0 Conspiracy 101; Dotcom channels Peters

We know that Winston Peters visited Kim Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville last year. We now know the reason; Peters was taking the Large German Gentleman through a crash course in Conspiracy 101.

The Herald reports on Dotcom's latest fantasy:

Kim Dotcom is challenging government minister Jonathan Coleman to explain why he didn't block his application for residency after learning of an FBI investigation into him.
Dotcom claims Immigration officials broke their own rules to grant him residency in a ploy to lure him to New Zealand so the FBI would have an easier time of extraditing him on criminal copyright charges.
There were denials from the Government yesterday of interference in Dotcom's residency after emails between SIS agents in 2010 cited "political pressure to process this case". The claim was made 90 minutes before the spy agency lifted its objection to the tycoon's residency.
Dotcom said it was hard to believe then-Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman was told of the FBI investigation on October 28, 2010 - the day his residency was decided - and then didn't move to block it.
"Why in the world with that knowledge would the Minister of Immigration not intervene and say this is going to be a bad look for us knowing there is an investigation and a desire to extradite.

[They would say] we can't give this guy residency just because of the money ..."
He claims a decision to work with the US to get him into New Zealand for easier extradition was behind the decision.
Dotcom said his bid for residency should have failed because of Immigration NZ rules which automatically put applications on hold for six months if those seeking entry are under "investigation".

This is fanciful stuff from Dotcom, and from his biographer David Fisher who moonlights as an "independent" NZ Herald journalist. 

It was Dotcom who applied for New Zealand residence, via his agent David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific, the country's leading immigration consultancy. 

And it was Mr Cooper who convinced Immigration New Zealand to overlook pending convictions for share-trading offences in Hong Kong.

But most significantly, it was Mr Cooper delivering ultimatums to Immigration New Zealand on behalf of his client as 3News reported on 14 March 2012:

Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom threatened to withdraw his residency application and take his money elsewhere unless New Zealand immigration authorities met his deadline, new documents reveal.

Dotcom, who faces internet piracy charges in the United States over his file-sharing website Megaupload, was granted New Zealand residency in 2010 in exchange for investing $10 million in New Zealand under the Immigration Plus category.

Documents released to the Associated Press show Dotcom set a deadline for immigration officials to approve his application, with a threat that he would otherwise move to Australia or Canada.

On October 26, immigration manager Gareth Grigg sent a memo to a colleague, saying he had been advised by Dotcom's immigration agent David Cooper that "Mr Dotcom wants a decision on his application by 1 November 2010 or he will walk away".

Despite Mr Grigg's warning that "Mr Dotcom may be seen to be controlling the processing of his application" or receiving special treatment, Dotcom's residency was approved on November 1.

For Dotcom to now claim that he was lured here under false pretences is so bizarre it defies belief. And he is essentially arguing that he ought not have been approved for residence in the first place; a point with which we find agreement!

Perhaps the easiest way forward now would be for the Immigration New Zealand to admit that Dotcom ought not have been granted residence, revoke his residence permit, and serve him with a removal notice. If Dotcom doesn't think that he should have been given residence in the first place, then he would have no grounds to appeal the revocation!

In the meantime, Dotcom should leave the conspiracy theories to Winston Peters. And David Fisher should stick to writing Dotcom's publicity material, instead of pretending to present a neutral, accurate version of events to readers.

0 The Herald; playing games again

The Herald's Dotcom correspondent David Fisher joined a few dots this morning and decided there was "political pressure" to approve Kim Dotcom's New Zealand residence application.

The Herald has published a number of documents, and one of them completely contradicts that line of attack. It is a statement from Immigration New Zealand dated 8 July 2014, just one week ago. Here it is, snipped from the Herald story, and with the addition of highlighting to key passages.

We presume David Fisher has read all the documents his story this morning relied on. Unfortunately for him, the INZ statement blows his, Dotcom's and Labour's argument clean out of the water. Immigration New Zealand is emphatic the decision was made by senior INZ staff, and the Minister was only informed (on a no surprises basis) AFTER the decision was made. Equally, INZ is adamant there was NO political pressure brought to bear by the Government.

That the Herald went ahead and ran the "political pressure" line anyway, despite a categorical denial from those accused of bending to political pressure suggests there is an agenda at play here. Kim Dotcom has made no secret of his desire to bring down the New Zealand Government. He has a willing media plant in the form of David Fisher, and Labour Party politicians who, despite a pledge to campaign cleanly, are happy to participate in spreading serious but incorrect allegations. 

