Archive
Mining, Drilling, Arresting, Imprisoning – Simon Bridges
.
.
On TVNZ’s Q+A last Sunday, Energy Minister and Dear Leader Mini-Me, Simon Bridges, announced a new law with heavy sanctions against protesters who “want to stop other people going about their lawful business and doing what they have a permit to do and they are legally entitled to do“,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Govt plans hefty fines for offshore mining protests
.
In plain english, Bridges was referring to activists and local people who tried to stop Petrobras and Anadarko from deep-sea prospecting of the East Coast of New Zealand.
To refresh the reader’s memory;
Anadarko is the same company that, it was revealed in November 2011, Dear Leader John Key was meeting in secret talks,
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 – Key keeps meeting with Anadarko boss quiet
.
(Funny how Key habitually meets corporate businessmen in secret…)
Anadarko is the same company that was involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 men on the platform; injuring 17 others; and released about 4.9 million barrels of oil into the ocean from a 10,680 metre deep well.
.
.
Acknowledgement: Wall Street Journal – Judge Rules BP, Anadarko Liable in Gulf Spill
.
Petrobras – the target of sea-going protesters in March and April of 2011 (see: Protest flotilla taking on oil giant ) – intercepted and protested against Petrobras’ prospecting-drilling ships at the Raukumara Basin, off the East Cape of the North Island. The water at the Basin is deeper than those of the Gulf of Mexico, where the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew apart.
During the protest, on 23 April 2011, the skipper of the ‘San Pietro‘, Elvis Teddy, was arrested (see: Charge laid after oil protest).
With Petrobras’ track record of oil spills elswhere in the world, it was hardly surprising that people on the East Coast were angry that their coastal waters were under threat,
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 – Brazilian oil spill draws attention to drilling in New Zealand
.
Six months later, the MV Rena would run aground the Astrolabe Reef, spewing 1,700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and 200 tonnes of marine diesel into the east coast waters, and onto beaches (see: Rena ‘worst maritime environmental disaster’)
No wonder many New Zealanders wanted no part of deep sea drilling of our coast. Well, most New Zealanders,
.
.
Meanwhile, on 11 April 2011, Dear Leader Key had a rush of blood to his head and took on quasi-fascist overtones when he threatened to unleash our own military forces on protesters. As Fairfax Media reported,
Prime Minister John Key is not ruling out using the Navy or Air Force to ensure multi million dollar oil exploration work off the East Coast continues.
Key today hit out at groups protesting against exploration by oil giant Petrobas by saying the company should be able to carry out work it was legally entitled to do.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – PM hits out at Petrobras exploration protesters
Not since the 1951 Waterfront Lockout has a New Zealand government used the military on it’s own people. This is the sort of man that our Prime Minister is.
However, the Nats have become more cunning, and instead are proposing to amend the law, criminalising sea-going protests with heavy fines and terms of imprisonment. As Simon Bridges said on TVNZ’s Q+A (31 March 2013),
JESSICA MUTCH I want to start off by asking you your predecessor in a speech, Phil Heatley, said, ‘I’m determined to ensure the mining sector is not hampered by unsafe protest actions by a small but vocal minority.’ You’ve been working on this since taking over. What are protesters in for?
SIMON BRIDGES So, that’s right. So we are acting, and so two offences are going to be put into the Crown Minerals Bill. Look, the first of those is truly criminal offence. Effectively, what it says is that it will be stopping people out there at deep sea, in rough waters, dangerous conditions, doing dangerous acts, damaging and interfering with legitimate business interests with ships, for example, seismic ships, and what they’re doing out there.
JESSICA What fines are we talking about there?
SIMON Well, for that one, 12 months’ imprisonment, or $1000 (please note: the minister meant $100,000 not $1000) or $50,000 fine, depending on whether you’re a body corporate or an individual. Then a lesser, more infringement offence, really, strict liability offence for entering within a specified area, probably up to 500 metres within that ship, again because of the dangers associated with doing that.
Acknowledgement: TVNZ: Q+A – Transcript Simon Bridges Interview
Jessica Mutch challenged Bridges on this,
JESSICA Isn’t this just about putting commercial interests, though, ahead of the rights of New Zealanders? We saw this- the Government doing this with The Hobbit as well.
SIMON No, I don’t think so at all. Look, I think what you’re seeing is a desire to ensure that really reckless, dangerous acts out hundreds of miles from the shore don’t happen. I don’t think it’s on. I don’t think most New Zealanders would think it on. They’d agree with me, I think, that it should be treated as criminal behaviour.
And then a glimpse of truth came out,
JESSICA Did mining companies complain to the Government?
SIMON Oh, there have been complaints. Look, I’ve talked with a range of businesses.
JESSICA So isn’t this just basically a sot to mineral companies and mining companies?
SIMON No, I don’t think so. In fact, I think what’s also true is this is best practice. You look at Australia, you look at other countries, they already do this. We’re also, I think, here filling a gap in the sense that to the Territorial Sea – that’s 12 miles out – you already have these sorts of provisions. Even the Exclusive Economic Zone, as I say, a massive area – 4 million-odd square kilometres – there are some provisions for oil rigs and so on. But for these moving vessels, where it was very dangerous and we thought so, that’s where we’re acting.
JESSICA Was this prompted by the Elvis Teddy case?
SIMON Look, that’s certainly part of the genesis of this.
JESSICA Well, that’s interesting because Phil Heatley said, ‘Protest action played no part in the company’s decision to quit New Zealand.’ So what does it even matter?
At which point, Jessica Mutch laid it on for Bridges, who could only deny, deny, deny,
JESSICA Are you basically trying to send a message to mining companies to say, ‘Hey, look, don’t worry. The Government’s got this. We’ll take care of the protesters. Come on down and have a look around’?
SIMON No, because what’s quite clear, as I’ve already said, is that there are many ways that Kiwis can protest if that’s what they want to do – fill their boots with protest. There are many ways they can do that, but as I say, look, when you’re talking about this dangerous kind of activity where lives could be lost, and I’m not putting that too highly, I think it’s right that we make it criminal behaviour and seen as criminal.
JESSICA You’re clearly looking to help out mining companies…
For full transcript, read here: Q+A – Transcript Simon Bridges Interview
Bridges and Key can deny all they like, but the proposed law changes – like the ‘Hobbit Law’, Search and Surveillance Act, etc, are all designed to stifle dissent and increase corporate and State power.
Never mind Labour’s so-called “Nanny State” that National complained about in 2007 and 2008 – this has the hallmarks of a nasty, petty authoritarian, government.
This is the sort of threatening behaviour we have previously seen from National Ministers. Instances such as Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce, who on 27 September 2011, warned protesting university students to keep their “heads down”,
“My general advice to NZUSA (NZ Union of Students’ Associations) on the cost of living for students is to keep your heads down because actually most people probably think you’re doing OK.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Minister to students: ‘keep your heads down‘
If National ministers go ahead with this draconian law, I suspect our jails may soon be filling up with protesters. The ‘martyring’ of protesters is nothing new in this country.
Bridges may find a whole bunch of New Zealanders willing to stand up to this sort of bully-boy tactics.
I suggest he read up on history. Like the 1981 Springbok Tour.
Red Squad anyone?
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 April 2013.
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Corporate Welfare under National
Anadarko: Key playing with fire
Petrobras withdraws – sanity prevails
Additional reading
Meet Anadarko, The Oil Company Struggling To Get Off The Hook For The Gulf Spill
Judge Rules BP, Anadarko Liable in Gulf Spill
Brazilian oil explorer Petrobras faces refinery pollution charges
Nats plan greater gas and oil exploitation
TVNZ: Q+A – Transcript Simon Bridges Interview
.
.
= fs =
A letter to the Dominion Post on the GCSB…
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM
subject: Letters to the editor.The Editor
DOMINION POST.
The Prime Minister and his appointee, Ian Fletcher, keep insisting that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is “unclear” and “vague”.
How much clearer does a law have to be when section 14 of the Act states,
“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.”
And Part 3, section 13, states clearly,
“The purpose of this Part is,— (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and (b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.”
It doesn’t get any clearer that that.
So, really, what is Key up to?
Why extend the powers of the GCSB when the law is already fairly clear on the issue?
And if Paul Neazor’s report supposedly clears the government – why will Key not release it publicly? What is he hiding?.
-Frank Macskasy(address and phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
.
.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, has released his report and three problems arise immediatly.
1.
According to a TV3 report,
“While the Government has been cleared of privacy breaches, the report found the law is ”unclear” and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Paul Neazor, has recommended improving the Act and the “precision” of their paperwork.”
Acknowledgment: TV3 – GCSB cleared of wrongdoing in NZ cases
“There are two recommendations from the Inspector-General, which are for more precise legislation and some improvement in the precision of the GCSB’s paperwork, the latter relating to the recommendations in the GCSB Compliance Review,” says the GCSB Director Ian Fletcher.
Mr Neazor found that there are particular “uncertainties” surrounding meta-data.
“An example of metadata is the information on a telephone bill such as the time and duration of a phone call, but not the content of the conversation or identification of the people using the phone,” Mr Fletcher said.
The Herald story goes on,
“The Inspector-General formed a view that there have been no breaches, although the law is unclear and the Inspector-General recommends amending it”, GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher said in a statement.
Mr Fletcher says the Inspector-General found that all of the cases were based on serious issues including potential weapons of mass destruction development, people smuggling, foreign espionage in New Zealand and drug smuggling.
Acknowledgment: IBID
From the Dominion Post,
The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) “arguably” did not break the law in the cases of 88 Kiwis, the spy agencies watchdog says.
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Paul Neazor investigated after an internal review found the foreign spy agency may have have unlawfully spied on New Zealanders.
After the report, the Government moved to change the law to make it legal for the bureau to conduct surveillance on Kiwis on behalf of the police, the Defence Force and the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS).
The bureau has not released Neazor’s findings, instead issuing a statement.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – GCSB ‘arguably’ didn’t break law – Neazor
The Dompost report continued with this comment,
“The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear,” the bureau said.
And this,
Neazor had decided “there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear”.
Acknowledgment: IBID
And TVNZ gave us this,
The Government’s spy agency, the GCSB, has been cleared of illegal surveillance in cases involving 88 New Zealanders.
[...]
“The Inspector-General formed a view that there have been no breaches, although the law is unclear and the Inspector-General recommends amending it,” GCSB Director Ian Fletcher said in a statement.
“There are two recommendations from the Inspector-General, which are for more precise legislation and some improvement in the precision of the GCSB’s paperwork, the latter relating to the recommendations in the GCSB Compliance Review.”
Acknowledgment: GCSB cleared of illegal spying, though law ‘unclear’
The TVNZ report further stated,
Neazor said the interpretation of this kind of information in the GCSB Act is one of the unclear areas that needs defining.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Every comment on Neazor’s report emanates from the GCSB itself.
At no point was there any commentary from Neazor himself, and nor is his report publicly available. The Dominion Post’s statement that “the Inspector-General is of the view…” is not supported by any facts or evidence that I can see.
Effectively, Neazor has been gagged.
Only John Key and GCSB Director Ian Fletcher are issuing statements – a politician and a spy boss hired by the same politician.
The truly frightening thing? The media is not reporting on this curious anomaly.
National will be passing a law increasing the powers of the GCSB, to permit it to spy on New Zealanders. Until now, the law has been crytal clear on this issue; the GCSB is not permitted to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents.
2.
Another curious aspect to this problem? The constant, repeated meme that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is somehow ‘vague’ and ‘unclear’.
I present to the reader the relevant parts of the GCSB Act. Judge for yourself how clear or unclear the law is yourself;
Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states,
Restrictions imposed on interceptions
14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
Furthermore, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;
Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
-
(1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
- (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
- (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
- (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
- (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
- (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
- (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
- (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
-
The purpose of this Part is,—
- (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
-
(b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.
Three questions arise,
1. Is the Act really as ‘unclear’ and ‘vague’ as Ian Fletcher, John Key, and (supposedly) Paul Neazor claim?
2. Has the media checked the relevant legislation?
3. Is there a concerted, surreptitious effort to depict the GCSB Act as “deficient”, so as to increase it’s surveillance powers?
I leave the reader to come to his/her own conclusions.
But one thing is abundantly clear; we are not being given the full truth on this issue, and the facts surrounding the law regarding the GCSB, are being fudged.
3.
John Key refuses to release Neazor’s report to the public.
Why?
If the report fully vindicates Key and National, then he would be climbing over dead bodies to get it to the media and public attention.
His decision to keep the report secret implies that it contains details which are critical of National and/or Key’s management of this entire affair.
Let’s not forget a recent report from the Auditor General on Key’s dealings with Skycity. Key claimed that the Auditor General’s report “cleared him”;
.
Acknowledgment: MSN News -Key insists government vindicated
.
The Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith, though, was quick to challenge Key’s assertion that he had been “vindicated”,
.
Acknowledgment: TV3 – PM contradicted on SkyCity ‘vindication’
.
The Prime Minister long ago lost the trust of many New Zealanders. His willingness to bend the truth – and on occassion tell outright lies – means we cannot take anything he says at face value.
If Neazor’s report vindicates National, then Key should have no reason to with-hold it from the public.
The fact that he is keeping it secret suggests that the report contains findings which are damning of Key, his government, and god knows who else.
There can be no other conclusion.
As for the mainstream media, their lack of deeper probing on this issue is an indictment on the state of investigative journalism (or lack thereof) in the country.
Even something as basic as informing New Zealanders of the content of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 has been lacking. Without this most basic of information, the media is derelict in it’s duty to inform us.
We expect politicians to be lying pricks.
We expect better from our news rooms.
.
*
.
Previous Related blogpost
The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do.
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: Child poverty, food in schools, and National’s response
.
Maria and the children of the poor – “Metropolis” (1927)
.
There is a problem with National’s response to child poverty and meals in schools…
First, to re-cap, there was no announcement made in the Budget on 16 May regarding meals in schools,
.
Acknowledgment: Fairfax Media – Key tight-lipped on food in schools
.
Finance Minister Bill English was adamant that any announcement would be weeks away,
.
Acknowledgment: NewstalkZB – Budget 2013: No food in schools programme
.
Interestingly, whilst National is luke-warm on the idea of feeding hungry children in our schools, they have little hesitation in throwing our tax-dollars at private, profit-making businesses such as Charter Schools. What next – state subsidies for farmers to produce fatty sheep meat and a butter mountain?
National – the self-professed champion of the free market – throwing taxpayer’s money at private enterprises?
Regarding food in schools, Bill English had this to say about the subject on Maori TV’s Native Affairs last night (20 May),
Mihingarangi Forbes prefaced the interview by reminding viewers of a statement made by John Key with he was leader of the Opposition in 2007,
MIHINGARANGI FORBES: ” [John Key]… from the Opposition benches, promised, a Food In Schools programme. Back then he said he wouldn’t wait because “kiwi kids deserved better (see: National launches its Food in Schools programme). So earlier today I asked Bill English why, after six years, thousands of kids still wait.”
BILL ENGLISH: “[...] but I think we should keep it in perspective. In the budget there was a wide ranges of measures that are going to have a positive impact on the complicated problem of children and families who suffer from persistant disadvantage.”
MIHINGARANGI FORBES: “Can I ask, do you personally support, believe that central government should be providing food for children?”
BILL ENGLISH: “I think we have to deal with the reality that children turn up to school unable to eat, we believe that it’s parent’s respons-, unable to learn.We believe it’s parent’s responsibility to feed their children. And I think we would find that where children are turning up hungry, there’s probably any number of other issues in the life of that family that are difficult and need resolving. But we need these kids to learn, we can’t punish them for the circumstances that they’re born into or living in and so that’s why we support feeding them so they can learn.”
