Mark Waugh rips Warner

Mark "Junior" Waugh has ripped in to Australian cricketer David Warner and some of his mates; Stuff reports:

Commentator and former Test star Mark Waugh says opener David Warner is over-sensitive and immature, and some Australian international cricketers need to pull their heads in.
Waugh, reacting to the furore over Warner's abusive texts about News Limited journalists at the weekend, said it was not a “major incident”, but Warner needeed to change his ways.
“I mean it's not a good look for David Warner, I think it's the second or third time he's sort of tweeted out some words which haven't been that smart,” Waugh told SEN radio.
“He's got to learn from this. Its not the ideal situation you want to see from supposedly one of your senior players or one of the most important players in your squad.
"He's probably got to get a thicker skin really... As a player you're not going to get people telling you how great you are every day of the week.
‘‘There's times you've got to cop the good with the bad and I think he's had problems doing that so far in his career."
Cricket Australia spokesman Philip Pope said an independent commissioner, to be appointed today, would deal with Warner's tirade, a breach of rule six of Cricket Australia's code of behaviour dealing with conduct unbecoming. He expects a ruling later in the week. Sanctions, including fines, were at the discretion of the commissioner. 

In the meantime, we were sent this yesterday by a social media friend:

David Warner has been a bit short of runs in recent weeks. Maybe a bit more time in the nets and a bit less time on Twitter will see him rediscover his form before the back to back Ashes series; if the selectors or Cricket Australia want him, of course.

Whoops; TVNZ forgot to mention that...

TVNZ had a story last night on the Greens' latest petition. The story included this snippet:

Kiwi rowing champ Rob Hamill spoke at the campaign launch this afternoon, and compared the issue to New Zealand saying no to nuclear power.
"I think it's time New Zealanders had a voice in the issue, because it's such a big issue for this country," he said.

Interestingly, TVNZ didn't think it was of any significance to mention a certain fact about Rob Hamill. Fortunately, the NZ Herald did:

Olympic rower Rob Hamill and young champion surfer Mischa Davis have thrown their support behind a new campaign to protect what they say is a major threat to New Zealand beaches.
The duo joined forces today for the launch of the Green Party's bid to stop deep-sea drilling in New Zealand waters.
Mr Hamill, also a former Green Party candidate, said the Government could not be trusted to ensure risks were mitigated for exploratory drilling planned for the west coast of the North Island and the east coast of the South Island.

Now we don't know whether the Greens simply forgot to mention in their media releases that Rob Hamill was on their 2008 party list (although they certainly weren't publicity-shy in 2008!), or whether someone in the TVNZ newsroom thought that it was something insignificant, which didn't matter. 

We don't have a problem with people with a public profile for other reasons becoming involved with political campaigns. But let's make sure that any links are made known, and that the person in question, in this case Rob Hamill, isn't presented as some kind of neutral when they clearly aren't.

Watkins on English

Tracy Watkins profiles Bill English and his value to National in her Budget wrap-up; she opines:

There are two things about a Bill English speech that listeners could set their watch by.
They are a quip about the prime minister, and a chart depicting the debt track under National.
The joke about the prime minister usually comes about 30 seconds in.
Yesterday's effort was about arriving at work in a new suit and tie to deliver his fifth Budget.
"The first thing the prime minister said to me was, 'when are you going to get changed for the Budget?'," Mr English says.
The punchline? His attire was as boring and predictable as his Budgets.
The debt track graph usually comes about halfway in.
It shows the difference between when National came into office and now. Debt peaks at $78 billion in 2013 under the old forecasts, compared with $58b now and on a downward trajectory. The message is never lost on his audiences. National is knocking the books into shape.
The other figure, of course, is the forecast deficit. Everyone had their eyes on the wrong prize in this week's Budget, Mr English insists. The good-news story was not the wafer-thin $75 million surplus forecast for next year. It is this year's $2b deficit. Why is that? Because it is a lot less than the $8b hole Treasury was forecasting in 2009.
And that is important to the Government. It makes next year's surplus believable, even though, as the Opposition points out, there is plenty of jiggery pokery in the numbers. It is part of a credible downward trend.
Mr English once referred to John Key as someone who "jumped from cloud to cloud" while he was "grinding away" in the background. As Mr Key looks increasingly grumpy and out of sorts, there seems to be a lot less cloud-jumping these days. But Mr English is still grinding away.
Boring and predictable? Hell, yes. But Mr English is the success story National will take to the next election. 

