Toby Manhire at the Listener blogs:

The New Zealand prime minister ranks ninth in theGallup survey (see below) of leader approval ratings in 21 nations in the Asian region, with 72% saying they approved of Key’s job performance, 24% disapproving, and 4% confused or profoundly shy or something.

The survey by the Washington-based Gallup, which polled 1,000 people in each country, has attracted widespread coverage across the region, but as far as I can tell has been overlooked in New Zealand.

I only saw it myself thanks to the daily summary by Bryce Edwards. I was surprised that Key ranked only 9th, as I know his ratings are much higher than national leaders in the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany and Australia. But then I looked at the table:

Laos is a one party state. Cambodia has been ruled by the one party since independence as has Singapore. Sri Lanka is one of the most repressive regimes in the world for press freedom. Haven’t looked into details for Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia but I suspect in a fair few of those, criticising the head of state can be a risky thing to do

Would be interesting to see such a poll in say the OECD countries.

Do you recall before the election when the media reported that John Key “stormed” out of a press conference refusing to answer any more questions, and then the video showed it was a total beatup. He just called an end to questions and calmly exited.

Likewise we are now seeing reports that John Key “slammed” the media in his comments on NewstalkZB. Luckily they videoed the show, so you can judge for yourself whether this was a “slamming” or in fact a reasonable critical analysis.

The irony.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has sounded off at the media, while insisting he is is not worried about what he sees as its more aggressive mood towards him.

Speaking on NewstalkZB this morning he singled out television news, the Sunday Star-Times and the NZ Herald for particular mentions.

He said the media are “in a more aggressive and hostile mood towards us”.

He did not worry about the media “despite what they think”.

“I am not that bent out of shape about that – I expected it,” he said. Former prime minister Helen Clark had warned him it would happen after the first term in office.

Pressure came on Governments more, because the media becomes more antagonistic.

He said he was not moaning about it – it was a matter of fact.

And the headline:

Key bemoans ‘hostile’ media

Really proves the point.

Key said over time the NZ Herald had become more tabloid under its new editor, with sometimes only one big sensational story on the front page.

“The Herald has turned more tabloid – that is an absolute statement of fact.” …

For instance, the Sunday Star-Times a few weeks ago had run a headline saying he had locked in former prime ministers’ entitlements.

“I am not locking anything in – it has been in the Civil List Act as long as I have been on this Earth.”

I differentiate between the Herald and the Sunday Star-Times.

The Herald is definitely more tabloid. It is a deliberate strategy, and to give them credit it is working. Their readership and circulation are both doing comparatively well from what I can recall. The impact of being more tabloid and sensationalist is that you tend to end up beating up on the Government more, because most issues are about the Government. If Labour was in Government, they would probably be bemoaning the Herald also (as Clark did – something Key specifically cited).

The Sunday Star-Times does take a very left-wing view on most issues, and is basically anti-National. The example of the MPs perks is a classic example. It was a total nonsense story. John Key has actually done more to reduce MPs perks and introduce transparency that the last ten Prime Ministers combined.

It is fine for a newspaper to be left-wing, so long as people understand that. Just as NBR tends to be centre-right on most issues. I think the few remaining SST readers are of the same persuasion as the paper.

It was trying to lift circulation, especially casual sales at dairies, and had brought over David Fisher (from the Herald on Sunday) as “an investigative journalist, so-called”.

He said former TVNZ political editor Guyon Espiner had left for TV3, and that was a loss.

Personally I think David Fisher does good work, even though on some issues such as the secret tapes, we agree to disagree. I prefer journalists who investigate things, to those who rehash press releases.

Bill Ralston just tweeted that having Key praise Guyon is probably the kiss of death for him. Heh. He is sort of right, but I don’t think it would be fair to conclude that Key thinks Espiner was in any way soft on him. I can recall many instances where he has pushed Key hard. I think it was more a comment that he thought Guyon tends to avoid sensationalism.

Patrick Gower blogs:

There’s a lot of talk around the shop that that John Key has “got them mid-term blues”.

Apparently the typewriters have been telling their interviewers that all the sideshows are wearing the Prime Minister down and are symbolic of some great sea-change.

Well, in my experience, the typewriter is often wrong.

Yes, I think some media have been reading too much in a throwaway line by the PM to some school kids. In my opinion we are actually seeing a more determined Key, than in National’s first term.

