Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has revived calls to raise the pension age and is calling on National to support the policy.

In a speech due to be delivered today, Shearer said the existing pension age of 65 was unsustainable and the Government should be “straight up” with people about that fact.

“Labour will be straight – the status quo is unsustainable. we need a genuine cross-party solution that ensures a fair outcome for everyone, especially those who need to retire earlier and as we move to a gradual rise in retirement age.”

Labour campaigned on raising the retirement age at the last election but National says it is affordable in its current form and won’t follow suit.

It has accused Labour of needing to raise the retirement age to pay for unaffordable promises.

Prime Minister John Key has pledged to resign rather than tinker with the age of eligibility for the pension or the current level of entitlements.

Being a cynical person I suspect Labour’s stance on this is primarily because they want to force Key to break his promise. But regardless of their motivation, good policy is good policy and Shearer is right that the current scheme is unsustainable.

I also welcome the call for a cross-party solution. This “solution” though should not just look at the retirement age, but also issues such as indexing, income and asset testing and the like. Our current scheme is the most generous in the world as it has no means testing of any sort, and is linked to the median wage. Ideally a cross-party group would take a first principles approach, and say “What sot of public superannuation scheme should be operating in 30 years time that is fair and affordable”.

Now any changes to superannuation would not take effect for 15+ years so as to not disadvantage those near retirement, who have made decisions based on current policies.  That means that changing superannuation policy will have no impact on the short to medium term goal of getting out of deficit and into a cycle of sustainable surpluses. However it can make a significant difference long-term.

The first step should be an agreement between all parliamentary parties that the existing scheme shall remain in place for all those who will retire before 2025, so were born before 1960. Even John Key should be able to agree to that without breaking his pledge. Sure it implies a different regime post 2025, but that is different to actually agreeing on any change.

If one could get all the parties to agree on ring-fencing the pre-2025 retireees, then a multi-party group could be formed on the basis they won’t agree on post-2025 superannuation, but instead devise a model that all parties say is fair – and put it to a public referendum. That way it is the public deciding, not the Government.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Shearer says he has received assurances from Shane Jones that he followed due process in granting citizenship to Bill Liu, also known as Yong Min Yan, when he was associate immigration minister.

Umm, that is a red herring. The process is that the Minister gets a recommendation and makes a decision. Hard not to follow due process. The issue is why Jones granted the citizenship when officials had so strongly advocated against, pointing out the multiple identities and passports plus the criminal charges against Liu.

But while we are on due process, what part of due process is having a special ceremony in Parliament organised by a Labour MP just days after the decision was made – normal due process is you get a letter in the mail a few weeks later, and then go to the town hall in a group.

“Having looked at the material we have available, it appears that the process which Yong Min Yan (Bill Liu) was granted citizenship was considered and proper.”

He said Labour did not have access to departmental files, but was relying on information retained by Jones about the case.

Good God. That doesn’t even qualify as a whitewash.

Jones had denied any pecuniary association with Liu.

“He has received no money, gift or travel.”

“Shane is not a friend of Mr Liu. He believes he has met him on one or two occasions.”

No one has suggested Jones received money. The suggestion is that Labour did – on multiple occasions.

Shane Te Pou, a Labour party organiser, met businessman Yan in 2005 at a Labour Party fundraiser at Auckland’s Viaduct.

Te Pou told the High Court this morning that he took Yan on a trip to the Hawkes Bay to investigate exporting wine to China. …

When they returned to Auckland, Te Pou entered an arrangement to fill in Yan’s citizenship application.

Te Pou used to be known as Shane Phillips, and guess who his brother used to work for? Shane Jones.  Here’s what I blogged in 2008:

Tonight, TGIF Edition can also reveal that one of Yongming’s former associates in this country – Shane Phillips – was a Labour Party campaign manager, and his brother Daniel Phillips works in the office of Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones – the man who gave ‘Bill Liu’ citizenship against the recommendations of officials who’d investigated his background.

And:

A further $5,000 was given to Dover Samuels by the oddly-named ‘Tamaki ki te Paki Wu’, apparently residing at a house in Derrimore Heights in Manukau City.

So, according to the official documents, two separate Wu’s slipped a total of eight grand between them into the Dover Samuels campaign fund. But who was this mysterious Mr Tamaki Wu? A check of the Manukau address Dover had given for him provides an added twist to this story: it was registered not to Mr Wu but to Daniel Phillips – Dover’s former private secretary now working for Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones. So $5,000 had come to Dover from the address of a man whose brother was involved with Chinese
businessman ‘Yang Liu’ (real name Yan Yongming), yet the money was not in Daniel Phillips’ name, but a person or entity named Tamaki Wu.

So $8,000 was donated to Dover, from someone living at the address registered to a staff member in Shane Jones’ office.

It is obvious Shane Jones approved the citizenship because his very good mate Dover Samuels asked him to do so. Just as Damien O’Connor used to grant residency to almost anyone Taito Philip Field asked him to. Dover was a beneficiary of donations from Liu, as were other MPs. Was Jones aware of this? Was Jones aware that Liu’s restaurant had hosted fundraisers which can bring in tens of thousands of dollars, none of which gets disclosed as they count as coming from each individual who attended.

Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:

Mr Shearer has been calling on Act leader John Banks to be relieved of his ministerial portfolios while police investigate whether he breached the Local Government Electoral Act by declaring donations to his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign from German billionaire Kim Dotcom as anonymous.

But he said last night the questions around Mr Jones’ involvement in the Yan case were not as serious as those around Mr Banks donations from Dotcom.

The strength of the evidence against Mr Jones was “very arguable”.

Mr Jones has declined to comment on the matter.

Shearer’s comments defy comprehension, and reinforce that this is just “gotcha” politics rather than anything serious.

Let’s look at what the two cases have in common. Dotcom was a request to buy a house. Yan was to gain NZ citizenship. Both donated to politicians campaigns, and had politicians advocate on their behalf.

But in the case of Banks, he was neither MP nor Mayor when he advocated – and most importantly he was not the decision maker.

But in the case of Jones, we was the actual Minister who made the decision to grant citizenship. He did it against the advice of officials. He knew of the allegations that Liu was a wanted criminal, with multiple identities. Yet he still gave citizenship, and had a special ceremony in the Labour Caucus Room for it, attended no doubt by some of the MPs Liu had financially supported.

While in the Dotcom case, officials made no recommendation, yet it was still turned down.

So for Shearer to claim the questions around Jones are “not as serious” as those around Banks is a position not grounded in reality.

Also at least Banks has fronted up and answered questions (albeit not that well) on his issue. However Jones has spent years refusing to answer the question of why he granted citizenship against the advice of officials – except the obvious one that it was to keep his colleagues happy, who had been receipients of largesse from Liu.

Shearer’s comments on the Liu case mean we can pretty much ignore him in future on issues of ethics.

UPDATE: The original stories on this back in 2008 said that the room in Parliament used for the special citizenship ceremony was the Labour Caucus Room. I am informed that Mr Samuels says it was in fact the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room (which needs an MP to book it). The ceremony was two days after the approval, in contrast to the normal process where it takes weeks.

I also understand that Jones says he granted citizenship because he was told Liu could be executed upon his return. This is crap though, as Liu had permanent residency anyway. Also if someone really fears for their life, they seek asylum. He was wanted in China on fraud charges, and simply didn’t want to face them. There isn’t a single shred of proof that he feared for his life because he was associated with the Falun Gong, as he now alleges. What there is proof of is that he lied on immigration documents, had multiple passports and multiple identities and was wanted by Interpol.

Tensions on the Labour front bench have just got even worse.

David Cunliffe’s speech on an economic direction for Labour did not go down well with many of his colleagues. The Nation reported today that Cunliffe was told in the following caucus meeting that his speech was stupid and foolish. I think it was neither of those – rather very calculated. But many MPs got up to criticise Cunliffe for his speech, including David Shearer.

The Nation invited David Cunliffe on this morning to talk about his views on economic development, and the problems he identified with current and previous policies. He was happy to do so, but Shearer’s office banned him from going on.

Now this is a very rare thing. Certainly some Ministers will sometimes not accept an interview request, but Opposition MPs pretty much never turn down such opportunities. We now have a situation where Labour’s Economic Development spokesperson has been gagged from speaking publicly on economic development and related issues. This is not the sign of a happy camp, and indicates how tense things must be.

The Nation even promised that they would not ask any questions at all about leadership. It would be an interview only on economic issues. But even that was enough for Shearer’s office to gag Cunliffe and ban him from being interviewed.

Shearer’s leadership is safe (for this year anyway), but the marginalisation of Cunliffe will go down badly with the many party activists who recognise Cunliffe’s talents and praised his speech.

Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key has followed US President Barack Obama and said he is not opposed to gay marriage – an apparent change in his stance. …

But yesterday, in a response to the AP news service after President Obama said gays should be allowed to wed, Mr Key said he was “not personally opposed to gay marriage” and it was possible Parliament would consider a member’s bill at some stage. …

Labour Party leader David Shearer said he fully supported marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving it formal support. …

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said she would support same-sex marriage, as individuals and whanau had the right to choose for themselves whether to marry. …

Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said she was pleased President Obama had taken a stand on what was a very difficult moral issue in America. …

She said the Green Party supported same-sex marriage in New Zealand and had argued for it when the Civil Union Bill was being passed.

I have to say I’m very proud to be a member of the National Party today, and also proud to be a New Zealander.

Leaders of four of the five largest parties in Parliament have all said they are not opposed to gay marriage. This is a good reflection on New Zealand. It also reflects our leaders being in touch with younger New Zealanders. On issues such as gay marriage, there is overwhelming support amongst younger people. Today we consider it incredible that 30 years ago people could be jailed for consensual sex among adults of the same sex. Likewise in 30 years time people will find it strange that there was once a time when a same sex couple couldn’t get married.

The National Party is a mixture of liberalism and conservatism, and overall is more conservative than liberal. Hence it is no small thing to have its leader, and the country’s prime minister, say he is not opposed to gay marriage.

