Another awful poll for National (and great for Labour)

Today’s 1 News/Colmar Brunton poll is bad news for National, and very similar to the Newshub/Reid Research poll out earlier this week and also a recent leaked UMR poll:

  • Labour 59%
  • National 29%
  • Greens 4.7%
  • NZ First 3 %
  • ACT 2%
  • Maori Party 1%
  • The Opportunities Party 1%

Refused to answer 5%, undecided 11%. Fieldwork conducted 16-20 May.

The ‘preferred Prime Minister was as bad (and exceptional for Ardern):

  • Jacinda Ardern 63% (+21 from last October))
  • Simon Bridges 5% (-6)
  • Judith Collins 3%
  • Winston Peters 1% (-2)
  • Nikki Kaye 0.4%
  • Todd Muller 0.2%

Notable also is that both Greens and NZ First are under the threshold, and Peters is also dropping to negligible ‘preferred’.

So Labour very strong, Act ok (if Seymour can hold Epsom), Greens in the danger zone and NZ First/Peters really struggling.

Of course tomorrow’s National leadership showdown adds importance to this result.

David Farrar very quick off the mark with the poll results but no commentary: Latest poll
(but his Curia poll average hasn’t been updated for three months).

And Greg at The Standard was ready to rumble: The Colmar Brunton poll

Last legs of leadership for Bridges

Talk of changing the Leader of the Opposition is not uncommon, especially by political opponents trying to stir, but after another very poor poll result for himself and for National it looks like the last legs of leadership for Simon Bridges.

In fact bridges says he knows of two challengers and the National leadership will be put to the test by next Tuesday at the latest (when the next caucus meeting is scheduled).

I don’t think National can afford to let it drag out that long.

Poll support has been turned badly against National, They started the year with two good results (RR 43.3% and CB 46%) but a leaked UMR polls this year have gone 38%, 35% to 29% last month (with Labour up to 55%).

And polling last week by Newshub/Reid Research matched this with National on 30.6% (Labour 56.5).

And while in ‘Preferred Prime Minister’ Bridges had been creeping up to 11% in February, UMR had him down to 7% lst month and RR has him on 4.5%.

The performance of bridges through the Covid crisis has been sometimes ok-ish but was often criticised for being out of touch. He also has a problem with his presentation. He often appears to be negative and whiny, and there is no easy fix to that.

there is now open support of an alternative leader from ex-Prime Minister and National leader Jim Bolger: Former PM Jim Bolger backs Todd Muller for next National leader

Bolger told RNZ’s Checkpoint that MP Todd Muller had the attributes to be National’s next leader.

Muller, who worked in Bolger’s office when he was Prime Minister, is understood to have the numbers to roll Simon Bridges, should its caucus make that decision when it meets next Tuesday.

Bolger said he was sure the National caucus was doing a lot of “soul-searching” as it tried to determine the way ahead.

I’m sure some of the National caucus will have informed Bolger of that. Him going public is an ominous sign for Bridges.

And after being defiant following Monday’s poll Bridges now concedes he has challengers. Newshub: MPs will challenge for National Party leadership, Simon Bridges confirms

“There is a focus on the leadership of the National Party. I understand that two of my colleagues will challenge, want to and seek to challenge, Paula Bennett and I for the leadership and the deputy leadership of the National Party,” he told The AM Show.

He refused to name the two colleagues, how he came to know of the challenge, if he had spoken to the MPs, or when they will announce their run for the top jobs.

“I think it is for them to state their leadership intentions. I want to give them the dignity of being able to make their statements,” Bridges said.

Bridges called for the issue to be resolved quickly so the focus can get back on Kiwis. He said he will put his leadership to the test by Tuesday at the latest.

“I am very confident that I will win, but I do want to put it to the test as I say, so we can quickly resolve this and get back to the things that matters for New Zealanders.

When a leader in a weak and weakening position concedes he has challengers it looks like he is toast.

National’s pollster David Farrar as good as confirms the leadership challenge at Kiwiblog: National’s leadership

As with any major political event I will cover it on Kiwiblog, but as has been my long standing practice I won’t share my opinions on what I think Caucus should do… (because he works for the party and because he knowns many MPs very well).

My only advice to National is to not let things fester.


Todd Muller looks the most likely replacement. He has been MP for Bay of Plenty since 2014, and while not well known has done a lot of work on National’s climate change policy, which largely supports what the Government is doing.