A budget surplus is indeed going to be a fillip for National in 2014. It's going to be even better if John Key's suggestion that the books might even return to surplus this year comes to fruition.

Bill English's management of the economy hasn't been everyone's cup of tea, but he has stuck to his guns, despite everything that has been thrown at him; Watkins continues:

He came into office in late 2008 with a plan. Earthquakes, the global financial crisis, finance company failures, drought and a worldwide recession have thrown everything at him since. But by and large he has stuck to the plan.
He has looked to control spending, untangle red tape, invest in infrastructure - no wonder his Budgets are famously boring. It is not visionary. It is certainly not revolutionary. But neither of those approaches would sit comfortably on Mr English's shoulders, anyway.
National's approach to change since it was elected into power in 2008 has largely been shaped by the experiences of Mr English and a small group of survivors from the 1990 to 1999 National government: himself, Health Minister Tony Ryall - another one who is happy to grind away - and brainiac Nick Smith. They have lucked in by teaming up with a leader whose natural instincts for incremental change are in sync with what bitter experience has taught them. 

Tony Ryall has been one of the success stories of the Key-led Government. His management of the Health portfolio, so often a Ministers' graveyard, has been exemplary and there have been few horror stories under his watch, contrasted with some impressive outputs.

But Bill English is the real unsung hero. His fiscal conservatism and restraint has been a marked contrast to the big-spending Michael Cullen who boasted at leaving the cupboard bare at Budget 2008, but still managed to buy himself an over-priced train set a few months later.

When English took over as Finance Minister in 2008, Treasury was forecasting deficits until 2017-18; a decade of deficits. Against the background outlined by Tracy Watkins above, English will see the books back in surplus three years earlier than predicted, and possibly even four years, if the economy continues to grow. He has done a stellar job in the most difficult of times.

We can't help but wonder...

Matt McCarten has proposed an alternative Budget. And amongst the measures he proposes is one particularly radical departure from the status quo; check this out:

2. Abolish PAYE on wages and salaries. Replace it with a wealth tax and a capital gains tax when shares, businesses, land and property are sold. People are taxed when they're cashing up, not when they are making it.

So we can't help but wonder; might McCarten's aversion to PAYE on salaries and wages be in any way connected to the wee problem he had a while back? You know the one; where he deducted PAYE from employees of Unite Union, but for a period of eighteen months which just happened to straddle the 2008 General Election, he didn't pass it on to the Inland Revenue Department, as he was legally obliged to do.

Sheesh; even Trevor Mallard denounced McCarten and Unite's behaviour in a Red Alert post in December 2010. And rightly so; after all, you can just imagine the white noise that would come from McCarten if a scumbag employer of Unite members behaved like that.

So sorry Matt; in the area of tax, like you, your budget has no credibility.

The less said the better...

Hopes were high when the New Zealand cricket team took the field at Lord's last night at 10pm (NZ time) with England leading by just over 200 runs in the first test. Hopes were even higher when the English were dismissed for 232 leaving New Zealand chasing 239 for a rare victory at the home of cricket.

Hopes were quickly dashed. An hour later New Zealand went to lunch at 29 for six, with not one of the top six batsmen reaching double figures in a batting performance that brought back memories of Newlands at New Year. They finally eked out a score of 68, but were beaten convincingly.

Credit must go to the English bowlers, especially Stuart Broad who bowled magnificently. Credit too to Tim Southee who bowled New Zealand back into the match late on Saturday and on Sunday morning. His haul of ten wickets for the match was outstanding, but ultimately all for nowt.

Fourteen wickets fell yesterday for 98 runs. It certainly was a bowler-friendly Lord's pitch, but that was not the cause of New Zealand's defeat. The batsmen need to look at their technique against the swinging ball.