Labour MP Louisa Wall, in a guest post at Whale Oil, says she is working on a bill to amend the Marriage Act. Once submitted to the ballot, it might not be drawn for years, but on the other hand it might get drawn the first time there is a ballot. So anyone’s guess when Parliament might consider this issue.

Fran O’Sullivan backs David Shearer:

But unlike Cunliffe and Robertson he is not hostage to Labour’s past policy positions. He wasn’t an active player in policy formation for the 2011 general election. This has proved to be a strength – not a weakness – as he quickly jettisoned one of Labour’s more wacky election policies, wiping GST on fruit and vegetables. He followed through yesterday by abandoning another ill-considered Labour policy to support Government borrowing offshore to top up the Super Fund.

Shearer’s moves display political courage. He is not afraid to upset grassroot Labour Party members. By adopting a classically rational approach he will increase Labour’s appeal to centrist voters from across the voting spectrum.

I agree, so long as he can carry his party with him. Trevor Mallard was attacking National’s suspensions of contributions to the NZ Super Fund just two days before Shearer announced he is adopting National’s policy.

Also John Roughan writes:

Shearer seemed a normal guy who is not a natural at the arts of politics. For that reason I’d like to see him succeed.

Not too soon, of course. John Key is doing good things and if he continues the way he is going he will deserve the three terms New Zealand voters usually give a government. But Labour’s turn will come and when it does I hope Shearer is still there.

I think that is being optimistics. If Shearer doesn’t win in 2014, I find it hard to imagine he will be there in 2017.

John Drinnan at NZ Herald writes:

Labour leader David Shearer attended a dinner party with his wife at the home of long-time Sky TV lobbyist Tony O’Brien on April 27.

Shearer insists they did not talk about Labour’s broadcasting policy.

However, a private dinner with a lobbyist linked with News Corporation is strange logic while Sky TV is fighting off a regulatory push and amid a global furore as Rupert Murdoch and News Corp are accused of undue influence on British politicians.

It has sparked a debate about political lobbying in this country.

Some would say Shearer’s lack of caution is an example of New Zealand’s easy-going democracy and we should not over-egg such contact.

But Sky TV is ultimately 44 per cent owned by News Corporation, and News Ltd representatives on the Sky TV board report to Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Ltd.

The dinner party was alluded to by the right-wing blogger Whale Oil.

O’Brien is one of New Zealand’s most assiduous and effective lobbyists, and there are no other allegations here of anything inappropriate.

Famously he has his own parliamentary access card so he can move backwards and forwards into security areas at will.

You cannot fault O’Brien’s skills getting close to politicians on all sides of the house – and key journalists – but what was Shearer thinking going to a dinner party with a senior lobbyist held without government officials?

The Opposition leader said broadcasting policy was not talked about.

It was “mostly football, US politics, the role of the Citizens Advice Bureau and what my wife and I had done while working overseas for the UN and other humanitarian organisations”, he said.

Asked if it was appropriate to meet with a lobbyist in this way, Shearer said it was normal for MPs to meet and eat meals with people from all walks of life.

This is bordering on the ridiculous. The clear implication is that a politician should not socialise with a lobbyist, as if they are some sort of criminal.

But actually it is only about some lobbyists. Richard Griffin used to be a lobbyist for TVNZ. Would there have ever been a story about a politician having dinner with Griffin. Of course not.

Would we see a story about Russel Norman having dinner with say a Greenpeace executive, saying it is unwise. Again, of course not.

3 News reports:

David Shearer went for the Prime Minister’s jugular when he brought up a past quote, in an attempt to prove John Key’s hypocrisy for not sacking John Banks.

But he missed by a mile – it turns out the quote was from National-leaning blogger David Farrar.

Mr Key had never uttered the words and David Shearer had to return to the House last night to apologise.

This is first I knew of this. Looking at Hansard it seems the exchange was:

David Shearer: Does he stand by another of his statements: “The issue has never been one of legality as much as ethics. The criminal code is the bare minimum standards for society. For MPs we expect behaviour well beyond that.”, and if so, how is he applying that standard to John Banks?

That quote is indeed mine.

Then later:

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation to clarify a question that I made earlier in the day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to make a statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

DAVID SHEARER: During question time I attributed a quote to John Key in one of my questions. In fact, that quote was actually made by David Farrar, and I would like to apologise to them both.

I think the PM would be more offended by the mix-up than me!

Mr Mallard this morning told RadioLIVE he was to blame.

“It’s a terrible mistake and I take responsibility for that,” says Mr Mallard, who still managed to get in a dig at the Prime Minister.

“We confused David Farrar with the Prime Minister – they both say the same things all the time, and the quotes got shuffled.

Yes, it annoys me also when the PM steals my lines

I should point out that Labour happily quote me in the House when I do say things critical of the Government.