He has a healthy majority, getting more than double the votes of his Labour challenger last election.

Judith Collins is another likely challenger, but the ongoing word is she doesn’t have a lot of support among National MPs. Cameron Slater has stopped openly promoting her. All National MPs seem to have distanced themselves from Slater (he switched to promoting Winston Peters three years ago and that appears to be his current agenda) but the taint remains for Collins. Salter keeps dumping on just about everyone else in National.


I was going to post about Stuff giving Bridges some free self promotion – Simon Bridges: Five things we need to do to get New Zealand working after Covid-19 – but that seems to be a last gasp now.


Bridges is being interviewed on NZ now. He starts by diverting to ‘focussing on the issues of the day’.

But he is refocussed quickly and he concedes what has been reported already without naming the challengers.

He switches to electioneering again but is refocussed again. He says he is very confident he and Paula Bennett have the numbers, but they all say that.

He claims he has an ‘overwhelming majority’ support.

He says he isn’t surprised by the polls when asked about Colmar Brunton who is polling right now (to be published tomorrow apparently) and in the current circumstances that is unlikely to help Bridges.


Judith Collins has ruled out challenging.

All the word is that Todd Muller is challenging with Nikki Kaye deputy (the two people are a single ticket).

 

Pressure mounts for National and NZ First, Greens still bordeline

The latest Reid Research poll may well be the best result that Labour and Jacinda Ardern get unless the transition out of lockdown and getting the economy up and running again goes smoothly.

But with National on 30% and Simon bridges dropping to 4.5% as preferred Prime Minister the pressure continues to build over leadership, and also for survival for many National MPs.

If National drop to around 30% in the election in September they are unlikely to get any list MPs back into Parliament, and their may be an overhang with their electorate MPs possibly adding up to more than their MMP proportion of votes.

Bridges has sometimes seemed ok but often comes across poorly. The key reason why there are not challengers queueing up is that no one else wants to become leader facing likely defeat.

However the risk with keeping Bridges on is that he could drag National down further, which would be bad for list MPs and MPs in marginal electorates wanting to keep their jobs.


NZ First have not polled over 5% this year in published polls, and slipped to 2.7% in the latest.

Winston Peters hasn’t even featured on ‘preferred Prime Minister’ coverage of the latest poll.

It’s unwise to count NZ First out before an election but they have been dumped before while in Government, in 2008. Each recovery mission must be getting harder for Peters and riskier for his party.

With Labour polling over 50% they wouldn’t need NZ First even if the latter survives the election. Challenging times for Peters.


Greens made the cut, just, getting 5.5%, but they have been struggling to keep over the threshold in polls and they are openly struggling to get donations.

Labour’s popularity may benefit the Greens as long as it doesn’t suck oxygen and support from the minor party.

Not having a single strong and prominent leader works against the Greens beyond their core of dedicated supporters.

And on current polling Labour wouldn’t need the Greens to form a Government. Even if they formed a coalition the Greens are likely to be in a weak bargaining position.


A lot could happen over they next four months, and political support can evaporate as quickly as it can build.

But as Covid continues to dominate the news and public attention, and as Ardern continues to receive adulation and deserved praise, voters may ignore the inadequacies of some of her ministers and keep dishing out support.

National came close but always failed to get enough votes to rule alone under MMP.

In the current circumstances and with current levels of support Labour and Ardern look to be in the strongest position of any party to win a majority alone.

Cannabis referendum could be ignored or low priority by incoming Government

We get to vote on the cannabis legislation that allows for recreational for those 20 or older bit with strict controls.

But will the next Government honour the result if a majority vote in favour? There’s no guarantee of that as it is not a binding referendum.

The cannabis reform bill got this far due to a governing agreement between Greens and Labour at the Green Party’s request. The Greens have not had a strong influence in Government (they operate outside Cabinet) and the Bill is quite conservative.

And it could still be ignored or put on the back burner. At best it could take a year or two to happen, depending on what priority the Government gives it in the next term.

If Greens don’t make the threshold, or just get in again with a small number of MPs, or are rejected by Labour in the next governing arrangement (NZ First may make a condition of support being that Greens are left out), then Greens may have little or no say.

NZ First + Labour may not honour the referendum result, but that would be a ridiculous stance for NZ First given their insistence on referendums to let the people decide.

If National lead the next Government they may ignore the will of the people, they have been very conservative on cannabis reform.