JOHN KEY OWNS THE MIDDLE GROUND

Key has 49.8 percent in the latest 3 News Reid Research poll. That means John Key owns the centre voter. Historically, this is where elections are won and lost. So until something serious changes here – no worries.

SIDE-SHOWS DON’T ALWAYS MAKE A CIRCUS

Can’t see too many centre voters changing their vote because the MFAT reforms were bungled. Nor can I see too many voters switching camps because Nick Smith resigned 12 hours later than he should have.

OPPOSITION LEADER STRUGGLING TO MAKE AN IMPACT

Getting the middle ground back is David Shearer’s job. At the moment he is focussed on stopping his rival David Cunliffe from going on The Nation to be interviewed – great news for Key.

OPPOSITION IS A MESS, PART I

Could Labour, the Greens and NZ First really work together as a Government? Very unusual trio. Nobody has ever been able to explain just how this could work to me. This question will only get asked more and more over the next two-and-a-half years – no answers on the horizon.

OPPOSITION IS A MESS, PART II

The Labour/Greens/NZ First troika would likely rely on Labour leading the Government despite not having the most votes. Is the New Zealand public ready for this? Er, no. In fact, they probably won’t want a bar of it. Lot of work to do to persuade the public of this.

Gower also looks at the potential coalition partners for National and thinks they are not so bad.  He concludes:

I actually believe Key is looking quite up-for-it and motivated at the moment – I’ve heard him say on a number of occasions recently that he wants to “get stuff done”.

And how much mileage have the Opposition made out of this? Basically zero.

The reality is that Key holds all the cards.

And maybe it’s the Opposition that should have those mid-term blues.

The dynamics of a possible Labour-led Government are fascinating. Can you imagine Richard Prosser voting in favour of Green Party Ministers and policies? Can you imagine Winston and the Greens agreeing on Maori issues? And, if you also need the support of the Maori and Mana parties, it gets even more fun.

In theory Labour might be able to form a Government after achieving just 28% of the vote. But in reality for it to be a coherent government, they really need at least 35%.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key says he would give initial support to a proposed bill allowing gay marriage. 

Labour’s rainbow caucus chair Louisa Wall said she was drafting a private members’ bill which would define marriage and enable same sex couples to wed.

The bill, which has yet to be discussed by the wider Labour caucus, would have to be drawn from a ballot before it went before Parliament. …

Key this morning said he would vote for the bill’s first reading if it was pulled from the ballot.

“Personally I’m not opposed. There will be a range of views of course. Let’s have the debate.”

The bill may not get drawn for months or years, so the debate may not be immediate. But having seen nothing bad happen with civil unions (except allowing people in a stable relationship commit to each other and gain legal rights), I can’t see too many getting worked up about same sex marriage.

UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said last year:

The Prime Minister said “commitment” in relationships should be valued regardless of whether it involved “a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man”. …

Speaking to the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, Mr Cameron said: “We’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. To anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment.

“Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.

Fran O’Sullivan writes in the Weekend Herald:

John Key has made a strategic decision to burn some political capital and front-foot major Government decisions as he tries to wrest control of the national agenda. It’s a strategy that is bearing fruit.

Finally, the PM is putting a stamp on his Government as he lifts its tempo and gets some serious purchase on major issues.

So far Key is making reasonable headway as he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Cabinet ministers while they unveil pre-Budget announcements on hot issues, such as Paula Bennett’s on welfare reform. …

The Government is very determined to do more than just manage the finances, but also to take hard decisions which will boost economic growth and hence jobs.

It is easy to underplay the impact of the Prime Minister’s cheery influence in keeping New Zealand business sufficiently confident in his Government’s management of the NZ economy so the vast majority of firms stay focused on the medium-term prospects and don’t simply shut up shop and move to Australia.

Political journalists and Beltway denizens don’t see much of this side of Key as, outside of the general election campaign, few venture forth on a consistent basis to watch the PM intersecting with the business community.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have heard from reasonably politically agnostic business people how impressive the PM is when talking on economic issues at business forums.

The PM’s decision to front-foot the mini-scandals – instead of relying on his press minders to trot out the spin – is also a change from default mode.

He didn’t need the SkyCity convention centre wrangle, or the ACC and John Banks mini-scandals. But Key has more than held his own on television programmes such as Campbell Live or on Radio NZ’s Morning Report against critical news presenters trying to expose chinks in his political spin.