However the Herald does itself no credit by publishing as fact allegations which have already been unequivocally denied. Granny Herald was once New Zealand's foremost newspaper. Those who made it that must turn in their graves on days like this.

0 This is news?

It must be a slow news day; the Herald reports:

With only 71 days to the election, Prime Minister John Key is taking an extended overseas holiday, thought to be at his bolt-hole on the Hawaiian island of Maui.
When the Herald contacted his office yesterday for comment on renewed calls for Foreign Minister Murray McCully to resign, it was told he was on holiday and would not be back at work until July 21.
Assuming he plans to spend Sunday July 20 reading Cabinet papers for the next day's meeting, that's a 10-day break.
Campaign manager and Cabinet minister Steven Joyce did not believe Mr Key's break would cause National to lose momentum. "We've got a lot of things going on. He works very, very hard and we want to make sure he is in good physical shape. He's a pretty healthy individual but everyone needs a chance to recharge."
He hinted that Mr Key had been reluctant to take the time off but his colleagues had insisted, as they had last election.

"It's like forcing him out the door to take a few days to freshen up and recharge before he has to get into the last 10 weeks or so of the campaign."
He said a few MPs from both sides of the House would be taking time off during the two-week recess which coincides with school holidays.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English is acting Prime Minister.
A spokesman for David Cunliffe said the Labour leader, after launching an Information and Communications Technology policy in Auckland this morning, would be taking a break.

We fail to see what the big story is here. Perhaps it was an opportunity to remind Herald readers that John Key has a holiday property in Hawaii.

We don't begrudge any politician a holiday. Two week recesses are normally timed around school holidays, so those MPs with school-aged children can actually spend some time with them. Families give up a lot for their MPs' ambitions.

We're glad David Cunliffe is taking a break too. He's had a turbulent last few months, and with a demanding election campaign beckoning he will benefit from a spell. Democracy is strengthened when a good government has strong opposition, and that hasn't been the case this year.

And we'll leave the final word to Rod Emmerson, who sends the leaders off with this wee message:

 

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 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 Breaking news: David Cunliffe advocated for Donghua Liu

The Herald has just posted this story:

Labour Party leader David Cunliffe - who said this week he had never met Donghua Liu or advocated on his behalf - wrote a letter to immigration officials on behalf of the controversial businessman who was applying for residency in New Zealand.
The 2003 letter was written in his capacity as the MP for New Lynn after he was "approached my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application".
Mr Cunliffe this week denied any involvement with Liu's residency bid after the Herald revealed the property developer paid $15,000 at a Labour Party fundraiser for a book signed by Helen Clark in 2007.
The letter, released to the Herald today under the Official Information Act, dated April 11, 2003 said Liu's application for residency was accepted for processing by the Immigration Service on August 13, 2002.

Mr Cunliffe said Mr Liu wished to set up a joint venture business with his Tianlong Property Development Company - which owns his stalled property development in Newmarket - to export large quantities of agricultural and horticultural products to China.
"It is hoped that products from the company will be available to the market in July 2003," wrote Mr Cunliffe.
"I am aware of the difficulties facing the Business Migration Branch of New Zealand Immigration Services in coping with the overwhelming numbers of applicants that have applied for consideration under these categories and the time taken to verify documents.
"However, it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a decision on his case."
"Yesterday, Mr Cunliffe told reporters questioning him about Liu's financial support for Labour he did not recall meeting him and denied advocating on Liu's behalf in his residency application."
Liu was granted residency under the Investor Category in 2005 by Labour's associate Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor against official advice.

And the Herald has posted this snippet from an interview with Mr Cunliffe yesterday on Twitter:

Wow. Is this ever going to set a cat amongst the pigeons! It's hard to imagine how Mr Cunliffe can survive this.

Even this morning, he told Tim Fookes at Newstalk ZB in Wellington that to the best of his knowledge, he had never met Mr Liu. Just hours later, he is exposed as having written a letter to the Immigration Service where he said that he had been "approached by my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application".

Here, via the Herald, is the letter in question:
 

And John Armstrong has chimed in; he opines:

David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour's leader may now be very much in order.
It now emerges that - contrary to the point-blank denials that Cunliffe gave to a press conference only yesterday - that he did assist controversial businessman Donghua Liu in the latter's application for New Zealand residency.
At a minimum, the revelation that Cunliffe wrote a letter to immigration officials seeking information on progress regarding the residency application is a massive blow to the Labour leader's personal credibility. How can anyone have any confidence in what he says from hereon?
Cunliffe may argue that the letter was about immigration processes and written on a constituent's behalf - something MPs frequently do - and therefore was not an endorsement of the application.
But that does not wash. Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.