David Cunliffe delivered a speech yesterday that has many Labour and left activists praising it. It is a speech well outside his area of economic development (He is Economic Development, not Finance spokesperson after Shearer demoted him), and is an effective state of the nation or state of the party speech. I have seen these speeches before, and inevitably when portfolio spokespersons give speeches like this, they are wanting a certain job. Some extracts:

You know that at the last election, the one that we lost so badly, nearly 1 million people didn’t vote. Over 800,000 people: a fifth of the population didn’t vote.

Now you know, there are lots of reasons that people didn’t vote, and there were even more reasons why people didn’t vote for Labour. Let me give you just a few.

The major reason that voters didn’t vote for Labour, and sometimes didn’t vote at all, is simply that Labour failed to inspire voters that it was a credible alternative to National. …

I want to be clear from the outset that this speech represents my own views and does not pretend to represent overall Labour policy. All policies are being reviewed in the post-election period. 

All the classic signs. “My personal views”. “Why we failed”. The implication is “Why we continue to fail”.

When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.

 I think that’s a major reason that nearly one million voters deserted us at the last election. It wasn’t because we failed to communicate our policies. Quite the opposite. Those voters saw that our policies – with the exception of asset sales – were mostly the same as National’s. So we can’t really be surprised at the result.

This is a clear call to arms for the left activists. Never mind the reality they were promising $70 more a week to beneficiaries and the like, and most commentator said their policies under Goff were more left-wing than even under Helen Clark. Cunliffe needs the left activist base. The activist base is always less moderate that the supporters. The average National activist is well to the right of a National Government, and the average Labour activist well to the left of a Labour Government.

But you’d never know this if you listened to John Key. Like a quack doctor whose cure has failed, his response is to double the dose until the patient is dead.

 Sorry, John, but let me quote Sir Winston Churchill:

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”

No matter how many politicians and economists still defend the economic policies that led us into this mess, the truth is steadily showing itself.

The obligatory Churchill quote every leadership speech has.

Labour has a new leader with strong values, who’s focused on reconnecting with the voters and has the courage to stand up to bullies. It’s up to us, as a Party, to share with our leader, our hopes, our fears and our dreams, to reconstruct the Party from within, to reclaim our natural constituency of decent, ordinary New Zealanders who believe in fairness and hard work.

This paragraph is astonishing. It strongly implies that the leader does not already share their hopes, fears and dreams. It is a call to action for activists to back Cunliffe’s views and policies and insist Shearer implements them, with a clear implication about what may happen if he does not.

But we didn’t. And we don’t have to back away from creating policies that can turn us away from the economic insanity of the last three decades.

David Cunliffe was a Minister in the last Labour Government. He is now saying that the economic polices of that Government were insane. This is what you do when trying to position yourself as a new leader.

What I find surprising in this speech is not that Cunliffe is making a leadership style speech, but that he has done so in such an unsubtle way. Normally these things are much more subtle and coded. I have never seen an MP urge activists to “share” their views with the leader, in a way which suggests he is out of touch.

The other interesting thing is events of the last week. First we have top Auckland Labour Party official, Greg Presland, who blogged last Wednesday praising David Cunliffe. He implied the Robertson camp was behind the attacks on both Cunliffe and Shearer, and openly said:

Cunliffe may now be Shearer’s best chance of survival as Labour Head Office and the Beehive are filled with Robertson supporters. 

Now bear in mind to have your top Auckland official openly talk about the leader not surviving, and how it is is only the good graces of Cunliffe keeping him alive. In National such an official would be outski. Party officials should never ever talk about how the Leader is struggling to survive.

Then two days later on Friday Chris Trotter blogged:

I was wrong about David Shearer. I made the mistake of believing that a politician with a brilliant back-story couldn’t fail to give us an equally brilliant front-story. …

It’s time for the Labour Caucus to put an end to “the unfortunate experiment” and begin a new one. They could call it “democracy” – and stop taking their party for Grant-ed.

A clear attack on both Shearer, and Grant Robertson, which by omission suggests Cunliffe should be Leader.

Then another two days later, Cunliffe makes a “True Labour” speech, with Tumeke noting:

It was given by David Cunliffe at 2pm Sunday at the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre on his personal beliefs for the economic vision for Labour. 70 people were there by invitation including myself, Chris Trotter and Peter Davis and I have never heard the explanation of why Labour lost the 2011 election and what vision is necessary to regain that support with the passion and intelligence that Cunliffe brought to it. 

Cunliffe launched a personal vision of what I’d call ‘True Labour’, a renouncing of the neo liberal agenda and an explanation that the reason a million enrolled voters didn’t bother to vote Labour was because despite a few policy differences, Labour was still the lighter shade of blue. 

Now I am sure this is all a coincidence because I am a trusting sort of person. But someone more cynical and suspicious than me might wonder about the timing of all this.

UPDATE: Am sure this David Cunliffe campaign website is also a coincidence and is really aimed for the general election in 31 months time.

There is an episode of the West Wing called “Let Bartlett be Barlett” (S1E19).

The staff begin to realize that the Bartlet administration has been ineffective because it has been too timid to make bold decisions, focusing instead on the exigencies of politics. Finally, Leo confronts President Bartlet with his own timidity, challenging him to be himself and to take the staff “off the leash.” – in other words, he seeks to “Let Bartlet be Bartlet”. The President and his staff resolve to act boldly and “raise the level of public debate” in America.

