in China. The paper verified the document was from Liu and put its claims to Mr Cunliffe and the Labour Party.
On Wednesday, Liu provided the Herald with another statement, after being pressed for more detail, in which he corrected his previous implication that $100,000 was paid for a bottle of wine and limited his total spend on Labour and its MPs when it was in power to "close to $100,000".
The Herald immediately published his clarification, with prominence on our website, where it remains, and amended the Herald on Sunday story online. The Sunday paper will publish a clarification this weekend.
Liu's mis-statement, however, has been grasped as proof of Herald complicity in a plot against Labour. The claim is risible, across the range of political coverage but also explicitly over the Herald's investigation of National and Labour and their damaging cosiness with Donghua Liu.
We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.
The core issue remains, however: At a minimum, removing Mr Barker's China trip and a donation to a rowing club the MP's daughter belonged to, Labour faces Liu's claim that he made $38,000 in donations to the party and anonymously through MPs.
We make no apology for seeking the truth behind political parties' donations and possible cronyism. Inevitably, that hits raw nerves in election year.

The Herald did the right thing by publishing Donghua Liu's amended statement as soon as it was received. And Mr Liu is standing by his statement that he donated to the Labour Party.

As the Herald notes, around $38,000 remains unaccounted for and undeclared. That's almost twice as much as National declared having received from Mr Liu. Given the political capital Labour tried to generate from the donation declared by National, the possibility that its own house may not be in order is an obvious issue.

As we noted above, the public interest demands that the Herald publish information it receives on any politicians or parties which may have done something dodgy. New Zealand faces an important decision in twelve weeks' time, and voters need to be informed of anything which may be relevant to the way they cast their votes.

On this occasion it is the Labour Party and its cheerleaders feeling aggrieved. Doubtless at some point the boot will be on the other foot. But that's why we have a free press, which follows the old maxim to "publish and be damned". 

Instead of threatening Mr Liu and the Herald with legal action, David Cunliffe, Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett should go digging , and find where Mr Liu's money went.

0 More poll misery for Labour and Mr Cunliffe

After the difficulties David Cunliffe had last week, a number of pundits suggested that pressure might come on him if the next round of TV polls hurt Labour.

It has. The 3News/Reid Research poll has just come out, and it shows both Labour's and Mr Cunliffe's popularity slipping. Labour is down 2 points to 27.3%, and National (down 0.6% to 49.7%) has a commanding lead. The Greens have gained where Labour lost, and NZ First is still some distance from the 5% thresh-hold. The Internet Mana alliance will need to win an electorate if it is to figure, polling a mere 1.8%.

And in the Preferred Prime Minister stakes, the news is no better for Mr Cunliffe. John Key is up 3.1 points to 46.7%, whereas David Cunliffe remains stranded in single figures, down 0.2 points to 9.6% support.

National's polling is remarkably, given that they are a party nearing the end of their second term in government, whereas Labour's support is basically where it was at the 2011 General Election. And that, of course, was Labour's worst election result in some 70 years.  But in 2011, Labour was still almost in a position to form a government; it wouldn't have taken much of a swing to enable that to happen.

In the meantime, National heads into its election-year conference in Wellington tomorrow in bouyant mood, and why wouldn't they? We're sure that the party faithful will get plenty of warnings not to be complacent, and it is imperative that the party faithful take those warnings on board. 

Labour's upcoming conference, on the other hand, will be a little more subdued, after a series of dreadful poll results. Patrick Gower said on 3News tonight that "This poll is all about Labour wounded, and scared".  Given the current dysfunctional state of the Labour Party, a new record low on 20th September is a distinct possibility.


UPDATE: Here are the poll graphics from the 3News website:

 

0 Cash for access

A new name has emerged in the Donghua Liu saga; the Herald introduces Steven Ching:

The man who hoped to be the first Chinese MP for the Labour Party has emerged as a central figure in the donation claims of Donghua Liu.
Steven Ching was a successful fundraiser for Labour and was No42 on the party list ahead of the 2005 election, but withdrew.