There's not much else that can be said, and in our state of tiredness, that's probably a good thing. Here's hoping that the New Zealanders can redeem themselves at Headingley later in the week.

The Greens try to stop progress; again

The Greens may be masters of the publicity stunt. But behind the publicity stunts, the Greens have declared war on another initiative which could bring jobs and prosperity to New Zealand; the Herald reports:

The Green Party has launched a campaign it hopes will stop deep-sea drilling in New Zealand waters.
As the Government begins the tender process for new permits to drill off the west coast of the North Island and east coast of the South Island, the Greens today announced a campaign to gather support for a 'Kiwi Bid' "to protect our oceans and beaches".
The party wants supporters to sign a petition asking the Government not to allow "risky" deep-sea drilling in New Zealand waters.
"While the Government is giving oil companies the right to bid to exploit our environment, the Green Party plans to submit a competing bid to protect it," Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said.
"We are inviting New Zealanders to become stakeholders on our bid, called the Kiwi Bid.
"It's a bid to protect our waters for all of us, rather than allow corporations to conduct risky deep-sea drilling."
Ms Turei said the threat of a leak from deep-sea drilling was too high to risk.

 If there is oil beneath our seas in sufficient quantities to make it commercially viable to extract, it would be irresponsible of the Government to at least not make investigations.

Instead of supporting New Zealand's future prosperity, the Greens' answer is yet another petition. As well as running the risk of alienating those who realise that a significant oil field discovery could transform New Zealand, the Greens are becoming dangerously close to becoming the party that cried "petition" once too often.

New Zealand needs to look closely at every potential opportunity to give our younger generation a brighter future. Instead however, the Greens seem to want to take us back to the past.

Should teacher name suppression be automatic?

The Herald has an interesting story this morning on a case currently before the Teachers' Council; check this out:

A woman who, while a teenager, was preyed upon by her physics teacher for sex during extra-curricular sailing classes is pleading with authorities to make details of the case public.
She says publishing the man's name may encourage any other victims to come forward.
The Teachers' Council Disciplinary Tribunal struck the teacher off and said it was in no doubt that the 18-month full sexual relationship took place in the late 1980s when the woman was aged 16.
However, the tribunal's decision late last year was published without the teacher's name. Chairman Kenneth Johnston rejected the woman's application to publish it because, he said, "particular reasons" were needed to justify publication.
It is the case that has become the face of a Herald on Sunday push for more transparency of teacher disciplinary hearings.
The paper has formally applied for the case's details to be made public and asked the council to rewrite its rules so it does not start from a point of automatic suppression.
As well, editor Bryce Johns has appeared before a parliamentary select committee calling on the Government to force the teacher body to be as transparent as other professions such as doctors.
For the first time, we can reveal that the victim in the test case - who the Herald on Sunday has chosen not to name - fully supports our application.
She contacted the paper in the wake of the publicity, and gave us a copy of a letter she has written to the Teachers' Council.
It says: "Indeed, it was a newspaper article about a different teacher at another school which first prompted me to action, realising that I could have the potential to prevent further crimes being committed by the individual who targeted me, and it has always been my wish that this teacher be publicly named, to prevent his re-offending in the future."
Publishing his name could prompt any other victims to come forward, the woman believes.
"After much soul searching, I honestly can-not see what is so special about teachers to allow them name suppression.
"The Herald on Sunday has my absolute full support in this matter."
She says the physics teacher's actions were among the worst in any society and he should be held accountable.
If the tribunal chairman decided not to make the teacher's name public, he would essentially be "enabling" the teacher and others like him to continue offending.
Johnston has written to all the parties involved in the woman's case, including the current principal of the school where the offending occurred, seeking their views on revealing the teacher's name.
His decision is expected next week.

This is an interesting case on a number of levels. But to our mind, the overriding consideration has to be this; will publication of the man's name be in the public interest, especially if there is a possibility that further inappropriate behaviour by the man may come to light?