He has called for National Party ministers' heads to roll for the equivalent or less. Having set the standard required of others, it is incumbent on him to himself follow suit.
The self-ravaging of his credibility means Labour now has to abandon its strategy of trying to paint John Key and National as corrupt. To carry on it that fashion would be the height of hypocrisy.

This is a huge blow to David Cunliffe, and a huge blow to the credibility of the Labour Party.

Parliament sits in just over 40 minutes. It will be unmissable this afternoon.

0 Sorry about that Mike..ahh Mark..ahh, whatever

Since Matt McCarten left the Herald on Sunday for David Cunliffe's War Room, there has been a succession of left-wing commentators writing opinion pieces.

Today's is by former Labour Party president Mike Williams, correctly identified in the footer:

But the headline is a different kettle of fish altogether:

The New Zealand Herald used to be the best newspaper in New Zealand by a country mile. Those who made it that must be rolling in their graves at the standards displayed by today's "decent journalists (and sub-editors), trained and skilled".

0 The Herald on coat-tailing

There's an interesting editorial in this morning's NZ Herald. Under the headline National should rise to challenge on coat-tailing the editorial begins thus:

Labour has made a worthy, and now selfless, proposal to abolish the provision in the Electoral Act that can give parties two or more MPs for the price of one electorate. It is a worthy intention because the "coat-tailing" rule can give those MPs influence out of all proportion to their tiny fraction of public support. And it is selfless because if Labour is in a position to carry out its policy after the coming election, it could owe its power to the electoral provision it wants to abolish.
The merger of Kim Dotcom's money with Hone Harawira's lone seat gives Labour a possible ally with two or three seats, which could change the Government. If that happens, it is hard to see Internet-Mana supporting legislation to abolish the very mechanism that has given it pivotal power.
By that time, Internet and Mana have said, they will be separate entities. They plan to dissolve their marriage of convenience six weeks after the election.

That would make their arrangement the most cynical use of the coat-tailing rule to date. Having entered Parliament on the basis of Hone Harawira's electorate, Laila Harre would become an independent. In that event she would have less moral right to be in Parliament than MPs who fall out with their party after entering on its list. They at least enter in good faith.

We disagree with the leader writer that Labour's position is "selfless". If anything, it smacks of self-interest. Labour will have polled internally over the weekend, and just as last night's Roy Morgan poll was an indictment on MegaMana, Labour's War Room boffins will have read the tea leaves, hence the policy being released on the hoof.

The irony here of course is that for Labour to be able to make good its promise, it will almost certainly need anyone elected under the MegaMana banner in order to be able to form a coalition and pass its promised anti-coat-tailing legislation. The voting public will see that, even if the Herald's editorial writer cannot.

There is a second irony to this. The 50th Parliament does not have any coat-tailers, when you consider:

• The Maori Party won three electorates, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• Act (John Banks) won Epsom, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• United Future (Peter Dunne) won Ohariu, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• Mana (Hone Harawira) won Te Tai Tokerau, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's

On that basis, David Cunliffe is using a sledgehammer to smash a problem that doesn't currently exist. And even worse, he is likely to form some kind of post-election deal with MP's who enter Parliament by a means he so opposes that he will introduce legislation to outlaw within 100 days of being elected. 

That is anything but selfless in our ever-humble opinion.

0 The Herald names Player X

The NZ Herald has named Player X:

The Herald can reveal that the player being named as Player X in evidence to the international cricket inquiry is New Zealand legend Chris Cairns.
The Herald has been told by multiple sources that the former allrounder has been named in testimony to the ICC's anti-corruption unit (ACSU), referred to as Player X, by Lou Vincent and current captain Brendon McCullum.
He is alleged to have attempted to manipulate games, including in India when he was captain of the Chandigarh Lions in the short lived Indian Cricket League.
Cairns was let go by Chandigarh, due to what he described as an ankle injury.
In recent days, testimony from Vincent and McCullum has been leaked into the public domain, including alleged meetings between those players and Cairns.
When asked by the Herald on Sunday whether he was Player X, Cairns said he did not want to "speculate" but last night told Fairfax - Cairns was recently a columnist for the Sunday Star-Times - the allegations were false.