Mr Ching seems to have an interesting history. The Herald reported in 2005 why he was stood down from being a candidate, and amazingly, another man named Liu is involved! Here's the story, from May 2005:

The man on track to become Labour’s first Chinese MP was yesterday forced to stand down while police investigate serious allegations he misused Government connections.
In the latest in a string of embarrassments for the Labour Party, list candidate Steven Ching was asked to stand down over claims that he offered to get a man appointed as a justice of the peace in exchange for a $50,000 loan.
The Herald on Sunday yesterday claimed that Mr Ching told Auckland broadcaster Paul Liu he would get two senior Labour MPs to sign his application form to become a JP.
In exchange, Mr Liu was asked to give a $50,000 loan to Mr Ching.
Mr Ching denied the claims.
Yesterday morning Mr Ching - number 42 on the Labour list - was out on the campaign trail with MPs Dover Samuels and John Tamihere, but by mid-morning he had been asked to stand down as the Labour Party handed the matter over to the police to investigate.
Party president Mike Williams has written to the Herald on Sunday asking that all its affidavits be sent to the police and the Labour Party.
Mr Ching, 63, denied the allegations and said he was confident police would clear his name in time for him to stand in the election.

"I intend to sue the Sunday Herald [sic] because they are reporting rubbish things."
He issued a written statement, signed by Mr Liu, which said the allegations were not true.
"Mr Ching did ask to borrow money from me for a revolving fund," the statement said, "but his request was absolutely no connection with the JP’s application he proposed to me.
"There were totally two different issues, and obviously, the writer had put them together."
It is not Mr Ching’s first brush with controversy. In the past month he was forced to resign as a justice of the peace after Herald on Sunday investigations found he had two undisclosed convictions under the Fisheries Act.
Mr Ching had also pleaded guilty to obstructing a fisheries officer in 2001 and was discharged without conviction.
Despite the revelations, Labour initially stood by Mr Ching, who is highly regarded for his ability to draw donations from Auckland’s Asian community and attract their votes.
Mr Williams said the convictions were minor and the party had accepted that Mr Ching did not know about them because they were handled by his lawyer.

We don't know if Mr Ching ever made good of his threat to sue the Herald on Sunday. But we would suggest that because the story was the very first item on the list when we did a Google search of "steven ching labour party", there was never any requirement for the Herald on Sunday or the weekday Herald to spike the story.

But then today's story about Mr Ching mentions something which Labour has banged on at John Key and his National colleagues for months; cash for access. Have a read of this:

 

The Herald can now reveal that the Auckland businessman, who organised dinners where guests donated $1000 to sit beside former Prime Minister Helen Clark, approached the office of David Cunliffe about Liu's residency bid.
Mr Ching was not home and did not return messages, but Labour sources confirmed he was the "conduit" between Liu and the party.
When the Herald broke the news that Mr Cunliffe wrote a 2003 letter on behalf of Liu's residency bid, the Labour leader said he did not recall having ever met the businessman.
"To the best of my knowledge that letter came through my office and an immigration agent on his behalf."
Mr Cunliffe this week said "to the best of my knowledge" Mr Ching was not that agent. "However he appears to have had some contact at staff level with the New Lynn Electorate Office over the matter."
Labour sources said Mr Ching had links to Liu and became the "conduit" between the party and the millionaire businessman. "Ching was the 'money man' responsible for organising the fundraising dinners and established a good relationship with Liu," said one.

So diners paid a grand a time to sit next to Helen Clark at dinners. If that's not cash for access, we don't know what is. Perhaps Mr Cunliffe will now seek to revise this presser he put out on 8th June:

"There has been more than a whiff of opportunism around Mr Banks since Mr Key infamously sat down with him over a cup of tea and gifted the seat of Epsom to him.
“While Mr Banks has finally stepped down, the spectre of special deals - whether over National's coat-tailing arrangements, their 'cash for access' fundraising activities, Judith Collins' promotion of a company owned by a National donor, and Maurice Williamson's attempt to influence police actions on another wealthy National donor - will follow National. 