When asked when National would implement a plan, Mihingarangi reminded English that Key had stated that it was just a “couple of sleeps away”, he responded,
BILL ENGLISH: “Well, look, I think you should just wait for the announcements in a couple of weeks.”
Acknowledgment: Maori TV – Native Affairs (20 May 2013)
So what is the problem with National’s response to child poverty and meals in school that I referred to above?
Firstly the Nats appear to having some kind of internal crisis on this issue – leading to Bill English delaying any announcement for two weeks after the Budget was released. (Some have suggested that there is a ‘power struggle’ going on behind the scenes in Cabinet? It has been suggested that an announcement was going to be made on Budget Day – but was pulled at the last minute.)
But the real problem of any food-in-schools programme?
National has not budgetted for it.
The Mana Party “Feed the Kids” Bill is estimated to cost $100 million to implement (see: Mana Party – Fact Sheet). Any plan from National – unless it is half-hearted and watered down – will also require considerable resourcing.
Where is National’s Budget allocation for implementing any meaningful food in schools programme?
There does not appear to be any.
As National continues to dither and delay on this problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”), there is a feeling of growing dread within me that National ministers are going to deliver the biggest cop-out to the country since… whenever.
No food, no money, no solutions.
Message to John Key & Bill English
Prove me wrong.
.
.
*
.
References
Mana Party: A MANA Analysis of the 2013 Budget: Increasing Poverty, Not Reducing Poverty
Scoop: National launches its Food in Schools programme ()
Radio NZ: Labour criticises ‘funny money assumptions’ on surplus (20 May 2013)
.
.
= fs =
Corporate Welfare under National
.
.
In case there are still one or two New Zealanders remaining who haven’t yet cottoned on to one very simple truism about National in office, let me spell it out; they are rank hypocites of the highest order.
And in case you, the reader, happen to be a true-blue National supporter, let me explain why.
In the last four years, National has been beavering away,
- slashing budgets
- sacking nearly 3,000 state sector workers
- closing schools
- attempting to close special-needs services such as Nelson’s Salisbury school
- cutting state services such as DoC, Housing NZ, Police, etc
- freezing wages for state sector workers (whilst politician’s salaries continue to rise)
- cutting back on funding to various community services (eg; Rape Crisis ands Women’s Refuge)
- and all manner of other cuts to state services – mostly done quietly and with minimum public/media attention.
In return, the Nats successfuly bribed us with our own money, giving us tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010. (Tax cuts which, later, were revealed not to be as affordable as what Dear Leader Key and Little Leader English made out – see: Key: $30b deficit won’t stop Nats tax cuts, see: Government’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting)
One such denial of funding for public services is an on-going dispute between PHARMAC and the New Zealand Organisation for Rare Disorders (NZORD) which is struggling desperately to obtain funding for rare disorders such as Pompe’s Disease,
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Mum not prepared to wait and die
.
NZORD and it’s members have been lobbying National for the last four years to gain funding for much-needed medication. They are in a dire situation – this is a matter of life or death for them.
This blogger has blogged previously about their plight,
Previous related blogposts
- Priorities? (19 Oct 2011)
- Terminal disease sufferer appeals to John Key (12 Nov 2012)
- “There’s always an issue of money but we can find money for the right projects” – John Key (20 Jan 2013)
- “One should judge a society by how it looks after the sick and vulnerable” – part tahi (4 March 2013)
- “One should judge a society by how it looks after the sick and vulnerable” – part rua (4 March 2013)
- “One should judge a society by how it looks after the sick and vulnerable” – part toru (4 March 2013)
This blogger has also written directly to the Prime Minister and to Health Minister, Tony Ryall.
One response from Minister Ryall is presented here, for the reader’s attention,
.
.
So there we have it, folks. If you’re a New Zealander dying from a rare disease, and PHARMAC won’t fund life-saving medication – don’t expect an assistance from this rotten government. Their response will be, and I quote,
“While I share your concern [snort!!!] for people with Pompe disease, as I advised you in my letter of 22 November 2012, in the current fiscal environment, unfortunately funding is not available for all treatments.”
So “in the current fiscal environment, unfortunately funding is not available for all treatments“?!
But funding is available for;
$1 Rugby – $200 million to subsidise the Rugby World Cup (see: Blowouts push public Rugby World Cup spending well over $200m)
$2 Movies – $67 million paid to Warner Bros to keep “The Hobbit” in New Zealand (see: The Hobbit: should we have paid?) and $300 million in subsidies for “The Lord of the Rings” (see: Hobbit ‘better deal than Lord of the Rings’ – Key)
$3 Consultants - After sacking almost 3,000 state sector workers (see: 555 jobs gone from public sector) – and with more to come at DoC – National seems unphased at clocking up a mind-boggling $1 billion paid to “consultants”. (see: Govt depts clock up $1bn in consultant fees)
And on top of that, we are now faced with the prospect of a trans-national corporate – Rio Tinto – with their hands firmly around Meridian Energy’s neck, attempting to extract a greater subsidy from the SOE powerco. The story began in August last year,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Rio Tinto seeks power deal revision
.
We know why. Despite implausible assertions to the contrary by National Ministers, Genesis Energy, and Rio Tinto executives – the partial sale of SOE powercos (Meridian, Genesis, and Mighty River Power) have made them vulnerable to the demands of Big Businesses.
Rio Tinto knows that the share price of each SOE will be predicated on marketplace demand for shares.
They know that if there is less demand for electricity, then the price of power may (note: may) drop; those SOE’s profits will drop; and the price of shares will drop.
That leaves shareholders out of pocket and National with egg on it’s face. And a whole bunch of Very Pissed Off Voters/Shareholders.
Think: Warner Bros. Think: corporate blackmail to shift ‘The Hobbit’ overseas. Think: National not wanting to risk the wrath of Peter Jackson and a thoroughly manipulated Public Opinion. Think: National looking at the 2011 election. Think: panic amongst National ministers and back-room Party strategists.
National capitulated.
This is precisely what is happening with Rio Tinto, Meridian, and National.
In the space of six and a half hours yesterday (28 March 2013), events came to a dramatic head. The following happened in one day:
9.15am:
Via a Press Release from Merdian Energy;
“Thursday, 28 March 2013, 9:15 am
Press Release: Meridian EnergyNew Zealand Aluminium Smelter’s electricity contract
For immediate release: Thursday, 28 March 2013
Meridian was approached by Pacific Aluminium, a business unit of global mining giant Rio Tinto Ltd, the majority shareholder of New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd (NZAS), in July 2012, to discuss potential changes to its existing electricity contract.
Since talks began, various options have been discussed and Meridian has offered a number of changes and concessions to the existing contract.
Chief Executive of Meridian Energy, Mark Binns, says that Meridian has advised Pacific Aluminium of its ‘bottom line’ position.
“Despite significant effort by both parties there remains a major gap between us on a number of issues, such that we believe that it is unlikely a new agreement can be reached with Pacific Aluminium,” says Mr Binns.
In the event no agreement can be reached, Meridian will seek to engage with Rio Tinto and Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd, the shareholders of NZAS, who will ultimately decide on the future of the smelter.
Meridian signed a new contract with NZAS in 2007, after three years of negotiations. This current contract commenced on 1 January 2013 and remains unaltered and binding on the parties.” - Source
To which Rio Tinto replied,
10.15am:
In a NZ Herald story,
CEO of Pacific Aluminium (the New Zealand subsidiary of Rio Tinto), Sandeep Biswas responded with,
“We believe a commercial agreement that is in the best interests of NZAS, Meridian, the New Zealand Government, and the people of Southland can be reached. We look forward to continuing productive negotiations with a view to achieving a positive outcome for all parties.” – Source
De-coding: “This ain’t over till the Fat Chick sings, and she’s nowhere to be seen. You guys better start hearing what we’re saying or this is going to turn to sh*t real fast; we’ll close our operations at Bluff; 3,200 people employed by us directly or indirectly will be told ‘Don’t Come Monday’; your Southland economy will collapse like a Cyprus bank, and National can kiss goodbye to it’s re-election in 2014. Ya got that, sunshine?”
11.15am:
That got the attention of National’s ministers Real Quick,
The Government has opened discussions with Tiwai Point aluminium smelter’s ultimate owners Rio Tinto in a bid to broker a deal after talks between the smelter and Meridian Energy reportedly broke down.
[...]
“With this in mind, the Government has been in contact with Pacific Aluminium’s international parent company Rio Tinto this week to discuss helping to bridge the gap in their positions over the short to medium term, if this could be of assistance in concluding an agreement.
“In the meantime, we understand Meridian’s existing contract with Pacific Aluminium remains in place at least until 1 January 2016 with significant financial and other obligations beyond that.” – Source
Barely two hours had passed since Meridian had lobbed a live grenade into National’s state asset sale programme, and it’s fair to say that the Ninth Floor of the Beehive was in a state of panic. It was ‘battle stations’. Red Alert. National ministers were, shall we say, slightly flustered,
.
.
12.00pm:
By noon, the markets were reacting. Though share-market analysts were attempting to down-play the so-called ‘Phoney War’ between Meridian and Rio Tinto, Devon Funds Management analyst, Phillip Anderson, remarked that,
“…the announcement had hit Contact’s share price – the company was down 3 per cent in early trading but is now down only 1.2 per cent.” - Source
If Contact’s (a fully privatised ex-SOE) share price had dropped 3% on the strength of these media stories, it is little wonder that share-market analysts were down-playing the brinkmanship being played out by Meridian and Rio Tinto. If the share-market was spooked enough, Contact’s share price would plummet, as would that of Mighty River Power – estimated to be in the $2.36 and $2.75 price-range. (see: Mighty River share tips $2.36 to $2.75).
In which case, National would be floating shares worth only a fraction of what ministers were seeking. In effect, if Rio Tinto closed down operations, Key could kiss goodbye to the partial sale of energy SOEs. They would be worthless to investors.
3.43pm:
By 3.43pm, and six and a half hours since Meridian’s press release, National had negotiated some kind secret deal with Rio Tinto. We don’t know the terms of the deal because though it is our money, National ministers don’t think we have a right to the information,
The Government is negotiating a new taxpayer-funded subsidy with Tiwai Point aluminium smelter’s owners and has all but acknowledged its assets sales programme is being used by them to get a better deal on power prices.
State Owned Enterprises Minster Tony Ryall this morning said the Government has opened discussions with the smelter’s ultimate owners global mining giant Rio Tinto in a bid to broker a deal over a variation to the existing electricity contract.
[...]
“With this in mind, the Government has been in contact with Pacific Aluminium’s international parent company Rio Tinto this week to discuss helping to bridge the gap in their positions over the short to medium term, if this could be of assistance in concluding an agreement.”
Mr Ryall indicated the Government had offered Rio Tinto “a modest amount of money to try and help bridge that gap in the short to medium term but there’s still a very big gap in the long term… We’re not interested in subsidising this business in the long term”. – Source
Ryall added,
“…they’re pretty tough negotiators and I’m sure they look at what else is happening in the economy when they make their various decisions…
…”they certainly haven’t got the Government over a barrel.”
Three questions stand out from Ryall’s statement,
- If State subsidies for electricity supply to Rio Tinto’s smelter are “short to medium term” – then what will happen when (if?) those subsidies are lifted? Will shareholders “take a bath” as share prices collapse in value?
- Does Ryall think we are fools when he states that Rio Tinto did not have the government “over a barrel” ?! Is that how National views the public – as morons?
- How much is the “a modest amount of money” that Ryall is referring to?
Perhaps the most asinine comment from Ryall was this, as reported by TVNZ,
“The electricity market is capable of dealing with all the issues relating to the smelter,” said Ryall.
Acknowledgement: TVNZ News – Talks break down over Tiwai smelter contract
Really?! In what way is “the electricity market … capable of dealing with all the issues relating to the smelter” when the government has to step in with what could be millions of dollars worth of subsidies? Is that how “the market” works?!
This blogger has two further questions to put to Minister Ryall. Both of which have been emailed to him,
.
Date: Thu, 29 March 2013, 6.43pm
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Your correspondence to Hon Tony Ryall
To: Tony Ryall <Tony.Ryall@parliament.govt.nz>Kia ora, Mr Ryall,
I am in receipt of your emailed letter to me, dated 5 December 2012, regarding the non-funding of certain medications for sufferers of Pompe Disease. Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to this issue in a thorough and timely way. Several of your other ministerial colleagues seem to lack that simple etiquette.
I note that, as Minister of SOEs, you have been in direct negotiations with Rio Rinto, and have offered the company subsidised electricity for the “short to medium term”.
This will no doubt cost the taxpayer several millions (hundreds of millions?) of dollars.If National is able to provide such largesse to a multi-national corporation, please advise me as to the following;
1. Why is the same subsidy for cheaper electricity not offered to ALL New Zealanders? Or even those on low-fixed incomes? Why provide a multi-million dollar subsidy just to a billion-dollar corporation when New Zealanders could do with a similar cut in their power bills?
2. In your letter to me, dated 5 December 2012, you point out that,
“While I share your concern for people with Pompe disease, as I advised you in my letter of 22 November 2012, in the current fiscal environment, unfortunately funding is not available for all treatments.”If National has millions of dollars available to subsidise multi-national corporations, them obviously your statement on 5 December 2012 that “in the current fiscal environment, unfortunately funding is not available for all treatments” – is simply not credible.
It is obvious that your government can find money when it wants to. This applies to Rugby World Cup funding, consultants, movie-making subsidies, etc.
As such, I hope you are able to find the necessary funding for medication for people suffering rare disorders.
You are, after all, Minister for Health as well as Minister for State Owned Enterprises.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
BloggerPS: Please note that this issue will be canvassed further on the blogsite, The Daily Blog.
.
Minister of Health. Minister for SOEs. Minister for corporate welfare.
Which ‘hat’ will Tony Ryall be wearing today?
And will he find the necessary funding to save the lives of sick New Zealanders?
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 31 March 2013.
.
*
.
References
NZ Herald: Rio Tinto seeks power deal revision (10 Aug 2012)
Scoop.co.nz: New Zealand Aluminium Smelter’s electricity contract Press Release (9.15am, 28 March 2013)
NZ Herald: Govt steps in to sort out stalled Tiwai power deal (11.15am, 28 March 2013)
NZ Herald: Tiwai stoush may affect Mighty River price (12.00pm, 28 March 2013)
NZ Herald: Govt offser Tiwai subsidy (3.43pm, 28 March 2013)
Related references
NZ Herald: Mighty River share tips $2.36 to $2.75 (20 March 2013)
Related to previous blogposts
Pharmac: The politics of playing god (16 June 2011)
$500,000 a year to keep toddler alive (5 Feb 2013)
Rare disease sufferers want pricey treatments (1 March 2013)
Rare disease takes awful toll on boy (1 March 2013)
Call for an Orphan drugs access policy to overcome Pharmac’s systems failure (28 Feb 2013)
Bill English – do you remember Colin Morrison? (4 Feb 2013)
Related Opinion
NZ Herald – Fran O’Sullivan – Govt intervention doesn’t cut mustard (30 March 2013)
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: petrol taxes
.
.
“National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes not raise taxes.” – So saith Dear Leader at a 2008 press conference. (see: Key ‘no GST rise’ video emerges)
Sure enough, in April 2009 and October 2010, National cut taxes.
As Key said in 2009,
“…The tax cuts we have delivered today will inject an extra $1 billion into the economy over the coming year, thereby helping to stimulate the economy during this recession. More important, over the longer term these tax cuts will reward hard work and help to encourage people to invest in their own skills, in order to earn and keep more money.”