First up, let's get one thing straight. The allegations against Chris Cairns are just that; allegations. He is entitled to the chance to clear his name, and any allegations must be proven.

But if the allegations against Cairns are true, he is in deep, deep trouble. And he will have no one to blame but himself.

The next few weeks and months are going to be both interesting and distressing as cricket continues to unravel. That saddens us immensely.

0 The Herald on the Budget

The Herald is generally content with Bill English's Budget. Under the headline

Budget steers safe course in rough waters the Herald's editorial opines:

The Treasury gave the show away in the Budget's supporting documents, mentioning that while tax revenue is running at a lower level than expected, some of the Government's intended spending has been "rephased" to produce the surplus it has promised. Opponents can call it a trick of "smoke and mirrors" but the verdict that matters comes from credit agencies. They are unlikely to be concerned. Spending rephased is spending we might never see unless surpluses can be maintained.
The Budget manages the election-year trick of appearing both fiscally responsible and socially generous. The provision of free medicine and visits to doctors for children under 13 is the main surprise. It is not restricted to families on lower incomes, it will be equally available to those who can easily afford to pay for their children's medical needs. It is not the most efficient use of funds for health, which absorbs an ever increasing slice of the annual Budget.

By contrast, a parental tax credit is to be increased by $70 a week and extended from eight to 10 weeks but it will be better restricted to low and middle income households. As expected, paid parental leave is to be extended from 14 weeks to 16 next year and 18 the year after. It will also become available to those in seasonal or casual employment or who have recently changed jobs.
Those are the main gifts in a Budget that reflects a good economic outlook. It is based on expected growth of 4 per cent this year, 3 per cent next year and 2 per cent for each of the following two years. Even so, despite surpluses, it does not bring net debt under 20 per cent of GDP in the forecast period.

That Bill English has kept the credit ratings agencies happy is important. They will be encouraged to see the economy return to surplus, and to hear Bill English's commitment to getting debt down to less than 20% of GDP in the long term. That is a positive target, given that in 2009, debt was forecast to blow out to over 60% of GDP within a few years. Mr English deserves credit for avoiding that.

The Herald is also highly complimentary of Bill English's ability to get state services doing more with less:

The Budget's best feature is the value Bill English seems to be getting for little extra spending on public services. Departments know the results he wants and seem to be delivering them without complaint from providers or the public.
They have stopped demanding endless increases in funds and he shared the credit with them yesterday for his surplus.
Doctored it may be, but it will get better.

The Government sent a strong message to the public service early in its first term that there was not a bottomless pit of money for the kind of growth that occurred in the back half of the Clark/Cullen years where Government spending increased by 50% in five years. National's Better Public Services programme has required state sector CEO's to look at the way in which their departments ran, and to eliminate waste and duplication. This is perhaps Bill English's biggest success.

The last six years have not been fun for those of us in business. There are much more optimistic times ahead however, provided that Bill English's "steady as she goes" policies are maintained, and there is no return to wasteful, inefficient government expenditure.

0 Budget week - part two

It's Budget week both here and in Australia. Australians will get the bad news from Joe Hockey tomorrow evening, whilst New Zealanders will have a far rosier picture painted by Bill English on Thursday afternoon.

In an editorial headed Australians must envy our Budget the Herald opines:

Budget week in Australia and New Zealand normally finds the two countries in a similar economic condition, with Australia looking the stronger. Not this week. Australia's Budget, to be delivered tomorrow, will be an answer to a projected decade of deficits. It is five years since New Zealand heard that phrase from John Key and Bill English, the first since the recession and global financial crisis.
It will be small, so small that it could easily disappear before it can be banked next year. Despite the economy enjoying 3 per cent growth at present, tax revenue is running below the Budget for the current year.
The deficit for the nine months to March was nearly $200 million worse than forecast, better than the $900 million shortfall to February but still a worry when the economy has so much going for it.
Dairy prices have passed their peak but the Christchurch rebuild is still providing a stimulus. The Reserve Bank has begun lifting its base interest rate back to normal levels but that should not be enough to choke the growth spurt.
Wage rises are outpacing inflation and consumer confidence remains strong. In fact, the conditions are right for the Government to present a more far-sighted path of economic development than it has so far.
It needs to give voters a reason to return it to power in September for a third term. A surplus will be a signal achievement, especially after absorbing $15 billion of the Christchurch repair bill, but it is a signal of spending controls so far. An election year Budget needs to look ahead.