I can’t recall a time when a PM was being interview one on one so often.

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.

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.

An in depth interview with John Key on Campbell Live on the issues of the Crafar Farms sales, and the Sky City convention centre.

12 minutes in total.

It would be interesting to count up how often this Prime Minister has done one on one television interviews compared to his predecessors. I may be wrong, but my impression is he does do a reasonable number.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Key, who is in Jakarta on a trade mission, said he had discussed the use of the veto with English, who made the announcement while the prime minister was on holiday with his family.

Everyone acknowledged paid parental leave was important for mothers and families.

“It’s an important time they bond with their children. Everyone acknowledges having more time with their infants would be an important thing to support.”

However, the Government’s number one priority was getting its books back to surplus.

“We think when the Government’s balance sheet is in order, that provides greater strength for families overall because it is not just paid parental leave we support; it’s Working For Families, it’s access to early childhood education and many other initiatives.”

The reality is that surpluses give you options, deficits just give you debt. Borrowing money to fund extending paid parental leave is not sustainable.

Meanwhile, Key has indicated he would support a Green members’ bill to introduce a record of lobbyists who work at Parliament.

“I don’t think any Government has done as much in terms of introduced transparency into Parliament as we have in the past three-and-a-half years. There’s much greater transparency in terms of MPs’ expenses and the likes.”

Key said he was not “fundamentally opposed” to having a register.

“That’s a matter for our caucus to consider but in principle I’m not opposed to it potentially going to a select committee.”

I’m not a clairvoyant, but I predict National will vote for the bill at first reading

The PM announced a significant funding and policy package yesterday around teenage mental health. An extract from his speech:

Even a mild mental illness can have a big impact on a young person’s life and on those around them.

In my time as Prime Minister I’ve seen the impact of youth mental illness all too often.

I’ve met teenagers suffering from depression who can’t see a path forward.

I’ve met gay and lesbian kids who are struggling with their sexuality and suffering from anxiety issues.

And I’ve met parents who have lost a child to suicide. These are good, everyday Kiwi parents.

When the worst happens and a teenager takes their own life, those left behind have a heavy burden to bear.

Our youth suicide rate is alarmingly high.

They say the worse thing in the world is outliving a child. Even worse than that must be, when the death is from suicide. The trauma it leaves behind with family and close friends is massive, and scars for life. It is one reason why suicide is generally such as extremely selfish act. But sadly, sometimes seems a logical option to a desperately unhappy person.

Anyway what I found interesting and encouraging was the words from Sir Peter Gluckman on the package:

The announcement today of a very significant package of initiatives aimed to improve the quality, and the effectiveness of the delivery, of mental health services to young people throughout New Zealand is both important in its own right and also a demonstration of how evidence and expert advice can be used effectively to improve policy formation. …

The origin of these initiatives is an exemplar of how policy formation in complex areas can be based on informed scientific advice. In 2009, the Prime Minister asked me to consider the problems associated with the transition through adolescence. Rather than undertake a superficial review, I embarked on a 18-month project that eventually involved more than 30 New Zealand experts and several international contributors. Intentionally we produced a report, entitled Improving the transition, that stayed focused on the scientifically robust evidence and avoided opinion and anecdote. Among its findings were significant concerns about the provision of mental health services to many young people. Following this report, the Prime Minister initiated an officials group to consider what could be done, taking into account the advice from our report, and their work was subject to iterative review by an expert group chaired by myself. It is primarily from that process that the initiatives announced today emerged.

This is an excellent way to do policy, with a robust science based approach.

I’ve seen policy formulation done many ways. I’ve been in rooms when we have brainstormed election policy. I’ve seen policy changed unilaterally to fit an advertisement (rather than vice-versa). One won’t always be able to do policy as described above, but it is an ideal to aim for in many portfolios.

Audrey Young writes at NZ Herald:

John Key’s reshuffle yesterday promoted Simon Bridges and Chris Tremain and leaves the way open for Nick Smith to come back if the Prime Minister deems he has been punished enough. …

Local Government and the job of shepherding through major reforms in the area designed by Dr Smith has been allocated to Primary Industries Minister David Carter.

But Mr Carter is one of the contenders for the position of Speaker to replace Lockwood Smith, who is earmarked for the role of High Commissioner to London this year.