This is what David Shearer needs to do also.

I agree with the NZ Herald editorial that says:

They say Leader of the Opposition is the worst job in politics. It requires unceasing, carping criticism of everything the Government does and a relentlessly negative outlook on the country’s condition and prospects under current policies. Somehow this hapless individual is supposed to be popular too.

David Shearer, elected leader of the Labour Party after the last election, has clearly decided this job description is not for him. Whatever he has been doing since his elevation he has not been out front on most of the issues that are making this a testing year for John Key’s Government. There is a view that he is to blame for the fact these issues have not dented National’s standing in two recent polls or lifted Labour’s support. The concern seems to have permeated his own office with the resignation of his chief of staff, Stuart Nash.

If the departure of Mr Nash signals a change of style for Mr Shearer, it would be a mistake. Mr Shearer is clearly not a tub-thumping politician. He seems a normal, thoughtful, cautious and fair-minded citizen. 

Those in Labour who are getting so worked up about the fact they have not gone up in the polls, despite National dealing with some unpopular issues, need to realise that beyond the beltway people are not talking over morning tea about how David Shearer did in the House. Yes, he has some way to go to be a confident and authoritative presence in the House. But he will not become Prime Minister purely by being a good attack dog in the House, and nor does he need to be. That is why you have a Deputy.

Where there is fair criticism of Shearer has been his inability, to date, to articulate what he stands for and how his beliefs are different to both Phil Goff’s and John Key’s. The Goff led Labour achieved a near 100 year low for their vote. David Shearer must avoid being tuned turned into Goff-lite.

The problem, as I understand it from a couple of Labour people, is that David Shearer does have some innovative and exciting ideas around policy, ones that break the stereotype of right vs left. But the problem is he has been unable to get them through his caucus, who remain largely wedded to their current policies.

As the Herald editorial says:

 People do not follow leaders who lack the confidence to be themselves.

The role of political leadership is more than being chairman of the board, or the caucus. Don Brash did not let Caucus decide his Orewa speech. John Key in Opposition did not have Caucus vote on his agreement with Helen Clark over the anti-smacking law compromise. That show of leadership won him huge acclaim at the time.

Likewise in Government, Helen Clark and John Key did not let Caucus determine key policies. In fact one could argue they wouldn’t let Caucus determine a bus timetable!

Shearer needs to start putting out policies and ideas which define him. I probably won’t like most of them, and that is not a bad thing. But neither is it a bad thing, if his caucus don’t like 100% of them also. What is important is that he likes them, and backs them. Leadership is about telling your caucus “these are the policies I want to lead on, back them or find yourself a new leader”. Decision making by committee of 34 is not a good option.

David Shearer is genuinely nice guy, who wants the best for New Zealand (as most, but not all, MPs do). It is incredible that only two and a bit months after Parliament has resumed this year, that some in Labour are already backsliding over their choice. You have to take a medium to long-term strategic view. What matters isn’t the polls at the moment, or how the House is going. What matters is whether or not there is a three year strategy designed to get Labour and its leader perceived as the Government in waiting, and that the right steps are being taken to implement that strategy.

From today’s Herald.

I understand that David Shearer’s Chief Press Secretary, has resigned her job and will be leaving the Labour Leader’s office in the near future.

Also Senior Advisor John Pagani’s contract terminated this week, and he no longer works for David Shearer.

Grant Robertson is almost going to run out of friends to fill these new vacancies

UPDATE: A reporter has tweeted A Labour media spokesperson says “as far as we’re aware Fran has not resigned”. She’s not answering phone calls.

My understanding is that Mold did resign by e-mail some time ago. This was before Nash left the office. However even after Nash’s departure was confirmed, she told other senior staff that she still intended to leave. Maybe she has been persuaded to change her mind. I have this from a very reliable source. I would suggest media ask specifically about any e-mails that include the word resignation or resign in them.

UPDATE2: A reporter has tweeted Mold denies she has resigned. Again I suggest people ask about whether or not she e-mailed her resignation or at least an offer of resignation in recent times. It is possible she has been persuaded to change her mind for now.

UPDATE3: A commenter has stated:

She resigned and announced it to colleagues some time ago. She has been talking about going off on an OE.

Maybe it has all changed now Nash is out of the way.

The commenter is someone with Labour Party connections, as is my original source. That is two independent people who have said Mold has or had resigned and more so announced it to some of her colleagues. Changing one’s mind (if it has changed) does not negate the fact it was announced originally.

Chris Trotter writes:

CONFESSION, THEY SAY, is good for the soul, so I have a confession to make. I was wrong about David Shearer. I made the mistake of believing that a politician with a brilliant back-story couldn’t fail to give us an equally brilliant front-story. Well, as Sportin’ Life tells the true believers in Porgy & Bess:

 “It ain’t necessarily so.”

And, now I (and I suspect you) know it ain’t so. David Shearer is a thoroughly likeable, thoroughly decent bloke, and his record at the United Nations is truly inspirational, but, come on, let’s face it: he ain’t anybody’s kind of leader.