But a possibility that should not be ignored is if Act get a few seats and enable National to govern – they may insist on change.

Peter Dunne discusses these issues except the last point (Newsroom):  Cannabis questions dropped in too hard basket?

Given that the moves towards freeing up the recreational cannabis market were primarily Green Party initiatives that neither Labour nor especially New Zealand First were all that keen about, the proposal that has now emerged hangs together reasonably well. It is an improvement on the current de facto situation, and for that reason alone is worth supporting in the referendum.

However, possibly reflecting the awkwardness of its development, it is far from perfect, with a significant number of issues either apparently unresolved, or seemingly parked in a very deep too hard basket.

What happens if the referendum supports change?

The present Government has made it clear that while it will not regard the outcome as binding, it will undertake to introduce reform legislation at some unspecified time during the next Parliamentary term.

There is no guarantee within that commitment that any such legislation will mirror the referendum proposals or that the Labour Party will even support it beyond its introduction stage. If, for example, the Greens have less influence in the next government, what influence will that have on the shape of legislation? Conversely, if the next government is more reliant on New Zealand First, what assurance is there that a Bill will even make it to the introduction stage?

Should the National Party lead the next government, the prospects for any form of legislative change following on from a positive referendum vote seem pretty low, based on statements to date from its various spokespeople.

They reinforce my own experience working as Associate Health Minister responsible for drug policy, in the last National-led government where National was extraordinarily wary of any changes to drug laws.

How long it will take to pass such legislation?

Typically, a Bill of this type takes between six and nine months to pass through all its stages in the House, including the select committee process and the hearing of public submissions.

Even if such a Bill were to be introduced early in the life of the next government, it would most probably be the latter half of 2021 at the absolute earliest before it would be passed by Parliament. Again, typically, allowing time of say two to three months as a minimum for the development and implementation of the regulatory regime to follow, it would most likely be late next year at the earliest before recreational cannabis could be legally available.

So if the law change is supported will people wait until it actually becomes law? If not, how will the Police deal with it?

In the meantime, assuming a vote for change, there will be a strong public feeling that having voted for change it should be permissible to use cannabis recreationally immediately.

That would put the police in a very awkward position. Would they be quietly encouraged to go lightly on the current law, because it is about to change, which would be a very dangerous precedent, or would they be expected to keep enforcing a law that everyone knows is about to be overturned?

Either way, their position is invidious, and does not appear to have given been sufficient consideration. Certainly, to date, the Government has given no indication of its thinking on this point, which is not helpful.

Maybe they haven’t thought about it. The Greens should be making sure the Government does think ahead on this.

Presumably, the police would be expected to enforce these new restrictions vigorously, otherwise they are pointless. But enforcement of this type would lead to more people coming before the Courts for diversion, a fine, community service, or even possible imprisonment.

However, the current law on illegal use has been barely enforced by the police for years now, so it is an open question whether they would be any more diligent in enforcing any new, tighter law. And if they are not going to do so, what is the point of making the law tougher?

Current policing attitudes notwithstanding, one of the strongest criticisms over the years from cannabis reform advocates has been of what they have seen as the clogging of the Courts from cannabis prosecutions and the consequent labelling for life of many people with criminal records as drug offenders.

Yet under the new regime, this could potentially intensify, making the situation much less satisfactory than at present.

An unintended consequence could be more arrests and convictions.

All this could be rendered moot if the majority vote against change.

If a small majority vote for change it may give National or NZ First (or Labour without the Greens) to drag it out over years, or ignore it altogether.

The best way to make it difficult to ignore the referendum result is for a significant majority to vote in favour of the modest reform being proposed, but it could be difficult getting enough to see it this way.

A hard to ignore leaked poll: Labour 55%, National 29%

The bottom line for a UMR poll (warning – leaked private poll) conducted between 21-27 April as we approached the end of the Level 4 lockdown:

  • Labour 55%
  • National 29%
  • NZ First 6%
  • Greens 5%
  • ACT 3%

(But RNZ have NZF and Greens swapped: “It has polled the Green Party at 6%, New Zealand First on 5%”)

With NZ First and Greens on similar levels to other recent polls this suggests a big chunk of ex-national supporters have swung to Labour, but at the same time ACT has improved.

This looks grim for National, and it’s no wonder the talk of Simon Bridges and leadership has ramped up lately.