Source: NZ Parliament -Tax Cuts—Implementation
Bill English and Peter Dunne issued a joint statement in 2010, which said, in part,
“Lower personal tax rates reward effort and give people an increased incentive to up-skill, develop new products and services, and get ahead under their own steam. This has strong benefits for the economy…
[...]
… A person on the average annual wage of about $50,000 will get a weekly income tax cut of about $29 a week. Even after the increase in GST is taken into account they are more than $15 a week better off if they are paying an average rent or mortgage.”
Source: Beehive.govt.nz – Fact sheet – Personal tax cuts
Except… it was jiggery-pokery, and with a sleight-of-hand trick, National recouped much of the tax cuts by raising taxes elsewhere.
2010
- GST was raised from 12.5% to 15% – despite Key promising in 2008 that it would not be increased. (see: Key denies ‘flip flop’ over GST increase)
- tax increases for property investors (see: BUDGET RELEASE: Property tax changes increase fairness)
2011
- Cuts to Working for Families and increase in Kiwisaver payments (see: Budget 2011: Battlers asked to give back)
- Tax exemption removed for employer contributions and halving of member tax credit (see: Experts stunned by KiwiSaver tax grab)
2012
- Children earning less than $2,340 per year to be taxed. (see: Young workers out of pocket)
- National announces Road User Charges to increase (see: Petrol, road charges hikes are ‘bad news‘)
- Student loan repayment rate increased to 12% (see: Budget 2012: The main points)
- Prescription items increased from $3 to $5 each (see: Budget 2012: The main points)
- Holiday home tax deductions cut (see: Budget 2012: The main points)
- Three tax credits dumped (see: Budget 2012: The main points)
2013
- 3 cents per litre increase in the price of petrol (see: Govt to hike petrol taxes and road user charges 9 cents over three years)
2014
- 3 cents per litre increase in the price of petrol
2015
- 3 cents per litre increase in the price of petrol
The up-shot?
- National pretends to be the Party of low taxes. It is not.
- National won an election in 2008 on promises of low taxation. It lied.
- National’s tax cuts benefit the top 1% whilst increases in other covert-taxation has less impact on them. This is true.
Moral of this story #1;
When National promises tax cuts, ask yourself,
- Who pays?
- What other taxes will be quietly increased?
- Who really benefits?
Moral of this story #2;
When Labour, The Greens, and Mana promise a new tax – eg; Capital Gains Tax – at least you know what you’re voting for.
Moral of this story #3;
On a scale of 1 to 10 – one being the most world-wise and street wise person on the planet, and 10 being that you hold shares in the Wellington Harbour Bridge – how gullible are National voters?
Just something to remember next time you’re filling up your car.
.
Acknowledgment: Fairfax Media – Young workers out of pocket
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: Student debt, politicians, and “social contracts”
.
.
The problem of student debt – now at over $13 bllion – continues to be a thorn in the side of successive governments. Labour tinkered with it by cancelling interest whilst student were studying; National has taken a ‘stick’ to the problem by threating to arrest so-called “loan defaulters” if they dare return to New Zealand.
If National’s aim was to force New Zealanders to stay overseas and never return, it’s a fantastically clever plan. No one in their right mind would come back to New Zealand if they faced a risk of arrest.
Even conservative media have jumped into the fray with this anonymously written editorial in today’s (20 May) Dominion Post,
.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Editorial – Loan defaulters break ‘social contract’
.
Part of the unattributed (are editorial writers so frightened of public back-lash?) editorial stated,
“After all, if the people concerned had a low income and found it genuinely hard to repay, they were free to argue the point and try to make a deal with the tax-gatherer. Others could easily repay their loans but simply ignored the Government’s inquiries.
Those who have refused to do anything now face the threat of the bailiffs and, if they persist, of arrest. It’s hard to know what else the Government could do. Those who refuse to respond are breaking the social contract.
Students, after all, do not pay the full cost of their tertiary education. Even with the loans, they are being subsidised by the taxpayer. In return for that aid, however, they must make a contribution themselves.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
This demanded a response to the anonymous author of that piece;
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:03 PM
subject: Letter to the editor
.
The Editor
DOMINION POST.
In your editorial, “Loan defaulters break ‘social contract”you state, “Those who have refused to do anything now face the threat of the bailiffs and, if they persist, of arrest… Those who refuse to respond are breaking the social contract.” (20 May)
There is no such “social contract”.
The original social contract was for taxpayers to fund education; allow students to graduate without massive debt; get into good careers; earn good salaries, and then pay it forward for the next generation to gain a free education.
That was the social contract.
And considering the numbers of politicians who got a free education in the 1970s and 1980s (John Key, Steven Joyce, Peter Dunne, Judith Collins, Bill English, Nick Smith, et al), it worked very nicely for them.
How much have they paid paid of their tertiary education?
Not one bean, I’ll wager.
Perhaps Key and English should set an example and make a “contribution” (plus interest for delayed payment) for the free tertiary education that was paid by taxpayers at the time.
It’s called leading by example.
.
-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
Previous Related Blogposts
Budget 2013: How NOT to deal with Student loan defaulters
.
.
= fs =
The Right has a new media voice
.
Fairfax Media has a ” new columnist for the Waikato Times” (see: Bill denies kids what they need). Narelle Hensen’s first piece appeared in the Waikato Times on 18 March, followed five days later by another piece, Dole queues long but bosses can’t get workers. (Note: Ms Hensen has previously written and worked under her maiden name; Narelle Suisted, for the Auckland publication, “Auckland Now“, and TV3′s “The Nation“.)
Her first column-piece was a thinly-disguised, homophobic lecturing against gays, lesbians, marriage equality, and their fitness (or lack thereof) as parents.
The second was a nasty little smear against the unemployed.
(This blogger is waiting for her next target. Solo-mums? Maori? There are plenty of minorities available.)
What Fairfax hasn’t disclosed is that Ms Hensen also worked as a Communications Officer for the right-wing think-tank, Maxim Institute (see: Wikipedia Maxim Institute). The Maxim Institute is virulently opposed to marriage equality, as outlined in their submission to Parliament on the Marriage Amendment Bill (see: Submission to the Marriage – Maxim Institute).
It appears that the right-wing in this country have a new voice in the msm (mainstream media).
In her first article, Bill denies kids what they need, Ms Hensen railed against marriage equality. She used children as her weapon-of-choice, and started of with this bizarre statement,
“Most of us, no doubt, would agree, and would find it difficult to decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad. But that is what the Marriage Amendment Bill will require of some kids in generations to come. That is why I don’t support the bill.”
Did I read that right? She condemns the Marriage Amendment Bill because a child “would find it difficult to decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad” ?!
Why would marriage equality demand that of children now? And in what way would that be different to divorce as it is presently?
As most of us are perfectly aware, it is the Family Courts that determine access to children – not the concept of marriage equality. I doubt if Ms Hensen could point to any aspect of the Marriage Amendment Bill that would demand that a child has to “decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad”.
She offers another justification to oppose marriage equality,
“That means some kids will be denied the right to either a mother or a father, while their peers, by luck of birth, will be allowed both.”
Really? And what about the thousands of children who already have only one parent? What about the thousands of heterosexual couples who have separated and their children are “denied the right to either a mother or a father”? Or one has died through illness or accident – that’s real bad luck!
And just why is it “luck” to have heterosexual parents as opposed to gay or lesbian parents? The implication being that having gay/lesbian parents is “bad luck”. Perhaps being born to a mixed-race couple is also “bad luck” for a child? Or born to parents, one of whom might have a disability?
.
.
Not to mention the bad luck of being born to right wing parents…
If a child is ‘lucky’, it is that they have a stable family, with love, attention, set boundaries, support, respect, nutritious food, warmth, good housing, access to education; healthcare, etc. The gender/orientation of parents and caregivers doesn’t really seem to factor as a life-giving necessity.
Indeed, Ms Hensen seemed eager to dismiss love as a trivial matter not worthy of consideration,
“Of course, a lot of people argue the Marriage Amendment Bill is about love, and equality. But love or equality for who? These terms sound great, and they capture our emotions, but taking a moment to think about them makes us realise that in practice, they demand compromise from someone – either gay couples who must compromise the right to raise children, or children, who must compromise the right to have both a mum and a dad.”
It is unclear why gay (or straight) couples need to “compromise” – except in Ms Hensen’s mind where, for some reason, having gay or lesbian parents is a lesser option than heterosexual parents. Is love a transaction that “demands a compromise”? She doesn’t explain what she basis that idea on.
What a strange world that Ms Hensen inhabits.
Except…
Ms Hensen referred to a particular group to justify her prejudices,
“That is why the group Homovox started in France. It consists of homosexual couples who disagree with same-sex marriage, and same-sex adoption. As one contributor says: “The law should seek what is best for a child, and that is to have a mother and a father“.”
It took only a few clicks and poking around on a Search Engine to find out a little more about “Homovox“.
For one thing, it is not a LGBT organisation at all. It’s a front group set up by the Catholic Church, as GAYNZ reported on their website,
When is an LGBT organisation not an LGBT organisation? When it has been established by an antigay French conservative Catholic to make it seem as if there is “French LGBT” opposition to marriage equality. Thus it is with France’s “Homovox”, allegedly a “French” gay organisation of “LGBT” marriage equality opponents. However, on his website, Joe. My. God’s commenters uncovered who was actually behind the website, which turned out to be someone from the French Catholic Right. To be more precise:
[redacted information]
A google search of Maillard Jean-Baptiste turned up this:
He appears to be an anti-gay French Catholic.
[...]
Doing some more research on these guys–they are all Catholics, some are ex-gay, most are right-wingers, and some can’t be found online.
None of these men–an no women–give their full names, where they work, and the man who claims to be the mayor of a “village” doesn’t actually name his village.
Source: “Homovox” Exposed
It seems that the Catholic Church in France has copied the tactics of the Unification Church and Scientologists, who also employ front-organisations as smoke-screens to the parent-church.
Did Ms Hensen know this? If she didn’t, she’s not much of a journalist.
If she was aware of the true nature of “Homovox” – and chose not to disclose it – then she has an agenda of her own. And the presentation (or lack) of facts is not part of it.
Ms Hensen is not above claiming statistics to back up her prejudices,
“Of course, there are those who argue it is better to bring up a child in a loving homosexual relationship than it is for them to be raised in an antagonistic heterosexual relationship. But if we are going to make comparisons, they must be fair. And when you compare a loving, heterosexual marriage with a loving homosexual union, the statistics paint a very clear picture.”
- but tellingly, she refuses to disclose any such statistics for the reader. So much for her comment that “if we are going to make comparisons, they must be fair”.
We are, I guess, expected to take her word that such statistics exist? Perhaps they are held by her former employers at Maxim Institute – an organisation known for it’s hostility toward gays and lesbians having full equal rights.
The point of that last paragraph, I suggest to the reader, is to undermine any notion that having loving parents who care for children should not be judged on the basis of sexual orientation. Note her reference,
“And when you compare a loving, heterosexual marriage with a loving homosexual union…”
What about comparing a dysfunctional heterosexual household with a loving gay/lesbian household? God knows there are plenty of the former. Our newspapers are full of stories where children, infants, babies were mercilessly ill-treated until their fragile bodies could no longer cope with dad’s punches whilst mum looked on, or vice versa.
The parents of Delcelia Witika were good, solid, heterosexuals who engaged in Maxim Institute-approved, heterosexual, sex. Then they killed their little girl.
I submit to Ms Hensen, that at such a point in a brutalised child’s life, they are not really going to give a damn if the wearer of steel-capped boots kicking their heads to pieces, is heterosexual or not.
Ms Hensen’s says,
“It is often very difficult to decide whose rights win, which is why there are so many court cases, and indeed courts, all about human rights. But when it comes to adults’ rights conflicting with the rights of children, most of us would agree that children should come first.”
Except when good parents are gay or lesbian, right, Ms Hensen?
.
*
.
Ms Hensens next article on job seekers, was nothing less than a hate-fest on one of society’s minorities; the unemployed. (See: Dole queues long but bosses can’t get workers)
Her entire article was dedicated to a simple premise; that job seekers in this country are unemployable, with anti-social personalities and severe behavioural flaws consisting of;
“Drunkenness
Absenteeism
Failing drug tests
Physicality when told to leave site
Not turning up for interview
Smoking throughout interview
Chewing gum throughout interview
No CV prepared
CVs full of basic spelling mistakes”
Her column mercilessly depicted the unemployed as unfit for employment. One of her commentators even questioned their right to be citizens.
She quoted anecdote after anecdote of unemployed people with allegedly poor personal habits and poor work ethics – though she gave few details what the jobs were or any other specifics.
Employers and Manufacturers Association Northern chief executive, Kim Campbell, referred to New Zealand’s unemployed as being “the dregs” - a theme typical of Ms Hensen’s piece.
Dave Connell, vice-president of the New Zealand Contractors Federation and managing director of Connell Construction, was somewhat more subdued in his criticisms,
“We have dealt with absenteeism, drunkenness, drugs . . . We are persevering for three to six weeks sometimes.”
As a damning propaganda piece, with the purpose of vilifying the unemployed, it was masterfully done.
Other than that, though, one has to ask the question; what the hell was the point of it? What possible purpose did it serve? Because it sure as hell didn’t shed much light on the subject.
I have an idea.
Up till now, the unemployed have been painted as lazy, boozing, and unwilling to go out and find work.
That myth has been well and truly dispelled with stories of thousands of unemployed queuing for a few jobs. Just recently, on 12 March, ‘Campbell Live’ did a series of stories of hundreds of workers lining up for just seven jobs at an Auckland factory (see: Sign of the times: hundreds queue for 7 jobs)
Or any of these stories of job seekers outnumbering vacancies,
10 applicants for every one shelf-stocking job
Applicants queue for 20 jobs at new KFC store
Demand Strong for New Jobs Up for Grabs in Glenfield
Jobseekers flood a new Hamilton call centre
1200 applicants for 200 supermarket jobs
Ms Hensen could not write a credible story desparaging the unemployed as “lazy”. In these times of high unemployment, the public no longer accepts that generalisation. In fact, most people probably know someone who has lost their job, or, fresh our of school or University, cannot land a job, and has been turned down application after application.
So, for Ms Hensen that avenue was closed off.
Instead, in the best tradition of right wingers who blame the victims of this country’s on-going recessionary fall-out, she attacked and desparaged the quality of job seekers.
Repeating anecdotal stories, without any supporting context to offer a deeper understanding, she wrote a piece that painted job seekers as poorly educated; drug addicts; inarticulate – even chewing gum!
As a hatchet job, it certainly perpetuated negative stereotypes about the unemployed. It also reinforced the unacknowledged class structure that has been developing in this country for the last 30 years; the unemployed are “riff raff, beneath our contempt; and not worthy of being treated as our equals”.
As a “dog whistle” it attracted 321 comments (as at the time of this blogpost being written) – many of which were little more than ill-informed, offensive, stereotyping.
Ms Hensen might care to reflect on the irrational hatred expressed by those who supported her story. Is that the readership she is pandering to?
It also showed of some of Ms Hensen’s sources as less than ideal unemployers, with barely concealed prejudices.
But even if Ms Hensen’s poisonous polemic was 100% accurate, reflecting an unvarnished reality – employers and government have only themselves to blame.
How many times have trade unionists, economists, and leftwing commentators warned employers and government that if New Zealand continued to drive down wages – as National has been doing with it’s labour law “reforms” – what did they think would happen?