David Shearer, like David Lange, is a creature of the factional and personal animosities dividing the Labour caucus. Bluntly: he was put there by an unholy alliance of right- and left-wing MPs to prevent the Labour Party’s choice, David Cunliffe, from taking the top job.

But those two speeches showed not the slightest trace of “big picture” thinking. On the contrary, they showed every sign of having been inspired by an Auckland-based focus-group, and composed by a Wellington-based committee. The only picture they painted was one that revealed Labour’s deficiencies. That not only did the party lack leadership, but it also lacked ideas. 

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has appointed lawyer and NZ Aids Foundation chairman Alastair Cameron as his new chief of staff after the resignation of Stuart Nash.

Alastair Cameron is a long-term Labour activist, and generally regarded by Labour people as a good operator. He was on the NZ Council when he was a student, as the party’s youth vice-president around 2002.

Mr Shearer last week led the charge on the Crafar farms sale, but the previous strategy of keeping him away from subjects on which Labour had a negative line gave rise to speculation about the leadership after his deputy, Mr Robertson, was left to lead Labour’s reaction on major issues such as Nick Smith’s resignation as minister over troubles in ACC.

Mr Shearer said he did lead reaction on many issues but also recognised that his other MPs were “very able” and should be allowed to contribute.

The changes are a disruption Mr Shearer could do without as he tries to make an impact in the polls. Although it is not yet serious, he is already having to contend with speculation about his leadership and the ambition of his deputy. …

Mr Robertson has dismissed the speculation, but it has spread to others, including the left-wing blog the Standard.

Contributor Irish Bill observed that it was no secret Mr Robertson wanted the job and, although he hoped he was wrong, “it’s starting to feel like a leadership challenge is inevitable”.

Interesting that the Herald quotes an alias in a news story.

Mr Shearer said it was a long process to get Labour back to being “match fit” and there was an acceptance of that. He said he was not aware of tension within his office.

Really? If David is not aware of the tension within his office, he is the only person in Wellington who isn’t aware of it.

David Shearer in his big speech last week said:

Tiwai point could have been an obsolete aluminium smelter decades ago, but it didn’t work out that way.

That’s because management and workers at NZ Aluminium came together and looked at what they had to do to keep the operation running.

Through their ingenuity they began producing the highest quality aluminium in the world. They identified their niche, they got the business, they scored the contracts 
and today everyone shares in the success.

They are well paid for working well and it’s an important business in a regional area.

It is good to see a Labour leader championing Tiwai Point.

But there is a problem. Labour’s ETS policy would close Tiwai Point down. Labour opposed the changes National made to the ETS to protect trade-exposed industries, and their policy is still to undo those changes.

So the poster boy employer heralded by David Shearer would close down under their policies. Whoops.

The two latest polls will increase the pressure on David Shearer. I actually think it would be silly for Labour to panic over polls just six months after an election. Rebuilding and changing a brand takes time. Their biggest challenge is not their leadership but defining what they stand for.

However it is clear there are rumblings in Labour. The Standard and Tumeke have both run posts openly disscussing whether there will be a leadership challenge. It is also clear from reading comments that many Auckland activists still think that the caucus erred in not choosing David Cunliffe, who arguably was the party’s preferred candidate.

Also Steve Gray has blogged (in less diplomatic terms than expressed here) that the Wellington gay community has been discussing that Grant Robertson will challenge Shearer in the near future.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that anything will happen this year. But neither is Shearer guaranteed to the election, as Goff pretty much was. I think the danger zone would be early next year, if Labour stay flatlined all year.

The problem for Shearer is that he may now be in a vicious cycle. The more speculation over the leadership, the harder it is to get resonance with the public. However it is worth noting he is still being given a fair chance by the public. Only 26% say they think he is performing poorly, while Goff’s comparative figure peaked at 54% performing poorly.

Vernon Small reports at Stuff:

Rather than slam the Government over paid parental leave, he talked compromise. Labour would look at phasing it in or lowering the costs in “a sincere effort to move something forward”.

Consensus, he said, was his first instinct.

It is a style Mr Shearer is making his brand; a reasonable man talking in a measured tone that rejects the politics of charisma.

This is one reason I like Shearer. I do think he is a reasonable man.

To the political media present – and in a warning to Labour, only three reporters made the short hop from Wellington – it was about as dull as a leader’s speech can get.

With the Government on the ropes over issues from the pokies deal with SkyCity to Crafar farm sales and asset sales, the soft-shoe approach is not without its critics.

There is no crisis yet, but there has been some internal arm-wrestling.

Chief of staff Stuart Nash has quit after just a few months in the pivotal role, mostly for personal reasons – a new baby and the commute from Napier. But insiders say he was ill-suited and clashed with chief press secretary Fran Mold over strategy. She pushed for a (relatively) higher profile, arguing the Greens and NZ First leader Winston Peters would fill the vacuum if Mr Shearer left one.

Finding the right replacement for Mr Nash is crucial, especially with the key party secretary job expected to be vacant soon when Chris Flatt leaves.