There’s a lot that can happen before the election with Covid and the economy, but it’s a big challenge for National to turn this around without changing their approach or their leader.

Also Preferred Prime Minister:

  • Jacinda Ardern 65%
  • Simon Bridges 7%
  • Judith Collins 7%
  • Winston Peters 3%

If a Labour activist could make up a poll result that was sort of credible but great for Labour and terrible for National it would look something like this, but all they have had to do is leak their actual poll. There have been similar numbers mentioned over the past couple of weeks.

NZ Herald: A leaked poll shows National has dropped below 30 per cent, and Labour at 55 per cent

But speaking to the Herald, Bridges rubbished the poll.

“UMR are Labour’s pollsters and are consistently, badly wrong.”

He added that Labour “should be focused on getting New Zealand back to work, not leaking dodgy numbers”.

But this is a big pig of a revelation for National, and Bridges is rough at applying lipstick.

Polling under 30 per cent is a huge psychological barrier for National and means many of their current list MPs would lose their jobs at this year’s election.

It wasn’t long ago that 40% would have been seen as pretty bad for National.

And perhaps more good news for the Government – the poll shows that 78 per cent of New Zealanders believe the country is heading in the right direction.

The number of people saying New Zealand is on the right track hasn’t been this high on a UMR poll since 1991.

“This can again only be attributed to a rallying around in a national crisis and a related current confidence in the government steps taken to combat Covid-19,” UMR said in its commentary.”

Again, things could change, but I expect this poll will be in a post at The Standard very quickly and not so fast at Kiwiblog.

NOTE:

  1. As far as it’s possible to determine I think that Labour’s internal polls conducted by UMR have tended to favour Labour.
  2. Leaked polls should always be viewed with some suspicion but more details seem to have been made available this time to media.
  3. At a time of crisis with a Government generally seen to be managing things well it is going to benefit, and the Opposition is likely to not benefit

UPDATE: The Standard posted on this an hour and a half ago – UMR’s bombshell poll result

By my count National have 39 electorate MPs and 18 list MPs. If they got 29% in the election they would not get enough MPs to get any list MPs, there would be an overhang of a few MPs.

I can imagine a few list MPs will be getting a bit nervous about their futures – like Paul Goldsmith, Michael Woodhouse, Alfred Ngaro, Melissa Lee, Juan Yang, Brett Hudson, Nicola Willis etc

Constructive Simon Bridges interview on NZ Q+A

Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges cam across surprisingly well in an interview on NZ Q+A this morning. He was supportive of many Government actions in dealing with Covid-19, and his criticisms were reasonable and constructive on quarantining people arriving in New Zealand and Covid testing.

He also pushed for more businesses to be able to open.

1 News: Bridges calls for more businesses to safely operate during lockdown

A “constructive conversation” is needed on whether contactless businesses should be able to run safely during lockdown, National leader Simon Bridges says.

“When you think about our economy, the longer we see the devastation, the job losses, the businesses going under, it’s heart attacks, it’s mental health issues, it’s fatalities in its own way,” Mr Bridges told TVNZ1’s Q+A with Jack Tame.

“Let’s try and deal with some of the randomness where one is an essential service and one isn’t, let’s be agile and potentially we can move to a more risk-based system.”

Mr Bridges said the country needed to be “quite agile about those questions now and certainly if lockdown goes longer”.

“The Government needs to do everything it can to have the most effective lockdown so we can get out of this as soon as we can.

“We’re devastating our economy, we’re curtailing freedoms, so the sooner we can get out the better.”

Mr Bridges also called for an increase to testing, pushing the daily tests into the “tens of thousands”.

As of yesterday, a total of 33,116 Covid-19 tests had been done, with the country at a capacity to do over 6000 tests per day.

“If you dealt with everyone who had symptoms, close contact, overseas, you would be testing more,” Mr Bridges said.

Full interview via https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/bridges-calls-more-businesses-safely-operate-during-lockdown

Government , National both announce hot air on dealing with Covid-19 effects on the economy

Two economic announcements today, one from the Government, one from the National Party, are dripping with political campaigning.

The Government has announced they will be making announcements this week, and are assuring media they have already done some things to help businesses adversely affected by the Covid-19 virus.

Beehive: Next steps of Govt and business COVID-19 response

This week the Government will roll out the next steps of its plans to support businesses and workers as part of New Zealand’s ongoing response to COVID-19.