On 1 April, the minimum wage will rise by 25 cents to $13.75 per hour. In Australia the rate is NZ$19.96 an hour, though wages are usually higher than that.
On 1 May, young people 16 to 19 will also have a new youth rate, that will be 80% of the minimum wage. That’s $11 per hour. How will young New Zealanders react to what is effectively a wage-cut?
And employers are whinging their heads off that the best and brightest are buggering off to Aussie?
The reality, though, is more prosaic. People want work. The unemployment benefiit ($204.96/wk/net) is not sufficient to live on. Many looking for work will be University graduates. Others will be poorly educated. But they all want a job.
Perhaps the real purpose of Ms Hensen’s article - dressed up as a “news story” - was designed to serve as propaganda in a prelude to relaxing immigration laws and allow immigrant workers to flood the country? By creating a new urban myth that unemployed New Zealanders are “dregs”, it gives National the excuse to bring in labour from overseas. Cheap labour. Workers who will not kick up a fuss about exploitation; lax safety practices; and abuse.
The abuse of workers on Foreign Charter Vessels fishing within our EEZ waters gives an idea what might be our future (see previous related blogpost: A Slave By Any Other Name).
I suspect Ms Hensen is not finished with excoriating minorities in this country. Her poison pen is poised. It’s only a matter of who is next in her sights. And what her agenda is.
What a waste of intellect.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 March 2013.
.
*
.
References
Linked In: Maxim Institute Media and Communications Officer at Maxim Institute/Narelle Hensen
Bill denies kids what they need (18 March 2013)
Dole queues long but bosses can’t get workers (23 March 2013)
Other blogs
The Jackal: National’s Campaign of Disinformation
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
.
.
Housing NZ Current waiting list
As at 30 April 2013 there were 4,568 people on the waiting list. Of this:
-
1,172 were Priority Eligible – A
-
2,207 were Priority Eligible – B
-
728 were C (assessed before 30 June 2011)
-
461 were D (assessed before 30 June 2011)
Acknowledgment: Housing NZ – Waiting list
Some facts;
- As at 30 April this year, Housing NZ had 3,379 people on it’s Category A and B waiting lists (Categories C and D are so low priority that their chances of getting into a state house are next to nil). (see: IBID)
- According to Housing NZ, they had 69,400 properties in the 2011/12 financial year (see: HNZ -Addressing housing demand). This has probably reduced significantly as many rental properties – such as in Pomare, Lower Hutt – were demolished in June 2011 (see: Pomare housing demolition begins).
- Child poverty in New Zealand has increased;
In 2006/07 230,000, or 22 percent, of New Zealand children were still living in poverty. That is, in households with incomes below the 60 percent median income poverty line, after taking housing costs into account. This is more than the entire population of North Shore City (205,605) or the Manawatu-Wanganui region (222,423) and means one adult and one child were living on $430 a week before housing costs. (see: Brief Statistics on Child Poverty in New Zealand 2004-2008)By 2011/12, approximately 270,000, or 25%, of New Zealand children were living in poverty. (see: Solutions to Child Poverty) - A recent UNICEF report placed New Zealand amongst the worst in developed countries for child wellbeing, ranking us 25th out of 34 developed countries. We are now behind Australia and Britain also for homicide rates, child health, and safety. (See: NZ ranked poorly on child welfare)
In the past, one of the principle means by which New Zealand has attempted to ameliorate the destructive effects of poverty is for the provision of State housing, where tenants pay 25% of their household’s net income (See: HNZ -Income-related rent)
For thousand of low-income New Zealanders, this has meant the difference between this,
.
Acknowledgment: NZ History Online – Inside a state house
.
Or this,
.
.
Unfortunately, too many New Zealanders have a narrow view of life and society in general, and cannot accept that in a civilised society there is a dire need for the State to provide housing for those who cannot manage, or, have fallen on hard times – especially during the Global Financial Crisis. But that need exists, and it is the price we pay for living in a decent society where beggars do not line the streets.
Even those who grudingly admit that social housing is a necessity still hold to the belief that State housing is for “short term emergencies”, and not for any longer period.
This writer thoroughly disagrees and disputes that notion.
The principle of housing is not just to provide a roof over people’s heads and give them warm shelter from cold and rain.
Social housing – as the name ‘social‘ implies – is where those on the lower socio-economic scale (ie, the poor) can create communities; offer mutual support; perhaps grow food for themselves in their backyards; and where children can put down roots and attend their local school on a steady, uninterupted basis.
The last thing we need now is those on low incomes (or vulnerable in other ways) being evicted from their state homes and forced into a life of transience – or trapped in high-cost rental accomodation, leaving little aside for food, medicines, clothing, etc.
This is precisely what National appears to be planning;
.
Acknowledgment: State tenants face ‘high need’ review
.
National’s 2013 Budget proposes;
Reviews of state housing tenants will be phased in from next year. Housing New Zealand estimates the reviews will lead to 1000 tenants moving out of state houses in 2015-16 and a further 2000 in 2016-17. About 10,000 tenants are already subject to reviews, if they signed an agreement after July 2011.
Assessment for housing will also be carried out by the Ministry of Social Development and integrated with other services.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Bill English described it with words that belied the misery that such a policy could create,
“It can become a trap for those whose circumstances could improve. We want to ensure people are in the most appropriate houses for them.
We will be looking at when tenants’ circumstances change and when they no longer have higher needs and will help to move them into other housing.”
Acknowledgment: Budget 2013: All state house tenancies to be reviewed
Only a Tory who has never know deprivation, hunger, and hopelessness could call a decent chance for a warm home as a “trap”.
It’s the same weasel words that National uses for welfare payments that can put food in unemployed person’s belly.
It’s not a “trap” – it’s a lifeline for survival.
English refers to “moving tenants into other housing“.
What housing? There is a critical shortage of low-cost rental housing in this country.
Moving a tenant on a low or fixed income into a $300-$400/week rental will achieve nothing except push the poor further into poverty.
It will also inevitably increase transience, as tenants fall behind in market rents and have to move on a regular basis. This uproots children from their school.
And it eventually leads to shocking incidents like this;
.
Acknowledgment: CYF lost track of neglected children
.
Welfare minister, Paula Bennett acknowledged the obvious,
“Because of the family’s transience, living in a number of regions, I am unable to give detailed information and an actual number [of social worker visits] at this time.
What I can say is there has been previous Child, Youth and Family involvement and notifications over many years, but Child, Youth and Family was unaware that they were at that [Lower Hutt] residence until January 4, when the police were involved.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
So, let’s be clear about this: forcing low income people from their homes is a pointless excercise in futility that achieves nothing except exacerbate poverty.
It creates unnecessary stress in already stressed families.
We will see ghastly consequences of families pushed further into poverty and unable to cope with financial pressures.
And, as usual, it will be the children who suffer the most.
All for what? What possible purpose or benefit is there in pushing people out of their homes and out of their local community?
Remember the stats above?
As at 30 April 2013 there were 4,568 people on the waiting list. Of this:
-
1,172 were Priority Eligible – A
-
2,207 were Priority Eligible – B
National has never been a Party to promote socially proactive programmes. At best they tolerate what Labour governments have built up over decades (like social housing).
The waiting list – 3,379 people on it’s Category A and B waiting lists – is obviously an embarressment to National ministers.
But instead of building an extra 3,400 houses or flats (which is doable), National has tackled the waiting list in a novel way; displace existing tenants into private accomodation, and re-tenant with those 3,379 in Caregories A and B.
It is a cynical manipulation of people’s lives so National ministers can, at next year’s election, claim that they have “eliminated” the state housing waiting list.
A “revolving door” of poor tenants is National’s cunning plan to solve the state housing shortage.
In the meantime, we will see more and more stories like this in our media,
The parents, a 25-year-old man and a 23-year-old woman, have pleaded guilty to failing to provide medical care, food and nutrition to the children, aged 4, 3, 2, and 7 months.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said in Parliament yesterday that her staff had been aware of the family for many years, but the agency lost track of them when they moved from Whanganui towards the end of last year.
Acknowledgment: CYF lost track of neglected children
A Message to John Key & other National clowns
In an op-ed piece in the Dominion Post on 17 May, former-Labour President, Mike Williams wrote that National policies – especially relating to poverty and housing – would hand “the Labour Party a golden opportunity to win the general election next year“. (see Budget: Stirring state house voters)
Williams further stated,
Budget 2013 gives a very large group who don’t turn out to vote on a regular basis a very good reason to cast their ballots next year. These are state house tenants.
What we all know is that there are just under 70,000 state rental houses in this country. What Labour discovered in 2004 was that there are between three and four enrolled voters per household and that a large majority of these potential electors do not bother to cast a ballot on a regular basis.
The threat to state house tenants planned for election year by National is a gift to Labour in a tight contest. Nearly everyone in a state house will have their tenancy reviewed and 10 per cent of these people will be moved on. That nice Mr Key has grown teeth.
On September 17, 2005, Don Brash was denied victory at the last moment by increased participation in South and West Auckland, north Wellington and east Christchurch – just where you find lots of state houses.
Acknowledgment: IBID
A bit of simple arithmetic: nearly 70,000 state homes times three or four enrolled voters per household equals 210,000 voters (conservative estimate).
Considering that the 2011 election yielded the following voting results,
National: 1,058,638
Labour: 614,936
Greens: 247,370
Add 200,000 votes to Labour and the Greens – and National will be out of office. And Key is out of a job.
Make no mistake, Mr Key; Labour, the Greens, and Mana will work in concert to target every single state house and flat at the next election. Every person will be made aware of National’s intentions. Every single state house tenant will be warned that their continuing tenancy will depend on National being voted out of office.
National has just made 200,000 new enemies.
Nicely done, Mr English – a political suicide note dressed up as a “budget”.
.
*
.
References
Fairfax Media: Parents accused of neglecting kids (11 Jan 2013)
Fairfax Media: Neglected kids back home in days (15 May 2013)
Fairfax Media: CYF lost track of neglected children (16 May 2013)
NZ Herald: Budget 2013: All state house tenancies to be reviewed (16 May 2013)
Dominion Post: State tenants face ‘high need’ review (17 May 2013)
Dominion Post: Budget: Stirring state house voters (17 May 2013)
Additional
Previous related blogposts
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: Radio NZ and politicians
.
Acknowledgment: RNZ board concerned over budget freeze
.
At a time when state sector workers have received little or no pay increases, perhaps one of the worst cases of worker exploitation is at Radio New Zealand.
This year, yet again, there was no provision in this Budget to give a pay rise to Radio NZ staff. Not one cent.
In fact, Radio NZ staff have not recieved a pay increase since 2009,
The Government froze funding despite an independent “baseline funding review” from accountancy firm KPMG, which showed Radio NZ was underfunded and understaffed, and underpaid its employees.
The review – commissioned by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and which the Herald obtained under the Official Information Act – was initially withheld by the Government.
Published in November 2007, the KPMG review said Radio NZ – which broadcasts Radio NZ National and Radio NZ – needed $7 million to $7.6 million to meet commitments in 2008-2009 and was short of 25 employees. The shortfall would grow to $8.6 million to $9.5 million and 40 staff by 2010-2011.
The Labour Government last year increased Radio NZ’s funding by $2.4 million. But an insider said that money had been taken up by inflation and Radio NZ faced essentially the same problems to sustain services as in 2007.
Acknowledgment: Pay freeze tipped as Radio NZ slashes costs
Interestingly, Statistics NZ states that salary/wage rates (including overtime) for the public sector rose by 1.6% in the year to the June 2012. (see: Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): June 2012 quarter) Obviously Radio NZ staff recieved none of that increase and the 1.6% figure is probably made up mostly of executive’s generous increases on their already bloated salaries.
Just a few of the state sector executives who have recieved salary increases, as reported last year;
- Albert Brantley – CEO, Genesis Power – $1.18 million (up 22%)
- Don Elder – CEO, Solid Energy – $1.4 million (up 11%)
- John Allen – MFAT - $620,000-$630,000 (up from $580,000-$590,000, 2011)
- Doug Heffernan – CEO, Mighty River Power - $1.8 million (up 34%)
- Tim Lusk – former CEO, Meridian – $1.22m (up 42%)
And MPs are not shy at accepting regular pay increases. As the Herald’s Adam Bennett reported last December (2012);
MPs will receive a 1.9 per cent pay increase, the Remuneration Authority confirmed this afternoon.
The salary increases are deemed to have come into effect on July 1 this year meaning MPs will receive back pay for the last six months. That works out to $1400 for backbench MPs and $3895 for the Prime Minister…
[...]
… Since 2009 general salaries and wages had risen by 5.6 per cent while parliamentary salaries excluding the $2000 and $5000 increases to make up for he loss of travel perks, had risen by only 2.9 per cent, the authority said.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald - MPs get 1.9 per cent pay rise
It’s self-evident how politicians view issues surrounding pay increases for themselves and executives, as opposed to staff at state owned enterprises.
What makes the zero pay increase for Radio NZ staff even more problematic – and downright reeking of surreptitious political interference – is that Radio NZ is the only remaining public broadcaster left in this country after the demise of TVNZ7 last year.
Judging by the high number of National ministers who refuse invitations to be interviewed by Radio NZ journalists, it is abundantly clear that right wing politicians fear and loathe the public broadcaster. Aside from a few gutsy journos (eg, Patrick Gower, John Campbell, and Guyon Espiner) on TV3, there are few left in corporate electronic media willing to risk the ire of this current government.
National ministers simply don’t have the balls (except maybe Judith “Democracy Crusher” Collins) to close down or privatise Radio NZ.
Strangling it with lack of funding and underpaying staff is a safer, sneakier way to achieve that goal.
It’s pretty much like killing a potplant you got as a Christmas present from your Aunt Dotty. You can’t throw it out because Aunty would notice, so you “do the deed” by denying it water.
How else to explain that politicians have been awarded substantial annual salary increases – whilst Radio NZ staff have received nothing?
.
Annual Salary Increases: 2009 – 2012
|
MPs % Increase |
Radio NZ % increase |
|
| 2009 | nil |
nil |
| 2010 | 10% |
nil |
| 2011 | 1.5% + $5000 payment to compensate for lost international travel perk |
nil |
| 2012 |
1.9% (backdated 6 months) |
nil |
.
This is not just about the “politics of envy” – this is about the principles of equity. We simply cannot afford to let a taonga such as Radio NZ wither and die.
Easy Solution?
The easiest solution? Tie ALL salary adjustments of state sector employees, management, executives, as well as the judiciary and elected representatives, to determinations by the Remunerations Authority.
If a salary increase is good enough for members of Parliament, then it’s good enough for everyone else paid by the taxpayer.
As John Key exhorted in 2009,
“I think it is wholly appropriate that the Government leads by example.”
Acknowledgment: Key urges restraint on MP salary rises
Indeed, Mr Key, indeed.
Now would be a good time to show that you mean what you say.
.
*
.
References
Beehive: Key urges restraint on MP salary rises (22 Jan 2009)
Radio NZ: RNZ board concerned over budget freeze (16 May 2012)
Statistics NZ: Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): June 2012 quarter
Additional
NZ Herald: Pay freeze tipped as Radio NZ slashes costs (31 Aug 2009)
TV3: Govt accused of pay rise double standards (26 March 2012)
NZ Herald: CEO Pay Survey: Salaries stall for NZ’s top bosses (8 June 2012)
NZ Herald: Top public sector pay packets revealed (11 Oct 2012)
NZ Herald: MPs get 1.9 per cent pay rise (20 Dec 2012)
Previous related blogposts
Why the Remuneration Authority just doesn’t get it
TVNZ7 – Picking at the body before it’s cold
21 May – Public meeting: TVNZ7 gets the big tick!
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: Suffer the little children… to starve
.