We're sure that Bill English's sixth Budget will "look ahead". Firstly, it will look ahead to a small surplus in 2014-15, to be followed by significant surpluses in the years that follow. That will give whoever is elected in September room to move, but not to ramp up Government spending as Michael Cullen did in the latter part of the Clark years.

It's a far cry from the situation facing Joe Hockey across the Tasman:

Across the Tasman, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey must envy their New Zealand counterparts. They will deliver their first Budget tomorrow without a consensus of economic support for the austerity they argue Australia needs. Severe cuts to health, welfare, education and other sensitive areas of spending are a possibility, as well as a possible "deficit reduction levy" on high incomes.

And whilst the Herald's leader writer expects opposition parties to apply the usual derisory labels to Bill English's forecasts on Thursday, there is some very positive comment on the Government's economic performance:

New Zealand's public debt went well above 20 per cent with the costs of the recession and the earthquakes. The Government's aim to have it back down to that level by 2020 will require annual surpluses every year from here on. Opposition parties will call the surplus "smoke and mirrors" on Thursday.
It is a phrase easy to apply to a figure built on forecasts rather than cash in the bank. But if they do not believe the forecasts they have less room to go to the election with proposals requiring additional spending.
The Budget ought to give an indication of the Government's use of surpluses over the next few years. On Friday Mr English suggested that as well as repaying debt the Government would boost spending in its social priorities and eventually resume contributions to the NZ Superannuation Fund.
Its pre-Budget announcements in recent weeks give the flavour of those priorities: $20 million more for apprenticeships, $20 million to fight rheumatic fever, $3000 grants for unemployed beneficiaries to go to Christchurch. The sums are not large but the projects are practical and precise. That has been the secret to the return to surplus: not painful cuts but a focus on results.
It seems to be working.

It does indeed seem to be working. Which begs the question; with Bill English having shepherded New Zealand's economy through the deepest global recession since the Great Depression, and with New Zealand now leading the world into economic recovery, why would anyone want to take a punt on a big-spending Labour-led government which can't even get its most basic sums right?


Footnote: We will focus extensively on the Budget this week. John Key and Bill English have an excellent record on which to go to the country in September. Little wonder they're smiling!

0 A dodgy NZ First MP? Surely not...

Winston Peters had more reasons than most to be grateful for the Maurice Williamson story yesterday. It took media focus away from some allegedly dodgy dealings by on of his own MP's, Denis O'Rourke.

The Herald ran this story yesterday morning:

A New Zealand First MP is the subject of a complaint to Parliament's Speaker over the employment of a person who lives at the same property.
Queenstown resident David Simpson has raised questions about the nature of the relationship between MP Denis O'Rourke and Stephen James, whom Mr O'Rourke employed after the 2011 election. MPs are not allowed to employ their partner, husband or wife in or outside Parliament.
A spokeswoman for Parliamentary Service, the in-house watchdog, confirmed Speaker of the House David Carter had "referred an issue to us and we are looking at it, but that's between us and the Speaker's office. I'm not going to say any more than that".

The story went on to allege:

Mr O'Rourke and Mr James were listed as living at the same address in the 2011 electoral roll, but Mr James is listed as living at a separate address in last year's roll.
However, Herald investigations reveal both addresses apply to the same property - Mr O'Rourke's home.
On Tuesday Mr James emerged from the Mt Pleasant property to check the mailbox. He was later seen inside the property but refused to answer the door.
Mr O'Rourke later confirmed Mr James lived at the same property.
"Yes, there's a flat attached to my home with separate bedroom and kitchenette and an ensuite and so on. It's separate accommodation."
Online records show Mr O'Rourke's property is listed as a single dwelling. Mr O'Rourke later said Mr James lived in "a room that's been separated from the house and used as a bedsit".
"It's not a formal subdivision ... I did upgrade it a couple of years ago and that's the same time that we got the separate letterbox."
He reiterated that he and Mr James were not partners. "We're deliberately not partners and whatever it takes to convince people we're not partners, that's what we'll do. We don't intend to be partners, we've agreed not to be partners, we don't do the things that partners do, so we're not partners."
He said Parliamentary Service had not spoken to him about Mr James. "I haven't heard anything about a complaint so as far as I'm concerned a complaint has not been made."

If Mr O'Rourke was wanting to fan the embers, and turn them from smouldering into a conflagration, his rather bizarre statement about relationships will have done the job quite nicely.