Putting aside that there are NO coat-tailing MP's in the current Parliament, a statement that no one seems to want to challenge Mr Cunliffe on, it's clear that Labour made money out of Helen Clark, just as National does out of John Key and other Ministers. We don't have a problem with that, as long as any money earned by the parties is declared in the proper manner, as required by law. 

If people are prepared to part with their hard-earned cash to hob-nob with a senior politician to benefit their party of choice, that's their decision. It's certainly preferable to the long-suffering taxpayer having to pay for every excess of any political party.

We don't have a problem with people paying to meet MP's, Ministers and the Prime Minister socially. What we DO have a problem with is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in bleating for months about "cash for access" when they do it themselves.

0 Of Cunliffe, petards, and Emmerson

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson is in fine form this morning.

The Labour Party made hay while the sun shone with regard to its allegations that National and Donghua Liu were too close. But when David Cunliffe walked into the trap that he himself had set, he has bleated loudly about the unfairness of it all. 

Never mind that Labour has tried its very hardest to paint National as sinners; when the "gotcha" merchants fell victim to a self-induced "gotcha", they didn't like it up 'em, as Lance Corporal Jack Jones was wont to say.

David Cunliffe has been hoist by his own petard; how sad.

0 What will the Greens oppose next?

We blogged yesterday about the Green Party having voted against the Vulnerable Children Bill. We do note however that not all Green MP's voted, and wonder if there was dissension in the ranks.

Parliament will go into urgency next week, and once again, the Greens will oppose a Government measure. Nick Smith explains the proposed legislation:

Government to allow recovery of West Coast windfall timber

Special legislation is to be passed by Parliament to enable the recovery of high value native timber blown over in Cyclone Ita on West Coast public conservation land, Dr Nick Smith announced today.
“We need to take a pragmatic approach and enable the timber to be recovered where it can be done so safely and with minimal environmental impact. This initiative will provide welcome jobs and economic opportunities for the West Coast at a difficult time, and will provide a financial return to DOC that can be reinvested in conservation work,” Dr Smith says.
Cyclone Ita hit the West Coast on 17 April this year and caused the worst windfall damage in generations, felling an estimated 20,000 hectares of forest and causing significant damage to a further 200,000 hectares.
The West Coast Windblown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill confines the recovery of useable wood to areas affected by Cyclone Ita and specifically excludes World Heritage Areas, national parks, ecological areas and the white heron sanctuary reserve at Whataroa. Authorisations are only to be issued where the Department’s Director-General is satisfied the proposed method of removing the timber is safe for workers and the public, and minimises environmental impacts. The recovery of timber is limited until 1 July 2019 when the Bill expires. All revenue from royalties will go to the Department of Conservation.
“A law change is needed because the current Conservation Act makes no provision for timber recovery in this sort of extreme event. The Bill will be introduced and passed by Parliament next week under urgency. This is necessary because the large volumes of beech timber will soon deteriorate with sap stain and borer. I am grateful for the common sense support from the United Future and Māori Parties that are enabling Parliament to quickly resolve this issue.
“It is estimated that several million cubic metres of beech, rimu, matai, totara and miro trees have been felled. Stumpage prices for rimu are $250 per cubic metre, and $60 per cubic metre for beech. It is not possible to estimate the volume and value of timber to be extracted because the safety and environmental constraints may require high cost options like the use of helicopters. This law change will enable the detailed work to be done by operators on recovery proposals so as to determine where recovery is viable and safe.
“It may be appropriate to consider a permanent change to the Conservation Act to enable windblown timber in these sorts of situations to be recovered in future, but I am reluctant to do so with urgent legislation of this sort. The Department of Conservation will be commissioning research on the effects on forest regrowth and ecology by comparing similar windblown areas where timber has and has not been recovered to help make a long-term policy decision on this issue.
“It is a tragedy that so much forest has been wrecked by Cyclone Ita but no good purpose is served by leaving it all to rot. The wood will displace some of the $65 million of tropical hardwoods we import each year and give New Zealanders access to our own beautiful native timbers,” Dr Smith concluded.