If Mr Carter becomes Speaker, Dr Smith could be rehabilitated back into the ministry without much fuss.

As I see it, there’s four issues here, around whether Nick Smith might return to the ministry.

1. Will John Key change his previous policy of not having former Ministers return to the ministry. The public get rather cynical if a resignation in fact turns out to be a temporary sin-bin. They know that in the real world if you resign your job, you don’t get it back in six months.
2. David Carter may not become Speaker. As I understand it the three main contenders are David Carter, Anne Tolley and Maurice Williamson.
3. What risk is there that if returned to the ministry, Nick may commit another judgement of error. Because if a PM returns a Minister to the ministry, and there is a further judgement of error – then the media and public will hold the Prime Minister responsible, not the Minister.
4. Against the risks in (1) and (3) you balance the benefits of having an experienced and effective Minister back in the Cabinet.

It will be interesting to see what happens in due course.

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key was last night dragged into the widening ACC scandal and forced to deny a report he was part of a group of senior National Party figures who backed Bronwyn Pullar’s bid for a $14 million insurance payout. …

TVNZ current affairs programme Close Up last night said it had received a letter written by Sovereign Insurance to former National Party president Michelle Boag in 2007.

The letter named 28 people, among them prominent National Party figures including John Key and former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley, as supporters of Ms Pullar as she sought a $14 million payout from the company in relation to injuries she suffered in a 2002 cycling accident.

The claim, Sovereign said in the letter, was “greatly in excess of her entitlement”.

Ms Boag is a long-standing friend of Ms Pullar who supported her during her battle with ACC, including attending a December meeting with ACC which has sparked investigations by the police and the Privacy Commissioner.

In the letter, Sovereign noted, it had been given a list of members of Ms Pullar’s “claimed support/advisory team”.

The list included Sir Selwyn Cushing, Mr Key, Dame Jenny and Dr Wayne Mapp.

Mr Key was at the time the Leader of the Opposition.

He has said he met Ms Pullar when he first entered politics – which was shortly after her accident – but had not had any contact with her since he became National Party leader.

Last night, he issued a statement saying: “I have not been involved in any ‘claims support’ or ‘advisory team’ for Bronwyn Pullar.

“The claim in the letter that I was part of such a team in 2007, or indeed any other time, is wrong.”

I have no doubt that John Key was in no way part of any support group or advisory team. I can only assume that any high profile person who expressed sympathy for Bronwyn’s position, was claimed to be a member of said support group.

It is worth noting that this is a letter from Sovereign, not to Sovereign. Also Sovereign did not say exactly who gave them “the list”. The most benign explanation is that these names were mentioned at a meeting, and Sovereign mis-interpreted their status. A less benign explanation is that this was a seriously bad case of trying to big-note it, and worse not just big-noting it but getting it wrong. Claiming the support of the then Leader of the Opposition when he has done no such thing, is incredibly poor judgement to say the least.

Meanwhile, it was reported that when Ms Pullar emailed Dr Smith’s letter to ACC in support of her claim last year, she did so using software enabling her to track each time it was opened and who it was forwarded to without the knowledge of the email’s recipients.

Internet security expert Peter Gutman, of Auckland University, said such “web bugs” were uncommon.

“Spammers use it on a massive scale, and beyond that it’s used only by security geeks.”

This is is an interesting aspect. My comments are based on the media report, and one can not be conclusive without knowing exactly what software was used, and how it works.

I’m not a lawyer but am fairly familiar with S252 of the Crimes Act as InternetNZ lobbied for it to be passed. It says:

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to access that computer system.

Depending on the software it is arguable that use of such tracking software could be an offence. Of course Outlook also has features where you can get read receipts for your e-mails. But Outlook asks the recipient do they wish to allow a read receipt to be sent.

If receipts of some sort are being forwarded from ACC’s computer system, without their authorisation, that is arguably a form of access. I’m not saying any offence has been committed. I’m saying that depending on the software used, there could be an arguable case.

The Herald reports:

Police will not lay charges against freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose over the so-called “teapot tapes” affair, Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess says.

He said police will issue Mr Ambrose with a warning after referring the matter to Crown Law.

“While police have issued a warning in this instance, we are clear that the actions of Mr Ambrose were unlawful.” …

“One factor taken into account is a letter of regret from Mr Ambrose which has been sent to the Prime Minister and Mr Banks. They have both indicated acceptance of this statement.”