These initiatives will be on top of the immediate measures already in place, including support for the tourism and fisheries industries, an increase in business support funding, and tax and income assistance through IRD and MSD.

“Ministers are actively considering a range of options in response to the impact of COVID-19, and Cabinet will discuss these tomorrow,” Finance Minister Grant Robertson said.

So Robertson has given assurances the Government is doing something, and says that Cabinet will consider doing more tomorrow.  he follows with general political palaver, and then explains what they have been doing.

Last week, the Ministers of Finance and Revenue met with the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, the Tourism Industry Association and Xero to discuss the situation.

Grant Robertson also met with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank Governor to discuss macro-economic impacts as a result of the coronavirus.

“We’re taking the time now to work with industries to plan for how we kick-start activity again as we exit out the other side of COVID-19. What we do know is that this will pass.”

So more talking, but nothing really to announce yet.

Note to editors: The Government is already taking the following actions:

Trying to get editors and media to say how well they have already been doing things.

  • Continuing to work closely with banks to ensure they are being proactive with their clients
  • Improving cashflow for small businesses by signalling action on prompt payment terms and times
  • Inland Revenue is entering into instalment arrangements and waiving penalties on a case by case basis where individuals and businesses have had their income and cashflow affected
  • An extra $4 million invested in the Regional Business Partner Programme to allow for extra advisors and give them more time on the ground supporting businesses
  • Working with Xero to get real-time information about the impacts on business, particularly SMEs.

Not much there considering the virus impact on business activity. We will have to see what they come out with later this week.

Aimed directly at the Government announcement, National have also made an economic policy announcement today, aimed at concerns over the current virus induced slowdown.

Paul Goldsmith: Relief package needed as NZ nears recession

With four banks now forecasting negative growth it’s past time for the Government to announce a relief package to help people stay in their jobs, National’s Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“When Cabinet meets tomorrow, this should be at the top of its agenda. This needs to be a detailed package to support businesses and workers directly affected by the coronavirus outbreak.

Political palaver edited out.

“It now seems quite likely New Zealand will go into a recession this year.

It’s not good for a major party to be talking up an economic recession.

“Businesses need clear and urgent action from the Government to help them through this period of uncertainty, not just tinkering around the edges and ad-hoc announcements that lack detail.”

So this announcement doesn’t say anything of importance.

Simon Bridges was just on RNZ saying National were announcing part one (of five) of their economic policy, but it was mostly about a promise to cut red tape, cutting two bits of red tape for every bit they introduce, or something. Bridges mentioned a few things that annoy businesses, but this really sounded like opportunist tinkering around the edges.

RNZ: National wants ‘common-sense test’ on health and safety regulations

National says it would introduce a “health and safety common-sense test” if elected, as part of its plan to slash red-tape burdening small businesses.

The Government is at risk of being seen to as slow to react to the developing economic problems, on to of their reputation for talking more than doing. They have to come up with substantial and urgent plans this week to address things.

It will unveil the “first plank” in its five-point economic growth plan this morning, outlining how it will reduce regulation.

Leader Simon Bridges said the programme was about giving small businesses confidence and creating an economy “where it’s not just burden and cost”.

If elected, National said it would commit to a “bonfire on regulations”, doing away with two regulations for every new one introduced.

It would also scrap 100 regulations within the first six months.

So this doesn’t address the Covid-19 effects at all. Ironically the virus requires increased regulations or restrictions.

National are risking putting more negative pressure on the economy, not a good look for a party that claims to be better at managing the economy. At times when the country (and the world) faces potentially major economic difficulties a responsible party would put the good of the nation ahead of their own election campaign. There will be plenty of time for them to bicker and propose their own ideas that can’t be implemented until later in the year at the earliest.

Both Labour and National have started the week doing little but grandstanding. Struggling businesses deserve better than that.


UPDATE: Jacinda Ardern has just been interviewed on RNZ and was asked if the Government would include National in their talks. Ardern said that National were being kept informed and any suggestions from National on what could be done better would be welcome as it was a global and national problem. Sounds good, but whether there’s any substance to cross-party cooperation on this it is yet to be seen.

I’ll post a link when it becomes available

Three people want name suppression lifted, two don’t

Three of the four people charged by the SFO over donations to the National party want their identities revealed. That means one doesn’t.

And the Labour youth camp assaulter wants his identity kept secret, although the judge has hinted that suppression may end after the election.