The TV footage we saw last night showed the level of the cyclone damage on the West Coast. We had no idea how widespread that damage was. Thousands of trees were felled by the storm, and are strewn across thousands of hectares of the West Coast.

Nick Smith already has the support of the Maori Party and United Future to pass this legislation, and we would expect Damien O'Connor to convince his fellow Labour MP's to support the law change. It will, after all, have direct benefits for the people of Mr O'Connor's constituency.

But the Greens have already indicated they will fight this tooth and nail. Eugenie Sage put out this presser yesterday:

A storm is no reason to change our conservation law

Friday, 20 June 2014, 3:04 pm
Press Release: Green Party


New Zealand’s wild conservation land should be protected from logging, the Green Party said today.
National has announced plans to allow logging of native forest on public land on the West Coast damaged in Cyclone Ita.
“It was illegal to log these forests, a storm is no reason to change the law,” Green Party conservation spokesperson Eugenie Sage said today.
“New Zealanders fought for years to end native logging and protect the West Coast’s forests. We shouldn’t turn back the clock.
“It’s a bad precedent to change the law on a case by case, storm by storm basis. The public are not even going to get a say, the law will be pushed through under urgency.
“This is more boom and bust short term thinking from this Government for the West Coast. This proposal isn’t going to create sustainable long term jobs.
“Weakening our conservation law sets a dangerous precedent.
“Nowhere is protected from this Government. National is happy to allow our rivers to be too polluted to swim in, let the Maui’s Dolphin go extinct, and wanted to open up our national parks for mining. We can’t let them weaken our conservation law.
“It doesn’t matter how careful you are. By removing these trees we are taking away precious nutrients that will feed the next forest giants.
“We don’t need to restart the battles of the 1990’s, National needs to leave our protected forests alone.
“National is on the wrong path with this proposal, New Zealanders love our native forests and National needs to leave them alone,” said Ms Sage.
“The Department of Conservation shouldn’t have to allow logging of our native forests to pay for pest control, National needs to fund DOC properly,” said Ms Sage.

We wonder what Green MP Kevin Hague makes of all this. He is West Coast-based, and will understand only too well the need for jobs and income for his fellow Coasters. Will he break ranks and vote in favour of legislation that will provide direct economic benefits to his own community? Would the Greens ever allow that to happen?

Once again though, the Greens are showing why they have never been part of a formal coalition government. Opposing everything a government does is easy; just ask Winston Peters who is the consummate opposition politician, but is a three-time failure in government.

Governing is all about compromise. By placing limits on the areas from which fallen trees can and cannot be extracted, Dr Smith has achieved a compromise between protecting a pristine and unique area of New Zealand, and making something good out of the damage wreaked by Cyclone Ita.

Clearly, the Greens would rather let the trees rot and become bug fodder than have anyone go in and extract high-value native timber which will be in high demand. As recently as March, the Greens were proposing to gift $1m to the first person to build a 10-story skyscraper from wood as they tried to out-bribe Labour for the affections of the forestry industry. We doubt today that the forestry industry will be wanting anything to do with the Greens.

It is telling when the ideological purity of the Greens prevents them from supporting legislation that will directly benefit one of New Zealand's poorer regions. After Jan Logie's comments about child poverty on Thursday, you'd think the Greens would be in favour of a law change that was going to provide jobs to West Coasters, put more money into the community, more food on tables and generally benefit the region. But no; they would clearly prefer that the bugs of the forest get a feed as valuable native trees rot away in the wilderness.