This seems a reasonable outcome. It is useful to have the clear opinion of the Police that the actions were unlawful. Without that, it would give the media open licence to leave concealed recorders all over the place.

Stuff reports:

While he only received a warning, Ambrose’s actions were illegal, Burgess said.

Future occurrences were likely to be prosecuted.

“We were satisfied on this occasion that there was (prima facie evidence).

But police decided there was not sufficient public interest in the matter going to court, he said.

“I reached the view that a prosecution was not required in this instance.”

The same grounds on which Helen Clark was not prosecuted.

Transtasman reports:

John Key likes to find different ways to end his post-cabinet press conference so he doesn’t always have to say “that’s it then” and he was inspired recently when the final question was about fracking, the oil exploration technique which upsets the Greens so much. After answering it he collected his papers and departed with the quip “time to frack off, then”

Heh, he must be a closest Battlestar Galactica fan. I actually giggle everytime an MP gets up in the House and talks about fracking.

For those interested, the use of the term “frack” was not unique to the reimagined BSG series, but was used in the original series, as you can see above.

If you have 10 spare minutes, the interview of John Key on Campbell Live is well worth watching in my opinion.

Some extracts from John Key’s speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce:

The first change I’m announcing is that there will be a new results-driven focus for the public service.

So I have identified 10 challenging results that I want to see achieved over the next three to five years.

Achieving these results will be difficult and demanding. In fact for some of them it will be extremely difficult.

This is very welcome, but very risky. Voters will hold the Government to account if these are not achieved, and it is inevitable some of them probably won’t be as the Government doesn’t control all the variables. But it will focus all of Government on meeting these outcomes, rather than just focusing on outputs. The 10 outcomes sought are:

1. a reduction in long-term welfare dependency, in particular a significant drop in the number of people who have been on a benefit for more than 12 months
2. more young children, and particularly Maori and Pacific children, in early childhood education
3. immunisation rates for infants to increase, and a substantial reduction in rheumatic fever cases among children
4. a reduction in the number of assaults on children
5. an increase in the proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or an equivalent qualification
6. a more skilled workforce, with an increase in the number of people coming through with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees
7. a reduction in the crime rate, not just total crime, but also violent crime and youth crime
8. a reduction in the rate of re-offending
9. a one-stop online shop for all government advice and support that businesses need
10. see transactions with government completed easily in a digital environment

I am pleased to see the crime focus is not just on total crime, which is a fairly meaningless figure which counts a minor cannabis offence the same as a murder. Also pleased to see the focus on improving the government’s online presence.

I have appointed Ministers to lead each of these 10 results, along with a public service chief executive who is accountable for demonstrating real progress against his or her result.

Excellent, you need the accountability of a Minister to drive things.

Underneath each of the results will be a measurable and stretching target, like a certain percentage increase or decrease within a particular time.

We have already decided one of these concrete targets.

For example, the Minister of Education has told me that for result number five she has set a target of 85 per cent of 18-year-olds having NCEA level 2 or equivalent in five years.

The current figure is around 68 per cent, so achieving the target will be very tough.

But I don’t want easy targets. I want targets that are going to stretch the ability of the public sector to deliver them, and that are going to force change.

Because if they are easy targets they aren’t worth doing.

This is in fact the most significant part of the speech, rather than the ministry merger which most of the media seemed focused on.

This term, there will be no more than 36,475 full-time equivalent positions in core government administration.

We are under that number now and we will stay under it.

 The cap will count most people working in government departments and in some Crown entities, but doesn’t include frontline staff like teachers, police officers, hospital staff or prison officers.

When we came into Government in 2008, we immediately imposed a cap of just under 39,000 FTE positions in core government administration.

That cap was successful in turning around what had been a huge increase in public service numbers.

The definition of core government administration wasn’t around at the time, but we know that from 2002 to 2008 the number of people employed in government departments increased by around 12,000 FTEs. That’s an overall increase of 38 per cent in just six years.

Our cap changed that. The number of FTE positions in core government administration stopped growing, and then dropped by about 2,400 over three years.

So the cap of 36,475 is still massively higher than the 29,000 it was just a decade ago.

Our intention is to create a new Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 1 July this year.