See: UN urges: Eat more insects! (Seriously)
.
As the growing crisis of child poverty continues to dominate the country’s attention (and so it damn well should!), National raised expectations by dropping more than a few hints,
.
Acknowledgment: Poverty, housing key Budget features
.
But National’s 2013 Budget yielded no real solutions to the growing problem of hungry children in our schools.
With 275,000 children living in poverty, John Key and Bill English could not come up with any initiatives to combat this shameful problem,
.
Acknowledgment: Key tight-lipped on food in schools
.
Key’s response was that feeding children was an important issue but was also “somewhat the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff“.
I’m sure that hungry kids in schools throughout the country will understand that this rotten government (aided and abetted by John Banks and Peter Dunne) refuses to offer even a simple bowl of weetbix and milk or toast and butter because – god forbid – it might be an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff“.
Using such logic, we should offer not offer any medical assistance to half the people in our hospitals. Many are suffering from obesity-related diseases; cancers caused by tobacco use; alcohol-abuse related injuries or diseases; etc.
Are we prepared as a nation to bar people from hospital just in case they contributed to their own misfortune?
Before anyone thinks we should, they may want to review their own lifestyle before passing judgement on others.
Meanwhile, our well-paid and well-fed (courtesy of tax-payers) elected leaders were doing very nicely for themselves at post-budget events,
As Prime Minister John Key and Finance Minister Bill English tucked into post-Budget meals, they kept their mouths closed over the Food in Schools programme.
Providing breakfast and lunch to needy kids was discussed as part of the Government’s plan to tackle child poverty, but the details weren’t included in yesterday’s Budget.
The programme was expected to involve extensive partnership with companies and community groups already involved in providing food to hungry students.
Following a post-Budget breakfast of bacon and a chocolate muffin, English today said an announcement would be made in the next couple of weeks.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Well, I think we can all be relieved about one thing. At least our beloved politicians are eating well.
.
Acknowledgment: Getty Images
.
A Conversation with JONS (Judgemental & Opinionated National Supporter),
Frank: “We have a real problem in this country with children going to school hungry and without food.”
JONS: “It’s the parent’s responsibility to feed their kids. They need to lay of the booze and baccy!”
Frank: “Only a minority are wasting their money on alcohol and tobacco. For many families, there’s just not enough left over from a minimum wage of $500 a week Especially after $300 in rent or mortgage, $50 for electicity, plus phone, plus medication, plus car costs, etc are all taken out.”
JONS: “So, they shouldn’t have kids then!”
Frank: “Really? So only those on higher incomes should have children?”
JONS: “Yeah. Can’t afford’em, don’t breed’em.”
Frank: “Is that the kind of society you want to live in? That parents who earn below a certain income shouldn’t have kids?”
“JONS: “Sure.”
Frank: “Ok. So let’s extrapolate from that. Let’s say it takes a household with children about $70,000 a year to live on.
Does that sound about right?”
JONS: “Yeah, sure.”
Frank: “Ok, In the year ended December 2011, there were 61,403 (live) births in New Zealand”
JONS: “Ok…”
Frank: “The number of households with kids in New Zealand earning over $70,000 is 26%.
26% of 61,403 is about 15,965…
So if only families who earn $70 grand or over can have kids, the next question is; who is going to pay for the superannuation for a couple of million baby boomers in retirement? Because 15,965 children growing up into tax-paying adults is not going to be enough to pay the superannuation bill, is it, JONS?”
JONS: “Ummm…”
That’s right, my dear National supporters. You can put aside your blind prejudice against the poor. The kids that are hungry at school today, are the future taxpayers of tomorrow. They will be the ones paying for our retirement.
So we better take damn good care of them, eh?
.
*
.
Previous related blogpost
Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”
.
.
= fs =
Brain fades and balls ups
.
.
On 20 March, Key made this curious remark, regarding Shearer’s stuff-up over his undeclared New York bank account,
“You don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say (you’ve made) a mistake but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – IRD knew of Shearer account, but not Parliament
There are two points of interest regarding that remark,
1. “…but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Not true.
As Vernon Small wrote in the Dominion Post on 21 March,
He was right to front-foot it by doing the rounds of the press gallery to disclose his blunder and face the music. It would have played must worse if he had left it until the next register of pecuniary interests was published.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax media – Shearer’s bank blunder threatens chances
Yet again this is another prime example of Key willfully mis-representing facts to suit his own purpose. His ability to “bend the truth” is unparalled by any other Prime Minister, whether Labour or National.
Shearer actually fronted to journalists and made a candid admission of his stuff-up.
When is the last time Key or Banks did the same?
2. ” You don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say (you’ve made) a mistake…”
Why should Labour (or any other Party) “cut any slack” for the National-led government?
Did National “cut any slack” for Labour when Helen Clark was Prime Minister? No, the Nats were relentless in their disparagement of Labour. In fact, they were often quite brutal,
.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – National launches its Food in Schools programme
.
(Note: National never proceeded with it’s “Food in Schools” programme, and the policy was quietly dropped soon after they were elected into power in November 2008. see: Govt guarded on free school meals)
And this little ‘beauty’ in abusing Labour, in this January 2008 speech by John Key,
” Under Helen Clark and Labour, our country has become a story of lost opportunities.
Despite inheriting the tail wind of a strong global economy, Helen Clark has failed to use that momentum to make significant improvement in areas of real importance to New Zealanders. She has squandered your economic inheritance by failing to build stronger foundations for the future.
Tomorrow, Helen Clark will tell us what she thinks about the state of our nation. In all likelihood, she’ll remind us how good she thinks we’ve got it, how grateful she thinks we should be to Labour, and why we need her for another three years.
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
- Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
- Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
- Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
- Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
- Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
- Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
- Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
- Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
- Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Those are the questions on which this election will be fought.
Helen Clark thinks she can hoodwink Kiwi voters into giving her another three years to answer these questions. Well, I say she’s had nine years, she’s had her chance and she’s wasted it. The truth is that as time has gone on, Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less and less on the issues that matter to the people who put them there.”
Acknowledgement: National Party – 2008: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
So when Key whinges about the Labour Party not cutting him “any slack”, Key might consider that he gave as well as he got when he was in Opposition.
That is the role of Opposition – to criticise, challenge, and question. The alternative would be a quick trip down the road to join the club of authoritarian regimes.
By the way… how is John Key’s list of criticisms that he levelled against the Labour Government on 29 January 2008,
- Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
- Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
- Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
- Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
- Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
- Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills?
- Why, when Labour claim they aspire to be carbon-neutral, do our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate?
- Why hasn’t the health system improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it?
- Why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?
Except for interest rates (which is not controlled by governments – which Dear Leader should have known), none of John Key’s list above has improved in any measurable manner.
He’s probably forgotten it by now.
.
Disclosure
This blogger is not a member of the Labour Party, nor has any preference in who leads that Party.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 March 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A: With Martyn Bradbury, Keith Locke & Matthew Hooton On Budget + Key’s Deal + Gilmore Wrap
.
- Citizen A -
-
- 16 May 2013 -
-
- Keith Locke & Matthew Hooton -
-
.
.
Citizen A: With Martyn Bradbury, Keith Locke & Matthew Hooton discuss the following issues:
- Budget 2013, what should the Government spend money on?
- How good is John Key’s poker face when dealing the Sky City Convention Centre deal?
- Was the Aaron Gilmore fiasco an engineered distraction?
For in-depth analysis of this broadcast, go to The Daily Blog and see Was Aaron Gilmore an inside political hit job?
Citizen A screens on Face TV, 7.30pm Thursday nights on Sky 89
.
*
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: How NOT to deal with Student loan defaulters
.
.
1. Prelude
In my parent’s home nation in Eastern Europe, during the era of the Soviet Bloc, the citizens of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovalia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania were denied the right to travel freely to the West. (Mainly because 90% would not have returned.)
Travel outside of the Eastern bloc was severely curtailed. Those trying to cross borders to the West, without appropriate documentation, if caught, faced lengthy prison sentences.
Such was life under authoritarian regimes that used extreme measures to control their citizens.
In 1989, those regimes fell, and freedom returned to Eastern Europe. People were permitted to travel freely without fear of hindrance or arrest.
2. Welcome to the People’s Republic of New Zealand, Inc.
In 2013, New Zealand’s National government announced plans to adopt similar extreme measures. Powers of hindrance and arrest are to be issued to our Border security. Travel will be curtailed for a few.
During Bill English’s Budget speech today (16 May), the Finance Minister made one of the most extraordinary revelations that I have ever heard from a New Zealand politician;
Introducing the ability to arrest non-compliant borrowers who are about to leave New Zealand
Making it a criminal offence to knowingly default on an overseas-based repayment obligation will allow Inland Revenue to request an arrest warrant to prevent the most non-compliant borrowers from leaving New Zealand. Similar provisions already exist under the Child Support Act. This will be included in a bill later this year.
Acknowledgment: IRD – Budget 2013 announcements
It is extraordinary because a loan defaulter is not a matter under the Crimes Act. It is what is known as a Civil matter.
If, for example, you, the reader, default on your mortgage, rent, or hire purchase, the Lender does not involve the Police. Instead, they apply to the Courts for a remedy.
The Tenancy Tribunal and Small Claims Court are examples where litigants can take their cases before a Court, and make their claims. Police are not involved. In the Tenancy Tribunal, there aren’t even any lawyers (generally).
For National to intend issuing arrest warrants, for student loan defaulters, takes the matter of a civil contract into the realm of the Crimes Act.
One wonder if banks, finance companies, and landlords will eventually apply for similar powers?
.
“Open up please, Mrs Jones. Your rent is two weeks in arrears!”
.
The worst aspect – indeed, the dumbest aspect – of this new measure is that it appears no one in National has thought through the consequences of such a harsh, autocratic policy.
This law – if enacted – will not stop people leaving New Zealand. It will stop people returning to New Zealand.
Because the law involves ex-students with loans who have moved overseas; who have defaulted on their loan repayments whilst overseas; return to New Zealand (perhaps for a funeral, holiday, or visit family) – and only then are arrested at an airport as they try to board a plane to fly out of the country again.
Under such circumstances; what loan-defaulting New Zealander will bother coming back to this country? Ever?
Well done, National. You have just provided a further reason (if any was really required) for expat Kiwis to remain – expat. In terms of economic policy, this wasn’t an exercise in rationality – it was an exile in perpetuity.
The message that Key and English have sent to every New Zealander, who owes money to the State, is: don’t come home. The police will be waiting.
So not only have we lost any chance that ex-pat loan defaulters might one day return and pay back their debt – but we’ve lost their expertise and any fortune they might bring back with them.
The sheer lunacy of such an ill-conconceived policy beggars belief.
But then again, maybe not. This was the government that was so cash-strapped last year, that they raided the meagre earnings of paper boys and girls;
.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – Budget 2012: ‘Paper boy tax’ on small earnings stuns Labour
.
This is a mean, desperate government we have, folks.
Make no mistake, they will do whatever it takes to get back into some form of surplus by new year’s election. Because if they don’t – they are dog tucker for sure.
Which is why I’m not holding my breath for Bill English’s “Big Announcement” in two weeks regarding the problem of hungry kids, and initiating a food-in-schools programme. Expect a massive disappointment on this matter.
Meanwhile, our Border Security will no longer be focused on searching for contraband, dangerous goods, or potential weapons being carried onboard airport. They will now be Border Guards tasked with keeping New Zealanders from travelling. Or escaping any other way…
.
.
One wonders who will next be barred from travelling to and from New Zealand?
Consider also, when we take this insane proposal and place it alongside other laws, and proposed law-changes,
- the so-called Terrorism Suppression Act,
- the Search and Surveillance Act,
- the Crown Minerals Amendment Act which suppresses protest at sea and threatens protesters with large fines and terms of imprisonment,
- the IRD sharing sensitive information with other government departments,
- illegal spying by the GCSB – with no legal consequences for those in authority,
- and instead, extension of the surveillance powers of that same GCSB,
- we can see that our country has taken a path that we hoped, and feared, would never happen to us.
Well, it has happened and it is happening.
We are slowly but surely drifting ever closer to a police state.
3. An Open Letter to Labour, The Greens, Mana, and New Zealand First
As a citizen of this country, it is my deepest, sincerest hope that an incoming Labour-Green-Mana(-New Zealand First?)
coalition government will, upon taking office, make an urgent review of the spying powers of our “intelligence community”.
I submit that we have drifted from an open, free society, to one that is highly surveilled; copious data files kept on us; and where police and intelligence groups are straying far beyond their lawful mandates.
I also submit the following,
- We do not need the so-called “Terrorism Suppression Act” or “Search and Surveillance Act”. The Police, with their normal powers, are quite adequate to deal with crimes. They serve no useful purpose and instead give powers to the State which serve only as a prelude to even more Orwellian laws. It is time to take several, big, steps back. These laws should be repealed forthwith.
- The Crown Minerals Amendment Act must be repealed forthwith. It is draconian legislation which serves the interests of corporations and threatens the right of New Zealand citizens to protest activity that is counter to the welfare of our nation and environment. This is a brazen attack of democracy and would be perfectly at home in a Third World dictatorship.
- Do not permit the IRD to share information with other government departments. There is no need to create a vast monolithic State apparatus that collects information on us and in the process, invades our privacy. Allowing the IRD to share information with, say, the Police, will simply serve to drive certain activities further underground.
- Any extension of the GCSB’s surveillance powers should be undone and returned to it’s original purpose. (Or even get rid of it altogether. Precisely why are we spying for the Americans anyway?)
- We desperately need a more effective, well-resourced, oversight mechanism for the SIS, GCSB, and Police. Our Australian neighbours are more serious in the way they over-see their spy agencies and we need to look to them for guidance. If there is one thing that the current Prime Minister has illustrated with crystal clarity – we can no longer trust one person to hold the responsibility for these agencies. At some time in the future, we could have a worse Prime Minister, with even more incompetant or nefarious intent. We must prepare for that day.
Some might say, “if you have nothing to fear, you won’t mind being watched by the State”. If true, my fellow New Zealanders, we might as well put cameras into every home and workplace in the country. After all, if we have nothing to fear…
I would turn it around and say, “if the State has no cause to believe we are about to rob a bank or sell heroin to schoolkids, then it won’t mind keeping out of our private lives”.
Previous governments (including this current one) have gradually extended the power and surveillance capabilities of the State.
It is time to wind back that Orwellian clock and re-set the values which we used to hold for personal privacy, and allow State intrusion only for real (not imagined) criminal activities.
We don’t need to be monitored. We don’t need files kept on us all.
We are not a nation of 4.4 million criminals.
You don’t need to fear us.
.
.
.
= fs =
Meridian Power?
.
.
Our household is with Meridian Energy.
If that’s the next “on the block” to be part-privatised, I’ll be on the phone within sixty seconds to change to Genesis.
.
.
= fs =
*** UP-DATED! *** NEWSFLASH!!! *** On TV3′s Campbell Live Wednesday night!
On TV3′s Cambell Live, Wednesday (not Tuesday) night;
.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Mum not prepared to wait and die
.
Allyson Lock, and six other New Zealanders are suffering from a rare condition called Pompe Disease. It is a condition that is treatable – but which PHARMAC refuses point blank to fund because of “price”.
Allyson is “lucky”. She is receiving treatment from a pharmaceutical company as part of a trial. For this, she has to travel to Australia every two weeks. As I wrote in a previous blogpost,
The travel involved leaving on Wednesday by driving from Masterton to Palmerston North; flying from Palmerston North to Auckland; flying from Auckland to Brisbane; driving next day to a hospital; having treatment; next day flying from Brisbane to Auckland; staying in Auckland overnight; then flying from Auckland to Palmerston North, and then driving from Palmerston North, home to Masterton. In the meantime her husband took time off work to care for their children. (Travel, food, and accomodation costs are met by the drug company.)