And let's get one thing straight; this is not an issue of sexuality. If (and we emphasise "if") Messrs O'Rourke and James do indeed live at the same property, then there is an issue with Parliament's rules being broken, and public money is being spent on something outside the rules. That is the only issue as far as we are concerned.

And the Herald has a follow-up story this morning which makes Mr O'Rourke's behaviour look even more dubious:

New Zealand First MP Denis O'Rourke is under further pressure after being caught out over a fake testimonial on the Trade Me page of his classic car rental business.
Parliament's Speaker David Carter yesterday confirmed he is formally investigating the relationship between the list MP and his taxpayer-funded staffer Stephen James with whom he shares his Christchurch home.
However, the complaint from Queenstown resident David Simpson which sparked the investigation said there was "a clear case of Mr O'Rourke and Mr James conspiring to create bogus testimonials about a wedding car hire firm they both have an interest in".
The pair were directors of Christchurch-based wedding business Garden City Weddings.
After the business ceased trading, Mr O'Rourke continued to lease classic cars for weddings, including a 1948 Jaguar Mark V named Winston.
Under his Trade Me handle DJSteve, Mr James wrote: "Such beautiful black cars - thanks for your great service for our wedding."

Mr O'Rourke replied: "Denis: Many thanks Steve. it was our pleasure."
The post was placed three months before Mr O'Rourke was elected to Parliament in 2011 and has since been deleted.
Mr O'Rourke said he knew Mr James had placed the reference but, because it was done before he was an MP, he did not need to apologise to the public. The NZ First Justice spokesman said: "It's probably not proper but it's no big deal, I wouldn't have thought." Mr O'Rourke said all of the other testimonials on the page were genuine.

Winston Peters' response is entirely predictable:

NZ First leader Winston Peters said the allegations were part of a smear campaign against his party.

We will reserve judgment on Denis O'Rourke until Parliamentary Services has conducted its investigation into his and Mr James' living arrangements. Then we will all know whether Mr O'Rourke's conduct is "no big deal", or a rather substantial deal.

0 UPDATED: PM responds to Williamson allegations; Williamson resigns

UPDATE: Maurice Williamson has gone by lunchtime; as a Minister, at least. John Key has just announced that he has accepted Williamson's resignation. The PM's office has just released this statement:

PM accepts resignation of Maurice Williamson

Prime Minister John Key today announced he has accepted the resignation of Maurice Williamson as a Minister.

“I have been made aware that Mr Williamson contacted Police some time ago regarding their investigation of Mr Donghua Liu,” Mr Key says.

“Mr Williamson has assured me that he did not in any way intend to influence the Police investigation.

“However, Mr Williamson’s decision to discuss the investigation with Police was a significant error of judgement.

“The independence of Police investigations is a fundamental part of our country’s legal framework.

“Mr Williamson’s actions have been very unwise as they have the potential to bring that independence into question.

“I have advised the Governor General to accept Mr Williamson’s resignation as a Minister.

Mr Key said he will appoint a new Minister outside Cabinet early next week and in the meantime, Nick Smith will act in the Building and Construction portfolio, Nathan Guy in Land Information, and Simon Bridges in Customs and Statistics.

For an MP and Minister of Williamson's experience to have made an error of judgment such as this is inexplicable, and he has no one to blame but himself. John Key would surely have sacked Williamson had he not resigned.

The Prime Minister is fronting a media stand-up at 12.15pm to answer questions on this issue. Stay tuned...

*************************

Stuff is reporting that John Key will make a statement "soon" regarding allegations against Maurice Williamson; check this out:

Prime Minister John Key will make a statement soon about reports cabinet minister Maurice Williamson called a top policeman after a wealthy businessman with close ties to him was arrested on domestic violence charges.
A spokeswoman for Key said there was no comment now but there would be a comment "later this morning".
The New Zealand Herald is reporting the Prime Minister was told by police, under the "no surprises" policy, that Maurice Williamson contacted them about the arrest of Donghua Liu.
Former Labour associate immigration minister Damien O'Connor approved residency for the wealthy Chinese businessman in 2005, against officials' advice.
Williamson lobbied ministerial colleagues heavily on behalf of Liu's citizenship bid.
Liu was arrested in December following a domestic violence incident with his partner and her mother at the Boulevard Hotel. He pleaded guilty to assaulting a woman and assault with intent to injure. 

The full Herald story can be viewed here. If there has been any meddling by Maurice Williamson in the criminal case, he would be in big strife. Rather than speculate however, we will await the PM's announcement, and comment further then.