We'd be interested to hear what readers, especially those who are teachers (like bsprout and Mykuhl) think about this issue. Should the disciplinary proceedings of the Teachers' Council be automatically suppressed unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, or ought the same rules as apply in the Courts be used? In criminal proceedings, defendants must apply for name suppression; it is not theirs as of right.

This is a serious case, and a serious question that we pose. It should not be interpreted as an attack on the integrity of teachers whom we largely admire; we could not do their job for quids!

Christian Music Sunday - 19 May 2013

It's wet outside, with squallly showers and thunderstorms forecast for much of the day; and we have to go out in it!

So really, there's only one song for today:

May God's goodness rain down on you today!

Supporting the Police

At last; a sensible editorial on the subject of stupid people who try to run away from the Police; the Dom-Post opines:

On Monday night, police in Auckland attempted to stop a car they suspected was stolen. The 16-year-old driver sped off, but pulled over a short time later and faced the music. He made the right decision.
Less than 72 hours earlier, two police patrols had separately engaged in brief pursuits of a speeding car, also in Auckland. That driver made the wrong decision.
Instead of stopping, he raced off at speeds of up to 160kmh before smashing into a parked ute. Two men in the car died at the scene. The other two died in hospital soon after.
The two incidents highlight the dilemma police face every time they turn on their sirens to pull over a vehicle. Will the driver do the sensible thing and stop, or will they do the foolish thing and try to get away, endangering their own life, the lives of anyone with them and the lives of other motorists and passersby?
Already this year, 10 people have been killed as a result of police pursuits. In many cases, including the four deaths in Auckland last weekend, those attempting to flee had come to the attention of patrol cars for relatively minor offences that would bring a penalty no sterner than a modest fine and a short loss of licence.
It is a tragic, and needless, loss of lives.
Last weekend's deaths have brought the usual calls for police to simply stop chasing vehicles for minor offences such as speeding. However, that is a fraught issue. 

The Dom-Post's leader writer is dead right; this is a fraught issue, and the lives lost in running from the Police are a needless waste. But ought that cause a cessation of chases? The Dom-Post thinks not; read on:

The police have a duty to get off the road people who, because of the nature of their driving, pose a risk to the public. Instructing them to not try to stop drivers who appear to be intoxicated or who are speeding would send a dangerous message to those offenders: if they put their foot down as soon as the lights start flashing, they will not get caught. That would only increase the existing risk they pose to the public.
The police already have strict protocols governing pursuits. They include risk assessment before and during chases and a clear statement that public safety comes ahead of the immediate apprehension of a fleeing driver. Those rules saw police call off 1118 of the 2312 pursuits they commenced last year.
It is difficult to see how the present guidelines can be further refined without giving dangerous drivers and criminals a green light to race off. There might be some scope to make it clearer when police should call off pursuits but if so, it should not be done in isolation.
It should be done hand-in-hand with much tougher rules for drivers who refuse to stop. Former transport safety minister Harry Duynhoven's suggestion that their cars should be confiscated is well worth considering – though the public will rightly be wondering why he did not use his nine years in government to get the change through. Sterner penalties, including bigger fines and lengthy driving bans, would also be useful tools. 

We agree completely with this. To simply allow those who have for some reason come to the attention of Police to rush off into the night is for the Police to surrender, and it is the first step down the road to anarchy. Police take an oath of office to protect the public, and getting dangerous and/or drunk drivers and criminals off the road is an essential part of their work.

The Dom-Post closes with a sentiment similar to that which we expressed a week ago:

There is, of course an even easier and blindingly obvious way to end the carnage. Drivers who pull over when the police ask them to do not die in high-speed crashes. That only happens to those who try to get away, and they alone are to blame for their deaths.  

We could not agree more, and we commend the Dom-Post's leader writer for sticking up for the Police instead of the usual hyperbolic media reporting of these needless deaths.

Oh dear...

We blogged yesterday about the Twitter feud between Australian batsman David Warner and cricket writer Malcolm Conn. It would seem that Cricket Australia is not amused; 3News reports:

Cricket Australia says it is attempting to contact test opener David Warner over reported comments he made on Twitter in terse and often angry exchanges with two journalists.