This routine takes place every two weeks.
Source: “One should judge a society by how it looks after the sick and vulnerable” – part tahi
There are others with Pompe Disease not so “fortunate”, and PHARMAC’s decision is efftively a death sentence.
This blogger has supported Allyson and her fellow sufferers ( aas well as others with rare diseases). Correspondence with Health Minister, Tony Ryall, yielded this deeply callous response,
.
.
Not enough money to fund treatment for ill New Zealanders – but plenty to throw at new BMWs? Rugby World Cup tournaments? Or subsidise movies? Or other corporate welfare? Or bail-outs for finance companies? Or pay rises for MPs?
Campbell Live has taken an interest in Allyson, and will be featuring a story on her tomorrow night(Wednesday 15 May).
This blogger encourages the reader to tune in to Campbell (tv3, at 7pm, ot TV3-Plus, at 8pm) and share in Allyson’s story.
[This blogpost has been up-dated. The original screening time was tonight, Tuesday, 14 May. The date is now Wednesday 15 May.]
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Terminal disease sufferer appeals to John Key – Update & more questions
Terminal disease sufferer appeals to John Key
National Party Supporters and their ‘Empathy’ for a woman with a terminal disease
“One should judge a society by how it looks after the sick and vulnerable”
“There’s always an issue of money but we can find money for the right projects” – John Key
Health Minister circumvents law to fulfill 2008 election bribe?
.
.
= fs =
John Key advocates theft by banks?
.
.
Recent events in Cyprus have once again brought the global financial sector into sharp public consciousness. This time, as well as a bailout, there was a serious – and ominous - demand from the EU that Cyprus make a “one off” levy (or tax) on the savings of Cypriots and others living in that country.
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Hard EU bailout terms anger Cypriot savers
.
Deposits up to and over €100,000 ($158,000) would be levied with a 9.9% tax whilst below that threshold would be pay a ‘lower’ portion of 6.75%.
Unsurprisingly, the proposed tax resulted in a run on cash withdrawals at ATMS (see: Cypriots asked to surrender up to 10 percent of bank balances in return for EU bailout); banks closed their doors (see: Fury as banks closed to avert run); global sharemarkets were affected (see: Stock Markets Fall Amid Fears Of New Eurozone Crisis); and the British government was forced to fly in one million euros to pay military personnel (see: One Million Euros Heading To Island For British Military Personnel ).
Pressure on the Cypriot government was such that in the last 48 hours, the Savings Tax was dumped (see: Rejection of Deposit Tax Scuttles Deal on Bailout for Cyprus). The Cypriot Parliament voted thirtysix against, with nineteen abstaining. It is noteworthy that not one politician risked his/her life by voting for the proposal.
Europeans. They know how to put pressure on their elected representatives.
Meanwhile, back home, in the Land of the Long White Cloud and several million sheep…
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – NZ bank bailout scheme is last resort, says PM
.
Key’s statement here is chilling,
“At the end of the day we’re talking about emergency provisions. These banks are heavily regulated, they have significant oversight and lender of last resort facilities at the Reserve Bank.
This is really in the event that a bank got itself in such a terrible mess that it fell over and had to restart again.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
If that is supposed to be reassuring – it is not. In fact, if anything, this is a clear warning to every single New Zealander that if a bank gets into trouble – or if there is even a hint of trouble – to get in quickly and withdraw every cent that a depositor might have.
If a bank gets in trouble, and has a crippling run on deposits, it will be as a direct consequence to Key’s plan to dip into people’s savings to bail out that institution,
The Reserve Bank’s Open Bank Resolution (OBR) plan, due to come into effect at the end of June, would mean a partial loss on all deposits if a bank failed in New Zealand, in order to fund the bank’s bailout.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax media – Reserve Bank scheme news knocks kiwi
Ironically, this is where Libertarians – who consider all taxation as theft – may have a point.
Taxation is one thing. We pay it so we can enjoy the benefits of a modern society and economy. Roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police, etc, do not materialise out of thin air.
Dipping into people’s savings accounts – which has already been taxed one way or another – is not a tax. It is expropriation.
Expropriatiion – that dreaded word which National and it’s supporters levy against the Left when we talk about re-nationalising State assets. But which evidently is ok if a bank goes bust and has to be bailed out?
If this principal is to be applied across all sectors of society and the economy, then one could imagine that employees and sub-contractors of Mainzeal should have been taxed to bail out that company. Why should a bank be different to a construction company? Is there a difference?
If this expropriation of deposits was ever to happen, do the depositors gain any benefit? Do they gain shares in the Bank as compensation? Or, if not, does that mean that shareholders gain the benefit of other people’s money being used to prop up their investments?
One could imagine an invalid on a WINZ benefit having his/her meagre savings “taxed” to bail out a bank – to preserve an investor’s shareholding that may be worth millions of dollars. This isn’t justice or common sense, this is nasty, medieval, “robber Baron” stuff.
The biggest irony here is that, according to the principals of the free market, this is a kind of subsidy to a business – a subsidy enforced by the State, against the will of people who are not even shareholders in a particular bank.
Even marxists would balk at such extreme State power to seize people’s money. They’d simply nationalise the bank and be done with it. Depositors would still have their modest savings left intact and untouched.
Key’s proposal is not just crazy from almost every perspective – it is an insult to our intelligence. Especially when banks are doing very well with their profits,
.
.
When profits for New Zealand’s four largest banks are at a staggering $3.5 billion (for 2011/12) – an increase of 22% – then that must raise serious questions why Dear Leader is even considering making depositors pay for any potential future bailout.
Shouldn’t the banks be looking at a deposit insurance scheme of some sort? You’d think so, wouldn’t you?
Perhaps, though, an event like this is what might be required to jolt New Zealanders out of their collective complacency. It’s only when the middle classes are hit hard in their wallets, that they stop being passive consumers and start to reassert themselves as active citizens.
Because, my fellow Kiwis, you can bet your last dollar (before the banks seize it) that John Key’s $50 million will be somewhere else – probably safe in some Swiss Bank account.
The people of Cyprus (and Iceland) have shown us the way.
Addendum
Remember the so-called “Light Bulb” and “Shower Heads” affairs, in 2008, where National slammed the then-Labour Government as engaging in “Nanny State” politics? (see: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state ) National’s Nick Smith said,
“People should be free to use as much water as they like when showering, provided they don’t expect others to pay for their profligacy. User-pays is a far better approach than nanny state.”
So using eco lightbulbs and smaller shower flows, to conserve electricity and water is nasty “Nanny Statism”.
But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory? Well, I’m glad that’s settled.
(Cue theme music to ‘Monty Python’s Flying Circus’.)
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 March 2013.
.
*
.
References
Banking profits up 13.6 percent
ASB Bank cash profit rises 7pc
BNZ first-half profit jumps 36pc
$3.5b profits for big four banks
Outcry at big banks’ mega-profits
Additional
Reserve Bank scheme news knocks kiwi
.
.
= fs =
On child poverty, to the Sunday Star Times…
A letter to the editor of the Sunday Star Times, based on a response on a previous blogpost, National on Child Poverty?!
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <editor@star-times.co.nz>
date: Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM
subject: letters to the editor.
The EditorSunday Star Times
.
I would fully support meals in ALL schools, regardless of decile ratings. It would eliminate labelling a school as “poor”. Feeding kids in all decile schools would be a benefit for parents for less pressure on them to daily prepare meals for their children – especially where both spouses might be working and busy in the mornings. School breakfasts and lunches would remove some of the early morning pressures and stresses.The good thing, though is we would once again be on a road to egalitarianism. Imagine if all kids, regardless of class, had the same meals (taking into consideration personal needs; allergies, religion, etc).
If our cuzzies in Britain, Canada, and Scandinavian nations can achieve this, I’m dumbfounded why so many think this is beyond our capabilities. Are we, as a nation incapable of doing what needs to be done??
I don’t believe that. Not for a moment.
And if National and Peter Dunne can plow $200 million into the Rugby World Cup, their excuse that this is somehow “unaffordable” simply doesn’t wash with me.
So, ok, we start with Decile 1 and 2. I’m a realist. I understand we need to take this one step at a time. The Right Wing in this country are in a frothing-mouthed hysterics over this plan. It would be a major reversal of our current neo-liberal, Me First culture.
This isn’t just about feeding hungry children – this is about the soul of our nation.
This is where we decide what kind of society we want to live in..
-Frank Macskasy
(phone number and address supplied)
.
It’s time to raise our voices on this (and other) problem. As election time nears, they will have one eye on polls and the other on public opinion.
Now is the time to grab their attention.
.
.
= fs =
National on Child Poverty?!
.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Poverty among Budget targets
.
At first glance, it appears that National has recognised that a crisis exists in our country; a crisis involving 275,000 children living in poverty.
Without doubt, this problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”) hit the public’s collective consciousness on 22 November 2011, when Bryan Bruce’s sobering documentary,”Inside Child Poverty” hit our television screens (see: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco).
Since then, the problem has become a major concern concern throughout the country.
More and more organisations, schools, political groups, etc, are adding their voice to a growing clamour for action. Most New Zealanders – those with eyes to see; ears to listen; and a mind to understand – want action. They want kids fed, so that they can attend their schools and learn and get a decent chance at life.
This is what Bryan Bruce, the documentary-maker of Inside Child Poverty wrote on his Facebook page;
.
OK, let’s get some things straight about providing free healthy meals in schools.
1. First of all let’s decide on the principle before arguing about the detail.
Let’s admit there is a significant problem of children turning up to school hungry and that a lot of kids are eating low cost foods that contain a lot of sugar and fat , causing obesity , diabetes and long term health problems.
And at least get the Feed The Kids Bill to Parliamentary Select Committee. You can argue all you want about how it should be funded or what’s going to be on the menu there.
If you don’t think we have a community responsibility to feed children and/or educate their palates to healthy eating habits – then read no further it will only make you angry.
2. It doesn’t fill a hungry kids tummy to point at their parents and shout “Your problem is you have bad parents”. This page takes the view that kids don’t get to choose their parents and we have a community responsibility to ALL our kids to make sure they grow up healthy. And if that means feeding them for free- then that’s what we do.
3. No one is going to force feed any child food they don’t want to eat or is culturally inappropriate. If you watch the video below which I filmed in Sweden for the documentary you will see children from multi -cultural backgrounds CHOOSING their food. And Yes children with allergies are catered for and Yes children can still bring their own lunch prepared by the parents .
4.Free healthy school meals can be paid for without raising taxes. We just choose to re-distribute the existing pool of tax payer money and give up on some other things. Here are some suggestions, I’m sure you can think of other ways we could spend smarter.
(a) We could fund school meals out of the Health vote rather than the Education vote. In a document released under the Official Information Act I revealed that children under 14 receive 10% of the money set aside for health care. But children under 14 represent 20% of our population. So we could fund some of it – if not all of it – by giving kids their fair share.
(b )It is a well accepted health statistic that for every $1 we spend on preventing disease we save $4 in expensive hospital cure. So within a few years the scheme will fund itself out of what we save. If we DON’T do it, taxpayers will be spending much more than they are now on the Health budget in the future.
(c) We could make children a spending priority. National plans to spend a billion a year on Roads of National Significance over the next 10 years. What about Children? – aren’t they of National Signifcance? I’d much rather feed our kids than be able to by – pass small towns while driving to Auckland .
(d) We could pay the pension to people when they actually stop working and not just because they reach 65.
(e) We could spend more energy making sure people paid their taxes . Last year the IRD detected about a Billion dollars worth of tax evasion mostly by businesses. It’s estimated that the real tax evasion in NZ is between 4 and 5 Billion.
If you pay PAYE you can’t cheat your taxes. So we could easily pay for free school meals if more adults played fair.Let’s impose greater penalties for tax evasion, and let’s stop thinking of tax as a bad thing. Tax is a good thing – it’s giving to ourselves. That’s how we can have schools and hospitals and yes even Roads Of National significance. Tax is the price of civilisation. Get over it.
Now whether you agree with some of the above, all of the above or none of the above , let’s at least agree that The Feed The Kids Bill should at least go to Select Committee after its First Reading so the issue can be properly debated.
Please contact your local MP today and urge them to support the Feed The Kids Bill.
You can find their contact details here, just click on their name :
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs
Thank you
Bryan
.
(Please give Brian support by going to his Page and “liking” it. The bigger the numbers, the more ‘clout’ he has.)
It’s fairly obvious to all by the most stubborn-minded that a malnourished child is not well pre-desposed to learning well. A child who cannot focus on his or her lessons and falls behind, eventually becomes alienated and disenchanted. The cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and anger perpetuates.
The Mana Party introduced a “Feed The Kids” Bill – aka the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill – into Parliament last year, on 8 November 2012. The Bill is scheduled to come before Parliament for its first reading on 5 June this year.
With pressure coming hard and fast on Key and his increasingly shakey, poll-driven, ‘government’, their strategists are planning to end National’s destructive austerity Budgets and begin spending on essential social services that are critical to the well-being of our communities.
Part of this is Key’s stated intention;
Children who aren’t fed become victims and the Government has to deal with that, Prime Minister John Key says.
His comments come as action on child poverty is tipped to be the surprise package in Finance Minister Bill English’s fifth Budget on Thursday.
“The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
At his regular press conference, Key was coy at whether National would rule in or out a food in schools programme – but was more candid in ruling out support for Mana’s “Feed the Kids” member’s bill.
So. What we have is;
- A firm “no” by National to Mana’s initiative
- A firm “no” by Peter Dunne to Mana’s initiative (Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”)
- A vague committment; “The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Now, call me a cynic if you like, but National has a fairly poor track record on dealing with social matters, whether it be unemployment, solo-mothers, worker’s rights and conditions, etc.
To give an example; our high unemployment.
Unemployment is high.
Jobs are scarce.
National’s ‘solution’; “reform” social welfare and make it harder for the unemployed to access welfare support, or to retain it. Additional ‘solution’; demonise the unemployed and infer that that are bludging. Ditto for solo-mothers.
That was National’s ‘solution’; force people off welfare and make the numbers look good. (see: Bennett trumpets 5000 fewer on DPB, see: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply, see: Welfare rules force people to struggle on without benefits)
I hope I’m wrong, but my gut feeling is that the Nats plan to pull a “swiftie”. We’re going to see something along these lines;
- A WINZ-based “targetted” approach where families that cannot afford to buy adequate food will have an increase in their food grants – but will probably have to re-pay it from their weekly welfare assistance.
- A reliance on some form of “PPP”-style programme, such as Fonterra’s milk-in-schools programme. There will be nothing concrete – just a “promise” to “investigate possible options”.
- A commision of enquiry of some description.
- An increase for school budgets to buy food, but which will be limited; capped; and money will be taken from elsewhere in Vote:Education to fund this.
- No increase in welfare assistance; no food in schools; but a form of food vouchers making up a portion of a beneficiaries overall entitlement.
- A limited “trial” food-in-schools programme – for a handful of schools only.
Far from addressing this crisis, National, ACT, and Peter Dunne will apply a band-aid “solution” and present it to the public of New Zealand as “Mission: Accomplished”.
It will be nothing of the sort.
Only one thing will begin to address this problem – a change of government.
.
References
NZ Herald: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco (23 Nov 2011)
Previous related blogpost
Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”
Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: Hungry Kids Annoy Frazzled Lobby Group Director
.
.