0 More poll agony and ecstacy

In three months and three days, New Zealand goes to the polls to elect its 51st Parliament. And if the Labour Party wasn't already worried enough about poll trends, the Herald has heaped more misery on this morning.

The latest Herald-DigiPoll is out, and like other polls in the last couple of months, it's pretty emphatic. Herald deputy political editor Claire Trevett has the details:

The Internet-Mana Party would get two seats in Parliament based on the first major poll since the two parties cut a deal to stand together.
But, three months shy of the election, Labour is still struggling and the left bloc is well adrift from National, which could easily govern alone based on the Herald-DigiPoll survey.
The results for the Mana Party, Internet Party and Internet-Mana Party totalled 1.4 per cent in the survey - a modest start for the newly launched party which was the centre of attention in the lead-up to the polling period.
That is enough to get new Internet Party leader Laila Harre into Parliament if Mana leader Hone Harawira holds his Te Tai Tokerau electorate.
But the votes appear to have been at the expense of the Green Party which dropped to 11 per cent, down 2.5 points since the last Herald-DigiPoll survey in March.

That will worry the Greens, especially if Internet-Mana, bankrolled with $3 million from Kim Dotcom, starts to pick up more momentum.
Polling began on June 6, soon after Mana and Internet agreed to stand as a joint force to try to maximise the number of MPs Mr Harawira could take into Parliament under the "coat-tailing" provisions of MMP.
Although the deal was criticised by many commentators and rival political parties, 39 per cent of those polled said the Internet-Mana arrangement was a legitimate use of MMP while 43 per cent said it was an unprincipled rort.

That MegaMana is starting to cut into the Green vote is no surprise. Readers will remember that when Russel Norman visited Dotcom's rental property at Coatesville last year, he urged the Large German Gentleman to consider not starting a party for that very reason.

But the Greens' worries are small compared to those of Labour; Trevett continues:

With a party vote based on the poll of 50.4 per cent, National maintains a strong lead and is 20 points ahead of Labour which is up one to 30.5 per cent. National would have 64 seats, enough to govern without any support partners and 10 more seats than the left bloc of Labour, the Greens and Internet-Mana.
Labour leader David Cunliffe has rallied slightly, although Labour's efforts to beat the anti-immigration drum just before the poll began do not appear to have had much traction. Labour inched back over the 30 per cent mark and Mr Cunliffe's personal ratings as preferred Prime Minister have nudged up from 11 to 13 per cent since March.
He is still adrift of his high of 17 per cent immediately after his election last September and continues to poll lower than former leader David Shearer did. NZ First was steady on 3.6 per cent - not enough to return to Parliament though its support tends to lift during the campaign.
The poll indicates Prime Minister John Key has escaped the fallout from the trial and resignation of former Act MP John Banks, which broke the day before the poll began. Mr Key held steady at 66 per cent as preferred Prime Minister. Those who believed the Government was heading in the right direction lifted to 56 per cent - the highest since just before the 2011 election.
The poll of 750 eligible voters was taken from June 6 to June 15 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 per cent. There were 12.2 per cent undecided voters on the party vote.

This must be terribly discouraging for Mr Cunliffe and his Labour colleagues. They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at National and Judith Collins in particular, and it's barely made a blind bit of difference. John Key remains the preferred Prime Minister for two thirds of those surveyed, whilst David Cunliffe is the preferred choice of less than one in seven New Zealanders.

And when Parliament resumes this afternoon after a two-week recess, sans John Banks, Labour will be on the defensive again. Instead of being able to attack the Government, Labour has its own donation woes, and if what we were hearing yesterday from a variety of unrelated people is true, yesterday's story is only the tip of the iceberg.

The clock is ticking on Labour. After Friday (i.e. three months out from the election), Labour can change leaders without going to the membership for another Labour's Got Talent tour. Have the polls yet reached the point where they might do a Mike Moore (1990), or will they stick with Mr Cunliffe then cut him adrift after what is looking likely to be a third successive defeat at the polls?