Warner took to Twitter overnight Friday night from India to launch an expletive-filled attack on News Limited journalists Robert Craddock and Malcolm Conn after taking exception to an article which was critical of an India-based Twenty20 tournament.

Warner is playing for the competition's Delhi team, which was rocked this week by spot-fixing allegations against three players, including India test paceman Shanthakumaran Sreesanth.

Cricket Australia said Saturday it was trying to determine whether Warner, who has been named in Australia's squad for the upcoming Ashes series in England, made the comments or if his account had been hacked.

Oh yes; the old "someone hacked my account" excuse. We're not so sure that one will fly, but like some of Warner's extravagant shot-making, it may be worth a go.

We'll have to wait and see what Richie Benaud or his parody Twitter account makes of all this...

Yuck!

The Herald on Sunday leads with a story that's not for the squeamish; check this out:

Doctors working to save the life of a violent prisoner who had been stabbed up to 28 times this week made a strange discovery - he had a cellphone hidden in his rectum.
The Herald on Sunday understands the discovery was made only when scans were taken of the stab wounds suffered by rapist Tangi Nikoia, a Paremoremo Prison inmate.
Nikoia is serving a 16-year sentence after being convicted in November 2011 of six counts of violent and sexual offending, including rape of his former partner, and nine other charges of kidnapping and violence against her and their 9-year-old son.
Nikoia's mother, Maki, of South Auckland, said she learned only on Thursday, via another family member, that her son had been attacked in prison and taken to hospital.
"All I know is he is supposed to be stable and has been able to talk," she told the Herald on Sunday yesterday. "I heard he was stabbed."
She added: "I haven't been able to speak to Tangi as we have not been allowed to visit him. I don't know how bad his injuries are. It is very worrying."
Auckland District Health Board, the prison and Corrections officials refused to discuss the cellphone find, and would not even confirm Nikoia's condition last night.
But prison sources said a Samsung-model phone had been removed from his backside. It is also understood he had previously been in trouble for possession of a cellphone.
The source said: "They found the cellphone because they put him through a scan of some sort and the doctor asked, 'What's the metal?'
"Nikoia tried to deny there was anything up his bum but eventually the doctor got it out."

Whilst there's some amusement to be had from this story, it does illustrate the lengths that criminals will go to in order to hide illegal items. But it begs the question; did he have the vibrate turned on whilst the phone was "stored"?

And the boss of Auckland Prison has some wise advice:

Auckland Prison chief Thomas Sherlock confirmed a serious incident occurred between two prisoners on Tuesday. Our source said a rival gang member stabbed Nikoia.
He said cellphones hidden in body cavities did still work, so the moral of the story was: "Never buy a second-hand cellphone; you never know where it's been."

'Nuff said, wethinks!

Tweet of the Day - 18 May 2013

We've blogged before about the Richie Benaud parody account on Twitter @RichieBenaud_; it's absolutely marvellous.

To set the scene, there's been a most entertaining spat on Twitter tonight between Australian batsman David Warner (@davidwarner31) and News Ltd's chief cricket writer Malcolm Conn (@malcolmconn). Let's just say that we doubt that the two will be exchanging Christmas cards this year.

But it's all led the parody Richie (at least we think it's a parody, but you never know with Richie) to produce this:

There's really only one thing to say; it's marvellous stuff that!

Is the tide turning against Len Brown?

Throughout the last three years, Len Brown has generally had an ally in Herald Auckland issues columnist Brian Rudman.

Until this morning, that is; check this out:

On Tuesday, Auckland Council issued a rather plaintive rebuttal of the "misinformation" that was being spread regarding the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. The "myths", we were told, were "causing misunderstanding and unnecessary concern amongst our communities".
The next day, Mayor Len Brown was in full retreat, signalling a major rethink of parts of the plan, particularly about the proposed siting of high-rise apartments. While it's too early to suggest these are signs the battle for an intensified city is lost, it does indicate it's going to take more than a myth-breaking press release to persuade "our communities" Mayor Brown's vision is the way to go.
If there is misinformation abroad, there's a simple explanation. When you have an information vacuum, the laws of nature ensure it quickly fills up with gossip, rumour and, for want of a better word, misinformation.
Auckland Council and its assorted council-controlled organisations employ more than 143 in-house communications and marketing staff, along with many outside contractors in the same field. Orakei councillor Cameron Brewer recently denounced it as a $30 million-a-year "out of control" PR machine.
But out of control or not, there's been no sign of this great army of wordsmiths having any part in the selling of the mayor's career make-or-break vision. Instead, it was left to the planners. Now I've got nothing against planners. I'm sure they're very nice community-minded folk. But when it comes to public image, they rank at the bottom of the trust and confidence graph, with journalists, used-car salesmen and politicians. Firemen and ambulance drivers and other forms of cuddliness they are not. They're the whipping boys for past ills, the Hobson St student stalags, the historic-building demolitions, the cuts into old volcanoes ...
Yet the spin-doctors have left it to planning manager Penny Pirrit to not just produce the plan, but also to join Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse as the two-headed sales team.
At a pre-launch briefing for media, one of my colleagues suggested it might be a good idea to produce local brochures so people could get an informed rundown of what was planned for their area. It took about six weeks for something along these lines to dribble onto the plan's website. Little wonder the dreaded "myths" had begun circulating.
Aucklanders were expected to access the 1854-page new blueprint for the world's most liveable city via the internet. But the only way in was through a website designed by planners for planners.
Now, I pride myself on being a bit of of an early adopter. Before the invention of the internet, I'd learned to fire my columns from my home computer directly into the old Sun computers. But each time I approach the electronic Unitary Plan, it's with a certain dread. Yesterday, I typed in my street address and clicked search. Nothing happened. There are two different search buttons, so I tried the other. Still nothing. Each time, it was like I'd had a stroke and the bit of brain that knew how I'd got in last time had been destroyed. I tried the ENTER key and, finally, I was inside.
Anyone who's been there knows how complex it can be. The shop next to me is protected, like the rest of the street, as a "historic heritage place", then rather superfluously has a pre-1944 demolition control. Then to totally confuse, it is also zoned "local centre", which permits four-storey buildings. It's also in TVNZ's "satellite earth station transmission path".
Ideally, my neighbourhood would have had a brochure or been directed to a website where one of the 143 spin-doctors had outlined what was going on in our area. This should have happened across the city and it should have occurred when the draft was launched two months ago. No doubt there would still have been opposition, but at least it couldn't have been dismissed as misinformed.
The three-month "pre-consultation" period was designed to reach some consensus with the public before notifying the official "draft" document in September. It's failed in that task. Among councillors, there's growing support for a "more haste, less speed" approach - delaying notification to after the coming elections to try to reach a vision most Aucklanders can live with. With this week's back-tracking, a long pause seems inevitable.
Whether it will be long enough for the spin-doctors to catch up is another matter.

We've reproduced Rudman's piece in full so that it can be read in context. But it's clear that he is not happy with Len Brown, and the army of spin-meisters that the Labour-aligned mayor has taken on at considerable expense to Auckland ratepayers.

Len Brown was determined to impose his unitary plan on Auckland before the local body elections. That plan now seems to be in tatters, and if a credible candidate emerges to challenge Brown he seems destined to be a one-term mayor. If he has lost the support of Brian Rudman, Len Brown is going to find it hard to spread his message of all things to all people, with or without 143 spin doctors.

Maybe it really IS time for Maurice Williamson to come to the party...

Is CPAG a charity or political?

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) retained its status as a charity recently whilst Family First lost its. We have no problem with the Family First decision; the line between lobbying and politicking in a fine one, but when members or supporters start making real or implied threats of electoral; consequences if an MP votes a certain way, that line is crossed.