There is no clear favourite for either job, although policy guru Jordan Carter is tipped as secretary, while the Wellington rumour mill favours Wellington lawyer Alastair Cameron as chief of staff.

Both are closer to deputy leader Grant Robertson than Mr Shearer.

And arguably also closer to Cunliife.

It is too early to say Shearer will be rolled, but it is obvious from reading around the left-wing blogs that there  is significant discontent amongst the activist base – especially in Auckland.

What is interesting is that the Auckland activists are trying to lump Robertson in with Shearer, so that if Shearer falls, Cunliffe will be able to win a leadership battle against Robertson.

Cunliffe has come back from his leadership loss revitalised and has been impressing many in Labour. I think Robertson would still beat Cunliffe in a contest, but the “Anyone but Cunliffe” faction has diminished in recent months.

If there is any change, I would expect it to occur either late 2012 or at the latest February 2013. If Shearer makes it past that, then I think it would be too late for a change.

David Shearer in a release says:

“One area that certainly needs more discussion is in the costing the Government is using, which appears to be Labour’s costing from before the election. This doesn’t include offsets for savings from things such as reduced demand for childcare subsidies.

So David Shearer is saying the Government should not use Labour’s costings, because they were wrong!

Tracy Watkins reports:

Labour leader David Shearer’s chief of staff is apparently set to depart after just a couple of months in the job.

Former MP Stuart Nash was appointed Mr Shearer’s right-hand man after the leadership change late last year but is understood to be quitting to return to his home town of Napier.

Mr Nash could not be contacted yesterday. Sources say he decided to return to Napier to boost his chances of regaining the seat Labour lost in 2005, and to spend more time with his family.

His partner gave birth just a few weeks before he started the job on February 1.

But his departure is likely to fuel speculation over differences of opinion within Labour’s senior leadership team over strategy.

It will be interesting to see, if the speculation is correct, who replaces Nash. It is an absolutely key role, as if Labour wins the election they generally go on to become the PM’s Chief of Staff.

John Armstrong writes in NZ Herald:

But Thursday’s speech contained enough hints of a change in the party’s direction to put several feral cats among Labour’s pigeons.

It made it clear Shearer will ditch policies that made Labour feel good about itself but which left voters cold – policies like Goff’s “tax-free zone” for the first $5000 of income, the promise to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables and the manifesto commitment to introduce a new top tax rate on income above $150,000.

That is the first suggestion I have seen that Shearer is also looking to dump the proposed rich prick tax. I hope they do. The top tax rate was dropped to 33% by Labour in the 1980s in return for bringing in a 10% GST and getting rid of tax loopholes. There is no need to raise it, except envy.

Perhaps most significant of all was the speech’s incursion into what has been an effective no-go area – the seemingly unfettered power of the teacher unions to run a ruler over the party’s education policy.,

However, education is central to Shearer’s plan to build the “new New Zealand”. It was here the speech was at its most blunt in putting bad teachers and badly run schools on notice. He later acknowledged it might be necessary to pay teachers more. It can only be assumed he was reserving any such salary increases for the good ones despite performance pay being viewed with intense suspicion by the teacher unions.

Shearer can leave National behind here. National has not committed to performance pay. If Labour does, that would make National look a follower not a leader.

Shearer intends shifting Labour’s mind-set away from not upsetting the practitioners of policy – be they teachers, public servants or whomever – to satisfying the consumers of policy, parents in this case.

I look forward to this being applied to industrial relations also.

David Shearer talked about Finland six times in his speech.

People may be interested to know their unemployment rate is currently 7.8% and NZ’s is 6.3%.

Those sheep and cows in NZ are not doing too badly.

David Shearer delivered his much heralded new direction speech this morning. It was so hyped up Labour even said they were live streaming it. However the live stream was a disaster according to a number of readers. It barely worked, kept going offline and had ads running on it!

The speech text is here:

You may know that P.T. Barnum was the man who founded the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.

He was a showman, he was a businessman, he was a scam artist.

Early in his career, he created an exhibit called The Happy Family.

It had just one cage, and in that cage there was a lion, a tiger, a panther, and a baby lamb.

It was a huge hit.

People would line up to see it.

At this point I thought David was doing an analogy about the Labour Party caucus!

And as it grew more and more popular, the newspapers would ask him what his plans were for this amazing display.

He said to them: “It’ll probably become a permanent feature – but only if the supply of lambs holds out.”

In any sense you want to put it, literal or figurative, that’s how we’re running things in New Zealand.

We’re going to keep on doing things the way we are … for as long as the supply of lambs holds out.

We’re going to go right on relying on property market bubbles and a small basket of primary produce exports to earn our living and we’re going to go on borrowing money to pay for a standard of living we can’t afford.

The old New Zealand needs to do more than just primary produce.

He’s not the first Labour Leader to say this. 26 years ago David Lange pronounced farming is a sunset industry. Helen Clark talked about the knowledge wave and economic transformation to reduce the reliance on agriculture. The reality is every Government for 25 years has been saying this.