= fs =
***Breaking News*** Judith Collins issues decision on MMP Review!
A few minutes ago, in reply to a Question by Green MP, Holly Walker, Justice Minister Judith Collins confirmed that National would not be implementing any of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on the Review of MMP.
In the Debating Chamber, Ms Walker asked,
“My question is to the Minister of Justice and asks; does she intend to bring legislation to the House that will implement the recommendations of the MMP review in time for the 2014 Elections?”
Collins replied, simply,
“No.”
Holly Walker then asked a supplementary Question,
“Why did she bother to hold the MMP review if she had no intentions of implementing it’s recommendations in the timeline intended.”
Collins replied,
“Mr Speaker, of course I did not hold the MMP Review. That was a matter that was undertaken by the Electoral Commission. But I can also say that I made it very clear that we need concensus on these matters for any change and there is no concensus for any change.”
So there we have it.
All the time, effort, and money spent by the Commission and by groups, organisations, political parties, etc – has all been for nought.
The Nats will simply ignore the Commission’s recommendations.
This, my fellow New Zealanders, is how National listens to the people.
And they want the Parliamentary term extended from three to four years??
I don’t think so.
.
.
= fs =
Binding future governments – a question.
A letter to the editor of the NZ Herald…
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM
subject: Letters to the editor.The EditorNZ HERALD.
.
Kia ora,
The National government wants to bind future governments to the Sky City deal for the next 35 years.
Can a Labour-Green government bind future National governments to not selling our state owned enterprises?
.
-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
Skycity: National prostitutes New Zealand yet again
.
.
Not only does an extension (to 2048) of Skycity’s licence unconstitutionally bind future governments, but this deal adds to the growing problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”) of gambling addiction in this country.
What on Earth is National thinking?! Is this the best they can do to grow the economy and create jobs???
Because it certainly seems that gambling is indeed one of the country’s “growth” industries,
.
Acknowledgment: Statistics New Zealand – Gaming: an economically significant industry
.
It is worth comparing the above graph with the timelime on the increase of different forms of gambling in this country;
.
Acknowledgment: IBID
.
Note the increase in gambling turnover sharply increasing from 1996, when Auckland’s Skycity casino opens.
The full National Government/Skycity deal is;
Key features of the SkyCity convention centre deal and what KordaMentha estimates they’re worth over 35 years:
* Extension of SkyCity’s casino licence, due to expire in 2021: $65m-$115m
* Additional 230 pokie machines: $95m-$115m*
* Additional 40 gaming tables: $72m-$101m
* More gaming tables that can be substituted for automated table game player stations: $77m-$109m
* Ticket-in, ticket-out and card-based cashless gaming technology on all pokie machines and automatic table games: $84m-$88m
* *Includes allowing up to 17 per cent of pokie machines and automatic table games (in restricted areas only) being able to accept banknotes of denominations greater than $20.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – PM defends 35-year SkyCity deal
It doesn’t take much imagination to consider the boost that this deal will give to Skycity’s turnover.
Key’s claim that this will create 1,800 jobs is dubious, to put it mildly, as his June 2012 NZ Herald report revealed;
.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – “Puzzle of Key’s extra casino jobs”
.
Once again, Key shows that our laws are for sale, if you happen to have the cash to buy a “good deal”. (I must remember that next time I get a speeding ticket…)
.
.
What is the difference between a citizen bribing a policeman to evade the law – and a corporation paying a government to changing the law in return for building a convention centre?
And note that this is not the first time National has changed our laws in return for corporate favours;
.
Acknowledgment: NBR – Warner Bros sought job law change to film The Hobbit in NZ
.
A government that has a plan for economic growth and job creation would not need to stoop to advancing the profitability of what is inarguably a vice – and a particularly dangerous vice, which can destroy families and bring down companies, as addicts steal from employers (or their own business) to fund their habit.
One has to ask; what next? Deals with the Chow Brothers to expand their brothel-business? Deals with tobacco corporations to expand their operations and/or weaken our anti-smoking legislation?
What else is for sale to the highest bidder?
And is this really how New Zealanders see themselves – available for sale?
Is this the best we can do for ourselves, to become a nation of economic prostititutes? (No offence intended to sex-workers.)
Addendum
Some years ago, my partner and I were passing through Auckland on our way to Whangarei to meet up with friends. We stopped in to see Skycity – out first opportunity to visit the tower.
As well as going up the skytower and standing on the glass foot-block, seemingly suspended hundreds of metres over empty air, we had a ‘nosy’ into the casino itself.
I was expecting the casinos of James Bond novels and movies, with patrons dressed in smart, formal evening-wear; jet-black tuxedos and outrageously expensive and outrageously sexy gowns…
What I found were, for the most part, were local Kiwis dressed so far ‘down’, as to appear they had just come from working on their gardens. It was unnaturally quiet, with figures bent over table and pokie machines. There was no “atmosphere” of excitement… more one of fixated desperation.
James Bond would have sniffed his nose with disdain and walked out.
Which is what we did.
.
*
.
Related blogpost
ACC. Skycity. NZ Superannuation. What is the connection?
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How
Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)
Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment – Sunrise, Sunset, and Outlooks
NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries – Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution
John Key has another un-named source???
.
.
= fs =
Why a Four Year Parliamentary Term is not a Good Idea
.
.
Three years or four?
John Key has made suggestions to reform certain aspects of the Parliamentatry electoral cycle,
- A fixed date for elections, such as our American cuzzies have
- And extending the Parliamentary term from three to four years
The first suggestion – having a fixed date for elections – is sound. Anything that takes a wee bit of power away from politicians should be welcomed.
On that basis – anything that takes a wee bit of power away from politicians should be welcomed – extending the Parliamentary term from three to four years is one that fills me with disquiet.
I’ve heard the arguments for extending the Parliamentary term,
- It’s more efficient
- It gives government more time to achieve things
- Governments spend the third year of their current term in election mode to win the next election
None of those three arguments convinces me.
1. It’s more efficient
So is the One Party State; an autocratic ruler; or a Parliamentary term of ten or twenty years . But would we be any better of, in terms of public participation democracy? (Think: Putin in Russia.)
2. It gives government more time to achieve things…
That statement is never completed. It gives government more time to achieve - what? What incredibly complex, radical reforms are there that require an extra year (or more) for a government to have more time? What does Key have in mind that demands a four year term?
Remember that Select Committees work in unison, not one at a time, and Legislation can be passed in as little as 48 hours – as “The Hobbit Law” showed us (see: Helen Kelly – The Hobbit Dispute) – not that I’m advocating legislative changes conducted at warp speed.
Perhaps governments might have “more time to achieve things” if time wasn’t wasted with petty point-scoring in the Debating Chamber?
3. Governments spend the third year of their current term in election mode to win the next election
Perhaps a government might not have to spend the entire third year in “campaign mode” if, in the preceding two years, they worked with the people and not against them?
A phrase comes to mind…
By their works ye shall know them.
A good government shouldn’t have to spend the entire third year in “election mode”. A bad government will never have enough time to campaign for re-election.
It’s not the length of time that should matter to a government, but what they achieve with it. If the people approve, a good government will be returned with a decent majority. A good government should have nothing to fear from the electorate.
.
.
Looking at the last 30 years, would I be inclined to give politicians (of all hues) an extra year?
Not bloody likely.
And I’m not referring to the scandals; the cronyism; unpopular asset sale programme; rising unemployment; cynical beneficiary bashing; growing child poverty and widening income/wealth gap.
I’m referring to attitude.
John Key wants us to trust him with an extra year in power.
But has he given us reason to trust him?
If anything, Key’s attitude of dismissive, casual arrogance does not reassure us that he (or his successors) would use additional political power without a corresponding rise in said arrogance.
To remind the reader of what John Key really thinks of us and his critics…
1. Critics
.
.
In May 2011, journalist journalist Jon Stephenson, wrote a scathing expose of New Zealand’s involvement in Afghanistan and questioned whether they were complicit in torture.
The article outlined two instances last year where SAS forces allegedly captured suspects and handed them to Afghanistan authorities, including the Afghan secret police, the National Directorate of Security, which has a reputation for torturing prisoners.
New Zealand has signed several international conventions outlawing the inhumane detention of prisoners, including torture.
Source: PM attacks journalist over SAS torture claims
When challenged, Stephenson offered,
“I’m happy to put my information before an inquiry. Any fair or impartial inquiry will show that they are the ones misleading the public. Not me.”
Source: IBID
It which point Key jumped in with this derisory response,
“I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”
Key then attempted to smear Stephenson’s character by accusing him of making a bogus phone call.
We should not forget John Key dismissal of Nicky Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan. Key said,
“I don’t have time to read fiction.”
Key claimed that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1,300-plus footnotes to referencing documentation.)
National ministers also seem to have little hesitation in attacking their critics in quite nasty ways. Remember Natasha Fuller, Jennifer Johnston, Bradley Ambrose, and even Bomber Bradbury who fell foul of the system when he dared criticse Dear Leader?
If there are “trust issues” here – they seem well founded.
2.The Poor & Unwise “life” choices
Key’s disdain of those who do not meet his world-view was perhaps best summed up on 17 February, 2011, when he was reported as making these comments,
When Labour’s social development spokeswoman Annette King asked about Salvation Army reports of high demand for food parcels, Mr Key responded by saying it was true that the global recession meant more people were on benefits.
“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills. And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”
Source: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
Well, at least we know the real thoughts of the boy from a subsidised State house, raised by a solo-mum receiving state assistance, and who had the benefit of a free, taxpayer funded University education.
3. Public Opposition
On 4 May 2012, over five thousand people took part in a peaceful, anti-asset sales Hikoi to Parliament,
.
.
Key’s response was instructive,
“How many people did they have? John Key asked reporters. “Where was it? Nope wasn’t aware of it.”
Key says the National Party has a clear mandate to proceed with privatising some state assets.
“Well over a million New Zealanders voted for National in the full knowledge we were going to undertake the mixed ownership model,” he said.
“So look, a few thousand people walking down the streets of Wellington isn’t going to change my mind.”
Source: Key unfazed as protesters descend on Parliament
Nearly a year later, on 12 March, a 392,000-plus signature petition was presented to Parliament. The petition was signed by ordinary New Zealanders who wanted nothing more or less than a say in their future.
.
.
Key’s response?
Key said of the opposition petition you could be as “sure as little green apples [that] huge numbers of them are not bona fide names on the list” and would have to be struck off.
“They’ve probably taken over a year to get maybe 300,000 names, we’ve had 285,000 pre-registrations in a matter of days”.
Source: Government to ignore asset sales referendum
And according to Green Party co-leader, Russell Norman, Key further disparaged New Zealanders who signed the petition by saying,
“…that the Prime Minister has said the people who signed this are children and tourists….”
Source: IBID
Charming.
Key forgot to add, “let them eat cake”.
Unbridled Power?
Never forget that we are governed by an “elected dictatorship”,
- There is no Upper House to scrutinise legislation from governments.
- There is no written constitution to safeguard our interests.
- Referenda have all the ‘bite’ of a toothless octagenarian (not that I support binding referenda – especially without Constitutional safeguards to protect the rights of minorities).
- There are no mid-term elections; right-of-recall; Presidential Veto; or any other controls over elected representatives.
Once elected, unless a Member of Parliament is found guilty of a criminal act, we have zero control over them.
The upshot?
Just because this government is still (apparently) popular with the aspirationists and middle classes, is not a reason to trust Key – or any other politician for that matter.
There have been too many broken promises; secret agendas; and bitterness from raised expectations that were soon dashed.
It is a truism that trust has to be earned.
And thus far, the glimpse that we’ve had into our current Prime Minister’s persona, is not one that fills me with confidence or trust.
New Zealanders may wish to reflect carefully before giving politicians any more power. It may be ok when it’s “your man (or woman) in power”. You may feel different if it’s the Other Guy running the country.
The issue simply boils down to one simple question;
How far do you trust the buggers?
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 March 2013.
.
*
.
References
Wikipedia: Election Day (United States)
NZ Herald: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key (17 Feb 2011)
NZ Herald: PM attacks journalist over SAS torture claims (3 May 2011)
NZ Herald: Charities’ food handouts at record after Govt cuts (18 Oct 2011)
TVNZ: Key unfazed as protesters descend on Parliament (4 May 2012)
Fairfax media: PM John Key Wants Four-Year Term For Parliament (7 Feb 2013)
Fairfax media: Government to ignore asset sales referendum (12 March 2013)
= fs =
National Party Corporate welfare vs real welfare
People welfare, bad!
.
.
.
.
.
.
It’s fairly obvious what National thinks of New Zealanders who find themselves on the welfare safety net. Especially when those on welfare are there because of a global financial crisis brought on by unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism (aka naked greed) hitting a wall, and sending economies worldwide deep into recession.
But never mind. National has an answer for such dire events.
It’s called,
.
Corporate welfare, good!
.
Even as National continues to persecute, demonise, and blame the unemployed, solo-mothers (but never solo-dads), invalids, widows, etc, for their lot in life (because as we all know, the unemployed, solo-mothers (but never solo-dads), invalids, widows, etc, were directly responsible for the Global Financial Crisis that began in Wall Street’s boardrooms) – John Key and his cronies continue to lavish truck-loads of tax-payers’ money on corporate welfare.
.
1. ETS Subsidies for farmers
.
In June 2012, Business NZ CEO, Phil O’Reilly, wrote in the NZ Herald,
” There has been a lot of redesign and tinkering with the ETS. Established in 2008, reviewed and amended in 2009, reviewed again last year and about to be amended again – it’s no wonder that businesses involved in the scheme have review fatigue.”
See: Phil O’Reilly: Emissions trading scheme must bring investors certainty
Mr O’Reilly may well complain. But he is unfortunately too late. On the morning of 3 July, Dear Leader John Key announced that the 2015 postponement (of elements of the ETS) had formally become an “indefinite postponement” (ie; gone by lunchtime on that day).
Key stated,
“We’re not prepared to sacrifice jobs in a weak international environment when other countries are moving very slowly.”
See: Slow economy puts ETS plans on hold
Yet that hasn’t stopped National from levying ETS on the public. No fears there, evidently, of impacting on the pockets of ordinary Kiwis, and in effect, susidising farmers to the tune of $400 million per year since 2009.
In effect, this is a transfer of wealth from ordinary taxpayers to polluters [edited]. After all, what else can it be called when the public have to pay for an ETS – but farmers, industries, coal & oil companies, etc, – the very groups that produce CO2 and methane - are exempt?
See: Public to pay tab for polluters
So much for Tim Groser – Minister for Climate Change Issues and International Trade – insisting,
“The National-led Government remains committed to doing its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it is worth noting that we are the only country outside Europe with a comprehensive ETS.”
National’s “committment” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has gone up in smoke and carbon dioxide.
As the Sustainability Council NZ reported in November 2009,
- Households would bear half the total costs under the amended ETS
during its first five years (52%), while accounting for just a fifth of all
emissions (19%). Together with small-medium industry, commerce and
services, and transport operators, they would pay 90% of the costs resulting
from the ETS during CP1 while being responsible for 30% of total emissions.
- Pastoral farmers would gain a $1.1 billion subsidy and pay an amount equal
to 2% of their fair share of the Kyoto bill during CP1, while large industrial
emitters would gain a $488 million subsidy (at a carbon price of $30/t).
See: ETS – Bill to a Future Generation
On top of that, National appears unwilling to release actual financial data when it comes to the ETS. Critical data has been withheld, as the Sustainability Council discovered last year,
” Governments are legally required to provide an update of the nation’s financial position just before elections but those accounts do not recognise carbon obligations until they are in an international agreement, hence there is nothing concrete on the books until after 2012. “
See: Simon Terry: Carbon books reveal shocking gaps
And the Council report goes on to state,
” The Sustainability Council requested a copy of those projections eleven weeks ago.