NZ Herald: National Party donations accused want suppression lifted

Three of four men facing Serious Fraud Office charges over two $100,000 donations to the National Party have applied for a judge to lift their name suppression.

The change of heart comes after the men brought an urgent application for suppression on January 31, just two days after the SFO filed charges against the group.

Judge Eddie Paul granted all four temporary secrecy and said in his judgment the hearing was rushed through after 5pm in the Auckland District Court after journalists indicated they would identify the accused in the next 24 hours.

“It seems to me the Criminal Procedure Act anticipates that there is some restraint exercised by the media until the first appearance so that the proper exercise of defendant’s rights can be exercised. Publication now would, in my view, abrogate those rights and that simply cannot be permitted.”

However, three of the men have today asked a judge to revoke the order, according to a public relations firm hired by the trio.

“Three of the four defendants appearing in court next week following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into National Party donations have applied to have the name suppression orders associated with the case lifted,” a statement by Pead PR reads.

“Legal counsel for the three defendants confirmed the application is before the Auckland District Court and is currently being considered by a judge.”

Obviously that leaves one still wanting to remain unidentified. One could presume that’s the one charged with supplying false information to the SFO but that’s not necessarily so.

The Labour youth camp assault is back in court over ongoing name suppression.

NZ Herald: Young man fights for secrecy in Labour Party summer camp scandal

A young man who pleaded guilty to assaulting two others at a drunken Labour Party summer camp argues his identity should be kept forever hidden.

The High Court judge considering the appeal has also contemplated suppressing his name until after this year’s general election as the case is kicked about like a political football.

Suppression dependant on an election is a bit concerning.

The now 22-year-old was discharged without conviction but also declined permanent name suppression by Judge Russell Collins at his sentencing last November.

His lawyer Emma Priest today appealed the decision in the High Court at Auckland before Justice Christian Whata.

Priest said there had been “extreme media” coverage of the case, and the trial was “highly politicised”.

During last year’s trial, the young man reached a deal with prosecutors after facing five charges of indecent assault, which related to four people: two men and two women.

He pleaded guilty to two amended charges of assault under the Summary Offences Act for the events at the young Labour event near Waihi in February 2018.

The assault charges were for the allegations against the two men. The charges against the two women were dismissed.

But victims aren’t happy.

After the sentencing, one of the victims was interviewed by Newstalk ZB, which Priest said today was not a “fair statement of what happened in the court”.

In the interview, the victim said the case had became a political football.

“If I’ve gone through this without justice, what about everyone else that goes through the system?” he said.

“I would have liked for him to actually have been given a consequence that reflects his behaviour.”

But I’d be surprised if a suppression decision can be based on charges that were withdrawn.

But Priest said her client did not want to engage in defamation proceedings or go to the Media Council.

“He just wants it all to go away.”

Most people who have been in court due to illegal actions would like it all to ‘go away”.

However, Justice Whata told Priest: “What you’re asking the court to do is suppress something that is highly topical.

“Actually, that’s why we have freedom of speech.”

He said public discussion of the case might be deemed as unfair to the offender but could also be seen to be unfair to the complainants.

Justice Whata said he was conscious there should not be any perceived special treatment for anyone in political parties.

He contemplated continuing suppression until after this year’s election.

“We’ve got an election coming up, and dollars to doughnuts this will be all over that and his face associated with it.”

Justice Whata reserved his decision on suppression and said he couldn’t promise a result in the near future as he “gave it careful consideration”.

Sounds like the judge is tending towards lifting suppression, but is inclined towards kicking the can down the road for a while, possibly until after the election.

But this could have an effect on suppression in the above donations case, where I think it is important that everything is out in the open.

 

SFO charges involve two $100k National donations

Newsroom: Not one, but two $100k donations to National in court

Court charging documents released to the media by order of Auckland District Court Judge Edwin Paul today show that three of the four defendants – whose names are suppressed ahead of a hearing next week – each face two joint charges of deception over a sum of $100,000 donated to National in 2017 and $100,050 donated to the party in 2018. The maximum penalty if convicted on the charge is seven years’ imprisonment.

The fourth person is charged jointly with the others only over the second $100,050 donation – but also faces one charge of providing misleading information to the SFO.