I’ve always believed the best argument in favour of a capital gains tax was the economic effect it had.

A CGT is pro-growth. It helps switch investment from sectors such as housing, to the productive sector where we desperately need more capital.

Over time I can also see the revenue it raises being used to offset the tax you have to pay in other areas.

So I can see a role for CGT in transforming our economy.

Now this is potentially good. Goff promoted a CGT to fund extra spending – a new version of tax and spend. That I do not support. But I do support a broad base low rate tax system. If Labour propose a CGT which is broadly fiscally neutral, and allows tax on labour and savings etc to be lowered, that is more credible.

On the other hand, I would want to ask whether a tax-free zone that gives everyone the same sized tax cut is going to be as much of a priority.

Everyone should not get the same sized tax cut. Tax cuts should broadly be proportional to the tax you pay.

But the reality is that any overall reduction in the level of taxation can only occur once we are back in surplus.

Any government I lead is going to be thrifty.

New Zealanders can trust Labour to manage the books.

I’d like to believe that. But Labour has opposed every spending cut done by National. They were even against capping the number of civil servants, let alone reducing them.

Instead of the distraction over national standards, we need to focus on how we get the highest quality teachers in the world and the best performing students.

National standards are not a distraction. They are key performance indicators. But I welcome a focus on quality teachers and look forward to Labour’s policy on performance pay.

Study after study shows that the most important ingredient is the quality of teachers.

We need to value teachers.

We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one.

The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms.

Good rhetoric from a Labour leader. It is an encouraging sign. But we will need policy to back up the rhetoric.

UPDATE: Rob Hosking reports:

Candyfloss is not a particularly nutritious breakfast.

But that is what Labour leader David Shearer delivered to a Wellington business breakfast this morning.

In a speech long on fluffy words and not-particularly original aspirational ideas but virtually policy-free, Mr Shearer set out his vision for New Zealand.

It involves having more nice things, and having fewer bad things, apparently,

New Zealand should have more companies like Nokia, Mr Shearer urged his audience, as if it were a new idea.

Sorry, but there are kids at university who were not born when politicians started talking about how New Zealand having a company like Nokia would be kind of a neat idea.

National MP Maurice Williamson used to do it in the 1990s.

And

A fair chunk of the speech was devoted to education, but, again, it was all empty calories and empty words, with no policy meat at all.

” I want the best educational achievement in the world,” Mr Shearer said, as if this makes him and his party any different from anyone else.
How to do this?
“We need to value teachers. We need every teacher in our classroom to be a good one. The vast majority are. But the truth is some are not.

“We will work with teachers to develop their professional skills, but ultimately we can’t afford to have bad teachers in our classrooms. “

How would Labour do this?

The only answer Mr Shearer put up was that this would be done by “focusing” on it.

Ouch.

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has admitted to embarrassing mistakes in his private member’s bill to restrict foreign ownership of farms, including giving the bill two names and unintentionally removing safeguards for native flora and fauna.

The bill was the first major policy release from Mr Shearer since taking over as party leader.

Under the bill, foreign bids would have to bring substantial increases in jobs or exports through new technology or products, and these must be additional to what would happen if a New Zealander bought the land.

The present law lists a number of factors ministers can consider in determining whether the bid would bring “substantial and identifiable” benefit to New Zealand. Among the factors are protection for native flora and fauna, heritage and cultural sites, and wildlife and walking access.

But Mr Shearer’s bill would wipe these factors completely, effectively meaning an application that ticked the box for more exports but destroyed the environment could get the green light.

I think the Greens just won some more votes off Labour.

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer says he has taken a consistent position on the Ports of Auckland industrial dispute, even though he marched with the workers on Saturday and earlier described the issue as “not about taking sides”.

Perhaps David was marching with the two counter-protesters, if he was not taking sides?

Alex Tarrant at interest.co.nz has exposed how David Shearer’s bill on foreign farm land is an incompetent PR stunt. This is typical Labour – they go for meaningless PR stunts rather than careful well considered policy.

Alex blogs:

For starters, you can’t even figure out what you want to call this law change.

Right at the top, in the space of eleven lines, you gave it two different names.

Overseas Investment (Owning our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill is the initial title at the very top.

Then you decide that the new Act should be called the Overseas Investment (Owning our own Infrastructure) Amendment Act 2010

I presume the staff hadn’t yet decided which term rates better with the public.

But then we get to section 17.

In the rush to get this Bill written before Shearer appeared on Q&A on Sunday, you managed to indicate that you would repeal all environmental, heritage, conservation and walking access requirements on foreign landowners for Ministers when making their decisions.

Now I know you didn’t mean to do this – you told me so this morning – but if you’re going to go on national television and announce you’re presenting a member’s Bill to change one of this country’s laws, then I for one would be hoping you’ve given it serious consideration, had a few people look over it, and had another look at the actual legislation to figure out what you’ll be repealing.

Yep, the bill in the name of Labour’s leader does just that.  You can see over at the linked site the full details of all the existing criteria, that Shearer’s bill does away with.

This is amateur hour, and is a long way from convincing people you are up to running a country.