This new department would integrate the functions of:

• The Ministry of Economic Development.
• The Department of Labour.
• The Ministry of Science and Innovation.
• The Department of Building and Housing.

I have long advocated that we should carry on doing what Labour did in their last term (reversing what National did in the 90s) and have fewer government departments, and fewer Ministers incidentally. You both reduce backend costs, but also make collaboration easier.

And I do want to say that this is the only departmental merger we are currently planning.

 I’m not ruling them out in the future, but there is no plan for wholesale reorganisation.

A pity, but that will at least give some certainty to public servants who are having a tough time of it.

This might be the biggest beatup of the year. TV3 reports:

Labour says a promise by John Key in 2008 shows he has misled the public over job cuts in the public service.

3 News has dug out never seen before footage of Mr Key promising “no job cuts” to the Public Service Association Conference back in 2008.

In fact in a response to a question that day Mr Key argued selling assets didn’t make for a better economy.

“Nor am I hell bent on selling assets, actually in the world of making the boat go faster, actually, I don’t think selling assets actually makes the boat go faster.”

So a speech four years ago before the global economic crisis and before the surplus disappeared into a decade of deficits is seen as a “broken promise” today. Note that Labour and the PSA supplied the video the day before Key’s speech setting out change tomorrow.

The global economic crisis meant National reduced public sector jobs in the first term -just as id cancelled further tax cuts also. Is the PSA demanding National should have kept their tax cuts?

And most of all, National got re-elected in 2011 with explicit policies that there would be asset part-sales, and further cost cutting in the state sector. So how one can claim a 2011 election manifesto is trumped by a 2008 speech, I don’t know.

UPDATE: TV3 inform me that no one supplied them with the video, it was from their library archive.

Jane Clifton reports from the House yesterday:

Prime Minister John Key hit on a cute method of deflating the Opposition’s ambush question strategy yesterday – though he probably won’t try it again.

Asked by Labour leader David Shearer whether he stood by his recent statements – one of those mystery questions that can lead to follow-up questions on just about anything – Mr Key grinned and said, “Yes, specially the one I said to my wife when I told her I loved her.”

This temporarily took the wind out of Mr Shearer’s sails because it’s hard to ask tough questions in a menacing fashion when you’re laughing.

General laughter was prolonged, including applause from Mr Key’s colleagues, and Speaker Lockwood Smith had trouble restoring order.

When finally he got a word in, he said, “Members would be wise to remember that if they include material in their answers, they can be questioned on it.”

“Yes,” cried Labour’s Annette King. “What did she say?”

The PM may be lucky that Labour didn’t ask supplementary questions about Bronagh

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

State housing should be a stepping stone and was no longer about a home for life, Prime Minister John Key says.

His comments followed a protest in the Auckland suburb of Glenn Innes over the weekend.

The protesters were unhappy that state house tenants have been made to leave their homes as part of the Tamaki Transformation Programme, which will upgrade existing houses and build additional ones.

That is Glen Innes incidentally.

Few people want to move house against their will, but when you are a tenant, this happens from time to time.

Key said the Tamaki redevelopment had been planned for a long time and started under the previous Labour government.

“It’s all part of a programme to make sure that we can house what is a very large and growing list of people that need to get in state houses, they’re in real need often living in very poor conditions in garages and areas of deprivation.”

Many people were in state houses that no longer met their needs, such as elderly single people in three or four bedroom homes, he told TV One’s Breakfast programme.

There will always be a limit to the number of state houses available at any time. Hence, one should try and help as many low income families as you can, by making sure that the family size and the house size are aligned.

National was changing the mentality that people were entitled to stay in a state house for life and had brought in fixed-term tenancies.

“In a way it’s a great stepping stone, or platform, if you like; help people in real need, allow them to move on.”

Those in the most need could continue to stay but it was about the relative need of others waiting for a state house, Key said.

Some tenants are no longer poor, and are paying market rents. It makes total sense for them to find a private sector landlord, and let a low income family get the benefit of a state house.

Photo from Stuff.

Captions should be funny, not nasty.

Stuff reports:

A RadioLive show hosted by the Prime Minister John Key prior to the election has been referred to the police for breaching the Broadcasting Act.

The Electoral Commission confirmed this morning that it had referred the broadcaster to police. …

NewstalkZB said it had obtained a copy of the report, which found the show violated the act. RadioLive could be fined up to $100,000 for the breach.