These are interesting times indeed, and the Herald-DigiPoll has just made them a whole lot more interesting!

0 Is it time for the Maori seat debate?

The National Party has selected its candidate to take on Ruth Dyson in Port Hills. This is a winner-take-all electorate, after Ms Dyson has announced her intention not to seek a place on Labour's list.

The National Party's website profiles the party's newest candidate:

The National Party has selected local businessman and iwi leader Nuk Korako as its Port Hills candidate for the 2014 General Election.
Mr Korako was selected by a meeting of local party members this evening.
“The Port Hills electorate changed significantly in the recent boundary changes. Nuk has the genuine links to communities across Christchurch and the electorate to be a strong voice for Port Hills," said Regional Chair Roger Bridge.
“We’re excited to have a candidate of Nuk’s calibre in Port Hills and will be running a strong campaign for the seat."
Mr Korako said he was proud to earn National’s nomination and is looking forward to the campaign.
“Christchurch communities and whanau have been through a lot since 2010, but National has stood by Canterbury at every stage of the rebuild," said Mr Korako.
“Southern Christchurch is experiencing strong growth and many unique challenges. I want to give communities across the seat a strong voice in John Key’s National Party as we rebuild our city."Mr Korako is of Ngai Tahu descent. He is married to Chris and is a father of four sons.

The last paragraph there is an important one, hence we have highlighted it. National has selected another candidate of Maori descent to stand in a general electorate. 

For many years, National was criticised as "pale, male and stale". But we live in changing times, and under John Key's leadership, the party has not just diversified, it has transformed. Maori women hold to of Cabinet's major portfolios; Education and Social Development. National has at least nine MP's who claim Maori descent; Paula Bennett, Hekia Parata, Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross, Tau Henare, Mike Sabin, Paul Foster-Bell, Claudette Hauiti and Joanne Hayes. Four of those nine hold electorate seats in general electorates.

And there are at least 25 MP's claiming Maori descent in a Parliament of 121, according to this post from DPF in December last year; that's 21% Maori representation. In other words, 18 Maori MP's have made their way to Parliament either via party lists, or by winning general electorates, plus the seven MP's who hold the Maori seats. And taking the Maori Party and Mana out of the equation, two of the remaining six parties in the Parliament are led or co-led by Maori MP's.

We have supported the Government's desire to resolve Treaty of Waitangi grievances in an expeditious manner. As grievances are resolved and as the Crown formally apologises for the manner in which Maori were treated in the 19th century, there is an opportunity for as all to move forward as one people.

We reckon that it is time to have the debate over the future of the Maori seats in Parliament. The advent of MMP at the 1996 General Election changed the political landscape, and has led to a far more diverse Parliament. The Debating Chamber is now a melting pot with Maori, Pakeha, Pasifika and Asian MP's, a profoundly deaf MP, and a number of gay MP's. MP's come from a wide variety of occupations now, and are far more representative of the community as a whole than they were even ten years ago.

Any suggestion of abolishing the Maori seats will be met with considerable opposition. But as a country, it is an issue that must be debated at some point, even if the status quo prevails as a result of the debate. It will be a test of our maturity as a nation as to how the debate is conducted, but we believe that it is an issue that must be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

0 Parata on the IES programme

Cabinet Ministers writing opinion-pieces in the metropolitan dailies is not a particularly regular event. Perhaps communication between the Executive and the general public would be better if it happened more often.