The SFO’s wording for the joint deception charges says: “By deception or without claim of right directly or indirectly obtained for the National Party possession of, or control over, any property, namely a $100,050 [for the 2018 charge] donation made to the National Party between June 1, 2018 and June 8, 2018 (“the 2018 donation”) in circumstances where the identity of the donor was not disclosed in the National Party’s Annual Return of Party Donations.”

The SFO describes the offending over the donations in these words: “The defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem whereby the … donation was split into sums of money less than $15,000 and transferred into bank accounts of eight different people before being paid to, and retained by, the National Party.”

For the fourth person’s charge of misleading the SFO, the charging document says: “In the course of complying with a requirement … of the Serious Fraud Act 1990 supplied information knowing it was false or misleading in a material particular.”

The SFO says of that charge that this defendant told investigators a $100,000 sum transferred to their account was a deposit for a building on another person’s property – when the money had been intended as a donation to the National Party. Further, in 2019 the defendant created, signed and back-dated a contract to that end, when no real contract for that work existed. The office alleges the made-up contract copied wording from an unrelated contract.

While none of the four charged are directly connected to the National Party (according to National), and it’s possible National are innocent recipients of the donations, at best this still doesn’t look good for National, and could still get much worse.

Will National pay both donations back? If so that will drain their coffers somewhat.

Bridges botches tax plan accouncement

Simon Bridges launched an economic plan today that was high on rhetoric but low on specifics. The lack of detail left a vacuum that has been quickly filled with a focus on a sloppy (at best) statement on average earnings tax rates.

In his speech:  National’s economic plan for 2020

We will announce our full tax plan that will see people on the average wage better off and keeping more of what they earn.

People on the average wage shouldn’t be paying almost 33 per cent in the dollar.

People on ‘the average wage’ have little or none of their earnings taxed at a rate of 33%. Many others have pointed out that average wage earners are taxed closer to 17% overall on earnings.

Alex Brae at The Spinoff:  Good news for Simon Bridges: his big tax idea is already happening

Bridges said during the announcement that in a future announcement he “will announce our full tax plan that will see people on the average wage better off and keeping more of what they earn.” So let that be announced.

And then he declared: “People on the average wage shouldn’t be paying almost 33 per cent in the dollar.”

So what is the average wage then? Stats NZ figures from last year put the median weekly income at $1016, which added up per annum comes to a shade under $53,000.

So what is the effective tax rate for someone on the median wage? Fortunately, IRD has a calculator which can tell you exactly this information. Here it is:

Calculated out, someone on the median wage ends up paying about 17% of their income in income tax.

There is another potential way of calculating it though, which could bring it closer to the mark. Stats NZ’s latest Quarterly Employment Survey shows an average income of $1,243 a week, or $64,650 a year. The difference is over ‘medians’ or ‘means’ – either the middle number selected in a set of numbers, or the sum total of a collection of numbers which is then divided by the number of numbers, which can be heavily skewed by upper outliers.

Such a figure would create a whole new share of tax being paid – you can see that here:


So in either case no earnings are taxed at 33%, let alone all of them.

This is either highly ignorant of Bridges, or the alternate assumption is that he has tried to deliberately mislead.

The National media release:  National’s economic plan for 2020 and beyond

National Leader Simon Bridges has today outlined National’s economic plan heading into election 2020.

“National understands the economy and how it impacts on New Zealanders day to day lives.”

Big whoops.

Either way it looks poor, and is an embarrassing way to try to present National as competent on economic matters.

Here are their bullet points.

Only National has a strong economic plan. This includes;

  • Keeping taxes low
  • Keeping debt low and being responsible managers of the economy
  • Growing incomes and lowering the cost of living
  • Investing more in core public services
  • Creating more jobs and opportunities for all New Zealanders.

The Measures we will use to hold ourselves accountable include;

  • Lifting New Zealand’s economic growth back to at least three per cent per annum
  • Lifting New Zealand’s GDP per capita growth to the top ten in the OECD
  • Reducing the after-tax income tax gap with Australia
  • Reducing the number of New Zealander’s who feel they have to leave for opportunities overseas
  • Reviving business confidence so that businesses feel like they can take more risks and create opportunities for you and your family.

“National will release a full package of policies leading up to the election which will address tax, regulation, infrastructure, small business and families.

A lot more care will need to be taken over the full package, but today’s announcement has set things off badly for Bridges.

Labour opposition leaders have been slammed in the past for fluffing economic policy announcements, by media and by National.

Bridges deserves similar scrutiny and criticism on this performance.