The BSA had earlier found the show was not an election programme and would not have breached standards even if it were.

It looks like Radio Live, rather than the PM, may be in the gun in a legal sense. But if the show is found in court to be a breach of the law, it will be politically embarrassing to the PM, no doubt.

I think it is safe to conclude there will not be a repeat show – or at least not during the regulated period anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the Police do. A show with Shane Jones in it was referred to them for investigation in 2008. I can’t recall what the outcome was in that case.

Good to see the media are backpedalling on the Waitangi Pub crawl in London story and giving more balance such as the Police actually praising the event and its organisers.

In the latest story at Stuff, they have comments from both John Key and Phil Goff. And if I was a lecturer in political communications, I would get my students to analyse this story. I think it is a good insight into how the way you say things can impact how you are perceived.

First what Goff said:

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff said nobody minded people having a good time but vomiting and defecating in public didn’t do much for New Zealand’s reputation in Europe.

“I’ve no problem if they’re crazy enough to take their shirts off and do a haka in the middle of the snow in London in February, fine.

“But I know that when I was living in London and you saw people on the tube that were vomiting and urinating you took offence at that.”

People at home wouldn’t like it is a group of English people behaved similarly here, he said. 

“By all means go have a good time but when it comes to behaving offensively in a public place, it’s not on for people to be damaging our reputation by behaving in our way.”

Goff comes across as automatically accepting there was really bad behaviour, twice goes on about vomiting, defecating and urinating and says we wouldn’t like people doing it here. Overall comes over as a bit of a killjoy.

Prime Minister John Key said he was not surprised New Zealanders in London took part in a rowdy Waitangi Day pub crawl, saying “celebrating is part of what they do” in the British capital.

“On one level it’s great people all over the world are celebrating Waitangi Day. We would hope they would not get out of control.”

Reports of bad behaviour should not be “over-egged”, he said.

“New Zealanders are well known for having a pretty good time when they are out in London. I’d encourage them to have good behaviour where they can.

Key admitted he too celebrated Waitangi Day when he lived in London by “having a couple of beers”.

“I kept my shirt on though.”

While in one sense Key and Goff are saying the same thing (have fun but do not go overboard), Key comes over far more positive (and dare I say it relaxed) and less killjoyish.

Now you might say who cares. But how the public perceive politicians does impact how they vote. They like politicians whom they can relate to, and whom they are “normal”.

The most powerful political image of last year, was (ironically) shown the day after the election, of John Key in bare feet outside his front door picking up the pizzas, as they wait for results. It was on the front page of one of the Sunday papers, and was an incredibly powerful image. It said four things to people:

• The Prime Minister relaxes in shorts and bare feet at home – just like most Kiwis do. Not in a suit.
• The Prime Minister orders pizza, just like many families do
• The PM actually goes out and pays/signs for it himself rather than sending someone else out
• Despite it being the day which might evict him from office, he is relaxing at home with his kids, eating pizza

Of course such stuff is not the only thing that impacts politics. Policies and performance do also. But the contrast between how Goff and Key came across, despite trying to say the same thing I thought was a good lesson in communications – how to do it, and how not to do it.

Well, this is surprising. The Herald reports:

Mr Harawira said he “hated to say it” but he admired Mr Key for choosing to be the “bigger man”.

“In my view he is to be respected, that in the face of opposition – some of it quite strident – he chooses to come back year after year.”

Key’s response is the right one, in my opinion also. The PM should be at Waitangi on Waitangi Day.

However I have been of the view for some time that we should have a New Zealand Day, as well as a Waitangi Day.

John Key has said in a speech:

the Government’s four key priorities for the term are to:

• responsibly manage the Government’s finances
• build a more competitive and productive economy
• deliver better public services
• rebuild Christchurch.

The rebuilding of Christchurch may prove to be the most challenging. The continual after-shocks are making it very hard.

Mr Key said that the Government’s focus on responsibly managing its finances includes a commitment to return to surplus in 2014/15 – which National campaigned on at the election.  The Budget Policy Statement, which will be released on February 16, will update the track toward that surplus.

“Today I can confirm that we are still on track to post a surplus in 2014/15, and the upcoming Budget Policy Statement will show a forecast surplus in the range of $300 to $500 million in that year,” Mr Key said.

That is getting tight. It will be extremely challenging.