But on this occasion Hekia Parata has written a thoughtful piece in this morning's Dom-Post about her Government's Investing in Educational Success initiative, and it's well worth a read; she begins thus:

Teacher unions and others in the profession are helping design the details of a major new government education initiative.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a bigger corporate management structure. 
Recently NZEI past-president Ian Leckie incorrectly stated that the education profession has not been consulted on the Government's major new $359 million initiative, Investing in Educational Success Why teachers are wary about a multimillion-dollar pay rise, June 5).
In fact, teacher unions and others in the profession have been working closely with the Government on the detail of the new initiative since very soon after it was announced in January.
A working group was formed of representatives from the NZEI, the PPTA, the New Zealand School Trustees Association, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, the New Zealand Principals' Federation, the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand, the New Zealand Area Schools Association, the New Zealand Association of Intermediate and Middle Schooling, Nga Kura a Iwi o Aotearoa, Te Rūnanganui o Nga Kura Kaupapa Maori, and the Pasifika Principals' Association. It is chaired by Secretary for Education Peter Hughes.
This significant investment is designed to raise student achievement by building the quality and consistency of teaching and leadership across our education system.
We want to keep the best teachers in classrooms, share excellent practice so it becomes universal practice, and ensure that every student gets a better education. We want to get the best principals to the schools that need them most. We want better career pathways to attract the best and keep them in the profession. We want to reward their excellence with salaries that reflect their skills. 

On the face of it, few would argue that what Mrs Parata is proposing is both ground-breaking and innovative. It has certainly been greeted with cautious optimism by much of the education sector.

There is however one notable exception to the cautious optimists; Mrs Parata continues:

Leckie's comments are unfortunate and a disappointing contrast to others in the education profession.
On the other hand, PPTA president Angela Roberts last week described the Government's collaboration with the education profession as "a positive example of sector collaboration".
She described the consultation process as "comprehensive, robust and genuine". She said the sector had "worked hard together to find pragmatic answers" and that "We feel Cabinet has heard us".
Secondary Principals Association chairman Tom Parsons has described the package as potentially a game-changer for education. 

That NZEI is so out-of-step with other major teacher unions or organisations is no great surprise. NZEI has long been the most militant of the teacher unions. But on this occasion, it could take a lead from its big brother union, the PPTA. We blogged last week our compliments to Angela Roberts and her team for engaging with the Government, even though the two are long-standing foes.

Over the weekend we chatted to a family member who is a primary school principal with significant experience. They described their disappointment with the NZEI's adversarial approach to IES, suggesting that in their opinion, it had more to do with the looming General Election than with genuine concerns about the policy initiative.

And whilst Mrs Parata has often been criticised (and in some cases rightly so) for being less than transparent in her role, she notes that the Government has offered the education sector an open book with regard to the IES programme:

I have released the report of the working group so that those who wish to comment can actually see for themselves what the working group had to say
And for further transparency, I have also released the Cabinet paper in response. There is much more work ahead, and we are keen to continue to work together with the profession to get this right.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a "bigger corporate management structure" as Leckie asserts.
It is about setting achievement challenges specific to a community of schools and then using these additional resources of very skilled teachers and principals to work within and across that community to meet the challenges.
These challenges might be about mathematics, or science, or digital literacy. They will be a shared learning concern of the schools involved and they will be based on information about the specific needs of students in those schools. The professional collaboration that this initiative is based upon will target those needs together.
This initiative is exciting, it picks some of the best elements out of some of the most successful systems around the world, and is anchored in our knowledge of what works in New Zealand, and what our challenges are.
We are investing in educational success for every New Zealand child, and we are doing so with the profession. 

When John Key launched the Investing in Educational Success initiative in January we noted this:

It is pleasing to see that the Government is keen to engage with unions and other sector groups to implement this plan. Whilst we're not a fan of unions, we believe that members of the teacher unions do have a genuine desire to improve the lives of the children entrusted into their care, and we hope that the unions are prepared to enter into collaboration with the Government and  Minister Hekia Parata to achieve this.

Our view on that has not changed. We hope that NZEI will come to the table in the spirit in which the Government via Hekia Parata has put forward a proposal to upskill a large number of teachers, who will ultimately have an even more positive benefit on the children in their care.