Yesterday, there was a business briefing at Vector Arena where John Key spoke to business leaders post-Budget. A group called Auckland Action Against Poverty protested there, trying to stop people getting in, and allegedly going as far to spit on/at those attending. Larry Williams made that allegation on Newstalk ZB late yesterday afternoon; check this out:

We wonder how many of those who went down to protest, led by veteran activist and protestor Sue Bradford had previously been at the CPAG's Budget Breakfast, where speaker after speaker condemned both the Budget and the Government. There was a large presence of Labour and Green MP's (including Labour leader-in-waiting Grant Robertson, who helpfully tweeted commentary), and Mana Party aspirants including the aforementioned Ms Bradford. It seems to have been a who's who of the far Left. Here's an example:

We also wonder if the Charities Commission will revisit CPAG's charitable status, given that yesterday's breakfast seems to have been more akin to a political rally than advocacy, lobbying or anything charitable.

We raise these points seriously. Family First came a cropper because politics became the organisation's dominant purpose, and we have no problem with that decision whatsoever. But we reckon that CPAG is also treading a very fine line.

An early return to surplus?

John Key threw out an interesting morsel for Auckland business leaders. Once they had got past a small group of protesters, some of whom are alleged to have spat at guests at the function, the business people heard the Prime Minister's take on Thursday's Budget.

The interesting morsel? Check this out:

Prime Minister John Key says it is possible the Government could get close to a surplus in the coming financial year - one year earlier than officially predicted in yesterday's Budget.
He told the Trans-Tasman Business Circle at Auckland's Vector Arena today that the forecast deficit of only $2.03 billion in the coming year was less than 1 per cent of gross domestic product.
"It's not impossible that we could have got pretty close to being back in surplus next year," he said.
"Last year we expected a deficit of $7.5 billion. It came in at $6.2 billion."
He said tax revenues were "broadly back to where they were in 2007" and there was "an inherent strength in the economy" compared with other countries with much bigger deficits.
"If there is a simple message, it is that we have to hold the line," he said.

For Bill English to be able to deliver an election-year Budget with the books already back in surplus, not forecast to be would be his crowning glory. After all, when English inherited his role from Michael Cullen, Treasury was forecasting deficits until the 2017-18 year. Even in the time between the 2008 Prefu (October 2008) and the Key Government taking office there was a significant deterioration in New Zealand's financial position as the Global Financial Crisis began to bite.

The Key/English steady-as-she-goes strategy has been controversial, but it is being proved to be the right approach. Radical surgery of the Roger Douglas variety would have pleased some, but would have hurt far more. And artificially stimulating the economy with money that we did not have would have been equally destructive.

Fran O'Sullivan notes that John Key was far more serious than usual yesterday, but optimistic nonetheless:

John Key's forthright statement that "we have to make our fortune" fell on receptive ears during the annual post-Budget luncheon in Auckland yesterday.
Key's annual job is to sell Bill English's cautious Budgets to businesspeople and rev them up to have faith in the Government's fiscal management of the New Zealand economy and invest and grow their businesses.
It's no surprise businesspeople like him. He is one of them, after all.
But this year marked a change in that Key departed from his usual jovial homilies and gave a serious insight into the legacy he hopes to carve for his Government.
Essentially it comes down to this.
His Government has achieved fiscal stability against the tough background of the global financial crisis during which it took office in 2008, the huge government expenditure bills National inherited from its Labour predecessors, and the impact of the two major Christchurch earthquakes.

Key contends it comes down to running the country well ("in the end someone has to pay the bills - some want to print money, we want to earn it the old fashioned way"). That last jibe was obviously aimed at the Greens, who are odds on to be Labour's coalition partner if they get to form the next Government.
But, says Key, "if we can make a step change in New Zealand and in years to come when they eventually look back on this Government they will say of its legacy, 'I think that it held its nerve and fundamentally guided us through the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes and it set the country up to grow during a period of dramatic change in Asia and that is going to be a far bigger gift. New Zealanders will have jobs and families will have independence."'

Those suggesting that Key and English have mis-managed the New Zealand economy need to reflect on those last two paragraphs. And those who think that John Key doesn't take his job seriously could not be more wrong. 

Time will tell whether or not the Key-led Government does leave a legacy, but if the books can somehow find a way back to surplus this year as tax revenue increases and the economy continues to grow, it would be hard to argue that Key and English haven't held their nerve and governed responsibly in what are now regarded as the worst global economic conditions since the Great Depression of the 1930's. We should be grateful for their conservative, responsible financial management.