After various delays, the Treasury delivered its projections the day before the election
- late in the afternoon and with much of the key material blanked out.
What arrived is the carbon equivalent of a finance minister presenting a budget and
saying:“Here is the estimated tax take for the next 40 years, and here is the total
spending. But we are not going to tell you how much tax is coming from any sector,
and we are certainly not going to tell you how tens of billions of dollars worth of
carbon subsidies and other payments are expected to be distributed. And no, we are
not giving you the figures for the past four years of the ETS either”.It looks to be the closest thing in the public domain to New Zealand’s carbon books
and yet: future agricultural emissions are a state secret; future deforestation rates are a
state secret; even projected fossil fuel emissions are a state secret – all blanked out. “
So what do we have here?
- Ongoing subsidies to polluting industries, with said subsidies paid by you and me, the taxpayer.
- Secrecy surrounding future ETS agricultural, deforestation, and fossil fuel emissions.
- Constant deferring of including polluters in a scheme that was designed specifically for dirty industries and farming practices.
- Importation of unlimited, cheap, foreign carbon credits.
Final point:
It seems a crying shame (as well as a fair degree of sheer madness) that we are paying subsidies to industry – whilst not offering the same deals to the generation of renewable energy and further research into renewable energy options (wind, solar, tidal, etc).
Ironically, the one subsidy that might have helped our economy and environment was scrapped in 2011, making Solid Energy’s biofuel programme uneconomic. (See: Biodiesel loses subsidy, prices to rise)
Instead, the taxpayer continues to subsidise polluters. On 27 August 2012, National finally ditched agriculture’s involvement in the ETS, giving farmers, horticulturalists, etc, a permanent “free ride” from paying for their polluting activities. (See: Farmers’ ETS exemption progresses )
This is the inevitable result of electing a corporate-friendly political party into government.
.
.
2. Subsidies to Private schools and Tertiary Providers
.
Subsidies to private tertiary education providers continues to increase,
” The Government is investing a further $29.503 million in the Private Training Establishment (PTE) sector over four years. This increases the funding rates for private training providers in line with the Government’s promise to treat them more equitably with public providers. The resulting funding difference is now half of what it was previously. “
See: Tertiary Education Commission – Private Training Establishments
So, if you’re a private company offering to train someone a course in “xyz” – expect a hand-out from a corporate-friendly National.
In the meantime,
- ” Student allowances are removed for post-graduate study the parental threshold for accessing allowances is frozen for the next four years. The Government says the changes will save $240 million in the first year and up to $70 million a year thereafter. The Budget cuts all funding for adult and community education in universities, saving $5.4 million over four years. “
See: Radio NZ - Benefits for research, science and engineering
- “ It also saves $22.4 million over four years by ending funding used to help tertiary education providers include literacy and numeracy teaching in low-level tertiary education courses...”
See: Radio NZ - Benefits for research, science and engineering
- ” Sunday Star-Times recently reported one in five young people left school without basic numeracy and literacy skills, despite the future workforce depending on advanced expertise. “
See: Not adding up on Easy Street
- ” Early childhood education subsidy cuts worth tens of millions of dollars are likely to be passed on to some parents through increased fees.
Education Minister Hekia Parata has kicked a total revamp of ECE funding into a future Budget, opting instead to stop cost increases to the Crown by cancelling the annual upward inflationary adjustment in rates.
The subsidy freeze takes effect on the next funding round, stripping about $40 million out of ECE payments to 5258 ECE centres. About 1427 of those centres are eligible for “equity funding,” however, and will get a boost through $49m extra directed to them over four years in a bid to enrol more children from the lowest socio-economic parts of the country.
But the scrapping of an annual inflationadjustment for other centres will be an effective funding cut as inflation pushes the cost of running ECE centres up. “
See: Parents face burden of preschool squeeze
National’s most recent hand-out went to private school, Whanganui Collegiate,
.
See: Govt ignored advice before private school’s integration
.
For a Party that advocates the “free market”, it certainly seems odd that they’re willing to throw bucketloads of our taxes at businesses such as private schools. After all, what is a private school, if not a profit-making business?
And don’t forget Charter Schools – which is the State paying private enterprise/institutions to run schools – whilst making a profit (at taxpayer’s expense) in the process. Why don’t exporters get this kind of support?
That was certainly Gerry Brownlee’s attitude when Christchurch’s post-earthquake housing crisis became apparent,
.
See: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’
.
3. Media Works subsidy
.
In 2011, this extraordinary story broke,
.
Prime Minister defends loan to MediaWorks
Published: 8:28PM Friday April 08, 2011 Source: ONE News
The Prime Minister is defending his decision to loan $43 million of taxpayer money to private media companies.
John Key claims the loan scheme was designed to help the whole radio industry.
But a ONE News investigation has revealed MediaWorks was the big winner after some hard lobbying.
Key is known for being media friendly, but he’s facing criticism from Labour that he’s become too cosy with MediaWorks which owns TV3 and half of New Zealand’s radio stations.
It has been revealed the government deferred $43 million in radio licensing fees for MediaWorks after some serious lobbying.
Key and the former head of MediaWorks, Brent Impey, talked at a TV3 Telethon event.
“I just raised it as an issue but we’d been looking at it for sometime. My view was it made sense. It’s a commercial loan, it’s a secured contract,” Key said.
It’s believed the loan is being made at 11% interest.
But in answer to parliamentary written questions, the Prime Minister said he had “no meetings” with representatives of MediaWorks to discuss the deal.
Two days later that answer was corrected, saying he “ran into” Brent Impey at a “social event” in Auckland where the issue was “briefly raised” and he “passed his comments on” to the responsible minister. ”
See: Prime Minister defends loan to MediaWorks
.
Aside from another example of Key’s mendacity, when he originally claimed to have had no contact with Mediaworks,
… in answer to parliamentary written questions, the Prime Minister said he had “no meetings” with representatives of MediaWorks to discuss the deal.
Two days later that answer was corrected, saying he “ran into” Brent Impey at a “social event” in Auckland where the issue was “briefly raised” and he “passed his comments on” to the responsible minister.
See: IBID
… this affair was another example of selective subsidies being offered to some business – whilst others are left to their own devices to survive,
.
.
We’ve lost 41,000 jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors over the last five years. To which National’s Minister-Of-Everything, Steven Joyce’s response was,
“Nobody’s arguing that being a manufacturer isn’t challenging. In fact, in my history in business, every time you’re in business it’s challenging.
“But going around and trying to talk down the New Zealand economy and talk about a crisis in manufacturing, I don’t think is particularly helpful.”
See: Exporters tell inquiry of threat from high dollar
“There is no doubt that economic conditions in the post GFC- world are challenging for some firms. The role of Government is to do things that help make firms more competitive and that is what our Business Growth Agenda is all about.”
See: Opposition parties determined to manufacture a crisis
Or Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy saying,
“Our trading disadvantage has meant that we need to do more with less, and to work smarter.”
See: Innovation in New Zealand’s Agribusiness sector
To which exporters responded with this,
“We’re told to get smarter and I find that irritating and insulting. I’m about as smart as they get in my little field. How the hell do these people get smarter? For a politician to tell somebody else to get smarter – he’s risking his life.”
See: Exporters tell inquiry of threat from high dollar
Not very helpful, Mr Joyce. Though Opposition Parties may appreciate that you are pushing your core constituents into their waiting arms.
That’s how you alienate your voter-base.
.
4. Sporting subsidies
.
The Rugby World Cup
- Prime Minister John Key today announced a $15 million grant for an upgrade of Christchurch’s AMI Stadium for the Rugby World Cup in 2011.
See: Govt announces $15m for AMI Stadium (30 April 2009)
- Dunedin Mayor Peter Chin says he is “chuffed” the Government will contribute up to $15 million to cover shortfalls in private sector funding for the $198 million Otago Stadium project.
See: Chin ‘chuffed’ at $15m for stadium
- The Government blew out a $10 million budget to host VIPs at the Rugby World Cup – even though just a handful of foreign leaders attended.
See: $5 million overspend on World Cup VIP budget
- An extra $5.5 million will be spent on the Rugby World Cup to make sure there’s not a repeat of the chaos that unfolded on the evening of the tournament’s opening ceremony.
- Including the $350m spent to upgrade stadiums and provide IRB-approved facilities around the country and millions more pumped into infrastructure and preparations, the bill for the tournament has easily surpassed the $400m mark.
See: World Cup ‘absolutely worth’ price tag
Yacht Races
The Major Events Development Fund will invest $1.5 million on each of two Volvo Ocean Race Auckland stopovers to be held in 2015 and 2018 following an announcement today by Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce
See: Govt to support 2015 & 2018 Volvo Ocean Race Auckland stopovers
.
Meanwhile, Health Minister Tony Ryall refuses to provide additional funding for specialised medicines for patients with rare disorders. See: Letter from Tony Ryall, 5 December 2012
The message is crystal clear; National will subsidise rugby games and yacht races. But don’t expect help if you discover you have a rare disease.
.
5. Warner Bros subsidy
.
After Jackson made public noises in October 2010 that ‘The Hobbit’ could be taken offshore, there was a kind of mass-hysteria that pervaded the country.
Warner Bros wide-boys jetted down to meet Dear Leader, who kindly supplied a taxpayer-funded chauffeured limousine to bring the Holloywood execs to Parliament.
Dear Leader said “no more subsidies”.
Nek minit; Warner Bros demanded, and got, an extra $15 million. (see: Govt defends Hobbit jobs claim)
All up, the New Zealand taxpayer coughed up $67 million to give to Warner Bros. (Who sez crime doesn’t pay? Gangsterism obviously turns a healthy profit now and then.)
.
.
The film obviously didn’t do too badly at the Box Office – $1 billion is not too shabby by anyone’s standards,
.
.
Can we have our money back now, please?
.
6. Broadband subsidy
.
Funny isn’t it. Pro-business lobby groups always complain about State intrusion into the market place… Except when subsidies are being handing out.
One wonders why, if the Free Market” is more efficient than the State, that $1.5 billion in taxes has to be paid to private telcos to do what that they should already be doing.
Perhaps this is why it took the State to build this country’s infra-structure over the last hundred years. Infra-structure such as electricity generation. (See related blogpost: Greed is good?)
Which National is now preparing to part-privatise.
Private companies will soon be owning what taxpayers built up over decades, and which private enterprise was loathe to build in the first place. (If you’re wondering whether I’m referring to state power companies or broadband – there doesn’t seem to be much difference.)
.
Meanwhile, back in the Real World!
.
.
Dear Leader says,
“Some argue that people on a benefit can’t work. But that’s not correct.”
Correct.
Because as Welfare Minister Paula Bennett stated candidly on Q+A on 29 April,
“There’s not a job for everyone that would want one right now, or else we wouldn’t have the unemployment figures that we do. “
See: TVNZ Q+A: Transcript of Paula Bennett interview
Correct.
Which means that National’s “reforms” to push 46,000 of welfare is not just a meaningless exercise (the jobs simply aren’t there) – but is actually a political smokescreen to hide their own incompetance at forming constructive policies for job creation.
Unfortunately, there are too many right wing halfwits and Middle Class low-information voters who readily buy into National’s smokescreen. It’s called prejudice, and means not having to think too deeply on issues,
.
.
Fortunately, it is the job of those on the Left to dispel these unpleasant notions for the Middle Classes. (National’s right wing groupies are a lost cause.)
Let’s start by posing the question; why is welfare for corporations supposedly a good thing – but welfare for someone who has just lost their job, supposedly bad?
That’s what we need to keep asking the Middle Classes.
Eventually, they’ll start paying attention.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 March 2013.
.
*
.
Additional
Scoop: Where’s National’s ‘corporate welfare’ reform?
Fairfax media: Doubt stalls biofuels growth (14 March 2011)
The Press: Solid Energy ‘wasted millions’ on biofuels (31 Aug 2012)
Southland Times: Biodiesel loses subsidy, prices to rise (30 May 2012)
TVNZ: Prime Minister defends loan to MediaWorks (8 April 2011)
Radio NZ: Data reveals drop in manufacturing, building jobs (22 Feb 2013)
Previous related blogpost
Once upon a time there was a solo-mum
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How
Acknowledgements
Tim Jones of Coal Action Network Aotearoa
.
.
= fs =
The NZ Taliban – quietly safeguarding our morals
From Whangarei,
.
Acknowledgment: The Dominion Post – Guesthouse refuses to let gay couple sleep together
.
Bigots/owners of the Pilgrim Planet Lodge refused to allow a same-sex couple, Paula Knight and Jane Collison to occupy the same room. Ms Knight and Ms Collison are a same-sex couple.
According to local Taliban morals-police, Ms Karen Ruskin,
“Why do they assume that we have to change our standards, our values, to accommodate behaviour that is sodomy?This is our home, we are not a big motel. In our home, where our grandchildren are, where our guests are, we don’t want sodomy.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
Now, it occurs to me that Morals Enforcer, Ms Ruskin (and her husband – I assume they are a married heterosexual couple) seem to be a bit confused about basic biology and more specifically, human anatomy.
Sodomy requires at least one penis to be involved. I’m assuming (again) that neither Ms Knight or Ms Collison packed one with their toothpaste, spare knickers, and phone recharger?
So – no penis = no sodomy?
Point two. I hate to be the one to break it to the Christian Morality Commissars, Mr and Ms Ruskin – but it’s well known that heterosexual couples do engage in sodomy. At least one ‘member’ (*snigger*) of a heterosexual couple has the prerequisite anatomical appendage: a dick. (No, not Aaron Gilmore. Not this time.)
So – one penis = sodomy.
Now call me the government Minister in Charge of the Bleedin’ Obvious – but if Whangarei Wowser, Ms Ruskin (and her hubby, who also, I’m assuming once more, is in possession of a functioning penis) are so fixated on preventing sodomy from taking place under their roof – wouldn’t the appropriate policy be to ban all males from their Humble Heterosexual Hostel?
Kinda stands to reason, really.
Remember,
Penis = sodomy
No penis = no sodomy
So in reality, lesbian couples, single woman, post-op transgender-women, and eunochs – should all be welcomed guests.
Unfortunately for Mr Ruskin he’ll have to live in the garden shed. Remember, he’s got a penis. And people with penii (correct plural?) tend to get up to mischief. Like sodomy.
That’s the problem with religious (?) moralists who take it upon themselves to look after our morals and mind our business – they often don’t think things through properly.
Now, unfortunately, I can already hear a chorus of conservatives and (some) assorted right-wingers who will be bleating the old mantra,
“It’s their business – they should be able to do what they like!”
These are usually the same conservatives and assorted right-wingers who demand the abolition of the Treaty of Waitangi, asserting that there should be one law for all.
One law for all – except when right wingers and conservatives demand the right to discriminate against anyone for anything.
Back to the local agents for Moral Correctness – the Ruskins.
I guess I won’t be staying at their Happy Hotel for Hitched Heterosexuals. After all, I have a penis (or I did, last time I looked).
And considering the number of times various right wingers have urged me to “go fuck myself” over the years, the very real risk of me sodomising myself is worth considering.
So the Ruskins will be safe from my penis.
I bet they’re relieved.
Addendum
The Ruskins’ webpage promoting their motel doesn’t refer to a blanket ban on bumming (aka, sodomy), so I’ve taken the liberty of correcting that oversight,
.
Pilgrim Planet Lodge – no sodomy please.
.
.
= fs =
